# About
Name: Dwight Gingrich Online
Description: Building up the church of Jesus Christ by helping her listen carefully to the Scriptures.
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com
# Navigation Menu
- About: https://dwightgingrich.com/about
- Browse Topics: https://dwightgingrich.com/browse-topics
- More Resources: https://dwightgingrich.com/more-resources
- Support: https://dwightgingrich.com/support
- Subscribe: https://dwightgingrich.com/subscribe-cm00xbe6p00cb103am0zb3v5u
# Blog Posts
## Churchfunding: A Report of Our Day of Thanksgiving
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2025-04-13
Category: Dwight's Family
Tags: -2 Corinthians 9:11-12, thanksgiving, open house, churchfunding, microloans
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-report-day-of-thanksgiving
**Yesterday was such a special day.** From 9am to 9pm we opened our doors and invited people to help us celebrate "[the house that God bought](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/)." Our goal for the day was drawn from 2 Corinthians 9:
> You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. (2 Cor. 9:11-12 ESV)
It's a giant circle: God gives to his people; his people share with each other; and then his people give thanks back to God. Yesterday was all about "completing the circle," and we were so thankful for everyone who helped us do this!
**During the morning and early afternoon about a dozen people stopped by**, including good friends from church and a piano student and his family. This 11-year-old student had fun going behind the curtain (literally) in my studio to explore parts of the property he hadn't seen before.
Bob Seymour, the real estate agent who helped us buy the house, also came. He told us that to this day our house transaction of $65,000 is the smallest deal their firm has handled. Yay! At the time Zonya's cousin Karl Miller directed us to Bob, Bob's daughter was in missions in Nicaragua, so he felt a kinship with us and became personally invested in helping us find a house, even though he didn't make much on the deal. He remembered our house and enjoyed seeing everything that has changed.
Another highlight was to meet for the first time a couple who was one of our lenders, who traveled from South Carolina for a good morning visit. Thanks, Alvin and Doretta!
**A second wave of guests started arriving late in the afternoon.** About two dozen people were here over supper, including more dear friends from church, one of Zonya's best childhood friends (thanks, Elaine!), another house lender we'd never met (thanks, Leon!), an electrician who worked on our house (thanks Leif!) and his family, friends from rural Georgia who have blessed us many times (thanks, Burton and Deborah!), and several long-term, trusted neighbors who had not been in our house before.
Zonya reached into her Iowa roots to prepare pulled pork sandwiches, baked goods, and much more. Yum!
**After we feasted, I showed a 10-minute slide show summarizing our whole house funding adventure.** (I also showed it to morning guests.) Here are some of the slides I shared, minus a lot of details and photos.
Now imagine slides showing how a bunch of friends voiced support, how Jesse Kropf and Rodney Troyer started running with the idea, and how surprised I was. Only one week later we had [a detailed plan](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) with this shape:
To be honest, I had trouble sleeping a few nights as I sensed the weight of all the trust that friends and strangers were offering us. Within only 2-1/2 weeks people were sending funds our way!
Then everything slowed w-a-a-a-y down. There were six difficult months of house hunting and waiting... until on March 15, 2016, we finally stepped together into the house that would become ours. (Imagine photos of a house badly in need of repair.)
Now imagine lots of photos of volunteers working on our house and cleaning up the yard, until finally:
Now imagine more photos of continued repairs, including:
And finally, more facts and figures about those churchfunding loans, including—for the first time—a list of all the lenders and donors who participated in our adventure (not including volunteer workers):
**It was moving to share this story one more time.** One guest said she cried three times during the presentation. When it was over another guest asked if he could use my friend list to help him buy a red Corvette.
Then three people prayed prayers of thanksgiving, we sang five songs, and the celebrations and conversation continued inside and out (yay for the trampoline!) until after dark.
One of the neatest parts of the day for us as a family was seeing new friendships start between friends of ours who had never met each other. We felt really loved by all who came and are so grateful about how everyone joined in raising praise to our good God. God's grace in Christ truly does draw diverse people together to bless each other and bring him praise!
> Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift! (2 Cor. 9:15)
**So, once more... we as a family say _Thank You_ to everyone who joined in this adventure and who helped produce such an overflow of thanksgivings to God!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Church Leadership: Shepherds, Sheep, and the Good Shepherd
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2025-03-26
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Tags: -Acts 4:32-35, -1 Timothy 1:7, church leadership, -Jeremiah 5:30-31, -2 Timothy 4:3, -Ezekiel 34:2-6, -Zechariah 10:2-3, -Ezekiel 34:11, Good Shepherd, -John 21:17, -Hebrews 13:20, gender roles, pastor, -Matthew 18:15-18, church discipline, -Ezekiel 34:15, -Ezekiel 34:23, -John 10:10-16, -Mark 3:14-15, -Jeremiah 3:15, -Matthew 9:36 – 10:1, -Luke 22:27, -Matthew 20:25-27, -Matthew 23:3-10, -Acts 1:15-26, -Acts 6:1-6, -Acts 15:22, 28, -1 Thessalonians 5:13, -Titus 1:5, -1 Timothy 6:3-4, -John 13:14, -Matthew 16:19, -1 Peter 5:1-4, -Acts 2:42-45, -Acts 14:23, -Acts 20:17-36, -Philippians 1:1, -Ephesians 5:12, -1 Timothy 3:1-13, -1 Timothy 2:12, -Acts 18:26, -Hebrews 13:7-9, -1 Timothy 5:17-21, shepherd, sheep, deaconess, church governance, servant leadership, religious titles, -Hebrews 13:17, elder, overseer, deacon, -Hebrews 13:24, consensus
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/church-leadership-shepherds-sheep-and-the-good-shepherd
**I gave the sermon (or "teaching," as we sometimes call it) at our church a couple Sundays ago.** The sermon was part of a series on relationships, and I volunteered to do the one on church leadership so none of our elders would need to talk about themselves. 😊
By God's grace, I've served briefly as a church leader in a couple settings. I've also often worked in support roles, without official leadership responsibility. I have a lot of sympathy for both leaders and followers. **My main goal in this sermon was to sketch, in broad strokes, the kind of relationship that God desires in his church between human leaders and the rest of the flock.**
**Since I wrote out my sermon, I thought I'd share it here**, lightly edited for the internet. I'll include images I shared. Please remember this is a sermon, so don't expect me to provide rigorous exegetical defense for my points. I briefly touch on a few topics that can be controversial, but this was not the place to dig deep. I'm sure you can think of many things I missed that were equally worth including.
Finally, this post will be longer than most. It took me about 35 minutes when I shared it at church. Thanks in advance for reading!
* * *
### Church Leadership: Shepherds, Sheep, and the Good Shepherd
It is no secret that **we have a leadership crisis in America**. This is at least as true in the church as anywhere else.
Source: [https://research.lifeway.com/2025/01/16/public-trust-in-pastors-continues-steep-decline/](https://research.lifeway.com/2025/01/16/public-trust-in-pastors-continues-steep-decline/)
“From the time Gallup started rating…23 professions in the early 2000s through this year \[2025\], there has been a 26-point decline in the perceived honesty and ethics of clergy, the most for any group. The proportion saying the clergy have high or very high ethics is down from an average 56% in 2000-2009 to 30% today.” ([Source](https://news.gallup.com/poll/655106/americans-ratings-professions-stay-historically-low.aspx))
Most of us could name more than one famous pastor who has fallen in disgrace. It’s also easy to find pastors who have lost their spine for truth and are teaching whatever message will draw the largest crowds and the biggest offerings. On top of this, pastors are burning out and resigning at an alarming rate.
Closer to home, many of us can tell deeply personal stories where church leadership problems have left churches painfully shattered. One of the harder conversations I’ve ever had was a two-hour phone call with a bishop who was then leading the home church I had attended as a boy. I tried to show him that his heavy-handed leadership choices were contrary to Scripture. He disregarded my appeal and other voices of warning. The church soon divided, and to this day my family is divided with it, with one of my brothers in one church, and another brother and my mother in the other church. And that bishop? He has since resigned from leadership in disgrace, refusing to be accountable for unwise personal decisions.
So, yes, there is a leadership crisis in America.
There’s a good chance that when you first heard me say that, your mind went to politics. I’m not going to talk about politics today, though, unless by “politics” you mean the politics of the church of Jesus Christ. **The word “church,” after all, was a often used as political word in Jesus’ day,** referring to an assembly of citizens who gathered to make decisions for their city.
When the early Christians referred to their gatherings as churches, they understood that they, too, possessed authority, authority from Jesus to make decisions, authority to work together to interpret and apply the laws of Jesus’ kingdom.
**But what form of government did the early church have?** Were they a monarchy, with the whole church led by a single pope and each congregation ruled by one bishop or pastor? Were they a republic or aristocracy, with the church led by a board of elders who together made decisions for the church? Or were they a direct democracy, with each member having an equal vote and decisions made by majority vote?
**What sort of church leadership do we find in the New Testament, and what should the relationship look like between leaders and the rest of the church?**
Let’s begin with the Bible of the early church. **The OT prophets described leadership problems in their day.** Here are two:
**First, there were spineless “leaders” who told people whatever they wanted to hear.** Zechariah warned of leaders who “give empty consolation. Therefore the people wander like sheep; they are afflicted for lack of a shepherd” (10:2-3 ESV). Jeremiah said “the prophets prophesy falsely” and “my people love to have it so” (5:30-31). Similarly, Paul warned about people who have “itching ears” and “accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (2 Tim. 4:3).
**Second, there were abusive leaders who oppressed the people.** Listen to Ezekiel:
> Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, …the strayed you have not brought back, …and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them. (Ez. 34:2-6)
Sheep don’t do well without shepherds, and neither do we! But spineless or abusive shepherds are no better than none.
**What was God’s solution for this shepherd problem?** “Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out… I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep,” God promised through Ezekiel (34:11, 15). And, “I will set up over them **one shepherd**, my servant David… he shall feed them and be their shepherd” (34:23).
This takes us directly to Jesus, the divine son of David. When the bad shepherds in Jesus’ day kicked a man out of the synagogue because he refused to deny Jesus after Jesus had restored his sight on the Sabbath, Jesus got upset. He launched into full shepherd mode:
> The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me... And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. (John 10:10-16)
**So there it is: One flock, one shepherd.** That’s God’s ultimate answer to our leadership problem: Instead of many bad shepherds, God has provided one Good Shepherd.
So does this mean we don’t need human leaders in our churches?
Not so fast, the prophet Jeremiah says. While Ezekiel foretold of one divine shepherd for God’s people, God’s promise through Jeremiah was different: “I will give you **shepherds after my own heart**, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” (3:15).
And this, too, takes us straight to Jesus, as we can see in Matthew’s gospel:
> When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.” And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority... (Matt 9:36 – 10:1)
What did Jesus do when he saw the crowds were like sheep without a shepherd? He chose twelve disciples to spend extra time “with him” and “appointed” them as “apostles” to “preach” and “have authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:14-15). These apostles were to be “shepherds after \[God’s\] own heart,” as Jeremiah had promised. They were to do the urgently needed work of protecting and providing for God’s flock.
**How did Jesus expect these shepherds to help lead his sheep?** Jesus didn’t write a church leadership manual, but he did give us important clues for good shepherding. Here are several we see in the Gospels:
1. Jesus gave his own example of servant leadership. “Who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves” (Luke 22:27). “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet” (John 13:14). Or, as Jesus emphasized to Peter, _if you love me_, “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:17).
2. Jesus also gave his apostles authority to interpret the laws of the kingdom of heaven. He told Peter: “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” (Matt. 16:19).
3. But two chapters later Jesus gave the same authority to the church as a whole: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone… If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you.. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church… Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:15-18).
Together, these two passages suggest that church leaders are part of the church—they are sheep as well as shepherds—and that **Jesus’ ideal is for leaders to work together with the church to help the church come to consensus in decision-making**. Jesus gave more teachings that support this approach:
4. When disciples were arguing about who would be greatest in Jesus’ kingdom, Jesus called them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Matt.20:25-27).
5. Perhaps the most shocking teaching Jesus gave about leadership came in a warning about the scribes and Pharisees:
> “They preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they… love the place of honor… and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” (Matt. 23:3-10)
There it is again: **one instructor, one shepherd: Jesus!**
How should we apply this teaching? **One way I honor Jesus’ words is by avoiding religious titles whenever possible.** For example, I will say that Dean is a pastor here at Cellebration Fellowship, but I don’t call him “Pastor Dean” and certainly not “The Right Reverend Lord Bishop Dean.” Yes, there are people gifted as teachers and instructors and prophets and givers among us, but I’m not going to start saying “Father Thomas” or “Prophet Chris” or “Benefactress Sharon.” We’re all brothers and sisters and we have one Father!
The apostle Peter remembered Jesus’ teachings about leadership and summarized them in a powerful passage in chapter 5 of his first letter:
> I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder…: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering \[lording it\] over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (1 Pet. 5:1-4)
Here we should note **three terms for church leaders** that Peter alludes to in this passage: elders, shepherds, and overseers.
All three refer to the same person! In modern usage they are often separated, with elders, pastors, and bishops understood to have different roles and authority. But in the NT these all refer to the same office. The term “elder” suggests the maturity and experience of a good leader; the term “shepherd” summarizes his role in caring for the church; and the term “overseer” indicates the watchful alertness that a good leader must demonstrate.
**In the book of Acts we see the early church learning to handle leadership in Jesus’ way.** In chapter 1 we see the church working together to choose a new apostle; Peter raised the need, the group nominated two candidates, and they used a lot to decide between them. In chapters 2 and 4 we see the believers devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and entrusting their money to the apostles, who shared it as needed among the group. In chapter 6 the apostles were notified that they were missing some of the widows in the daily distribution, so they “summoned the full number of the disciples” and proposed a new division of labor: the twelve apostles would focus on preaching and prayer, and the church should select seven men to care for the material needs of the church. After the church chose seven, the apostles “prayed and laid their hands on them.”
**In these examples from Acts, notice how the leaders and the whole church worked together as a team.** Sometimes leaders identified needs and alerted the church. Other times individuals came to leaders to tell them of problems. Either way, after a problem had been identified, the leaders brought a proposal to the whole group, inviting their input. Then, after others had a chance to help shape the decision, the leaders gave it their official stamp of approval.
This was not monarchy or aristocracy, where one person or a select few made all the decisions. Nor was it democracy where a majority vote ruled over a minority who lost the vote. Rather, it was **an approach that aimed for consensus**, where all came to a wise agreement.
We see a similar approach again in Act 15, when a big conflict arose over how to include Gentiles in the Jewish church. After a lot of debate, they found a solution that “seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church… and the Holy Spirit” (15:22, 28), a decision that put as light a burden as possible on the new Gentile believers.
We should note **three more things about the Act 6 account**: First, not just anyone could be a leader; they had to be “men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” Second, they did not appoint themselves, but were chosen by the church. And third, this passage hints at the two offices of elders and deacons that we see later in the New Testament, where the primary leaders of the church focus on the ministry of the Word and assistant leaders care for the physical needs of the church. There are lots of other gifts and roles described in the NT—evangelists and prophets and more (some women as well as men)—but **the general pattern of local church leadership that we find in the NT and the earliest church afterward is the two offices of elder/pastor/overseer and deacon**.
When Paul and his team traveled as missionaries, they encouraged the new converts and “appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23). Note that Paul appointed “elders” in every church, not “an elder.” This matches the pattern of **plural or shared leadership** we see throughout the NT.
This brings us to **Acts 20, which gives us the most personal and powerful words we have from Paul to church elders**. In this passage Paul presents his own ministry as a model for faithful church elders. The need for diligent teaching is a key theme in this passage. Paul says “**I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable**, and teaching you in public and from house to house” (20:20); “I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for **I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God**” (20:26-27). Then he exhorts the elders directly:
> Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears… (Acts 20:28-31)
**Note** **several things in this passage**:
First, elders are vitally important to protect the flock of God from fierce wolves. One way they do this is by teaching “the whole counsel of God.” I want to encourage our leaders here at Cellebration Fellowship to do this: Don’t shrink from the less popular passages or teachings of Scripture. Leaders must not have a love of controversy, but they dare not shy away from topics just because they know some people don’t want to hear about them.
Second, the real reason elders are important is because _the church is so important_! God has purchased it “with his own blood.”
Third, we should expect that sometimes elders themselves will go astray, speaking “twisted things” and dividing God’s flock.
And fourth, note that this passage again equates three titles for church leaders: Paul calls the “elders” together, tells them to care for God’s flock (be good shepherds/pastors), and reminds them that the Holy Spirit as made them “overseers.” (Titus 1:5-7 also uses the terms “elder” and “overseer” to refer to the same persons.) Thus, there’s no biblical reason for making a distinction between pastors and elders, or for having a separate class of bishops. All are called to the same work.
**When we turn to Paul’s letters to churches—to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians—we find some surprises:**
First, in only one of these nine letters does he address the leaders of a church, and then he doesn’t even mention their names (Phil. 1:1 “to all the saints… with the overseers and deacons”)! Imagine if a famous Christian wrote an official letter to Cellebration Fellowship and they said “hi” to several of us by name in the letter, but they didn’t even mention Dean or the other elders!
Second, Paul talks about really important church activities in his letters, like baptism and the Lord’s table and how to conduct church gatherings, collecting offerings, marriage and divorce, and how to discipline sinful church members—but in all of this he almost never mentions church leaders! He never once says anything like “pastors are responsible to administer the ordinances and excommunicate sinful members.” Rather, over and over we just see Paul telling _the whole church_ what to do.
Third, whenever Paul writes lists of those who lead and those who submit—husbands/wives, parents/children, masters/slaves—he never mentions church leaders and church members.
When Paul describes the work of shepherds and teachers, he says their job is “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12). In other words, it isn’t the leaders’ job to do all the work themselves, but to equip the whole church to do the work! Again, we sense that leaders are important because the church is important, not the other way around.
Despite all I’ve just said, Paul _did_ think church leaders were hugely important. Indeed, he said we are to “esteem them very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:13).
**Paul’s main teaching on church leaders is found in his letters to Titus and Timothy.** He told Titus to “appoint elders in every town” (1:5) and he gave both Titus and Timothy detailed lists of **qualifications for leaders**.
The longest list is found in 1 Timothy 3:1-13. Before we read it, we should note that elsewhere in the letter Paul repeatedly warns against bad leaders—for example, those “desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding… what they are saying” (1 Tim. 1:7), or proud and quarrelsome leaders who teach “a different doctrine” that “does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:3-4). It’s in this context that Paul gives his qualifications for leaders:
> The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task \[honorable position – NLT; "If anyone wants to date my daughter...!"\]. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
>
> Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Several comments:
1. Note that **these qualifications are about both character and reputation**. Paul was concerned not only that a leader was a good person, but that he brought no shame to Jesus’ church in the eyes of unbelievers.
2. **Paul taught that elders should be men**. In the previous chapter he explained, based on Genesis, that “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12). He told Titus that older women are to teach younger women, and in Acts we read of Priscilla along with her husband Aquila teaching the Christian leader Apollos in private (18:26). Throughout the NT we see women serving the church in a great variety of ways, including prophesying, but the apostles did not envision women doing the teaching when the whole church was gathered.
This is part of the “whole counsel of God” that is sometimes skipped over today. The culture we live in sees humans as just another kind of animal, with no particular authority over the rest of creation, with no unseen world of spirit beings that possess more authority than we do, and with no God over all. We’re told we are free to be and do anything we wish. Children are encouraged to challenge authority, people are encouraged to overthrow governments, and people are invited to transition genders and adopt any identity or role they wish. But the NT authors warn about angels who “did not stay within their own position of authority” (Jude 1:6), false teachers who “reject authority” and “blaspheme” angels without proper fear, and men and women who abandon their proper roles (Rom. 1). God has given his grace to all, freely and without distinction. The ground is level at the foot of the cross and we can all share equally in the Spirit as God’s sons and daughters, but this does not erase God’s beautiful creation design of a universe with different identities and callings and purposes for his varied creatures. Part of that difference, in the understanding of Paul and the other apostles, is that men bear special responsibility to teach and shepherd God’s gathered people.
3. **This is the main Bible passage that directly discusses deacons, and it doesn’t even say what they are supposed to do!** The main clues are their title (deacon means “servant”) and that the passage doesn’t say they should be “able to teach.” It seems Paul envisioned deacons to be general servants who assist the teaching elders in caring for the church. This role is great for people who love God and love serving people, but aren’t necessarily gifted in public speaking. We have some really exceptional deacons here at Cellebration Fellowship, even though we don’t call them that!
4. **Were women officially appointed as deacons?** Paul isn’t especially clear on this point. The phrase “their wives” in verse 11 can equally rightly be translated “the women,” which would open the door to there being female deacons. And even if it does refer to the deacons’ wives, Paul lists qualifications for them, which he doesn’t for the elders’ wives. This suggests these women were helping the men with deacon work. And we certainly do find women elsewhere in the NT who are called “servants” of the church. So yes, whether official or not, there certainly are deaconesses in Jesus’ church!
**These qualifications tell us a lot about how a leader should treat a church. But how should a church treat its leaders?** Paul addresses that question in chapter 5 of this same letter. He tells us how to treat excellent leaders and how to deal with bad ones:
> **Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor**, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. **As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all**, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. (1 Tim. 5:17-21)
The church hasn’t done well with this final instruction. First, too often churches exalt their leaders in positions of too much power and too little accountability, almost dooming them to fall. Second, too often churches have been slow to discipline leaders who are especially gifted or popular as speakers.
I’ll give two examples from leaders who are no longer alive. Some of you remember Ravi Zacharias, who “leveraged his reputation as a world-famous Christian apologist to abuse massage therapists… over more than a decade while the ministry led by his family members and loyal allies failed to hold him accountable” ([Source](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2021/02/ravi-zacharias-rzim-investigation-sexual-abuse-sexting-rape/)). If those around him had been more careful, much abuse could have been prevented and Zacharias would have been given a better chance to repent before he died.
Similarly, some of you know that Martin Luther King, Jr. repeatedly committed adultery right up through the final months of his life. Some of his fellow pastors knew of this, but they failed to remove him from office, disobeying Paul’s instructions.
Failures such as these bring shame to the reputation of Jesus’ church. Churches need to act with courage and impartiality when their leaders persist in sin, no matter how popular or gifted they are. We also need to honestly evaluate the mixed legacies of past leaders who were unfaithful, especially when they failed to repent.
But for our final text let’s turn to **a positive vision of church leadership!** Hebrews 13 instructs us to “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings…” (Heb. 13:7-9). Here again we have the contrast between faithful leaders and false teachers. We are responsible to choose our leaders wisely, imitating those who faithfully speak and live the gospel.
Later in the same chapter we are told to “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you” (13:17).
I've written [an essay on this verse](https://dwightgingrich.com/essays/) but will limit myself now to about five sentences. The true sense of the word “obey” here is better communicated by the NIV, which says “Have confidence in your leaders.” The word is not the same word used elsewhere of children obeying parents or slaves obeying masters. Rather, the vision here is of faithful leaders teaching and persuading, and the rest of the church considering their words and their faithful example, then following them. Wise leaders will issue very few commands but will patiently persuade instead, and wise churches will follow those leaders who have a proven record of Christ-shaped service.
Finally, we should note that this same chapter of Hebrews describes Jesus as “the great shepherd of the sheep” (13:20), and that in the second-last verse of this long letter, without any further comment, the author finally tells his readers, “Greet all your leaders” (13:24). Just in case, I guess, the leaders weren’t even there when the church read the letter!
**For ultimately, whether we are shepherds here for a time or not, we are all fellow sheep, and there is but one flock, one Shepherd. Amen.**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## April 12 House Celebration and Giving Opportunity
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2025-03-25
Category: Dwight's Family
Tags: open house, refugees, churchfunding, microloans
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/april-12-house-celebration-and-giving-opportunity
Hi friends! As I mentioned in [my New Year's post](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-time-to-celebrate/), **we are planning to have a celebration on April 12, 2025 to give thanks for God's provision of our house** and for all who made it possible. If that's you, and you'd like to join us, please let us know! (You can use our gmail address, which begins thus: dghousefund)
**As part of our celebration, we'd be honored if you make a donation toward an urgent housing need: Refugee families** who recently arrived in Clarkston, Georgia (where our church meets) are facing eviction notices because the housing funds they were promised were suddenly withdrawn. It seems fitting to celebrate God's housing provision for us by providing housing for others. _**See below for details.**_
Here's how our house looks today. We got new shingles last month!
### Who, What, When, Etc.
**Who's coming on April 12?** So far it looks like we'll have about four to six households represented from out of state, plus local friends. And maybe you?
**What's our address?** 251 W Lake Dr NW, Atlanta, GA 30314
**When should you arrive?** Zonya is planning to have cinnamon rolls ready from 9:00 am on (yum!), so open house will run from then until 9:00 pm. Feel free to drop in and leave whenever works best for you, and we'll give you a tour.
**We'll plan for supper at 5:00, followed by a time of praise, singing, and prayer.** So that will be the prime time for you to be here, if you can make it then. _Please let us know if you think you'll be here for the meal._
Don't expect to see a house in perfect repair or a fancy program that evening. To be 100% honest, I'm actually a little embarrassed at some corners of our house that aren't properly fixed yet. We're also super busy right now with school, work, church, and planning for summer activities. So if you come, you'll find us just as we are, without one plea except that we are loved by God and people like you.
**If you need lodging**, I think we have friends who could host one couple. Let us know if that interests you, and we'll see if it's available. Other than that, we'll let you find your own lodging so that our house doesn't get too full.
**If you want to join us for church Sunday morning**, we'd love that! Our church, Cellebration Fellowship, meets at the Clarkston Community Center (3701 College Ave, Clarkston, GA 30021) at 10:00 am. It looks like the main activity for that morning will be extra time of corporate prayer (rather than a sermon), so it will be a good interactive Sunday to get to know our church.
### An Opportunity to Give
**Again, we invite you to celebrate with us by making a donation to support refugee rent bills in Clarkston, Georgia.** Why this urgent need? Here is a message (Mar. 20) from Clarkston Cares, which is organizing support:
> Upon arriving in the US in January, these refugees were promised at least 90 days of help with rent, utilities, and necessities until they could gain employment and self-sufficiency. Regrettably, the whole ecosystem to help these vulnerable families thrive in the US has been defunded, and these new refugees are now at risk of losing their housing and refuge.
>
> The good news is that churches, foundations, and everyday folks have stepped up and paid rent to keep most of these new refugee families from eviction. However, TWENTY SIX families in the Clarkston area still haven’t received help and are receiving eviction notices. The total cost of keeping all these families safely housed through March is almost $40,000. Add April rent which is only a week away, and that brings the total to around $75,000.
>
> These families have fled from unimaginable suffering and violence in their homelands. Some of them fled because they served with American troops! We have single moms, elderly couples, and families with 5 children or more whose parents haven’t yet found work. We have families from war-torn Congo, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Central America. And I am not willing for homelessness, instead of hospitality, to be their first experience of America. Is this not our calling from God– to show hospitality to strangers/foreigners? (literally, xenophilia- Hebrews 13:2).
>
> We at Clarkston Cares are stepping up to try and ensure that none of these families lose their housing. Can you help us meet our goal of $75,000 to keep these 26 families safe through April? Because of a generous donor and a grant from the City of Clarkston, our first $25,000 in donations will be MATCHED!
These are families who are eager to become self-supporting, but need bridge money as they settle. If more money is raised than is needed to cover this immediate rent crisis, it will be used for other refugee support needs.
**You can learn more and make a gift here:** [https://www.clarkstoncaresfund.org/](https://www.clarkstoncaresfund.org/)
Thank you for considering making a donation.
I think that's it. Thanks for celebrating with us. We thank God for you!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: Time to Celebrate!
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2025-01-03
Category: Dwight's Family
Tags: open house, annual report, churchfunding, microloans
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-time-to-celebrate
**Dear friends, it is with much gratitude that I begin writing this post.** By this March, God willing, our house will be fully paid for. It's time to celebrate! (See below.)
In case you don't know our story: Over nine years ago [we began an adventure](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) of financing a home in Atlanta through microloans. Nearly 90 individuals or households participated in this experiment, some accepting our offer of 10% interest, some declining interest, and others sending gifts rather than loans. These generous people were an extended network of family, friends, and friends-of-friends, including about fifteen to twenty people we had never met. Nearly all were members of Jesus' church, so we coined a new term for this crowdfunding effort: _churchfunding_. We bought our house in March, 2016 and every month since then God has provided funds to repay our lenders, usually $500 per month.
**2024 Year-End Report:** A year ago, we owed $7,855.00 in loans. As we start 2025, we owe only $1,500.00, which means our final payment is scheduled for March. (We've done our utmost to keep faithful records of loan repayments using a spreadsheet that Rodney Troyer and Jesse Kropf created for us, but if you think we still owe you money and your last name is _not_ Mast, let us know ASAP! 🙂)
### Open House – April 12, 2025
**To celebrate the goodness of God and his people, we're planning an all-day open house on Saturday, April 12, 2025.**
If you helped in any way with our house purchase (loans, gifts, etc.) or work on our property (repairs, yard cleanup, etc.), then you are invited! We'd love to say Thank You again in person.
What to expect (God willing):
* Come and go whenever you wish from 9 am to 9 pm
* Tour "The House that God Bought"
* Meet other "churchfunders"
* Enjoy the beauty of Atlanta in the springtime
* Eat (light refreshments throughout the day and probably more at mealtimes)
* Sing and pray during an evening hour of thanksgiving and praise
Since this has been a group effort from the beginning, let me throw this out there: **_Do you have other creative ideas for how to make this a God-honoring, people-loving day of celebration and blessing? For example, if a crowd plans to come, does anyone want to bring a grill and prepare supper?_**
More thoughts:
* If you're traveling from far, we wish we could host you here, but we really don't have sleeping space for crowds, especially since we're expecting to let people tour the house. You are welcome to find other area lodging and spend a weekend here, joining us for church Sunday morning.
* We plan to also invite local church friends and neighbors on our street.
* **If you plan to come, it would really help if you let us know at least a month in advance (by mid March)**, so we know how many people to plan for.
* If you see a reason why April 12 is a bad date, let us know ASAP. Our spring schedule is very busy, though, so we don't have many good options.
I see that [April 12](https://www.thereisadayforthat.com/calendars/2025/4/12) is also National Catch and Release Day and International Day of Human Space Flight, so we won't hold it against you if you're busy elsewhere. However, it's also National DEAR (drop everything and read) Day, and our house is full of books...
Seriously, churchfunders, don't feel pressured to be here, but do consider this a personal invitation. We will celebrate and give thanks whether with many or few, but we'd love to see you on April 12!
### In Other News
**Our main house project for 2024 was replacing more windows**—one in the main bathroom, three in bedrooms, and a set of bay windows in the kitchen. Two of them were 1950s-era, single-pane windows that wouldn't open, so we are really enjoying the upgrade!
Before (bathroom)
Before (front of house, bathroom and bedroom)
After (front of house, bathroom and bedroom)
Removing the center column from the kitchen window for a better view.
I should probably also mention that I installed **a cat door** in the living room wall, which has significantly reduced stress for both us and the cat.
I used one of my late father's tools for this job.
Training Oliver to use his new door.
In other good house news, I successfully **appealed our property taxes** this summer, which will bring considerable savings over coming years. And, looking ahead, Habitat for Humanity has approved us for a program where they provide a forgivable loan for essential house repairs. If this proceeds as planned, in several months we should have **a new roof** and hopefully also **a non-leaking shower** in our master bathroom. Maybe in time for our open house?
**Family life in 2024** was much like years before, except that it seems each year gets busier as our daughters grow. They are busy with homeschool and a variety of orchestra programs, which means Zonya is busy with the same. She also did several waste audits (a side gig), read lots (including George MacDonald books), and continued her [ten-year Psalms memory project](https://dwightgingrich.com/psalms-memory-project/).
After a string orchestra concert where most of us played.
I still teach piano, work for Choice Books, and help lead music at church. Our oldest daughter was accepted into the Emory Youth Symphony Orchestra this fall, so I enjoyed taking her to rehearsals, where I spent time in a college theological library scanning the stacks of Anabaptist and Mennonite books.
A typical view from my Choice Books truck at the Atlanta airport.
We enjoyed using my [Beginners' Bible Reading Plan](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-beginners-bible-reading-plan/) as a family this year, reading it at mealtimes. Based on our reading, I tweaked it a tiny bit (fixed a typo and added a total of seven verses).
God willing, our family will take a long-anticipated trip to the west coast later this year, so we've been spending a lot of time recently planning that. It's pretty much now or never if we want to do it before our daughters start leaving the nest!
Speaking of the passing of time, I'll end by noting that today is exactly one year since my maternal grandmother Verna Gingrich passed away. I'm thankful for her example of faithful trust, love, and gratitude in the ordinary opportunities of life.
My grandparents Edwin and Verna Gingrich, several years before my birth. My mother Elaine is standing directly behind Grandpa.
Since this is my last churchfunding report, I'll say it once again: **_Thank you to each of you who made it possible to buy our home here in Atlanta!_** Your collective generosity has forever changed and blessed the course of our family's life.
For Christ and his church,
Dwight Gingrich
PS: A few more photos. The first two were on April 12 of this year. See how beautiful it will be when you come?
Our back door on April 12, 2024.
The view from a north Georgia cabin on April 12, 2024. We spent a weekend away and enjoyed a sunset from the top of Brass Town Bald, Georgia's highest peak.
Our front door this fall.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Rachel Weeping for Her Children: Death and Light in Bethlehem [Book Review]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-12-27
Category: Book Reviews
Tags: Bishara Awad, Mennonite Central Committee, intifada, Martin Luther King, Jr., -Romans 13:7, Mercy Aiken, Palestinian Christians, Christian Zionism, -John 1:5, pacifism, forgiveness, love your neighbor, faith, non-violence, -1 John 4:8
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/rachel-weeping-children-death-light-bethlehem
### **One gift I received this Christmas was a book on my wish list: _[Yet in the Dark Streets Shining: A Palestinian Story of Hope and Resilience in Bethlehem](https://www.amazon.com/Yet-Dark-Streets-Shining-Palestinian/dp/1737945908/)_.**
The book presents snapshots from the childhood and ministry of Bishara Awad, a remarkable Palestinian Christian who founded Bethlehem Bible College (BBC). It was cowritten in 2021 by Awad and Mercy Aiken, an American who came to BBC in 2015 as a volunteer.
**This is a book that more North American Christians should read.** It gives a perspective that is often overlooked by American evangelicals, including many Anabaptists: the testimony of our Palestinian brothers and sisters who have lived for centuries in the Holy Land. Although _Yet in the Dark_ tells this story only up to 2002, it is more relevant than ever, given that the "hopes and fears of all the years" of Palestinian Christian history are being tested right now perhaps more than ever. ([See this article](https://religionnews.com/2024/12/23/in-bethlehem-a-christian-pastor-reflects-on-a-year-of-prayerful-pro-palestinian-activism/) about another Palestinian pastor who is the current academic dean of BBC and also director of Christ at the Checkpoint, a conference challenging evangelicals to become kingdom Christians and help resolve the conflict in Israel and Palestine.)
_Yet in the Dark_ moved me for many reasons.
One unforgettable character is Awad's mother, who is an astounding example of faith and forgiveness. In spite of losing her home, husband, and almost her own life to the violence of Jewish settlers, and therefore needing to scatter her children to multiple schools and orphanages to keep them barely alive, she never stopped praying to a miracle-working God and never stopped forgiving her enemies. "We need to pray for the Jews. They've suffered terribly in Europe" (p. 13). "Lord, we forgive whoever fired that bullet this morning" (p. 20, after burying her husband in the only place available, their own backyard).
I was fascinated to learn that "almost all" Palestinian Christians at the time of the birth of the modern nation-state of Israel "held to the Lord's teaching on this subject," believing that "Jesus taught us to lay down our swords and love our enemies. Period" (p. 14). Later in the book, a youth who is wrongfully imprisoned and horrifically tortured by the Israelis emerges with an even deeper faith and love: "I want to understand the pain that drives the Israelis to do what they do to us" (p. 141).
Another powerful picture displayed by _Yet in the Dark_ is the composite image of Arab peaceful coexistence before and after the birth of the Jewish nation. Despite differences and limits on their interactions, Muslim and Christian Palestinian Arabs generally cared for each other, bound by a shared history of living under centuries of occupation. Kind Muslims intervened sacrificially at crucial times to save the Awad family. More recently, this mutual peace has been tested, due in part to the rise of fundamentalist Islamic groups that were born in resistance to the Israeli occupation of Arab lands.
A similar but deeper unity grew between Christian denominations in Palestine, as they learned to pool their increasingly limited resources in the common goal of providing Christian education and leadership for their people. Here is Awad's perspective:
> Some who converted under the new Protestant missionaries felt it necessary to disavow their previous denomination. Mother never took that approach. She taught us to appreciate the good from all denominations, including the Greek Orthodox Church that was her family heritage and the Maronite church that was our father's heritage. Mother's position always made sense to me. I considered myself a mixture of all who helped to build and shape my faith through the years, including the Greek Orthodox, Pentecostals, Methodists, Mennonites, and others. (p. 99)
### Yes, Mennonites.
That was a surprise for me as I read this book—how much Mennonites directly shaped Awad's life and ministry. Some examples:
* In 1961 Mennonites founded a school near Bethlehem for disadvantaged Palestinian boys. Bishara Awad's brother Mubarak worked there and he "challenged the Mennonites to introduce materials into the boy's curriculum about their history of pacifism" (81). In 1972 the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) asked Bishara to take over as principal, with the goal of establishing local leadership and financial independence.
* In one incident, a formidable "papa bear" visitor from the MCC persisted boldly with a Jewish commander until he agreed to release three Palestinian students who had been arrested. "They are under the care of the Mennonite church. We demand their release" (p. 92).
* In 1981 (after the founding of BBC), the Mennonite Church paid the way for Awad and his family to come to Fresno, California for one and a half years of training at the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary there.
* This training broadened Awad's vision for BBC: "Deeply appreciative of the nonviolent stance of the Mennonite Church, I also wanted to see serious theologians emerge from the Palestinian church with the same clear message of Christian pacifism... The leaders that I envisioned would not advocate for violent overthrow of the systems of this world, but rather seek to undermine them with goodness and grace by putting the gospel into action" (pp. 107-108).
### This leads me, frankly, to one of my most conflicted responses to this book.
According to this book, Bishara Awad's brother Mubarak "played a leading role in initiating the intifada," the Palestinian movement aimed at "shaking off" (the meaning of _intifada_) the degradation of the Jewish occupation (p. 125). This intifada began as a nonviolent movement, for "non-violence was an idea he \[Mubarak\] wholeheartedly embraced during his turbulent years in America where he observed the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." (p. 81).
As I read this part of _Yet in the Dark_, I felt all the same ambivalence I have felt as I've read the writings and history of King and his resistance movement—an ambivalence I've also felt about some expressions of the Mennonite pacifism that also shaped Mubarak. (Indeed, Mennonites and King also shaped _each other_; [see here](https://anabaptisthistorians.org/2020/01/20/martin-and-the-mennonites-lessons-from-kings-legacy-for-today/).)
Mubarak posted signs like "How to get your rights without firing a single bullet." He "had no qualms about breaking Israeli law" and refused to pay taxes (p. 126-27), which is directly contrary to what Paul taught under Roman occupation (Rom. 13:7). After one Palestinian community, "inspired by the American Revolution," adopted the slogan of "no taxation without representation" in their "nonviolent" protest, the Israelis put the entire town under house arrest for forty days, cut telephone lines, and confiscated property (pp. 142-43).
Does this approach fully mirror the way of Jesus? Or is it still too focused on rights and resistance and not enough on cross-bearing enemy love? Does Jesus advocate hurting others (damaging possessions, preventing income) as long as that hurting doesn't result in bodily harm? Or does such an insistence on securing rights inevitably produce a mindset where nonviolence becomes unsustainable, growing into the famous stone-throwing of the intifada and worse forms of violent resistance?
Bishara Awad says "I would never be as politically minded as Mubarak, but I supported my brother's activism... Even so, I saw our issues more through a theological lens than a political one... More than anything, I wanted us to have a Christ-like response to everyone, even the Israelis" (p. 129). I don't want to criticize these Palestinian Christians too harshly; again and again they showed incredible restraint and generous enemy love, more than I often give. That said, I do think that even non-violent resistors can be invited to follow Christ's path more fully.
(I'm sure I'd also discover other points of disagreement with Awad and other Palestinian Christians--just as I have strong disagreements with some of the persons whose endorsements appear on this book's cover--but few such disagreements appeared as I read.)
### If I'm ambivalent about the nonviolent resistance of some Palestinian Christians, I am in utter disagreement with the Christian Zionism described in this book.
I could give many examples, but here is perhaps the worst. Sit with your Palestinian brother Awad in this gathering of Christians:
> "We need to pray for Israel in her time of struggle," said my friend as she ministered from the stage. A murmur of amens rippled across the room. I was ready to pray for Israel; it was part of my practice. What I was not prepared for was what came out of her mouth next.
>
> "The Lord is showing me that Israel needs more than our prayers. We need to put some actions to our prayers. Tonight, I believe the Lord is calling us to raise the money to buy a tank for the Israeli Defense Forces. Who is ready to give sacrificially to this cause? ...Remember, world redemption depends on Jews being back in the land that God promised to them! Who will pledge ten thousand dollars? Who will pledge twenty thousand dollars?"
>
> ...Around the room, millionaires were raising their hands and standing up as they committed to give to the project.
>
> ...I snapped back to attention, to a scene that was as equally baffling as painful. People were laying hands on one another, praying. Some had their arms lifted in a posture of worship, tears streaming down their cheeks.
>
> "Hallelujah, we have a pledge for twenty thousand dollars! Give the Lord a praise offering!" Around the room people were applauding and praising the Lord. The musicians were playing softly in the background to minor chords of a Jewish-style worship song.
>
> Do any of these people understand that this tank may be used to kill their fellow Christians and other innocent people? I wondered. Pain shot through my heart as I considered that even if they knew, it probably would not matter. They were more enamored with what they considered to be the fulfillment of biblical prophecy than with the fate of Palestinians, even if the Palestinians were their own brothers and sisters in Christ.
>
> I felt very alone. (pp. 145-46)
_Yet in the Dark_ is not a theology book, but it does include some brief dialogue scenes where Awad shares a faithful, new covenant way of identifying the children of Abraham and understanding the biblical promises of the land they will inherit.
### One of the most moving passages of _Yet in the Dark_ is the scene where Awad finds healing for the anger that remained in his own broken heart.
Some of that anger was directed at Israelis. Some of the brokenness was inflicted by fellow Christians. "Why is it that so many of my fellow Christians are indifferent to our oppression?" he asked the Lord (p. 93). As he prayed, he was given a picture:
> In my mind, I saw an image of the Holy Land as a beautiful silver chalice filled with wine, over which the nations had fought. I saw the gleam of greed in the eyes of those who possessed it momentarily, only to watch it slip through their fingers and into the hands of another.
>
> The people themselves, those who lived in the land, were almost irrelevant. From century to century, from empire to empire, who cared about the people? No, it was the ideals, the theology, the worldview, the sentiment that the land represented that each group wanted. Each would defend their idea of nationhood and God at the expense of their fellow human beings made in God's image. To possess the cup, they would sacrifice its contents.
>
> I saw a hand tilting the cup and pouring the wine to the ground, like blood. It was the blood of generations...
>
> And then another image came: Jesus, lifted high on the cross, his blood rolling down his naked body to the Jerusalem soil where it pooled and slowly seeped into the earth. There he was, the chalice itself, simultaneously pouring himself out as a drink offering, while also drinking the bitter cup down to its dregs...
>
> "I forgive, Lord. I forgive... Have mercy on me. Have mercy on us all." (pp. 93-94)
Many more characters and scenes appear in _Yet in the Dark_—including Horatio Spafford (author of "It Is Well with My Soul"), Winston Churchill (briefly), and (frequently and significantly) Brother Andrew, famous from his book _God's Smuggler_ but also a powerful example of sharing the gospel of Christ's even to the leaders of Hamas.
### "Whoever does not love, does not know God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8).
That was the message that Awad and Brother Andrew brought to the leaders of Hamas, and ultimately it is the central message of _Yet in the Dark_.
It is a hard message. As Awad writes, "If you really love God, prove it by how you treat others, or else be quiet about how spiritual you are" (p. 159).
"Others" includes our enemies, whether Jewish, Palestinian, or people closer to home. "Others" certainly also includes our Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ.
**Are we listening? Do we really love God?**
This book left me with deep sadness. Sadness that violence in the Holy Land has only gotten horrifically worse since this book was written. Sadness that so many Christians still show such callous lack of compassion for the suffering of the innocent there.
But this book also left me with hope. If forgiveness and enemy love can flourish in such dry soil... why not anywhere? Yes, this world is often very dark, but "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).
**_Hallelujah!_**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
__
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## As Good as Dead
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-12-26
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Tags: -Romans 4:19, -Hebrews 11:12, motivational phrase, -Genesis 20:3, death, faith, Bible promises
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/as-good-as-dead
### I think that's my motivational phrase for 2025: "As good as dead."
I found the phrase recently while reading through Hebrews 11, but then I noticed it occurs in a second passage as well. In both places it describes Abraham who, as an old man, trusted God's promise of a son. Here's the first, from Romans 4:
> In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was **as good as dead** (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. (Romans 4:18-21 ESV)
And the second from Hebrews 11:
> By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him **as good as dead**, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. (Hebrews 11:11-12)
I've noticed this phrase before, but it hits home in a new way since this fall I—gasp!—turned 50 years old. I know, some of you have now written me off as an old geezer, and the rest of you are thinking, "My, my, that boy doesn't know anything about old age."
Your opinions aside, my experience for the past several years is that the brevity of life is often on my mind. My analytical nature, though intended as a blessing, can tend toward skepticism and morbidity at times, and I've been painfully aware for a long time that I will never accomplish all the things in life that I wish I would. Mix in a strong perfectionist streak, the demands of familial relationships (one of life's richest joys), financial limitations, and the distractions of our electronic age... and many of the things I long for most deeply I just can't seem to accomplish.
But. Today and in 2025 I want to walk in renewed faith. Faith that what God has promised he will accomplish, even though I sometimes feel _as good as dead_. Even though in some ways I _am_ as good as dead.
To be clear, God has not promised me that I'll write that book. Or books. Or that I'll become a more effective Bible teacher. Or a wiser father. Or that I'll be given days on end to play piano and reach a new level in my musicianship. Or that I'll create an album of my own original songs and other musical compositions (with enough variety included that every listener will find at least one song that they don't like—my guiding musical vision for years).
But God _has_ promised that our labor in the Lord is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58). He _has_ promised his Holy Spirit to those who ask (Luke 11:13). And he _has_ promised that his Holy Spirit will bear good gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-11) and fruit (Gal. 5:22-23) through us. And that _could_ include some of the things above.
So as I walk into 2025, I want to _consider_ my own limitations without _weakening in faith_ (see Rom. 4:19). Yes, in some ways I am as good as dead. But that's the kind of person that God likes to use, right?
Painting by Jan van 't Hoff/Gospelimages.com (See https://freebibleimages.org/illustrations/jvh-abraham/)
### A couple more things before I sign off:
First, let's not miss Sarah's role in all of this! Both texts emphasize that she, too, was just as "dead" as Abraham, and that she, too, displayed a faith that allowed God to work miracles.
In fact, the Hebrews passage suggests that _if Sarah had not trusted God, then Abraham would never have experienced the fulfillment of God's promise of descendants._ Wives (and husbands), I hope that doesn't scare you too badly, but it's worth pondering. Jesus said, "if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven" (Matt.18:19). What if there aren't two? It takes two to tango, as they say. Or, better, it takes two to make a baby.
Second—drumroll—in the NIV translation _there is actually a third time_ that the phrase "as good as dead" appears in Scripture. Here it is:
> But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You are **as good as dead** because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.” (Genesis 20:3 NIV)
(The NIV translation here is a little loose; a more literal translation would say "You're dead" or perhaps "You are a dead man." But let's not let exegetical details get in the way of a good Bible teaching moment.)
I'll trust you to recall or read the story if you want the details, but the main point I want to observe is this: In this account Abraham's _lack of faith_ (pretending Sarah is only his sister in order to save his own skin) leaves someone else (Abimelek) "as good as dead."
Again, the lesson here is that _people near me will be profoundly impacted by my faith or lack thereof_.
### I want to hold "as good as dead" before me as I enter the new year.
God's ability surpasses my inability. If God could use Abraham when he was "as good as dead," then he can use me, too. I want to act in that faith, making choices each day and week that open the door for God to act.
Will you join me? May it be said of us, as of Abraham:
> \_\_\_\_\_ did not weaken in faith when they considered their own strength, which was as good as dead... No unbelief made \_\_\_\_\_ waver concerning the promise of God, but \_\_\_\_\_ grew strong in their faith as they gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. (Romans 4:20-21, ESV adapted)
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Zeal for Your House Will Consume Me
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-09-14
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Tags: D.A. | Carson, Craig S. | Keener, Bible translations, resurrection, consume, -Psalm 69:9, destroy, Clarence Jordan, cross, temple, NT use of OT, Philip Yancey, -John 2:17, -1 Corinthians 15:26
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/zeal-for-your-house-will-consume-me
In John's Gospel, he recounts a time when Jesus noticed something that was terribly wrong and decided to take action. Jesus discovered that traders and money changers were using the temple grounds for personal profit, selling oxen and sheep and pigeons to temple-goers who needed animals for sacrifices. So, Jesus got busy:
> And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade." (John 2:15-16 ESV)
John then adds a postscript, a statement that tied Jesus' action to the ancient Jewish scriptures:
> His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me," (John 2:17)
What do you think this means? How would you paraphrase or re-state the sentence, "Zeal for your house will consume me"?
If you had asked me this recently, I might have said something like this: "Passion, love, and concern for God's temple will overwhelm me and drive me to action."
Sweet Publishing / FreeBibleimages.org.
This morning I read this account from a translation I have rarely used, the Easy-to-Read Version (ERV). The ERV isn't a translation typically recommended for serious Bible study, but I'm finding that its fresh and simple expressions make me hear the Bible with ears that are awake—and that is a crucial part of all fruitful Bible study, right?
(Someone recently left a copy of a little booklet called _The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth_ on one of the book displays I service as a rep for Choice Books. This booklet uses the ERV. It is a compilation of passages from all four Gospels, arranged roughly chronologically, covering most of the content of the Gospels but avoiding duplicate tellings of the same events. It is published and distributed for free by the Bible League International, through an initiative called PlusNothing. I don't know much about this project, but you can [go here to learn more or request free copies](https://plusnothing.com/).)
Back to John 2. Here's how the ERV translates this OT quote:
> My strong devotion to your Temple will destroy me.
Woah! _Destroy_?
Well, yes, the English word _consume_ can mean that, but typically when we use the word to refer to humans, we use it metaphorically. (Thankfully!) Did the disciples, and the Gospel writer John, mean something more literal?
The Greek word that is used here, both in John's Gospel and in the LXX (Septuagint) text of Psalm 69, is κατεσθίω, a word that in a non-metaphorical sense means _to eat or devour_ something. In the NT it is used of birds devouring seeds, the apostle John eating a scroll, and a dragon hoping to eat a child. Less literally, it is used of fire devouring people, the prodigal son devouring his father's possessions, and—perhaps in closest parallel to our current text—of religious hypocrites devouring the houses of widows (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; cf. 2 Cor. 11:20; Gal.5:15). The image is of being eaten alive, as if by a wild animal.
Since context matters, I looked back to the OT source for this quote. It comes from Psalm 69. Here it is, in context:
> 1 Save me, O God!
> For the waters have come up to my neck...
> 4 More in number than the hairs of my head
> are those who hate me without cause...
>
> 6 Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
> O Lord God of hosts;
> let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
> O God of Israel.
> 7 For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
> that dishonor has covered my face.
> 8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
> an alien to my mother's sons.
>
> 9 For **zeal for your house has consumed me**,
> and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.
> 10 When I wept and humbled my soul with fasting,
> it became my reproach.
> 11 When I made sackcloth my clothing,
> I became a byword to them...
>
> 15 Let not the flood sweep over me,
> or the deep swallow me up,
> or the pit close its mouth over me...
>
> 19 You know my reproach,
> and my shame and my dishonor;
> my foes are all known to you.
> 20 Reproaches have broken my heart,
> so that I am in despair.
> I looked for pity, but there was none,
> and for comforters, but I found none.
> 21 They gave me poison for food,
> and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.
In this text, the psalmist is in up to his neck. He is surrounded by enemies who are about to send him to the grave. They are already mocking him and covering him with shame.
And why? All because he has been sticking up for God. It's because he has been identifying himself with God and defending God's name and temple that he is facing all this opposition. If he had happily went along with those who showed no respect for God, he would have been left in peace. But he couldn't do that, because he was utterly devoted to God.
Therefore, "the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me." That is, the attacks that the wicked aimed at God landed on him. Or, as the parallel line says, "zeal for your house has consumed me."
So, who or what consumed the psalmist? Was it zeal, or was it God's enemies? Both, really. Most directly, the psalmist is consumed by zeal. But his _main point_ is that this zeal is leading to his destruction. Or, as the ERV puts it here in this psalm, "My strong devotion to your Temple is destroying me. Those who insult you are also insulting me."
Perhaps the best explanation is that the psalmist is making a pun; he is using a term with a double meaning, intending us to be aware of both. And until I read the ERV, I had missed the pun. (I don't know Hebrew, but a glance at a Hebrew concordance suggests the pun would have worked in that language, too.)
So yes, I think the ERV communicates something important here. Though it loses the imagery of being eaten by something, it clarifies that the subject (Jesus, or the psalmist) is not merely being overwhelmed by passion; rather, his very life is in danger.
In addition, notice that John changes the tense of the verb when he quotes the psalm—in the ESV, for example, the psalmist says "has consumed" (past tense) but John quotes it as "will consume" (future tense). (The tense forms are also different in Greek.) This switch means John may be pointing ahead, rather than referring to something Jesus experienced in the present as he cleansed the temple.
These observations open a new window onto what John was thinking as he added this quote at this point in his Gospel account.
Why would Jesus ultimately be destroyed? The primary reason was because he claimed to have a divine identity and authority that the Jewish religious leaders weren't willing to acknowledge. And _it was the way he expressed that authority publicly, by doing things like cleansing God's temple_, that made his claims insufferable to these leaders. Zeal for God's temple destroyed him.
Sweet Publishing / FreeBibleimages.org.
After coming to this interpretation, I checked some commentaries. Craig Keener puts it like this:
> The psalmist's zeal for God's house... led to his suffering, and thus provides a model for Jesus' zeal. As this zeal "consumed" the psalmist, so Jesus would be "consumed"—bring life to others by his death. (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 528)
Not all commentators agree, but this is clearly a respected reading. Here is D. A. Carson:
> John detects in the experiences of David a prophetic paradigm that anticipates what must take place in the life of "great David's greater Son." That explains why the words in 2:17... change the tense to the future... For John, the manner by which Jesus will be "consumed" is doubtless his death. If his disciples remembered these words at the time, they probably focused on the zeal, not on the manner of the "consumption." Only later would they detect in these words a reference to his death (cf. 2:22). (Carson, The Gospel According to John, p. 180)
Truly, zeal for God's house destroyed Jesus.
This, of course, is the path that we are also invited to walk. Because of our devotion to God, we take up our crosses and follow after Jesus, sharing in his shame and suffering. Zeal for God's house very well may destroy us, too.
But the resurrection! "[His heart beats](https://youtu.be/PaU3C5a2VUY?si=PSBvE0MnM6IRm8Hl)." And speaking of destroying things, don't forget this: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor.15:26).
When I discussed these John 2 translation insights with my wife, she remembered what she had just read in a Philip Yancey book, about Clarence Jordan and the Koinonia community in rural Georgia, who aimed to use the weapons of love and peace in the face of KKK attacks. Reaching for her reading journal, she quoted the following passage from Phillip Yancey:
> Christians sometimes describe their faith as a force that runs counter to culture. I wonder if we have it backwards. Perhaps the city of God is the culture and the city of this world the counterculture. Perhaps Jesus the revolutionary was actually setting out a normal pattern for life on this planet as revealed by its Designer. That he appears radical and got murdered for his beliefs may say more about us than about him. (Yancey, Rumors of Another World, p. 237)
May we have courage to follow in his steps.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## How Is the Word of God Living and Active?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-09-01
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Tags: hardness of heart, heart, -Hebrews 4:12-13, word of God, final judgement
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/how-is-the-word-of-god-living-and-active
You wouldn't be very wrong if you said that the Bible is the central focus of this blog. I hope that the ultimate focus is God, especially as revealed through his Son Jesus Christ. But my gifting and training leads me to focus on the Spirit-inspired Scriptures as a primary God-appointed way to get to know Jesus and God's will for us. As the tag line on the home page of DGO says, my goal here is to be "building up the church of Jesus Christ by helping her listen carefully to the Scriptures."
### Quick and Powerful
Preachers who extol the glories of the Bible often revert to the archaic language of the King James Version, exclaiming that the Bible is "quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword." This is a quote from Hebrews 4, which is somewhat clearer in the English Standard Version:****
> For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb. 4:12-13, ESV)
Somewhat clearer, yes, but still a bit of an enigma. How can the word of God be alive? How can words (or a word, or the Bible?) have agency or personhood, moving and doing all the things described here?
First, we better clarify what we are talking about. Is this a verse about the Bible? Or about something else?
What does the author of Hebrews mean by "the word of God"? How does this expression tie into what he has been talking about?
Hebrews 4:11-13 (English Standard Version)
At its most basic level "the word of God," it seems to me, is simply _God speaking_. It is God speaking as he created the world and in a host of other ways, yes. But more directly it is God speaking "by his Son" (Heb. 1:2)—revealing himself and his "good news" (Heb. 4:2) of "great salvation" (Heb. 2:3) through the high priestly work of Christ. But neither should we do a narrow John 1 equation of "word of God" with Jesus in this Hebrews context. Rather, the word of God here is the "voice" of God that we hear speaking "today" (Heb. 3:7-15) whenever we hear the proclamation of the good news, the invitation to enter God's "rest" (Heb. 4:6-11).
So yes, it is right to call the Bible "the word of God" (I once drafted a whole presentation about that), but we shouldn't think of it that narrowly, especially not when reading this verse. The author of Hebrews may not have been thinking of the Bible at all as he penned the phrase. Rather, his concern was _the message about salvation that God gave through his Son Jesus Christ_.
And how does the word of God cut us open, exposing our hearts? It does so because it calls from us a response. Whenever we hear the word of God, we—like the Israelites who heard God's voice on the border of Canaan—cannot help but respond. Either we believe and obey, showing that the "thoughts and intentions" of our heart are soft toward God, or we respond in unbelief and disobedience, as the ancient Israelites, showing that our hearts have been hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
God already knows the condition of our hearts before he speaks to us. Yet he graciously tests our hearts by speaking his good news to us. He graciously makes the condition of our hearts clear to all who have eyes to see.
### A Word for a Word
The verses above end with a word play, for in the Greek text the last word of Hebrews 4:13 is _word_ (logos). First the _word_ (logos) of God comes to us; then someday we must give to God, regarding ourselves, a "word" (logos). Someday we will directly give account to him for how we have responded to "the word of God" that he has spoken to us.
Hebrews 4:12-13 (Greek New Testament)
As humans we ponder and prod and and slice and dice the Scriptures and the divine messages therein. Sometimes we do it for fun, because words are a gift from God and we are crafted to find satisfaction as we trace patterns and discover meaning. Sometimes we do it because this task truly is necessary, as we seek to understand and obey the divine will. But ultimately, may we never forget that it is not we who stand in judgment over the word of God, but the word of God that stands in judgment over us.
There is no escaping the word of God, either now or later. We _will_ be exposed, and we _will_ give a "word" in response.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Subscribe
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-08-19
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/subscribe-cm00xbe6p00cb103am0zb3v5u
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Welcome to DGO 2.0!
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-07-30
Category: DGO website
Tags: DGO website
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/welcome-to-dgo-20
Greetings friends! Ten years ago today (July 30, 2014) something special arrived in the mail: a reader's edition of the Greek New Testament. At that time I knew very little Greek, so my purchase was an act of faith, a step taken toward a far-off dream. Now, ten years later, I can say that I have read this book from cover to cover--with far from perfect understanding, to be sure, but with sufficient understanding to be greatly blessed by its sacred words.
**That was not the only dream in the works ten years ago.** I was turning forty that fall, and I decided that I wanted to launch my own website and blog. By God's grace, that dream, too, came to reality, and Dwight Gingrich Online was launched on my birthday in 2014. I'm deeply grateful for the many interested readers and helpful interactions I have received since then!
For several years now, however, DGO has been every bit as tattered and worn as my Greek NT. The old WordPress platform was bloated with plugins. Pages were loading slowly--not only for readers, but especially for me on the increasingly rare times when I tried to write a new post. My old web hosts were distant and unhelpful, despite repeated requests for help.
For several years I prayed earnestly about this, until finally **in December 2023 our church congregation offered to pay for a rebuild of my website**. Hallelujah!
Today it is my joy to tell you...
Welcome to DGO 2.0!
----------------------
Photo by [Camille Couvez](https://unsplash.com/@camille_couvez?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/fireworks-display-during-nighttime-4mSnf9mJanY?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash)
This new DGO site contains almost all the same content as the old one. (Missing are most of my recommendations for third-party resources, since those were becoming dated, but my [commentary lists](https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-commentaries-advice/) are still here). There's not much new content yet, but please take a look at something my wife created: a [10-year plan for memorizing all 150 Psalms](https://dwightgingrich.com/psalms-memory-project/)!
This new website isn't fancy visually, but **we've put a lot of work into what matters most: making it easy for you to find the content you're looking for**. Here are some tips to get you started:
* The [home page](https://dwightgingrich.com/) shows my latest blog posts.
* The "[Browse Topics](https://dwightgingrich.com/browse-topics/)" page has links especially to _blog content_, including:
* [a chronological list](https://dwightgingrich.com/complete-list-dgo-blog-posts/) of all my blog posts (best place to scan all my posts);
* [a place to search all the tags](https://dwightgingrich.com/topics/) I've added to my content (best place to see what I've written on specific topics and Bible references); and
* [a general search bar](https://dwightgingrich.com/search/) where you can search every word (minus in PDFs) on my entire website (comprehensive, but a lot to sift through).
* some "Featured Topics" of special interest.
* The "[More Resources](https://dwightgingrich.com/more-resources/)" page is the place to find _all other content_ (besides my blog posts): essays, Bible reading plans, online piano lessons, and more.
* Other pages show my [update bio and website vision](https://dwightgingrich.com/about/), a [contact form](https://dwightgingrich.com/about/#h_1902060641328891), a form to [subscribe to DGO](https://dwightgingrich.com/subscribe/) (for email updates about new posts), and a way to financially [support DGO](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/).
Speaking of financial support, I am expecting it to cost about $300 to $400 per year to keep DGO online, beside time I spend in study and writing. **If God lays it on your heart to help cover these expenses**, I will receive your support with gratitude.
Now that I have a smoothly-running blog again, I hope to post more often. How often? Well, let's just say more than annually, as it's been lately! I'm hoping to share more short posts both inspirational and exegetical, as when DGO was first born.
I am also drafting an historical and theological treatise on Mennonites and ordinances, hopefully to be published as a brief book. In addition, it remains my goal to return to my study and writing on divorce and remarriage. (May God allow these dreams, too, to come true.)
Finally, several more details about DGO 2.0:
* **A big thanks to the team at** [**_Prosynergy_**](https://prosynergy.one/), who carefully ensured that all my long foot-note-laden blog posts migrated safely to this new [_Superblog_](https://superblog.ai/) platform. (It can be scary when so much of your brain is online!) Joe Wine in particular put (is putting) up with a lot of requests from me about ways I think things like search engines and comment sections could be improved. Thanks, Joe, for your patience and your dedication to seeing this project through.
* **The comments section doesn't yet have all the options I dream of.** For example, since we don't (yet) have nested comments, please be clear who you are talking to if you are responding to a prior comment. At present the newest comments are at the top, so bear that in mind.
* This post is our first time sending an email to subscribers, so we're about to find out how well this works! (Edit: It didn't work at all the first time, so perhaps the second time?)
* We transferred the subscriber list from the old blog to here. It was pretty dated. If you decide now is the time to unsubscribe, I won't be offended. (And sorry; we hope to soon have an "unsubscribe" option added to the emails sent to subscribers.)
If you've read this far, thank you! I welcome your comments about this relaunch--either in the comments section or by email, either about content or with suggestions for improving the functionality of this new site.
As I near 50 years of age, I'm aware more keenly than ever that following Christ is a matter of the orientation of our hearts. Bible study and informed obedience remain vital, but my heart cry these days is often more basic: "God, keep my faith alive! Lead my children to faith in Jesus! May your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven!"
And all God's people said... "Amen."
For Christ and his church,
Dwight Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Psalms Memory Project
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-07-28
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/psalms-memory-project
_A 10-year plan for memorizing all 150 Psalms!_
### Download a PDF of the plan:
**[Psalms Memory Project](https://app.box.com/s/q5qyj7fdkat9l9bje63deo0vxpkxgn2n)**
My wife Zonya heard about how [the monks on Lindisfarne island in England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aidan_of_Lindisfarne?) during the Middle Ages used to memorize the entire Psalter and recite it while on pilgrimage. This inspired her to begin her own project of memorizing all the Psalms. To make this lifetime goal doable, she created a 10-year plan for memorizing all 150 Psalms.
As of now (July 2024), Zonya has successfully completed the first year of her plan. I can testify that this project has enriched her understanding of Scripture, strengthened her faith, and helped her worship the Christ whom she now sees more clearly in the Psalms.
If you find this plan useful, [send me an email](https://dwightgingrich.com/about/#h_1902060641328891) with a thank-you for Zonya.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why I Use Bible Commentaries
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-06-19
Tags: brotherhood principle, biblical interpretation, sermons, commentaries, Bill | Mounce
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-i-use-bible-commentaries
In my church tradition (conservative Anabaptist) there is some understandable hesitation about using Bible commentaries. We have witnessed the deadly effects of liberal scholarship upon the church. This has left many of us fearful of biblical scholarship in general. Were not the early disciples ordinary, untrained men? And isn’t the world full of Christians who are ever learning and yet failing to follow in the steps of the Lord Jesus Christ?
I can’t discuss these questions in depth here. Instead, I would like to give several reasons why I use Bible commentaries.
### I listen to preachers.
I have yet to meet a preacher with whom I perfectly agree. (That includes even me, because I wish I could go back and make a few changes to some sermons that I have preached.) Yet I would hate to think of how shriveled up I would be spiritually if I quit listening to every preacher as soon as he said something wrong. Sermons give us spiritual food. They help the Holy Spirit renew our minds and nourish our souls. Yes, we need to overlook the pet topics and quirks of preachers and even spit out some bones of human tradition or unbelief from time to time. But because we are hungry, we keep listening and we keep growing. The same is true of good commentaries. Yes, there are pet topics and imbalances and sometimes even unbelief and heresies to sort out. But there is also much nourishment for the hungry soul.
### I am not the first person to read the Bible.
Paul said it best: “Was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” (1 Cor. 14:36). For thousands of years now, the Church of Jesus Christ has been reading and interpreting and living the Bible. I would be foolish if I ignored the insights of the saints of the past. Were they often imbalanced in their understandings? Certainly! And so am I. I think I can sometimes see their imbalances more clearly than they could. Likewise, perhaps sometimes they can see my own imbalances better than I can. If my own generation or my own church tradition comes up with an interpretation of Scripture that has rarely or never existed before in 2000 years of Church life, then I would like to know. Reading commentaries helps prevent chronological snobbery and connects me to the Spirit’s work within the saints of the past.
### I take my car to the mechanic.
The wisest car owners take a personal interest in their own cars. They learn basic maintenance skills, follow the advice in their manuals, and listen carefully for unusual sounds. The same should be true of wise Bible readers. We should read the Bible for ourselves, learning how to interpret it faithfully and how to spot when the Scriptures are handled in an unusual or unfaithful way. But car owners are also wise to take their car to an expert mechanic from time to time. Any good mechanic has spent much more time thinking about cars than I have. I drive it; he understands what happens inside the car that enables me to drive it. I bring my observations and questions to him and he responds with insight and skill, listing potential problems and potential solutions. Similarly, a Bible reader is wise if he seeks the help of an expert from time to time.
An expert? Yes, an expert, for an expert is simply someone who has spent a lot of time studying a topic. Someone who has spent thirteen years studying the Pastoral Epistles (as William Mounce did while writing his commentary) is bound to know a few things about those books that I will never discover on my own. He can point me to some important interpretive problems and describe the various solutions that have been suggested by interpreters over the years. Do I complete every repair suggested by my mechanic? No. And do I accept every interpretation affirmed by a commentary? No. But in both cases I am wiser for having listened to an… expert. ([Click here](http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-ways-not-to-use-greek-in-bible-study) and see point #2 for more.)
### I believe the Bible should be interpreted by the gathered saints.
In our Anabaptist heritage we talk of something called _the brotherhood principle_. This phrase reminds us that we are not meant to live the Christian life alone. As we follow Christ, interpreting and living the teachings of the Bible by the power of the Spirit, we do it _together_. This belief has been expressed in various ways in our Anabaptist history. We see it in our communal approach to church discipline, in our barn raisings and mutual aid programs, and in our lay leadership. Sometimes we contrast ourselves with evangelicals, denouncing the individualism found in many American churches. Yet one of our most dominant current expressions of the brotherhood principle has actually been borrowed from evangelicals: Sunday School. And I think there is one area where many evangelical churches practice the brotherhood principle _better_ than most conservative Anabaptist churches do: in sermon preparation.
The typical conservative Anabaptist preacher prepares for his sermon in near isolation. His fellow pastors and the rest of his congregation often have no idea of his sermon topic beforehand. And if he consults any study helps they are often limited to a few accepted works (Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Strong’s, Kauffman) or maybe a popular-level book that he is currently reading. Sometimes the preacher is alone for his entire time of sermon preparation, without any other human input whatsoever. Many evangelical pastors, in contrast, plan a schedule of sermon texts and topics in advance, consulting with other church leadership and staff. In addition, they often have a significant library of study helps in their home or church office. They prepare their sermons while surrounded by a multitude of hardcover, paperback, and digital saints.
Am I saying that all evangelical sermons are better than all conservative Anabaptist ones? Am I saying that commentaries always interpret Scripture faithfully? Certainly not. I am suggesting, however, that _consulting commentaries is one good way to practice the brotherhood principle_. It is one good way to allow the gathered saints to help us interpret the Scriptures. Less of “me and Jesus” and more of a “multitude of counselors” could bring safety, helping us handle the word of God more faithfully. And yes, if wisely used, commentaries could improve our sermons.
### Summary: I Need Help
Each of my reasons for using commentaries all really boil down to one: _I need help_. I need nourishment, perspective, and expertise from others. I need the Church. I need the people the Spirit has given as gifts to the Church. I need help to listen well to the Scriptures.
There are other reasons I use commentaries. I like books. I like _studying_ books. Hey, I even like footnotes! So if you’re not the bookish type, yet you need some help understanding a Bible passage, perhaps I can help you a little. Take a look at my commentary lists or ask me for a more specific recommendation. Who knows? Maybe it won’t be long before I’ll be feeding on one of your sermons or asking you to recommend a good mechanic. _We need each other._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Bible Commentaries Advice
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-06-18
Tags: biblical interpretation, commentaries, Faith Builders
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-commentaries-advice
In the summer of 2014, I compiled several lists of recommended commentaries for diligent Bible students. I created these lists partly to provide advice for the library at [Faith Builders](https://www.fbep.org/) (a conservative Anabaptist educational institution), but also to guide me as I built my own biblical studies library.
These lists reflected the advice of about a dozen scholarly books and websites rather than my own experience, but most of the 100-plus volumes I've purchased from these lists have proven useful. Though these lists are now about a decade old, they remain useful _if compared with more current lists_, such as those published annually by Denver Seminar (see below).
You can download these commentary recommendations, with detailed descriptions of my intended audience, purpose, and sources, here:
### [Bible Commentary Recommendations](https://app.box.com/s/ubujudng59ze58zby6e0abwsedgna177)
In my church tradition (conservative Anabaptist) there is some understandable hesitation about using Bible commentaries. If you share this hesitation, I encourage you to read my short article explaining "[Why I Use Bible Commentaries](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-i-use-bible-commentaries)." If used wisely, commentaries help the Spirit-guided Church rightly handle God's word and faithfully follow Christ.
For a more up-to-date perspective on recommended Bible study helps, **I recommend the lists published annually by faculty members of Denver Seminary**. Their biases do not always match mine, but I recommend comparing them with what I have shared here.
[Denver Journal Annotated Old Testament Bibliography](https://denverseminary.libguides.com/djot/welcome)
[Denver Journal New Testament Exegesis Bibliography](https://denverseminary.libguides.com/Denver_Journal_NT/Bibliography)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## 90 Day New Testament Reading Plan
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-06-01
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/90-day-new-testament-reading-plan
_**Read the New Testament in 90 days–or four times in one year!**_
### Download a PDF of the plan:
**[90 Day New Testament Reading Plan](https://app.box.com/s/2slpkxuicsfg17nd5yyp95hh30rfqbl7)**
My wife Zonya created this plan for her own use. She did a good job dividing the NT into equal-length readings and the schedule allows for at least one catch-up day each month.
There are two versions included in this plan:
* The main version that follows the standard NT order of books
* An alternate version that includes at least one Gospel per month
If you get temporarily burned-out on the OT (as my wife did) or just want to soak deeply in the words of Christ and his apostles for a while, this is a great Bible reading plan for you.
If you find this plan useful, send me an email with a thank-you for Zonya.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Beginners' Bible Reading Plan
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-06-01
Tags: Bible reading plan
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/a-beginners-bible-reading-plan
**_Survey the Bible in one year, reading only about 15 verses a day!_**
Here is a new version (2024) of a Bible reading plan that I first created in 2014. Most of the substance remains the same but I’m excited about the improvements:
1. Some better text selections, with more from Psalms and Isaiah and more passages showing connections between Old and New Testaments;
2. Better passage summaries and headings;
3. Fewer typos;
4. More attractive typefaces; and
5. Improved functionality, with hyperlinks for reading online in over 150 versions and 50 languages at [BibleGateway.com](https://www.biblegateway.com/) and a large-print edition that will work better on mobile devices.
### **Choose and download a PDF of the plan:**
[Print / PC Version](https://app.box.com/s/2gxe0xkpk20tkn311p90p5eozbr1w0a2)
[Mobile Version](https://app.box.com/s/813nwl2mhamb986n31lfs3mlem0ks8dx)
**What parts of the Bible will I read?** _Readings are included from every book of the Bible, with 8 months of Old Testament readings and 4 months in the New Testament. This plan includes about 4,660 key verses out of about 31,100 verses in the whole Bible. That’s over 1/7th or nearly 15% of the Bible._
**How were the readings chosen?** _Passages were chosen that (1) trace the big story of the whole Bible with many of its central themes, (2) reflect the literary and topical diversity of the Bible, and (3) avoid some adult content that may be less suitable for younger readers. Readings are arranged mostly in chronological order, but also thematically, with descriptions and headings to guide readers._
**Who should use this plan?** _I first created this guide for my oldest daughter when she was five years old and already an eager reader. But this plan is equally well-suited for several kinds of adults—those new to the Bible, slower readers, or anyone who wants to survey key passages of the Bible at a pace that gives plenty of time for meditation._
**What is the suggested reading schedule?** _Each monthly handout of 25 readings can be completed using one of these suggested schedules: (1) Read 6 days a week until finished; (2) Read 5 days a week plus do one 5-reading day each month. The average length of each reading is only about 15½ verses, so if you fall behind you can easily catch up by finishing several readings per day._
**When can I begin?** _Months are unnamed on the 12 handouts, so you can begin any time of the year. Why not start today?_
**Can I use this guide to read the Bible online?** _Yes! Each Bible reference in this PDF document is a link to the Bible Gateway website, taking you directly to each day’s passage(s) in whichever Bible translation you last used when visiting Bible Gateway. Also, some PDF apps have a highlight feature you can use in the downloaded document to mark readings as you complete them._
**Which Bible translation should I use?** _Use a translation that is trustworthy and that communicates clearly. For most English readers, the best choice may be the NIV (New International Version), which is both exceptionally readable and faithful to the original biblical texts. Similar choices include the CSB (Christian Standard Bible), NASB 2020 (the newest New American Standard Bible), and NET Bible (New English Translation). Beginning readers will find the NLT (New Living Translation) and NIRV (New International Reader’s Version) helpful, though they sometimes sacrifice accuracy for readability._
_Readers who prioritize a more word-for-word translation approach also have solid choices. The ESV (English Standard Version) and NKJV (New King James Version) lean in this direction and the NASB 1995—somewhat harder to read—is the most word-for-word of all the translations mentioned here. (The Bible quotations in this guide come from the ESV, which has been a good fit for our family.)_
_Finally, to gain the greatest benefit from this Bible reading plan, avoid translations that use archaic language or publications that are actually paraphrases rather than genuine translations._
_A Beginners’ Bible Reading Plan_ is copyrighted © 2024 by Dwight Gingrich. Permission is granted to use freely for non-profit purposes.
**An image of the first month of the Print / PC version:**
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BBRP-Print-Edition.jpg)
**A screenshot of the Mobile version, with highlights marking completed readings:**
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screenshot-of-BBRP-Mobile-Edition.jpeg)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Alphabetical Index of All Topics
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-05-26
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/alphabetical-index-of-all-topics
Type a topic or Bible reference in the search bar, then scroll down to see results.
*
**All Topics**
-----------------
1 Chronicles – 3 John
---------------------
[\-1 CHRONICLES 21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-chronicles-21)
[\-1 CHRONICLES 21:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-chronicles-211)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-113)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1011)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:14-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1014-22)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1017)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1018)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-111)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-111-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:17-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1117-34)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1118)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-112)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-112-16)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-112-18)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1122)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1123-26)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1126)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1133)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1134)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-12)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1212-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1213)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1225)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1228)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1229-30)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:4-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-124-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 13:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-139-10)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1420)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:26-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1426-33)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1434-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-151-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:17-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1517-19)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1519)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1520)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:20-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1520-26)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1522)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:23-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1523-24)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1527-28)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-153)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-154)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-161-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-161-3)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-1619)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-162)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-165-6)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:5-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-165-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 2:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-26-8)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-29)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-31)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-31-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-310)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-311)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-316-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4;14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-414)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:14-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-414-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-415)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-416)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-416-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-421)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-48)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-5)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-51-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-512-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-54)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-59-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-614)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-616)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-63)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-69-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-7)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:10-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-710-16)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:10-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-710-39)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-711)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-714)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-715)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-722)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:27-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-727-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:29-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-729-38)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-73-4)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-732-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-739)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-77-8)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-78-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-79)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 8:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-88)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-911)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-913-14)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-919)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:19-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-919-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-920)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:20-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-920-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-922-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-923)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:4-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-94-7)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-99)
[\-1 JOHN 1:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-11-4)
[\-1 JOHN 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-15)
[\-1 JOHN 1:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-18)
[\-1 JOHN 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-19)
[\-1 JOHN 2:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-21)
[\-1 JOHN 2:12-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-212-14)
[\-1 JOHN 2:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-216-17)
[\-1 JOHN 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-219)
[\-1 JOHN 2:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-22)
[\-1 JOHN 2:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-224)
[\-1 JOHN 2:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-227)
[\-1 JOHN 2:7-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-27-11)
[\-1 JOHN 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-311)
[\-1 JOHN 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-316)
[\-1 JOHN 3:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-316-18)
[\-1 JOHN 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-317)
[\-1 JOHN 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-41)
[\-1 JOHN 4:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-41-3)
[\-1 JOHN 4:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-46)
[\-1 JOHN 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-48)
[\-1 JOHN 5:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-519)
[\-1 JOHN 5:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-john-52-4)
[\-1 KINGS 16:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-kings-1618-19)
[\-1 KINGS 18:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-kings-1827)
[\-1 KINGS 22:19-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-kings-2219-23)
[\-1 KINGS 23:13-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-kings-2313-17)
[\-1 PETER 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-11)
[\-1 PETER 1:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-110-12)
[\-1 PETER 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-113)
[\-1 PETER 1:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-118-19)
[\-1 PETER 1:3-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-13-7)
[\-1 PETER 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-14)
[\-1 PETER 2:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-213-14)
[\-1 PETER 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-220)
[\-1 PETER 2:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-225)
[\-1 PETER 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-24)
[\-1 PETER 2:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-24-5)
[\-1 PETER 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-25)
[\-1 PETER 2:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-29-10)
[\-1 PETER 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-321)
[\-1 PETER 3:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-33-5)
[\-1 PETER 3:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-34)
[\-1 PETER 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-416)
[\-1 PETER 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-417)
[\-1 PETER 4:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-417-18)
[\-1 PETER 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-48)
[\-1 PETER 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-512)
[\-1 PETER 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-53)
[\-1 PETER 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-54)
[\-1 PETER 5:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-55)
[\-1 PETER 5:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-peter-57)
[\-1 SAMUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel)
[\-1 SAMUEL 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel-11)
[\-1 SAMUEL 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel-127)
[\-1 SAMUEL 16:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel-1614)
[\-1 SAMUEL 16:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel-162)
[\-1 SAMUEL 28:16-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel-2816-19)
[\-1 SAMUEL 30:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel-3012-13)
[\-1 SAMUEL 4:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel-418)
[\-1 SAMUEL 7:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-samuel-715)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-211)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-211-12)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-213)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:14-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-214-16)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-29)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-41)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:13-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-413-18)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-417)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 5:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-515)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 5:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-thessalonians-517)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-112)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-12)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-17)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-21-4)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-21-5)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-211-15)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-219)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-24)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-28-10)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-31)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-311)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-315)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-32)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:2-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-32-7)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-34)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-34-5)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-35)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-36)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-39)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 4:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-46)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-51-2)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-510)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-513)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-516)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-517-18)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-525)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-53)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-58)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-59-10)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 6:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-617)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 6:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-timothy-618)
[\-1CORINTHIANS 5:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1corinthians-511)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-120)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 10:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-104)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-1128)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 12:11-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-1211-13)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 12:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-1214)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-311)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 3:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-318)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 4:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-411)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-44)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 5:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-51-10)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 5:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-514-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-613)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-614-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-7:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-614-71)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-616)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:17-7:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-617-71)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 7:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-72)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-8-9)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-81-4)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-815)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-817-18)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-89)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-911-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-95)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-96)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-corinthians-97)
[\-2 JOHN 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-john-11)
[\-2 JOHN 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-john-110)
[\-2 JOHN 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-john-15)
[\-2 KINGS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-kings-211)
[\-2 KINGS 6:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-kings-619)
[\-2 PETER 3:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-peter-313)
[\-2 PETER 3:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-peter-33-4)
[\-2 PETER 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-peter-39)
[\-2 SAMUEL 20:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-samuel-203)
[\-2 SAMUEL 24:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-samuel-241)
[\-2 SAMUEL 6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-samuel-6)
[\-2 SAMUEL 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-samuel-7)
[\-2 SAMUEL 7:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-samuel-713-14)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-110)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-21)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-21-2)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-211)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-215)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-25)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-310)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-36)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-37)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:7-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-thessalonians-37-9)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-113)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-19)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-212)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-24)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-315-16)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-316)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-36)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 4:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-45)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 4:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-2-timothy-46-8)
[\-3 JOHN 5-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-3-john-5-10)
[\-3 JOHN 5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-3-john-5-8)
Acts – Ezekiel
--------------
[\-ACTS 1:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-18)
[\-ACTS 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-10)
[\-ACTS 10:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1040)
[\-ACTS 10:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1043)
[\-ACTS 11:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1115)
[\-ACTS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1118)
[\-ACTS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1126)
[\-ACTS 11:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1128-30)
[\-ACTS 12:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1212)
[\-ACTS 12:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1223)
[\-ACTS 13:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-131)
[\-ACTS 13:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1315)
[\-ACTS 13:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-132)
[\-ACTS 13:38-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1338-39)
[\-ACTS 13:48](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1348)
[\-ACTS 13:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-135)
[\-ACTS 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-15)
[\-ACTS 16:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-163)
[\-ACTS 16:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-166-10)
[\-ACTS 16:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-169)
[\-ACTS 17:1-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-171-9)
[\-ACTS 17:10-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1710-15)
[\-ACTS 17:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1711-12)
[\-ACTS 17:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1727)
[\-ACTS 17:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1731)
[\-ACTS 18:4-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-184-7)
[\-ACTS 18:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-188)
[\-ACTS 19:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-1922)
[\-ACTS 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2)
[\-ACTS 2:24-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-224-32)
[\-ACTS 2:25-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-225-36)
[\-ACTS 2:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-231)
[\-ACTS 2:37-40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-237-40)
[\-ACTS 2:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-238)
[\-ACTS 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-24)
[\-ACTS 2:42-46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-242-46)
[\-ACTS 2:46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-246)
[\-ACTS 2:47](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-247)
[\-ACTS 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-25)
[\-ACTS 20:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2018-19)
[\-ACTS 20:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2020)
[\-ACTS 20:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2021)
[\-ACTS 20:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2027)
[\-ACTS 20:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2028)
[\-ACTS 20:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2028-30)
[\-ACTS 20:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2029-30)
[\-ACTS 20:37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2037)
[\-ACTS 20:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-207)
[\-ACTS 20:7-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-207-12)
[\-ACTS 20:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-208)
[\-ACTS 22:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-221)
[\-ACTS 22:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2216)
[\-ACTS 24:24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2424-25)
[\-ACTS 26:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2618)
[\-ACTS 26:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2628)
[\-ACTS 27:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2722)
[\-ACTS 28:25-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-2825-27)
[\-ACTS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-314)
[\-ACTS 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-321)
[\-ACTS 3:25-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-325-26)
[\-ACTS 4:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-432-35)
[\-ACTS 5:29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-529)
[\-ACTS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-61-2)
[\-ACTS 6:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-61-3)
[\-ACTS 6:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-64)
[\-ACTS 7:59](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-759)
[\-ACTS 8:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-83)
[\-ACTS 9:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-915)
[\-ACTS 9:32-40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-acts-932-40)
[\-AMOS 4:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-amos-41-6)
[\-AMOS 5:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-amos-518-19)
[\-AMOS 9:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-amos-911-12)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-112)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-115)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-118)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-120)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:14-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-214-18)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-216)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-216-17)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-216-23)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-218)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-223)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-26)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-28)
[\-COLOSSIANS 3:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-312)
[\-COLOSSIANS 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-316)
[\-COLOSSIANS 4:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-colossians-415)
[\-DANIEL 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-daniel-12)
[\-DANIEL 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-daniel-122)
[\-DANIEL 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-daniel-417)
[\-DANIEL 4:28-37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-daniel-428-37)
[\-DANIEL 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-daniel-7)
[\-DEUTERONOMY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-1232)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-13)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 18:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-1815)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 18:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-1819)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 21:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2114)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2213-21)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2219)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:22-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2222-24)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2229)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-241)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-241-4)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2416)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 25:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-254)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 26:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2617-18)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2912-13)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2918)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-2919-20)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-294)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 31:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-3120-21)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 32:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-3221)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 4:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-41-2)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 5:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-511)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 6:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-65)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 6:6-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-66-9)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-79)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 8:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-81-3)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 8:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-deuteronomy-82)
[\-ECCLESIASTES 12:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ecclesiastes-1213-14)
[\-ECCLESIASTES 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ecclesiastes-311)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-111)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:16-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-116-23)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-120)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:20-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-120-22)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-122)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-123)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:3-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-13-10)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-13-5)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-14)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-15)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-19-11)
[\-EPHESIANS 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-2-3)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-21-10)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-21-2)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-21-3)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-215)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-219)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:19-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-219-22)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-220)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-27)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-314-15)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-37)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:8-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-38-12)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:1-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-41-16)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-411-12)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:11-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-411-16)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-414)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-416)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-42)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-43-4)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-432)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-44-5)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-44-6)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:7-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-47-14)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-519)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:21-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-521-33)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:22-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-522-33)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-526-27)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-527)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:28-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-528-31)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-530)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-61-4)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:10-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-610-20)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-64)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ephesians-69)
[\-ESTHER 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-esther-416)
[\-ESTHER 5:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-esther-51)
[\-EXODUS 1:15-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-115-21)
[\-EXODUS 14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-14)
[\-EXODUS 17:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-171-7)
[\-EXODUS 2:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-21-10)
[\-EXODUS 20:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-2013)
[\-EXODUS 20:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-207)
[\-EXODUS 20:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-208)
[\-EXODUS 20:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-208-11)
[\-EXODUS 21:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-2110-11)
[\-EXODUS 21:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-2111)
[\-EXODUS 25:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-2510)
[\-EXODUS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-416)
[\-EXODUS 4:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-422)
[\-EXODUS 7:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-73)
[\-EXODUS 8:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-832)
[\-EXODUS 9:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-exodus-916)
[\-EZEKIEL 14:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-ezekiel-149)
Galatians – Hosea
--------------------
[\-GALATIANS 1:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-114)
[\-GALATIANS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-14)
[\-GALATIANS 2:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-219-20)
[\-GALATIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-220)
[\-GALATIANS 3:2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-32-3)
[\-GALATIANS 3:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-323-26)
[\-GALATIANS 3:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-327)
[\-GALATIANS 3:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-328)
[\-GALATIANS 3:6-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-36-29)
[\-GALATIANS 4:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-410)
[\-GALATIANS 4:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-419)
[\-GALATIANS 4:21-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-421-31)
[\-GALATIANS 4:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-426)
[\-GALATIANS 4:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-430)
[\-GALATIANS 4:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-45)
[\-GALATIANS 4:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-49)
[\-GALATIANS 4:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-49-11)
[\-GALATIANS 5:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-51-4)
[\-GALATIANS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-512)
[\-GALATIANS 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-513)
[\-GALATIANS 5:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-518)
[\-GALATIANS 5:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-52-4)
[\-GALATIANS 5:22-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-522-24)
[\-GALATIANS 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-54)
[\-GALATIANS 5:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-55-6)
[\-GALATIANS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-61-2)
[\-GALATIANS 6:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-610)
[\-GALATIANS 6:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-615)
[\-GALATIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-616)
[\-GALATIANS 6:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-617)
[\-GALATIANS 6:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-galatians-66-10)
[\-GENESIS 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-1-2)
[\-GENESIS 1:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-126)
[\-GENESIS 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-127)
[\-GENESIS 1:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-131)
[\-GENESIS 11:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-112)
[\-GENESIS 11:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-117-8)
[\-GENESIS 12:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-123)
[\-GENESIS 13:2-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-132-11)
[\-GENESIS 14:18-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-1418-20)
[\-GENESIS 15:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-1516)
[\-GENESIS 18:22-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-1822-33)
[\-GENESIS 2:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-21-3)
[\-GENESIS 2:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-215-16)
[\-GENESIS 2:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-217)
[\-GENESIS 2:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-218)
[\-GENESIS 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-219)
[\-GENESIS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-220)
[\-GENESIS 22:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-2218)
[\-GENESIS 22:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-224)
[\-GENESIS 29:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-2913)
[\-GENESIS 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-3)
[\-GENESIS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-31)
[\-GENESIS 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-316)
[\-GENESIS 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-32)
[\-GENESIS 3:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-320)
[\-GENESIS 3:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-324)
[\-GENESIS 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-36)
[\-GENESIS 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-39)
[\-GENESIS 32-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-32-33)
[\-GENESIS 33:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-334)
[\-GENESIS 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-41)
[\-GENESIS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-416)
[\-GENESIS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-417)
[\-GENESIS 4:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-425)
[\-GENESIS 42:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-4217-18)
[\-GENESIS 5:21-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-521-24)
[\-GENESIS 5:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-524)
[\-GENESIS 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-53)
[\-GENESIS 6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-6-8)
[\-GENESIS 6:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-615)
[\-GENESIS 9:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-genesis-96)
[\-HABAKKUK 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-habakkuk-1-2)
[\-HEBREWS 1:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-11-4)
[\-HEBREWS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-14)
[\-HEBREWS 1:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-16)
[\-HEBREWS 10:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1024)
[\-HEBREWS 10:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1025)
[\-HEBREWS 10:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1026-27)
[\-HEBREWS 10:26-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1026-31)
[\-HEBREWS 11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-11)
[\-HEBREWS 11:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1110)
[\-HEBREWS 11:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-113)
[\-HEBREWS 11:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-115)
[\-HEBREWS 11:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-115-6)
[\-HEBREWS 11:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-116)
[\-HEBREWS 12:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-121)
[\-HEBREWS 12:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1215)
[\-HEBREWS 12:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1217)
[\-HEBREWS 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-122)
[\-HEBREWS 12:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1222-23)
[\-HEBREWS 12:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1223)
[\-HEBREWS 12:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1228)
[\-HEBREWS 12:4-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-124-13)
[\-HEBREWS 12:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-127)
[\-HEBREWS 13:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-1320)
[\-HEBREWS 13:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-137)
[\-HEBREWS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-211)
[\-HEBREWS 2:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-217)
[\-HEBREWS 2:5-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-25-18)
[\-HEBREWS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-29)
[\-HEBREWS 2:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-29-10)
[\-HEBREWS 3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-3-4)
[\-HEBREWS 3:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-312-13)
[\-HEBREWS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-314)
[\-HEBREWS 3:7-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-37-13)
[\-HEBREWS 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-4)
[\-HEBREWS 4:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-41-11)
[\-HEBREWS 4:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-412-13)
[\-HEBREWS 5:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-510)
[\-HEBREWS 5:11-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-511-14)
[\-HEBREWS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-512)
[\-HEBREWS 5:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-56)
[\-HEBREWS 6:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-61)
[\-HEBREWS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-61-2)
[\-HEBREWS 6:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-620)
[\-HEBREWS 6:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-64-6)
[\-HEBREWS 6:4-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-64-8)
[\-HEBREWS 6:9-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-69-12)
[\-HEBREWS 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-7)
[\-HEBREWS 7:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-71-10)
[\-HEBREWS 7:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-711-12)
[\-HEBREWS 7:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-712)
[\-HEBREWS 7:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-718-19)
[\-HEBREWS 7:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-725)
[\-HEBREWS 8:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-813)
[\-HEBREWS 9:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-916-17)
[\-HEBREWS 9:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hebrews-922)
[\-HOSEA 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hosea-110)
[\-HOSEA 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hosea-13)
[\-HOSEA 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hosea-2-3)
[\-HOSEA 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hosea-223)
[\-HOSEA 5:8-6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-hosea-58-63)
Isaiah – Judges
------------------
[\-ISAIAH 11:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-111-10)
[\-ISAIAH 28:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-2816)
[\-ISAIAH 29:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-2910)
[\-ISAIAH 29:9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-299-14)
[\-ISAIAH 40-55](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-40-55)
[\-ISAIAH 40:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-401-11)
[\-ISAIAH 42-46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-42-46)
[\-ISAIAH 42:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-428)
[\-ISAIAH 45:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-451-7)
[\-ISAIAH 49:1-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-491-13)
[\-ISAIAH 50:4-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-504-11)
[\-ISAIAH 52-53](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-52-53)
[\-ISAIAH 52:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-5214-15)
[\-ISAIAH 53](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-53)
[\-ISAIAH 53:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-531)
[\-ISAIAH 53:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-5311-12)
[\-ISAIAH 53:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-5312)
[\-ISAIAH 53:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-539)
[\-ISAIAH 55:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-553)
[\-ISAIAH 56:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-568)
[\-ISAIAH 58:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-586-10)
[\-ISAIAH 6-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-6-9)
[\-ISAIAH 6:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-69-10)
[\-ISAIAH 60:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-603-4)
[\-ISAIAH 61](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-61)
[\-ISAIAH 64:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-644)
[\-ISAIAH 65:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-6517)
[\-ISAIAH 66:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-6622)
[\-ISAIAH 7:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-isaiah-716)
[\-JAMES 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-127)
[\-JAMES 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-15)
[\-JAMES 2:14-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-214-24)
[\-JAMES 2:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-215-16)
[\-JAMES 2:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-22)
[\-JAMES 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-223)
[\-JAMES 2:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-225)
[\-JAMES 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-317)
[\-JAMES 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-39)
[\-JAMES 5:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-514)
[\-JAMES 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-james-53)
[\-JEREMIAH 11:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-114)
[\-JEREMIAH 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-15)
[\-JEREMIAH 18:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-1811)
[\-JEREMIAH 24:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-247)
[\-JEREMIAH 29:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-2911)
[\-JEREMIAH 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-31)
[\-JEREMIAH 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-38)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:10-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-3110-34)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-3130)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:31-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-3131-34)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-3133)
[\-JEREMIAH 35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-35)
[\-JEREMIAH 7:1-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-71-15)
[\-JEREMIAH 7:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jeremiah-723)
[\-JOB 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-job-1-2)
[\-JOB 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-job-15)
[\-JOB 14:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-job-147)
[\-JOB 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-job-3)
[\-JOEL 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-joel-2-3)
[\-JOHN 1:1-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-11-9)
[\-JOHN 1:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-112-13)
[\-JOHN 1:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-114)
[\-JOHN 1:47-49](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-147-49)
[\-JOHN 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-10)
[\-JOHN 10:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1016)
[\-JOHN 10:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1028)
[\-JOHN 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1133)
[\-JOHN 11:50-52](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1150-52)
[\-JOHN 12:1-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-121-8)
[\-JOHN 12:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1227)
[\-JOHN 12:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1231)
[\-JOHN 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1232)
[\-JOHN 12:35-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1235-36)
[\-JOHN 12:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1240)
[\-JOHN 12:42-43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1242-43)
[\-JOHN 13:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1321)
[\-JOHN 13:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1334)
[\-JOHN 14:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-141)
[\-JOHN 14:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1430)
[\-JOHN 15:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-151-11)
[\-JOHN 15:1-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-151-8)
[\-JOHN 15:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1512-13)
[\-JOHN 15:12-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1512-17)
[\-JOHN 16:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1611)
[\-JOHN 16:12-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1612-14)
[\-JOHN 16:13-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1613-15)
[\-JOHN 16:23-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1623-27)
[\-JOHN 17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-17)
[\-JOHN 17:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1711)
[\-JOHN 17:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1714)
[\-JOHN 17:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1715)
[\-JOHN 17:16-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1716-19)
[\-JOHN 17:20-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1720-23)
[\-JOHN 17:21-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-1721-23)
[\-JOHN 2:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-219-20)
[\-JOHN 2:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-221)
[\-JOHN 2:24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-224-25)
[\-JOHN 20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-20)
[\-JOHN 20:11-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-2011-13)
[\-JOHN 21:15-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-2115-17)
[\-JOHN 21:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-2117)
[\-JOHN 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-3)
[\-JOHN 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-316)
[\-JOHN 3:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-316-17)
[\-JOHN 3:19-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-319-21)
[\-JOHN 3:27-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-327-30)
[\-JOHN 3:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-33-5)
[\-JOHN 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-37)
[\-JOHN 4:19-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-419-24)
[\-JOHN 5:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-523)
[\-JOHN 6:28-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-628-29)
[\-JOHN 6:51](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-651)
[\-JOHN 7:38-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-738-39)
[\-JOHN 7:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-78-10)
[\-JOHN 8:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-812)
[\-JOHN 8:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-823)
[\-JOHN 8:34-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-834-36)
[\-JOHN 8:42-47](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-842-47)
[\-JOHN 9:39-41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-john-939-41)
[\-JONAH 1:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jonah-117)
[\-JONAH 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jonah-2)
[\-JONAH 4:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jonah-410-11)
[\-JOSHUA 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-joshua-25)
[\-JOSHUA 22:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-joshua-2220)
[\-JUDE 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jude-112)
[\-JUDE 1:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-jude-114-15)
[\-JUDGES 17:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-judges-171)
[\-JUDGES 4:18-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-judges-418-22)
[\-JUDGES 5:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-judges-524)
Leviticus – Micah
-----------------
[\-LEVITICUS 19:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-leviticus-1917-18)
[\-LEVITICUS 21:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-leviticus-2111)
[\-LEVITICUS 21:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-leviticus-217)
[\-LEVITICUS 22:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-leviticus-2212-13)
[\-LUKE 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1-2)
[\-LUKE 1:54-55](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-154-55)
[\-LUKE 1:72-73](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-172-73)
[\-LUKE 10:2-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-102-9)
[\-LUKE 10:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-103)
[\-LUKE 11:24-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1124-26)
[\-LUKE 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1128)
[\-LUKE 11:42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1142)
[\-LUKE 12:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-121-2)
[\-LUKE 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1232)
[\-LUKE 12:37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1237)
[\-LUKE 15:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1520)
[\-LUKE 16:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1618)
[\-LUKE 16:19-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1619-31)
[\-LUKE 18:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1811-12)
[\-LUKE 18:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-1833)
[\-LUKE 2:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-21-5)
[\-LUKE 2:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-210)
[\-LUKE 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-212)
[\-LUKE 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-27)
[\-LUKE 22:36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-2236)
[\-LUKE 23:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-2343)
[\-LUKE 24:46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-2446)
[\-LUKE 24:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-247)
[\-LUKE 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-314)
[\-LUKE 4:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-420)
[\-LUKE 4:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-439)
[\-LUKE 4:5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-45-8)
[\-LUKE 6:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-613)
[\-LUKE 7:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-71-5)
[\-LUKE 7:36-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-736-50)
[\-LUKE 8:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-81-3)
[\-LUKE 8:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-817)
[\-LUKE 9:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-luke-922)
[\-MALACHI 2:10-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-malachi-210-16)
[\-MALACHI 3:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-malachi-31-6)
[\-MALACHI 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-malachi-38-10)
[\-MARK 1:14-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-114-20)
[\-MARK 1:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-115)
[\-MARK 10:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-1028-30)
[\-MARK 10:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-1034)
[\-MARK 10:4-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-104-9)
[\-MARK 10:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-109)
[\-MARK 14:3-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-143-9)
[\-MARK 14:58](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-1458)
[\-MARK 2:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-227-28)
[\-MARK 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-314)
[\-MARK 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-321)
[\-MARK 4:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-410-12)
[\-MARK 4:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-411)
[\-MARK 5:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-539)
[\-MARK 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-7)
[\-MARK 7:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-719)
[\-MARK 7:21-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-721-23)
[\-MARK 7:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-79-13)
[\-MARK 8:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-831)
[\-MARK 9:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-931)
[\-MARK 9:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-mark-938)
[\-MATTHEW 1:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-118-19)
[\-MATTHEW 1:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-123)
[\-MATTHEW 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-10)
[\-MATTHEW 10:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1010)
[\-MATTHEW 10:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-102-4)
[\-MATTHEW 10:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1023)
[\-MATTHEW 10:34-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1034-38)
[\-MATTHEW 10:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1040)
[\-MATTHEW 10:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-105-6)
[\-MATTHEW 11:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1118-19)
[\-MATTHEW 11:20-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1120-24)
[\-MATTHEW 11:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1125)
[\-MATTHEW 11:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1127)
[\-MATTHEW 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-12)
[\-MATTHEW 12:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1214)
[\-MATTHEW 12:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1224)
[\-MATTHEW 12:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1230)
[\-MATTHEW 12:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1232-35)
[\-MATTHEW 12:39-41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1239-41)
[\-MATTHEW 12:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1240)
[\-MATTHEW 12:42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1242)
[\-MATTHEW 12:43-45](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1243-45)
[\-MATTHEW 12:46-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1246-50)
[\-MATTHEW 12:50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1250)
[\-MATTHEW 12:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-126)
[\-MATTHEW 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-13)
[\-MATTHEW 13:10-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1310-17)
[\-MATTHEW 13:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1318)
[\-MATTHEW 13:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1321)
[\-MATTHEW 13:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1323)
[\-MATTHEW 13:24-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1324-30)
[\-MATTHEW 13:24-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1324-50)
[\-MATTHEW 13:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1338)
[\-MATTHEW 13:51-52](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1351-52)
[\-MATTHEW 13:53-58](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1353-58)
[\-MATTHEW 13:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-139)
[\-MATTHEW 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-15)
[\-MATTHEW 15:15-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1515-20)
[\-MATTHEW 15:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1524)
[\-MATTHEW 15:3-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-153-6)
[\-MATTHEW 16:13-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1613-23)
[\-MATTHEW 16:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1617)
[\-MATTHEW 16:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1618)
[\-MATTHEW 16:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1618-19)
[\-MATTHEW 16:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1621)
[\-MATTHEW 16:5-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-165-12)
[\-MATTHEW 17:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1722-23)
[\-MATTHEW 17:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1723)
[\-MATTHEW 17:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-179-13)
[\-MATTHEW 18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-18)
[\-MATTHEW 18:15-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1815-18)
[\-MATTHEW 18:15-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1815-35)
[\-MATTHEW 18:17-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1817-20)
[\-MATTHEW 18:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1818)
[\-MATTHEW 18:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1820)
[\-MATTHEW 18:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-184)
[\-MATTHEW 19:1-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-191-12)
[\-MATTHEW 19:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1910-12)
[\-MATTHEW 19:13-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1913-15)
[\-MATTHEW 19:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-1928)
[\-MATTHEW 19:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-193)
[\-MATTHEW 19:3-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-193-9)
[\-MATTHEW 19:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-194)
[\-MATTHEW 19:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-195)
[\-MATTHEW 19:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-195-6)
[\-MATTHEW 19:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-196)
[\-MATTHEW 19:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-198)
[\-MATTHEW 19:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-199)
[\-MATTHEW 20:17-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2017-34)
[\-MATTHEW 20:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2019)
[\-MATTHEW 20:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2025)
[\-MATTHEW 20:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2028)
[\-MATTHEW 21:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-211-11)
[\-MATTHEW 21:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2119)
[\-MATTHEW 21:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2134)
[\-MATTHEW 21:41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2141)
[\-MATTHEW 21:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2143)
[\-MATTHEW 21:45](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2145)
[\-MATTHEW 22:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2230)
[\-MATTHEW 22:37-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2237-39)
[\-MATTHEW 23:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2310)
[\-MATTHEW 23:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2318)
[\-MATTHEW 23:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2323)
[\-MATTHEW 23:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2324)
[\-MATTHEW 23:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2327)
[\-MATTHEW 23:29-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2329-32)
[\-MATTHEW 23:8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-238-9)
[\-MATTHEW 24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-24-25)
[\-MATTHEW 24:29-51](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2429-51)
[\-MATTHEW 24:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2431)
[\-MATTHEW 24:4-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-244-28)
[\-MATTHEW 26:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2627-28)
[\-MATTHEW 26:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2628)
[\-MATTHEW 26:6-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-266-13)
[\-MATTHEW 26:61](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2661)
[\-MATTHEW 27:63](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2763)
[\-MATTHEW 28:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-281)
[\-MATTHEW 28:18-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2818-20)
[\-MATTHEW 28:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2819)
[\-MATTHEW 28:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-2820)
[\-MATTHEW 3:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-315)
[\-MATTHEW 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-38)
[\-MATTHEW 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-38-10)
[\-MATTHEW 3:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-39-10)
[\-MATTHEW 4:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-41-11)
[\-MATTHEW 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-44)
[\-MATTHEW 5-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-5-7)
[\-MATTHEW 5:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-510-12)
[\-MATTHEW 5:13-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-513-16)
[\-MATTHEW 5:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-516)
[\-MATTHEW 5:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-518)
[\-MATTHEW 5:27-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-527-30)
[\-MATTHEW 5:31-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-531-32)
[\-MATTHEW 5:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-532)
[\-MATTHEW 5:33-37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-533-37)
[\-MATTHEW 5:38-48](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-538-48)
[\-MATTHEW 6:19-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-619-34)
[\-MATTHEW 6:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-633)
[\-MATTHEW 6:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-634)
[\-MATTHEW 6:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-69-13)
[\-MATTHEW 7:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-712)
[\-MATTHEW 7:15-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-715-23)
[\-MATTHEW 7:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-720-21)
[\-MATTHEW 7:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-76)
[\-MATTHEW 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-79)
[\-MATTHEW 8:21-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-821-22)
[\-MATTHEW 9:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-915)
[\-MATTHEW 9:35-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-matthew-935-38)
[\-MICAH 4:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-micah-49-10)
[\-MICAH 5:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-micah-51-5)
[\-MICAH 5:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-micah-52)
Nehemiah – Zechariah
--------------------
[\-NEHEMIAH 8:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-nehemiah-87-8)
[\-NUMBERS 13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-numbers-13-14)
[\-NUMBERS 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-numbers-15)
[\-NUMBERS 23:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-numbers-233)
[\-NUMBERS 30:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-numbers-309)
[\-PETER 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-peter-113)
[\-PHILEMON 1:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philemon-11-2)
[\-PHILEMON 1:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philemon-12)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:18-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-118-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:21-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-121-24)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-127)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-13-5)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-212-13)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-220)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-228)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-23)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-28-11)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-3)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-31)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:10-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-310-14)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-317)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:17-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-317-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-320)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-320-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-33)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-410)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-410-11)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-413)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:13-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-413-18)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-422)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-44)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-48)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-philippians-49)
[\-PROVERBS 10:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-proverbs-105)
[\-PROVERBS 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-proverbs-1128)
[\-PROVERBS 12:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-proverbs-1218)
[\-PROVERBS 24:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-proverbs-2426)
[\-PROVERBS 27:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-proverbs-276)
[\-PSALM 110](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-110)
[\-PSALM 118](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-118)
[\-PSALM 122](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-122)
[\-PSALM 132](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-132)
[\-PSALM 133:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-1332)
[\-PSALM 139](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-139)
[\-PSALM 145:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-1459)
[\-PSALM 16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-16)
[\-PSALM 16:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-168-11)
[\-PSALM 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-2)
[\-PSALM 22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-22)
[\-PSALM 23:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-234)
[\-PSALM 31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-31)
[\-PSALM 34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-34)
[\-PSALM 38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-38)
[\-PSALM 41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-41)
[\-PSALM 42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-42)
[\-PSALM 43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-43)
[\-PSALM 69](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-69)
[\-PSALM 8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-8)
[\-PSALM 80](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-80)
[\-PSALM 88](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-88)
[\-PSALM 89:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-8927)
[\-PSALM 9:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-910)
[\-PSALM 90](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-90)
[\-PSALM 91:14-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-9114-16)
[\-PSALM 95](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalm-95)
[\-PSALMS 15-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-psalms-15-24)
[\-REVELATION 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-110)
[\-REVELATION 1:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-119)
[\-REVELATION 1:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-13)
[\-REVELATION 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-14)
[\-REVELATION 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-15)
[\-REVELATION 1:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-16)
[\-REVELATION 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-19)
[\-REVELATION 11:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-1115)
[\-REVELATION 11:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-1116-18)
[\-REVELATION 12:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-1217)
[\-REVELATION 13:5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-135-8)
[\-REVELATION 14:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-1412)
[\-REVELATION 16:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-165-6)
[\-REVELATION 18:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-1820)
[\-REVELATION 19:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-191-3)
[\-REVELATION 19:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-191-5)
[\-REVELATION 19:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-196-8)
[\-REVELATION 19:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-197)
[\-REVELATION 19:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-198)
[\-REVELATION 19:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-199)
[\-REVELATION 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-2-3)
[\-REVELATION 20:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-209-10)
[\-REVELATION 21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-21)
[\-REVELATION 21:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-211)
[\-REVELATION 21:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-2114)
[\-REVELATION 21:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-2116-17)
[\-REVELATION 21:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-214)
[\-REVELATION 22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-22)
[\-REVELATION 22:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-2214)
[\-REVELATION 22:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-2218-19)
[\-REVELATION 22:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-227)
[\-REVELATION 22:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-229)
[\-REVELATION 3:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-312)
[\-REVELATION 3:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-34-5)
[\-REVELATION 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-38-10)
[\-REVELATION 5:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-59)
[\-REVELATION 6:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-611)
[\-REVELATION 6:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-69-11)
[\-REVELATION 7:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-714)
[\-REVELATION 7:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-717)
[\-REVELATION 7:9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-revelation-79-14)
[\-ROMANS 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1)
[\-ROMANS 1:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-116-17)
[\-ROMANS 1:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-126-27)
[\-ROMANS 1:9-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-19-15)
[\-ROMANS 10:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1016)
[\-ROMANS 11:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-111-5)
[\-ROMANS 11:17-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1117-24)
[\-ROMANS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1118)
[\-ROMANS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1126)
[\-ROMANS 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1133)
[\-ROMANS 11:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-118)
[\-ROMANS 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-12)
[\-ROMANS 12:14-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1214-21)
[\-ROMANS 12:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1216)
[\-ROMANS 12:17-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1217-21)
[\-ROMANS 12:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1219)
[\-ROMANS 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-122)
[\-ROMANS 12:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1221)
[\-ROMANS 12:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-123)
[\-ROMANS 12:3-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-123-8)
[\-ROMANS 12:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-124-5)
[\-ROMANS 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-13)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-131-2)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-131-5)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-131-7)
[\-ROMANS 13:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1313-14)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-141-14)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-15:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-141-157)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-141-6)
[\-ROMANS 14:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1414)
[\-ROMANS 14:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1419-20)
[\-ROMANS 14:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1422)
[\-ROMANS 14:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1423)
[\-ROMANS 14:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-145)
[\-ROMANS 14:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-145-6)
[\-ROMANS 15:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-151-7)
[\-ROMANS 15:18-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1518-32)
[\-ROMANS 15:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1524)
[\-ROMANS 15:25-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1525-27)
[\-ROMANS 15:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1527)
[\-ROMANS 15:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1531)
[\-ROMANS 15:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-157)
[\-ROMANS 16:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-161)
[\-ROMANS 16:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-1623)
[\-ROMANS 16:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-165)
[\-ROMANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-215)
[\-ROMANS 3:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-324)
[\-ROMANS 3:3-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-33-6)
[\-ROMANS 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-4)
[\-ROMANS 4:13-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-413-16)
[\-ROMANS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-417)
[\-ROMANS 4:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-420-21)
[\-ROMANS 4:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-425)
[\-ROMANS 5:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-51)
[\-ROMANS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-512)
[\-ROMANS 5:12-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-512-21)
[\-ROMANS 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-513)
[\-ROMANS 5:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-56-8)
[\-ROMANS 5:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-57-8)
[\-ROMANS 6:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-611)
[\-ROMANS 6:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-614)
[\-ROMANS 6:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-618)
[\-ROMANS 6:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-619)
[\-ROMANS 6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-63)
[\-ROMANS 6:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-63-4)
[\-ROMANS 7:13-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-713-25)
[\-ROMANS 7:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-720)
[\-ROMANS 7:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-74-6)
[\-ROMANS 7:7-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-77-12)
[\-ROMANS 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-79)
[\-ROMANS 8:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-81)
[\-ROMANS 8:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-815)
[\-ROMANS 8:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-815-16)
[\-ROMANS 8:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-816-18)
[\-ROMANS 8:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-817)
[\-ROMANS 8:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-818)
[\-ROMANS 8:19-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-819-22)
[\-ROMANS 8:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-82)
[\-ROMANS 8:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-821)
[\-ROMANS 8:23-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-823-25)
[\-ROMANS 8:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-828-30)
[\-ROMANS 8:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-829-30)
[\-ROMANS 8:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-831)
[\-ROMANS 8:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-89)
[\-ROMANS 9:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-923-26)
[\-ROMANS 9:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-927-28)
[\-ROMANS 9:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-93)
[\-ROMANS 9:6-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-96-29)
[\-ROMANS 9:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-romans-96-8)
[\-TITUS 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-11)
[\-TITUS 1:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-116)
[\-TITUS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-14)
[\-TITUS 1:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-17)
[\-TITUS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-211)
[\-TITUS 2:11-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-211-14)
[\-TITUS 2:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-211-15)
[\-TITUS 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-212)
[\-TITUS 2:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-214)
[\-TITUS 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-27)
[\-TITUS 3:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-313-14)
[\-TITUS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-314)
[\-TITUS 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-32)
[\-TITUS 3:3-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-33-8)
[\-TITUS 3:4-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-34-8)
[\-TITUS 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-35)
[\-TITUS 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-titus-38)
[\-ZECHARIAH 9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-zechariah-9-14)
[\-ZECHARIAH 9:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-zechariah-99)
[1 CORINTHIANS 9:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/-1-corinthians-919)
[1963 MENNONITE CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1963-mennonite-confession-of-faith)
[9MARKS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/9marks)
A
-
[A. PHILLIP | BROWN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/a-phillip-or-brown)
[A.K. | ZOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ak-or-zook)
[ABANDONMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abandonment)
[ABIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abide)
[ABOMINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abomination)
[ABORTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abortion)
[ABRAHAM | FRIESEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abraham-or-friesen)
[ABUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abuse)
[ACCOUNTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/accountability)
[ADAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/adam)
[ADMONISHMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/admonishment)
[ADULTERY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/adultery)
[AFRAID](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/afraid)
[AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/african-methodist-episcopal)
[AFTER THREE DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/after-three-days)
[AFTERDEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/afterdeath)
[AGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/age)
[AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/age-of-accountability)
[AL | MOHLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/al-or-mohler)
[ALBERT | MAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/albert-or-mast)
[ALBERT | VERSPECK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/albert-or-verspeck)
[ALCESTIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alcestis)
[ALEXANDER | STRAUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alexander-or-strauch)
[ALIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alight)
[ALLAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allah)
[ALLEN | ROTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allen-or-roth)
[ALLEN P. | ROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allen-p-or-ross)
[ALVIN J. | BEACHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alvin-j-or-beachy)
[AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/american-civil-religion)
[AMERICAN DREAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/american-dream)
[AMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amillennialism)
[AMISH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amish)
[AMORITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amorites)
[AMOS | HOOVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-or-hoover)
[ANABAPTIST CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-culture)
[ANABAPTIST FINANCIAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-financial)
[ANABAPTIST HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-history)
[ANABAPTIST IDENTITY CONFERENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-identity-conference)
[ANABAPTIST ORCHESTRA CAMP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-orchestra-camp)
[ANABAPTIST PERIODICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-periodicals)
[ANABAPTISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptists)
[ANDREAS | KÖSTENBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andreas-or-kostenberger)
[ANDREW | CORNES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-cornes)
[ANDREW | HILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-hill)
[ANDREW | PETERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-peterson)
[ANDREW DAVID | NASELLI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-david-or-naselli)
[ANDREW V. | STE. MARIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-v-or-ste-marie)
[ANGEL M. | MERGAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/angel-m-or-mergal)
[ANGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anger)
[ANIMALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/animals)
[ANNUAL REPORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/annual-report)
[ANSWERED PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/answered-prayer)
[ANTHONY C. | THISELTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anthony-c-or-thiselton)
[ANXIETY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anxiety)
[ANY-CAUSE DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/any-cause-divorce)
[AORIST VERBS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aorist-verbs)
[APOCALYPTIC DELIVERANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apocalyptic-deliverance)
[APOLOGETICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apologetics)
[APOSTLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostle)
[APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostolic-authority)
[APOSTOLIC CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostolic-church)
[APPLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/applications)
[ARCHAEOLOGY MAGAZINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/archaeology-magazine)
[ARCHITECTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/architecture)
[ARMINIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arminianism)
[ARNOLD L. | COOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arnold-l-or-cook)
[ARTHUR | SIDO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arthur-or-sido)
[ARTICLE BOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/article-book)
[ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/artificial-intelligence)
[ARTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arts)
[ASCENSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ascension)
[ASELGEIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aselgeia)
[ASHER | WITMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/asher-or-witmer)
[ASSEMBLIES OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assemblies-of-god)
[ASSESSMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assessment)
[ASSURANCE OF SALVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assurance-of-salvation)
[ATHEISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atheism)
[ATLANTA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atlanta)
[ATONEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atonement)
[AUBREY | SPEARS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aubrey-or-spears)
[AUDIO BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/audio-bible)
[AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/augustine-of-hippo)
[AUTHORIAL INTENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/authorial-intent)
[AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/authority)
[AUTUMN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/autumn)
[AVERSION DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aversion-divorce)
[AZUSA STREET REVIVAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/azusa-street-revival)
B
-
[BALD EAGLE BOYS CAMP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bald-eagle-boys-camp)
[BALTHASAR | HUBMAIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/balthasar-or-hubmaier)
[BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/baptism)
[BAR MITZVAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bar-mitzvah)
[BARBARA | ROBERTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/barbara-or-roberts)
[BEACHY AMISH-MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beachy-amish-mennonites)
[BEARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beards)
[BEAUTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beauty)
[BEETHOVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beethoven)
[BEHAVIOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/behavior)
[BELIEF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/belief)
[BELIEFS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beliefs)
[BELIEVER'S BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/believers-baptism)
[BELOVED DISCIPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beloved-disciple)
[BEN | WITHERINGTON III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ben-or-witherington-iii)
[BENEDICT OPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/benedict-option)
[BENJAMIN | EBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/benjamin-or-eby)
[BEREA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/berea)
[BETRAYAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrayal)
[BETROTHAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrothal)
[BETROTHAL VIEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrothal-view)
[BEULAH STAUFFER | HOSTETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beulah-stauffer-or-hostetler)
[BIBLE APPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-apps)
[BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-contradictions)
[BIBLE GATEWAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-gateway)
[BIBLE PROMISES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-promises)
[BIBLE READING PLAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-reading-plan)
[BIBLE TRANSLATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-translations)
[BIBLE'S TRUSTWORTHINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bibles-trustworthiness)
[BIBLIBLOGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bibliblogs)
[BIBLICAL AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-authority)
[BIBLICAL GREEK PROGRAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-greek-program)
[BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-interpretation)
[BIBLICAL LANGUAGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-languages)
[BIBLICAL LITERACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-literacy)
[BIBLICAL MENNONITE ALLIANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-mennonite-alliance)
[BIBLICAL THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-theology)
[BIBLICALTRAINING.ORG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblicaltrainingorg)
[BIBLICISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblicism)
[BILL | GOTHARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bill-or-gothard)
[BILL | MOUNCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bill-or-mounce)
[BIRCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birch)
[BIRDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birds)
[BIRTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birth)
[BLOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/blood)
[BOBBY | JAMIESON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bobby-or-jamieson)
[BODY OF CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/body-of-christ)
[BOOK OF ENOCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-enoch)
[BOOK OF LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-life)
[BOOK OF NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-nature)
[BOOK OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-scripture)
[BOOK REVIEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-reviews)
[BOOKS FOR CHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/books-for-children)
[BORN AGAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/born-again)
[BOUND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bound)
[BRAHMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brahms)
[BRER FOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brer-fox)
[BRER RABBIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brer-rabbit)
[BRIAN | FIKKERT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brian-or-fikkert)
[BRIAN S. | ROSNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brian-s-or-rosner)
[BRIDE OF CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bride-of-christ)
[BROTHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brothers)
[BRUCE K. | WALTKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bruce-k-or-waltke)
[BRYCE | KLABUNDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bryce-or-klabunde)
[BURIAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/burial)
[BUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bus)
C
-
[C. ARNOLD | SNYDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/c-arnold-or-snyder)
[C. AUSTIN | MILES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/c-austin-or-miles)
[C.H. | DODD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ch-or-dodd)
[C.S. | LEWIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cs-or-lewis)
[CALVARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvary)
[CALVARY MESSENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvary-messenger)
[CALVIN | SEERVELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvin-or-seerveld)
[CALVINISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvinism)
[CANAANITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/canaanites)
[CANCER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cancer)
[CANON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/canon)
[CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/catechism)
[CELESTIAL FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/celestial-flesh)
[CELIBACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/celibacy)
[CENTURION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/centurion)
[CERTAINTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/certainty)
[CHANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chance)
[CHANGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/change)
[CHARACTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/character)
[CHARLES A. | HAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charles-a-or-hay)
[CHARLES L. | QUARLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charles-l-or-quarles)
[CHARLIE | SKRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charlie-or-skrine)
[CHASTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chastity)
[CHESTER | WEAVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chester-or-weaver)
[CHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/children)
[CHILDREN - EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/children-evangelism)
[CHINESE STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chinese-students)
[CHOPIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chopin)
[CHRIS | CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chris-or-christian)
[CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christ)
[CHRIST'S DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christs-death)
[CHRIST'S RETURN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christs-return)
[CHRISTENA | CLEVELAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christena-or-cleveland)
[CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian)
[CHRISTIAN | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-burkholder)
[CHRISTIAN | HEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-hege)
[CHRISTIAN | LUGBÜLL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-lugbull)
[CHRISTIAN | NEFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-neff)
[CHRISTIAN AID MINISTRIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-aid-ministries)
[CHRISTIAN LIGHT PUBLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-light-publications)
[CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-standard-bible)
[CHRISTLIKENESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christlikeness)
[CHRISTMAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christmas)
[CHRISTOCENTRIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christocentric)
[CHRISTOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christology)
[CHRISTOPHER | ASH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-ash)
[CHRISTOPHER | DE VINCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-de-vinck)
[CHRISTOPHER | ROWLAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-rowland)
[CHRISTOPHER J. H. | WRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-j-h-or-wright)
[CHRISTOPHER R. | HUTSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-r-or-hutson)
[CHRISTOTELIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christotelic)
[CHRISTY | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christy-or-smucker)
[CHRONICLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronicles)
[CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronological-bible)
[CHRONOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronology)
[CHRYSOSTOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chrysostom)
[CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church)
[CHURCH AND ISRAEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-and-israel)
[CHURCH AND STATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-and-state)
[CHURCH AS FAMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-as-family)
[CHURCH BOUNDARIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-boundaries)
[CHURCH BUDGETS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-budgets)
[CHURCH BUILDINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-buildings)
[CHURCH CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-culture)
[CHURCH DECISION-MAKING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-decision-making)
[CHURCH DENOMINATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-denominations)
[CHURCH DISCIPLINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-discipline)
[CHURCH GIVING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-giving)
[CHURCH GROWTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-growth)
[CHURCH HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-history)
[CHURCH LEADERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-leadership)
[CHURCH LIFE CYCLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-life-cycle)
[CHURCH LOCAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-local)
[CHURCH MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-membership)
[CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST MENNONITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-of-god-in-christ-mennonite)
[CHURCH PLANTING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-planting)
[CHURCH PRIORITY OF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-priority-of)
[CHURCH PURITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-purity)
[CHURCH STANDARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-standards)
[CHURCH TRADITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-tradition)
[CHURCH UNITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-unity)
[CHURCH UNIVERSAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-universal)
[CHURCHFUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/churchfunding)
[CICERO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cicero)
[CITIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cities)
[CITIZENSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/citizenship)
[CITY OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/city-of-god)
[CIVIL WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/civil-war)
[CLAIR | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clair-or-martin)
[CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clarity-of-scripture)
[CLASSICAL PARALLELS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/classical-parallels)
[CLAUS | WESTERMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/claus-or-westermann)
[CLEAN AND UNCLEAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clean-and-unclean)
[CLEAVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cleave)
[CLERGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clergy)
[CLINTON | ARNOLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clinton-or-arnold)
[CLOSED MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/closed-membership)
[CLOTHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clothing)
[COLLECTIVISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/collectivism)
[COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/college)
[COLLIER | BERKSHIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/collier-or-berkshire)
[COMFORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/comfort)
[COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/commandment)
[COMMENTARIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/commentaries)
[COMMUNICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/communication)
[COMMUNIO SANCTORUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/communio-sanctorum)
[COMMUNITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/community)
[COMPLACENCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/complacency)
[COMPOSITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/composition)
[COMPROMISE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/compromise)
[CONCESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/concession)
[CONCILIARISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conciliarism)
[CONFERENCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conferences)
[CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/confession-of-faith)
[CONFESSIONS OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/confessions-of-faith)
[CONGREGATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregation)
[CONGREGATIONAL MUSIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregational-music)
[CONGREGATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregationalism)
[CONRAD | GREBEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conrad-or-grebel)
[CONRAD | HERTZLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conrad-or-hertzler)
[CONSERVATIVE MENNONITE CHURCH OF ONTARIO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conservative-mennonite-church-of-ontario)
[CONSERVATIVE VERSUS LIBERAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conservative-versus-liberal)
[CONTENTMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contentment)
[CONTEXTUALIZATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contextualization)
[CONTRADICTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contradiction)
[CONVERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conversion)
[CONVICTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/convictions)
[CORNELIS | RIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornelis-or-ris)
[CORNELIUS J. | DYCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornelius-j-or-dyck)
[CORNES | ANDREW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornes-or-andrew)
[CORPUS CHRISTIANUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/corpus-christianum)
[CORPUS PERMIXTUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/corpus-permixtum)
[CORY | ANDERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cory-or-anderson)
[COUNCIL OF TRENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/council-of-trent)
[COUNSELLING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/counselling)
[COVENANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant)
[COVENANT FORMULA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-formula)
[COVENANT SIGN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-sign)
[COVENANT THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-theological-seminary)
[CRAIG | BLOMBERG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-or-blomberg)
[CRAIG A. | BLAISING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-a-or-blaising)
[CRAIG S. | KEENER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-s-or-keener)
[CREATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/creation)
[CREDOBAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/credobaptism)
[CROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cross)
[CROSS-CULTURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cross-cultural)
[CROWDFUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/crowdfunding)
[CRUCIFIXION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/crucifixion)
[CUBITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cubits)
[CULTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cults)
[CULTURAL DIFFERENCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cultural-differences)
[CULTURAL ELITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cultural-elites)
[CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/culture)
[CURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cure)
[CURES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cures)
[CURIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/curialism)
[CURSE OF HAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/curse-of-ham)
[CYNTHIA LONG | WESTFALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cynthia-long-or-westfall)
[CYPRIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cyprian)
[CYRUS INGERSON | SCOFIELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cyrus-ingerson-or-scofield)
D
-
[D. B. | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/d-b-or-martin)
[D.A. | CARSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/da-or-carson)
[DALE C. | ALLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dale-c-or-allison)
[DALE RALPH | DAVIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dale-ralph-or-davis)
[DAMNATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/damnation)
[DANIEL | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-or-kauffman)
[DANTE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dante)
[DARKNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/darkness)
[DARRELL L. | BOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/darrell-l-or-bock)
[DARYL | WINGERD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daryl-or-wingerd)
[DAVID | BENNET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-bennet)
[DAVID | BERCOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-bercot)
[DAVID | FREY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-frey)
[DAVID | GARLAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-garland)
[DAVID | GUSHEE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-gushee)
[DAVID | HOWARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-howard)
[DAVID | INSTONE-BREWER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-instone-brewer)
[DAVID | KLINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-kline)
[DAVID | PETERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-peterson)
[DAVID | POWLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-powlison)
[DAVID | ROBERTSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-robertson)
[DAVID | STARLING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-starling)
[DAVID | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-wenham)
[DAVID A. | DESILVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-a-or-desilva)
[DAVID AND GOLIATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-and-goliath)
[DAVID W. | PAO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-w-or-pao)
[DAVIDIC DYNASTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/davidic-dynasty)
[DEAN | TAYLOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dean-or-taylor)
[DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/death)
[DECALOGUE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/decalogue)
[DECEPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deception)
[DECISIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/decisions)
[DELIVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deliver)
[DENNIS | MCCALLUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dennis-or-mccallum)
[DENOMINATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/denominations)
[DENVER SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/denver-seminary)
[DEPOSIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deposit)
[DEPRESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/depression)
[DER HEROLD DER WAHRHEIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/der-herold-der-wahrheit)
[DEREK | DEMARS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/derek-or-demars)
[DES MOINES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/des-moines)
[DESIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/desire)
[DESTINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/destination)
[DETERMINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/determination)
[DEVOTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/devotion)
[DGO POLLS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dgo-polls)
[DGO WEBSITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dgo-website)
[DIET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diet)
[DIRK | PHILIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dirk-or-philips)
[DISABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/disability)
[DISCIPLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/disciples)
[DISCIPLESHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/discipleship)
[DISEASES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diseases)
[DISPENSATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dispensation)
[DISPENSATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dispensationalism)
[DISTRESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/distress)
[DIVERSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diversity)
[DIVINE NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divine-nature)
[DIVINE PASSIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divine-passive)
[DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce)
[DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-and-remarriage)
[DIVORCE CAUSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-causes)
[DIVORCE EVIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-evil)
[DIVORCE-ONLY VIEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-only-view)
[DOCETISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/docetism)
[DOGMATICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dogmatics)
[DOMINICAN REPUBLIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dominican-republic)
[DONALD | GUTHRIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-or-guthrie)
[DONALD | MADER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-or-mader)
[DONALD A. | HAGNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-a-or-hagner)
[DORDRECHT CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dordrecht-confession-of-faith)
[DOUGLAS | HARPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-or-harper)
[DOUGLAS | STUART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-or-stuart)
[DOUGLAS J. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-j-or-green)
[DOUGLAS J. | MOO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-j-or-moo)
[DOWNSVIEW STATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/downsview-station)
[DRIFT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/drift)
[DURA-EUROPOS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dura-europos)
[DWIGHT L. | MOODY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dwight-l-or-moody)
E
-
[EARLY CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/early-church)
[EARTHLY KINGDOMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/earthly-kingdoms)
[EASTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/easter)
[ECCLESIA CATHOLICA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesia-catholica)
[ECCLESIA SEMPRE REFORMANDA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesia-sempre-reformanda)
[ECKHARD J. | SCHABEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eckhard-j-or-schabel)
[ECUMENISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecumenism)
[EDUCATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/education)
[EDWARD W. III | KLINK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/edward-w-iii-or-klink)
[EHEBRUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ehebruch)
[EKKLESIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ekklesia)
[ELAINE | PHILLIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elaine-or-phillips)
[ELBING CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elbing-catechism)
[ELECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/election)
[ELI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eli)
[ELIJAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elijah)
[ELIZABETH | BENDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elizabeth-or-bender)
[ELMER | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elmer-or-smucker)
[EMILY | HALLOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emily-or-hallock)
[EMMANUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emmanuel)
[EMOTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emotions)
[ENCOURAGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/encouragement)
[ENDURANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/endurance)
[ENGLISH LANGUAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/english-language)
[ENOCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/enoch)
[ENTRUST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/entrust)
[ENVIRONMENTALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/environmentalism)
[EPHESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesus)
[EPISTEMOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/epistemology)
[ERASTIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/erastianism)
[ERNEST | STRUBHAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernest-or-strubhar)
[ERNEST A. | PAYNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernest-a-or-payne)
[ERNST H. | CORRELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernst-h-or-correll)
[ESCHATOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eschatology)
[ESSAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/essay)
[ESSENES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/essenes)
[ESV AUDIO BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esv-audio-bible)
[ESV STUDY BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esv-study-bible)
[ETERNAL SECURITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eternal-security)
[ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ethics)
[EUGENE H. | MERRILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eugene-h-or-merrill)
[EUNUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eunuch)
[EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN CREDIT UNION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-christian-credit-union)
[EVANGELICAL MENNONITE BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-mennonite-brethren)
[EVANGELICAL RATIONALISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-rationalists)
[EVANGELICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelicals)
[EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelism)
[EVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eve)
[EVERETT | FERGUSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/everett-or-ferguson)
[EVERETT | FOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/everett-or-fox)
[EXAGGERATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exaggeration)
[EXAMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/example)
[EXCEPTION CLAUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exception-clause)
[EXCEPTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exceptions)
[EXPERIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/experience)
[EXPOSITIONAL SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/expositional-sermons)
[EXTRAVAGANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/extravagance)
F
-
[FACEBOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/facebook)
[FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith)
[FAITH AND WORKS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith-and-works)
[FAITH BUILDERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith-builders)
[FAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faithfulness)
[FALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fall)
[FALSE TEACHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/false-teachers)
[FAMILIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/familification)
[FAMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family)
[FAMILY DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-day)
[FAMILY DEVOTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-devotions)
[FAMILY OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-of-god)
[FAMILY TIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-ties)
[FAREWELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/farewell)
[FARMING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/farming)
[FASHION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fashion)
[FATHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/father)
[FATHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fathers)
[FEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fear)
[FEAR NOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fear-not)
[FEDERAL HEADSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/federal-headship)
[FELIX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/felix)
[FELIX | MANTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/felix-or-mantz)
[FELLOWSHIP OF CONCERNED MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fellowship-of-concerned-mennonites)
[FEMALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/female)
[FIDDLER ON THE ROOF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fiddler-on-the-roof)
[FINAL JUDGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/final-judgement)
[FINAL JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/final-judgment)
[FINNY | KURUVILLA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/finny-or-kuruvilla)
[FIRST CAUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/first-cause)
[FIRSTBORN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/firstborn)
[FLAT BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flat-bible)
[FLAVIUS | JOSEPHUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flavius-or-josephus)
[FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flesh)
[FLOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flood)
[FLOWERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flowers)
[FLOYD | MCCLUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/floyd-or-mcclung)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHURCH ATLANTA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus-church-atlanta)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus-mennonite-church)
[FOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/food)
[FOREKNOWLEDGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/foreknowledge)
[FORGIVENESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/forgiveness)
[FORNICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fornication)
[FORUM FOR DOCTRINAL STUDIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/forum-for-doctrinal-studies)
[FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/foundation-of-christian-doctrine)
[FRANCISCANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/franciscans)
[FRANK | VIOLA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frank-or-viola)
[FRANKENTHAL DISPUTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frankenthal-disputation)
[FREDERICK DALE | BRUNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frederick-dale-or-bruner)
[FREE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/free)
[FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/freedom)
[FRIEND OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/friend-of-god)
[FRIENDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/friends)
[FROM THE BEGINNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/from-the-beginning)
[FROSCHAUER BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/froschauer-bible)
[FRUIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fruit)
[FRUSTRATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frustration)
[FUNDAMENTALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fundamentalism)
G
-
[G. EDWIN | BONTRAGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/g-edwin-or-bontrager)
[G. THOMAS | HOBSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/g-thomas-or-hobson)
[G.H. | WILLIAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gh-or-williams)
[G.K. | BEALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gk-or-beale)
[G.K. | CHESTERTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gk-or-chesterton)
[GAMALIEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gamaliel)
[GARDEN OF EDEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/garden-of-eden)
[GARETH L. | COCKERILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gareth-l-or-cockerill)
[GARRY | FRIESEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/garry-or-friesen)
[GARY | BURGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gary-or-burge)
[GATHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gather)
[GEMEINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gemeine)
[GENDER DISTINCTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gender-distinction)
[GENDER ROLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gender-roles)
[GENE L. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gene-l-or-green)
[GENERAL CONFERENCE MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/general-conference-mennonite-church)
[GENERALIZATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/generalizations)
[GENEROSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/generosity)
[GENEVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geneva)
[GENEVA BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geneva-bible)
[GEOFF | ASHLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geoff-or-ashley)
[GEORGE | GOLDMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-or-goldman)
[GEORGE | GUTHRIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-or-guthrie)
[GEORGE H. | WILLIAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-h-or-william)
[GEORGE H. | WILLIAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-h-or-williams)
[GEORGE R. | BRUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-r-or-brunk)
[GERARD MANLEY | HOPKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gerard-manley-or-hopkins)
[GERHARD | ROOSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gerhard-or-roosen)
[GETHSEMANE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gethsemane)
[GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gifts)
[GILLIS | VAN AACHEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gillis-or-van-aachen)
[GIVING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/giving)
[GLEN | MAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/glen-or-mast)
[GLORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/glory)
[GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/god)
[GOD'S WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gods-will)
[GODLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/godliness)
[GODS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gods)
[GOLDEN APPLES IN SILVER BOWLS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/golden-apples-in-silver-bowls)
[GOLDEN RULE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/golden-rule)
[GOMORRAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gomorrah)
[GOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good)
[GOOD SHEPHERD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good-shepherd)
[GOOD WORK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good-work)
[GOODBYE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodbye)
[GOODNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodness)
[GOODNESS OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodness-of-god)
[GORDAN | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordan-or-wenham)
[GORDON | FEE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-or-fee)
[GORDON | HUGENBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-or-hugenberger)
[GORDON J. | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-j-or-wenham)
[GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel)
[GOSPEL ECHOES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-echoes)
[GOSPEL OF MATTHEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-of-matthew)
[GOSPEL WITNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-witness)
[GOVERNMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/government)
[GRACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grace)
[GRACE GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grace-gifts)
[GRACIOUSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/graciousness)
[GRAMMAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grammar)
[GRANDCHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandchildren)
[GRANDDAUGHTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/granddaughter)
[GRANDMOTHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandmother)
[GRANDPARENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandparents)
[GRANT | OSBORNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grant-or-osborne)
[GRATITUDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gratitude)
[GREAT COMMISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/great-commission)
[GREED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greed)
[GREEK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greek)
[GREEK ORTHODOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greek-orthodox)
[GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/green)
[GREGG R. | ALLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gregg-r-or-allison)
[GRETCHEN | BASKERVILLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gretchen-or-baskerville)
[GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grounds-for-divorce)
[GROWTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/growth)
[GUIDANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/guidance)
[GULLIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gullible)
[GUY | DUTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/guy-or-duty)
H
-
[H. VAN DYCK | PARUNAK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/h-van-dyck-or-parunak)
[HAITI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/haiti)
[HALLOCK | EMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hallock-or-emily)
[HANS | BUSSCHAERT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-busschaert)
[HANS | DE RIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-de-ries)
[HANS | DENCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-denck)
[HARD SAYINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hard-sayings)
[HARDEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harden)
[HARDNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hardness)
[HARDNESS OF HEART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hardness-of-heart)
[HARMONIZE SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harmonize-scripture)
[HAROLD S. | BENDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harold-s-or-bender)
[HAROLD W. | HOEHNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harold-w-or-hoehner)
[HATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hate)
[HEAD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/head)
[HEAD COVERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/head-covering)
[HEALING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/healing)
[HEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hear)
[HEART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heart)
[HEARTS AND VOICES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hearts-and-voices)
[HEAVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heaven)
[HEAVENLY PLACES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heavenly-places)
[HEBREW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrew)
[HEBREWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews)
[HEINRICH | EBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heinrich-or-eby)
[HELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hell)
[HELMUT | THIELICKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/helmut-or-thielicke)
[HELP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/help)
[HENRI J.M. | NOUWEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/henri-jm-or-nouwen)
[HENRY VIII](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/henry-viii)
[HERALD OF TRUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/herald-of-truth)
[HERESY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heresy)
[HERMAN | VAN TIELT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/herman-or-van-tielt)
[HERMENEUTIC ROUNDABOUT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermeneutic-roundabout)
[HERMENEUTICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermeneutics)
[HERMIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermit)
[HETEROSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heterosexuality)
[HIDDEN CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hidden-church)
[HILDEGARD OF BINGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hildegard-of-bingen)
[HILLEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hillel)
[HISTORICAL CONTEXT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-context)
[HISTORICAL EVIDENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-evidence)
[HISTORICAL JESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-jesus)
[HISTORICAL PRECEDENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-precedent)
[HISTORIOGRAPHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historiography)
[HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/history)
[HISTORY OF RELIGIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/history-of-religions)
[HOC EST CORPUS MEUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hoc-est-corpus-meum)
[HOLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holiness)
[HOLY KISS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-kiss)
[HOLY SATURDAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-saturday)
[HOLY SPIRIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-spirit)
[HOLY WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-war)
[HOMELESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homelessness)
[HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homosexuality)
[HOMOSEXUALITY AND ANCIENT JEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homosexuality-and-ancient-jews)
[HONOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/honor)
[HOPE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hope)
[HOSPITALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hospitality)
[HOUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/house)
[HOUSE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/house-church)
[HOUSEHOLD OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/household-of-god)
[HOUSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/houses)
[HOW FIRM A FOUNDATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/how-firm-a-foundation)
[HOW LONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/how-long)
[HOYTE | RIENCX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hoyte-or-riencx)
[HULDRYCH | ZWINGLI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/huldrych-or-zwingli)
[HUMAN NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/human-nature)
[HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/human-responsibility)
[HUMILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/humility)
[HUMOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/humor)
[HUREREI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hurerei)
[HUSBANDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/husbands)
[HUTTERITE CHRONICLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hutterite-chronicle)
[HUTTERITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hutterites)
[HYMNALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hymnals)
[HYPER-LITERALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hyper-literalism)
[HYPOCRISY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hypocrisy)
[HYPOPITUITARISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hypopituitarism)
I
-
[I. HOWARD | MARSHALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/i-howard-or-marshall)
[IAIN W. | PROVAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/iain-w-or-provan)
[IAN | BOXALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ian-or-boxall)
[IDEALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/idealism)
[IDENTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/identity)
[IDOLATRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/idolatry)
[III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/iii)
[IMAGE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/image-of-god)
[IMAGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/images)
[IMITATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/imitate)
[IMITATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/imitation)
[IMMANUEL | JAKOBOVITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immanuel-or-jakobovits)
[IMMERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immersion)
[IMMUTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immutability)
[IMPLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/implications)
[IN THE SIGHT OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/in-the-sight-of-god)
[IN THREE DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/in-three-days)
[INCARNATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/incarnation)
[INCEST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/incest)
[INDEFECTIBILITY OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indefectibility-of-faith)
[INDEFECTIBILITY OF GRACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indefectibility-of-grace)
[INDISPENSABLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indispensable)
[INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indissolubility-of-marriage)
[INDISSOLUBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indissoluble)
[INDIVIDUALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/individualism)
[INERRANCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/inerrancy)
[INFANT BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/infant-baptism)
[INFINITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/infinity)
[INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/insiders-and-outsiders)
[INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/inspiration-of-scripture)
[INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/institutes-of-the-christian-religion)
[INTEGRITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/integrity)
[INTELLECT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intellect)
[INTENTIONAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intentional)
[INTEREST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/interest)
[INTERMEDIATE STATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intermediate-state)
[INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/international-students)
[INTIMATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intimate)
[INVISIBLE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/invisible-church)
[IRA D. | LANDIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ira-d-or-landis)
[IRENAEUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/irenaeus)
[IRONY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/irony)
[ISAAC | WATTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaac-or-watts)
[ISRAEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israel)
[ISRAEL OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israel-of-god)
[ISRAEL'S HARDENING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israels-hardening)
[ISRAEL'S JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israels-judgment)
J
-
[J. ALEC | MOTYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-alec-or-motyer)
[J. CARL | LANEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-carl-or-laney)
[J. GORDON | MCCONVILLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-gordon-or-mcconville)
[J. GORDON | MELTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-gordon-or-melton)
[J. HOWARD | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-howard-or-kauffman)
[J. LOUIS | MARTYN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-louis-or-martyn)
[J. P. | MEIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-p-or-meier)
[J. PAUL | GRAYBILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-paul-or-graybill)
[J. RAMSEY | MICHAELS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-ramsey-or-michaels)
[J.A. | OOSTERBAAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ja-or-oosterbaan)
[J.C. | WAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jc-or-wand)
[J.C. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jc-or-wenger)
[J.M. | VINCENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jm-or-vincent)
[JACK | DEERE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jack-or-deere)
[JACOB | AMMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-ammann)
[JACOB | ARMINIUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-arminius)
[JACOB | JANSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-jansz)
[JACOB | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-stauffer)
[JACOB | VAN LIESVELDT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-van-liesveldt)
[JACOB D. | GOERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-d-or-goering)
[JAMES | EDWARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-or-edwards)
[JAMES | USSHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-or-ussher)
[JAMES D. | DVORAK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-d-or-dvorak)
[JAMES R. | EDWARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-r-or-edwards)
[JAN | GLEYSTEEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jan-or-gleysteen)
[JAPHETH | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/japheth-or-stauffer)
[JASON | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jason-or-kauffman)
[JAY E. | ADAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jay-e-or-adams)
[JEALOUSY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jealousy)
[JEANNINE K. | BROWN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeannine-k-or-brown)
[JENNIFER | FOUTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jennifer-or-foutz)
[JEREMY | BOUMA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremy-or-bouma)
[JERRY | FALWELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-falwell)
[JERRY | JONES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-jones)
[JERRY | SITTSER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-sittser)
[JESSE | KROPF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesse-or-kropf)
[JESUS AND DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-divorce)
[JESUS AND HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-homosexuality)
[JESUS AND LOVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-love)
[JESUS' EXAMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-example)
[JESUS' WORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-words)
[JEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jews)
[JIM | CHRISMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jim-or-chrisman)
[JIM | ELLIFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jim-or-elliff)
[JOACHIM OF FIORE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joachim-of-fiore)
[JOCHEBED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jochebed)
[JOE A. | SPRINGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joe-a-or-springer)
[JOEL B. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joel-b-or-green)
[JOHN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john)
[JOHN | BARCLAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-barclay)
[JOHN | BRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-bright)
[JOHN | CALVIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-calvin)
[JOHN | CHRYSOSTOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-chrysostom)
[JOHN | COBLENTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-coblentz)
[JOHN | DICKSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-dickson)
[JOHN | DONNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-donne)
[JOHN | FOXE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-foxe)
[JOHN | HARRISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-harrison)
[JOHN | HOLDEMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-holdeman)
[JOHN | HOOPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-hooper)
[JOHN | HORSCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-horsch)
[JOHN | HUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-hus)
[JOHN | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-johnson)
[JOHN | MACARTHUR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-macarthur)
[JOHN | MCNEILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-mcneill)
[JOHN | MCRAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-mcray)
[JOHN | OSWALT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-oswalt)
[JOHN | OWEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-owen)
[JOHN | PERKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-perkins)
[JOHN | PIPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-piper)
[JOHN | WYCLIF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-wyclif)
[JOHN A. | HOSTETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-a-or-hostetler)
[JOHN C. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-c-or-wenger)
[JOHN D. | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-d-or-martin)
[JOHN D. | ROTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-d-or-roth)
[JOHN E. | TOEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-e-or-toews)
[JOHN F. | FUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-f-or-funk)
[JOHN H. | SAILHAMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-h-or-sailhamer)
[JOHN H. | WALTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-h-or-walton)
[JOHN HOWARD | YODER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-howard-or-yoder)
[JOHN L. | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-l-or-stauffer)
[JOHN LANDIS | RUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-landis-or-ruth)
[JOHN M. | BRENNEMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-m-or-brenneman)
[JOHN NELSON | DARBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-nelson-or-darby)
[JOHN P. | MEIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-p-or-meier)
[JOHN S. | COFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-s-or-coffman)
[JOHN THE BAPTIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-the-baptist)
[JOIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/join)
[JONADAB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonadab)
[JONAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah)
[JOSEPH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph)
[JOSEPH | FUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-or-funk)
[JOSEPH | NEILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-or-neill)
[JOSEPH A. | WEBB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-a-or-webb)
[JOSEPH F. | SOHM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-f-or-sohm)
[JOSEPH H. | HELLERMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-h-or-hellerman)
[JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-of-arimathea)
[JOSEPHUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/josephus)
[JOY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joy)
[JR.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jr)
[JUDAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judas)
[JUDEO-CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judeo-christian)
[JUDGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges)
[JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judgment)
[JUDITH C. | AREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judith-c-or-areen)
[JUST WAR THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/just-war-theory)
[JUSTICE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justice)
[JUSTIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justification)
[JUSTIN MARTYR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justin-martyr)
K
-
[KAREN H. | JOBES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/karen-h-or-jobes)
[KARL | KOOP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/karl-or-koop)
[KATHERINE | DUNBABIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/katherine-or-dunbabin)
[KEN | BRUBACHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ken-or-brubacher)
[KEN | GIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ken-or-gire)
[KENNETH E. | BAILEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kenneth-e-or-bailey)
[KENNY | WOOLMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kenny-or-woolman)
[KEVIN | DEYOUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kevin-or-deyoung)
[KINDNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kindness)
[KING JAMES VERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/king-james-version)
[KINGDOM OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kingdom-of-god)
[KINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kings)
[KINGSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kingship)
[KINSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kinship)
[KIRCHE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kirche)
[KISS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kiss)
[KLEINE GEMEINDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kleine-gemeinde)
[KLYNE R. | SNODGRASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/klyne-r-or-snodgrass)
[KNOWLEDGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/knowledge)
[KYLE | HARPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kyle-or-harper)
[KYLE | ROBERTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kyle-or-roberts)
L
-
[LAITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/laity)
[LARRY | KREIDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/larry-or-kreider)
[LAST DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/last-days)
[LAW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law)
[LAW AND THE CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law-and-the-christian)
[LAW OF MOSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law-of-moses)
[LAWLESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lawlessness)
[LAZARUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lazarus)
[LEADERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leaders)
[LEARNERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/learners)
[LEAVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leaves)
[LEENAERT | BOUWENS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leenaert-or-bouwens)
[LEGALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/legalism)
[LELAND D. | HARDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leland-d-or-harder)
[LEONARD | GROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leonard-or-gross)
[LEONARD | VERDUIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leonard-or-verduin)
[LETTING GO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/letting-go)
[LEVITICAL PRIESTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/levitical-priests)
[LIBERATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/liberation)
[LIBRARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/library)
[LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/life)
[LIFESPAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lifespan)
[LIFESTYLE EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lifestyle-evangelism)
[LIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/light)
[LIGHT OF THE WORLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/light-of-the-world)
[LINFORD | BERRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/linford-or-berry)
[LIVING WATER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/living-water)
[LIVING WORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/living-word)
[LOGIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/logic)
[LOOPHOLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loophole)
[LORD'S DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-day)
[LORD'S PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-prayer)
[LORD'S SUPPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-supper)
[LORDING OVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lording-over)
[LORRAINE | JANZEN KOOISTRA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lorraine-or-janzen-kooistra)
[LOSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loss)
[LOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lot)
[LOU | PRIOLO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lou-or-priolo)
[LOUIS | MCBRIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/louis-or-mcbride)
[LOVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love)
[LOVE AND SEXUAL ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-and-sexual-ethics)
[LOVE FEASTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-feasts)
[LOVE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-of-god)
[LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-your-neighbor)
[LOWELL | HERSCHBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lowell-or-herschberger)
[LOYALTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loyalty)
[LUDWIG | HAETZER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ludwig-or-haetzer)
[LUKE TIMOTHY | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-timothy-or-johnson)
M
-
[MAGISTERIAL REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/magisterial-reformation)
[MALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/male)
[MANNA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/manna)
[MARC | CORTEZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marc-or-cortez)
[MARGARET | AVISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/margaret-or-avison)
[MARK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark)
[MARK | DEVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-or-dever)
[MARK A. | ELLIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-a-or-ellis)
[MARK A. | SEIFRID](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-a-or-seifrid)
[MARK R. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-r-or-wenger)
[MARK S. | SWEETNAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-s-or-sweetnam)
[MARKS OF THE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marks-of-the-church)
[MARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marriage)
[MARRIAGE CONTRACT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marriage-contract)
[MARTIN | LUTHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martin-or-luther)
[MARTIN | SELMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martin-or-selman)
[MARTYRS MIRROR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martyrs-mirror)
[MARVIN | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marvin-or-kauffman)
[MARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mary)
[MARY OF BETHANY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mary-of-bethany)
[MATERIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/materialism)
[MATTHEW | VINES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-or-vines)
[MATTHIAS | OVERHOLT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthias-or-overholt)
[MAX | GÖBEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/max-or-gobel)
[MEANING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meaning)
[MEAT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meat)
[MEETING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meeting)
[MEGAN | PHELPS-ROPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/megan-or-phelps-roper)
[MELCHIZEDEK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/melchizedek)
[MELVIN | GINGERICH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/melvin-or-gingerich)
[MENNO | SIMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/menno-or-simons)
[MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mennonite-church)
[MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mennonites)
[MENTAL HEALTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mental-health)
[MENTORING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mentoring)
[MERCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mercy)
[MERIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/merit)
[MERLE | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/merle-or-burkholder)
[MESSENGER FORMULA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messenger-formula)
[MESSIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messiah)
[MESSIANIC PSALMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messianic-psalms)
[MICAIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micaiah)
[MICHAEL | GLASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-glass)
[MICHAEL | LAWRENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-lawrence)
[MICHAEL | SATTLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-sattler)
[MICHAEL J. | WILKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-j-or-wilkins)
[MICROLOANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/microloans)
[MIDDLE AGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/middle-ages)
[MIDLIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midlife)
[MIDRASH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midrash)
[MIDWEST FELLOWSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midwest-fellowship)
[MIKE | ATNIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mike-or-atnip)
[MILK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/milk)
[MILLENNIUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/millennium)
[MILO | ZEHR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/milo-or-zehr)
[MIRACLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miracles)
[MIRIAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miriam)
[MIRIAM | IWASHIGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miriam-or-iwashige)
[MISHNAH-SANHEDRIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mishnah-sanhedrin)
[MISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mission)
[MISSIONARY SUPPORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missionary-support)
[MISSIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missions)
[MISSIONS FUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missions-funding)
[MOISES | SILVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moises-or-silva)
[MONEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/money)
[MONEY TRANSFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/money-transfer)
[MONOTHEISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/monotheism)
[MONTBÉLIARD MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/montbeliard-mennonite-church)
[MORALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moralism)
[MORNA | HOOKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/morna-or-hooker)
[MOSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moses)
[MOZART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mozart)
[MULTICULTURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/multicultural)
[MÜNSTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/munster)
[MURRAY J. | HARRIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/murray-j-or-harris)
[MUSIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/music)
[MUSLIMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/muslims)
[MY BONE AND MY FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/my-bone-and-my-flesh)
N
-
[N.T. | WRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-or-wright)
[NABEEL | QURESHI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nabeel-or-qureshi)
[NAME OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/name-of-god)
[NANNE | VAN DER ZIJPP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nanne-or-van-der-zijpp)
[NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/national-association-of-evangelicals)
[NATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nationalism)
[NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nature)
[NEIGHBORS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/neighbors)
[NEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new)
[NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-american-commentary)
[NEW COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-commandment)
[NEW COVENANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-covenant)
[NEW EARTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-earth)
[NEW ENGLAND PRIMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-england-primer)
[NEW HEAVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-heaven)
[NEW HORIZONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-horizons)
[NEW JERUSALEM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-jerusalem)
[NEW TESTAMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-testament)
[NICENE CREED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nicene-creed)
[NICHOLAS | BIESTKENS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nicholas-or-biestkens)
[NINEVEH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nineveh)
[NIV](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/niv)
[NIV ZONDERVAN STUDY BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/niv-zondervan-study-bible)
[NOAH'S ARK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noahs-ark)
[NOBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noble)
[NON-VIOLENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/non-violence)
[NONCOMFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noncomformity)
[NONCONFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nonconformity)
[NONRESISTANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nonresistance)
[NORM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/norm)
[NORMAN | TROYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/norman-or-troyer)
[NOURISHMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nourishment)
[NT PRACTICES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-practices)
[NT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-theology)
[NT USE OF OT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-use-of-ot)
O
-
[O.M. | BAKKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/om-or-bakke)
[OATHS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/oaths)
[OBEDIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/obedience)
[OBITUARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/obituary)
[OLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/old)
[OLD COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/old-commandment)
[OLIVE TREE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/olive-tree)
[OMNISCIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/omniscience)
[ON THE RESURRECTION MORNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/on-the-resurrection-morning)
[ON THE THIRD DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/on-the-third-day)
[ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/once-saved-always-saved)
[ONE FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/one-flesh)
[OPEN HANDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/open-hands)
[OPEN MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/open-membership)
[ORDINANCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ordinances)
[ORIGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/origen)
[ORIGIN STORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/origin-story)
[ORIGINAL SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/original-sin)
[OT NARRATIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ot-narrative)
[OT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ot-theology)
[OVER-REALIZED ESCHATOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/over-realized-eschatology)
P
-
[PACIFISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pacifism)
[PAEDOBAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paedobaptism)
[PAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pain)
[PALM SUNDAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/palm-sunday)
[PAPACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/papacy)
[PARABLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parable)
[PARABLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parables)
[PARENTHOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parenthood)
[PARENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parents)
[PARTICIPATORY CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/participatory-church)
[PASTOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pastor)
[PASTORAL CONCERNS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pastoral-concerns)
[PATRIOTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/patriotism)
[PAUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul)
[PAUL | BARKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-barker)
[PAUL | EMERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-emerson)
[PAUL | OESTREICHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-oestreicher)
[PAUL AND DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-and-divorce)
[PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-and-homosexuality)
[PAUL S. | MINEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-s-or-minear)
[PEACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peace)
[PEACEMAKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peacemaker)
[PEDERASTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pederasty)
[PELAGIUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pelagius)
[PENAL SUBSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/penal-substitution)
[PENTECOST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pentecost)
[PEOPLE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/people-of-god)
[PERFECT TENSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perfect-tense)
[PERRY | YODER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perry-or-yoder)
[PERSECUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/persecution)
[PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perseverance-of-the-saints)
[PERSPECTIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perspective)
[PET PEEVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pet-peeves)
[PETER | ADAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-adam)
[PETER | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-burkholder)
[PETER | DAMIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-damian)
[PETER | REIDEMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-reidemann)
[PETER | SANLON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-sanlon)
[PETER | WALPOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-walpot)
[PETER J. | KLASSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-j-or-klassen)
[PETER J. | TWISCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-j-or-twisck)
[PETER T. | O'BRIEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-t-or-obrien)
[PHARISEES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pharisees)
[PHIL | KEAGGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phil-or-keaggy)
[PHILIP E. | SATTERTHWAITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philip-e-or-satterthwaite)
[PHILLIP | LONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phillip-or-long)
[PHILLIP | SIGAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phillip-or-sigal)
[PHILO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philo)
[PHYSICIAN OF THE SOUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/physician-of-the-soul)
[PICTURE SMART BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/picture-smart-bible)
[PIETER | PIETERSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pieter-or-pietersz)
[PILGRIMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pilgrims)
[PLANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plants)
[PLATO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plato)
[PLAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/play)
[PLEASED GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pleased-god)
[PLINY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pliny)
[PLUTO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pluto)
[PLYMOUTH BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plymouth-brethren)
[POETRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/poetry)
[POLITICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/politics)
[POLYCARP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/polycarp)
[POPE BONIFACE VIII](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-boniface-viii)
[POPE GREGORY III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-gregory-iii)
[POPE PAUL VI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-paul-vi)
[POPE PIUS II](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-pius-ii)
[POPE SYLVESTER I](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-sylvester-i)
[PORNEIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/porneia)
[POSTMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/postmillennialism)
[POVERTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/poverty)
[POWER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/power)
[POWERLESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/powerlessness)
[PRAGMATISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pragmatism)
[PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prayer)
[PREACHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preaching)
[PREDESTINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/predestination)
[PREMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/premillennialism)
[PRESENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/presence)
[PRESERVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preservation)
[PRESTON | SPRINKLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preston-or-sprinkle)
[PRIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pride)
[PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priesthood-of-all-believers)
[PRIESTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priests)
[PRIMARY WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/primary-will)
[PRIORITIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priorities)
[PRISON MINISTRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prison-ministry)
[PROBLEM CHRISTIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/problem-christians)
[PROCLAIM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proclaim)
[PROFESSIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/professions)
[PROHIBITIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prohibitions)
[PROMISED LAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/promised-land)
[PRONOUN REFERENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pronoun-referents)
[PROOF-TEXTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proof-texts)
[PROPHECY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prophecy)
[PROPHET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prophet)
[PROSPERITY GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prosperity-gospel)
[PROSTITUTE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prostitute)
[PROSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prostitution)
[PROTESTANT REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/protestant-reformation)
[PROTESTANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/protestants)
[PROVISION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/provision)
[PSALMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalms)
[PSEUDO-PHOCYLIDES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pseudo-phocylides)
[PURGATORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/purgatory)
[PURITANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/puritans)
[PURPOSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/purpose)
Q
-
[QUEBEC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/quebec)
[QUIET IN THE LAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/quiet-in-the-land)
R
-
[R. TODD | MANGUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/r-todd-or-mangum)
[R.T. | FRANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rt-or-france)
[RABBI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rabbi)
[RABBI ELEAZAR BEN AZARIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rabbi-eleazar-ben-azariah)
[RAD | ZDERO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rad-or-zdero)
[RADI-CALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radi-call)
[RADICAL FAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-faithfulness)
[RADICAL FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-freedom)
[RADICAL PERMANENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-permanence)
[RADICAL REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-reformation)
[RAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rain)
[RANDALL | BUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/randall-or-buth)
[RANDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/random)
[RANDY | ALCORN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/randy-or-alcorn)
[RANSOM THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ransom-theory)
[RAPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rapture)
[RAT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rat)
[RAYMOND | DILLARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-or-dillard)
[RAYMOND C. | ORTLUND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-c-or-ortlund)
[RAYMOND F. | COLLINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-f-or-collins)
[READING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reading)
[REALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/realism)
[REASON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reason)
[REBUKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rebuke)
[RECEIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/receive)
[RECHABITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rechabites)
[RECONCILIATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reconciliation)
[RED LETTERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/red-letters)
[REDEMPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/redemption)
[REDEMPTIVE MOVEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/redemptive-movement)
[REDUCTIONISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reductionism)
[REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reformation)
[REFORMED THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reformed-theology)
[REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/regulative-principle)
[RELATIONSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/relationship)
[RELATIONSHIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/relationships)
[RENEWAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/renewal)
[REPENTANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/repentance)
[REPETITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/repetition)
[REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/replacement-theology)
[REPRESENTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/representation)
[RESTORATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/restoration)
[RESTORATIONISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/restorationism)
[RESURRECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/resurrection)
[REVELATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation)
[REVOLUTIONARY WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revolutionary-war)
[RICH | MULLINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rich-or-mullins)
[RICHARD | BAXTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-baxter)
[RICHARD | KLAUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-klaus)
[RICHARD | SCHWARTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-schwartz)
[RICHARD | SHOWALTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-showalter)
[RICHARD B. | HAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-b-or-hays)
[RICHARD K. | MACMASTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-k-or-macmaster)
[RICHARD S. | HESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-s-or-hess)
[ROBERT | FRIEDMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-friedmann)
[ROBERT | GAGNON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-gagnon)
[ROBERT | ROBINSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-robinson)
[ROBERT | STEIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-stein)
[ROBERT B. | CHISHOLM JR.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-b-or-chisholm-jr)
[ROBERT H. | STEIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-h-or-stein)
[ROBERT J. | MORGAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-j-or-morgan)
[ROD | DREHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rod-or-dreher)
[ROD AND STAFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rod-and-staff)
[RODNEY | DECKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rodney-or-decker)
[RODNEY | TROYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rodney-or-troyer)
[ROLAND | ALLEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roland-or-allen)
[ROLLIN G. | GRAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rollin-g-or-grams)
[ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roman-catholic-church)
[ROOSEN'S CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roosens-catechism)
[ROSARIA | BUTTERFIELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rosaria-or-butterfield)
[ROY E. | CIAMPA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roy-e-or-ciampa)
[RUBEL | SHELLY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rubel-or-shelly)
[RUDNERWEIDE CONFESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rudnerweide-confession)
[RULES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rules)
[RURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rural)
[RURAL ANABAPTIST TRANSLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rural-anabaptist-translation)
[RUSSIAN DOLL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/russian-doll)
S
-
[S. DONALD | FORTSON III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/s-donald-or-fortson-iii)
[SABBATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sabbath)
[SABINE | BARING-GOULD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sabine-or-baring-gould)
[SACRAMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacraments)
[SACRED AND SECULAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacred-and-secular)
[SACRED SPACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacred-space)
[SALVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/salvation)
[SAM | STORMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sam-or-storms)
[SAME-SEX ATTRACTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/same-sex-attraction)
[SAMSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samson)
[SAMUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel)
[SAMUEL | MEDLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel-or-medley)
[SAMUEL J. | STEINER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel-j-or-steiner)
[SANCTIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sanctification)
[SANFORD G. | SHETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sanford-g-or-shetler)
[SAP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sap)
[SARAH | BESSEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sarah-or-bessey)
[SARCASM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sarcasm)
[SATAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/satan)
[SATIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/satire)
[SATTLER COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sattler-college)
[SAVIOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/savior)
[SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schleitheim-confession)
[SCHUMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schumann)
[SCHUYLER | SIGNOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schuyler-or-signor)
[SCOFIELD BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scofield-bible)
[SCOT | MCKNIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scot-or-mcknight)
[SCRIPTURE SONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scripture-song)
[SEASONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seasons)
[SECOND CLASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/second-class)
[SECOND MILE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/second-mile)
[SECONDARY CAUSATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secondary-causation)
[SECONDARY WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secondary-will)
[SECRET SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secret-sin)
[SECRETS OF THE KINGDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secrets-of-the-kingdom)
[SEEKERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seekers)
[SELF REFLECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/self-reflection)
[SELF-IDENTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/self-identity)
[SEMPER IUSTUS ET PECCATOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/semper-iustus-et-peccator)
[SENSATIONAL NIGHTINGALES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sensational-nightingales)
[SEPARATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separate)
[SEPARATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separation)
[SEPARATISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separatism)
[SEPTUAGINT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/septuagint)
[SERMON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermon)
[SERMON ON THE MOUNT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermon-on-the-mount)
[SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermons)
[SERVANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant)
[SERVANT LEADER APPRENTICESHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant-leader-apprenticeship)
[SERVANT OF THE LORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant-of-the-lord)
[SERVANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servants)
[SERVICE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/service)
[SETH | LEHMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seth-or-lehman)
[SEX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sex)
[SEXUAL ABUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-abuse)
[SEXUAL ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-ethics)
[SEXUAL FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-freedom)
[SEXUAL ORIENTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-orientation)
[SEXUAL SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-sin)
[SHAME](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shame)
[SHAMMAI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shammai)
[SHANNON | LEIBOLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shannon-or-leibold)
[SHERLOCK | HOLMES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sherlock-or-holmes)
[SHORTER CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shorter-catechism)
[SHOULD VERSUS COULD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/should-versus-could)
[SHUNNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shunning)
[SIJWAERT | PIETERSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sijwaert-or-pietersz)
[SILENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/silence)
[SIMON | GATHERCOLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-gathercole)
[SIMON | JACOBSZOON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-jacobszoon)
[SIMON | MICHIELSZOON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-michielszoon)
[SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simul-iustus-et-peccator)
[SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sin)
[SINFUL NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinful-nature)
[SINNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinner)
[SINNERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinners)
[SINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sins)
[SMALL GROUPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/small-groups)
[SOCIAL CLASSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-classes)
[SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-engagement)
[SOCIAL MEDIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-media)
[SOCIOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sociology)
[SOCIOPOLITICAL ACTIVISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sociopolitical-activism)
[SODOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sodom)
[SOIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/soil)
[SOLA FIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-fide)
[SOLA GRATIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-gratia)
[SOLA SCRIPTURA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-scriptura)
[SOLITUDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/solitude)
[SON OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/son-of-god)
[SON OF MAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/son-of-man)
[SONNET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sonnet)
[SONSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sonship)
[SORROW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sorrow)
[SOTERIOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/soteriology)
[SOUND DOCTRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sound-doctrine)
[SOUTHEASTERN MENNONITE CONFERENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southeastern-mennonite-conference)
[SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-baptist-convention)
[SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-baptist-theological-seminary)
[SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-presbyterianism)
[SOVEREIGNTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sovereignty)
[SPEAKING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speaking)
[SPEAKING IN TONGUES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speaking-in-tongues)
[SPEECH-ACT THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speech-act-theory)
[SPIRITUAL FORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-formation)
[SPIRITUAL GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-gifts)
[SPIRITUAL WARFARE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-warfare)
[SPIRITUALISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritualists)
[SPRING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spring)
[ST. FRANCIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/st-francis)
[STATE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/state-church)
[STEVE | ATKERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-atkerson)
[STEVE | BURCHETT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-burchett)
[STEVE | CORBETT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-corbett)
[STEVE | SCOTT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-scott)
[STEVE | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-smucker)
[STEVEN E. | RUNGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steven-e-or-runge)
[STEVEN M. | NOLT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steven-m-or-nolt)
[STORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/story)
[STRANGERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strangers)
[STRASBOURG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strasbourg)
[STRATEGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strategy)
[STRENGTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strength)
[STRONG CHRISTIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strong-christians)
[STUART | MURRAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/stuart-or-murray)
[STUDY BIBLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/study-bibles)
[SUBMISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/submission)
[SUBSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/substitution)
[SUBWAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/subway)
[SUFFERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/suffering)
[SUFFERING SERVANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/suffering-servant)
[SUMPTUARY LEGISLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sumptuary-legislation)
[SUNDAY SCHOOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sunday-school)
[SWISS BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/swiss-brethren)
[SWORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/swords)
[SYDNEY | PENNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sydney-or-penner)
[SYMBOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/symbol)
[SYMPTOMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/symptoms)
[SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/systematic-theology)
T
-
[T. DESMOND | ALEXANDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/t-desmond-or-alexander)
[T4G](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/t4g)
[TALMUD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/talmud)
[TAR BABY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tar-baby)
[TEACHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/teaching)
[TED | GRIMSRUD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ted-or-grimsrud)
[TEMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temple)
[TEMPLE WORSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temple-worship)
[TEMPTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temptation)
[TEN COMMANDMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ten-commandments)
[TERTULLIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tertullian)
[TESTING THE SPIRITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/testing-the-spirits)
[THABITI | ANYABWILE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thabiti-or-anyabwile)
[THANKFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thankfulness)
[THE | DIDACHE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-or-didache)
[THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-letter-of-aristeas)
[THE SHACK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-shack)
[THEODICY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodicy)
[THEODOR | SIPPELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodor-or-sippell)
[THEODORE | MACKIN S.J.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodore-or-mackin-sj)
[THEODORE W. JR. | JENNINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodore-w-jr-or-jennings)
[THEOLOGICAL PUBERTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theological-puberty)
[THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theological-students)
[THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theology)
[THERON | SCHLABACH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theron-or-schlabach)
[THESSALONICA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thessalonica)
[THIELEMAN J. | VAN BRAGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thieleman-j-or-van-braght)
[THIRD PERSON IMPERATIVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/third-person-imperatives)
[THIRST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thirst)
[THOMAS | AQUINAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-aquinas)
[THOMAS | CHALMERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-chalmers)
[THOMAS | ERASTUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-erastus)
[THOMAS | HOPKO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-hopko)
[THOMAS | MORE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-more)
[THOMAS | MÜNTZER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-muntzer)
[THOMAS | VON IMBROICH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-von-imbroich)
[THOMAS R. | SCHREINER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-r-or-schreiner)
[THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/three-days-and-three-nights)
[TIM | CHALLIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tim-or-challies)
[TIM | CHESTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tim-or-chester)
[TIMOTHY | GEORGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/timothy-or-george)
[TIMOTHY | KELLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/timothy-or-keller)
[TITHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tithing)
[TOAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/toast)
[TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/together-for-the-gospel)
[TOLSTOY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tolstoy)
[TOPICAL SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/topical-sermons)
[TORAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/torah)
[TORONTO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/toronto)
[TRADITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tradition)
[TRAGEDY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tragedy)
[TRAINING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/training)
[TRANSGRESSORS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transgressors)
[TRANSIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transience)
[TRANSLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/translation)
[TRANSUBSTANTIATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transubstantiation)
[TRAVEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/travel)
[TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tree-of-knowledge-of-good-and-evil)
[TREE OF LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tree-of-life)
[TREMPER | LONGMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tremper-or-longman)
[TRINITY EVANGELICAL DIVINITY SCHOOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/trinity-evangelical-divinity-school)
[TRUST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/trust)
[TRUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/truth)
[TÜBINGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tubingen)
[TWO-KINGDOM THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/two-kingdom-theology)
[TYPOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/typology)
U
-
[ULRICH | LUZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ulrich-or-luz)
[UNBELIEF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unbelief)
[UNDERSTANDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/understanding)
[UNFAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unfaithfulness)
[UNIFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/uniformity)
[UNIVERSALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/universalism)
[UNIVERSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/university)
[UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unreached-people-groups)
[URBAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/urban)
[URBANIZATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/urbanization)
[USEFUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/useful)
V
-
[VANITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vanity)
[VATICAN COUNCIL II](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vatican-council-ii)
[VERSAMMLUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/versammlung)
[VICARIOUS DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vicarious-death)
[VICE LISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vice-lists)
[VINCENT OF LERINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vincent-of-lerins)
[VINEYARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vineyards)
[VISIBLE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/visible-church)
[VISION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vision)
[VISION STATEMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vision-statements)
[VOCABULARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vocabulary)
[VULGATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vulgate)
W
-
[W.D. | DAVIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wd-or-davies)
[WAITING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waiting)
[WALDENSIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waldensians)
[WALKED WITH GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walked-with-god)
[WALTER | BEACHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-beachy)
[WALTER | KLAASSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-klaassen)
[WALTER | LIEFELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-liefeld)
[WARNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/warning)
[WARREN W. | WIERSBE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/warren-w-or-wiersbe)
[WATCHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/watching)
[WATERLANDER MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waterlander-mennonites)
[WAYNE | GRUDEM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wayne-or-grudem)
[WEAKNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/weakness)
[WEALTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wealth)
[WEDLOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wedlock)
[WERNER O. | PACKULL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/werner-o-or-packull)
[WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westboro-baptist-church)
[WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westminster-confession-of-faith)
[WESTMINSTER LARGER CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westminster-larger-catechism)
[WHEATON COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wheaton-college)
[WHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/why)
[WIDOWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/widows)
[WILL OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/will-of-god)
[WILLARD M. | SWARTLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/willard-m-or-swartley)
[WILLIAM | KOSTLEVY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-kostlevy)
[WILLIAM | TYNDALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-tyndale)
[WILLIAM | WITT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-witt)
[WILLIAM E. | HETH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-e-or-heth)
[WILLIAM E. | KEENEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-e-or-keeney)
[WILLIAM F. | LUCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-f-or-luck)
[WILLIAM J. | WEBB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-j-or-webb)
[WILLIAM L. | LANE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-l-or-lane)
[WILLIAM OF OCKHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-of-ockham)
[WILLIAM S. | STAFFORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-s-or-stafford)
[WINDOWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/windows)
[WINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wine)
[WINTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/winter)
[WISDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wisdom)
[WISMAR ARTICLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wismar-articles)
[WITNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/witness)
[WIVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wives)
[WM. PAUL | YOUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wm-paul-or-young)
[WOLFHART | PANNENBURG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wolfhart-or-pannenburg)
[WORD OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/word-of-god)
[WORD STUDIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/word-studies)
[WORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/words)
[WORK ETHIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/work-ethic)
[WORLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world)
[WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world-council-of-churches)
[WORLD RELIGIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world-religions)
[WORLDLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/worldliness)
[WORSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/worship)
[WRITING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/writing)
X-Z
---
[YOUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/youth)
[YOUVERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/youversion)
[ZACCHAEUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zacchaeus)
[ZACK | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zack-or-johnson)
[ZURICH ORDINANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zurich-ordinance)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Copy of Alphabetical Index of Topics
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-05-25
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/null
Contents
* [1 Chronicles – 3 John](#h_25049079098885185)
* [Acts – Ezekiel](#h_5381550503199648)
* [Galatians – Hosea](#h_30556859860869556)
* [Isaiah – Judges](#h_754837908269264)
* [Leviticus – Micah](#h_22875901478232175)
* [Nehemiah – Zechariah](#h_7429066042749071)
* [A](#h_3449875911547684) [B](#h_26454976824021004) [C](#h_4208415038361206) [D](#h_06625213523363427) [E](#h_1489776149110409) [F](#h_6868064031977696) [G](#h_5647939720723054) [H](#h_9280842544682111) [I](#h_6783025863053056) [J](#h_5358187208574534) [K](#h_30786464821760107)
*
**All Topics**
-----------------
1 Chronicles – 3 John
---------------------
[\-1 CHRONICLES 21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-chronicles-21)
[\-1 CHRONICLES 21:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-chronicles-211)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-113)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1011)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:14-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1014-22)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1017)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1018)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-111)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-111-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:17-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1117-34)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1118)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-112)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-112-16)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-112-18)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1122)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1123-26)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1126)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1133)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1134)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-12)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1212-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1213)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1225)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1228)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1229-30)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:4-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-124-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 13:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-139-10)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1420)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:26-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1426-33)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1434-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-151-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:17-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1517-19)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1519)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1520)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:20-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1520-26)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1522)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:23-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1523-24)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1527-28)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-153)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-154)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-161-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-161-3)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1619)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-162)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-165-6)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:5-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-165-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 2:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-26-8)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-29)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-31)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-31-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-310)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-311)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-316-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4;14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-414)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:14-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-414-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-415)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-416)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-416-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-421)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-48)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-5)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-51-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-512-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-54)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-59-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-614)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-616)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-63)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-69-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-7)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:10-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-710-16)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:10-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-710-39)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-711)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-714)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-715)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-722)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:27-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-727-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:29-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-729-38)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-73-4)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-732-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-739)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-77-8)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-78-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-79)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 8:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-88)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-911)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-913-14)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:19-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-919-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-920)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:20-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-920-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-922-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-923)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:4-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-94-7)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-99)
[\-1 JOHN 1:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-11-4)
[\-1 JOHN 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-15)
[\-1 JOHN 1:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-18)
[\-1 JOHN 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-19)
[\-1 JOHN 2:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-21)
[\-1 JOHN 2:12-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-212-14)
[\-1 JOHN 2:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-216-17)
[\-1 JOHN 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-219)
[\-1 JOHN 2:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-22)
[\-1 JOHN 2:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-224)
[\-1 JOHN 2:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-227)
[\-1 JOHN 2:7-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-27-11)
[\-1 JOHN 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-311)
[\-1 JOHN 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-316)
[\-1 JOHN 3:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-316-18)
[\-1 JOHN 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-317)
[\-1 JOHN 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-41)
[\-1 JOHN 4:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-41-3)
[\-1 JOHN 4:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-46)
[\-1 JOHN 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-48)
[\-1 JOHN 5:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-519)
[\-1 JOHN 5:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-52-4)
[\-1 KINGS 16:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-kings-1618-19)
[\-1 KINGS 18:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-kings-1827)
[\-1 KINGS 22:19-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-kings-2219-23)
[\-1 KINGS 23:13-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-kings-2313-17)
[\-1 PETER 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-11)
[\-1 PETER 1:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-110-12)
[\-1 PETER 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-113)
[\-1 PETER 1:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-118-19)
[\-1 PETER 1:3-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-13-7)
[\-1 PETER 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-14)
[\-1 PETER 2:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-213-14)
[\-1 PETER 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-220)
[\-1 PETER 2:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-225)
[\-1 PETER 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-24)
[\-1 PETER 2:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-24-5)
[\-1 PETER 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-25)
[\-1 PETER 2:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-29-10)
[\-1 PETER 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-321)
[\-1 PETER 3:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-33-5)
[\-1 PETER 3:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-34)
[\-1 PETER 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-416)
[\-1 PETER 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-417)
[\-1 PETER 4:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-417-18)
[\-1 PETER 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-48)
[\-1 PETER 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-512)
[\-1 PETER 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-53)
[\-1 PETER 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-54)
[\-1 PETER 5:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-55)
[\-1 PETER 5:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-57)
[\-1 SAMUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel)
[\-1 SAMUEL 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-11)
[\-1 SAMUEL 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-127)
[\-1 SAMUEL 16:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-1614)
[\-1 SAMUEL 16:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-162)
[\-1 SAMUEL 28:16-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-2816-19)
[\-1 SAMUEL 30:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-3012-13)
[\-1 SAMUEL 4:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-418)
[\-1 SAMUEL 7:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-715)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-211)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-211-12)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-213)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:14-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-214-16)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-29)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-41)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:13-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-413-18)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-417)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 5:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-515)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 5:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-517)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-112)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-12)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-17)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-21-4)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-21-5)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-211-15)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-219)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-24)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-28-10)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-31)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-311)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-315)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-32)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:2-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-32-7)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-34)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-34-5)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-35)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-36)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-39)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 4:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-46)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-51-2)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-510)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-513)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-516)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-517-18)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-525)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-53)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-58)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-59-10)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 6:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-617)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 6:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-618)
[\-1CORINTHIANS 5:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1corinthians-511)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-120)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 10:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-104)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-1128)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 12:11-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-1211-13)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 12:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-1214)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-311)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 3:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-318)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 4:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-411)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-44)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 5:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-51-10)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 5:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-514-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-613)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-614-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-7:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-614-71)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-616)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:17-7:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-617-71)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 7:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-72)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-8-9)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-81-4)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-815)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-817-18)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-89)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-911-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-95)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-96)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-97)
[\-2 JOHN 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-john-11)
[\-2 JOHN 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-john-110)
[\-2 JOHN 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-john-15)
[\-2 KINGS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-kings-211)
[\-2 KINGS 6:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-kings-619)
[\-2 PETER 3:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-peter-313)
[\-2 PETER 3:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-peter-33-4)
[\-2 PETER 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-peter-39)
[\-2 SAMUEL 20:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-203)
[\-2 SAMUEL 24:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-241)
[\-2 SAMUEL 6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-6)
[\-2 SAMUEL 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-7)
[\-2 SAMUEL 7:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-713-14)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-110)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-21)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-21-2)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-211)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-215)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-25)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-310)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-36)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-37)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:7-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-37-9)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-113)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-19)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-212)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-24)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-315-16)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-316)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-36)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 4:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-45)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 4:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-46-8)
[\-3 JOHN 5-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/3-john-5-10)
[\-3 JOHN 5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/3-john-5-8)
Acts – Ezekiel
--------------
[\-ACTS 1:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-18)
[\-ACTS 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-10)
[\-ACTS 10:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1040)
[\-ACTS 10:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1043)
[\-ACTS 11:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1115)
[\-ACTS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1118)
[\-ACTS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1126)
[\-ACTS 11:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1128-30)
[\-ACTS 12:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1212)
[\-ACTS 12:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1223)
[\-ACTS 13:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-131)
[\-ACTS 13:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1315)
[\-ACTS 13:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-132)
[\-ACTS 13:38-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1338-39)
[\-ACTS 13:48](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1348)
[\-ACTS 13:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-135)
[\-ACTS 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-15)
[\-ACTS 16:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-163)
[\-ACTS 16:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-166-10)
[\-ACTS 16:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-169)
[\-ACTS 17:1-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-171-9)
[\-ACTS 17:10-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1710-15)
[\-ACTS 17:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1711-12)
[\-ACTS 17:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1727)
[\-ACTS 17:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1731)
[\-ACTS 18:4-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-184-7)
[\-ACTS 18:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-188)
[\-ACTS 19:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1922)
[\-ACTS 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2)
[\-ACTS 2:24-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-224-32)
[\-ACTS 2:25-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-225-36)
[\-ACTS 2:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-231)
[\-ACTS 2:37-40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-237-40)
[\-ACTS 2:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-238)
[\-ACTS 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-24)
[\-ACTS 2:42-46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-242-46)
[\-ACTS 2:46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-246)
[\-ACTS 2:47](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-247)
[\-ACTS 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-25)
[\-ACTS 20:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2018-19)
[\-ACTS 20:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2020)
[\-ACTS 20:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2021)
[\-ACTS 20:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2027)
[\-ACTS 20:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2028)
[\-ACTS 20:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2028-30)
[\-ACTS 20:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2029-30)
[\-ACTS 20:37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2037)
[\-ACTS 20:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-207)
[\-ACTS 20:7-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-207-12)
[\-ACTS 20:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-208)
[\-ACTS 22:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-221)
[\-ACTS 22:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2216)
[\-ACTS 24:24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2424-25)
[\-ACTS 26:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2618)
[\-ACTS 26:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2628)
[\-ACTS 27:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2722)
[\-ACTS 28:25-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2825-27)
[\-ACTS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-314)
[\-ACTS 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-321)
[\-ACTS 3:25-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-325-26)
[\-ACTS 4:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-432-35)
[\-ACTS 5:29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-529)
[\-ACTS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-61-2)
[\-ACTS 6:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-61-3)
[\-ACTS 6:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-64)
[\-ACTS 7:59](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-759)
[\-ACTS 8:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-83)
[\-ACTS 9:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-915)
[\-ACTS 9:32-40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-932-40)
[\-AMOS 4:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-41-6)
[\-AMOS 5:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-518-19)
[\-AMOS 9:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-911-12)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-112)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-115)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-118)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-120)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:14-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-214-18)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-216)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-216-17)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-216-23)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-218)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-223)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-26)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-28)
[\-COLOSSIANS 3:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-312)
[\-COLOSSIANS 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-316)
[\-COLOSSIANS 4:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-415)
[\-DANIEL 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-12)
[\-DANIEL 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-122)
[\-DANIEL 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-417)
[\-DANIEL 4:28-37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-428-37)
[\-DANIEL 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-7)
[\-DEUTERONOMY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-1232)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-13)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 18:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-1815)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 18:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-1819)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 21:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2114)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2213-21)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2219)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:22-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2222-24)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2229)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-241)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-241-4)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2416)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 25:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-254)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 26:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2617-18)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2912-13)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2918)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2919-20)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-294)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 31:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-3120-21)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 32:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-3221)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 4:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-41-2)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 5:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-511)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 6:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-65)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 6:6-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-66-9)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-79)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 8:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-81-3)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 8:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-82)
[\-ECCLESIASTES 12:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesiastes-1213-14)
[\-ECCLESIASTES 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesiastes-311)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-111)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:16-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-116-23)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-120)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:20-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-120-22)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-122)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-123)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:3-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-13-10)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-13-5)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-14)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-15)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-19-11)
[\-EPHESIANS 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-2-3)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-21-10)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-21-2)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-21-3)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-215)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-219)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:19-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-219-22)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-220)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-27)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-314-15)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-37)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:8-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-38-12)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:1-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-41-16)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-411-12)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:11-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-411-16)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-414)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-416)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-42)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-43-4)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-432)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-44-5)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-44-6)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:7-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-47-14)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-519)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:21-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-521-33)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:22-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-522-33)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-526-27)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-527)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:28-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-528-31)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-530)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-61-4)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:10-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-610-20)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-64)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-69)
[\-ESTHER 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esther-416)
[\-ESTHER 5:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esther-51)
[\-EXODUS 1:15-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-115-21)
[\-EXODUS 14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-14)
[\-EXODUS 17:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-171-7)
[\-EXODUS 2:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-21-10)
[\-EXODUS 20:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-2013)
[\-EXODUS 20:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-207)
[\-EXODUS 20:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-208)
[\-EXODUS 20:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-208-11)
[\-EXODUS 21:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-2110-11)
[\-EXODUS 21:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-2111)
[\-EXODUS 25:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-2510)
[\-EXODUS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-416)
[\-EXODUS 4:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-422)
[\-EXODUS 7:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-73)
[\-EXODUS 8:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-832)
[\-EXODUS 9:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-916)
[\-EZEKIEL 14:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ezekiel-149)
Galatians – Hosea
--------------------
[\-GALATIANS 1:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-114)
[\-GALATIANS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-14)
[\-GALATIANS 2:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-219-20)
[\-GALATIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-220)
[\-GALATIANS 3:2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-32-3)
[\-GALATIANS 3:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-323-26)
[\-GALATIANS 3:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-327)
[\-GALATIANS 3:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-328)
[\-GALATIANS 3:6-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-36-29)
[\-GALATIANS 4:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-410)
[\-GALATIANS 4:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-419)
[\-GALATIANS 4:21-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-421-31)
[\-GALATIANS 4:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-426)
[\-GALATIANS 4:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-430)
[\-GALATIANS 4:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-45)
[\-GALATIANS 4:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-49)
[\-GALATIANS 4:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-49-11)
[\-GALATIANS 5:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-51-4)
[\-GALATIANS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-512)
[\-GALATIANS 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-513)
[\-GALATIANS 5:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-518)
[\-GALATIANS 5:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-52-4)
[\-GALATIANS 5:22-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-522-24)
[\-GALATIANS 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-54)
[\-GALATIANS 5:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-55-6)
[\-GALATIANS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-61-2)
[\-GALATIANS 6:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-610)
[\-GALATIANS 6:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-615)
[\-GALATIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-616)
[\-GALATIANS 6:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-617)
[\-GALATIANS 6:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-66-10)
[\-GENESIS 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-1-2)
[\-GENESIS 1:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-126)
[\-GENESIS 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-127)
[\-GENESIS 1:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-131)
[\-GENESIS 11:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-112)
[\-GENESIS 11:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-117-8)
[\-GENESIS 12:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-123)
[\-GENESIS 13:2-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-132-11)
[\-GENESIS 14:18-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-1418-20)
[\-GENESIS 15:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-1516)
[\-GENESIS 18:22-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-1822-33)
[\-GENESIS 2:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-21-3)
[\-GENESIS 2:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-215-16)
[\-GENESIS 2:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-217)
[\-GENESIS 2:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-218)
[\-GENESIS 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-219)
[\-GENESIS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-220)
[\-GENESIS 22:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-2218)
[\-GENESIS 22:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-224)
[\-GENESIS 29:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-2913)
[\-GENESIS 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-3)
[\-GENESIS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-31)
[\-GENESIS 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-316)
[\-GENESIS 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-32)
[\-GENESIS 3:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-320)
[\-GENESIS 3:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-324)
[\-GENESIS 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-36)
[\-GENESIS 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-39)
[\-GENESIS 32-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-32-33)
[\-GENESIS 33:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-334)
[\-GENESIS 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-41)
[\-GENESIS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-416)
[\-GENESIS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-417)
[\-GENESIS 4:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-425)
[\-GENESIS 42:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-4217-18)
[\-GENESIS 5:21-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-521-24)
[\-GENESIS 5:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-524)
[\-GENESIS 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-53)
[\-GENESIS 6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-6-8)
[\-GENESIS 6:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-615)
[\-GENESIS 9:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-96)
[\-HABAKKUK 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/habakkuk-1-2)
[\-HEBREWS 1:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-11-4)
[\-HEBREWS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-14)
[\-HEBREWS 1:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-16)
[\-HEBREWS 10:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1024)
[\-HEBREWS 10:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1025)
[\-HEBREWS 10:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1026-27)
[\-HEBREWS 10:26-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1026-31)
[\-HEBREWS 11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-11)
[\-HEBREWS 11:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1110)
[\-HEBREWS 11:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-113)
[\-HEBREWS 11:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-115)
[\-HEBREWS 11:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-115-6)
[\-HEBREWS 11:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-116)
[\-HEBREWS 12:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-121)
[\-HEBREWS 12:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1215)
[\-HEBREWS 12:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1217)
[\-HEBREWS 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-122)
[\-HEBREWS 12:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1222-23)
[\-HEBREWS 12:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1223)
[\-HEBREWS 12:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1228)
[\-HEBREWS 12:4-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-124-13)
[\-HEBREWS 12:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-127)
[\-HEBREWS 13:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1320)
[\-HEBREWS 13:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-137)
[\-HEBREWS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-211)
[\-HEBREWS 2:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-217)
[\-HEBREWS 2:5-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-25-18)
[\-HEBREWS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-29)
[\-HEBREWS 2:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-29-10)
[\-HEBREWS 3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-3-4)
[\-HEBREWS 3:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-312-13)
[\-HEBREWS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-314)
[\-HEBREWS 3:7-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-37-13)
[\-HEBREWS 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-4)
[\-HEBREWS 4:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-41-11)
[\-HEBREWS 4:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-412-13)
[\-HEBREWS 5:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-510)
[\-HEBREWS 5:11-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-511-14)
[\-HEBREWS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-512)
[\-HEBREWS 5:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-56)
[\-HEBREWS 6:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-61)
[\-HEBREWS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-61-2)
[\-HEBREWS 6:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-620)
[\-HEBREWS 6:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-64-6)
[\-HEBREWS 6:4-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-64-8)
[\-HEBREWS 6:9-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-69-12)
[\-HEBREWS 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-7)
[\-HEBREWS 7:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-71-10)
[\-HEBREWS 7:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-711-12)
[\-HEBREWS 7:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-712)
[\-HEBREWS 7:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-718-19)
[\-HEBREWS 7:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-725)
[\-HEBREWS 8:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-813)
[\-HEBREWS 9:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-916-17)
[\-HEBREWS 9:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-922)
[\-HOSEA 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-110)
[\-HOSEA 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-13)
[\-HOSEA 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-2-3)
[\-HOSEA 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-223)
[\-HOSEA 5:8-6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-58-63)
Isaiah – Judges
------------------
[\-ISAIAH 11:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-111-10)
[\-ISAIAH 28:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-2816)
[\-ISAIAH 29:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-2910)
[\-ISAIAH 29:9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-299-14)
[\-ISAIAH 40-55](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-40-55)
[\-ISAIAH 40:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-401-11)
[\-ISAIAH 42-46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-42-46)
[\-ISAIAH 42:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-428)
[\-ISAIAH 45:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-451-7)
[\-ISAIAH 49:1-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-491-13)
[\-ISAIAH 50:4-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-504-11)
[\-ISAIAH 52-53](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-52-53)
[\-ISAIAH 52:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-5214-15)
[\-ISAIAH 53](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-53)
[\-ISAIAH 53:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-531)
[\-ISAIAH 53:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-5311-12)
[\-ISAIAH 53:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-5312)
[\-ISAIAH 53:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-539)
[\-ISAIAH 55:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-553)
[\-ISAIAH 56:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-568)
[\-ISAIAH 58:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-586-10)
[\-ISAIAH 6-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-6-9)
[\-ISAIAH 6:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-69-10)
[\-ISAIAH 60:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-603-4)
[\-ISAIAH 61](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-61)
[\-ISAIAH 64:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-644)
[\-ISAIAH 65:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-6517)
[\-ISAIAH 66:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-6622)
[\-ISAIAH 7:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-716)
[\-JAMES 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-127)
[\-JAMES 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-15)
[\-JAMES 2:14-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-214-24)
[\-JAMES 2:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-215-16)
[\-JAMES 2:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-22)
[\-JAMES 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-223)
[\-JAMES 2:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-225)
[\-JAMES 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-317)
[\-JAMES 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-39)
[\-JAMES 5:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-514)
[\-JAMES 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-53)
[\-JEREMIAH 11:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-114)
[\-JEREMIAH 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-15)
[\-JEREMIAH 18:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-1811)
[\-JEREMIAH 24:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-247)
[\-JEREMIAH 29:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-2911)
[\-JEREMIAH 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-31)
[\-JEREMIAH 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-38)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:10-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-3110-34)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-3130)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:31-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-3131-34)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-3133)
[\-JEREMIAH 35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-35)
[\-JEREMIAH 7:1-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-71-15)
[\-JEREMIAH 7:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-723)
[\-JOB 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/job-1-2)
[\-JOB 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/job-15)
[\-JOB 14:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/job-147)
[\-JOB 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/job-3)
[\-JOEL 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joel-2-3)
[\-JOHN 1:1-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-11-9)
[\-JOHN 1:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-112-13)
[\-JOHN 1:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-114)
[\-JOHN 1:47-49](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-147-49)
[\-JOHN 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-10)
[\-JOHN 10:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1016)
[\-JOHN 10:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1028)
[\-JOHN 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1133)
[\-JOHN 11:50-52](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1150-52)
[\-JOHN 12:1-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-121-8)
[\-JOHN 12:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1227)
[\-JOHN 12:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1231)
[\-JOHN 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1232)
[\-JOHN 12:35-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1235-36)
[\-JOHN 12:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1240)
[\-JOHN 12:42-43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1242-43)
[\-JOHN 13:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1321)
[\-JOHN 13:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1334)
[\-JOHN 14:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-141)
[\-JOHN 14:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1430)
[\-JOHN 15:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-151-11)
[\-JOHN 15:1-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-151-8)
[\-JOHN 15:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1512-13)
[\-JOHN 15:12-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1512-17)
[\-JOHN 16:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1611)
[\-JOHN 16:12-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1612-14)
[\-JOHN 16:13-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1613-15)
[\-JOHN 16:23-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1623-27)
[\-JOHN 17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-17)
[\-JOHN 17:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1711)
[\-JOHN 17:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1714)
[\-JOHN 17:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1715)
[\-JOHN 17:16-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1716-19)
[\-JOHN 17:20-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1720-23)
[\-JOHN 17:21-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1721-23)
[\-JOHN 2:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-219-20)
[\-JOHN 2:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-221)
[\-JOHN 2:24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-224-25)
[\-JOHN 20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-20)
[\-JOHN 20:11-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-2011-13)
[\-JOHN 21:15-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-2115-17)
[\-JOHN 21:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-2117)
[\-JOHN 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-3)
[\-JOHN 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-316)
[\-JOHN 3:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-316-17)
[\-JOHN 3:19-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-319-21)
[\-JOHN 3:27-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-327-30)
[\-JOHN 3:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-33-5)
[\-JOHN 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-37)
[\-JOHN 4:19-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-419-24)
[\-JOHN 5:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-523)
[\-JOHN 6:28-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-628-29)
[\-JOHN 6:51](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-651)
[\-JOHN 7:38-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-738-39)
[\-JOHN 7:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-78-10)
[\-JOHN 8:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-812)
[\-JOHN 8:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-823)
[\-JOHN 8:34-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-834-36)
[\-JOHN 8:42-47](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-842-47)
[\-JOHN 9:39-41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-939-41)
[\-JONAH 1:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah-117)
[\-JONAH 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah-2)
[\-JONAH 4:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah-410-11)
[\-JOSHUA 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joshua-25)
[\-JOSHUA 22:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joshua-2220)
[\-JUDE 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jude-112)
[\-JUDE 1:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jude-114-15)
[\-JUDGES 17:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges-171)
[\-JUDGES 4:18-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges-418-22)
[\-JUDGES 5:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges-524)
Leviticus – Micah
-----------------
[\-LEVITICUS 19:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leviticus-1917-18)
[\-LEVITICUS 21:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leviticus-2111)
[\-LEVITICUS 21:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leviticus-217)
[\-LEVITICUS 22:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leviticus-2212-13)
[\-LUKE 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1-2)
[\-LUKE 1:54-55](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-154-55)
[\-LUKE 1:72-73](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-172-73)
[\-LUKE 10:2-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-102-9)
[\-LUKE 10:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-103)
[\-LUKE 11:24-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1124-26)
[\-LUKE 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1128)
[\-LUKE 11:42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1142)
[\-LUKE 12:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-121-2)
[\-LUKE 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1232)
[\-LUKE 12:37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1237)
[\-LUKE 15:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1520)
[\-LUKE 16:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1618)
[\-LUKE 16:19-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1619-31)
[\-LUKE 18:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1811-12)
[\-LUKE 18:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1833)
[\-LUKE 2:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-21-5)
[\-LUKE 2:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-210)
[\-LUKE 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-212)
[\-LUKE 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-27)
[\-LUKE 22:36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-2236)
[\-LUKE 23:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-2343)
[\-LUKE 24:46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-2446)
[\-LUKE 24:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-247)
[\-LUKE 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-314)
[\-LUKE 4:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-420)
[\-LUKE 4:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-439)
[\-LUKE 4:5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-45-8)
[\-LUKE 6:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-613)
[\-LUKE 7:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-71-5)
[\-LUKE 7:36-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-736-50)
[\-LUKE 8:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-81-3)
[\-LUKE 8:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-817)
[\-LUKE 9:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-922)
[\-MALACHI 2:10-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/malachi-210-16)
[\-MALACHI 3:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/malachi-31-6)
[\-MALACHI 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/malachi-38-10)
[\-MARK 1:14-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-114-20)
[\-MARK 1:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-115)
[\-MARK 10:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-1028-30)
[\-MARK 10:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-1034)
[\-MARK 10:4-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-104-9)
[\-MARK 10:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-109)
[\-MARK 14:3-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-143-9)
[\-MARK 14:58](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-1458)
[\-MARK 2:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-227-28)
[\-MARK 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-314)
[\-MARK 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-321)
[\-MARK 4:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-410-12)
[\-MARK 4:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-411)
[\-MARK 5:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-539)
[\-MARK 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-7)
[\-MARK 7:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-719)
[\-MARK 7:21-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-721-23)
[\-MARK 7:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-79-13)
[\-MARK 8:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-831)
[\-MARK 9:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-931)
[\-MARK 9:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-938)
[\-MATTHEW 1:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-118-19)
[\-MATTHEW 1:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-123)
[\-MATTHEW 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-10)
[\-MATTHEW 10:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1010)
[\-MATTHEW 10:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-102-4)
[\-MATTHEW 10:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1023)
[\-MATTHEW 10:34-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1034-38)
[\-MATTHEW 10:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1040)
[\-MATTHEW 10:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-105-6)
[\-MATTHEW 11:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1118-19)
[\-MATTHEW 11:20-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1120-24)
[\-MATTHEW 11:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1125)
[\-MATTHEW 11:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1127)
[\-MATTHEW 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-12)
[\-MATTHEW 12:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1214)
[\-MATTHEW 12:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1224)
[\-MATTHEW 12:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1230)
[\-MATTHEW 12:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1232-35)
[\-MATTHEW 12:39-41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1239-41)
[\-MATTHEW 12:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1240)
[\-MATTHEW 12:42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1242)
[\-MATTHEW 12:43-45](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1243-45)
[\-MATTHEW 12:46-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1246-50)
[\-MATTHEW 12:50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1250)
[\-MATTHEW 12:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-126)
[\-MATTHEW 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-13)
[\-MATTHEW 13:10-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1310-17)
[\-MATTHEW 13:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1318)
[\-MATTHEW 13:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1321)
[\-MATTHEW 13:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1323)
[\-MATTHEW 13:24-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1324-30)
[\-MATTHEW 13:24-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1324-50)
[\-MATTHEW 13:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1338)
[\-MATTHEW 13:51-52](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1351-52)
[\-MATTHEW 13:53-58](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1353-58)
[\-MATTHEW 13:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-139)
[\-MATTHEW 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-15)
[\-MATTHEW 15:15-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1515-20)
[\-MATTHEW 15:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1524)
[\-MATTHEW 15:3-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-153-6)
[\-MATTHEW 16:13-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1613-23)
[\-MATTHEW 16:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1617)
[\-MATTHEW 16:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1618)
[\-MATTHEW 16:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1618-19)
[\-MATTHEW 16:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1621)
[\-MATTHEW 16:5-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-165-12)
[\-MATTHEW 17:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1722-23)
[\-MATTHEW 17:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1723)
[\-MATTHEW 17:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-179-13)
[\-MATTHEW 18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-18)
[\-MATTHEW 18:15-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1815-18)
[\-MATTHEW 18:15-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1815-35)
[\-MATTHEW 18:17-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1817-20)
[\-MATTHEW 18:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1818)
[\-MATTHEW 18:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1820)
[\-MATTHEW 18:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-184)
[\-MATTHEW 19:1-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-191-12)
[\-MATTHEW 19:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1910-12)
[\-MATTHEW 19:13-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1913-15)
[\-MATTHEW 19:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1928)
[\-MATTHEW 19:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-193)
[\-MATTHEW 19:3-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-193-9)
[\-MATTHEW 19:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-194)
[\-MATTHEW 19:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-195)
[\-MATTHEW 19:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-195-6)
[\-MATTHEW 19:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-196)
[\-MATTHEW 19:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-198)
[\-MATTHEW 19:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-199)
[\-MATTHEW 20:17-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2017-34)
[\-MATTHEW 20:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2019)
[\-MATTHEW 20:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2025)
[\-MATTHEW 20:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2028)
[\-MATTHEW 21:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-211-11)
[\-MATTHEW 21:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2119)
[\-MATTHEW 21:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2134)
[\-MATTHEW 21:41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2141)
[\-MATTHEW 21:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2143)
[\-MATTHEW 21:45](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2145)
[\-MATTHEW 22:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2230)
[\-MATTHEW 22:37-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2237-39)
[\-MATTHEW 23:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2310)
[\-MATTHEW 23:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2318)
[\-MATTHEW 23:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2323)
[\-MATTHEW 23:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2324)
[\-MATTHEW 23:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2327)
[\-MATTHEW 23:29-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2329-32)
[\-MATTHEW 23:8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-238-9)
[\-MATTHEW 24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-24-25)
[\-MATTHEW 24:29-51](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2429-51)
[\-MATTHEW 24:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2431)
[\-MATTHEW 24:4-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-244-28)
[\-MATTHEW 26:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2627-28)
[\-MATTHEW 26:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2628)
[\-MATTHEW 26:6-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-266-13)
[\-MATTHEW 26:61](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2661)
[\-MATTHEW 27:63](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2763)
[\-MATTHEW 28:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-281)
[\-MATTHEW 28:18-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2818-20)
[\-MATTHEW 28:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2819)
[\-MATTHEW 28:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2820)
[\-MATTHEW 3:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-315)
[\-MATTHEW 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-38)
[\-MATTHEW 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-38-10)
[\-MATTHEW 3:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-39-10)
[\-MATTHEW 4:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-41-11)
[\-MATTHEW 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-44)
[\-MATTHEW 5-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-5-7)
[\-MATTHEW 5:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-510-12)
[\-MATTHEW 5:13-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-513-16)
[\-MATTHEW 5:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-516)
[\-MATTHEW 5:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-518)
[\-MATTHEW 5:27-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-527-30)
[\-MATTHEW 5:31-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-531-32)
[\-MATTHEW 5:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-532)
[\-MATTHEW 5:33-37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-533-37)
[\-MATTHEW 5:38-48](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-538-48)
[\-MATTHEW 6:19-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-619-34)
[\-MATTHEW 6:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-633)
[\-MATTHEW 6:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-634)
[\-MATTHEW 6:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-69-13)
[\-MATTHEW 7:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-712)
[\-MATTHEW 7:15-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-715-23)
[\-MATTHEW 7:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-720-21)
[\-MATTHEW 7:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-76)
[\-MATTHEW 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-79)
[\-MATTHEW 8:21-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-821-22)
[\-MATTHEW 9:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-915)
[\-MATTHEW 9:35-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-935-38)
[\-MICAH 4:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micah-49-10)
[\-MICAH 5:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micah-51-5)
[\-MICAH 5:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micah-52)
Nehemiah – Zechariah
--------------------
[\-NEHEMIAH 8:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nehemiah-87-8)
[\-NUMBERS 13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/numbers-13-14)
[\-NUMBERS 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/numbers-15)
[\-NUMBERS 23:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/numbers-233)
[\-NUMBERS 30:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/numbers-309)
[\-PETER 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-113)
[\-PHILEMON 1:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philemon-11-2)
[\-PHILEMON 1:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philemon-12)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:18-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-118-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:21-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-121-24)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-127)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-13-5)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-212-13)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-220)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-228)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-23)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-28-11)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-3)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-31)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:10-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-310-14)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-317)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:17-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-317-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-320)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-320-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-33)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-410)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-410-11)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-413)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:13-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-413-18)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-422)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-44)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-48)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-49)
[\-PROVERBS 10:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-105)
[\-PROVERBS 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-1128)
[\-PROVERBS 12:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-1218)
[\-PROVERBS 24:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-2426)
[\-PROVERBS 27:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-276)
[\-PSALM 110](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-110)
[\-PSALM 118](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-118)
[\-PSALM 122](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-122)
[\-PSALM 132](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-132)
[\-PSALM 133:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-1332)
[\-PSALM 139](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-139)
[\-PSALM 145:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-1459)
[\-PSALM 16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-16)
[\-PSALM 16:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-168-11)
[\-PSALM 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-2)
[\-PSALM 22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-22)
[\-PSALM 23:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-234)
[\-PSALM 31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-31)
[\-PSALM 34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-34)
[\-PSALM 38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-38)
[\-PSALM 41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-41)
[\-PSALM 42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-42)
[\-PSALM 43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-43)
[\-PSALM 69](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-69)
[\-PSALM 8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-8)
[\-PSALM 80](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-80)
[\-PSALM 88](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-88)
[\-PSALM 89:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-8927)
[\-PSALM 9:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-910)
[\-PSALM 90](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-90)
[\-PSALM 91:14-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-9114-16)
[\-PSALM 95](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-95)
[\-PSALMS 15-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalms-15-24)
[\-REVELATION 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-110)
[\-REVELATION 1:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-119)
[\-REVELATION 1:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-13)
[\-REVELATION 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-14)
[\-REVELATION 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-15)
[\-REVELATION 1:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-16)
[\-REVELATION 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-19)
[\-REVELATION 11:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1115)
[\-REVELATION 11:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1116-18)
[\-REVELATION 12:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1217)
[\-REVELATION 13:5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-135-8)
[\-REVELATION 14:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1412)
[\-REVELATION 16:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-165-6)
[\-REVELATION 18:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1820)
[\-REVELATION 19:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-191-3)
[\-REVELATION 19:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-191-5)
[\-REVELATION 19:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-196-8)
[\-REVELATION 19:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-197)
[\-REVELATION 19:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-198)
[\-REVELATION 19:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-199)
[\-REVELATION 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2-3)
[\-REVELATION 20:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-209-10)
[\-REVELATION 21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-21)
[\-REVELATION 21:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-211)
[\-REVELATION 21:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2114)
[\-REVELATION 21:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2116-17)
[\-REVELATION 21:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-214)
[\-REVELATION 22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-22)
[\-REVELATION 22:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2214)
[\-REVELATION 22:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2218-19)
[\-REVELATION 22:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-227)
[\-REVELATION 22:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-229)
[\-REVELATION 3:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-312)
[\-REVELATION 3:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-34-5)
[\-REVELATION 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-38-10)
[\-REVELATION 5:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-59)
[\-REVELATION 6:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-611)
[\-REVELATION 6:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-69-11)
[\-REVELATION 7:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-714)
[\-REVELATION 7:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-717)
[\-REVELATION 7:9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-79-14)
[\-ROMANS 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1)
[\-ROMANS 1:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-116-17)
[\-ROMANS 1:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-126-27)
[\-ROMANS 1:9-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-19-15)
[\-ROMANS 10:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1016)
[\-ROMANS 11:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-111-5)
[\-ROMANS 11:17-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1117-24)
[\-ROMANS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1118)
[\-ROMANS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1126)
[\-ROMANS 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1133)
[\-ROMANS 11:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-118)
[\-ROMANS 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-12)
[\-ROMANS 12:14-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1214-21)
[\-ROMANS 12:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1216)
[\-ROMANS 12:17-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1217-21)
[\-ROMANS 12:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1219)
[\-ROMANS 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-122)
[\-ROMANS 12:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1221)
[\-ROMANS 12:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-123)
[\-ROMANS 12:3-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-123-8)
[\-ROMANS 12:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-124-5)
[\-ROMANS 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-13)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-131-2)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-131-5)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-131-7)
[\-ROMANS 13:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1313-14)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-141-14)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-15:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-141-157)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-141-6)
[\-ROMANS 14:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1414)
[\-ROMANS 14:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1419-20)
[\-ROMANS 14:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1422)
[\-ROMANS 14:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1423)
[\-ROMANS 14:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-145)
[\-ROMANS 14:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-145-6)
[\-ROMANS 15:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-151-7)
[\-ROMANS 15:18-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1518-32)
[\-ROMANS 15:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1524)
[\-ROMANS 15:25-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1525-27)
[\-ROMANS 15:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1527)
[\-ROMANS 15:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1531)
[\-ROMANS 15:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-157)
[\-ROMANS 16:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-161)
[\-ROMANS 16:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1623)
[\-ROMANS 16:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-165)
[\-ROMANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-215)
[\-ROMANS 3:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-324)
[\-ROMANS 3:3-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-33-6)
[\-ROMANS 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-4)
[\-ROMANS 4:13-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-413-16)
[\-ROMANS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-417)
[\-ROMANS 4:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-420-21)
[\-ROMANS 4:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-425)
[\-ROMANS 5:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-51)
[\-ROMANS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-512)
[\-ROMANS 5:12-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-512-21)
[\-ROMANS 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-513)
[\-ROMANS 5:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-56-8)
[\-ROMANS 5:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-57-8)
[\-ROMANS 6:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-611)
[\-ROMANS 6:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-614)
[\-ROMANS 6:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-618)
[\-ROMANS 6:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-619)
[\-ROMANS 6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-63)
[\-ROMANS 6:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-63-4)
[\-ROMANS 7:13-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-713-25)
[\-ROMANS 7:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-720)
[\-ROMANS 7:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-74-6)
[\-ROMANS 7:7-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-77-12)
[\-ROMANS 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-79)
[\-ROMANS 8:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-81)
[\-ROMANS 8:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-815)
[\-ROMANS 8:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-815-16)
[\-ROMANS 8:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-816-18)
[\-ROMANS 8:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-817)
[\-ROMANS 8:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-818)
[\-ROMANS 8:19-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-819-22)
[\-ROMANS 8:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-82)
[\-ROMANS 8:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-821)
[\-ROMANS 8:23-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-823-25)
[\-ROMANS 8:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-828-30)
[\-ROMANS 8:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-829-30)
[\-ROMANS 8:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-831)
[\-ROMANS 8:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-89)
[\-ROMANS 9:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-923-26)
[\-ROMANS 9:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-927-28)
[\-ROMANS 9:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-93)
[\-ROMANS 9:6-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-96-29)
[\-ROMANS 9:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-96-8)
[\-TITUS 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-11)
[\-TITUS 1:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-116)
[\-TITUS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-14)
[\-TITUS 1:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-17)
[\-TITUS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-211)
[\-TITUS 2:11-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-211-14)
[\-TITUS 2:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-211-15)
[\-TITUS 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-212)
[\-TITUS 2:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-214)
[\-TITUS 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-27)
[\-TITUS 3:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-313-14)
[\-TITUS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-314)
[\-TITUS 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-32)
[\-TITUS 3:3-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-33-8)
[\-TITUS 3:4-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-34-8)
[\-TITUS 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-35)
[\-TITUS 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-38)
[\-ZECHARIAH 9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zechariah-9-14)
[\-ZECHARIAH 9:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zechariah-99)
[1 CORINTHIANS 9:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-919)
[1963 MENNONITE CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1963-mennonite-confession-of-faith)
[9MARKS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/9marks)
A
-
[A. PHILLIP | BROWN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/a-phillip-or-brown)
[A.K. | ZOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ak-or-zook)
[ABANDONMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abandonment)
[ABIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abide)
[ABOMINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abomination)
[ABORTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abortion)
[ABRAHAM | FRIESEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abraham-or-friesen)
[ABUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abuse)
[ACCOUNTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/accountability)
[ADAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/adam)
[ADMONISHMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/admonishment)
[ADULTERY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/adultery)
[AFRAID](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/afraid)
[AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/african-methodist-episcopal)
[AFTER THREE DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/after-three-days)
[AFTERDEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/afterdeath)
[AGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/age)
[AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/age-of-accountability)
[AL | MOHLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/al-or-mohler)
[ALBERT | MAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/albert-or-mast)
[ALBERT | VERSPECK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/albert-or-verspeck)
[ALCESTIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alcestis)
[ALEXANDER | STRAUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alexander-or-strauch)
[ALIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alight)
[ALLAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allah)
[ALLEN | ROTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allen-or-roth)
[ALLEN P. | ROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allen-p-or-ross)
[ALVIN J. | BEACHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alvin-j-or-beachy)
[AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/american-civil-religion)
[AMERICAN DREAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/american-dream)
[AMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amillennialism)
[AMISH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amish)
[AMORITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amorites)
[AMOS | HOOVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-or-hoover)
[ANABAPTIST CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-culture)
[ANABAPTIST FINANCIAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-financial)
[ANABAPTIST HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-history)
[ANABAPTIST IDENTITY CONFERENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-identity-conference)
[ANABAPTIST ORCHESTRA CAMP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-orchestra-camp)
[ANABAPTIST PERIODICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-periodicals)
[ANABAPTISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptists)
[ANDREAS | KÖSTENBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andreas-or-kostenberger)
[ANDREW | CORNES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-cornes)
[ANDREW | HILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-hill)
[ANDREW | PETERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-peterson)
[ANDREW DAVID | NASELLI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-david-or-naselli)
[ANDREW V. | STE. MARIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-v-or-ste-marie)
[ANGEL M. | MERGAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/angel-m-or-mergal)
[ANGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anger)
[ANIMALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/animals)
[ANNUAL REPORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/annual-report)
[ANSWERED PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/answered-prayer)
[ANTHONY C. | THISELTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anthony-c-or-thiselton)
[ANXIETY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anxiety)
[ANY-CAUSE DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/any-cause-divorce)
[AORIST VERBS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aorist-verbs)
[APOCALYPTIC DELIVERANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apocalyptic-deliverance)
[APOLOGETICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apologetics)
[APOSTLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostle)
[APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostolic-authority)
[APOSTOLIC CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostolic-church)
[APPLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/applications)
[ARCHAEOLOGY MAGAZINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/archaeology-magazine)
[ARCHITECTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/architecture)
[ARMINIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arminianism)
[ARNOLD L. | COOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arnold-l-or-cook)
[ARTHUR | SIDO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arthur-or-sido)
[ARTICLE BOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/article-book)
[ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/artificial-intelligence)
[ARTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arts)
[ASCENSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ascension)
[ASELGEIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aselgeia)
[ASHER | WITMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/asher-or-witmer)
[ASSEMBLIES OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assemblies-of-god)
[ASSESSMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assessment)
[ASSURANCE OF SALVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assurance-of-salvation)
[ATHEISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atheism)
[ATLANTA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atlanta)
[ATONEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atonement)
[AUBREY | SPEARS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aubrey-or-spears)
[AUDIO BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/audio-bible)
[AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/augustine-of-hippo)
[AUTHORIAL INTENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/authorial-intent)
[AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/authority)
[AUTUMN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/autumn)
[AVERSION DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aversion-divorce)
[AZUSA STREET REVIVAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/azusa-street-revival)
B
-
[BALD EAGLE BOYS CAMP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bald-eagle-boys-camp)
[BALTHASAR | HUBMAIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/balthasar-or-hubmaier)
[BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/baptism)
[BAR MITZVAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bar-mitzvah)
[BARBARA | ROBERTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/barbara-or-roberts)
[BEACHY AMISH-MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beachy-amish-mennonites)
[BEARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beards)
[BEAUTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beauty)
[BEETHOVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beethoven)
[BEHAVIOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/behavior)
[BELIEF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/belief)
[BELIEFS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beliefs)
[BELIEVER'S BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/believers-baptism)
[BELOVED DISCIPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beloved-disciple)
[BEN | WITHERINGTON III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ben-or-witherington-iii)
[BENEDICT OPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/benedict-option)
[BENJAMIN | EBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/benjamin-or-eby)
[BEREA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/berea)
[BETRAYAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrayal)
[BETROTHAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrothal)
[BETROTHAL VIEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrothal-view)
[BEULAH STAUFFER | HOSTETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beulah-stauffer-or-hostetler)
[BIBLE APPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-apps)
[BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-contradictions)
[BIBLE GATEWAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-gateway)
[BIBLE PROMISES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-promises)
[BIBLE READING PLAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-reading-plan)
[BIBLE TRANSLATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-translations)
[BIBLE'S TRUSTWORTHINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bibles-trustworthiness)
[BIBLIBLOGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bibliblogs)
[BIBLICAL AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-authority)
[BIBLICAL GREEK PROGRAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-greek-program)
[BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-interpretation)
[BIBLICAL LANGUAGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-languages)
[BIBLICAL LITERACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-literacy)
[BIBLICAL MENNONITE ALLIANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-mennonite-alliance)
[BIBLICAL THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-theology)
[BIBLICALTRAINING.ORG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblicaltrainingorg)
[BIBLICISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblicism)
[BILL | GOTHARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bill-or-gothard)
[BILL | MOUNCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bill-or-mounce)
[BIRCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birch)
[BIRDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birds)
[BIRTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birth)
[BLOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/blood)
[BOBBY | JAMIESON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bobby-or-jamieson)
[BODY OF CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/body-of-christ)
[BOOK OF ENOCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-enoch)
[BOOK OF LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-life)
[BOOK OF NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-nature)
[BOOK OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-scripture)
[BOOK REVIEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-reviews)
[BOOKS FOR CHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/books-for-children)
[BORN AGAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/born-again)
[BOUND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bound)
[BRAHMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brahms)
[BRER FOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brer-fox)
[BRER RABBIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brer-rabbit)
[BRIAN | FIKKERT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brian-or-fikkert)
[BRIAN S. | ROSNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brian-s-or-rosner)
[BRIDE OF CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bride-of-christ)
[BROTHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brothers)
[BRUCE K. | WALTKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bruce-k-or-waltke)
[BRYCE | KLABUNDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bryce-or-klabunde)
[BURIAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/burial)
[BUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bus)
C
-
[C. ARNOLD | SNYDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/c-arnold-or-snyder)
[C. AUSTIN | MILES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/c-austin-or-miles)
[C.H. | DODD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ch-or-dodd)
[C.S. | LEWIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cs-or-lewis)
[CALVARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvary)
[CALVARY MESSENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvary-messenger)
[CALVIN | SEERVELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvin-or-seerveld)
[CALVINISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvinism)
[CANAANITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/canaanites)
[CANCER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cancer)
[CANON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/canon)
[CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/catechism)
[CELESTIAL FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/celestial-flesh)
[CELIBACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/celibacy)
[CENTURION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/centurion)
[CERTAINTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/certainty)
[CHANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chance)
[CHANGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/change)
[CHARACTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/character)
[CHARLES A. | HAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charles-a-or-hay)
[CHARLES L. | QUARLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charles-l-or-quarles)
[CHARLIE | SKRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charlie-or-skrine)
[CHASTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chastity)
[CHESTER | WEAVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chester-or-weaver)
[CHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/children)
[CHILDREN - EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/children-evangelism)
[CHINESE STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chinese-students)
[CHOPIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chopin)
[CHRIS | CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chris-or-christian)
[CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christ)
[CHRIST'S DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christs-death)
[CHRIST'S RETURN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christs-return)
[CHRISTENA | CLEVELAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christena-or-cleveland)
[CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian)
[CHRISTIAN | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-burkholder)
[CHRISTIAN | HEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-hege)
[CHRISTIAN | LUGBÜLL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-lugbull)
[CHRISTIAN | NEFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-neff)
[CHRISTIAN AID MINISTRIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-aid-ministries)
[CHRISTIAN LIGHT PUBLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-light-publications)
[CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-standard-bible)
[CHRISTLIKENESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christlikeness)
[CHRISTMAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christmas)
[CHRISTOCENTRIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christocentric)
[CHRISTOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christology)
[CHRISTOPHER | ASH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-ash)
[CHRISTOPHER | DE VINCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-de-vinck)
[CHRISTOPHER | ROWLAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-rowland)
[CHRISTOPHER J. H. | WRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-j-h-or-wright)
[CHRISTOPHER R. | HUTSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-r-or-hutson)
[CHRISTOTELIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christotelic)
[CHRISTY | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christy-or-smucker)
[CHRONICLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronicles)
[CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronological-bible)
[CHRONOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronology)
[CHRYSOSTOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chrysostom)
[CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church)
[CHURCH AND ISRAEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-and-israel)
[CHURCH AND STATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-and-state)
[CHURCH AS FAMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-as-family)
[CHURCH BOUNDARIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-boundaries)
[CHURCH BUDGETS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-budgets)
[CHURCH BUILDINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-buildings)
[CHURCH CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-culture)
[CHURCH DECISION-MAKING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-decision-making)
[CHURCH DENOMINATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-denominations)
[CHURCH DISCIPLINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-discipline)
[CHURCH GIVING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-giving)
[CHURCH GROWTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-growth)
[CHURCH HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-history)
[CHURCH LEADERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-leadership)
[CHURCH LIFE CYCLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-life-cycle)
[CHURCH LOCAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-local)
[CHURCH MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-membership)
[CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST MENNONITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-of-god-in-christ-mennonite)
[CHURCH PLANTING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-planting)
[CHURCH PRIORITY OF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-priority-of)
[CHURCH PURITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-purity)
[CHURCH STANDARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-standards)
[CHURCH TRADITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-tradition)
[CHURCH UNITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-unity)
[CHURCH UNIVERSAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-universal)
[CHURCHFUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/churchfunding)
[CICERO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cicero)
[CITIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cities)
[CITIZENSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/citizenship)
[CITY OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/city-of-god)
[CIVIL WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/civil-war)
[CLAIR | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clair-or-martin)
[CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clarity-of-scripture)
[CLASSICAL PARALLELS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/classical-parallels)
[CLAUS | WESTERMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/claus-or-westermann)
[CLEAN AND UNCLEAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clean-and-unclean)
[CLEAVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cleave)
[CLERGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clergy)
[CLINTON | ARNOLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clinton-or-arnold)
[CLOSED MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/closed-membership)
[CLOTHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clothing)
[COLLECTIVISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/collectivism)
[COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/college)
[COLLIER | BERKSHIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/collier-or-berkshire)
[COMFORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/comfort)
[COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/commandment)
[COMMENTARIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/commentaries)
[COMMUNICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/communication)
[COMMUNIO SANCTORUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/communio-sanctorum)
[COMMUNITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/community)
[COMPLACENCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/complacency)
[COMPOSITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/composition)
[COMPROMISE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/compromise)
[CONCESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/concession)
[CONCILIARISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conciliarism)
[CONFERENCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conferences)
[CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/confession-of-faith)
[CONFESSIONS OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/confessions-of-faith)
[CONGREGATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregation)
[CONGREGATIONAL MUSIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregational-music)
[CONGREGATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregationalism)
[CONRAD | GREBEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conrad-or-grebel)
[CONRAD | HERTZLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conrad-or-hertzler)
[CONSERVATIVE MENNONITE CHURCH OF ONTARIO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conservative-mennonite-church-of-ontario)
[CONSERVATIVE VERSUS LIBERAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conservative-versus-liberal)
[CONTENTMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contentment)
[CONTEXTUALIZATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contextualization)
[CONTRADICTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contradiction)
[CONVERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conversion)
[CONVICTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/convictions)
[CORNELIS | RIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornelis-or-ris)
[CORNELIUS J. | DYCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornelius-j-or-dyck)
[CORNES | ANDREW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornes-or-andrew)
[CORPUS CHRISTIANUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/corpus-christianum)
[CORPUS PERMIXTUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/corpus-permixtum)
[CORY | ANDERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cory-or-anderson)
[COUNCIL OF TRENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/council-of-trent)
[COUNSELLING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/counselling)
[COVENANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant)
[COVENANT FORMULA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-formula)
[COVENANT SIGN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-sign)
[COVENANT THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-theological-seminary)
[CRAIG | BLOMBERG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-or-blomberg)
[CRAIG A. | BLAISING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-a-or-blaising)
[CRAIG S. | KEENER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-s-or-keener)
[CREATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/creation)
[CREDOBAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/credobaptism)
[CROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cross)
[CROSS-CULTURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cross-cultural)
[CROWDFUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/crowdfunding)
[CRUCIFIXION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/crucifixion)
[CUBITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cubits)
[CULTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cults)
[CULTURAL DIFFERENCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cultural-differences)
[CULTURAL ELITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cultural-elites)
[CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/culture)
[CURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cure)
[CURES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cures)
[CURIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/curialism)
[CURSE OF HAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/curse-of-ham)
[CYNTHIA LONG | WESTFALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cynthia-long-or-westfall)
[CYPRIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cyprian)
[CYRUS INGERSON | SCOFIELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cyrus-ingerson-or-scofield)
D
-
[D. B. | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/d-b-or-martin)
[D.A. | CARSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/da-or-carson)
[DALE C. | ALLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dale-c-or-allison)
[DALE RALPH | DAVIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dale-ralph-or-davis)
[DAMNATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/damnation)
[DANIEL | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-or-kauffman)
[DANTE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dante)
[DARKNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/darkness)
[DARRELL L. | BOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/darrell-l-or-bock)
[DARYL | WINGERD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daryl-or-wingerd)
[DAVID | BENNET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-bennet)
[DAVID | BERCOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-bercot)
[DAVID | FREY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-frey)
[DAVID | GARLAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-garland)
[DAVID | GUSHEE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-gushee)
[DAVID | HOWARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-howard)
[DAVID | INSTONE-BREWER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-instone-brewer)
[DAVID | KLINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-kline)
[DAVID | PETERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-peterson)
[DAVID | POWLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-powlison)
[DAVID | ROBERTSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-robertson)
[DAVID | STARLING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-starling)
[DAVID | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-wenham)
[DAVID A. | DESILVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-a-or-desilva)
[DAVID AND GOLIATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-and-goliath)
[DAVID W. | PAO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-w-or-pao)
[DAVIDIC DYNASTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/davidic-dynasty)
[DEAN | TAYLOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dean-or-taylor)
[DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/death)
[DECALOGUE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/decalogue)
[DECEPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deception)
[DECISIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/decisions)
[DELIVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deliver)
[DENNIS | MCCALLUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dennis-or-mccallum)
[DENOMINATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/denominations)
[DENVER SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/denver-seminary)
[DEPOSIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deposit)
[DEPRESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/depression)
[DER HEROLD DER WAHRHEIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/der-herold-der-wahrheit)
[DEREK | DEMARS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/derek-or-demars)
[DES MOINES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/des-moines)
[DESIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/desire)
[DESTINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/destination)
[DETERMINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/determination)
[DEVOTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/devotion)
[DGO POLLS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dgo-polls)
[DGO WEBSITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dgo-website)
[DIET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diet)
[DIRK | PHILIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dirk-or-philips)
[DISABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/disability)
[DISCIPLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/disciples)
[DISCIPLESHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/discipleship)
[DISEASES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diseases)
[DISPENSATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dispensation)
[DISPENSATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dispensationalism)
[DISTRESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/distress)
[DIVERSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diversity)
[DIVINE NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divine-nature)
[DIVINE PASSIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divine-passive)
[DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce)
[DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-and-remarriage)
[DIVORCE CAUSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-causes)
[DIVORCE EVIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-evil)
[DIVORCE-ONLY VIEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-only-view)
[DOCETISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/docetism)
[DOGMATICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dogmatics)
[DOMINICAN REPUBLIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dominican-republic)
[DONALD | GUTHRIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-or-guthrie)
[DONALD | MADER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-or-mader)
[DONALD A. | HAGNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-a-or-hagner)
[DORDRECHT CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dordrecht-confession-of-faith)
[DOUGLAS | HARPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-or-harper)
[DOUGLAS | STUART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-or-stuart)
[DOUGLAS J. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-j-or-green)
[DOUGLAS J. | MOO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-j-or-moo)
[DOWNSVIEW STATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/downsview-station)
[DRIFT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/drift)
[DURA-EUROPOS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dura-europos)
[DWIGHT L. | MOODY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dwight-l-or-moody)
E
-
[EARLY CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/early-church)
[EARTHLY KINGDOMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/earthly-kingdoms)
[EASTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/easter)
[ECCLESIA CATHOLICA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesia-catholica)
[ECCLESIA SEMPRE REFORMANDA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesia-sempre-reformanda)
[ECKHARD J. | SCHABEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eckhard-j-or-schabel)
[ECUMENISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecumenism)
[EDUCATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/education)
[EDWARD W. III | KLINK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/edward-w-iii-or-klink)
[EHEBRUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ehebruch)
[EKKLESIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ekklesia)
[ELAINE | PHILLIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elaine-or-phillips)
[ELBING CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elbing-catechism)
[ELECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/election)
[ELI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eli)
[ELIJAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elijah)
[ELIZABETH | BENDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elizabeth-or-bender)
[ELMER | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elmer-or-smucker)
[EMILY | HALLOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emily-or-hallock)
[EMMANUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emmanuel)
[EMOTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emotions)
[ENCOURAGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/encouragement)
[ENDURANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/endurance)
[ENGLISH LANGUAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/english-language)
[ENOCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/enoch)
[ENTRUST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/entrust)
[ENVIRONMENTALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/environmentalism)
[EPHESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesus)
[EPISTEMOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/epistemology)
[ERASTIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/erastianism)
[ERNEST | STRUBHAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernest-or-strubhar)
[ERNEST A. | PAYNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernest-a-or-payne)
[ERNST H. | CORRELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernst-h-or-correll)
[ESCHATOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eschatology)
[ESSAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/essay)
[ESSENES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/essenes)
[ESV AUDIO BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esv-audio-bible)
[ESV STUDY BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esv-study-bible)
[ETERNAL SECURITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eternal-security)
[ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ethics)
[EUGENE H. | MERRILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eugene-h-or-merrill)
[EUNUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eunuch)
[EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN CREDIT UNION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-christian-credit-union)
[EVANGELICAL MENNONITE BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-mennonite-brethren)
[EVANGELICAL RATIONALISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-rationalists)
[EVANGELICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelicals)
[EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelism)
[EVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eve)
[EVERETT | FERGUSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/everett-or-ferguson)
[EVERETT | FOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/everett-or-fox)
[EXAGGERATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exaggeration)
[EXAMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/example)
[EXCEPTION CLAUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exception-clause)
[EXCEPTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exceptions)
[EXPERIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/experience)
[EXPOSITIONAL SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/expositional-sermons)
[EXTRAVAGANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/extravagance)
F
-
[FACEBOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/facebook)
[FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith)
[FAITH AND WORKS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith-and-works)
[FAITH BUILDERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith-builders)
[FAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faithfulness)
[FALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fall)
[FALSE TEACHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/false-teachers)
[FAMILIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/familification)
[FAMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family)
[FAMILY DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-day)
[FAMILY DEVOTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-devotions)
[FAMILY OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-of-god)
[FAMILY TIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-ties)
[FAREWELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/farewell)
[FARMING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/farming)
[FASHION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fashion)
[FATHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/father)
[FATHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fathers)
[FEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fear)
[FEAR NOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fear-not)
[FEDERAL HEADSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/federal-headship)
[FELIX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/felix)
[FELIX | MANTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/felix-or-mantz)
[FELLOWSHIP OF CONCERNED MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fellowship-of-concerned-mennonites)
[FEMALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/female)
[FIDDLER ON THE ROOF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fiddler-on-the-roof)
[FINAL JUDGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/final-judgement)
[FINAL JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/final-judgment)
[FINNY | KURUVILLA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/finny-or-kuruvilla)
[FIRST CAUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/first-cause)
[FIRSTBORN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/firstborn)
[FLAT BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flat-bible)
[FLAVIUS | JOSEPHUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flavius-or-josephus)
[FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flesh)
[FLOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flood)
[FLOWERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flowers)
[FLOYD | MCCLUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/floyd-or-mcclung)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHURCH ATLANTA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus-church-atlanta)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus-mennonite-church)
[FOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/food)
[FOREKNOWLEDGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/foreknowledge)
[FORGIVENESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/forgiveness)
[FORNICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fornication)
[FORUM FOR DOCTRINAL STUDIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/forum-for-doctrinal-studies)
[FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/foundation-of-christian-doctrine)
[FRANCISCANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/franciscans)
[FRANK | VIOLA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frank-or-viola)
[FRANKENTHAL DISPUTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frankenthal-disputation)
[FREDERICK DALE | BRUNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frederick-dale-or-bruner)
[FREE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/free)
[FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/freedom)
[FRIEND OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/friend-of-god)
[FRIENDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/friends)
[FROM THE BEGINNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/from-the-beginning)
[FROSCHAUER BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/froschauer-bible)
[FRUIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fruit)
[FRUSTRATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frustration)
[FUNDAMENTALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fundamentalism)
G
-
[G. EDWIN | BONTRAGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/g-edwin-or-bontrager)
[G. THOMAS | HOBSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/g-thomas-or-hobson)
[G.H. | WILLIAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gh-or-williams)
[G.K. | BEALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gk-or-beale)
[G.K. | CHESTERTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gk-or-chesterton)
[GAMALIEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gamaliel)
[GARDEN OF EDEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/garden-of-eden)
[GARETH L. | COCKERILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gareth-l-or-cockerill)
[GARRY | FRIESEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/garry-or-friesen)
[GARY | BURGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gary-or-burge)
[GATHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gather)
[GEMEINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gemeine)
[GENDER DISTINCTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gender-distinction)
[GENDER ROLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gender-roles)
[GENE L. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gene-l-or-green)
[GENERAL CONFERENCE MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/general-conference-mennonite-church)
[GENERALIZATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/generalizations)
[GENEROSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/generosity)
[GENEVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geneva)
[GENEVA BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geneva-bible)
[GEOFF | ASHLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geoff-or-ashley)
[GEORGE | GOLDMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-or-goldman)
[GEORGE | GUTHRIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-or-guthrie)
[GEORGE H. | WILLIAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-h-or-william)
[GEORGE H. | WILLIAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-h-or-williams)
[GEORGE R. | BRUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-r-or-brunk)
[GERARD MANLEY | HOPKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gerard-manley-or-hopkins)
[GERHARD | ROOSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gerhard-or-roosen)
[GETHSEMANE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gethsemane)
[GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gifts)
[GILLIS | VAN AACHEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gillis-or-van-aachen)
[GIVING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/giving)
[GLEN | MAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/glen-or-mast)
[GLORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/glory)
[GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/god)
[GOD'S WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gods-will)
[GODLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/godliness)
[GODS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gods)
[GOLDEN APPLES IN SILVER BOWLS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/golden-apples-in-silver-bowls)
[GOLDEN RULE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/golden-rule)
[GOMORRAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gomorrah)
[GOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good)
[GOOD SHEPHERD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good-shepherd)
[GOOD WORK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good-work)
[GOODBYE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodbye)
[GOODNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodness)
[GOODNESS OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodness-of-god)
[GORDAN | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordan-or-wenham)
[GORDON | FEE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-or-fee)
[GORDON | HUGENBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-or-hugenberger)
[GORDON J. | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-j-or-wenham)
[GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel)
[GOSPEL ECHOES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-echoes)
[GOSPEL OF MATTHEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-of-matthew)
[GOSPEL WITNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-witness)
[GOVERNMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/government)
[GRACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grace)
[GRACE GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grace-gifts)
[GRACIOUSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/graciousness)
[GRAMMAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grammar)
[GRANDCHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandchildren)
[GRANDDAUGHTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/granddaughter)
[GRANDMOTHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandmother)
[GRANDPARENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandparents)
[GRANT | OSBORNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grant-or-osborne)
[GRATITUDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gratitude)
[GREAT COMMISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/great-commission)
[GREED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greed)
[GREEK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greek)
[GREEK ORTHODOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greek-orthodox)
[GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/green)
[GREGG R. | ALLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gregg-r-or-allison)
[GRETCHEN | BASKERVILLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gretchen-or-baskerville)
[GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grounds-for-divorce)
[GROWTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/growth)
[GUIDANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/guidance)
[GULLIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gullible)
[GUY | DUTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/guy-or-duty)
H
-
[H. VAN DYCK | PARUNAK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/h-van-dyck-or-parunak)
[HAITI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/haiti)
[HALLOCK | EMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hallock-or-emily)
[HANS | BUSSCHAERT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-busschaert)
[HANS | DE RIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-de-ries)
[HANS | DENCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-denck)
[HARD SAYINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hard-sayings)
[HARDEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harden)
[HARDNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hardness)
[HARDNESS OF HEART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hardness-of-heart)
[HARMONIZE SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harmonize-scripture)
[HAROLD S. | BENDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harold-s-or-bender)
[HAROLD W. | HOEHNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harold-w-or-hoehner)
[HATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hate)
[HEAD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/head)
[HEAD COVERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/head-covering)
[HEALING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/healing)
[HEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hear)
[HEART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heart)
[HEARTS AND VOICES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hearts-and-voices)
[HEAVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heaven)
[HEAVENLY PLACES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heavenly-places)
[HEBREW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrew)
[HEBREWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews)
[HEINRICH | EBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heinrich-or-eby)
[HELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hell)
[HELMUT | THIELICKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/helmut-or-thielicke)
[HELP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/help)
[HENRI J.M. | NOUWEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/henri-jm-or-nouwen)
[HENRY VIII](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/henry-viii)
[HERALD OF TRUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/herald-of-truth)
[HERESY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heresy)
[HERMAN | VAN TIELT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/herman-or-van-tielt)
[HERMENEUTIC ROUNDABOUT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermeneutic-roundabout)
[HERMENEUTICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermeneutics)
[HERMIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermit)
[HETEROSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heterosexuality)
[HIDDEN CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hidden-church)
[HILDEGARD OF BINGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hildegard-of-bingen)
[HILLEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hillel)
[HISTORICAL CONTEXT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-context)
[HISTORICAL EVIDENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-evidence)
[HISTORICAL JESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-jesus)
[HISTORICAL PRECEDENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-precedent)
[HISTORIOGRAPHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historiography)
[HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/history)
[HISTORY OF RELIGIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/history-of-religions)
[HOC EST CORPUS MEUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hoc-est-corpus-meum)
[HOLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holiness)
[HOLY KISS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-kiss)
[HOLY SATURDAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-saturday)
[HOLY SPIRIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-spirit)
[HOLY WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-war)
[HOMELESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homelessness)
[HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homosexuality)
[HOMOSEXUALITY AND ANCIENT JEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homosexuality-and-ancient-jews)
[HONOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/honor)
[HOPE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hope)
[HOSPITALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hospitality)
[HOUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/house)
[HOUSE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/house-church)
[HOUSEHOLD OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/household-of-god)
[HOUSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/houses)
[HOW FIRM A FOUNDATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/how-firm-a-foundation)
[HOW LONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/how-long)
[HOYTE | RIENCX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hoyte-or-riencx)
[HULDRYCH | ZWINGLI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/huldrych-or-zwingli)
[HUMAN NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/human-nature)
[HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/human-responsibility)
[HUMILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/humility)
[HUMOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/humor)
[HUREREI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hurerei)
[HUSBANDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/husbands)
[HUTTERITE CHRONICLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hutterite-chronicle)
[HUTTERITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hutterites)
[HYMNALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hymnals)
[HYPER-LITERALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hyper-literalism)
[HYPOCRISY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hypocrisy)
[HYPOPITUITARISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hypopituitarism)
I
-
[I. HOWARD | MARSHALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/i-howard-or-marshall)
[IAIN W. | PROVAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/iain-w-or-provan)
[IAN | BOXALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ian-or-boxall)
[IDEALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/idealism)
[IDENTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/identity)
[IDOLATRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/idolatry)
[III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/iii)
[IMAGE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/image-of-god)
[IMAGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/images)
[IMITATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/imitate)
[IMITATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/imitation)
[IMMANUEL | JAKOBOVITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immanuel-or-jakobovits)
[IMMERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immersion)
[IMMUTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immutability)
[IMPLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/implications)
[IN THE SIGHT OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/in-the-sight-of-god)
[IN THREE DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/in-three-days)
[INCARNATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/incarnation)
[INCEST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/incest)
[INDEFECTIBILITY OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indefectibility-of-faith)
[INDEFECTIBILITY OF GRACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indefectibility-of-grace)
[INDISPENSABLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indispensable)
[INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indissolubility-of-marriage)
[INDISSOLUBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indissoluble)
[INDIVIDUALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/individualism)
[INERRANCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/inerrancy)
[INFANT BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/infant-baptism)
[INFINITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/infinity)
[INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/insiders-and-outsiders)
[INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/inspiration-of-scripture)
[INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/institutes-of-the-christian-religion)
[INTEGRITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/integrity)
[INTELLECT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intellect)
[INTENTIONAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intentional)
[INTEREST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/interest)
[INTERMEDIATE STATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intermediate-state)
[INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/international-students)
[INTIMATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intimate)
[INVISIBLE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/invisible-church)
[IRA D. | LANDIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ira-d-or-landis)
[IRENAEUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/irenaeus)
[IRONY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/irony)
[ISAAC | WATTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaac-or-watts)
[ISRAEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israel)
[ISRAEL OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israel-of-god)
[ISRAEL'S HARDENING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israels-hardening)
[ISRAEL'S JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israels-judgment)
J
-
[J. ALEC | MOTYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-alec-or-motyer)
[J. CARL | LANEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-carl-or-laney)
[J. GORDON | MCCONVILLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-gordon-or-mcconville)
[J. GORDON | MELTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-gordon-or-melton)
[J. HOWARD | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-howard-or-kauffman)
[J. LOUIS | MARTYN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-louis-or-martyn)
[J. P. | MEIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-p-or-meier)
[J. PAUL | GRAYBILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-paul-or-graybill)
[J. RAMSEY | MICHAELS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-ramsey-or-michaels)
[J.A. | OOSTERBAAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ja-or-oosterbaan)
[J.C. | WAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jc-or-wand)
[J.C. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jc-or-wenger)
[J.M. | VINCENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jm-or-vincent)
[JACK | DEERE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jack-or-deere)
[JACOB | AMMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-ammann)
[JACOB | ARMINIUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-arminius)
[JACOB | JANSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-jansz)
[JACOB | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-stauffer)
[JACOB | VAN LIESVELDT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-van-liesveldt)
[JACOB D. | GOERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-d-or-goering)
[JAMES | EDWARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-or-edwards)
[JAMES | USSHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-or-ussher)
[JAMES D. | DVORAK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-d-or-dvorak)
[JAMES R. | EDWARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-r-or-edwards)
[JAN | GLEYSTEEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jan-or-gleysteen)
[JAPHETH | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/japheth-or-stauffer)
[JASON | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jason-or-kauffman)
[JAY E. | ADAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jay-e-or-adams)
[JEALOUSY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jealousy)
[JEANNINE K. | BROWN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeannine-k-or-brown)
[JENNIFER | FOUTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jennifer-or-foutz)
[JEREMY | BOUMA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremy-or-bouma)
[JERRY | FALWELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-falwell)
[JERRY | JONES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-jones)
[JERRY | SITTSER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-sittser)
[JESSE | KROPF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesse-or-kropf)
[JESUS AND DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-divorce)
[JESUS AND HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-homosexuality)
[JESUS AND LOVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-love)
[JESUS' EXAMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-example)
[JESUS' WORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-words)
[JEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jews)
[JIM | CHRISMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jim-or-chrisman)
[JIM | ELLIFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jim-or-elliff)
[JOACHIM OF FIORE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joachim-of-fiore)
[JOCHEBED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jochebed)
[JOE A. | SPRINGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joe-a-or-springer)
[JOEL B. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joel-b-or-green)
[JOHN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john)
[JOHN | BARCLAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-barclay)
[JOHN | BRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-bright)
[JOHN | CALVIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-calvin)
[JOHN | CHRYSOSTOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-chrysostom)
[JOHN | COBLENTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-coblentz)
[JOHN | DICKSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-dickson)
[JOHN | DONNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-donne)
[JOHN | FOXE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-foxe)
[JOHN | HARRISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-harrison)
[JOHN | HOLDEMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-holdeman)
[JOHN | HOOPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-hooper)
[JOHN | HORSCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-horsch)
[JOHN | HUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-hus)
[JOHN | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-johnson)
[JOHN | MACARTHUR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-macarthur)
[JOHN | MCNEILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-mcneill)
[JOHN | MCRAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-mcray)
[JOHN | OSWALT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-oswalt)
[JOHN | OWEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-owen)
[JOHN | PERKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-perkins)
[JOHN | PIPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-piper)
[JOHN | WYCLIF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-wyclif)
[JOHN A. | HOSTETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-a-or-hostetler)
[JOHN C. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-c-or-wenger)
[JOHN D. | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-d-or-martin)
[JOHN D. | ROTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-d-or-roth)
[JOHN E. | TOEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-e-or-toews)
[JOHN F. | FUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-f-or-funk)
[JOHN H. | SAILHAMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-h-or-sailhamer)
[JOHN H. | WALTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-h-or-walton)
[JOHN HOWARD | YODER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-howard-or-yoder)
[JOHN L. | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-l-or-stauffer)
[JOHN LANDIS | RUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-landis-or-ruth)
[JOHN M. | BRENNEMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-m-or-brenneman)
[JOHN NELSON | DARBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-nelson-or-darby)
[JOHN P. | MEIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-p-or-meier)
[JOHN S. | COFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-s-or-coffman)
[JOHN THE BAPTIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-the-baptist)
[JOIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/join)
[JONADAB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonadab)
[JONAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah)
[JOSEPH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph)
[JOSEPH | FUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-or-funk)
[JOSEPH | NEILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-or-neill)
[JOSEPH A. | WEBB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-a-or-webb)
[JOSEPH F. | SOHM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-f-or-sohm)
[JOSEPH H. | HELLERMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-h-or-hellerman)
[JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-of-arimathea)
[JOSEPHUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/josephus)
[JOY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joy)
[JR.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jr)
[JUDAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judas)
[JUDEO-CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judeo-christian)
[JUDGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges)
[JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judgment)
[JUDITH C. | AREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judith-c-or-areen)
[JUST WAR THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/just-war-theory)
[JUSTICE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justice)
[JUSTIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justification)
[JUSTIN MARTYR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justin-martyr)
K
-
[KAREN H. | JOBES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/karen-h-or-jobes)
[KARL | KOOP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/karl-or-koop)
[KATHERINE | DUNBABIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/katherine-or-dunbabin)
[KEN | BRUBACHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ken-or-brubacher)
[KEN | GIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ken-or-gire)
[KENNETH E. | BAILEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kenneth-e-or-bailey)
[KENNY | WOOLMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kenny-or-woolman)
[KEVIN | DEYOUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kevin-or-deyoung)
[KINDNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kindness)
[KING JAMES VERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/king-james-version)
[KINGDOM OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kingdom-of-god)
[KINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kings)
[KINGSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kingship)
[KINSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kinship)
[KIRCHE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kirche)
[KISS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kiss)
[KLEINE GEMEINDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kleine-gemeinde)
[KLYNE R. | SNODGRASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/klyne-r-or-snodgrass)
[KNOWLEDGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/knowledge)
[KYLE | HARPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kyle-or-harper)
[KYLE | ROBERTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kyle-or-roberts)
L
-
[LAITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/laity)
[LARRY | KREIDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/larry-or-kreider)
[LAST DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/last-days)
[LAW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law)
[LAW AND THE CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law-and-the-christian)
[LAW OF MOSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law-of-moses)
[LAWLESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lawlessness)
[LAZARUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lazarus)
[LEADERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leaders)
[LEARNERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/learners)
[LEAVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leaves)
[LEENAERT | BOUWENS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leenaert-or-bouwens)
[LEGALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/legalism)
[LELAND D. | HARDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leland-d-or-harder)
[LEONARD | GROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leonard-or-gross)
[LEONARD | VERDUIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leonard-or-verduin)
[LETTING GO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/letting-go)
[LEVITICAL PRIESTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/levitical-priests)
[LIBERATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/liberation)
[LIBRARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/library)
[LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/life)
[LIFESPAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lifespan)
[LIFESTYLE EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lifestyle-evangelism)
[LIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/light)
[LIGHT OF THE WORLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/light-of-the-world)
[LINFORD | BERRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/linford-or-berry)
[LIVING WATER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/living-water)
[LIVING WORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/living-word)
[LOGIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/logic)
[LOOPHOLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loophole)
[LORD'S DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-day)
[LORD'S PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-prayer)
[LORD'S SUPPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-supper)
[LORDING OVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lording-over)
[LORRAINE | JANZEN KOOISTRA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lorraine-or-janzen-kooistra)
[LOSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loss)
[LOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lot)
[LOU | PRIOLO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lou-or-priolo)
[LOUIS | MCBRIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/louis-or-mcbride)
[LOVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love)
[LOVE AND SEXUAL ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-and-sexual-ethics)
[LOVE FEASTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-feasts)
[LOVE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-of-god)
[LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-your-neighbor)
[LOWELL | HERSCHBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lowell-or-herschberger)
[LOYALTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loyalty)
[LUDWIG | HAETZER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ludwig-or-haetzer)
[LUKE TIMOTHY | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-timothy-or-johnson)
M
-
[MAGISTERIAL REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/magisterial-reformation)
[MALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/male)
[MANNA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/manna)
[MARC | CORTEZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marc-or-cortez)
[MARGARET | AVISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/margaret-or-avison)
[MARK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark)
[MARK | DEVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-or-dever)
[MARK A. | ELLIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-a-or-ellis)
[MARK A. | SEIFRID](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-a-or-seifrid)
[MARK R. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-r-or-wenger)
[MARK S. | SWEETNAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-s-or-sweetnam)
[MARKS OF THE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marks-of-the-church)
[MARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marriage)
[MARRIAGE CONTRACT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marriage-contract)
[MARTIN | LUTHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martin-or-luther)
[MARTIN | SELMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martin-or-selman)
[MARTYRS MIRROR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martyrs-mirror)
[MARVIN | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marvin-or-kauffman)
[MARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mary)
[MARY OF BETHANY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mary-of-bethany)
[MATERIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/materialism)
[MATTHEW | VINES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-or-vines)
[MATTHIAS | OVERHOLT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthias-or-overholt)
[MAX | GÖBEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/max-or-gobel)
[MEANING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meaning)
[MEAT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meat)
[MEETING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meeting)
[MEGAN | PHELPS-ROPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/megan-or-phelps-roper)
[MELCHIZEDEK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/melchizedek)
[MELVIN | GINGERICH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/melvin-or-gingerich)
[MENNO | SIMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/menno-or-simons)
[MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mennonite-church)
[MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mennonites)
[MENTAL HEALTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mental-health)
[MENTORING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mentoring)
[MERCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mercy)
[MERIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/merit)
[MERLE | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/merle-or-burkholder)
[MESSENGER FORMULA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messenger-formula)
[MESSIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messiah)
[MESSIANIC PSALMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messianic-psalms)
[MICAIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micaiah)
[MICHAEL | GLASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-glass)
[MICHAEL | LAWRENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-lawrence)
[MICHAEL | SATTLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-sattler)
[MICHAEL J. | WILKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-j-or-wilkins)
[MICROLOANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/microloans)
[MIDDLE AGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/middle-ages)
[MIDLIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midlife)
[MIDRASH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midrash)
[MIDWEST FELLOWSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midwest-fellowship)
[MIKE | ATNIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mike-or-atnip)
[MILK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/milk)
[MILLENNIUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/millennium)
[MILO | ZEHR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/milo-or-zehr)
[MIRACLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miracles)
[MIRIAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miriam)
[MIRIAM | IWASHIGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miriam-or-iwashige)
[MISHNAH-SANHEDRIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mishnah-sanhedrin)
[MISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mission)
[MISSIONARY SUPPORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missionary-support)
[MISSIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missions)
[MISSIONS FUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missions-funding)
[MOISES | SILVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moises-or-silva)
[MONEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/money)
[MONEY TRANSFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/money-transfer)
[MONOTHEISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/monotheism)
[MONTBÉLIARD MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/montbeliard-mennonite-church)
[MORALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moralism)
[MORNA | HOOKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/morna-or-hooker)
[MOSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moses)
[MOZART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mozart)
[MULTICULTURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/multicultural)
[MÜNSTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/munster)
[MURRAY J. | HARRIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/murray-j-or-harris)
[MUSIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/music)
[MUSLIMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/muslims)
[MY BONE AND MY FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/my-bone-and-my-flesh)
N
-
[N.T. | WRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-or-wright)
[NABEEL | QURESHI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nabeel-or-qureshi)
[NAME OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/name-of-god)
[NANNE | VAN DER ZIJPP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nanne-or-van-der-zijpp)
[NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/national-association-of-evangelicals)
[NATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nationalism)
[NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nature)
[NEIGHBORS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/neighbors)
[NEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new)
[NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-american-commentary)
[NEW COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-commandment)
[NEW COVENANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-covenant)
[NEW EARTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-earth)
[NEW ENGLAND PRIMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-england-primer)
[NEW HEAVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-heaven)
[NEW HORIZONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-horizons)
[NEW JERUSALEM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-jerusalem)
[NEW TESTAMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-testament)
[NICENE CREED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nicene-creed)
[NICHOLAS | BIESTKENS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nicholas-or-biestkens)
[NINEVEH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nineveh)
[NIV](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/niv)
[NIV ZONDERVAN STUDY BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/niv-zondervan-study-bible)
[NOAH'S ARK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noahs-ark)
[NOBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noble)
[NON-VIOLENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/non-violence)
[NONCOMFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noncomformity)
[NONCONFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nonconformity)
[NONRESISTANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nonresistance)
[NORM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/norm)
[NORMAN | TROYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/norman-or-troyer)
[NOURISHMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nourishment)
[NT PRACTICES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-practices)
[NT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-theology)
[NT USE OF OT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-use-of-ot)
O
-
[O.M. | BAKKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/om-or-bakke)
[OATHS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/oaths)
[OBEDIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/obedience)
[OBITUARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/obituary)
[OLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/old)
[OLD COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/old-commandment)
[OLIVE TREE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/olive-tree)
[OMNISCIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/omniscience)
[ON THE RESURRECTION MORNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/on-the-resurrection-morning)
[ON THE THIRD DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/on-the-third-day)
[ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/once-saved-always-saved)
[ONE FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/one-flesh)
[OPEN HANDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/open-hands)
[OPEN MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/open-membership)
[ORDINANCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ordinances)
[ORIGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/origen)
[ORIGIN STORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/origin-story)
[ORIGINAL SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/original-sin)
[OT NARRATIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ot-narrative)
[OT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ot-theology)
[OVER-REALIZED ESCHATOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/over-realized-eschatology)
P
-
[PACIFISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pacifism)
[PAEDOBAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paedobaptism)
[PAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pain)
[PALM SUNDAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/palm-sunday)
[PAPACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/papacy)
[PARABLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parable)
[PARABLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parables)
[PARENTHOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parenthood)
[PARENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parents)
[PARTICIPATORY CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/participatory-church)
[PASTOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pastor)
[PASTORAL CONCERNS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pastoral-concerns)
[PATRIOTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/patriotism)
[PAUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul)
[PAUL | BARKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-barker)
[PAUL | EMERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-emerson)
[PAUL | OESTREICHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-oestreicher)
[PAUL AND DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-and-divorce)
[PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-and-homosexuality)
[PAUL S. | MINEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-s-or-minear)
[PEACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peace)
[PEACEMAKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peacemaker)
[PEDERASTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pederasty)
[PELAGIUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pelagius)
[PENAL SUBSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/penal-substitution)
[PENTECOST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pentecost)
[PEOPLE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/people-of-god)
[PERFECT TENSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perfect-tense)
[PERRY | YODER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perry-or-yoder)
[PERSECUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/persecution)
[PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perseverance-of-the-saints)
[PERSPECTIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perspective)
[PET PEEVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pet-peeves)
[PETER | ADAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-adam)
[PETER | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-burkholder)
[PETER | DAMIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-damian)
[PETER | REIDEMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-reidemann)
[PETER | SANLON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-sanlon)
[PETER | WALPOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-walpot)
[PETER J. | KLASSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-j-or-klassen)
[PETER J. | TWISCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-j-or-twisck)
[PETER T. | O'BRIEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-t-or-obrien)
[PHARISEES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pharisees)
[PHIL | KEAGGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phil-or-keaggy)
[PHILIP E. | SATTERTHWAITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philip-e-or-satterthwaite)
[PHILLIP | LONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phillip-or-long)
[PHILLIP | SIGAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phillip-or-sigal)
[PHILO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philo)
[PHYSICIAN OF THE SOUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/physician-of-the-soul)
[PICTURE SMART BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/picture-smart-bible)
[PIETER | PIETERSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pieter-or-pietersz)
[PILGRIMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pilgrims)
[PLANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plants)
[PLATO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plato)
[PLAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/play)
[PLEASED GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pleased-god)
[PLINY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pliny)
[PLUTO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pluto)
[PLYMOUTH BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plymouth-brethren)
[POETRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/poetry)
[POLITICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/politics)
[POLYCARP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/polycarp)
[POPE BONIFACE VIII](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-boniface-viii)
[POPE GREGORY III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-gregory-iii)
[POPE PAUL VI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-paul-vi)
[POPE PIUS II](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-pius-ii)
[POPE SYLVESTER I](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-sylvester-i)
[PORNEIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/porneia)
[POSTMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/postmillennialism)
[POVERTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/poverty)
[POWER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/power)
[POWERLESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/powerlessness)
[PRAGMATISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pragmatism)
[PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prayer)
[PREACHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preaching)
[PREDESTINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/predestination)
[PREMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/premillennialism)
[PRESENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/presence)
[PRESERVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preservation)
[PRESTON | SPRINKLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preston-or-sprinkle)
[PRIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pride)
[PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priesthood-of-all-believers)
[PRIESTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priests)
[PRIMARY WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/primary-will)
[PRIORITIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priorities)
[PRISON MINISTRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prison-ministry)
[PROBLEM CHRISTIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/problem-christians)
[PROCLAIM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proclaim)
[PROFESSIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/professions)
[PROHIBITIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prohibitions)
[PROMISED LAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/promised-land)
[PRONOUN REFERENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pronoun-referents)
[PROOF-TEXTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proof-texts)
[PROPHECY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prophecy)
[PROPHET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prophet)
[PROSPERITY GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prosperity-gospel)
[PROSTITUTE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prostitute)
[PROSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prostitution)
[PROTESTANT REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/protestant-reformation)
[PROTESTANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/protestants)
[PROVISION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/provision)
[PSALMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalms)
[PSEUDO-PHOCYLIDES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pseudo-phocylides)
[PURGATORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/purgatory)
[PURITANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/puritans)
[PURPOSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/purpose)
Q
-
[QUEBEC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/quebec)
[QUIET IN THE LAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/quiet-in-the-land)
R
-
[R. TODD | MANGUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/r-todd-or-mangum)
[R.T. | FRANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rt-or-france)
[RABBI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rabbi)
[RABBI ELEAZAR BEN AZARIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rabbi-eleazar-ben-azariah)
[RAD | ZDERO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rad-or-zdero)
[RADI-CALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radi-call)
[RADICAL FAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-faithfulness)
[RADICAL FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-freedom)
[RADICAL PERMANENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-permanence)
[RADICAL REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-reformation)
[RAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rain)
[RANDALL | BUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/randall-or-buth)
[RANDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/random)
[RANDY | ALCORN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/randy-or-alcorn)
[RANSOM THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ransom-theory)
[RAPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rapture)
[RAT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rat)
[RAYMOND | DILLARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-or-dillard)
[RAYMOND C. | ORTLUND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-c-or-ortlund)
[RAYMOND F. | COLLINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-f-or-collins)
[READING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reading)
[REALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/realism)
[REASON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reason)
[REBUKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rebuke)
[RECEIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/receive)
[RECHABITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rechabites)
[RECONCILIATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reconciliation)
[RED LETTERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/red-letters)
[REDEMPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/redemption)
[REDEMPTIVE MOVEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/redemptive-movement)
[REDUCTIONISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reductionism)
[REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reformation)
[REFORMED THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reformed-theology)
[REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/regulative-principle)
[RELATIONSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/relationship)
[RELATIONSHIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/relationships)
[RENEWAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/renewal)
[REPENTANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/repentance)
[REPETITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/repetition)
[REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/replacement-theology)
[REPRESENTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/representation)
[RESTORATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/restoration)
[RESTORATIONISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/restorationism)
[RESURRECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/resurrection)
[REVELATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation)
[REVOLUTIONARY WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revolutionary-war)
[RICH | MULLINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rich-or-mullins)
[RICHARD | BAXTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-baxter)
[RICHARD | KLAUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-klaus)
[RICHARD | SCHWARTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-schwartz)
[RICHARD | SHOWALTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-showalter)
[RICHARD B. | HAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-b-or-hays)
[RICHARD K. | MACMASTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-k-or-macmaster)
[RICHARD S. | HESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-s-or-hess)
[ROBERT | FRIEDMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-friedmann)
[ROBERT | GAGNON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-gagnon)
[ROBERT | ROBINSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-robinson)
[ROBERT | STEIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-stein)
[ROBERT B. | CHISHOLM JR.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-b-or-chisholm-jr)
[ROBERT H. | STEIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-h-or-stein)
[ROBERT J. | MORGAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-j-or-morgan)
[ROD | DREHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rod-or-dreher)
[ROD AND STAFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rod-and-staff)
[RODNEY | DECKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rodney-or-decker)
[RODNEY | TROYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rodney-or-troyer)
[ROLAND | ALLEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roland-or-allen)
[ROLLIN G. | GRAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rollin-g-or-grams)
[ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roman-catholic-church)
[ROOSEN'S CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roosens-catechism)
[ROSARIA | BUTTERFIELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rosaria-or-butterfield)
[ROY E. | CIAMPA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roy-e-or-ciampa)
[RUBEL | SHELLY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rubel-or-shelly)
[RUDNERWEIDE CONFESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rudnerweide-confession)
[RULES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rules)
[RURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rural)
[RURAL ANABAPTIST TRANSLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rural-anabaptist-translation)
[RUSSIAN DOLL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/russian-doll)
S
-
[S. DONALD | FORTSON III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/s-donald-or-fortson-iii)
[SABBATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sabbath)
[SABINE | BARING-GOULD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sabine-or-baring-gould)
[SACRAMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacraments)
[SACRED AND SECULAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacred-and-secular)
[SACRED SPACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacred-space)
[SALVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/salvation)
[SAM | STORMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sam-or-storms)
[SAME-SEX ATTRACTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/same-sex-attraction)
[SAMSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samson)
[SAMUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel)
[SAMUEL | MEDLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel-or-medley)
[SAMUEL J. | STEINER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel-j-or-steiner)
[SANCTIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sanctification)
[SANFORD G. | SHETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sanford-g-or-shetler)
[SAP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sap)
[SARAH | BESSEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sarah-or-bessey)
[SARCASM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sarcasm)
[SATAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/satan)
[SATIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/satire)
[SATTLER COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sattler-college)
[SAVIOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/savior)
[SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schleitheim-confession)
[SCHUMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schumann)
[SCHUYLER | SIGNOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schuyler-or-signor)
[SCOFIELD BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scofield-bible)
[SCOT | MCKNIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scot-or-mcknight)
[SCRIPTURE SONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scripture-song)
[SEASONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seasons)
[SECOND CLASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/second-class)
[SECOND MILE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/second-mile)
[SECONDARY CAUSATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secondary-causation)
[SECONDARY WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secondary-will)
[SECRET SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secret-sin)
[SECRETS OF THE KINGDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secrets-of-the-kingdom)
[SEEKERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seekers)
[SELF REFLECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/self-reflection)
[SELF-IDENTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/self-identity)
[SEMPER IUSTUS ET PECCATOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/semper-iustus-et-peccator)
[SENSATIONAL NIGHTINGALES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sensational-nightingales)
[SEPARATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separate)
[SEPARATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separation)
[SEPARATISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separatism)
[SEPTUAGINT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/septuagint)
[SERMON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermon)
[SERMON ON THE MOUNT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermon-on-the-mount)
[SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermons)
[SERVANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant)
[SERVANT LEADER APPRENTICESHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant-leader-apprenticeship)
[SERVANT OF THE LORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant-of-the-lord)
[SERVANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servants)
[SERVICE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/service)
[SETH | LEHMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seth-or-lehman)
[SEX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sex)
[SEXUAL ABUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-abuse)
[SEXUAL ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-ethics)
[SEXUAL FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-freedom)
[SEXUAL ORIENTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-orientation)
[SEXUAL SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-sin)
[SHAME](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shame)
[SHAMMAI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shammai)
[SHANNON | LEIBOLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shannon-or-leibold)
[SHERLOCK | HOLMES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sherlock-or-holmes)
[SHORTER CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shorter-catechism)
[SHOULD VERSUS COULD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/should-versus-could)
[SHUNNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shunning)
[SIJWAERT | PIETERSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sijwaert-or-pietersz)
[SILENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/silence)
[SIMON | GATHERCOLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-gathercole)
[SIMON | JACOBSZOON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-jacobszoon)
[SIMON | MICHIELSZOON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-michielszoon)
[SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simul-iustus-et-peccator)
[SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sin)
[SINFUL NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinful-nature)
[SINNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinner)
[SINNERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinners)
[SINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sins)
[SMALL GROUPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/small-groups)
[SOCIAL CLASSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-classes)
[SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-engagement)
[SOCIAL MEDIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-media)
[SOCIOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sociology)
[SOCIOPOLITICAL ACTIVISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sociopolitical-activism)
[SODOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sodom)
[SOIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/soil)
[SOLA FIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-fide)
[SOLA GRATIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-gratia)
[SOLA SCRIPTURA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-scriptura)
[SOLITUDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/solitude)
[SON OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/son-of-god)
[SON OF MAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/son-of-man)
[SONNET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sonnet)
[SONSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sonship)
[SORROW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sorrow)
[SOTERIOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/soteriology)
[SOUND DOCTRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sound-doctrine)
[SOUTHEASTERN MENNONITE CONFERENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southeastern-mennonite-conference)
[SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-baptist-convention)
[SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-baptist-theological-seminary)
[SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-presbyterianism)
[SOVEREIGNTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sovereignty)
[SPEAKING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speaking)
[SPEAKING IN TONGUES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speaking-in-tongues)
[SPEECH-ACT THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speech-act-theory)
[SPIRITUAL FORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-formation)
[SPIRITUAL GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-gifts)
[SPIRITUAL WARFARE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-warfare)
[SPIRITUALISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritualists)
[SPRING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spring)
[ST. FRANCIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/st-francis)
[STATE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/state-church)
[STEVE | ATKERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-atkerson)
[STEVE | BURCHETT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-burchett)
[STEVE | CORBETT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-corbett)
[STEVE | SCOTT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-scott)
[STEVE | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-smucker)
[STEVEN E. | RUNGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steven-e-or-runge)
[STEVEN M. | NOLT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steven-m-or-nolt)
[STORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/story)
[STRANGERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strangers)
[STRASBOURG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strasbourg)
[STRATEGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strategy)
[STRENGTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strength)
[STRONG CHRISTIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strong-christians)
[STUART | MURRAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/stuart-or-murray)
[STUDY BIBLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/study-bibles)
[SUBMISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/submission)
[SUBSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/substitution)
[SUBWAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/subway)
[SUFFERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/suffering)
[SUFFERING SERVANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/suffering-servant)
[SUMPTUARY LEGISLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sumptuary-legislation)
[SUNDAY SCHOOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sunday-school)
[SWISS BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/swiss-brethren)
[SWORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/swords)
[SYDNEY | PENNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sydney-or-penner)
[SYMBOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/symbol)
[SYMPTOMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/symptoms)
[SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/systematic-theology)
T
-
[T. DESMOND | ALEXANDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/t-desmond-or-alexander)
[T4G](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/t4g)
[TALMUD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/talmud)
[TAR BABY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tar-baby)
[TEACHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/teaching)
[TED | GRIMSRUD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ted-or-grimsrud)
[TEMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temple)
[TEMPLE WORSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temple-worship)
[TEMPTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temptation)
[TEN COMMANDMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ten-commandments)
[TERTULLIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tertullian)
[TESTING THE SPIRITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/testing-the-spirits)
[THABITI | ANYABWILE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thabiti-or-anyabwile)
[THANKFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thankfulness)
[THE | DIDACHE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-or-didache)
[THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-letter-of-aristeas)
[THE SHACK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-shack)
[THEODICY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodicy)
[THEODOR | SIPPELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodor-or-sippell)
[THEODORE | MACKIN S.J.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodore-or-mackin-sj)
[THEODORE W. JR. | JENNINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodore-w-jr-or-jennings)
[THEOLOGICAL PUBERTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theological-puberty)
[THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theological-students)
[THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theology)
[THERON | SCHLABACH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theron-or-schlabach)
[THESSALONICA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thessalonica)
[THIELEMAN J. | VAN BRAGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thieleman-j-or-van-braght)
[THIRD PERSON IMPERATIVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/third-person-imperatives)
[THIRST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thirst)
[THOMAS | AQUINAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-aquinas)
[THOMAS | CHALMERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-chalmers)
[THOMAS | ERASTUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-erastus)
[THOMAS | HOPKO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-hopko)
[THOMAS | MORE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-more)
[THOMAS | MÜNTZER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-muntzer)
[THOMAS | VON IMBROICH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-von-imbroich)
[THOMAS R. | SCHREINER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-r-or-schreiner)
[THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/three-days-and-three-nights)
[TIM | CHALLIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tim-or-challies)
[TIM | CHESTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tim-or-chester)
[TIMOTHY | GEORGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/timothy-or-george)
[TIMOTHY | KELLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/timothy-or-keller)
[TITHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tithing)
[TOAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/toast)
[TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/together-for-the-gospel)
[TOLSTOY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tolstoy)
[TOPICAL SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/topical-sermons)
[TORAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/torah)
[TORONTO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/toronto)
[TRADITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tradition)
[TRAGEDY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tragedy)
[TRAINING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/training)
[TRANSGRESSORS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transgressors)
[TRANSIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transience)
[TRANSLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/translation)
[TRANSUBSTANTIATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transubstantiation)
[TRAVEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/travel)
[TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tree-of-knowledge-of-good-and-evil)
[TREE OF LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tree-of-life)
[TREMPER | LONGMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tremper-or-longman)
[TRINITY EVANGELICAL DIVINITY SCHOOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/trinity-evangelical-divinity-school)
[TRUST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/trust)
[TRUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/truth)
[TÜBINGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tubingen)
[TWO-KINGDOM THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/two-kingdom-theology)
[TYPOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/typology)
U
-
[ULRICH | LUZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ulrich-or-luz)
[UNBELIEF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unbelief)
[UNDERSTANDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/understanding)
[UNFAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unfaithfulness)
[UNIFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/uniformity)
[UNIVERSALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/universalism)
[UNIVERSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/university)
[UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unreached-people-groups)
[URBAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/urban)
[URBANIZATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/urbanization)
[USEFUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/useful)
V
-
[VANITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vanity)
[VATICAN COUNCIL II](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vatican-council-ii)
[VERSAMMLUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/versammlung)
[VICARIOUS DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vicarious-death)
[VICE LISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vice-lists)
[VINCENT OF LERINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vincent-of-lerins)
[VINEYARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vineyards)
[VISIBLE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/visible-church)
[VISION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vision)
[VISION STATEMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vision-statements)
[VOCABULARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vocabulary)
[VULGATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vulgate)
W
-
[W.D. | DAVIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wd-or-davies)
[WAITING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waiting)
[WALDENSIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waldensians)
[WALKED WITH GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walked-with-god)
[WALTER | BEACHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-beachy)
[WALTER | KLAASSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-klaassen)
[WALTER | LIEFELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-liefeld)
[WARNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/warning)
[WARREN W. | WIERSBE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/warren-w-or-wiersbe)
[WATCHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/watching)
[WATERLANDER MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waterlander-mennonites)
[WAYNE | GRUDEM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wayne-or-grudem)
[WEAKNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/weakness)
[WEALTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wealth)
[WEDLOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wedlock)
[WERNER O. | PACKULL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/werner-o-or-packull)
[WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westboro-baptist-church)
[WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westminster-confession-of-faith)
[WESTMINSTER LARGER CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westminster-larger-catechism)
[WHEATON COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wheaton-college)
[WHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/why)
[WIDOWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/widows)
[WILL OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/will-of-god)
[WILLARD M. | SWARTLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/willard-m-or-swartley)
[WILLIAM | KOSTLEVY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-kostlevy)
[WILLIAM | TYNDALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-tyndale)
[WILLIAM | WITT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-witt)
[WILLIAM E. | HETH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-e-or-heth)
[WILLIAM E. | KEENEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-e-or-keeney)
[WILLIAM F. | LUCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-f-or-luck)
[WILLIAM J. | WEBB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-j-or-webb)
[WILLIAM L. | LANE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-l-or-lane)
[WILLIAM OF OCKHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-of-ockham)
[WILLIAM S. | STAFFORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-s-or-stafford)
[WINDOWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/windows)
[WINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wine)
[WINTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/winter)
[WISDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wisdom)
[WISMAR ARTICLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wismar-articles)
[WITNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/witness)
[WIVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wives)
[WM. PAUL | YOUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wm-paul-or-young)
[WOLFHART | PANNENBURG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wolfhart-or-pannenburg)
[WORD OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/word-of-god)
[WORD STUDIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/word-studies)
[WORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/words)
[WORK ETHIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/work-ethic)
[WORLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world)
[WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world-council-of-churches)
[WORLD RELIGIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world-religions)
[WORLDLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/worldliness)
[WORSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/worship)
[WRITING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/writing)
X-Z
---
[YOUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/youth)
[YOUVERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/youversion)
[ZACCHAEUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zacchaeus)
[ZACK | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zack-or-johnson)
[ZURICH ORDINANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zurich-ordinance)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Musical Compositions
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-05-24
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/musical-compositions
I’ve enjoyed composing a little music now and then over the years. Here are a few examples for your listening and performing enjoyment.
Usage guidelines: Use this music freely for nonprofit purposes. Please ask permission before using it for profit, such as in a recording that will be sold. Thank you!
**Shout – [Psalm 150](http://www.esvbible.org/Psalm+150)**
* A choral piece first composed for a children’s choir in NYC, then re-scored for adult voices. Performed imperfectly but joyfully here by an amateur choir (Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute, 5th term, 2007), under an amateur director (yours truly).
* Score (free): [Download Adult Choir Score](https://app.box.com/s/i8cvk2zs0fhercsdcndv5mh6pyi390fe)
* Audio: [Download Audio](https://app.box.com/s/g3gr0cvczxwk68okh8ke45e7arkvzc29)
**The Path of the Righteous**
* A praise song that I shared with the church in NYC. The recording here is of the first time we sang it there (2009), so it’s a bit rough (and the words have been revised some since). But I blithely strummed my guitar, the music team bravely attempted some harmony, and the church heating pipes boldly added a polyrhythm percussion. Praise the Lord!
* Score (free): [Download Lead Sheet](https://app.box.com/s/bs93r42nqwitvraxce9qlxsn4cv4guxs)
* Audio: [Download Audio](https://app.box.com/s/xb0lqa0t6bq0fqplokficqtec2atejja)
**Simple Song**
* A (Christian country-pop?) song I wrote kind of last minute because The Gingrichs were headed into the recording studio and we needed another song for our album. It turned out to be perhaps the least-simple song on the album. It sounded a bit too slick and shallow at first to me, so I added an instrumental bridge that explores new chords and rhythms. From the Step Right Up album (2002).
* Score: Lost in the great electronic void
* Audio: [Download Audio](https://app.box.com/s/ipdagm0benu0l4m7r8i8x7p8b3yt89cj)
**We Fix Our Eyes ([2 Corinthians 4:18](http://www.esvbible.org/2+Corinthians%204.18))**
* A simple Scripture chorus, this is my first song that really became useful. The text comes directly from [2 Corinthians 4:18](http://www.esvbible.org/2+Corinthians%204.18) (1984 NIV translation). I had thought of doing it with light acoustic accompaniment, in an old Maranatha Praise style, but we ended up singing it a cappella. The first half works nicely if men lead off and ladies echo. Also from Step Right Up by The Gingrichs.
* Score (free): [Page 1 (unison)](https://app.box.com/s/tmuwozpx7uumb8s92dd2ldawofeoqlam), [Page 1 (parts)](https://app.box.com/s/xrhnhzqzohkpfyork3l4iffcge8ho151), [Page 2](https://app.box.com/s/4jrljv9u0mm7hi0cgeu4e8rwfvrs654j)
* Audio: [Download Audio](https://app.box.com/s/vpnmuefophkpxxmhtfwajq7ukyvsvvfn)
**Sunday Night Rag**
* A little piano piece composed on a whim while I was doodling at the piano one Sunday evening (2014). Performed here by Finale PrintMusic, since I didn’t find time or equipment to do a proper performance myself.
* Score: Available for purchase.
* Audio: [Download Audio](https://app.box.com/s/qg0q5rm2aalsrxunlqaan4fiqqcnfmai)
* Video: See below.
**Before All Things ([Colossians 1:15-20](https://www.esv.org/verses/Colossians%201%3A15-20/))**
* This is a Scripture song that I composed in April, 2020 as our church enjoyed a sermon series from Colossians.
* Score: Available for purchase. (Lyrics are included in the description of the YouTube video below. Feel free to sing by ear for free.)
* Video: I recruited my daughters to help me make this video so we could teach it to our church during coronavirus online church.
Maybe sometime I’ll add a few more here–such as “A Fine Summer Day in November,” a Hank Williams-inspired downer which hasn’t blessed anyone but has provoked a few groans and/or smiles.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Bible Translations Advice
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-05-24
Tags: Bible translations
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-translations-advice
Sometimes people ask me which Bible translations I recommend. Here is my advice, building on the insights of others.
**Introductory Points**
* **Textual variants:** Since no original manuscript of any biblical book survives, every modern translation relies on ancient texts that are copies of the originals. These copies are not all identical. When they vary, how can we know which better represents the original? This is a huge topic. I will briefly say that (a) I am content that all common English translations are working from good texts, (b) I think that the Greek text that most modern translations use is probably even more accurate than the text that the KJV uses, and (c) no biblical doctrine hinges on any of the debated variants.
* **Translation philosophies:** Another huge topic. My thoughts, briefly: (a) there is no such thing as a translation that does not also interpret—even the most “literal” ones cannot avoid doing so, (b) it is generally recognized that translations can either focus on retaining the grammatical structure of the original language and translating individual words consistently _or_ focus on communicating the thought of original text in modern, ordinary speech, (c) all translations do some of both, with translations falling on a spectrum between the two goals, (d) there are advantages and disadvantages to both goals, (e) translations towards the thought-for-thought end of the spectrum tend to be _somewhat_ more interpretive than those on the word-for-word end–but can also smooth out possible misunderstandings caused by an overly-“literal” approach, (f) there are other variables such as how translations handle words that could be understood as either masculine or generic, and (g) therefore, **_the most helpful thing for English readers to do is to compare a variety of translations that use a variety of translation philosophies_**, without getting hung up on trying to find the perfect translation.
* **Books about The Book:** Many good books have been written about Bible translations, dealing in depth with the issues summarized above (and many more). Conservative Anabaptists who may be disinclined to trust these books now have a book published by one of their own that they should consider: _The Story Behind the Versions: A Guide Through the Maze of English Translations_, by Rodney Yoder (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Christian Light Publications, 2012). I have minor points of disagreement with Yoder, but am impressed that a book of this caliber has been published by “us.”
**A Chart of English Bible Translations**
* This chart was created by Brent MacDonald, and is the best such chart that I have seen. Visit [MacDonald’s website](http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/biblecomparison.htm) to learn more and ensure you see the latest version of his chart.
* Note: “Word-for-word” is often called “formal equivalence” or, less accurately, “literal.” And “thought-for-thought” is often called “functional equivalence” or “dynamic equivalence.”
**Basic Advice about Using Bible Translations**
1. **Use a word-for-word translation for detailed Bible study and teaching.** These will follow the vocabulary, sentence structure, and idioms of the Bible writers more closely. If you use the KJV as your primary translation, compare it with another word-for-word translation in modern English, such as the LEB, NASB/NASU, or—moving a little to the right on the chart above—the NAS20 or ESV.
2. **Compare the better** **thought-for-thought translation**s**** **with your word-for-word translation.** They will help explain what difficult passages might mean. They also communicate most essential biblical truths more clearly for the typical English reader, so are often better for evangelism or public reading. My favorites include the CSB, NIV, NET (available online, copyright-free, with extensive footnotes), and NLT (very interpretive, but often making good choices).
_Notes: The most recent **NIV (2011)** is very different from the old NIV (1984). It now uses gender neutral language regarding humans (e.g. where KJV has “brothers,” it may have “brothers and sisters”). This has both benefits and drawbacks, but increases its usefulness when comparing translations. In many ways this update is more accurate and even more word-for-word than its predecessor, and my study has shown me that sometimes the new NIV reflects the biblical language better than the ESV does. (The opposite is also true.) Finally, note that_ **_the ESV and the CSB_** _are very near each other on the chart above, despite the ESV being classed as word-for-word and CSB as thought-for-thought. This means that both translations should be seen as having hybrid goals and readers will benefit from comparing them with translations further away in both directions on the chart above._
3. **Do not quote a paraphrase as if it is the Bible.** It is more like a commentary on the Bible. As with other commentaries, some are helpful in spots and some (such as TPT) are best avoided altogether.
4. **The translation our family uses most often is the ESV.** Why? (1) It leans toward being a word-for-word translation but is still quite readable, (2) it is accurate enough to be trustworthy for general use, (3) it has an active publisher behind it ([Crossway](http://www.crossway.org/)) that is producing a good selection of ESV-related study helps, (4) it has been adopted quite widely among conservative Anabaptists who see no need to hang onto the KJV and or the NKJV, and (5) it is one of the translations used most often in the church where we currently belong. Is the ESV as good as some of its promoters claim? No, it isn't. In fact, I think the NIV is actually a better choice for the typical American reader, particular if they did not grow up in the church. But the ESV has worked well for our family.
**That’s my informed opinion. _But please read something._**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Browse Topics
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-05-13
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/browse-topics
[All DGO Posts by Year](https://dwightgingrich.com/complete-list-dgo-blog-posts/)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**Search Tags (Topics and References)**](https://dwightgingrich.com/topics/)
[**Search All DGO Content**](https://dwightgingrich.com/search/)
Featured Topics
---------------
[Anabaptist History](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-history)
[Biblical Interpretation](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-interpretation)
[Church History](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-history)
[Church Leadership](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-leadership)
[Church Standards](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-standards)
[Church Unity](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-unity)
[Divorce and Remarriage](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-and-remarriage)
[Giving](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/giving)
[Jesus and Homosexuality](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-homosexuality)
[Microloans](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/microloans)
[Resurrection](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/resurrection)
[Weakness](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/weakness)
All Categories
---------------
[Old Facebook Posts](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/old-facebook-posts/1/)
[Book Deals](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/book-deals/1/)
[Study Resources for Bible Books](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/study-resources-for-bible-books/1/)
[DGO website](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/dgo-website/1/)
[Church Chat-\[Ecclesiology\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/church-chat-ecclesiology/1/)
[By Elaine Gingrich](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/by-elaine-gingrich/1/)
[Book Reviews](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/book-reviews/1/)
[Guest Post](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/guest-post/1/)
[Audio Resources](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/audio-resources/1/)
[Poetry by Dwight Gingrich](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/poetry-by-dwight-gingrich/1/)
[Bible Bites-\[Exegesis\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/bible-bites-exegesis/1/)
[Thinking Theology Aloud-\[Random\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/thinking-theology-aloud-random/1/)
[Dwight's Family](https://dwightgingrich.com/posts/category/dwights-family/1/)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Complete List of DGO Blog Posts
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-05-09
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/complete-list-dgo-blog-posts
Contents
[2025](#h_4121119465771379) [2024](#h_7281912922799547) [2023](#h_6768919338616095)
[2022](#h_2881586962084457) [2021](#h_9764125592527944) [2020](#h_05057160112787984)
[2019](#h_08767009713395835) [2018](#h_19299992152065504) [2017](#h_31643754108619926)
[2016](#h_8922055818738353) [2015](#h_24319020321520202) [2014](#h_6952039853411969)
2025
----
[Churchfunding: A Report of Our Day of Thanksgiving](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-report-day-of-thanksgiving/)
[Church Leadership: Shepherds, Sheep, and the Good Shepherd](https://dwightgingrich.com/church-leadership-shepherds-sheep-and-the-good-shepherd)
[April 12 House Celebration and Giving Opportunity](https://dwightgingrich.com/april-12-house-celebration-and-giving-opportunity)
[Churchfunding: Time to Celebrate!](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-time-to-celebrate)
2024
----
[Rachel Weeping for Her Children: Death and Light in Bethlehem \[Book Review\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/rachel-weeping-children-death-light-bethlehem)
[As Good as Dead](https://dwightgingrich.com/as-good-as-dead)
[Zeal for Your House Will Consume Me](https://dwightgingrich.com/zeal-for-your-house-will-consume-me/)
[How Is The Word of God Living and Active?](https://dwightgingrich.com/how-is-the-word-of-god-living-and-active/)
[Welcome To DGO 2.0!](https://dwightgingrich.com/welcome-to-dgo-20/)
[Churchfunding: 2023 Year-End Report](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2023-year-end-report/)
2023
----
[Churchfunding: 2022 Year-End Report](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2022-year-end-report/)
2022
----
[Joseph, the Just and Merciful Divorcer](https://dwightgingrich.com/joseph-just-merciful-divorcer/)
[Did Jesus Introduce a New Standard for Divorce? (JDR-12)](https://dwightgingrich.com/did-jesus-introduce-new-standard-for-divorce-jdr-12/)
[“From the Beginning It Was Not So”—And Never Has Been (JDR-11)](https://dwightgingrich.com/from-beginning-not-so-never-has-been-jdr-11/)
[“Hardness of Heart” and Jesus’ Audience, Then and Now (JDR-10)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hardness-heart-jesus-audience-then-now-jdr-10/)
[Why Did “Hardness of Heart” Cause God to Allow Divorce? (JDR-9)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-hardness-heart-cause-god-allow-divorce-jdr-9/)
[“Moses Allowed You to Divorce” Suggests a Breakable Bond (JDR-8)](https://dwightgingrich.com/moses-allowed-divorce-suggests-breakable-bond-jdr-8/)
[“Let Not Man Separate” Implies a Breakable Bond (JDR-7)](https://dwightgingrich.com/let-not-man-separate-implies-breakable-bond-jdr-7/)
[Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/genesis-224-gods-creation-norm-for-marriage-jdr-6/)
[“God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3)
[The “Divorce Evil” and the Response of the Mennonite Church (1880s to 1905)](https://dwightgingrich.com/divorce-evil-response-mennonite-church-1880s-to-1905)
[Radical Faithfulness: A Proposal about Marriage Permanence](https://dwightgingrich.com/radical-faithfulness-proposal-marriage-permanence)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2)
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1)
[Churchfunding: 2021 Year-End Report](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2021-year-end-report)
2021
----
[Why did Mennonites Abandon the Early Anabaptist View of Jesus’ Exception Clause? (Transition from German to English)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-transition-german-english)
[“Worshiping and Imitating Our Servant King” (Sermon)](https://dwightgingrich.com/worshiping-imitating-servant-king)
[Why did Mennonites Abandon the Early Anabaptist View of Jesus’ Exception Clause? (Separatism and Confessional Statements)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-separatism-confessions)
[When did Mennonites Discard the Early Anabaptist Interpretation of Jesus’ Exception Clause about Divorce?](https://dwightgingrich.com/when-did-mennonites-discard-early-anabaptist-interpretation-exception-clause)
[Churchfunding: 2020 Year-End Report](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2020-year-end-report)
2020
----
[“In the Sight of God”: Divine Perspective from 1 Peter](https://dwightgingrich.com/sight-of-god-divine-perspective-1-peter)
[Why Did Early Anabaptists Believe Jesus Allowed Divorce and Remarriage in Cases of Adultery?](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-anabaptists-believe-jesus-allowed-divorce-remarriage)
[Anabaptists Then (1600-1860s): “It Is Clearly to Be Seen”](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1600-1860s-clearly-seen)
[Up From the Dust (Poems by Dwight)](https://dwightgingrich.com/up-from-the-dust)
[“Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers” – An Early Hutterite Document](https://dwightgingrich.com/concerning-divorce-between-believers-unbelievers-hutterite-document)
[Anabaptists Then (1500s): An “Unchangeable Plain Word of Christ”](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1500s-unchangeable-plain-word-christ)
[Anabaptists Now: Taking Exception to Jesus’ Exception Clause](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-now-taking-exception-clause)
[Is Marriage Indissoluble? A Look at Two Passages from “Rabbi” Paul](https://dwightgingrich.com/is-marriage-indissoluble-two-passages-rabbi-paul)
[What Does “One Flesh” Mean?](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-does-one-flesh-mean)
[A Song: “Before All Things (Colossians 1:15-20)”](https://dwightgingrich.com/song-before-all-things)
[Churchfunding: 2019 Year-End Report](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2019-year-end-report)
2019
----
[Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (Audio and PDFs)](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-audio-pdfs)
[Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (6 of 6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6)
[Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (5 of 6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-5-of-6)
[Don’t You Know?! (ουκ οιδατε;)](https://dwightgingrich.com/dont-you-know)
[Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (4 of 6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5)
[Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (3 of 6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5)
[Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (2 of 6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5)
[Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (1 of 6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5)
[A Season for Faith](https://dwightgingrich.com/season-for-faith)
[Every Promise in the Book Is Mine?](https://dwightgingrich.com/every-promise-in-book-is-mine)
[God “Was Able”? Or “Is Able”?](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-was-able-or-is-able)
2018
----
[Churchfunding: 2018 Year-End Report](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2018-year-end-report)
[I and my Wife and Paul’s Grammar](https://dwightgingrich.com/i-my-wife-pauls-grammar)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-5-of-5)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-4-of-5)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-3-of-4)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-2-of-4)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-1-of-4)
[Hospitable Barbarians and Homeless Hearts](https://dwightgingrich.com/hospitable-barbarians-homeless-hearts)
[A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (4 of 4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-4)
[A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (3 of 4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-3)
[A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (2 of 4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-2)
[A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (1 of 4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-1)
[Why Did Jesus Command His Disciples to Buy Swords? – Intro Draft](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-jesus-command-disciples-buy-swords-intro-draft)
[Notes While Reading the Christian Standard Bible (CSB)](https://dwightgingrich.com/notes-while-reading-christian-standard-bible-csb)
[How Do We Know Jesus Rose from the Dead?](https://dwightgingrich.com/how-do-we-know-jesus-rose-from-dead)
[On Which Day of the Week Did Jesus Die?](https://dwightgingrich.com/which-day-of-week-did-jesus-die)
[Who Is Lording Over Whom? (Matthew 20:25)](https://dwightgingrich.com/who-is-lording-over-whom-matthew20-25)
[What Does a True Follower of Jesus Look Like?](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-does-true-follower-jesus-look-like)
[A Story in Greek](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-story-in-greek)
[Churchfunding: 2017 Year-End Report](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2017-year-end-report)
2017
-------
[The Higher Calling: The Church, Jesus’ Rival Nation, God’s Kingdom (Guest Post from Sattler College)](https://dwightgingrich.com/higher-calling-church-jesus-rival-nation-gods-kingdom-sattler-college)
[“All Things Work Together for…” What?](https://dwightgingrich.com/all-things-work-together-for-what)
[“Red Letter Reductionism” Expanded](https://dwightgingrich.com/red-letter-reductionism-expanded)
[Naked and Exposed Before the Living God (Sermon)](https://dwightgingrich.com/naked-exposed-before-living-god-sermon)
[“Into the World, But Not o f the World”](https://dwightgingrich.com/into-world-but-not-of-world)
[Should the Church Bear Witness to the State?](https://dwightgingrich.com/should-church-bear-witness-to-state)
[Easter Graces in Atlanta](https://dwightgingrich.com/easter-graces-in-atlanta)
[There Are Better Books (Than “The Shack”)](https://dwightgingrich.com/there-are-better-books-than-the-shack)
[Sonship and Suffering–Slides from My Sermon](https://dwightgingrich.com/sonship-suffering-slides-from-sermon)
[“Let Him” Or “If He”? Translating Divorce in Deuteronomy](https://dwightgingrich.com/let-him-if-he-translating-divorce-deuteronomy)
2016
----
[Churchfunding: 2016 Year-End Report](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2016-year-end-report)
[A Library Online–Or At Least Onshelves](https://dwightgingrich.com/library-online-at-least-onshelves)
[Why Do I Believe the Bible? A Short Answer](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-i-believe-bible-short-answer)
[Poll: Which Is the Best Hymnal for Mennonites?](https://dwightgingrich.com/poll-which-is-best-hymnal-for-mennonites)
[Help Us to Not Be Afraid; Winter Birch \[Poems by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/help-us-to-not-be-afraid-winter-birch)
[Like Spring \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/like-spring)
[12 Ways to Provoke Your Children to Anger (Lou Priolo)](https://dwightgingrich.com/12-ways-provoke-children-anger-lou-priolo)
[Spring Leaves in Rain \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/spring-leaves-in-rain)
[God’s Word and the Pastor’s Authority (Hebrews 1:1-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/gods-word-pastors-authority)
[Churchfunding Update 11: We Bought a House!](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-11-we-bought-a-house)
[Thirty-Three Years: A Life \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/thirty-three-years-life-poem-mom)
[Churchfunding Update 10: We Might Have a House!](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-10-might-have-house)
[Churchfunding Update 9: An Answer to Special Prayer?](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-9-answer-special-prayer)
[Christians and Satire: What Does the Bible Say?](https://dwightgingrich.com/christians-satire-what-does-bible-say)
[The RAT: A New Bible Translation for Anabaptists](https://dwightgingrich.com/rat-rural-anabaptist-bible-translation)
[Did Satan Give Super Tuesday to Trump and Clinton? (Luke 4:6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/did-satan-give-super-tuesday-trump-clinton)
[What Jesus Wished He Could Say before He Died (John 16:12)](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-jesus-wished-could-say-before-died)
[Why Should You Care about Cities? (3/3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-3)
[Why Should You Care about Cities? (2/3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-2)
[Why Should You Care about Cities? (1/3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-1)
[Churchfunding Update 8: An Invitation to Special Prayer](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-8-invitation-special-prayer)
[God Bless This Ark; As Arrows from the Hand \[Poems by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-bless-ark-arrows-from-hand)
[The Church of Christ — Ferguson (4): Salvation and Church Membership](https://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-4-salvation-church-membership)
[A Commentary on 1 and 2 Chronicles — Merrill (Review)](https://dwightgingrich.com/commentary-1-2-chronicles-merrill-review)
[In Which I Am Surprised to Agree With John Nelson Darby](https://dwightgingrich.com/surprised-to-agree-with-darby)
[Do Non-Christian Jews and Christians Worship the Same God?](https://dwightgingrich.com/do-non-christian-jews-and-christians-worship-same-god)
[Partly Free \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/partly-free)
[The Church of Christ — Ferguson (3): What Is the Church?](https://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-4-salvation-church-membership)
[Peacemaking: The Quiet in the Land Speak Up](https://dwightgingrich.com/peacemaking-quiet-in-land-speak-up)
2015
----
[“How Do You Know Me?” — Words and Self-Identity](https://dwightgingrich.com/how-do-you-know-me-words-self-identity)
[The Picture Smart Bible and Other Bible Resources for 2016](https://dwightgingrich.com/picture-smart-bible-other-bible-resources-2016)
[Arminians, Calvinists, and Two Theological Terms Worth Chucking](https://dwightgingrich.com/arminians-calvinists-two-theological-terms-worth-chucking)
[Between Comings (A Poem for Christmas)](https://dwightgingrich.com/between-comings-poem-for-christmas)
[Chronological Bibles — A Buying Guide](https://dwightgingrich.com/chronological-bibles-buying-guide)
[The Church of Christ — Ferguson (2): Covenant, Kingdom, Christ](https://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-2-covenant-kingdom-christ)
[The Church of Christ — Ferguson (1): Introduction](https://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-1-introduction)
[Downsview Station Jazz Rap \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/downsview-station-jazz-rap)
[Study Resources for John](https://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-john)
[A Traitor Comes to the Table \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-traitor-comes-to-the-table)
[NIV Zondervan Study Bible (Review and Comparison with ESV Study Bible)](https://dwightgingrich.com/niv-zondervan-study-bible-review-comparison-esv-study-bible)
[Is “Love One Another” A New Commandment for You?](https://dwightgingrich.com/is-love-one-another-new-commandment-for-you)
[“The Great Missing Link in Much of Anabaptist Missions” — David Robertson](https://dwightgingrich.com/great-missing-link-in-anabaptist-missions-david-robertson)
[Churchfunding Update 7: Funds Ready, Waiting on House ($69,635)](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-7-funds-ready-waiting-on-house-69635)
[40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper — Hammett (Review)](https://dwightgingrich.com/40-questions-baptism-and-lords-supper-hammett-review)
[Churchfunding Update 6: Time to Send Your Pledges–Here’s How ($65,895)](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-6-send-pledges-heres-how-65895)
[Churchfunding Update 5: Almost Ready for Your Pledges! ($60,995)](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-5-almost-ready-for-pledges-60995)
[Churchfunding Update 4: In the School of Faith ($44,240)](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-4-school-of-faith-44240)
[Happy Birthday, DGO!](https://dwightgingrich.com/happy-birthday-dgo)
[Only God’s World \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/only-gods-world)
[Churchfunding Update 3: Halfway to Making an Offer ($30,415)](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-3-halfway-to-offer-30415)
[Churchfunding Update 2: Our New Accountant ($26,965)](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2-new-accountant-26965)
[Churchfunding Update 1: Info for Canadians and More ($20,625)](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-1-canadians-20625)
[Churchfunding a House in Atlanta: Official Launch](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch)
[In Which a Strange Plan Is Hatched on Facebook (News Bulletin)](https://dwightgingrich.com/strange-plan-hatched-on-facebook)
[Commentary Sale — New American Commentary Series on Kindle](https://dwightgingrich.com/sale-new-american-commentary-kindle)
[Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership — Jamieson (Review)](https://dwightgingrich.com/going-public-why-baptism-is-required-for-church-membership-jamieson-review)
[Jesus in the Room \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-in-the-room)
[The Arts, Biblical Theology, and Proof I’m Not a Complete Philistine](https://dwightgingrich.com/arts-biblical-theology-and-proof-im-not-philistine)
[The Arts and the Absence of Jesus](https://dwightgingrich.com/arts-and-absence-of-jesus)
[A Is for Atlanta](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta)
[Lot the Big-Time Mennonite Farmer](https://dwightgingrich.com/lot-big-time-mennonite-farmer)
[Study Resources for Kings and Chronicles](https://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-kings-chronicles)
[Fresh Milling \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/fresh-milling)
[Articles of Church Membership](https://dwightgingrich.com/articles-of-church-membership)
[A Fellowship of Differents — McKnight (Review)](https://dwightgingrich.com/fellowship-of-differents-mcknight-review)
[Remember the Resurrection, to Keep it Central](https://dwightgingrich.com/remember-resurrection-keep-central)
[Judgment and Meaning: You’ll Get Your Day in Court](https://dwightgingrich.com/judgment-meaning-your-day-in-court)
[125 Years of Seven Ordinances — Rough Draft](https://dwightgingrich.com/125-years-7-ordinances-rough-draft)
[Infinitude \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/infinitude)
[In the Presence of Older Theologians](https://dwightgingrich.com/in-presence-of-older-theologians)
[The Lord’s Prayer and the Center of the Universe](https://dwightgingrich.com/lords-prayer-center-of-universe)
[Melchizedek, Carson, and the Tar Baby](https://dwightgingrich.com/melchizedek-carson-tar-baby)
[Prayers for Conservative Anabaptist Churches](https://dwightgingrich.com/prayers-for-conservative-anabaptist-churches)
[New Bible Reading Plan for a Mid-Year Boost](https://dwightgingrich.com/new-bible-reading-plan)
[Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul — Gathercole (Review)](https://dwightgingrich.com/defending-substitution-gathercole-review)
[By Every Word \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/by-every-word)
[Tradition in the NT (2): Good Examples](https://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-2-good-examples)
[Tradition in the NT (1): Bad Examples](https://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-1-bad-examples)
[Study Resources for Hebrews](https://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-hebrews)
[Trained by Grace, Made Holy by the Gospel](https://dwightgingrich.com/trained-by-grace-made-holy-by-gospel)
[Clarifications about Removing Church Traditions](https://dwightgingrich.com/clarifications-about-removing-church-traditions)
[Thinking Intentionally about Tradition and Change](https://dwightgingrich.com/thinking-intentionally-about-tradition-change)
[Jasmine, Our Blossom \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/jasmine-our-blossom)
[“Christian Atheists” – Guest Post by Frank Reed](https://dwightgingrich.com/christian-atheists-frank-reed)
[“The Holy Scriptures Must Be Our Ruling Standard”](https://dwightgingrich.com/holy-scriptures-must-be-our-ruling-standard)
[Contentment: “Whose God Is Their Belly”](https://dwightgingrich.com/contentment-whose-god-is-their-belly)
[Is a “Radical Lifestyle” a Hurdle for Seekers?](https://dwightgingrich.com/is-radical-lifestyle-hurdle-for-seekers)
[Unfinished Thoughts for Your Improvement](https://dwightgingrich.com/unfinished-thoughts-for-your-improvement)
[The Schleitheim Confession: Who May Share the Lord’s Supper?](https://dwightgingrich.com/schleitheim-confession-who-may-share-lords-supper)
[There Is Hope of a Tree \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/there-is-hope-of-a-tree)
[When the Church Was a Family — Hellerman (Review)](https://dwightgingrich.com/when-church-was-family-hellerman-review)
[The New Testament Church: The Challenge of Developing Ecclesiologies – Harrison/Dvorak (Review)](https://dwightgingrich.com/the-new-testament-church-harrison-dvorak)
[Ecclesiology of the Reformers (7): Conclusions and Questions](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions)
[Life Thirst: L’Chaim \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/life-thirst-lchaim)
[What I Learned at AIC 2015 about How To Use the Bible](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-i-learned-at-aic-2015-about-how-to-use-the-bible)
[Reading the Psalms as Christians](https://dwightgingrich.com/reading-the-psalms-as-christians)
[“Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem!”](https://dwightgingrich.com/pray-for-the-peace-of-jerusalem)
[The Love of Christ Controls Us](https://dwightgingrich.com/the-love-of-christ-controls-us)
[NIV Proclamation Bible (Book Review)](https://dwightgingrich.com/niv-proclamation-bible-book-review)
[Anabaptists, Flat Bibles, and the Sabbath](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-flat-bibles-and-sabbath)
[Study Resources for Matthew](https://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-matthew)
[Ecclesiology of the Reformers (6): William Tyndale](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale)
[Professor Janzen Reads Hopkins’ Sonnets \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/professor-janzen-reads-hopkins-sonnets)
[Ecclesiology of the Reformers (5): Menno Simons](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons)
[](https://write.superblog.ai/sites/supername/dwightgingrich/posts/lesspgreatermore-on-calvin-marks-of-the-church-and-fighting-nicelylesspgreater-cltmw8zkw02huv230okwc1j6l)[More on Calvin: Marks of the Church and Fighting Nicely](https://dwightgingrich.com/more-on-calvin-marks-of-church-fighting-nicely).
[Ecclesiology of the Reformers (4): John Calvin](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin)
[When Will the Church Be Pure?](https://dwightgingrich.com/when-will-the-church-be-pure)
[Ecclesiology of the Reformers (3): Huldrych Zwingli](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli)
[Ecclesiology of the Reformers (2): Martin Luther](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther)
[Ecclesiology of the Reformers (1): Late Middle Ages](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages)
[Watching You Watch the Birds \[Poem by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/watching-you-watch-the-birds)
[Kissing in the First Century: Excerpt from Craig Keener](https://dwightgingrich.com/kissing-in-first-century-craig-keener)
[NIV Turns 50: An Interview with Douglas J. Moo](https://dwightgingrich.com/niv-turns-50-interview-douglas-moo)
[Final Surprises about 2014’s Most Popular Verses (Part 3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/final-surprises-2014s-popular-verses-3)
[10 Surprises about 2014’s Most Popular Bible Verses (Part 2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses-2)
[10 Surprises about 2014’s Most Popular Bible Verses.](https://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses)
2014
----
[5 Ways to Understand the Bible Better in 2015](https://dwightgingrich.com/5-ways-understand-bible-better-2015)
[At Christmastime; Christmas Comes Again \[Poems by Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/at-christmastime-christmas-comes-again)
[Does the Resurrection Matter? (Albert Mast’s Memorial Service)](https://dwightgingrich.com/does-the-resurrection-matter-albert-mast-memorial-service)
[A “Far Better” Morning for Albert](https://dwightgingrich.com/far-better-morning-for-albert)
[What Is the Christian’s True Hope in Death?](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-is-the-christians-true-hope-in-death)
[ESV Audio Bible on Sale](https://dwightgingrich.com/esv-audio-bible-sale)
[Giving To and Through the Church (Part 6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-6)
[Giving To and Through the Church (Part 5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-5)
[Giving To and Through the Church (Part 4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-4)
[Giving To and Through the Church (Part 3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-3)
[Giving To and Through the Church (Part 2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-2)
[Giving To and Through the Church (Part 1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-1)
[Two Trees \[Poem By Mom\]](https://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees)
[Which Came First–Original Sin or Infant Baptism?](https://dwightgingrich.com/which-came-first-original-sin-infant-baptism)
[Kindle Sale: NIV Application Commentaries](https://dwightgingrich.com/kindle-sale-nivac)
[Should Every Church Gathering Look Like 1 Corinthians 14?](https://dwightgingrich.com/should-every-church-gathering-look-like-1corinthians14)
[On Translation Choices and Pastoral Concerns](https://dwightgingrich.com/translation-choices-pastoral-concerns)
[Who Judged After Samson? Eli or Samuel?](https://dwightgingrich.com/who-judged-after-samson-eli-samuel)
[](https://write.superblog.ai/sites/supername/dwightgingrich/posts/lessspan-iden-esv-28287-classtext-rom-14-22greatershould-you-keep-your-convictions-secretlessspangreater-romans-1422-cltmw98wi02rmv2304ca2yl1h)
[What to Expect Next on Dwight Gingrich Online](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-to-expect-next-on-dgo)
[“In Adam’s Fall We…?” Inclusion or Imperialism in Romans 5](https://dwightgingrich.com/in-adams-sin-we-imperialism-inclusion-romans-5)
[Can a Hermit Be Humble?](https://dwightgingrich.com/can-hermit-humble)
[If You’re Not a Berean, Who Might You Be?](https://dwightgingrich.com/if-youre-not-berean-who-might-you-be)
[Launch Day!](https://dwightgingrich.com/launch-day)
[Social Media according to the Gospel](https://dwightgingrich.com/social-media-according-to-gospel)
[“If anyone does not provide for his relatives…”](https://dwightgingrich.com/anyone-not-provide-for-his-relatives)
[Resurrection Now! Seated with Christ in Heavenly Places](https://dwightgingrich.com/resurrection-now-seated-with-christ-in-heavenly-places)
[Tools for Reading Old Testament Stories Well](https://dwightgingrich.com/tools-for-reading-old-testament-stories-well)
[Which New Testament Church Practices Are Normative for Today?](https://dwightgingrich.com/which-nt-church-practices-are-normative-for-today)
[Should You Desire to Be an Elder?](https://dwightgingrich.com/should-you-desire-to-be-an-elder)
[3 Lessons from the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35)](https://dwightgingrich.com/3-lessons-from-rechabites-jeremiah-35)
[The Big Picture Story Bible – David R. Helm](https://dwightgingrich.com/big-picture-story-bible-helm)
[On motivating Christians to holy living](https://dwightgingrich.com/motivating-christians-to-holy-living)
[“Men learned in the Greek and Hebrew languages”](https://dwightgingrich.com/men-learned-in-greek-and-hebrew)
[Handbook on the NT Use of the OT – G.K. Beale](https://dwightgingrich.com/handbook-on-nt-use-of-ot-beale)
[According to the Scriptures – C.H. Dodd](https://dwightgingrich.com/according-to-scriptures-dodd)
[What is “the Rapture”?](https://dwightgingrich.com/rapture)
[“The Expulsive Power of a New Affection”](https://dwightgingrich.com/expulsive-power-new-affection)
[Are you being trained by grace?](https://dwightgingrich.com/trained-by-grace)
[Deuteronomy–heart of the Old Testament, hints of the New](https://dwightgingrich.com/deuteronomy-heart-of-old-testament-hints-of-new)
[“What I learned in seminary” — a list for pastors](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-i-learned-in-seminary-list-for-pastors)
[Decision-making with God in the picture](https://dwightgingrich.com/decision-making-with-god-in-picture)
[Music-making and bonding in multicultural churches](https://dwightgingrich.com/music-making-bonding-multicultural-churches)
[“Creating a Reading Culture in Your Church”](https://dwightgingrich.com/creating-reading-culture-in-church)
[“Getting Excited About Melchizedek”](https://dwightgingrich.com/getting-excited-melchizedek)
[“Why become ‘all things to all people’?”](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-become-all-things-to-all-people)
[Mennonites, education, and missions](https://dwightgingrich.com/mennonites-education-missions)
[Story-powered godly living](https://dwightgingrich.com/story-powered-godly-living)
[On pragmatism and biblicism](https://dwightgingrich.com/pragmatism-biblicism)
[The goal of gospel contextualization](https://dwightgingrich.com/goal-of-gospel-contextualization)
[“For you formed my inward parts”](https://dwightgingrich.com/formed-inward-parts)
[“Eating and drinking unworthily” and Christian poverty](https://dwightgingrich.com/eating-drinking-unworthily-christian-poverty)
[“With a rich man in his death” — Holy Saturday thoughts](https://dwightgingrich.com/with-rich-man-in-his-death)
[“Many” New Testament allusions to Isaiah 53](https://dwightgingrich.com/many-nt-allusions-to-isaiah-53)
[A Definition of “Baptism"](https://dwightgingrich.com/definition-baptism)
[On reading Augustine of Hippo](https://dwightgingrich.com/reading-augustine-hippo)
[The frustration and joy of John the Baptist](https://dwightgingrich.com/frustration-joy-of-john-the-baptist)
[Fun with church history and chastity](https://dwightgingrich.com/fun-with-church-history-chastity)
[What’s this bit about “sinful nature”?](https://dwightgingrich.com/whats-bit-sinful-nature)
[Head and heart: Worshiping as whole persons](https://dwightgingrich.com/head-heart-worshiping-as-whole-persons)
[Old Testament holy war and Christian nonresistance](https://dwightgingrich.com/ot-holy-war-christian-nonresistance)
[On the danger of turning norms into absolutes](https://dwightgingrich.com/danger-of-turning-norms-into-absolutes)
[Church cultures and the danger of complacency](https://dwightgingrich.com/church-cultures-danger-of-complacency)
[“What grace alone can do” — J.S. Coffman](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-grace-alone-can-do-js-coffman)
[Coffman and the origin of 7 ordinances](https://dwightgingrich.com/coffman-origin-7-ordinances)
[Do you “believe into” Jesus?](https://dwightgingrich.com/believe-into-jesus)
[Seeing the face of God](https://dwightgingrich.com/seeing-face-god)
[On scanning Mennonite confessions of faith](https://dwightgingrich.com/scanning-mennonite-confessions-faith)
[“Ran… embraced… kissed”](https://dwightgingrich.com/ran_embraced_kissed)
[Wisdom versus revelation – James 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/wisdom-versus-revelation)
[Jonah and superficial repentance](https://dwightgingrich.com/jonah-superficial-repentance)
[On taking God’s name in vain](https://dwightgingrich.com/taking-gods-name-in-vain)
[“When people add to the Word of God”](https://dwightgingrich.com/people-add-word-god)
[On borrowing pagan musical forms](https://dwightgingrich.com/borrowing-pagan-musical-forms)
[“The difference between Christians and the rest of mankind”](https://dwightgingrich.com/difference_between_christians_and_rest_mankind)
[What do I love most?](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-do-i-love-most)
[A doctrine of “continually renewed minds”?](https://dwightgingrich.com/doctrine-of-continually-renewed-minds)
[Rapture? Or a new heaven and a new earth?](https://dwightgingrich.com/rapture-new-heaven-new-earth)
[Did Enoch and Elijah die?](https://dwightgingrich.com/enoch-elijah-die)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## More Resources
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-05-08
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/more-resources
My Resources
------------
[Essays](https://dwightgingrich.com/essays)
[Bible Reading Plans](https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-reading-plans)
[Bible Translations Advice](https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-translations-advice)
[Bible Commentaries Advice](https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-commentaries-advice)
[Sermons and Lectures](https://dwightgingrich.com/sermons-and-lectures)
[Bible Outlines](https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-outlines)
[Musical Compositions](https://dwightgingrich.com/musical-compositions)
[Online Piano Lessons](https://gingrichpianostudio.com/)
Other Resources
---------------
(In the future I may list other Bible study resources I’ve found helpful.)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Alphabetical Index of Topics
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-04-19
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/null
Contents
---------
[\-1](#h_25049079098885185) [\-2](#h_25787847753071036) [\-A to -D](#h_5381550503199648) [\-E to -F](#h_6559492909464555)
[\-G](#h_30556859860869556) [\-H](#h_8999800538102511) [\-I](#h_754837908269264) [\-J](#h_006989849471355392)
[\-K to -L](#h_22875901478232175) [\-M](#h_49150881479059993) [\-N to -P](#h_7429066042749071)
[\-R](#h_6362698643749882) [\-T to -Z](#h_7251733282753128)
[A](#h_3449875911547684) [B](#h_26454976824021004) [C](#h_4208415038361206) [D](#h_06625213523363427)
[E](#h_1489776149110409) [F](#h_6868064031977696) [G](#h_5647939720723054) [H](#h_9280842544682111)
[I](#h_6783025863053056) [J](#h_5358187208574534) [K](#h_30786464821760107) [L](#h_9007161083874373)
[M](#h_00021330993417478794) [N](#h_489161975052969) [O](#h_5988092144090473) [P](#h_2787681680179108)
[Q](#h_691505200727468) [R](#h_7178067776723653) [S](#h_6555455604281331) [T](#h_501659139212977)
[U](#h_367517745016283) [V](#h_8419795062617328) [W](#h_2331390745344868) [X-Z](#h_20485046552032227)
**All Topics**
-----------------
\-1
---
[\-1 CHRONICLES 21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-chronicles-21)
[\-1 CHRONICLES 21:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-chronicles-211)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-113)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1011)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:14-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1014-22)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1017)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 10:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1018)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-111)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-111-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:17-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1117-34)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1118)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-112)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-112-16)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-112-18)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1122)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1123-26)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1126)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1133)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 11:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1134)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-12)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1212-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1213)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1225)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1228)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1229-30)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 12:4-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-124-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 13:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-139-10)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1420)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:26-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1426-33)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1434-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-151-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:17-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1517-19)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1519)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1520)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:20-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1520-26)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1522)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:23-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1523-24)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1527-28)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-153)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 15:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-154)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-161-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-161-3)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-1619)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-162)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-165-6)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 16:5-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-165-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 2:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-26-8)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-29)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-31)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-31-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-310)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-311)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-316-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4;14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-414)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:14-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-414-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-415)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-416)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-416-17)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-421)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-48)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-5)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-51-2)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-512-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-54)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-59-13)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-614)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-616)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-63)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-69-11)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-7)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:10-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-710-16)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:10-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-710-39)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-711)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-714)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-715)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-722)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:27-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-727-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:29-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-729-38)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-73-4)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-732-35)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-739)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-77-8)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-78-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-79)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 8:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-88)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-9)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-911)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-913-14)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:19-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-919-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-920)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:20-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-920-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-922-23)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-923)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:4-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-94-7)
[\-1 CORINTHIANS 9:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-99)
[\-1 JOHN 1:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-11-4)
[\-1 JOHN 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-15)
[\-1 JOHN 1:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-18)
[\-1 JOHN 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-19)
[\-1 JOHN 2:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-21)
[\-1 JOHN 2:12-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-212-14)
[\-1 JOHN 2:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-216-17)
[\-1 JOHN 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-219)
[\-1 JOHN 2:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-22)
[\-1 JOHN 2:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-224)
[\-1 JOHN 2:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-227)
[\-1 JOHN 2:7-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-27-11)
[\-1 JOHN 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-311)
[\-1 JOHN 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-316)
[\-1 JOHN 3:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-316-18)
[\-1 JOHN 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-317)
[\-1 JOHN 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-41)
[\-1 JOHN 4:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-41-3)
[\-1 JOHN 4:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-46)
[\-1 JOHN 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-48)
[\-1 JOHN 5:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-519)
[\-1 JOHN 5:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-john-52-4)
[\-1 KINGS 16:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-kings-1618-19)
[\-1 KINGS 18:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-kings-1827)
[\-1 KINGS 22:19-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-kings-2219-23)
[\-1 KINGS 23:13-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-kings-2313-17)
[\-1 PETER 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-11)
[\-1 PETER 1:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-110-12)
[\-1 PETER 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-113)
[\-1 PETER 1:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-118-19)
[\-1 PETER 1:3-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-13-7)
[\-1 PETER 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-14)
[\-1 PETER 2:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-213-14)
[\-1 PETER 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-220)
[\-1 PETER 2:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-225)
[\-1 PETER 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-24)
[\-1 PETER 2:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-24-5)
[\-1 PETER 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-25)
[\-1 PETER 2:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-29-10)
[\-1 PETER 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-321)
[\-1 PETER 3:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-33-5)
[\-1 PETER 3:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-34)
[\-1 PETER 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-416)
[\-1 PETER 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-417)
[\-1 PETER 4:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-417-18)
[\-1 PETER 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-48)
[\-1 PETER 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-512)
[\-1 PETER 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-53)
[\-1 PETER 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-54)
[\-1 PETER 5:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-55)
[\-1 PETER 5:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-peter-57)
[\-1 SAMUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel)
[\-1 SAMUEL 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-11)
[\-1 SAMUEL 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-127)
[\-1 SAMUEL 16:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-1614)
[\-1 SAMUEL 16:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-162)
[\-1 SAMUEL 28:16-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-2816-19)
[\-1 SAMUEL 30:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-3012-13)
[\-1 SAMUEL 4:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-418)
[\-1 SAMUEL 7:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-samuel-715)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-211)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-211-12)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-213)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:14-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-214-16)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-29)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-41)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:13-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-413-18)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-417)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 5:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-515)
[\-1 THESSALONIANS 5:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-thessalonians-517)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-112)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-12)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 1:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-17)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-21-4)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-21-5)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-211-15)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-219)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-24)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 2:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-28-10)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-31)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-311)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-315)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-32)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:2-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-32-7)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-34)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-34-5)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-35)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-36)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-39)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 4:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-46)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-51-2)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-510)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-513)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-516)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-517-18)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-525)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-53)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-58)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 5:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-59-10)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 6:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-617)
[\-1 TIMOTHY 6:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-timothy-618)
[\-1CORINTHIANS 5:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1corinthians-511)
\-2
---
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-120)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 10:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-104)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-1128)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 12:11-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-1211-13)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 12:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-1214)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-311)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 3:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-318)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 4:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-411)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-44)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 5:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-51-10)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 5:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-514-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-613)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-614-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-7:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-614-71)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-616)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 6:17-7:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-617-71)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 7:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-72)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-8-9)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-81-4)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-815)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-817-18)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 8:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-89)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-911-15)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-95)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-96)
[\-2 CORINTHIANS 9:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-corinthians-97)
[\-2 JOHN 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-john-11)
[\-2 JOHN 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-john-110)
[\-2 JOHN 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-john-15)
[\-2 KINGS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-kings-211)
[\-2 KINGS 6:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-kings-619)
[\-2 PETER 3:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-peter-313)
[\-2 PETER 3:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-peter-33-4)
[\-2 PETER 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-peter-39)
[\-2 SAMUEL 20:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-203)
[\-2 SAMUEL 24:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-241)
[\-2 SAMUEL 6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-6)
[\-2 SAMUEL 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-7)
[\-2 SAMUEL 7:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-samuel-713-14)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-110)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-21)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-21-2)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-211)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-215)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-25)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-310)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-36)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-37)
[\-2 THESSALONIANS 3:7-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-thessalonians-37-9)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-113)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-19)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-212)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-24)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-315-16)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-316)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-36)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 4:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-45)
[\-2 TIMOTHY 4:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/2-timothy-46-8)
[\-3 JOHN 5-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/3-john-5-10)
[\-3 JOHN 5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/3-john-5-8)
\-A to D
-----------
[\-ACTS 1:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-18)
[\-ACTS 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-10)
[\-ACTS 10:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1040)
[\-ACTS 10:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1043)
[\-ACTS 11:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1115)
[\-ACTS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1118)
[\-ACTS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1126)
[\-ACTS 11:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1128-30)
[\-ACTS 12:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1212)
[\-ACTS 12:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1223)
[\-ACTS 13:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-131)
[\-ACTS 13:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1315)
[\-ACTS 13:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-132)
[\-ACTS 13:38-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1338-39)
[\-ACTS 13:48](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1348)
[\-ACTS 13:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-135)
[\-ACTS 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-15)
[\-ACTS 16:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-163)
[\-ACTS 16:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-166-10)
[\-ACTS 16:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-169)
[\-ACTS 17:1-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-171-9)
[\-ACTS 17:10-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1710-15)
[\-ACTS 17:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1711-12)
[\-ACTS 17:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1727)
[\-ACTS 17:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1731)
[\-ACTS 18:4-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-184-7)
[\-ACTS 18:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-188)
[\-ACTS 19:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-1922)
[\-ACTS 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2)
[\-ACTS 2:24-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-224-32)
[\-ACTS 2:25-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-225-36)
[\-ACTS 2:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-231)
[\-ACTS 2:37-40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-237-40)
[\-ACTS 2:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-238)
[\-ACTS 2:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-24)
[\-ACTS 2:42-46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-242-46)
[\-ACTS 2:46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-246)
[\-ACTS 2:47](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-247)
[\-ACTS 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-25)
[\-ACTS 20:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2018-19)
[\-ACTS 20:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2020)
[\-ACTS 20:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2021)
[\-ACTS 20:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2027)
[\-ACTS 20:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2028)
[\-ACTS 20:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2028-30)
[\-ACTS 20:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2029-30)
[\-ACTS 20:37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2037)
[\-ACTS 20:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-207)
[\-ACTS 20:7-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-207-12)
[\-ACTS 20:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-208)
[\-ACTS 22:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-221)
[\-ACTS 22:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2216)
[\-ACTS 24:24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2424-25)
[\-ACTS 26:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2618)
[\-ACTS 26:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2628)
[\-ACTS 27:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2722)
[\-ACTS 28:25-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-2825-27)
[\-ACTS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-314)
[\-ACTS 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-321)
[\-ACTS 3:25-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-325-26)
[\-ACTS 4:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-432-35)
[\-ACTS 5:29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-529)
[\-ACTS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-61-2)
[\-ACTS 6:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-61-3)
[\-ACTS 6:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-64)
[\-ACTS 7:59](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-759)
[\-ACTS 8:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-83)
[\-ACTS 9:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-915)
[\-ACTS 9:32-40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/acts-932-40)
[\-AMOS 4:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-41-6)
[\-AMOS 5:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-518-19)
[\-AMOS 9:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-911-12)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-112)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-115)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-118)
[\-COLOSSIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-120)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:14-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-214-18)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-216)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-216-17)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:16-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-216-23)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-218)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-223)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-26)
[\-COLOSSIANS 2:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-28)
[\-COLOSSIANS 3:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-312)
[\-COLOSSIANS 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-316)
[\-COLOSSIANS 4:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/colossians-415)
[\-DANIEL 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-12)
[\-DANIEL 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-122)
[\-DANIEL 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-417)
[\-DANIEL 4:28-37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-428-37)
[\-DANIEL 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-7)
[\-DEUTERONOMY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-1232)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-13)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 18:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-1815)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 18:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-1819)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 21:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2114)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2213-21)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2219)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:22-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2222-24)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 22:29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2229)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-241)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-241-4)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 24:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2416)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 25:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-254)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 26:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2617-18)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2912-13)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2918)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-2919-20)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 29:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-294)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 31:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-3120-21)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 32:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-3221)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 4:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-41-2)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 5:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-511)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 6:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-65)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 6:6-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-66-9)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-79)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 8:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-81-3)
[\-DEUTERONOMY 8:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deuteronomy-82)
\-E to F
-----------
[\-ECCLESIASTES 12:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesiastes-1213-14)
[\-ECCLESIASTES 3:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesiastes-311)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-111)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:16-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-116-23)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-120)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:20-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-120-22)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-122)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-123)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:3-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-13-10)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-13-5)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-14)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-15)
[\-EPHESIANS 1:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-19-11)
[\-EPHESIANS 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-2-3)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-21-10)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-21-2)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-21-3)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-215)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-219)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:19-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-219-22)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-220)
[\-EPHESIANS 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-27)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-314-15)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-37)
[\-EPHESIANS 3:8-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-38-12)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:1-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-41-16)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-411-12)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:11-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-411-16)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-414)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-416)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-42)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-43-4)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-432)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-44-5)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-44-6)
[\-EPHESIANS 4:7-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-47-14)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-519)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:21-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-521-33)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:22-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-522-33)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-526-27)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-527)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:28-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-528-31)
[\-EPHESIANS 5:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-530)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-61-4)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:10-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-610-20)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-64)
[\-EPHESIANS 6:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesians-69)
[\-ESTHER 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esther-416)
[\-ESTHER 5:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esther-51)
[\-EXODUS 1:15-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-115-21)
[\-EXODUS 14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-14)
[\-EXODUS 17:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-171-7)
[\-EXODUS 2:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-21-10)
[\-EXODUS 20:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-2013)
[\-EXODUS 20:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-207)
[\-EXODUS 20:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-208)
[\-EXODUS 20:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-208-11)
[\-EXODUS 21:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-2110-11)
[\-EXODUS 21:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-2111)
[\-EXODUS 25:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-2510)
[\-EXODUS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-416)
[\-EXODUS 4:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-422)
[\-EXODUS 7:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-73)
[\-EXODUS 8:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-832)
[\-EXODUS 9:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exodus-916)
[\-EZEKIEL 14:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ezekiel-149)
\-G
------
[\-GALATIANS 1:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-114)
[\-GALATIANS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-14)
[\-GALATIANS 2:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-219-20)
[\-GALATIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-220)
[\-GALATIANS 3:2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-32-3)
[\-GALATIANS 3:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-323-26)
[\-GALATIANS 3:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-327)
[\-GALATIANS 3:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-328)
[\-GALATIANS 3:6-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-36-29)
[\-GALATIANS 4:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-410)
[\-GALATIANS 4:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-419)
[\-GALATIANS 4:21-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-421-31)
[\-GALATIANS 4:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-426)
[\-GALATIANS 4:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-430)
[\-GALATIANS 4:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-45)
[\-GALATIANS 4:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-49)
[\-GALATIANS 4:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-49-11)
[\-GALATIANS 5:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-51-4)
[\-GALATIANS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-512)
[\-GALATIANS 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-513)
[\-GALATIANS 5:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-518)
[\-GALATIANS 5:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-52-4)
[\-GALATIANS 5:22-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-522-24)
[\-GALATIANS 5:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-54)
[\-GALATIANS 5:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-55-6)
[\-GALATIANS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-61-2)
[\-GALATIANS 6:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-610)
[\-GALATIANS 6:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-615)
[\-GALATIANS 6:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-616)
[\-GALATIANS 6:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-617)
[\-GALATIANS 6:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/galatians-66-10)
[\-GENESIS 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-1-2)
[\-GENESIS 1:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-126)
[\-GENESIS 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-127)
[\-GENESIS 1:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-131)
[\-GENESIS 11:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-112)
[\-GENESIS 11:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-117-8)
[\-GENESIS 12:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-123)
[\-GENESIS 13:2-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-132-11)
[\-GENESIS 14:18-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-1418-20)
[\-GENESIS 15:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-1516)
[\-GENESIS 18:22-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-1822-33)
[\-GENESIS 2:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-21-3)
[\-GENESIS 2:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-215-16)
[\-GENESIS 2:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-217)
[\-GENESIS 2:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-218)
[\-GENESIS 2:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-219)
[\-GENESIS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-220)
[\-GENESIS 22:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-2218)
[\-GENESIS 22:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-224)
[\-GENESIS 29:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-2913)
[\-GENESIS 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-3)
[\-GENESIS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-31)
[\-GENESIS 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-316)
[\-GENESIS 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-32)
[\-GENESIS 3:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-320)
[\-GENESIS 3:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-324)
[\-GENESIS 3:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-36)
[\-GENESIS 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-39)
[\-GENESIS 32-33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-32-33)
[\-GENESIS 33:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-334)
[\-GENESIS 4:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-41)
[\-GENESIS 4:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-416)
[\-GENESIS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-417)
[\-GENESIS 4:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-425)
[\-GENESIS 42:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-4217-18)
[\-GENESIS 5:21-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-521-24)
[\-GENESIS 5:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-524)
[\-GENESIS 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-53)
[\-GENESIS 6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-6-8)
[\-GENESIS 6:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-615)
[\-GENESIS 9:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/genesis-96)
\-H
------
[\-HABAKKUK 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/habakkuk-1-2)
[\-HEBREWS 1:1-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-11-4)
[\-HEBREWS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-14)
[\-HEBREWS 1:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-16)
[\-HEBREWS 10:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1024)
[\-HEBREWS 10:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1025)
[\-HEBREWS 10:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1026-27)
[\-HEBREWS 10:26-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1026-31)
[\-HEBREWS 11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-11)
[\-HEBREWS 11:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1110)
[\-HEBREWS 11:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-113)
[\-HEBREWS 11:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-115)
[\-HEBREWS 11:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-115-6)
[\-HEBREWS 11:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-116)
[\-HEBREWS 12:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-121)
[\-HEBREWS 12:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1215)
[\-HEBREWS 12:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1217)
[\-HEBREWS 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-122)
[\-HEBREWS 12:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1222-23)
[\-HEBREWS 12:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1223)
[\-HEBREWS 12:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1228)
[\-HEBREWS 12:4-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-124-13)
[\-HEBREWS 12:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-127)
[\-HEBREWS 13:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-1320)
[\-HEBREWS 13:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-137)
[\-HEBREWS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-211)
[\-HEBREWS 2:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-217)
[\-HEBREWS 2:5-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-25-18)
[\-HEBREWS 2:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-29)
[\-HEBREWS 2:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-29-10)
[\-HEBREWS 3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-3-4)
[\-HEBREWS 3:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-312-13)
[\-HEBREWS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-314)
[\-HEBREWS 3:7-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-37-13)
[\-HEBREWS 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-4)
[\-HEBREWS 4:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-41-11)
[\-HEBREWS 4:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-412-13)
[\-HEBREWS 5:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-510)
[\-HEBREWS 5:11-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-511-14)
[\-HEBREWS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-512)
[\-HEBREWS 5:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-56)
[\-HEBREWS 6:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-61)
[\-HEBREWS 6:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-61-2)
[\-HEBREWS 6:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-620)
[\-HEBREWS 6:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-64-6)
[\-HEBREWS 6:4-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-64-8)
[\-HEBREWS 6:9-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-69-12)
[\-HEBREWS 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-7)
[\-HEBREWS 7:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-71-10)
[\-HEBREWS 7:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-711-12)
[\-HEBREWS 7:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-712)
[\-HEBREWS 7:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-718-19)
[\-HEBREWS 7:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-725)
[\-HEBREWS 8:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-813)
[\-HEBREWS 9:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-916-17)
[\-HEBREWS 9:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews-922)
[\-HOSEA 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-110)
[\-HOSEA 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-13)
[\-HOSEA 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-2-3)
[\-HOSEA 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-223)
[\-HOSEA 5:8-6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hosea-58-63)
\-I
------
[\-ISAIAH 11:1-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-111-10)
[\-ISAIAH 28:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-2816)
[\-ISAIAH 29:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-2910)
[\-ISAIAH 29:9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-299-14)
[\-ISAIAH 40-55](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-40-55)
[\-ISAIAH 40:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-401-11)
[\-ISAIAH 42-46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-42-46)
[\-ISAIAH 42:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-428)
[\-ISAIAH 45:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-451-7)
[\-ISAIAH 49:1-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-491-13)
[\-ISAIAH 50:4-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-504-11)
[\-ISAIAH 52-53](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-52-53)
[\-ISAIAH 52:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-5214-15)
[\-ISAIAH 53](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-53)
[\-ISAIAH 53:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-531)
[\-ISAIAH 53:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-5311-12)
[\-ISAIAH 53:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-5312)
[\-ISAIAH 53:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-539)
[\-ISAIAH 55:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-553)
[\-ISAIAH 56:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-568)
[\-ISAIAH 58:6-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-586-10)
[\-ISAIAH 6-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-6-9)
[\-ISAIAH 6:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-69-10)
[\-ISAIAH 60:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-603-4)
[\-ISAIAH 61](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-61)
[\-ISAIAH 64:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-644)
[\-ISAIAH 65:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-6517)
[\-ISAIAH 66:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-6622)
[\-ISAIAH 7:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaiah-716)
\-J
---
[\-JAMES 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-127)
[\-JAMES 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-15)
[\-JAMES 2:14-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-214-24)
[\-JAMES 2:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-215-16)
[\-JAMES 2:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-22)
[\-JAMES 2:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-223)
[\-JAMES 2:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-225)
[\-JAMES 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-317)
[\-JAMES 3:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-39)
[\-JAMES 5:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-514)
[\-JAMES 5:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-53)
[\-JEREMIAH 11:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-114)
[\-JEREMIAH 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-15)
[\-JEREMIAH 18:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-1811)
[\-JEREMIAH 24:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-247)
[\-JEREMIAH 29:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-2911)
[\-JEREMIAH 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-31)
[\-JEREMIAH 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-38)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:10-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-3110-34)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-3130)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:31-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-3131-34)
[\-JEREMIAH 31:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-3133)
[\-JEREMIAH 35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-35)
[\-JEREMIAH 7:1-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-71-15)
[\-JEREMIAH 7:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremiah-723)
[\-JOB 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/job-1-2)
[\-JOB 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/job-15)
[\-JOB 14:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/job-147)
[\-JOB 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/job-3)
[\-JOEL 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joel-2-3)
[\-JOHN 1:1-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-11-9)
[\-JOHN 1:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-112-13)
[\-JOHN 1:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-114)
[\-JOHN 1:47-49](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-147-49)
[\-JOHN 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-10)
[\-JOHN 10:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1016)
[\-JOHN 10:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1028)
[\-JOHN 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1133)
[\-JOHN 11:50-52](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1150-52)
[\-JOHN 12:1-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-121-8)
[\-JOHN 12:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1227)
[\-JOHN 12:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1231)
[\-JOHN 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1232)
[\-JOHN 12:35-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1235-36)
[\-JOHN 12:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1240)
[\-JOHN 12:42-43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1242-43)
[\-JOHN 13:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1321)
[\-JOHN 13:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1334)
[\-JOHN 14:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-141)
[\-JOHN 14:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1430)
[\-JOHN 15:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-151-11)
[\-JOHN 15:1-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-151-8)
[\-JOHN 15:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1512-13)
[\-JOHN 15:12-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1512-17)
[\-JOHN 16:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1611)
[\-JOHN 16:12-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1612-14)
[\-JOHN 16:13-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1613-15)
[\-JOHN 16:23-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1623-27)
[\-JOHN 17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-17)
[\-JOHN 17:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1711)
[\-JOHN 17:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1714)
[\-JOHN 17:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1715)
[\-JOHN 17:16-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1716-19)
[\-JOHN 17:20-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1720-23)
[\-JOHN 17:21-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-1721-23)
[\-JOHN 2:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-219-20)
[\-JOHN 2:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-221)
[\-JOHN 2:24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-224-25)
[\-JOHN 20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-20)
[\-JOHN 20:11-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-2011-13)
[\-JOHN 21:15-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-2115-17)
[\-JOHN 21:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-2117)
[\-JOHN 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-3)
[\-JOHN 3:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-316)
[\-JOHN 3:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-316-17)
[\-JOHN 3:19-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-319-21)
[\-JOHN 3:27-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-327-30)
[\-JOHN 3:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-33-5)
[\-JOHN 3:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-37)
[\-JOHN 4:19-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-419-24)
[\-JOHN 5:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-523)
[\-JOHN 6:28-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-628-29)
[\-JOHN 6:51](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-651)
[\-JOHN 7:38-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-738-39)
[\-JOHN 7:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-78-10)
[\-JOHN 8:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-812)
[\-JOHN 8:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-823)
[\-JOHN 8:34-36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-834-36)
[\-JOHN 8:42-47](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-842-47)
[\-JOHN 9:39-41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-939-41)
[\-JONAH 1:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah-117)
[\-JONAH 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah-2)
[\-JONAH 4:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah-410-11)
[\-JOSHUA 2:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joshua-25)
[\-JOSHUA 22:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joshua-2220)
[\-JUDE 1:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jude-112)
[\-JUDE 1:14-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jude-114-15)
[\-JUDGES 17:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges-171)
[\-JUDGES 4:18-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges-418-22)
[\-JUDGES 5:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges-524)
\-K to L
--------
[\-LEVITICUS 19:17-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leviticus-1917-18)
[\-LEVITICUS 21:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leviticus-2111)
[\-LEVITICUS 21:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leviticus-217)
[\-LEVITICUS 22:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leviticus-2212-13)
[\-LUKE 1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1-2)
[\-LUKE 1:54-55](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-154-55)
[\-LUKE 1:72-73](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-172-73)
[\-LUKE 10:2-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-102-9)
[\-LUKE 10:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-103)
[\-LUKE 11:24-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1124-26)
[\-LUKE 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1128)
[\-LUKE 11:42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1142)
[\-LUKE 12:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-121-2)
[\-LUKE 12:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1232)
[\-LUKE 12:37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1237)
[\-LUKE 15:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1520)
[\-LUKE 16:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1618)
[\-LUKE 16:19-31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1619-31)
[\-LUKE 18:11-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1811-12)
[\-LUKE 18:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-1833)
[\-LUKE 2:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-21-5)
[\-LUKE 2:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-210)
[\-LUKE 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-212)
[\-LUKE 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-27)
[\-LUKE 22:36](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-2236)
[\-LUKE 23:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-2343)
[\-LUKE 24:46](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-2446)
[\-LUKE 24:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-247)
[\-LUKE 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-314)
[\-LUKE 4:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-420)
[\-LUKE 4:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-439)
[\-LUKE 4:5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-45-8)
[\-LUKE 6:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-613)
[\-LUKE 7:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-71-5)
[\-LUKE 7:36-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-736-50)
[\-LUKE 8:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-81-3)
[\-LUKE 8:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-817)
[\-LUKE 9:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-922)
\-M
---
[\-MALACHI 2:10-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/malachi-210-16)
[\-MALACHI 3:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/malachi-31-6)
[\-MALACHI 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/malachi-38-10)
[\-MARK 1:14-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-114-20)
[\-MARK 1:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-115)
[\-MARK 10:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-1028-30)
[\-MARK 10:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-1034)
[\-MARK 10:4-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-104-9)
[\-MARK 10:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-109)
[\-MARK 14:3-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-143-9)
[\-MARK 14:58](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-1458)
[\-MARK 2:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-227-28)
[\-MARK 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-314)
[\-MARK 3:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-321)
[\-MARK 4:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-410-12)
[\-MARK 4:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-411)
[\-MARK 5:39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-539)
[\-MARK 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-7)
[\-MARK 7:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-719)
[\-MARK 7:21-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-721-23)
[\-MARK 7:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-79-13)
[\-MARK 8:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-831)
[\-MARK 9:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-931)
[\-MARK 9:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-938)
[\-MATTHEW 1:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-118-19)
[\-MATTHEW 1:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-123)
[\-MATTHEW 10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-10)
[\-MATTHEW 10:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1010)
[\-MATTHEW 10:2-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-102-4)
[\-MATTHEW 10:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1023)
[\-MATTHEW 10:34-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1034-38)
[\-MATTHEW 10:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1040)
[\-MATTHEW 10:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-105-6)
[\-MATTHEW 11:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1118-19)
[\-MATTHEW 11:20-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1120-24)
[\-MATTHEW 11:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1125)
[\-MATTHEW 11:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1127)
[\-MATTHEW 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-12)
[\-MATTHEW 12:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1214)
[\-MATTHEW 12:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1224)
[\-MATTHEW 12:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1230)
[\-MATTHEW 12:32-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1232-35)
[\-MATTHEW 12:39-41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1239-41)
[\-MATTHEW 12:40](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1240)
[\-MATTHEW 12:42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1242)
[\-MATTHEW 12:43-45](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1243-45)
[\-MATTHEW 12:46-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1246-50)
[\-MATTHEW 12:50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1250)
[\-MATTHEW 12:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-126)
[\-MATTHEW 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-13)
[\-MATTHEW 13:10-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1310-17)
[\-MATTHEW 13:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1318)
[\-MATTHEW 13:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1321)
[\-MATTHEW 13:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1323)
[\-MATTHEW 13:24-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1324-30)
[\-MATTHEW 13:24-50](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1324-50)
[\-MATTHEW 13:38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1338)
[\-MATTHEW 13:51-52](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1351-52)
[\-MATTHEW 13:53-58](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1353-58)
[\-MATTHEW 13:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-139)
[\-MATTHEW 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-15)
[\-MATTHEW 15:15-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1515-20)
[\-MATTHEW 15:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1524)
[\-MATTHEW 15:3-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-153-6)
[\-MATTHEW 16:13-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1613-23)
[\-MATTHEW 16:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1617)
[\-MATTHEW 16:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1618)
[\-MATTHEW 16:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1618-19)
[\-MATTHEW 16:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1621)
[\-MATTHEW 16:5-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-165-12)
[\-MATTHEW 17:22-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1722-23)
[\-MATTHEW 17:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1723)
[\-MATTHEW 17:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-179-13)
[\-MATTHEW 18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-18)
[\-MATTHEW 18:15-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1815-18)
[\-MATTHEW 18:15-35](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1815-35)
[\-MATTHEW 18:17-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1817-20)
[\-MATTHEW 18:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1818)
[\-MATTHEW 18:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1820)
[\-MATTHEW 18:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-184)
[\-MATTHEW 19:1-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-191-12)
[\-MATTHEW 19:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1910-12)
[\-MATTHEW 19:13-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1913-15)
[\-MATTHEW 19:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-1928)
[\-MATTHEW 19:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-193)
[\-MATTHEW 19:3-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-193-9)
[\-MATTHEW 19:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-194)
[\-MATTHEW 19:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-195)
[\-MATTHEW 19:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-195-6)
[\-MATTHEW 19:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-196)
[\-MATTHEW 19:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-198)
[\-MATTHEW 19:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-199)
[\-MATTHEW 20:17-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2017-34)
[\-MATTHEW 20:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2019)
[\-MATTHEW 20:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2025)
[\-MATTHEW 20:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2028)
[\-MATTHEW 21:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-211-11)
[\-MATTHEW 21:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2119)
[\-MATTHEW 21:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2134)
[\-MATTHEW 21:41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2141)
[\-MATTHEW 21:43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2143)
[\-MATTHEW 21:45](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2145)
[\-MATTHEW 22:30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2230)
[\-MATTHEW 22:37-39](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2237-39)
[\-MATTHEW 23:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2310)
[\-MATTHEW 23:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2318)
[\-MATTHEW 23:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2323)
[\-MATTHEW 23:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2324)
[\-MATTHEW 23:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2327)
[\-MATTHEW 23:29-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2329-32)
[\-MATTHEW 23:8-9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-238-9)
[\-MATTHEW 24-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-24-25)
[\-MATTHEW 24:29-51](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2429-51)
[\-MATTHEW 24:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2431)
[\-MATTHEW 24:4-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-244-28)
[\-MATTHEW 26:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2627-28)
[\-MATTHEW 26:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2628)
[\-MATTHEW 26:6-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-266-13)
[\-MATTHEW 26:61](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2661)
[\-MATTHEW 27:63](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2763)
[\-MATTHEW 28:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-281)
[\-MATTHEW 28:18-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2818-20)
[\-MATTHEW 28:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2819)
[\-MATTHEW 28:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-2820)
[\-MATTHEW 3:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-315)
[\-MATTHEW 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-38)
[\-MATTHEW 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-38-10)
[\-MATTHEW 3:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-39-10)
[\-MATTHEW 4:1-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-41-11)
[\-MATTHEW 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-44)
[\-MATTHEW 5-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-5-7)
[\-MATTHEW 5:10-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-510-12)
[\-MATTHEW 5:13-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-513-16)
[\-MATTHEW 5:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-516)
[\-MATTHEW 5:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-518)
[\-MATTHEW 5:27-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-527-30)
[\-MATTHEW 5:31-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-531-32)
[\-MATTHEW 5:32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-532)
[\-MATTHEW 5:33-37](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-533-37)
[\-MATTHEW 5:38-48](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-538-48)
[\-MATTHEW 6:19-34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-619-34)
[\-MATTHEW 6:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-633)
[\-MATTHEW 6:34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-634)
[\-MATTHEW 6:9-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-69-13)
[\-MATTHEW 7:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-712)
[\-MATTHEW 7:15-23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-715-23)
[\-MATTHEW 7:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-720-21)
[\-MATTHEW 7:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-76)
[\-MATTHEW 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-79)
[\-MATTHEW 8:21-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-821-22)
[\-MATTHEW 9:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-915)
[\-MATTHEW 9:35-38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-935-38)
[\-MICAH 4:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micah-49-10)
[\-MICAH 5:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micah-51-5)
[\-MICAH 5:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micah-52)
\-N to P
--------
[\-NEHEMIAH 8:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nehemiah-87-8)
[\-NUMBERS 13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/numbers-13-14)
[\-NUMBERS 15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/numbers-15)
[\-NUMBERS 23:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/numbers-233)
[\-NUMBERS 30:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/numbers-309)
[\-PETER 1:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-113)
[\-PHILEMON 1:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philemon-11-2)
[\-PHILEMON 1:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philemon-12)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:18-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-118-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:21-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-121-24)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-127)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 1:3-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-13-5)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-212-13)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-220)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-228)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-23)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 2:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-28-11)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-3)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-31)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:10-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-310-14)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-317)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:17-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-317-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-320)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-320-21)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 3:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-33)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-410)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:10-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-410-11)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-413)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:13-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-413-18)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-422)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-44)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-48)
[\-PHILIPPIANS 4:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philippians-49)
[\-PROVERBS 10:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-105)
[\-PROVERBS 11:28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-1128)
[\-PROVERBS 12:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-1218)
[\-PROVERBS 24:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-2426)
[\-PROVERBS 27:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proverbs-276)
[\-PSALM 110](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-110)
[\-PSALM 118](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-118)
[\-PSALM 122](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-122)
[\-PSALM 132](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-132)
[\-PSALM 133:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-1332)
[\-PSALM 139](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-139)
[\-PSALM 145:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-1459)
[\-PSALM 16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-16)
[\-PSALM 16:8-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-168-11)
[\-PSALM 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-2)
[\-PSALM 22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-22)
[\-PSALM 23:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-234)
[\-PSALM 31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-31)
[\-PSALM 34](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-34)
[\-PSALM 38](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-38)
[\-PSALM 41](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-41)
[\-PSALM 42](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-42)
[\-PSALM 43](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-43)
[\-PSALM 69](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-69)
[\-PSALM 8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-8)
[\-PSALM 80](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-80)
[\-PSALM 88](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-88)
[\-PSALM 89:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-8927)
[\-PSALM 9:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-910)
[\-PSALM 90](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-90)
[\-PSALM 91:14-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-9114-16)
[\-PSALM 95](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalm-95)
[\-PSALMS 15-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalms-15-24)
\-R
---
[\-REVELATION 1:10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-110)
[\-REVELATION 1:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-119)
[\-REVELATION 1:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-13)
[\-REVELATION 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-14)
[\-REVELATION 1:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-15)
[\-REVELATION 1:6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-16)
[\-REVELATION 1:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-19)
[\-REVELATION 11:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1115)
[\-REVELATION 11:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1116-18)
[\-REVELATION 12:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1217)
[\-REVELATION 13:5-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-135-8)
[\-REVELATION 14:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1412)
[\-REVELATION 16:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-165-6)
[\-REVELATION 18:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-1820)
[\-REVELATION 19:1-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-191-3)
[\-REVELATION 19:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-191-5)
[\-REVELATION 19:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-196-8)
[\-REVELATION 19:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-197)
[\-REVELATION 19:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-198)
[\-REVELATION 19:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-199)
[\-REVELATION 2-3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2-3)
[\-REVELATION 20:9-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-209-10)
[\-REVELATION 21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-21)
[\-REVELATION 21:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-211)
[\-REVELATION 21:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2114)
[\-REVELATION 21:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2116-17)
[\-REVELATION 21:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-214)
[\-REVELATION 22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-22)
[\-REVELATION 22:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2214)
[\-REVELATION 22:18-19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-2218-19)
[\-REVELATION 22:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-227)
[\-REVELATION 22:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-229)
[\-REVELATION 3:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-312)
[\-REVELATION 3:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-34-5)
[\-REVELATION 3:8-10](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-38-10)
[\-REVELATION 5:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-59)
[\-REVELATION 6:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-611)
[\-REVELATION 6:9-11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-69-11)
[\-REVELATION 7:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-714)
[\-REVELATION 7:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-717)
[\-REVELATION 7:9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation-79-14)
[\-ROMANS 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1)
[\-ROMANS 1:16-17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-116-17)
[\-ROMANS 1:26-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-126-27)
[\-ROMANS 1:9-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-19-15)
[\-ROMANS 10:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1016)
[\-ROMANS 11:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-111-5)
[\-ROMANS 11:17-24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1117-24)
[\-ROMANS 11:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1118)
[\-ROMANS 11:26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1126)
[\-ROMANS 11:33](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1133)
[\-ROMANS 11:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-118)
[\-ROMANS 12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-12)
[\-ROMANS 12:14-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1214-21)
[\-ROMANS 12:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1216)
[\-ROMANS 12:17-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1217-21)
[\-ROMANS 12:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1219)
[\-ROMANS 12:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-122)
[\-ROMANS 12:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1221)
[\-ROMANS 12:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-123)
[\-ROMANS 12:3-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-123-8)
[\-ROMANS 12:4-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-124-5)
[\-ROMANS 13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-13)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-131-2)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-131-5)
[\-ROMANS 13:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-131-7)
[\-ROMANS 13:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1313-14)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-141-14)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-15:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-141-157)
[\-ROMANS 14:1-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-141-6)
[\-ROMANS 14:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1414)
[\-ROMANS 14:19-20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1419-20)
[\-ROMANS 14:22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1422)
[\-ROMANS 14:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1423)
[\-ROMANS 14:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-145)
[\-ROMANS 14:5-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-145-6)
[\-ROMANS 15:1-7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-151-7)
[\-ROMANS 15:18-32](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1518-32)
[\-ROMANS 15:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1524)
[\-ROMANS 15:25-27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1525-27)
[\-ROMANS 15:27](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1527)
[\-ROMANS 15:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1531)
[\-ROMANS 15:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-157)
[\-ROMANS 16:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-161)
[\-ROMANS 16:23](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-1623)
[\-ROMANS 16:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-165)
[\-ROMANS 2:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-215)
[\-ROMANS 3:24](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-324)
[\-ROMANS 3:3-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-33-6)
[\-ROMANS 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-4)
[\-ROMANS 4:13-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-413-16)
[\-ROMANS 4:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-417)
[\-ROMANS 4:20-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-420-21)
[\-ROMANS 4:25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-425)
[\-ROMANS 5:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-51)
[\-ROMANS 5:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-512)
[\-ROMANS 5:12-21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-512-21)
[\-ROMANS 5:13](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-513)
[\-ROMANS 5:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-56-8)
[\-ROMANS 5:7-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-57-8)
[\-ROMANS 6:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-611)
[\-ROMANS 6:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-614)
[\-ROMANS 6:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-618)
[\-ROMANS 6:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-619)
[\-ROMANS 6:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-63)
[\-ROMANS 6:3-4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-63-4)
[\-ROMANS 7:13-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-713-25)
[\-ROMANS 7:20](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-720)
[\-ROMANS 7:4-6](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-74-6)
[\-ROMANS 7:7-12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-77-12)
[\-ROMANS 7:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-79)
[\-ROMANS 8:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-81)
[\-ROMANS 8:15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-815)
[\-ROMANS 8:15-16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-815-16)
[\-ROMANS 8:16-18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-816-18)
[\-ROMANS 8:17](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-817)
[\-ROMANS 8:18](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-818)
[\-ROMANS 8:19-22](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-819-22)
[\-ROMANS 8:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-82)
[\-ROMANS 8:21](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-821)
[\-ROMANS 8:23-25](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-823-25)
[\-ROMANS 8:28-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-828-30)
[\-ROMANS 8:29-30](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-829-30)
[\-ROMANS 8:31](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-831)
[\-ROMANS 8:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-89)
[\-ROMANS 9:23-26](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-923-26)
[\-ROMANS 9:27-28](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-927-28)
[\-ROMANS 9:3](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-93)
[\-ROMANS 9:6-29](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-96-29)
[\-ROMANS 9:6-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/romans-96-8)
\-T to Z
--------
[\-TITUS 1:1](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-11)
[\-TITUS 1:16](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-116)
[\-TITUS 1:4](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-14)
[\-TITUS 1:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-17)
[\-TITUS 2:11](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-211)
[\-TITUS 2:11-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-211-14)
[\-TITUS 2:11-15](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-211-15)
[\-TITUS 2:12](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-212)
[\-TITUS 2:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-214)
[\-TITUS 2:7](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-27)
[\-TITUS 3:13-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-313-14)
[\-TITUS 3:14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-314)
[\-TITUS 3:2](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-32)
[\-TITUS 3:3-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-33-8)
[\-TITUS 3:4-8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-34-8)
[\-TITUS 3:5](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-35)
[\-TITUS 3:8](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/titus-38)
[\-ZECHARIAH 9-14](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zechariah-9-14)
[\-ZECHARIAH 9:9](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zechariah-99)
[1 CORINTHIANS 9:19](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1-corinthians-919)
[1963 MENNONITE CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/1963-mennonite-confession-of-faith)
[9MARKS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/9marks)
A
-
[A. PHILLIP | BROWN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/a-phillip-or-brown)
[A.K. | ZOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ak-or-zook)
[ABANDONMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abandonment)
[ABIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abide)
[ABOMINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abomination)
[ABORTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abortion)
[ABRAHAM | FRIESEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abraham-or-friesen)
[ABUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/abuse)
[ACCOUNTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/accountability)
[ADAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/adam)
[ADMONISHMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/admonishment)
[ADULTERY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/adultery)
[AFRAID](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/afraid)
[AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/african-methodist-episcopal)
[AFTER THREE DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/after-three-days)
[AFTERDEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/afterdeath)
[AGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/age)
[AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/age-of-accountability)
[AL | MOHLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/al-or-mohler)
[ALBERT | MAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/albert-or-mast)
[ALBERT | VERSPECK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/albert-or-verspeck)
[ALCESTIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alcestis)
[ALEXANDER | STRAUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alexander-or-strauch)
[ALIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alight)
[ALLAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allah)
[ALLEN | ROTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allen-or-roth)
[ALLEN P. | ROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/allen-p-or-ross)
[ALVIN J. | BEACHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/alvin-j-or-beachy)
[AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/american-civil-religion)
[AMERICAN DREAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/american-dream)
[AMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amillennialism)
[AMISH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amish)
[AMORITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amorites)
[AMOS | HOOVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/amos-or-hoover)
[ANABAPTIST CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-culture)
[ANABAPTIST FINANCIAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-financial)
[ANABAPTIST HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-history)
[ANABAPTIST IDENTITY CONFERENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-identity-conference)
[ANABAPTIST ORCHESTRA CAMP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-orchestra-camp)
[ANABAPTIST PERIODICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptist-periodicals)
[ANABAPTISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anabaptists)
[ANDREAS | KÖSTENBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andreas-or-kostenberger)
[ANDREW | CORNES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-cornes)
[ANDREW | HILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-hill)
[ANDREW | PETERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-or-peterson)
[ANDREW DAVID | NASELLI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-david-or-naselli)
[ANDREW V. | STE. MARIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/andrew-v-or-ste-marie)
[ANGEL M. | MERGAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/angel-m-or-mergal)
[ANGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anger)
[ANIMALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/animals)
[ANNUAL REPORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/annual-report)
[ANSWERED PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/answered-prayer)
[ANTHONY C. | THISELTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anthony-c-or-thiselton)
[ANXIETY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/anxiety)
[ANY-CAUSE DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/any-cause-divorce)
[AORIST VERBS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aorist-verbs)
[APOCALYPTIC DELIVERANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apocalyptic-deliverance)
[APOLOGETICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apologetics)
[APOSTLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostle)
[APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostolic-authority)
[APOSTOLIC CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/apostolic-church)
[APPLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/applications)
[ARCHAEOLOGY MAGAZINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/archaeology-magazine)
[ARCHITECTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/architecture)
[ARMINIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arminianism)
[ARNOLD L. | COOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arnold-l-or-cook)
[ARTHUR | SIDO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arthur-or-sido)
[ARTICLE BOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/article-book)
[ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/artificial-intelligence)
[ARTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/arts)
[ASCENSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ascension)
[ASELGEIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aselgeia)
[ASHER | WITMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/asher-or-witmer)
[ASSEMBLIES OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assemblies-of-god)
[ASSESSMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assessment)
[ASSURANCE OF SALVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/assurance-of-salvation)
[ATHEISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atheism)
[ATLANTA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atlanta)
[ATONEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/atonement)
[AUBREY | SPEARS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aubrey-or-spears)
[AUDIO BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/audio-bible)
[AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/augustine-of-hippo)
[AUTHORIAL INTENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/authorial-intent)
[AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/authority)
[AUTUMN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/autumn)
[AVERSION DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/aversion-divorce)
[AZUSA STREET REVIVAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/azusa-street-revival)
B
-
[BALD EAGLE BOYS CAMP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bald-eagle-boys-camp)
[BALTHASAR | HUBMAIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/balthasar-or-hubmaier)
[BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/baptism)
[BAR MITZVAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bar-mitzvah)
[BARBARA | ROBERTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/barbara-or-roberts)
[BEACHY AMISH-MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beachy-amish-mennonites)
[BEARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beards)
[BEAUTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beauty)
[BEETHOVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beethoven)
[BEHAVIOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/behavior)
[BELIEF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/belief)
[BELIEFS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beliefs)
[BELIEVER'S BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/believers-baptism)
[BELOVED DISCIPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beloved-disciple)
[BEN | WITHERINGTON III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ben-or-witherington-iii)
[BENEDICT OPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/benedict-option)
[BENJAMIN | EBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/benjamin-or-eby)
[BEREA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/berea)
[BETRAYAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrayal)
[BETROTHAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrothal)
[BETROTHAL VIEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/betrothal-view)
[BEULAH STAUFFER | HOSTETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/beulah-stauffer-or-hostetler)
[BIBLE APPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-apps)
[BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-contradictions)
[BIBLE GATEWAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-gateway)
[BIBLE PROMISES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-promises)
[BIBLE READING PLAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-reading-plan)
[BIBLE TRANSLATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bible-translations)
[BIBLE'S TRUSTWORTHINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bibles-trustworthiness)
[BIBLIBLOGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bibliblogs)
[BIBLICAL AUTHORITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-authority)
[BIBLICAL GREEK PROGRAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-greek-program)
[BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-interpretation)
[BIBLICAL LANGUAGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-languages)
[BIBLICAL LITERACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-literacy)
[BIBLICAL MENNONITE ALLIANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-mennonite-alliance)
[BIBLICAL THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblical-theology)
[BIBLICALTRAINING.ORG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblicaltrainingorg)
[BIBLICISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/biblicism)
[BILL | GOTHARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bill-or-gothard)
[BILL | MOUNCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bill-or-mounce)
[BIRCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birch)
[BIRDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birds)
[BIRTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/birth)
[BLOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/blood)
[BOBBY | JAMIESON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bobby-or-jamieson)
[BODY OF CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/body-of-christ)
[BOOK OF ENOCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-enoch)
[BOOK OF LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-life)
[BOOK OF NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-nature)
[BOOK OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-of-scripture)
[BOOK REVIEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/book-reviews)
[BOOKS FOR CHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/books-for-children)
[BORN AGAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/born-again)
[BOUND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bound)
[BRAHMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brahms)
[BRER FOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brer-fox)
[BRER RABBIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brer-rabbit)
[BRIAN | FIKKERT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brian-or-fikkert)
[BRIAN S. | ROSNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brian-s-or-rosner)
[BRIDE OF CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bride-of-christ)
[BROTHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/brothers)
[BRUCE K. | WALTKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bruce-k-or-waltke)
[BRYCE | KLABUNDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bryce-or-klabunde)
[BURIAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/burial)
[BUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/bus)
C
-
[C. ARNOLD | SNYDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/c-arnold-or-snyder)
[C. AUSTIN | MILES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/c-austin-or-miles)
[C.H. | DODD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ch-or-dodd)
[C.S. | LEWIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cs-or-lewis)
[CALVARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvary)
[CALVARY MESSENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvary-messenger)
[CALVIN | SEERVELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvin-or-seerveld)
[CALVINISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/calvinism)
[CANAANITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/canaanites)
[CANCER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cancer)
[CANON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/canon)
[CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/catechism)
[CELESTIAL FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/celestial-flesh)
[CELIBACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/celibacy)
[CENTURION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/centurion)
[CERTAINTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/certainty)
[CHANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chance)
[CHANGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/change)
[CHARACTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/character)
[CHARLES A. | HAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charles-a-or-hay)
[CHARLES L. | QUARLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charles-l-or-quarles)
[CHARLIE | SKRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/charlie-or-skrine)
[CHASTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chastity)
[CHESTER | WEAVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chester-or-weaver)
[CHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/children)
[CHILDREN - EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/children-evangelism)
[CHINESE STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chinese-students)
[CHOPIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chopin)
[CHRIS | CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chris-or-christian)
[CHRIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christ)
[CHRIST'S DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christs-death)
[CHRIST'S RETURN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christs-return)
[CHRISTENA | CLEVELAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christena-or-cleveland)
[CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian)
[CHRISTIAN | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-burkholder)
[CHRISTIAN | HEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-hege)
[CHRISTIAN | LUGBÜLL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-lugbull)
[CHRISTIAN | NEFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-or-neff)
[CHRISTIAN AID MINISTRIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-aid-ministries)
[CHRISTIAN LIGHT PUBLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-light-publications)
[CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christian-standard-bible)
[CHRISTLIKENESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christlikeness)
[CHRISTMAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christmas)
[CHRISTOCENTRIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christocentric)
[CHRISTOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christology)
[CHRISTOPHER | ASH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-ash)
[CHRISTOPHER | DE VINCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-de-vinck)
[CHRISTOPHER | ROWLAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-or-rowland)
[CHRISTOPHER J. H. | WRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-j-h-or-wright)
[CHRISTOPHER R. | HUTSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christopher-r-or-hutson)
[CHRISTOTELIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christotelic)
[CHRISTY | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/christy-or-smucker)
[CHRONICLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronicles)
[CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronological-bible)
[CHRONOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chronology)
[CHRYSOSTOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/chrysostom)
[CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church)
[CHURCH AND ISRAEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-and-israel)
[CHURCH AND STATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-and-state)
[CHURCH AS FAMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-as-family)
[CHURCH BOUNDARIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-boundaries)
[CHURCH BUDGETS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-budgets)
[CHURCH BUILDINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-buildings)
[CHURCH CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-culture)
[CHURCH DECISION-MAKING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-decision-making)
[CHURCH DENOMINATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-denominations)
[CHURCH DISCIPLINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-discipline)
[CHURCH GIVING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-giving)
[CHURCH GROWTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-growth)
[CHURCH HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-history)
[CHURCH LEADERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-leadership)
[CHURCH LIFE CYCLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-life-cycle)
[CHURCH LOCAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-local)
[CHURCH MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-membership)
[CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST MENNONITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-of-god-in-christ-mennonite)
[CHURCH PLANTING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-planting)
[CHURCH PRIORITY OF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-priority-of)
[CHURCH PURITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-purity)
[CHURCH STANDARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-standards)
[CHURCH TRADITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-tradition)
[CHURCH UNITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-unity)
[CHURCH UNIVERSAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/church-universal)
[CHURCHFUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/churchfunding)
[CICERO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cicero)
[CITIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cities)
[CITIZENSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/citizenship)
[CITY OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/city-of-god)
[CIVIL WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/civil-war)
[CLAIR | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clair-or-martin)
[CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clarity-of-scripture)
[CLASSICAL PARALLELS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/classical-parallels)
[CLAUS | WESTERMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/claus-or-westermann)
[CLEAN AND UNCLEAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clean-and-unclean)
[CLEAVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cleave)
[CLERGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clergy)
[CLINTON | ARNOLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clinton-or-arnold)
[CLOSED MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/closed-membership)
[CLOTHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/clothing)
[COLLECTIVISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/collectivism)
[COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/college)
[COLLIER | BERKSHIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/collier-or-berkshire)
[COMFORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/comfort)
[COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/commandment)
[COMMENTARIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/commentaries)
[COMMUNICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/communication)
[COMMUNIO SANCTORUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/communio-sanctorum)
[COMMUNITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/community)
[COMPLACENCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/complacency)
[COMPOSITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/composition)
[COMPROMISE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/compromise)
[CONCESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/concession)
[CONCILIARISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conciliarism)
[CONFERENCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conferences)
[CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/confession-of-faith)
[CONFESSIONS OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/confessions-of-faith)
[CONGREGATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregation)
[CONGREGATIONAL MUSIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregational-music)
[CONGREGATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/congregationalism)
[CONRAD | GREBEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conrad-or-grebel)
[CONRAD | HERTZLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conrad-or-hertzler)
[CONSERVATIVE MENNONITE CHURCH OF ONTARIO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conservative-mennonite-church-of-ontario)
[CONSERVATIVE VERSUS LIBERAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conservative-versus-liberal)
[CONTENTMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contentment)
[CONTEXTUALIZATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contextualization)
[CONTRADICTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/contradiction)
[CONVERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/conversion)
[CONVICTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/convictions)
[CORNELIS | RIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornelis-or-ris)
[CORNELIUS J. | DYCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornelius-j-or-dyck)
[CORNES | ANDREW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cornes-or-andrew)
[CORPUS CHRISTIANUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/corpus-christianum)
[CORPUS PERMIXTUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/corpus-permixtum)
[CORY | ANDERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cory-or-anderson)
[COUNCIL OF TRENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/council-of-trent)
[COUNSELLING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/counselling)
[COVENANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant)
[COVENANT FORMULA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-formula)
[COVENANT SIGN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-sign)
[COVENANT THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/covenant-theological-seminary)
[CRAIG | BLOMBERG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-or-blomberg)
[CRAIG A. | BLAISING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-a-or-blaising)
[CRAIG S. | KEENER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/craig-s-or-keener)
[CREATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/creation)
[CREDOBAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/credobaptism)
[CROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cross)
[CROSS-CULTURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cross-cultural)
[CROWDFUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/crowdfunding)
[CRUCIFIXION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/crucifixion)
[CUBITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cubits)
[CULTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cults)
[CULTURAL DIFFERENCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cultural-differences)
[CULTURAL ELITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cultural-elites)
[CULTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/culture)
[CURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cure)
[CURES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cures)
[CURIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/curialism)
[CURSE OF HAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/curse-of-ham)
[CYNTHIA LONG | WESTFALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cynthia-long-or-westfall)
[CYPRIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cyprian)
[CYRUS INGERSON | SCOFIELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/cyrus-ingerson-or-scofield)
D
-
[D. B. | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/d-b-or-martin)
[D.A. | CARSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/da-or-carson)
[DALE C. | ALLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dale-c-or-allison)
[DALE RALPH | DAVIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dale-ralph-or-davis)
[DAMNATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/damnation)
[DANIEL | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daniel-or-kauffman)
[DANTE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dante)
[DARKNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/darkness)
[DARRELL L. | BOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/darrell-l-or-bock)
[DARYL | WINGERD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/daryl-or-wingerd)
[DAVID | BENNET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-bennet)
[DAVID | BERCOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-bercot)
[DAVID | FREY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-frey)
[DAVID | GARLAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-garland)
[DAVID | GUSHEE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-gushee)
[DAVID | HOWARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-howard)
[DAVID | INSTONE-BREWER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-instone-brewer)
[DAVID | KLINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-kline)
[DAVID | PETERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-peterson)
[DAVID | POWLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-powlison)
[DAVID | ROBERTSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-robertson)
[DAVID | STARLING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-starling)
[DAVID | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-or-wenham)
[DAVID A. | DESILVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-a-or-desilva)
[DAVID AND GOLIATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-and-goliath)
[DAVID W. | PAO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/david-w-or-pao)
[DAVIDIC DYNASTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/davidic-dynasty)
[DEAN | TAYLOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dean-or-taylor)
[DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/death)
[DECALOGUE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/decalogue)
[DECEPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deception)
[DECISIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/decisions)
[DELIVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deliver)
[DENNIS | MCCALLUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dennis-or-mccallum)
[DENOMINATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/denominations)
[DENVER SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/denver-seminary)
[DEPOSIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/deposit)
[DEPRESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/depression)
[DER HEROLD DER WAHRHEIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/der-herold-der-wahrheit)
[DEREK | DEMARS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/derek-or-demars)
[DES MOINES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/des-moines)
[DESIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/desire)
[DESTINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/destination)
[DETERMINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/determination)
[DEVOTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/devotion)
[DGO POLLS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dgo-polls)
[DGO WEBSITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dgo-website)
[DIET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diet)
[DIRK | PHILIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dirk-or-philips)
[DISABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/disability)
[DISCIPLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/disciples)
[DISCIPLESHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/discipleship)
[DISEASES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diseases)
[DISPENSATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dispensation)
[DISPENSATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dispensationalism)
[DISTRESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/distress)
[DIVERSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/diversity)
[DIVINE NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divine-nature)
[DIVINE PASSIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divine-passive)
[DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce)
[DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-and-remarriage)
[DIVORCE CAUSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-causes)
[DIVORCE EVIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-evil)
[DIVORCE-ONLY VIEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/divorce-only-view)
[DOCETISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/docetism)
[DOGMATICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dogmatics)
[DOMINICAN REPUBLIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dominican-republic)
[DONALD | GUTHRIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-or-guthrie)
[DONALD | MADER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-or-mader)
[DONALD A. | HAGNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/donald-a-or-hagner)
[DORDRECHT CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dordrecht-confession-of-faith)
[DOUGLAS | HARPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-or-harper)
[DOUGLAS | STUART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-or-stuart)
[DOUGLAS J. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-j-or-green)
[DOUGLAS J. | MOO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/douglas-j-or-moo)
[DOWNSVIEW STATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/downsview-station)
[DRIFT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/drift)
[DURA-EUROPOS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dura-europos)
[DWIGHT L. | MOODY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/dwight-l-or-moody)
E
-
[EARLY CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/early-church)
[EARTHLY KINGDOMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/earthly-kingdoms)
[EASTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/easter)
[ECCLESIA CATHOLICA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesia-catholica)
[ECCLESIA SEMPRE REFORMANDA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecclesia-sempre-reformanda)
[ECKHARD J. | SCHABEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eckhard-j-or-schabel)
[ECUMENISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ecumenism)
[EDUCATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/education)
[EDWARD W. III | KLINK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/edward-w-iii-or-klink)
[EHEBRUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ehebruch)
[EKKLESIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ekklesia)
[ELAINE | PHILLIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elaine-or-phillips)
[ELBING CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elbing-catechism)
[ELECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/election)
[ELI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eli)
[ELIJAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elijah)
[ELIZABETH | BENDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elizabeth-or-bender)
[ELMER | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/elmer-or-smucker)
[EMILY | HALLOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emily-or-hallock)
[EMMANUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emmanuel)
[EMOTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/emotions)
[ENCOURAGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/encouragement)
[ENDURANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/endurance)
[ENGLISH LANGUAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/english-language)
[ENOCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/enoch)
[ENTRUST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/entrust)
[ENVIRONMENTALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/environmentalism)
[EPHESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ephesus)
[EPISTEMOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/epistemology)
[ERASTIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/erastianism)
[ERNEST | STRUBHAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernest-or-strubhar)
[ERNEST A. | PAYNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernest-a-or-payne)
[ERNST H. | CORRELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ernst-h-or-correll)
[ESCHATOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eschatology)
[ESSAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/essay)
[ESSENES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/essenes)
[ESV AUDIO BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esv-audio-bible)
[ESV STUDY BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/esv-study-bible)
[ETERNAL SECURITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eternal-security)
[ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ethics)
[EUGENE H. | MERRILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eugene-h-or-merrill)
[EUNUCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eunuch)
[EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN CREDIT UNION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-christian-credit-union)
[EVANGELICAL MENNONITE BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-mennonite-brethren)
[EVANGELICAL RATIONALISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelical-rationalists)
[EVANGELICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelicals)
[EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/evangelism)
[EVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/eve)
[EVERETT | FERGUSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/everett-or-ferguson)
[EVERETT | FOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/everett-or-fox)
[EXAGGERATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exaggeration)
[EXAMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/example)
[EXCEPTION CLAUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exception-clause)
[EXCEPTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/exceptions)
[EXPERIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/experience)
[EXPOSITIONAL SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/expositional-sermons)
[EXTRAVAGANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/extravagance)
F
-
[FACEBOOK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/facebook)
[FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith)
[FAITH AND WORKS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith-and-works)
[FAITH BUILDERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faith-builders)
[FAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/faithfulness)
[FALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fall)
[FALSE TEACHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/false-teachers)
[FAMILIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/familification)
[FAMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family)
[FAMILY DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-day)
[FAMILY DEVOTIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-devotions)
[FAMILY OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-of-god)
[FAMILY TIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/family-ties)
[FAREWELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/farewell)
[FARMING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/farming)
[FASHION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fashion)
[FATHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/father)
[FATHERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fathers)
[FEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fear)
[FEAR NOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fear-not)
[FEDERAL HEADSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/federal-headship)
[FELIX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/felix)
[FELIX | MANTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/felix-or-mantz)
[FELLOWSHIP OF CONCERNED MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fellowship-of-concerned-mennonites)
[FEMALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/female)
[FIDDLER ON THE ROOF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fiddler-on-the-roof)
[FINAL JUDGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/final-judgement)
[FINAL JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/final-judgment)
[FINNY | KURUVILLA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/finny-or-kuruvilla)
[FIRST CAUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/first-cause)
[FIRSTBORN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/firstborn)
[FLAT BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flat-bible)
[FLAVIUS | JOSEPHUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flavius-or-josephus)
[FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flesh)
[FLOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flood)
[FLOWERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/flowers)
[FLOYD | MCCLUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/floyd-or-mcclung)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHURCH ATLANTA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus-church-atlanta)
[FOLLOWERS OF JESUS MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/followers-of-jesus-mennonite-church)
[FOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/food)
[FOREKNOWLEDGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/foreknowledge)
[FORGIVENESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/forgiveness)
[FORNICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fornication)
[FORUM FOR DOCTRINAL STUDIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/forum-for-doctrinal-studies)
[FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/foundation-of-christian-doctrine)
[FRANCISCANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/franciscans)
[FRANK | VIOLA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frank-or-viola)
[FRANKENTHAL DISPUTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frankenthal-disputation)
[FREDERICK DALE | BRUNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frederick-dale-or-bruner)
[FREE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/free)
[FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/freedom)
[FRIEND OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/friend-of-god)
[FRIENDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/friends)
[FROM THE BEGINNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/from-the-beginning)
[FROSCHAUER BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/froschauer-bible)
[FRUIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fruit)
[FRUSTRATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/frustration)
[FUNDAMENTALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/fundamentalism)
G
-
[G. EDWIN | BONTRAGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/g-edwin-or-bontrager)
[G. THOMAS | HOBSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/g-thomas-or-hobson)
[G.H. | WILLIAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gh-or-williams)
[G.K. | BEALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gk-or-beale)
[G.K. | CHESTERTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gk-or-chesterton)
[GAMALIEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gamaliel)
[GARDEN OF EDEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/garden-of-eden)
[GARETH L. | COCKERILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gareth-l-or-cockerill)
[GARRY | FRIESEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/garry-or-friesen)
[GARY | BURGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gary-or-burge)
[GATHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gather)
[GEMEINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gemeine)
[GENDER DISTINCTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gender-distinction)
[GENDER ROLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gender-roles)
[GENE L. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gene-l-or-green)
[GENERAL CONFERENCE MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/general-conference-mennonite-church)
[GENERALIZATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/generalizations)
[GENEROSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/generosity)
[GENEVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geneva)
[GENEVA BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geneva-bible)
[GEOFF | ASHLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/geoff-or-ashley)
[GEORGE | GOLDMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-or-goldman)
[GEORGE | GUTHRIE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-or-guthrie)
[GEORGE H. | WILLIAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-h-or-william)
[GEORGE H. | WILLIAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-h-or-williams)
[GEORGE R. | BRUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/george-r-or-brunk)
[GERARD MANLEY | HOPKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gerard-manley-or-hopkins)
[GERHARD | ROOSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gerhard-or-roosen)
[GETHSEMANE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gethsemane)
[GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gifts)
[GILLIS | VAN AACHEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gillis-or-van-aachen)
[GIVING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/giving)
[GLEN | MAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/glen-or-mast)
[GLORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/glory)
[GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/god)
[GOD'S WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gods-will)
[GODLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/godliness)
[GODS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gods)
[GOLDEN APPLES IN SILVER BOWLS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/golden-apples-in-silver-bowls)
[GOLDEN RULE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/golden-rule)
[GOMORRAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gomorrah)
[GOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good)
[GOOD SHEPHERD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good-shepherd)
[GOOD WORK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/good-work)
[GOODBYE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodbye)
[GOODNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodness)
[GOODNESS OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/goodness-of-god)
[GORDAN | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordan-or-wenham)
[GORDON | FEE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-or-fee)
[GORDON | HUGENBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-or-hugenberger)
[GORDON J. | WENHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gordon-j-or-wenham)
[GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel)
[GOSPEL ECHOES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-echoes)
[GOSPEL OF MATTHEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-of-matthew)
[GOSPEL WITNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gospel-witness)
[GOVERNMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/government)
[GRACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grace)
[GRACE GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grace-gifts)
[GRACIOUSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/graciousness)
[GRAMMAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grammar)
[GRANDCHILDREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandchildren)
[GRANDDAUGHTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/granddaughter)
[GRANDMOTHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandmother)
[GRANDPARENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grandparents)
[GRANT | OSBORNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grant-or-osborne)
[GRATITUDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gratitude)
[GREAT COMMISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/great-commission)
[GREED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greed)
[GREEK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greek)
[GREEK ORTHODOX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/greek-orthodox)
[GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/green)
[GREGG R. | ALLISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gregg-r-or-allison)
[GRETCHEN | BASKERVILLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gretchen-or-baskerville)
[GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/grounds-for-divorce)
[GROWTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/growth)
[GUIDANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/guidance)
[GULLIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/gullible)
[GUY | DUTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/guy-or-duty)
H
-
[H. VAN DYCK | PARUNAK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/h-van-dyck-or-parunak)
[HAITI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/haiti)
[HALLOCK | EMILY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hallock-or-emily)
[HANS | BUSSCHAERT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-busschaert)
[HANS | DE RIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-de-ries)
[HANS | DENCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hans-or-denck)
[HARD SAYINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hard-sayings)
[HARDEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harden)
[HARDNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hardness)
[HARDNESS OF HEART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hardness-of-heart)
[HARMONIZE SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harmonize-scripture)
[HAROLD S. | BENDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harold-s-or-bender)
[HAROLD W. | HOEHNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/harold-w-or-hoehner)
[HATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hate)
[HEAD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/head)
[HEAD COVERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/head-covering)
[HEALING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/healing)
[HEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hear)
[HEART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heart)
[HEARTS AND VOICES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hearts-and-voices)
[HEAVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heaven)
[HEAVENLY PLACES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heavenly-places)
[HEBREW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrew)
[HEBREWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hebrews)
[HEINRICH | EBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heinrich-or-eby)
[HELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hell)
[HELMUT | THIELICKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/helmut-or-thielicke)
[HELP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/help)
[HENRI J.M. | NOUWEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/henri-jm-or-nouwen)
[HENRY VIII](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/henry-viii)
[HERALD OF TRUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/herald-of-truth)
[HERESY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heresy)
[HERMAN | VAN TIELT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/herman-or-van-tielt)
[HERMENEUTIC ROUNDABOUT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermeneutic-roundabout)
[HERMENEUTICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermeneutics)
[HERMIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hermit)
[HETEROSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/heterosexuality)
[HIDDEN CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hidden-church)
[HILDEGARD OF BINGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hildegard-of-bingen)
[HILLEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hillel)
[HISTORICAL CONTEXT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-context)
[HISTORICAL EVIDENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-evidence)
[HISTORICAL JESUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-jesus)
[HISTORICAL PRECEDENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historical-precedent)
[HISTORIOGRAPHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/historiography)
[HISTORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/history)
[HISTORY OF RELIGIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/history-of-religions)
[HOC EST CORPUS MEUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hoc-est-corpus-meum)
[HOLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holiness)
[HOLY KISS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-kiss)
[HOLY SATURDAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-saturday)
[HOLY SPIRIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-spirit)
[HOLY WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/holy-war)
[HOMELESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homelessness)
[HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homosexuality)
[HOMOSEXUALITY AND ANCIENT JEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/homosexuality-and-ancient-jews)
[HONOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/honor)
[HOPE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hope)
[HOSPITALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hospitality)
[HOUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/house)
[HOUSE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/house-church)
[HOUSEHOLD OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/household-of-god)
[HOUSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/houses)
[HOW FIRM A FOUNDATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/how-firm-a-foundation)
[HOW LONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/how-long)
[HOYTE | RIENCX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hoyte-or-riencx)
[HULDRYCH | ZWINGLI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/huldrych-or-zwingli)
[HUMAN NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/human-nature)
[HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/human-responsibility)
[HUMILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/humility)
[HUMOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/humor)
[HUREREI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hurerei)
[HUSBANDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/husbands)
[HUTTERITE CHRONICLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hutterite-chronicle)
[HUTTERITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hutterites)
[HYMNALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hymnals)
[HYPER-LITERALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hyper-literalism)
[HYPOCRISY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hypocrisy)
[HYPOPITUITARISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/hypopituitarism)
I
-
[I. HOWARD | MARSHALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/i-howard-or-marshall)
[IAIN W. | PROVAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/iain-w-or-provan)
[IAN | BOXALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ian-or-boxall)
[IDEALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/idealism)
[IDENTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/identity)
[IDOLATRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/idolatry)
[III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/iii)
[IMAGE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/image-of-god)
[IMAGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/images)
[IMITATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/imitate)
[IMITATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/imitation)
[IMMANUEL | JAKOBOVITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immanuel-or-jakobovits)
[IMMERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immersion)
[IMMUTABILITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/immutability)
[IMPLICATIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/implications)
[IN THE SIGHT OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/in-the-sight-of-god)
[IN THREE DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/in-three-days)
[INCARNATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/incarnation)
[INCEST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/incest)
[INDEFECTIBILITY OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indefectibility-of-faith)
[INDEFECTIBILITY OF GRACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indefectibility-of-grace)
[INDISPENSABLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indispensable)
[INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indissolubility-of-marriage)
[INDISSOLUBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/indissoluble)
[INDIVIDUALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/individualism)
[INERRANCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/inerrancy)
[INFANT BAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/infant-baptism)
[INFINITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/infinity)
[INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/insiders-and-outsiders)
[INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/inspiration-of-scripture)
[INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/institutes-of-the-christian-religion)
[INTEGRITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/integrity)
[INTELLECT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intellect)
[INTENTIONAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intentional)
[INTEREST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/interest)
[INTERMEDIATE STATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intermediate-state)
[INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/international-students)
[INTIMATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/intimate)
[INVISIBLE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/invisible-church)
[IRA D. | LANDIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ira-d-or-landis)
[IRENAEUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/irenaeus)
[IRONY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/irony)
[ISAAC | WATTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/isaac-or-watts)
[ISRAEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israel)
[ISRAEL OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israel-of-god)
[ISRAEL'S HARDENING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israels-hardening)
[ISRAEL'S JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/israels-judgment)
J
-
[J. ALEC | MOTYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-alec-or-motyer)
[J. CARL | LANEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-carl-or-laney)
[J. GORDON | MCCONVILLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-gordon-or-mcconville)
[J. GORDON | MELTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-gordon-or-melton)
[J. HOWARD | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-howard-or-kauffman)
[J. LOUIS | MARTYN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-louis-or-martyn)
[J. P. | MEIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-p-or-meier)
[J. PAUL | GRAYBILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-paul-or-graybill)
[J. RAMSEY | MICHAELS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/j-ramsey-or-michaels)
[J.A. | OOSTERBAAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ja-or-oosterbaan)
[J.C. | WAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jc-or-wand)
[J.C. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jc-or-wenger)
[J.M. | VINCENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jm-or-vincent)
[JACK | DEERE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jack-or-deere)
[JACOB | AMMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-ammann)
[JACOB | ARMINIUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-arminius)
[JACOB | JANSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-jansz)
[JACOB | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-stauffer)
[JACOB | VAN LIESVELDT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-or-van-liesveldt)
[JACOB D. | GOERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jacob-d-or-goering)
[JAMES | EDWARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-or-edwards)
[JAMES | USSHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-or-ussher)
[JAMES D. | DVORAK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-d-or-dvorak)
[JAMES R. | EDWARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/james-r-or-edwards)
[JAN | GLEYSTEEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jan-or-gleysteen)
[JAPHETH | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/japheth-or-stauffer)
[JASON | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jason-or-kauffman)
[JAY E. | ADAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jay-e-or-adams)
[JEALOUSY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jealousy)
[JEANNINE K. | BROWN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeannine-k-or-brown)
[JENNIFER | FOUTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jennifer-or-foutz)
[JEREMY | BOUMA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jeremy-or-bouma)
[JERRY | FALWELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-falwell)
[JERRY | JONES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-jones)
[JERRY | SITTSER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jerry-or-sittser)
[JESSE | KROPF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesse-or-kropf)
[JESUS AND DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-divorce)
[JESUS AND HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-homosexuality)
[JESUS AND LOVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-and-love)
[JESUS' EXAMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-example)
[JESUS' WORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jesus-words)
[JEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jews)
[JIM | CHRISMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jim-or-chrisman)
[JIM | ELLIFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jim-or-elliff)
[JOACHIM OF FIORE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joachim-of-fiore)
[JOCHEBED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jochebed)
[JOE A. | SPRINGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joe-a-or-springer)
[JOEL B. | GREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joel-b-or-green)
[JOHN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john)
[JOHN | BARCLAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-barclay)
[JOHN | BRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-bright)
[JOHN | CALVIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-calvin)
[JOHN | CHRYSOSTOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-chrysostom)
[JOHN | COBLENTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-coblentz)
[JOHN | DICKSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-dickson)
[JOHN | DONNE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-donne)
[JOHN | FOXE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-foxe)
[JOHN | HARRISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-harrison)
[JOHN | HOLDEMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-holdeman)
[JOHN | HOOPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-hooper)
[JOHN | HORSCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-horsch)
[JOHN | HUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-hus)
[JOHN | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-johnson)
[JOHN | MACARTHUR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-macarthur)
[JOHN | MCNEILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-mcneill)
[JOHN | MCRAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-mcray)
[JOHN | OSWALT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-oswalt)
[JOHN | OWEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-owen)
[JOHN | PERKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-perkins)
[JOHN | PIPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-piper)
[JOHN | WYCLIF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-or-wyclif)
[JOHN A. | HOSTETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-a-or-hostetler)
[JOHN C. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-c-or-wenger)
[JOHN D. | MARTIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-d-or-martin)
[JOHN D. | ROTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-d-or-roth)
[JOHN E. | TOEWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-e-or-toews)
[JOHN F. | FUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-f-or-funk)
[JOHN H. | SAILHAMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-h-or-sailhamer)
[JOHN H. | WALTON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-h-or-walton)
[JOHN HOWARD | YODER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-howard-or-yoder)
[JOHN L. | STAUFFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-l-or-stauffer)
[JOHN LANDIS | RUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-landis-or-ruth)
[JOHN M. | BRENNEMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-m-or-brenneman)
[JOHN NELSON | DARBY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-nelson-or-darby)
[JOHN P. | MEIER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-p-or-meier)
[JOHN S. | COFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-s-or-coffman)
[JOHN THE BAPTIST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/john-the-baptist)
[JOIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/join)
[JONADAB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonadab)
[JONAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jonah)
[JOSEPH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph)
[JOSEPH | FUNK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-or-funk)
[JOSEPH | NEILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-or-neill)
[JOSEPH A. | WEBB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-a-or-webb)
[JOSEPH F. | SOHM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-f-or-sohm)
[JOSEPH H. | HELLERMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-h-or-hellerman)
[JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joseph-of-arimathea)
[JOSEPHUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/josephus)
[JOY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/joy)
[JR.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/jr)
[JUDAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judas)
[JUDEO-CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judeo-christian)
[JUDGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judges)
[JUDGMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judgment)
[JUDITH C. | AREEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/judith-c-or-areen)
[JUST WAR THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/just-war-theory)
[JUSTICE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justice)
[JUSTIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justification)
[JUSTIN MARTYR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/justin-martyr)
K
-
[KAREN H. | JOBES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/karen-h-or-jobes)
[KARL | KOOP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/karl-or-koop)
[KATHERINE | DUNBABIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/katherine-or-dunbabin)
[KEN | BRUBACHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ken-or-brubacher)
[KEN | GIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ken-or-gire)
[KENNETH E. | BAILEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kenneth-e-or-bailey)
[KENNY | WOOLMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kenny-or-woolman)
[KEVIN | DEYOUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kevin-or-deyoung)
[KINDNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kindness)
[KING JAMES VERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/king-james-version)
[KINGDOM OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kingdom-of-god)
[KINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kings)
[KINGSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kingship)
[KINSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kinship)
[KIRCHE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kirche)
[KISS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kiss)
[KLEINE GEMEINDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kleine-gemeinde)
[KLYNE R. | SNODGRASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/klyne-r-or-snodgrass)
[KNOWLEDGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/knowledge)
[KYLE | HARPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kyle-or-harper)
[KYLE | ROBERTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/kyle-or-roberts)
L
-
[LAITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/laity)
[LARRY | KREIDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/larry-or-kreider)
[LAST DAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/last-days)
[LAW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law)
[LAW AND THE CHRISTIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law-and-the-christian)
[LAW OF MOSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/law-of-moses)
[LAWLESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lawlessness)
[LAZARUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lazarus)
[LEADERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leaders)
[LEARNERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/learners)
[LEAVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leaves)
[LEENAERT | BOUWENS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leenaert-or-bouwens)
[LEGALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/legalism)
[LELAND D. | HARDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leland-d-or-harder)
[LEONARD | GROSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leonard-or-gross)
[LEONARD | VERDUIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/leonard-or-verduin)
[LETTING GO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/letting-go)
[LEVITICAL PRIESTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/levitical-priests)
[LIBERATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/liberation)
[LIBRARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/library)
[LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/life)
[LIFESPAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lifespan)
[LIFESTYLE EVANGELISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lifestyle-evangelism)
[LIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/light)
[LIGHT OF THE WORLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/light-of-the-world)
[LINFORD | BERRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/linford-or-berry)
[LIVING WATER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/living-water)
[LIVING WORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/living-word)
[LOGIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/logic)
[LOOPHOLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loophole)
[LORD'S DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-day)
[LORD'S PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-prayer)
[LORD'S SUPPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lords-supper)
[LORDING OVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lording-over)
[LORRAINE | JANZEN KOOISTRA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lorraine-or-janzen-kooistra)
[LOSS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loss)
[LOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lot)
[LOU | PRIOLO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lou-or-priolo)
[LOUIS | MCBRIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/louis-or-mcbride)
[LOVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love)
[LOVE AND SEXUAL ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-and-sexual-ethics)
[LOVE FEASTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-feasts)
[LOVE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-of-god)
[LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/love-your-neighbor)
[LOWELL | HERSCHBERGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/lowell-or-herschberger)
[LOYALTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/loyalty)
[LUDWIG | HAETZER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ludwig-or-haetzer)
[LUKE TIMOTHY | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/luke-timothy-or-johnson)
M
-
[MAGISTERIAL REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/magisterial-reformation)
[MALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/male)
[MANNA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/manna)
[MARC | CORTEZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marc-or-cortez)
[MARGARET | AVISON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/margaret-or-avison)
[MARK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark)
[MARK | DEVER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-or-dever)
[MARK A. | ELLIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-a-or-ellis)
[MARK A. | SEIFRID](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-a-or-seifrid)
[MARK R. | WENGER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-r-or-wenger)
[MARK S. | SWEETNAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mark-s-or-sweetnam)
[MARKS OF THE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marks-of-the-church)
[MARRIAGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marriage)
[MARRIAGE CONTRACT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marriage-contract)
[MARTIN | LUTHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martin-or-luther)
[MARTIN | SELMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martin-or-selman)
[MARTYRS MIRROR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/martyrs-mirror)
[MARVIN | KAUFFMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/marvin-or-kauffman)
[MARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mary)
[MARY OF BETHANY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mary-of-bethany)
[MATERIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/materialism)
[MATTHEW | VINES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthew-or-vines)
[MATTHIAS | OVERHOLT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/matthias-or-overholt)
[MAX | GÖBEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/max-or-gobel)
[MEANING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meaning)
[MEAT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meat)
[MEETING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/meeting)
[MEGAN | PHELPS-ROPER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/megan-or-phelps-roper)
[MELCHIZEDEK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/melchizedek)
[MELVIN | GINGERICH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/melvin-or-gingerich)
[MENNO | SIMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/menno-or-simons)
[MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mennonite-church)
[MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mennonites)
[MENTAL HEALTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mental-health)
[MENTORING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mentoring)
[MERCY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mercy)
[MERIT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/merit)
[MERLE | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/merle-or-burkholder)
[MESSENGER FORMULA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messenger-formula)
[MESSIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messiah)
[MESSIANIC PSALMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/messianic-psalms)
[MICAIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/micaiah)
[MICHAEL | GLASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-glass)
[MICHAEL | LAWRENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-lawrence)
[MICHAEL | SATTLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-or-sattler)
[MICHAEL J. | WILKINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/michael-j-or-wilkins)
[MICROLOANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/microloans)
[MIDDLE AGES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/middle-ages)
[MIDLIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midlife)
[MIDRASH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midrash)
[MIDWEST FELLOWSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/midwest-fellowship)
[MIKE | ATNIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mike-or-atnip)
[MILK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/milk)
[MILLENNIUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/millennium)
[MILO | ZEHR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/milo-or-zehr)
[MIRACLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miracles)
[MIRIAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miriam)
[MIRIAM | IWASHIGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/miriam-or-iwashige)
[MISHNAH-SANHEDRIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mishnah-sanhedrin)
[MISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mission)
[MISSIONARY SUPPORT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missionary-support)
[MISSIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missions)
[MISSIONS FUNDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/missions-funding)
[MOISES | SILVA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moises-or-silva)
[MONEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/money)
[MONEY TRANSFER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/money-transfer)
[MONOTHEISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/monotheism)
[MONTBÉLIARD MENNONITE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/montbeliard-mennonite-church)
[MORALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moralism)
[MORNA | HOOKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/morna-or-hooker)
[MOSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/moses)
[MOZART](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/mozart)
[MULTICULTURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/multicultural)
[MÜNSTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/munster)
[MURRAY J. | HARRIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/murray-j-or-harris)
[MUSIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/music)
[MUSLIMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/muslims)
[MY BONE AND MY FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/my-bone-and-my-flesh)
N
-
[N.T. | WRIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-or-wright)
[NABEEL | QURESHI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nabeel-or-qureshi)
[NAME OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/name-of-god)
[NANNE | VAN DER ZIJPP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nanne-or-van-der-zijpp)
[NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/national-association-of-evangelicals)
[NATIONALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nationalism)
[NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nature)
[NEIGHBORS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/neighbors)
[NEW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new)
[NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-american-commentary)
[NEW COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-commandment)
[NEW COVENANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-covenant)
[NEW EARTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-earth)
[NEW ENGLAND PRIMER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-england-primer)
[NEW HEAVEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-heaven)
[NEW HORIZONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-horizons)
[NEW JERUSALEM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-jerusalem)
[NEW TESTAMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/new-testament)
[NICENE CREED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nicene-creed)
[NICHOLAS | BIESTKENS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nicholas-or-biestkens)
[NINEVEH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nineveh)
[NIV](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/niv)
[NIV ZONDERVAN STUDY BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/niv-zondervan-study-bible)
[NOAH'S ARK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noahs-ark)
[NOBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noble)
[NON-VIOLENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/non-violence)
[NONCOMFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/noncomformity)
[NONCONFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nonconformity)
[NONRESISTANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nonresistance)
[NORM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/norm)
[NORMAN | TROYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/norman-or-troyer)
[NOURISHMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nourishment)
[NT PRACTICES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-practices)
[NT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-theology)
[NT USE OF OT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/nt-use-of-ot)
O
-
[O.M. | BAKKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/om-or-bakke)
[OATHS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/oaths)
[OBEDIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/obedience)
[OBITUARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/obituary)
[OLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/old)
[OLD COMMANDMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/old-commandment)
[OLIVE TREE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/olive-tree)
[OMNISCIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/omniscience)
[ON THE RESURRECTION MORNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/on-the-resurrection-morning)
[ON THE THIRD DAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/on-the-third-day)
[ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/once-saved-always-saved)
[ONE FLESH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/one-flesh)
[OPEN HANDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/open-hands)
[OPEN MEMBERSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/open-membership)
[ORDINANCES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ordinances)
[ORIGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/origen)
[ORIGIN STORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/origin-story)
[ORIGINAL SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/original-sin)
[OT NARRATIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ot-narrative)
[OT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ot-theology)
[OVER-REALIZED ESCHATOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/over-realized-eschatology)
P
-
[PACIFISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pacifism)
[PAEDOBAPTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paedobaptism)
[PAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pain)
[PALM SUNDAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/palm-sunday)
[PAPACY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/papacy)
[PARABLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parable)
[PARABLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parables)
[PARENTHOOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parenthood)
[PARENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/parents)
[PARTICIPATORY CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/participatory-church)
[PASTOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pastor)
[PASTORAL CONCERNS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pastoral-concerns)
[PATRIOTISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/patriotism)
[PAUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul)
[PAUL | BARKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-barker)
[PAUL | EMERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-emerson)
[PAUL | OESTREICHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-or-oestreicher)
[PAUL AND DIVORCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-and-divorce)
[PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-and-homosexuality)
[PAUL S. | MINEAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/paul-s-or-minear)
[PEACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peace)
[PEACEMAKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peacemaker)
[PEDERASTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pederasty)
[PELAGIUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pelagius)
[PENAL SUBSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/penal-substitution)
[PENTECOST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pentecost)
[PEOPLE OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/people-of-god)
[PERFECT TENSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perfect-tense)
[PERRY | YODER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perry-or-yoder)
[PERSECUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/persecution)
[PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perseverance-of-the-saints)
[PERSPECTIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/perspective)
[PET PEEVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pet-peeves)
[PETER | ADAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-adam)
[PETER | BURKHOLDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-burkholder)
[PETER | DAMIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-damian)
[PETER | REIDEMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-reidemann)
[PETER | SANLON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-sanlon)
[PETER | WALPOT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-or-walpot)
[PETER J. | KLASSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-j-or-klassen)
[PETER J. | TWISCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-j-or-twisck)
[PETER T. | O'BRIEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/peter-t-or-obrien)
[PHARISEES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pharisees)
[PHIL | KEAGGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phil-or-keaggy)
[PHILIP E. | SATTERTHWAITE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philip-e-or-satterthwaite)
[PHILLIP | LONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phillip-or-long)
[PHILLIP | SIGAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/phillip-or-sigal)
[PHILO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/philo)
[PHYSICIAN OF THE SOUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/physician-of-the-soul)
[PICTURE SMART BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/picture-smart-bible)
[PIETER | PIETERSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pieter-or-pietersz)
[PILGRIMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pilgrims)
[PLANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plants)
[PLATO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plato)
[PLAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/play)
[PLEASED GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pleased-god)
[PLINY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pliny)
[PLUTO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pluto)
[PLYMOUTH BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/plymouth-brethren)
[POETRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/poetry)
[POLITICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/politics)
[POLYCARP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/polycarp)
[POPE BONIFACE VIII](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-boniface-viii)
[POPE GREGORY III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-gregory-iii)
[POPE PAUL VI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-paul-vi)
[POPE PIUS II](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-pius-ii)
[POPE SYLVESTER I](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pope-sylvester-i)
[PORNEIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/porneia)
[POSTMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/postmillennialism)
[POVERTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/poverty)
[POWER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/power)
[POWERLESSNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/powerlessness)
[PRAGMATISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pragmatism)
[PRAYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prayer)
[PREACHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preaching)
[PREDESTINATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/predestination)
[PREMILLENNIALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/premillennialism)
[PRESENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/presence)
[PRESERVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preservation)
[PRESTON | SPRINKLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/preston-or-sprinkle)
[PRIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pride)
[PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priesthood-of-all-believers)
[PRIESTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priests)
[PRIMARY WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/primary-will)
[PRIORITIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/priorities)
[PRISON MINISTRY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prison-ministry)
[PROBLEM CHRISTIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/problem-christians)
[PROCLAIM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proclaim)
[PROFESSIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/professions)
[PROHIBITIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prohibitions)
[PROMISED LAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/promised-land)
[PRONOUN REFERENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pronoun-referents)
[PROOF-TEXTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/proof-texts)
[PROPHECY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prophecy)
[PROPHET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prophet)
[PROSPERITY GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prosperity-gospel)
[PROSTITUTE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prostitute)
[PROSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/prostitution)
[PROTESTANT REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/protestant-reformation)
[PROTESTANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/protestants)
[PROVISION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/provision)
[PSALMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/psalms)
[PSEUDO-PHOCYLIDES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/pseudo-phocylides)
[PURGATORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/purgatory)
[PURITANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/puritans)
[PURPOSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/purpose)
Q
-
****
[QUEBEC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/quebec)
[QUIET IN THE LAND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/quiet-in-the-land)
R
-
[R. TODD | MANGUM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/r-todd-or-mangum)
[R.T. | FRANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rt-or-france)
[RABBI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rabbi)
[RABBI ELEAZAR BEN AZARIAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rabbi-eleazar-ben-azariah)
[RAD | ZDERO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rad-or-zdero)
[RADI-CALL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radi-call)
[RADICAL FAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-faithfulness)
[RADICAL FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-freedom)
[RADICAL PERMANENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-permanence)
[RADICAL REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/radical-reformation)
[RAIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rain)
[RANDALL | BUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/randall-or-buth)
[RANDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/random)
[RANDY | ALCORN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/randy-or-alcorn)
[RANSOM THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ransom-theory)
[RAPTURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rapture)
[RAT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rat)
[RAYMOND | DILLARD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-or-dillard)
[RAYMOND C. | ORTLUND](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-c-or-ortlund)
[RAYMOND F. | COLLINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/raymond-f-or-collins)
[READING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reading)
[REALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/realism)
[REASON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reason)
[REBUKE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rebuke)
[RECEIVE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/receive)
[RECHABITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rechabites)
[RECONCILIATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reconciliation)
[RED LETTERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/red-letters)
[REDEMPTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/redemption)
[REDEMPTIVE MOVEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/redemptive-movement)
[REDUCTIONISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reductionism)
[REFORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reformation)
[REFORMED THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/reformed-theology)
[REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/regulative-principle)
[RELATIONSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/relationship)
[RELATIONSHIPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/relationships)
[RENEWAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/renewal)
[REPENTANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/repentance)
[REPETITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/repetition)
[REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/replacement-theology)
[REPRESENTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/representation)
[RESTORATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/restoration)
[RESTORATIONISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/restorationism)
[RESURRECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/resurrection)
[REVELATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revelation)
[REVOLUTIONARY WAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/revolutionary-war)
[RICH | MULLINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rich-or-mullins)
[RICHARD | BAXTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-baxter)
[RICHARD | KLAUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-klaus)
[RICHARD | SCHWARTZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-schwartz)
[RICHARD | SHOWALTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-or-showalter)
[RICHARD B. | HAYS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-b-or-hays)
[RICHARD K. | MACMASTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-k-or-macmaster)
[RICHARD S. | HESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/richard-s-or-hess)
[ROBERT | FRIEDMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-friedmann)
[ROBERT | GAGNON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-gagnon)
[ROBERT | ROBINSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-robinson)
[ROBERT | STEIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-or-stein)
[ROBERT B. | CHISHOLM JR.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-b-or-chisholm-jr)
[ROBERT H. | STEIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-h-or-stein)
[ROBERT J. | MORGAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/robert-j-or-morgan)
[ROD | DREHER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rod-or-dreher)
[ROD AND STAFF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rod-and-staff)
[RODNEY | DECKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rodney-or-decker)
[RODNEY | TROYER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rodney-or-troyer)
[ROLAND | ALLEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roland-or-allen)
[ROLLIN G. | GRAMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rollin-g-or-grams)
[ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roman-catholic-church)
[ROOSEN'S CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roosens-catechism)
[ROSARIA | BUTTERFIELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rosaria-or-butterfield)
[ROY E. | CIAMPA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/roy-e-or-ciampa)
[RUBEL | SHELLY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rubel-or-shelly)
[RUDNERWEIDE CONFESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rudnerweide-confession)
[RULES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rules)
[RURAL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rural)
[RURAL ANABAPTIST TRANSLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/rural-anabaptist-translation)
[RUSSIAN DOLL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/russian-doll)
S
-
[S. DONALD | FORTSON III](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/s-donald-or-fortson-iii)
[SABBATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sabbath)
[SABINE | BARING-GOULD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sabine-or-baring-gould)
[SACRAMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacraments)
[SACRED AND SECULAR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacred-and-secular)
[SACRED SPACE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sacred-space)
[SALVATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/salvation)
[SAM | STORMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sam-or-storms)
[SAME-SEX ATTRACTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/same-sex-attraction)
[SAMSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samson)
[SAMUEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel)
[SAMUEL | MEDLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel-or-medley)
[SAMUEL J. | STEINER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/samuel-j-or-steiner)
[SANCTIFICATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sanctification)
[SANFORD G. | SHETLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sanford-g-or-shetler)
[SAP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sap)
[SARAH | BESSEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sarah-or-bessey)
[SARCASM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sarcasm)
[SATAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/satan)
[SATIRE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/satire)
[SATTLER COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sattler-college)
[SAVIOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/savior)
[SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schleitheim-confession)
[SCHUMANN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schumann)
[SCHUYLER | SIGNOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/schuyler-or-signor)
[SCOFIELD BIBLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scofield-bible)
[SCOT | MCKNIGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scot-or-mcknight)
[SCRIPTURE SONG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/scripture-song)
[SEASONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seasons)
[SECOND CLASS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/second-class)
[SECOND MILE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/second-mile)
[SECONDARY CAUSATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secondary-causation)
[SECONDARY WILL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secondary-will)
[SECRET SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secret-sin)
[SECRETS OF THE KINGDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/secrets-of-the-kingdom)
[SEEKERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seekers)
[SELF REFLECTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/self-reflection)
[SELF-IDENTITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/self-identity)
[SEMPER IUSTUS ET PECCATOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/semper-iustus-et-peccator)
[SENSATIONAL NIGHTINGALES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sensational-nightingales)
[SEPARATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separate)
[SEPARATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separation)
[SEPARATISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/separatism)
[SEPTUAGINT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/septuagint)
[SERMON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermon)
[SERMON ON THE MOUNT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermon-on-the-mount)
[SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sermons)
[SERVANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant)
[SERVANT LEADER APPRENTICESHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant-leader-apprenticeship)
[SERVANT OF THE LORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servant-of-the-lord)
[SERVANTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/servants)
[SERVICE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/service)
[SETH | LEHMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/seth-or-lehman)
[SEX](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sex)
[SEXUAL ABUSE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-abuse)
[SEXUAL ETHICS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-ethics)
[SEXUAL FREEDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-freedom)
[SEXUAL ORIENTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-orientation)
[SEXUAL SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sexual-sin)
[SHAME](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shame)
[SHAMMAI](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shammai)
[SHANNON | LEIBOLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shannon-or-leibold)
[SHERLOCK | HOLMES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sherlock-or-holmes)
[SHORTER CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shorter-catechism)
[SHOULD VERSUS COULD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/should-versus-could)
[SHUNNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/shunning)
[SIJWAERT | PIETERSZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sijwaert-or-pietersz)
[SILENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/silence)
[SIMON | GATHERCOLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-gathercole)
[SIMON | JACOBSZOON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-jacobszoon)
[SIMON | MICHIELSZOON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simon-or-michielszoon)
[SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/simul-iustus-et-peccator)
[SIN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sin)
[SINFUL NATURE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinful-nature)
[SINNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinner)
[SINNERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sinners)
[SINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sins)
[SMALL GROUPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/small-groups)
[SOCIAL CLASSES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-classes)
[SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-engagement)
[SOCIAL MEDIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/social-media)
[SOCIOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sociology)
[SOCIOPOLITICAL ACTIVISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sociopolitical-activism)
[SODOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sodom)
[SOIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/soil)
[SOLA FIDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-fide)
[SOLA GRATIA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-gratia)
[SOLA SCRIPTURA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sola-scriptura)
[SOLITUDE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/solitude)
[SON OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/son-of-god)
[SON OF MAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/son-of-man)
[SONNET](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sonnet)
[SONSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sonship)
[SORROW](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sorrow)
[SOTERIOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/soteriology)
[SOUND DOCTRINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sound-doctrine)
[SOUTHEASTERN MENNONITE CONFERENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southeastern-mennonite-conference)
[SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-baptist-convention)
[SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-baptist-theological-seminary)
[SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIANISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/southern-presbyterianism)
[SOVEREIGNTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sovereignty)
[SPEAKING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speaking)
[SPEAKING IN TONGUES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speaking-in-tongues)
[SPEECH-ACT THEORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/speech-act-theory)
[SPIRITUAL FORMATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-formation)
[SPIRITUAL GIFTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-gifts)
[SPIRITUAL WARFARE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritual-warfare)
[SPIRITUALISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spiritualists)
[SPRING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/spring)
[ST. FRANCIS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/st-francis)
[STATE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/state-church)
[STEVE | ATKERSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-atkerson)
[STEVE | BURCHETT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-burchett)
[STEVE | CORBETT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-corbett)
[STEVE | SCOTT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-scott)
[STEVE | SMUCKER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steve-or-smucker)
[STEVEN E. | RUNGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steven-e-or-runge)
[STEVEN M. | NOLT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/steven-m-or-nolt)
[STORY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/story)
[STRANGERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strangers)
[STRASBOURG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strasbourg)
[STRATEGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strategy)
[STRENGTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strength)
[STRONG CHRISTIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/strong-christians)
[STUART | MURRAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/stuart-or-murray)
[STUDY BIBLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/study-bibles)
[SUBMISSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/submission)
[SUBSTITUTION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/substitution)
[SUBWAY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/subway)
[SUFFERING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/suffering)
[SUFFERING SERVANT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/suffering-servant)
[SUMPTUARY LEGISLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sumptuary-legislation)
[SUNDAY SCHOOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sunday-school)
[SWISS BRETHREN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/swiss-brethren)
[SWORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/swords)
[SYDNEY | PENNER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/sydney-or-penner)
[SYMBOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/symbol)
[SYMPTOMS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/symptoms)
[SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/systematic-theology)
T
-
[T. DESMOND | ALEXANDER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/t-desmond-or-alexander)
[T4G](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/t4g)
[TALMUD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/talmud)
[TAR BABY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tar-baby)
[TEACHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/teaching)
[TED | GRIMSRUD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ted-or-grimsrud)
[TEMPLE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temple)
[TEMPLE WORSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temple-worship)
[TEMPTATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/temptation)
[TEN COMMANDMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ten-commandments)
[TERTULLIAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tertullian)
[TESTING THE SPIRITS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/testing-the-spirits)
[THABITI | ANYABWILE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thabiti-or-anyabwile)
[THANKFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thankfulness)
[THE | DIDACHE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-or-didache)
[THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-letter-of-aristeas)
[THE SHACK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/the-shack)
[THEODICY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodicy)
[THEODOR | SIPPELL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodor-or-sippell)
[THEODORE | MACKIN S.J.](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodore-or-mackin-sj)
[THEODORE W. JR. | JENNINGS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theodore-w-jr-or-jennings)
[THEOLOGICAL PUBERTY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theological-puberty)
[THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theological-students)
[THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theology)
[THERON | SCHLABACH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/theron-or-schlabach)
[THESSALONICA](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thessalonica)
[THIELEMAN J. | VAN BRAGHT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thieleman-j-or-van-braght)
[THIRD PERSON IMPERATIVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/third-person-imperatives)
[THIRST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thirst)
[THOMAS | AQUINAS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-aquinas)
[THOMAS | CHALMERS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-chalmers)
[THOMAS | ERASTUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-erastus)
[THOMAS | HOPKO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-hopko)
[THOMAS | MORE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-more)
[THOMAS | MÜNTZER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-muntzer)
[THOMAS | VON IMBROICH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-or-von-imbroich)
[THOMAS R. | SCHREINER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/thomas-r-or-schreiner)
[THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/three-days-and-three-nights)
[TIM | CHALLIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tim-or-challies)
[TIM | CHESTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tim-or-chester)
[TIMOTHY | GEORGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/timothy-or-george)
[TIMOTHY | KELLER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/timothy-or-keller)
[TITHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tithing)
[TOAST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/toast)
[TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/together-for-the-gospel)
[TOLSTOY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tolstoy)
[TOPICAL SERMONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/topical-sermons)
[TORAH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/torah)
[TORONTO](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/toronto)
[TRADITION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tradition)
[TRAGEDY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tragedy)
[TRAINING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/training)
[TRANSGRESSORS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transgressors)
[TRANSIENCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transience)
[TRANSLATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/translation)
[TRANSUBSTANTIATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/transubstantiation)
[TRAVEL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/travel)
[TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tree-of-knowledge-of-good-and-evil)
[TREE OF LIFE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tree-of-life)
[TREMPER | LONGMAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tremper-or-longman)
[TRINITY EVANGELICAL DIVINITY SCHOOL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/trinity-evangelical-divinity-school)
[TRUST](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/trust)
[TRUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/truth)
[TÜBINGEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/tubingen)
[TWO-KINGDOM THEOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/two-kingdom-theology)
[TYPOLOGY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/typology)
U
-
[ULRICH | LUZ](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/ulrich-or-luz)
[UNBELIEF](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unbelief)
[UNDERSTANDING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/understanding)
[UNFAITHFULNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unfaithfulness)
[UNIFORMITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/uniformity)
[UNIVERSALISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/universalism)
[UNIVERSITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/university)
[UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/unreached-people-groups)
[URBAN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/urban)
[URBANIZATION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/urbanization)
[USEFUL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/useful)
V
-
[VANITY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vanity)
[VATICAN COUNCIL II](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vatican-council-ii)
[VERSAMMLUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/versammlung)
[VICARIOUS DEATH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vicarious-death)
[VICE LISTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vice-lists)
[VINCENT OF LERINS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vincent-of-lerins)
[VINEYARDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vineyards)
[VISIBLE CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/visible-church)
[VISION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vision)
[VISION STATEMENTS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vision-statements)
[VOCABULARY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vocabulary)
[VULGATE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/vulgate)
W
-
[W.D. | DAVIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wd-or-davies)
[WAITING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waiting)
[WALDENSIANS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waldensians)
[WALKED WITH GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walked-with-god)
[WALTER | BEACHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-beachy)
[WALTER | KLAASSEN](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-klaassen)
[WALTER | LIEFELD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/walter-or-liefeld)
[WARNING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/warning)
[WARREN W. | WIERSBE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/warren-w-or-wiersbe)
[WATCHING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/watching)
[WATERLANDER MENNONITES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/waterlander-mennonites)
[WAYNE | GRUDEM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wayne-or-grudem)
[WEAKNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/weakness)
[WEALTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wealth)
[WEDLOCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wedlock)
[WERNER O. | PACKULL](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/werner-o-or-packull)
[WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westboro-baptist-church)
[WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westminster-confession-of-faith)
[WESTMINSTER LARGER CATECHISM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/westminster-larger-catechism)
[WHEATON COLLEGE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wheaton-college)
[WHY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/why)
[WIDOWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/widows)
[WILL OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/will-of-god)
[WILLARD M. | SWARTLEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/willard-m-or-swartley)
[WILLIAM | KOSTLEVY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-kostlevy)
[WILLIAM | TYNDALE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-tyndale)
[WILLIAM | WITT](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-or-witt)
[WILLIAM E. | HETH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-e-or-heth)
[WILLIAM E. | KEENEY](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-e-or-keeney)
[WILLIAM F. | LUCK](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-f-or-luck)
[WILLIAM J. | WEBB](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-j-or-webb)
[WILLIAM L. | LANE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-l-or-lane)
[WILLIAM OF OCKHAM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-of-ockham)
[WILLIAM S. | STAFFORD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/william-s-or-stafford)
[WINDOWS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/windows)
[WINE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wine)
[WINTER](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/winter)
[WISDOM](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wisdom)
[WISMAR ARTICLES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wismar-articles)
[WITNESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/witness)
[WIVES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wives)
[WM. PAUL | YOUNG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wm-paul-or-young)
[WOLFHART | PANNENBURG](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/wolfhart-or-pannenburg)
[WORD OF GOD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/word-of-god)
[WORD STUDIES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/word-studies)
[WORDS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/words)
[WORK ETHIC](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/work-ethic)
[WORLD](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world)
[WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world-council-of-churches)
[WORLD RELIGIONS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/world-religions)
[WORLDLINESS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/worldliness)
[WORSHIP](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/worship)
[WRITING](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/writing)
X-Z
---
[YOUTH](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/youth)
[YOUVERSION](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/youversion)
[ZACCHAEUS](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zacchaeus)
[ZACK | JOHNSON](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zack-or-johnson)
[ZURICH ORDINANCE](https://dwightgingrich.com/tag/zurich-ordinance)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Bible Reading Plans
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-04-02
Category: Study Resources for Bible Books
Tags: Bible reading plan
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-reading-plans
Here are two Bible reading plans for you to use and share:
### **[A Beginners’ Bible Reading Plan](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-beginners-bible-reading-plan)**
### **[90 Day New Testament Reading Plan](https://dwightgingrich.com/90-day-new-testament-reading-plan)**
And here is a Bible memory plan:
### [Psalms Memory Project](https://dwightgingrich.com/psalms-memory-project)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Bible Outlines
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-04-01
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/bible-outlines
One of the best ways to listen closely to the Bible is to create outlines that trace the flow of thought in lengthy passages or whole books. Here are some outlines I created, usually as preparation for a teaching or preaching assignment. Perhaps these will spur your thinking as you compare them with the Bible itself.
[Genesis – Outline of Book](https://app.box.com/s/lap0j8vaphepshdhvuek0l89fsmg63lf)
[Genesis 25-35 – The Generations of Isaac (Life of Jacob)](https://app.box.com/s/xfmuxps3miev00wj8ju80m2sarqzfzg1)
[Genesis 37-50 – The Generations of Jacob (Life of Joseph)](https://app.box.com/s/xxjmbt27icr8xobzpg65p0u6pm2nb6rd)
[Genesis 39 – Outline of Chapter](https://app.box.com/s/e3953obtct8s6xwrzdftup7bj2ohpck5)
[Daniel – Outline of Book](https://app.box.com/s/sup11o9zx7m4het7r6h5ibtpra29ey17)
[Micah – Outline of Book](https://app.box.com/s/13emnhsrxia5mzvtrc5og2dwj2s8lbdx)
[Mark 7:1-23 – Outline of Passage](https://app.box.com/s/f0gu16owf1uchs80h8g1jtq01ted7b8j)
[Philippians 2 – Christ Hymn Handout](https://app.box.com/s/agx1dp4x0wes9734sopo7glcs647vxn4)
[Romans – Outline of Book – Long](https://app.box.com/s/0mh7cw8778iuwit3zt4e31jpyykzxuyr)
[Romans – Outline of Book – Medium](https://app.box.com/s/bnjrlekguwe9alm6eo6d9tadl386mz6c)
[Romans – Outline of Book – Short](https://app.box.com/s/gvhc0wnev0oylopa5o7wn0ywps7zg3lv)
[Romans – Outline of Book – Very Short](https://app.box.com/s/guoig14qxmjeb3ivcz99kg4h92h07cdl)
[Romans 5:12-19 Adam-Christ Diagram](https://app.box.com/s/jdjkcva672oz0t9ajt13ryv5k3pd7sh9)
[Romans 5:12-21 KJV-ESV Handout](https://app.box.com/s/u58tu3pvgvia7axcwusc8d5uzuzrs2wt)
[Romans 6:1-14 KJV-ESV Handout](https://app.box.com/s/vxpz0ehsmjpezshabr8orillpm8w1gpr)
[Romans 6:15-23 KJV-ESV Handout](https://app.box.com/s/9i9mu5718l88dxfmiqonauffvbdhbo27)
[Romans 7:1-6 KJV-ESV Handout](https://app.box.com/s/omo3rqdtrrhopq47r61ol2vdrbp8j5ht)
[Romans 7:7-12 KJV-ESV Handout](https://app.box.com/s/cjmfnk03tcfns2866isoc7jts6rurj7f)
[Romans 7:13-25 KJV-ESV Handout](https://app.box.com/s/k7kijz1lg7mcerev8dl28sl5gy7rxuhm)
[Romans 8:1-8 KJV-ESV Handout](https://app.box.com/s/djb85y6u1vgm5tuqhjpq6f4e1akga8lm)
[Revelation 4-22 – Outline of Book](https://app.box.com/s/u7wvpf2lcdzno2kwprbqosn12slf81v9)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Essays
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-04-01
Tags: essay
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/essays
Here are essays I've written on theological, exegetical, and historical topics. Your constructive responses are welcome.
### [The “Divorce Evil” and the Response of the Mennonite Church (1880s to 1905)](https://app.box.com/s/w04decpqhr3xhw6c20u4bitx5hj0r33k)
> “In 1905 the Mennonite Church in the United States and Canada officially resolved that no divorced and remarried person should be accepted as a church member. How did they arrive at this absolute position, given the strong consensus among early Anabaptists that divorce and remarriage were permitted in cases of adultery? The reasons are complex and not fully clear. I have written several blog posts discussing various historical factors that probably helped pave the way for the Mennonite Church to take a harder stance against divorce and remarriage… In this paper I will discuss several more immediate factors… These factors include the development of Mennonite periodicals, the practice of church conferences, the eventual development of a General Conference, and, perhaps most importantly, a growing concern about the ‘divorce evil’ in America… I will share a lot of primary source evidence, mostly from Mennonite periodicals, that shows how Mennonites took an increasingly hardline stance against divorce as they became increasingly concerned about the ‘divorce evil’ in society around them.”
To discuss this essay, [visit this blog post](https://dwightgingrich.com/divorce-evil-response-mennonite-church-1880s-to-1905/) where I first shared it.
[Red Letter Reductionism](https://app.box.com/s/yz8ypemsf42y4pbsy9g6hdzo49xh8yvi)
> “This essay is about red letter theology and red letter Christians. It is about the authority of the New Testament and the nature of the gospel. First, we need an introduction to red letter Christianity. Then we will ask whether it is harmless. To answer our question, we will consider the promise of the Spirit, the limits of pre-Pentecostal revelation, and the nature of apostolic authority. We will take a close look at Paul, examining his gospel and his apostolic claims. We will examine [John 3:16](https://www.esv.org/verses/John%203%3A16/) as a test case for red letter theology and then ask whether this theology paints a shrunken, two-dimensional Jesus. We will consider the relationship between the Sermon on the Mount and the gospel and ask whether Anabaptists are truly excited about the gospel. Finally, we will consult Matthew’s opinion on red and black letters, then conclude with two clarifications and five suggestions for readers of this essay.”
Two good places to discuss this essay are [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-jesus-wished-could-say-before-died/) (where I reference an older version of this essay) and [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/red-letter-reductionism-expanded/) (when I posted a 2017 version of essay).
### **[Giving Account for Our Use of Hebrews 13:17](https://app.box.com/s/uw0pmsd09jpj3pwc9k6f6miikh3il4on)**
> “Of all the verses in the New Testament that exhort Christians to honor their spiritual leaders, perhaps the strongest is this verse in [Hebrews 13](https://www.esv.org/verses/Hebrews%2013/). No other verse, after all, uses the word “obey” to describe the relationship of Christians toward their church leaders… What kind of relationship does this verse depict between leadership and the rest of the church? What kind of authority does this verse give to local church leaders? What obligations does it suggest church members owe their leaders? What does it suggest about church membership? Why did the author of Hebrews include this verse for his readers?… Here I would like to sketch, as clearly as I can, some of my conclusions about what this verse means and how we should and should not use it today.”
Endorsement: “I was delighted to see that Dwight had written an essay on the oft-misinterpreted and oft-misapplied verse in Hebrews (13:17a) that implies we are to “obey our church leaders.” …The essay is both deeply humble and exegetically precise. In it, he challenges the consensus view. I encourage you to read this powerful and relevant article in its entirety... My hearty thanks to Dwight for these very helpful clarifications. It this is a topic that interests you, I urge you to peruse his entire website.… As you read Dwight’s essay, try to keep an open mind, especially if you’re involved in a church that requires you to sign a church membership covenant. No, I’m not pretending that Dwight’s interpretation is not without problems or is adequate in and of itself. But I am convinced that something like this has the potential of edifying the body of Christ in a very big way.” —**David Alan Black**, professor of New Testament at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and [author of multiple books](https://www.amazon.com/David-Alan-Black/e/B001H6S9OU), especially on NT Greek. ([See Black’s blog](http://www.daveblackonline.com/april_2015_blog_archives.htm) and scroll down to Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 9:34 a.m.)
### [125 Years of Seven Ordinances: An Historical and Biblical Review \[Abbreviated rough draft\]](https://app.box.com/s/7n1zg6u3e6js5dbi8apad4ar1xlk37g0)
> “Why do conservative Mennonites traditionally observe seven ordinances? What is the biblical or historical basis for this practice, or for the term _ordinance_? How has the observance of seven ordinances become for some a primary mark of the true (or at least truest) Church? And if these ordinances are so important, can you list them? In case you can’t, here they are: baptism, the Lord’s Supper, foot washing, the holy kiss, the Christian woman’s veiling, anointing with oil, and marriage. In this essay I would like to sketch the historical origin of our list of ordinances, compare our traditional understanding with the Bible, and propose some responses.”
I'm currently revising and expanding this paper. For the history of this draft and to discuss it, see [this blog post](https://dwightgingrich.com/125-years-7-ordinances-rough-draft/).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Sermons and Lectures
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-04-01
Category: Audio Resources
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/sermons-and-lectures
Here are some sermons and Bible teaching talks I have given.
* * *
****"**Worshiping and Imitating Our Servant King" – Sermon at Cellebration Fellowship** – March 28, 2021 (Zoom sermon during COVID)
My primary text was [Matthew 21:1-11](https://www.esv.org/verses/Matthew%2021%3A1-11/), about Jesus’ "Triumphal Entry." Our world is full of images of power-hunger leaders who are willing to use violence to hold onto power. Jesus is a King whose example contrasts sharply with such rulers. His way of ruling should inspire both our worship and our imitation.
* * *
**“Naked and Exposed Before the Living God” – Sermon at Salem Mennonite Church** – July 16, 2017 ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/i4g0e35x0kj33s9olrhgak76oogg8two))
My primary text was [Hebrews 4:12-13](https://www.esv.org/verses/Hebrews%204%3A12-13/) and my primary goal was to warn against the dangers of secret sin. God’s word exposes the secrets of our heart and demands a word of account in response. [See this blog post](https://dwightgingrich.com/naked-exposed-before-living-god-sermon/) for a sermon summary.
* * *
**“The Lord Is Risen! Come, Lord Jesus!” – Sermon at Albert Mast’s Memorial Service** – December 17, 2014 ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/ams9lebmqow0axglfrzyywhq0lq2i307))
My primary texts were [Romans 6:11](https://www.esv.org/verses/Romans%206%3A11/) and [1 Peter 1:13](https://www.esv.org/verses/1%20Peter%201%3A13/), and my primary goal was to help people walk in the blessings of Christ’s resurrection now and long for a full participation in Christ’s resurrection at his return. See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-is-the-christians-true-hope-in-death/) and [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/does-the-resurrection-matter-albert-mast-memorial-service/) for blog posts with related content.
* * *
**Romans Survey / Introduction to Biblical Interpretation**
-----------------------------------------------------------
These are recordings of an adult Vacation Bible School class at Salem Mennonite Church in Leon, Iowa (June 5-15, 2011). You will benefit most from these recordings if you also look at the slides and handouts and this [Outline of Romans](https://app.box.com/s/0mh7cw8778iuwit3zt4e31jpyykzxuyr). It's been years since I listened to these. I would say some things differently now,[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) but these talks remain a good window into my general approach to reading the Scriptures and to Paul's letter to the Romans.
**Session 1 – Introduction to Biblical Interpretation** ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/uq2xr6vjqoj4r27vclvqyaza5y2cepul)) ([Slides](https://app.box.com/s/nldaiagajg3wveh5kibr4pk2r6eb4c2p)) ([Handout – Intro to Biblical Interpretation](https://app.box.com/s/pldfnseax3m6kh12atfb71gs0rg9bu71))
**Session 2 – Romans 1:1-3:20** ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/20tbsaz9w2wbh54mpz1ox6acgskhvmbr)) ([Slides](https://app.box.com/s/vr7i82tfajbnsh7ep1brhv73to0i4bmv)) ([Handout – Why Did Paul Write Romans?](https://app.box.com/s/ofhgyvmhpujwdftjd96lcuvkx74wnbh8))
**Session 3 – Romans 3:21-7:6** ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/skbl2z7uk16y4p7iazh4dnpf6t8nbzve)) ([Slides](https://app.box.com/s/w1z1gjvxcyywf8gcrrfn20vngzgrg6fc))
**Session 4 – Romans 6:1-7:6** ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/n13fkzhmg2ehxb6o724h4lsdvmw4ft9r)) ([Slides](https://app.box.com/s/qbylmb252jxvrioynoc5om24yhd32bxw))
**Session 5 – Romans 7:7-8:39** _Note: The first 19 minutes of this session were not recorded. Discussion begins after reading the end of [Romans 7](https://www.esv.org/verses/Romans%207/)._ ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/qqt2qvg8xhpj7phykphu9072zlciohhz)) ([Slides](https://app.box.com/s/6vtddv1bgg9mccud9uzdi722zvgk7g5k))
**Session 6 – Romans 9-11** ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/q9xqj172e1inlmujhjqqpe5msscupi2j)) ([Slides](https://app.box.com/s/l8rytb7e6x73jmm4y1cuksn308hdz284))
**Session 7 – Romans 12-13** ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/9gr0it0m5l1mdcogm8m3ypjox3vto1eb)) ([Slides](https://app.box.com/s/9r4znww0cpzqy6czzpjjeajrlsi8xb7h))
**Session 8 – Romans 14-16** _See footnote._[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) ([Audio](https://app.box.com/s/s9130yqm3rscekf8upqotfuqbet2zde3)) ([Slides](https://app.box.com/s/o8qifqxgcfhnb1ei6rtm4359ttwrfpwj))
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftn1) Explaining the Scriptures is an awesome responsibility, especially since we are fallible interpreters. If I gave these talks again, I would want to say a few things differently. Two examples from the first talk: (1) In my discussion of whether Scripture was written _to_ us or _for_ us, I would want to acknowledge Jesus’ words showing that God does speak _to_ us through Scripture ([Matt. 22:31](https://www.esv.org/verses/Matt.%2022%3A31/); see also [this article](http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2014/01/08/reading-the-bible-like-jesus-matt-2231/)). (2) I might speak about the _implications_ of Scripture for us today rather than about making proper _applications_ of Scripture. The term _applications_ can suggest that we are called to be the deciding agents who use Scripture for our own purposes. The term _implications_ clarifies that Scripture is the active agent, giving authoritative direction to us. We handle Scripture, yes. But more importantly, we must let Scripture handle us. Our applications have no authority unless they are actually implications of Scripture itself.
[\[2\]](#_ftn2) In this session I used an illustration about veiling styles. This illustration may feel irrelevant to some listeners (most non-Anabaptists) and a little _too_ relevant to others (many conservative Anabaptists). Some listeners wondered afterward why I identified the weak in faith as being those who believed only cap style veils should be worn, rather than those who wore hanging veils. This is a fair question. I designed my illustration this way because, in order to parallel [Romans 14](https://www.esv.org/verses/Romans%2014/), the weak in faith must be those who are insisting that others copy them–that they live according to the consciences of others, with less personal freedom. In real life I have not encountered a church context where some are insisting that only hanging veils should be worn. Perhaps such situations do exist. But in my limited experience those favoring cap style veils are likely to desire uniformity of application (and be tempted to judge their hanging-veil sisters), while those favoring hanging veils are likely to desire diversity of application (and be tempted to despise their cap-style sisters). Positions could be reversed for illustration purposes, but then the illustration would be less realistic. I do not mean to imply that everyone who wears a cap-style veil is weak in faith. That is certainly not true. But I do mean to help us consider implications of Scripture that strike close to home, rather than being only theoretical. And I do think this passage has something to say to the ongoing conservative Mennonite discussion about mandatory uniform applications and church standards, and about the kind of gospel-based solutions Paul might suggest when brothers and sisters disagree over matters of conscience not spelled out in Scripture.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Support
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-03-11
Meta Title: Support This Website
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/support
Thanks for enjoying Dwight Gingrich Online! It's my goal to offer all content here freely, because sometimes those who most need biblical teaching can least afford to pay for it.
It's not free, however, to keep DGO online (see below). Your support is most welcome. Here's how to give:
Donate to
Dwight Gingrich Online
Give by credit card or PayPal below .
(Or avoid fees by using Zelle: Send to 646-284-8063.)
[Donate](https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/FEVXQDB6KYMHA)
**The details****:** Our local church generously paid for for the 2024 rebuild of this website and one year of hosting. I'm grateful for this vote of confidence. Now I'm inviting DGO visitors to provide ongoing support.
Hosting costs alone will be several hundred dollars per year going forward. Time invested in study and writing is a much larger expense, which will increase if I am able to complete the essay and book projects in my dreams.
Do you want to help? Here's my two-fold invitation:
1. **Please use this website as much as you wish without giving.** I've freely benefited from countless hours of input from other websites. So, read freely if you can't give or if there are other worthy causes you would rather support.
2. **If you have financial resources and believe the content on DGO is a blessing to Jesus' church, I welcome your support, either through a one-time gift or ongoing donations.** Your gift will bless other readers--youth hungry for clarity, those who find my blog when their marriages are in crisis, pastors on tight budgets, and more. Your gift will help support our family. (We survive mostly on my part-time jobs that offer almost no benefits.) Your gift may also help me finish those larger writing projects in my dreams.
Thanks for your prayers and your partnership in the gospel!
“God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work... Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!” ([2 Cor. 9:8, 15](https://www.esv.org/verses/2%20Cor.%209%3A8%2C%2015/))
Looking For Help With Health Care Costs?
[](https://samaritanministries.org/join/)
We've been satisfied members of Samaritan Ministries since 2006. If you decide to join, mention "Dwight and Zonya Gingrich" and we'll receive a discount. Thanks to you who have already done this!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## About
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-03-11
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: About The Author, Dwight
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/about
[Author Bio](#h_1903878376284447)
[Website Vision](#h_042347449167845275)
[Contact](#h_1902060641328891)
Author Bio
----------
The Lord is risen! _And that makes all the difference._
Welcome. My name is Dwight Gingrich. I’m married to the lovely Zonya, we have three dear daughters, and Atlanta, Georgia, has been our home since 2016. I have a couple part-time jobs [teaching piano](https://gingrichpianostudio.com/) and working for [Choice Books](https://www.choicebooks.com/), and our family is part of [Cellebration Fellowship](https://www.cellebrationfellowship.com/), where I help with music ministry. I have [Mennonite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonites) roots and, despite branching out a little and aiming to live first as a [catholic](https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/september/what-do-protestant-churches-mean-when-they-recite-i.html) Christian, I still carry an identity that is recognizably [Anabaptist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism) as I process life and theology. Most of my words here are written with my own heritage in mind, though I trust my words will be helpful for anyone seeking to follow Christ.
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/family2023-1721322520628-compressed.jpg)
**A Brief Autobiography**
For those who want to know me better, here’s a super-quick telling of my life story—minus things like brief terms at Bible schools, lots of musical adventures, and various joys and heartbreaks probably best shared in person.
I was born in the lovely “[near north](https://www.parrysound.ca/)” region of Ontario, Canada, the second son of Ken and Elaine Gingrich, with two brothers and one sister. The church of my boyhood was first associated with the [Conservative Mennonite Church of Ontario](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Conservative_Mennonite_Church_of_Ontario), then with [Midwest Mennonite Fellowship](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Midwest_Mennonite_Fellowship). I have fond memories of the church of my childhood and was baptized there when I was fifteen years old. My young adult life included seasons as a welder/draftsman at [Kropf Industrial](https://kropfindustrial.com/), a volunteer at [Northern Youth Programs](https://www.beaverlakecamp.org/about/) (1994-97), and a student at [Nipissing University](https://www.nipissingu.ca/) (1998-2003), where I graduated with bachelor’s degrees in English Literature and Education, received more musical training, and helped lead a non-denominational Christian student club.
After graduation I moved to New York City, where I was a public high school teacher in the Bronx for three years and private piano teacher in Queens for another four. During that time I re-met Zonya (we first met at [Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute](https://smbi.org/)) and we got married in the high school auditorium over spring break. I also became increasingly active first as a trainee and then as an associate pastor at [Followers of Jesus Mennonite Church](https://www.fjmcny.org/), a [Biblical Mennonite Alliance](https://biblicalmennonite.com/) congregation in Brooklyn.
This highly-formative season ended when we moved to Zonya’s home state of Iowa in 2010 to help support her parents. There we attended a [Beachy Amish Mennonite Church](http://www.beachyam.org/) and my work included building [storage sheds](https://kauffmanstructures.com/), [selling pies](https://www.facebook.com/mastpiebakery/) at farmer’s market, and writing curriculum for [Open Hands](https://www.openhands.org/). During this time I also intentionally compiled a personal library of biblical studies books and [listened](https://www.biblicaltraining.org/) to many hours of biblical teaching. Our Iowa time was an important period of reflecting on the diverse experiences of life and church we had traversed thus far.
As I approached midlife, I decided it was time to begin sharing some of the questions and conclusions that were brewing in my heart, especially about exegesis (biblical interpretation) and ecclesiology (church theology and practice). So I made an announcement on my birthday: “I decided a good way to celebrate turning 40 would be to start a website where I could post my thoughts on the Bible and the Church—along with anything else that I might wish to foist upon the unsuspecting world. Ready or not, here I come.”
Looking back, I suppose that if anyone was not ready for all the changes that blogging would bring, it was me and my family. Blogging literally set the course of our lives as it led to [an invitation to move to Atlanta](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta/), with the opportunities and challenges that have followed. Through it all, God has been faithful, and I do not regret the decision to start writing in earnest in public. To the contrary, I believe more strongly than ever that thoughtful biblical teaching in written form is a vitally-needed ministry and part of the work that God has for me to do. As I look ahead—to the next 10 years? to perhaps a book?—I am glad to entrust myself, my family, and my writing dreams to the good Shepherd of our souls.
Thank you for stopping by. I welcome your interaction and prayers as I aim to faithfully handle—and heed—God’s written word.
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight Gingrich
**Website Vision**
------------------
**Exegesis, Ecclesiology, and Exploration.**
These three words expressed my initial vision for this website, and they still describe my vision quite well.
_Exegesis_, because it isn’t always easy to listen well to God’s word. _Ecclesiology_, because we’re still learning to live as one flock under one Shepherd. And _exploration_, because–whether we're reading the Bible, living as Christ’s Church, or cresting 50 years old, as I'm about to do–I believe there are still fresh landscapes awaiting our discovery.
I believe we can improve the health of our churches by becoming better interpreters of the Bible. We can explore exegesis for the sake of ecclesiology. My purpose for this website, then, is _to build up the church of Jesus Christ by helping her listen carefully to the Scriptures_.
I'm well aware that many Christians are skeptical of such a goal. On the one hand, many think the Bible doesn't require much interpretation at all. Content with the interpretations they possess, they find the Bible clear enough. Others, however, think the Bible is such a vague, pliable, or contradictory book that it's quite meaningless to seek the right interpretation of any topic or passage. Diligent study will only reveal more layers of confusing complexity or distort the text to match our agendas.
Both groups are unlikely to see much point in a website like this. Both are likely to say, “Why waste time studying Scripture when you could be obeying its clear teachings?” One group thinks those “clear teachings” involve almost all of Scripture and the other group thinks the “clear teachings” are basically limited to the two great commandments ([Matt. 22:36-40](https://www.esv.org/verses/Matt.%2022%3A36-40/)), but the result is the same: little time spent in Bible study. Why study the Bible when you can follow Jesus?
I can sympathize with both these positions, yet my understanding is different from either of them. I believe _the basic gospel call_–what one needs to understand to inherit eternal life–will soon be quite clear to most [1](https://dwightgingrich.com/vision/#fn-86-1)earnest, humble Bible readers. But that's different from claiming that _the whole Bible_ is clear. So I also believe that growth in maturity, both individually and collectively, will be immensely aided by careful, prolonged investigation of Scripture. Growth in knowledge can enable growth in holiness and wholeness. Exegesis alone will never lead to good ecclesiology, but studying the Bible can help us follow Jesus.
All the gifts of the Spirit are needed for the health of Christ’s church. Paul said that teachers are a gift to help “equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” ([Eph. 4:12-13](https://www.esv.org/verses/Eph.%204%3A12-13/) ESV). By the grace of God I have been given some portion of the gift of teaching. This website is one way I share with the Church the gifts that God has given to me.
1. But consider the Ethiopian eunuch, who needed Philip’s explanation to understand the good news about Jesus ([Acts 8:30-36](https://www.esv.org/verses/Acts%208%3A30-36/)).
Contact
-------
Subscribe to get updates about new posts or send an email to Dwight.
[Subscribe](https://dwightgingrich.com/subscribe-cm00xbe6p00cb103am0zb3v5u)[Email Dwight](mailto:gingrichdk@yahoo.ca)
_Dwight Gingrich Online is made with_ [_Superblog_](https://superblog.ai/?)_, managed by_ [_Prosynergy_](https://prosynergy.one/)_, and owned by Dwight Gingrich._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: 2023 Year-End Report
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2024-01-12
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding: 2023 Year-End Report • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: annual report, churchfunding, microloans
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2023-year-end-report
Hello blog friends. It’s been a while! Slightly over a year, in fact. **Here is my annual update about the repayment of our house loans, with a few other items of note.** I’ll keep it short, because…
**1) Life has been very busy lately.** We spent a week in Iowa over the holidays, visiting my wife’s family. (During that time I updated my _Beginners’ Bible Reading Plan_. I’m really excited about the results–[please look!](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-beginners-bible-reading-plan)) Then, a couple days after our return to Atlanta, my grandmother in Canada passed away, so I made a quick trip up there for her funeral. Between that and work, I haven’t had much discretionary time over the past month.
However, I’m grateful to say that our family is healthy and well, remaining busy with homeschooling, musical training, church commitments, and my part-time Choice Books work. (That will have to suffice for a family newsletter!)
[](https://dwightgingrich.com/family2023/)
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/family2023-1721199308225-compressed.jpg)
**2) Though I didn’t post any blogs in the past year, I did continue studying and writing.** Most of my writing time this year was dedicated to revising and expanding my old essay [125 Years of Seven Ordinances](https://app.box.com/s/7n1zg6u3e6js5dbi8apad4ar1xlk37g0) (that’s the unfinished draft I posted years ago), since the Mennonite Historical Library in Goshen expressed interest in that research. This study is currently expanding into either a very long essay or a short book. I’ll let you know here when it’s done.
My divorce and remarriage studies mostly hit pause in 2023, but I still have more I hope to say on that topic, as well. For those who are impatient… thanks for your patience!
**3) House loan repayments remain on schedule, thank God.** At the beginning of 2023, we owed $14,507.50 in house loans. By the start of 2024, we owed only $7,855.00. Most of the difference was due to repayments, but a couple generous lenders forgave a total of $415.
Only 12 lenders are awaiting payment. (Several of those have received partial payment.) **God willing,** at our promised repayment rate of $500 per month, **all loans will be repaid by April, 2025**. Shall we have a giant open house weekend then to celebrate, inviting all lenders to come?
**4) The main house improvement for 2023 was finally getting our attic properly insulated last month.** Some spaces had only sporadic insulation and some spots had none at all! The biggest improvements are over our master bedroom and bath, and over the laundry room and my piano studio. The house feels more uniformly warm this winter and I think we’ll feel an even bigger difference when the sun starts warming our roof this summer. Hopefully we’ll see a difference in our electric bill, too.
[](thesynergists.co/attic/)
[
](thesynergists.co/attic/)
**5) Finally, I’m excited to say that plans are moving forward to rebuild this website.** I built this WordPress site myself back in 2014 (self-taught) and have only tweaked it with plugins since. It’s been slow for several years now and its limp has become ever more pronounced, with significant down time. Truth be told, one of the big reasons I’ve posted so rarely of late is because it’s no fun waiting on a frozen website while trying to post.
I’ve been praying for a solution for a couple years, and now **our church has generously pledged sufficient funds to rebuild Dwight Gingrich Online** on another (more stable) platform and to pay for the first year of hosting and tech support. If all goes well, the migration will be complete within a month or two, and at that time I’ll share who I’ve hired to do the work.
Two details: 1) Please pray the migration goes smoothly, right down to the details like functioning footnotes and indexes. 2) The new platform will cost a little more to run long-term so I am planning to invite readers to help cover annual fees for future years.
At this point I’m committed to keeping all content on Dwight Gingrich Online free for all visitors, but for my family’s sake I also have to be realistic about the many thousands of dollars’ worth of time and fees I’ve invested in this website over the past decade, with very little funds coming the other direction. (Very warm thanks to my solitary monthly donor, if you’ve managed to read this far!)
* * *
**Warm thanks again to everyone who has helped us with “the house that God bought.”** Recently at the airport I randomly bumped into the real estate agent who helped us buy this house, and he certainly hasn’t forgotten the unusual way God provided for our needs. What a testimony of God’s goodness!
For Christ and his church,
Dwight Gingrich
* * *
PS: Here are more random photos from our family in the past year:
Wingspan became a favorite game this year.
Praying while the organist played at a chapel in Callaway Gardens, during a getaway weekend Zonya and I enjoyed in the spring.
Cousin time during a June trip to Canada.
The path to Grandma Gingrich’s (my mom’s) dock.
Zonya’s cousin took us out to a ball game.
Singing and snacks with some new neighbors and fellow church members.
A typical view during my Choice Books work at the Atlanta airport.
The Great Backyard Flood of 2023.
Oldest daughter and I went to Anabaptist Orchestra Camp in August.
I read all the way through the Greek New Testament for the first time in 2023.
Leading congregational worship at a church Christmas gathering.
We walked the old road in Iowa where we used to live before moving to Atlanta.
The sunrise at the Atlanta airport the morning my grandmother Verna Gingrich flew home to Jesus (January 3, 2024).
Come visit us sometime!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: 2022 Year-End Report
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2023-01-08
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding: 2022 Year-End Report • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: God willing, at our promised repayment rate of $500 per month, we should have all our loans repaid by May, 2025. God was good in 2022!
Tags: annual report, churchfunding, microloans
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2022-year-end-report
**Another year has passed, so it’s time for another update on our house loans.** Thank God, our experiment is still going well.
(Background: As many of you know, we purchased our Atlanta house on March 25, 2016, paying the seller in full immediately, thanks to loans and gifts from nearly 90 individuals or families. Since this crowdfunding effort was the work of Christ’s church, we coined a new term: “churchfunding.” [Here is the post](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) that officially launched this adventure.)
**At the beginning of 2022, we owed $21,232.50 in house loans.** **By the end of the year, we owed only $14,507.50.**
**Here is how that $6,725 difference breaks down:**
* We repaid $6,200 in loans, at more than the promised rate of $500 per month.
* We were forgiven an additional $525 in principal and interest by two generous lenders.
In total, our house debt declined by $725 more than expected in 2022.
**There are 14 lenders who have not yet received any repayment.** If you are one of those 14, don’t worry. Your turn should come soon. God willing, at our promised repayment rate of $500 per month, **we should have all our loans repaid by May, 2025**.
Each month I use a random number generator to select a lender to repay. But first, I pray, asking God to glorify himself through the selection. So, if you need repayment soon, ask God to choose you! But if you need to, feel free to also let us know and we’ll do our best to repay you quickly.
In the first half of 2022 our house value hit a new high, just in time for the city to update our property assessment and increase our taxes. In the second half of the year, our property value steadily dropped, losing most of the gains of the first half of the year. (Thank you, rising interest rates and slumping economy.)
It looks like we missed our best chance to sell, so we’ll probably stick around here for a while yet. 🙂 To be clear, we have no dreams of leaving Atlanta any time soon. This is where God allowed us to settle, and we’ll stay here until he brings clarity that we should be elsewhere.
I don’t have time for a full family update, but **here are some things I’m grateful for from 2022**:
* A wife who faithfully homeschools, keeps house, connects with ladies from church, cares for neighbors, reads over 100 books in one year, and endures up to four musicians practicing at once in one house.
[](https://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/1/294728332_10166399190320177_5268019865655332724_n.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/294728332101663991903201775268019865655332724n-1721353266328-compressed.jpg)
* Youngest daughter, who completed my [Beginners’ Bible Reading Plan](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-beginners-bible-reading-plan/) for the first time and is learning to like math.
* Middle daughter, who wins first prize in our family for diligence and organization in daily duties and who dearly loves animals.
* Oldest daughter, who grew by leaps as a cellist and all-round musician this year and is responsibly navigating her first year of high school.
* Family game nights on Fridays.
* Enough piano students that I rarely find space for new ones.[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/279805803101661620195301777739800277638906183n-1721353268858-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/279805803101661620195301777739800277638906183n-1721353268858-compressed.jpg)
* A new pastor at church, who is also my new boss at Choice Books, blessing me through both roles.
* Fellow church musicians who gladly help the saints worship–and the volunteer soldier below who helped me with my sermon.
[](https://dwightgingrich.com/soldier1-2/)[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/soldier1-2-1721353271682-compressed.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/soldier1-2-1721353271682-compressed.png)
* A great fall string orchestra concert (the conductor said it was the best in 14 years!) where our daughters participated and I even got to accompany at the piano for one piece.
* Time for more blogging than in the year before, and for light and peace as I study, write, and interact with my readers and their varied perspectives.[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/29713864655178171149459682120493712125185466n-1721353277032-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/29713864655178171149459682120493712125185466n-1721353277032-compressed.jpg)
* Random blessings, like a mostly-positive experience fostering a shelter dog, a brand new lawn mower (yay!), vehicles that keep running, a couple visits from my mother, and a trip to Iowa to see Zonya’s family and skate on the farm pond.[](https://dwightgingrich.com/321031088_1373149916824358_4038845188448049812_n/)[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/32103108813731499168243584038845188448049812n-1721353278550-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/32103108813731499168243584038845188448049812n-1721353278550-compressed.jpg)
**Thank you, again, to everyone who helped us buy our Atlanta home**, and to all who have supported us in so many other ways. We remain very grateful for "the house that God bought" and invite you to come visit.
Let’s be faithful to Jesus in 2023. He is coming soon!
For Christ and his church,
Dwight Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Joseph, the Just and Merciful Divorcer
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-12-24
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Joseph, the Just and Merciful Divorcer • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: God fulfils his promises through just and merciful people like Joseph. He is a model for responding to unfaithfulness in our marriages.
Tags: -Deuteronomy 22:13-21, -Deuteronomy 22:22-24, -Deuteronomy 24:1, -Exodus 21:11, -Matthew 1:18-19, -Matthew 19:9, adultery, any-cause divorce, betrothal, David | Instone-Brewer, divorce, Joseph, justice, Mary, mercy, R.T. | France, Theodore | Mackin S.J., William F. | Luck, divorce and remarriage
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/joseph-just-merciful-divorcer
This past Sunday we heard a sermon featuring the life of Joseph, the earthly (legal but not biological) father of Jesus. The speaker reminded us that “God fulfills his promises through the obedience of ordinary people like Joseph and you.” The speaker gave numerous examples from Joseph’s life but I would like to consider just one: how Joseph planned to divorce Mary after he discovered she was pregnant before they were married.
Here is the brief Scriptural description of this event:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. (Matt. 1:18-19 ESV)
To understand this account well, we need to step back in time and understand what betrothal meant to Jews in their cultural context.
Betrothal was far more serious than our modern engagements are. It is tragic today when someone breaks an engagement, but it is not a crime. Hearts are broken, but laws are not. As an ESV footnote says, “betrothed” meant “legally pledge to be married.” Commentator R. T. France describes betrothal like this:
Though the couple were not yet living together, it was a binding contract entered into before witnesses which could be terminated only by death (which would leave a woman a “widow”) or by divorce as if for a full marriage…; sexual infidelity during the engagement would be a basis for such divorce. About a year after the engagement… the woman (then normally about thirteen or fourteen) would leave her father’s house and go live with the husband in a public ceremony \[a wedding\]. [\[1\]](#footnote-1)
The language of Matthew 1:19 reflects the legal seriousness of Jewish betrothal, calling Joseph Mary’s “husband” and saying he planned to “divorce” her—terms we would never use today of an engaged couple.
The seriousness of violating a betrothal is also seen in the Law of Moses, which prescribes the same punishment—death—for sexual unfaithfulness whether it happened during betrothal or after the wedding ceremony:[\[2\]](#_ftn2)
“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deut. 22:22-24)
Notice that the betrothed woman is called a “wife,” just as Matthew calls Joseph Mary’s “husband.”
The law of Moses also included a test for a husband who, on his wedding day, suspected his bride had been unfaithful prior to their wedding (Deut. 22:13-21). Discovering such unfaithfulness was so important to Jews that they scheduled their wedding dates around this concern. Theodore Mackin, S. J. explains:
It was the custom, when the bride was neither a widow nor a divorced woman, for the marriage to take place on the fourth day of the week, so that if the husband found her not a virgin, he could accuse her before the court, which held session only on the fifth day.[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
Commentator William F. Luck sums up Jewish law well: “In short, betrothal unfaithfulness is, according to the Old Testament, a kind of adultery.”[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
(Bunny trail: These realities are one reason why modern debates about the “betrothal view” of Jesus’ exception clause are often misguided. Ancient Jews would not have understood our insistence on distinguishing between adultery during betrothal versus adultery after a wedding.)
Back to poor Joseph, who discovered that his dear “wife” Mary was already “with child.” How could she have committed such a terrible betrayal? And what on earth was he to do now?
Image from LumoProject.com, available through [FreeBibleImages.org](https://freebibleimages.org/photos/joseph-angel/).
Well, Joseph was “just,” we are told (Matt. 1:19). Or, as the NIV puts it, he “was faithful to the law.” According to the original intent of that law, Mary should now be stoned. According to first century Jewish practice, after Roman law had abolished Jewish death penalties, “divorce was the normal course.”[\[5\]](#_ftn5) The normal course, then would have been for Joseph to make a public spectacle of Mary, to “put her to shame” by putting her on trial for adultery.
But we are told Joseph was not only “just” but also “unwilling to put her to shame.” In other words, though he was just, his justice was tempered with mercy. Therefore, he “resolved to divorce her quietly.”
The story, as I’ve told it so far, is fairly well known, though I’ve added important historical details. But what I’m about to share includes something I never thought about until after church this past Sunday, as I discussed the sermon with the speaker.
As best we know, there were several kinds of divorce available in Jewish courts in Jesus’ day. On the one hand, there were divorces that required specific due cause. In limited cases, a wife was probably able to force her husband to grant a divorce on the grounds that he was not providing for her (Ex. 21:11). More commonly, a husband could charge his wife with adultery. Such divorces required public proof of wrong-doing, leading to shameful humiliation for the one convicted.
But another kind of divorce was also available and widely used—the any-cause divorce based on a distorted reading of Deuteronomy 24:1. This is the divorce Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:31): “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’” In such a divorce case, a man did not need to prove his wife did anything wrong. The only requirement was that he follow the proper procedures for giving her a divorce certificate, rather than just abandoning her. There was little a wife could do to prevent such a divorce, but at least it resulted in less public humiliation for her.
Jesus directly addressed both kinds of divorces in his debate with the Pharisees in Matthew 19, referencing both in his summary proclamation: “I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). On the one hand, Jesus strongly condemned the any-cause divorce, calling such divorce (normally followed by remarriage) “adultery.” But he gave an exception, recognizing that divorce (normally followed by remarriage) based on due cause, on the grounds of “sexual immorality,” is _not_ adultery.
Back to Joseph. Mary had obviously committed adultery. As David Instone-Brewer says, “It was considered very suspect when a man refused to divorce his unfaithful wife, which is why Joseph is described as righteous for wanting to divorce Mary, who appeared to be unfaithful.”[\[6\]](#_ftn6) There was no escaping it: according to Jewish expectations and the law of Moses, Joseph had to divorce Mary.
But which kind of divorce should Joseph pursue?
The obvious answer, and the one that fit his sense of justice, was to charge Mary with adultery. The evidence (Mary’s womb) was obvious and growing day by day, so winning his divorce would not be difficult.
Image from LumoProject.com, available through [FreeBibleImages.org](https://freebibleimages.org/photos/joseph-angel/).
But Joseph was also merciful, so he chose the option that would be easier on Mary. He chose, it appears, to take her before an any-cause divorce court, where he could “divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19) without proving her guilty and shaming her publicly. This sort of divorce “required no public trial, no evidence brought by witnesses, and very little fuss.”[\[7\]](#_ftn7)
_In other words–and here’s the observation that was new to me this year–Joseph chose the kind of divorce that his own Son, years later, would call “adultery.”_ Rather than choose the kind of divorce that would leave him looking like the innocent victim he understood himself to be, he chose the kind of divorce that would leave him appearing guilty according the One who held to a higher standard of justice than the flawed reasoning of the Jewish teachers of the law.
Joseph decided that, rather than prove Mary guilty and himself innocent, he was willing to be accused of callous disregard of his betrothal contract if only he could reduce the public shaming of Mary, his unfaithful “wife.” He would obey the law, but he would obey it in a way that avoided causing unnecessary suffering to others.
Joseph is a wonderful example for us today. No, I’m not saying that a simple cut-and-paste imitation of his actions is always in order, but I believe that his love of both justice and mercy should serve as a guiding light for how we think about betrayal and divorce.
I suspect Joseph’s heart of justice and mercy also helped him accept God’s explanation of what had actually happened to Mary:
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matt. 1:20-21).
It is through the obedience of ordinary _just and merciful_ people like Joseph (and you) that God fulfills his promises. May we, too, make way for the coming of the Messiah by how we live our lives, including as we respond to unfaithfulness, perceived or real, in our marriages.
Thanks for reading! As always, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below. And Merry Christmas!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#source-1) R. T. France, _The Gospel of Matthew_, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 50.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) If a man violated an unbetrothed woman, on the other hand, he was not executed but only had to pay a bride price and honor her with a proper marriage (assuming her father wanted that to happen). Also, if a betrothed woman was violated in a deserted area where her cries for help could not be heard, she was declared innocent.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Theodore Mackin, S.J., _Divorce and Remarriage_, Marriage in the Catholic Church, Vol. 2 (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 62.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) William F. Luck, _Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View_, 2nd ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2008), 107. A third edition (2016) is available only on Kindle; the second edition is free online: [https://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view](https://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view)
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) France, _Matthew_, 51.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) David Instone-Brewer, _Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 146.
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) Instone-Brewer, _Divorce_, 115.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Did Jesus Introduce a New Standard for Divorce? (JDR-12)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-11-28
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Did Jesus Introduce a New Standard for Divorce? (JDR-12) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Jesus presented his divorce teaching as something old, not as a new standard. He agreed with Malachi and clarified the law of Moses.
Tags: William F. | Luck, -2 Timothy 3:16, -Deuteronomy 24:1-4, -Malachi 2:10-16, -Matthew 19:8, -Matthew 23:23, aversion divorce, Barbara | Roberts, Craig | Blomberg, creation, D.A. | Carson, Dale C. | Allison, Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Donald A. | Hagner, Douglas | Stuart, Finny | Kuruvilla, Frederick Dale | Bruner, Guy | Duty, James R. | Edwards, Jeannine K. | Brown, Jesus and divorce, John | Coblentz, John P. | Meier, Jr., kingdom of God, Kyle | Roberts, law and the Christian, Law of Moses, new covenant, Phillip | Sigal, primary will, prophet, Robert H. | Stein, secondary will, Torah, unfaithfulness, W.D. | Davies, will of God
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/did-jesus-introduce-new-standard-for-divorce-jdr-12
This post continues my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage (JDR), where I’m currently walking through [Matthew 19](https://www.esv.org/verses/Matthew%2019/). To understand my goals in this series, please see my past posts, especially the first two:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4)
[“God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5)
[Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/genesis-224-gods-creation-norm-for-marriage-jdr-6)
[“Let Not Man Separate” Implies a Breakable Bond (JDR-7)](https://dwightgingrich.com/let-not-man-separate-implies-breakable-bond-jdr-7/)
[“Moses Allowed You to Divorce” Suggests a Breakable Bond (JDR-8)](https://dwightgingrich.com/moses-allowed-divorce-suggests-breakable-bond-jdr-8/)
[Why Did “Hardness of Heart” Cause God to Allow Divorce? (JDR-9)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-hardness-heart-cause-god-allow-divorce-jdr-9/)
[“Hardness of Heart” and Jesus’ Audience, Then and Now (JDR-10)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hardness-heart-jesus-audience-then-now-jdr-10/)
[“From the Beginning It Was Not So”—And Never Has Been (JDR-11)](https://dwightgingrich.com/from-beginning-not-so-never-has-been-jdr-11/)
* * *
Summary of this post: I consider the relationship between (1) God’s creation standard for marriage, (2) what the law of Moses said about divorce, and (3) Jesus’ divorce teachings. Contrary to the assumptions of the Pharisees, the giving of the law did not make God’s creation standard irrelevant. Similarly, I argue, Jesus intended to clarify rather than overturn the law of Moses. His divorce teachings are consistent with those of Malachi, an earlier Jewish prophet who likewise affirmed the law of Moses. Thus, just as the creation account offers Christians today an essential vision of God’s ideal for marriage, so the OT divorce laws can help us understand his will for responding to hard-hearted covenant breakers.
* * *
### Creation and the Law: Consecutive Standards, or Concurrent?
In my last post I explained why “in the beginning it was not so” is a bad translation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:8, which are better translated as “from the beginning it has not been so.” I’ll pick up where we left off by once again quoting Luck’s comments on the same clause:
Jesus is not trying to distinguish between a dispensation up to Moses, followed by a hiatus, in turn terminated by Jesus’ present teaching, but rather a continuing divine attitude that runs clear from the beginning of creation up to the point of the Lord’s speech—right through the time of Moses and the exercise of the Law![\[1\]](#_ftn1)
We can display Luck’s argument visually by contrasting several timelines.
The Pharisees based their divorce teaching entirely on the legal portions of the law of Moses. If they thought about God’s creation purpose for marriage at all, they apparently assumed it had been superseded by Moses’ allowance of divorce, as this consecutive timeline suggests:[](https://dwightgingrich.com/timeline-1/)
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/timeline-1/)
In this conception of things, the Jews were off the hook if they failed to live up to God’s creation purpose for marriage permanence, for its relevance had ended with the giving of the law of Moses.[\[2\]](#_ftn2)
Jesus sharply rebuked this attitude, insisting instead that God’s creation purpose remained unchanged, despite God’s allowance of divorce in the law of Moses. In Jesus’ perspective, God’s primary will and his secondary will ran concurrently, so that Jesus could still call his hearers to God’s higher standard, despite Moses’ divorce allowance:[](https://dwightgingrich.com/timeline-2/)
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/timeline-2/)
We should not, however, draw too sharp a division between creation and law. In our English translations of the OT, the word _law_ is traditionally used to translate the Hebrew word _torah_ (_t__ôrâ_). In Hebrew thought, however, _torah_ is often understood more broadly and could be better translated as _instruction_ or _teaching_. When Jews spoke of “the Torah” they meant everything found in the books of Moses, including not only commands but also narrative portions—including the creation account. Consider Meier’s warning:
It is unfortunate that some commentators (betraying a theological concern with Law within a particular Christian context) speak in too sweeping a fashion of… Jesus opposing creation to Law. In reality, the creation narrative of Genesis is the beginning of the whole Torah, the whole Law, of Moses.[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
Perhaps, ironically, we are guilty of a similar interpretive stumble as the Pharisees if we imagine that creation and law should not be taken together as parallel witnesses of God’s will, a complete Torah (teaching) that includes both his original purposes and his concessions.
### The Law and Jesus: Consecutive Standards, or Concurrent?
The second timeline above clarifies that God’s creation purpose was not terminated when the law of Moses was given. The timeline leaves another question unanswered, however: Did Jesus mean to revoke God’s secondary will as given in the law of Moses? Was he eliminating all allowance for divorce when he reminded people of God’s original creation design for marriage? Was Jesus saying “it’s God’s primary will or nothing” now that his kingdom was at hand?
Some Bible teachers and scholars seem to think so. Consider again, for example, these words from Coblentz:
Under the Old Covenant God permitted \[divorce\] in anticipation of the New Testament era in which He would require a higher standard of righteousness… Under the New Covenant, hardhearted husbands and wives can be given new hearts by the transforming power of the Spirit. Jesus the heart-changer has come, and God’s standards for marriage can be restored to His intention “from the beginning.”[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
The evangelical commentator Hagner expressed a similar view even more forcefully:
The Mosaic legislation in Deut 24:1–4 was… not normative but only secondary and temporary, an allowance dependent on the sinfulness of the people… The new era of the present kingdom of God involves a return to the idealism of the pre-fall Genesis narrative. The call of the kingdom is a call to the ethics of the perfect will of God (cf. the Sermon on the Mount), one that makes no provision for, or concession to, the weakness of the flesh.[\[5\]](#_ftn5)
In timeline form, this view looks like this:
[](https://dwightgingrich.com/timeline-3/)
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/timeline-3/)
According to this view, the coming of the law did not overturn God’s creation standard about divorce. The new covenant, however, _did_ overturn what the law of Moses taught about divorce.
Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus at his transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). Image: Transfiguration of Christ, c. 1560, a painting by Titian (Tiziano Vecellio).
### Did Jesus Overturn the Law and Introduce New Divorce Teaching?
There is much that is attractive about this view, and it is at least partly right. The full NT witness makes it clear that Jesus did inaugurate a new covenant and that new covenant believers are no longer under the law of Moses in the same way that OT saints were.[\[6\]](#_ftn6) It is also true that God’s Spirit gives believers new hearts and can empower them to honor God’s original creation design for marriage. That standard should certainly be the goal of every married Christian.
None of this, however, proves that Jesus was intentionally overturning the law of Moses when he gave his teachings on divorce. Nor does it prove that what Moses law taught about divorce no longer has any relevance for new covenant believers. The fact that the law of Moses could be given while God’s creation standard remained relevant should make us ask: Could the law of Moses remain relevant in some way while Jesus calls us back to God’s creation standard?
The answer is surely Yes, according to the literary and historical contexts of Jesus’ divorce teachings. In both Matthew 5 and Luke 16, Jesus introduced his teaching on divorce by emphasizing the abiding relevance of the law.[\[7\]](#_ftn7) Similarly, in Jesus’ divorce debate with the Pharisees, they “tested” him using the standard of the law: “_Is it lawful_ to divorce one’s wife…?” (Matt. 19:3). If Jesus had contradicted or overturned the law, his enemies would have pounced.[\[8\]](#_ftn8)
But they don’t pounce, because “Jesus avoids nullifying Deuteronomy. Instead, he affirms the validity of both Genesis and Deuteronomy as (respectively) ‘creation prototype and wilderness proviso.’”[\[9\]](#_ftn9) In answer to the Pharisees’ question, “Is it lawful?” Jesus essentially answers, “Yes—but you’re avoiding another question that’s even more important: ‘Is it consistent with God’s original and highest will?’”[\[10\]](#_ftn10) With this answer, he avoids their trap, refusing to either approve their selfish divorces or contradict the law of Moses.
But what about the new covenant? Didn’t it overturn the law of Moses?
Given what one hears from some Bible teachers,[\[11\]](#_ftn11) it can come as a surprise to notice that Jesus never appealed to the new covenant when teaching on divorce. He only pointed _backwards_ to creation, never _forward_ to the coming of the Spirit. Despite brief contextual references to the present inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven,[\[12\]](#_ftn12) in his divorce teaching “Jesus \[did\] not appeal to the new eschatological situation brought about by the arrival of the kingdom of God… but rather to God’s purposes in creation.”[\[13\]](#_ftn13)
In sum, _Jesus presented his divorce teaching as a clarification of existing truth, not as something new_. He seemed to think that what he was teaching about divorce was what Jewish leaders should have been teaching all along, before he ever arrived on the scene.
[](https://dwightgingrich.com/img_20221127_153554735/)
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/img_20221127_153554735/)
### Jesus and Malachi: Two Jewish Prophets Address Divorce
Indeed, Malachi— the last OT prophet to teach on divorce—did just that. _I would argue that Jesus said nothing in his Matthew 19 divorce teaching that was different in essence than what the prophet Malachi had already said over 400 years earlier._ Put differently, everything Jesus said about divorce and remarriage in the Matthew 19 account either had already been taught by Malachi or fits perfectly with what he wrote.
Note the similarities:
* A central concern for both Malachi and Jesus was men who practiced “aversion divorce”—divorcing wives without valid cause, often because they wanted new ones.
* Malachi began his discourse on divorce by asking “Has not one God created us?”, presenting this as an argument against being “faithless to one another” (Mal. 2:10; cf. 2:15). Jesus similarly began with creation: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matt. 19:4; cf. 19:5, 8), using that as a basis for preserving marriages.
* Malachi emphasized that marriage was a “covenant” (Mal. 2:14). Jesus likewise emphasized the covenantal expressions “hold fast” and “one flesh” (Matt. 19:5-6).
* Both described aversion divorce as being an affront against God himself, who is described as the one who unites a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14-15; Matt. 19:6).
* Both honored wives, recognizing their dignity and legal rights more than was common in Jewish culture. For example, both warned that aversion divorce was a crime against one’s wife (Mal. 2:14; Matt. 19:9; cf. Mark 10:11, “against her”).
* Finally, the central term in Malachi’s critique of divorce was “faithless” (or “unfaithfulness,” NIV; Mal. 2:10, 11, 14, 15, 16) which foreshadowed Jesus’ more pointed punchline that he who divorces and remarries “commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9; cf. Matt. 5:32; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18).
Stuart says the following about the divorces in Malachi’s day:
Their aversion-divorce decrees were pure “unfaithfulness.” This divorce that they were practicing was just as much “unfaithfulness” as if they were committing adultery.
And did not Jesus say just this about aversion divorce? His words are entirely consistent with the view of marriage enunciated in Malachi’s third disputation: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9).[\[14\]](#_ftn14)
Given these similarities, Carson suggests that “Jesus aligns himself with the prophet Malachi”[\[15\]](#_ftn15) and some commentators have even suggested that Jesus, in his debate with the Pharisees, was using Malachi to interpret Deuteronomy 24.[\[16\]](#_ftn16) Whether or not Jesus was indeed thinking of Malachi as he taught on divorce, the similarities between their prophetic warnings are evident.[\[17\]](#_ftn17)
This raises important questions. When Malachi rebuked aversion divorce so sharply, was he overturning the divorce allowance found within the law of Moses? This hardly seems feasible, since OT prophets functioned as covenant enforcers, holding Israel accountable to keep God’s law from the heart.
What, then, about Jesus? If Malachi was not overturning Moses’ divorce allowance,[\[18\]](#_ftn18) and if Jesus’ words “are entirely consistent with the view of marriage enunciated in” Malachi, then what basis do we have to conclude that Jesus intended to overturn Moses’ divorce allowance? Isn’t it more consistent to see him, like the latter prophets, urging Israel to keep “the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness… without neglecting” the legal details they so often emphasized or abused (Matt. 23:23)?
Here’s what Malachi said about divorce (Mal. 10-16 ESV). Some parts of his message are very difficult to translate (notice all the footnotes in vv. 15-16) but the heartbeat of his message is clear and is consistent with Jesus’ later teachings.
### Does the Law of Moses Speak to Christians Today?
But what about the Christian today, who is a member of Jesus’ new covenant community in a way that Jesus’ original audience of Pharisees never was? Does the law of Moses, with its divorce allowances and commands, have any relevance for us?
A good approach, it seems to me, is to acknowledge both continuity and discontinuity regarding the law of Moses for the Christian today. On the one hand, we are no longer members of the Mosaic covenant and therefore not directly under its law. On the other hand, the law of Moses still reveals eternal realities about the heart of God and about his concern for justice, mercy, and faithfulness in marriage. Just as we affirm many things the law of Moses says about sexuality in general[\[19\]](#_ftn19) while relaxing or adapting others,[\[20\]](#_ftn20) so the Mosaic divorce permissions and commands still have some relevance for us today.
All parts of the Torah remain “profitable” for the Christian today (2 Tim. 3:16). Just as the creation account offers an image of God’s ideal for marriage, so the OT divorce laws can help us understand his will for responding to hard-hearted covenant breakers. Hard hearts, after all, exist as much today as they did in the days of Moses and Jesus.
No, we should not use OT laws to override clear NT teachings. But neither should we assume a total break with all that the OT law teaches about divorce. Jesus didn’t—and neither, for that matter, did Paul (see Rom. 7:2).
Expressed as a timeline, the view I am proposing could look like this, with a dashed line showing a that the law of Moses still has indirect relevance for the Christian today:
[](https://dwightgingrich.com/timeline-4/)
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/timeline-4/)
Some of us aren’t as comfortable with a dashed line as with a solid line or a period. Black-and-white law can be more convenient than ambiguity. The view I’m proposing requires us to seek God’s heart and not merely his rules, important as they are.
### Conclusion: Final Quotes to Ponder
I want to wrap up this long post with a couple long quotes from authors who share my reading of Matthew 19:8. First, here again is our text:
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so \[has not been so\].”
Here is Frederick Dale Bruner’s commentary:
This text has been understood in two main ways. (1) Jesus _opposes_ Moses, _cancels_ Deuteronomy’s permission, and so _contrasts_ divorce with God’s will “from the very beginning.” Deut 24 is _not_ God’s will for Jesus at all; it is only Moses’ concession. Or (2) Jesus _demotes_ Moses’ concession, _subordinating_ Deuteronomy’s “Second Law” to Genesis’s “First Law.” Yet, this argument concedes, Deut 24 _is_ God’s permitted, “second” will for some persons.
I understand the text in the second sense because Jesus does not say, antithetically, “You have heard of old, ‘Because of your hard-heartedness Moses permitted you to divorce your wives,’ _but I say to you_, this must no longer be the case.” Jesus does not _substitute_; he _subordinates_. He does not replace Moses’ teaching with his own but subjects Deuteronomy to Genesis. But Deuteronomy remains. Deuteronomy is the subordinated, concessioned, qualified, but still valid will of God… Matthew’s Jesus takes _both_ laws, places them in a clear first and second place, and then seeks in every way possible to move his disciples to seek God’s _first_ will.
…Jesus read Scripture discriminately, even hierarchically, placing some texts over others in authority. Scripture was not flat to Jesus; it had peaks and valleys, higher truth and subordinate truth…
Genesis (the “Beginning” Book) gives us God’s _pristine_ will on marriage; Deuteronomy gives us God’s _permissive_ will for failed marriage; Genesis is Primary Will, Deuteronomy is Secondary Will. For those to whom Jesus is Lord, these two teachings—of Genesis and of Deuteronomy—will not be seen as two equal or even close options, but as the Lord’s passionately-to-be-sought highest will and as his only finally, penitently-to-be-accepted last resort.[\[21\]](#_ftn21)
Barbara Roberts views the Mosaic witness more holistically than Bruner, without setting creation against law code. She also adds crucial words affirming innocent spouses. Yet she agrees with Bruner’s main point—and mine—that Jesus did not replace Moses’ teaching with his own:
It is not the case that Jesus simply abrogated the Mosaic divorce law and instituted a new, more stringent divorce rule for kingdom living. The Mosaic Law had always set forth the divine intention that marriage was a lifelong committed relationship. It had sought to protect a vulnerable, innocent spouse from a callous or unfaithful spouse, and had allowed the use of disciplinary divorce. It had sought to deter people from treacherous, cavalier and impulsive divorce and remarriage.
Jesus did not change any of this; he simply called for a full and proper adherence to God’s standards for marriage. He condemned the legalistic approaches of his own day, which had legitimized treacherous divorce. And he declared that treacherous divorce with ensuing marriage is equivalent to adultery and a breach of the seventh commandment. If this appeared to be changing the standard, it was only because the Jews had so poorly adhered to the standard.[\[22\]](#_ftn22)
I realize some readers will remain unconvinced. For some, anything short of an absolute enforcement of God’s creation standard against divorce feels like an unjustifiable compromise, unsuited to the new covenant and the kingdom of God. For such readers, I’ll share one more quote. It is pregnant. I invite you to ponder this:
It is true that from the beginning men did not divorce their wives… We may note in passing that, from the beginning, neither was there a separation from bed and board.[\[23\]](#_ftn23)
* * *
If you made it this far, thanks much for reading! Up next is Matthew 19:9, which is Jesus’ climatic statement on divorce in this whole account. I have lots of thoughts I hope to share on this verse but don’t have any blog posts drafted yet, so you may have to wait a couple months for my next post. Meanwhile, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below. Thanks again!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) William F. Luck, _Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View_, 2nd ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2008), 157-58. Available online: [https://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view](https://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view).
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) Kauffman’s use of the phrase “in the beginning” suggests a similar interpretation: “Moses permitted man to give a writing of divorcement, but it was not so in the beginning, neither is it under the Gospel.” Daniel Kauffman, _Bible Doctrine_, (Scottsdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1914), 452. Available online: [https://books.google.com/books/about/Bible\_Doctrine.html?id=NmkCQ0br9OUC](https://books.google.com/books/about/Bible_Doctrine.html?id=NmkCQ0br9OUC)
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) John P. Meier, _A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus_, _Vol. IV, Law and Love_ (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 177, n. 143.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) John Coblentz, _What the Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage_ (Harrisonburg, VA: Christian Light Publications, 1992), 21-23. I want to also take this opportunity to underscore that, having met John Coblentz personally and heard him speak, I deeply respect him.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) Donald A. Hagner, _Matthew 14–28_, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33B (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995), 548–549. Blomberg expressed a similar view: “Jesus does not challenge their logic, only the permanence of the Mosaic law. God’s provisions for divorce were temporary, based on the calloused rebellion of fallen humanity against God. He did not originally create people to divorce each other, and he therefore does not intend for those whom he re-creates—the community of Jesus’ followers—to practice divorce. As in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus proclaims a higher standard of righteousness for his followers than the law of Moses. This distinction suggests that we must be more lenient with non-Christians who divorce but also that we may not include ‘hard-heartedness’ as a legitimate excuse for Christians divorcing.” Craig L. Blomberg, _Matthew_, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 1992), 291.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) See Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:17-26; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 7:12; etc.
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) See Matt. 5:17-20 and Luke 16:16-17. The latter passage presents two balancing realities. On the one hand, “the Law and the Prophets” are either superseded or fulfilled by “the good news of the kingdom of God.” On the other hand, “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void,” and one way to understand the sequence of Luke’s account is that Jesus presented his teaching on divorce as evidence of the latter reality—as an example of a teaching of the Law that the Pharisees were failing to observe, a teaching that remained relevant with the coming of the kingdom.
[\[8\]](#_ftnref8) See Matt. 12:2, 10; 22:17; cf. Acts 6:11,13; 21:28; 25:8.
[\[9\]](#_ftnref9) Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts, _Matthew_, Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018), 259, quoting F. Scott Spencer, “Scripture, Hermeneutics, and Matthew’s Jesus,” _Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology_, Vol. 64, No. 4 (2010), 377.
[\[10\]](#_ftnref10) I am disagreeing here with Kuruvilla’s commentary on Mark’s account: “Jesus is questioned about whether or not divorce is lawful at all… In response, Jesus sends his examiners back to Genesis to first understand the nature of marriage. To address divorce, Jesus appeals to the one-flesh union as the basis of comprehending marriage. On this basis, He declares that man should not separate what God has joined together. The answer to the Pharisees’ question about divorce being lawful is evidently ‘no.’ The reader is urged to carefully re-examine the above passage \[Mk. 10:2-12\] to fully appreciate this point: Jesus was undercutting the Mosaic law’s tolerance of divorce. What the Mosaic law merely restricted, Jesus now forbids.” Finny Kuruvilla, “Until Death Do Us Part: Is Remarriage Biblically Sanctioned After Divorce?” (essay), (Anchor Cross Publishing, July 13, 2014), 6, [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/570e3c2f8259b563851efcf8/t/5911288c4402435d4e08c196/1494296716383/essay\_remarriage.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/570e3c2f8259b563851efcf8/t/5911288c4402435d4e08c196/1494296716383/essay_remarriage.pdf)
[\[11\]](#_ftnref11) See Coblentz and Hagner above. See also Daniel Kauffman’s reference to divorce not being permitted “under the Gospel” in a quote in my last post. Edwards’s suggestion is also questionable: “Mark 10:1-12 is a blueprint for an entirely new norm of marriage.” James R. Edwards, _The Gospel According to Mark_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 305.
[\[12\]](#_ftnref12) Mentioned in Matthew’s account (Matt. 19:12) but not by Mark. In both the Sermon on the Mount and near Luke’s record of Jesus’ divorce teaching, though the kingdom of heaven/God is mentioned, Jesus underscores the enduring relevance of the law as a moral standard (cf. Matt. 5:17-20; Lk. 16:16-17).
[\[13\]](#_ftnref13) Robert H. Stein, _Mark_, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 456.
[\[14\]](#_ftnref14) Douglas Stuart, “Malachi,” _The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary_, Vol. 3, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 1338. Stuart later says the following about Malachi’s divorce teaching: “Because of its reinforcement in the teaching of Christ, it cannot be dismissed as no longer binding on New Covenant believers” (1344).
[\[15\]](#_ftnref15) “Jesus aligns himself with the prophet Malachi who quotes Yahweh as saying, ‘I hate divorce’ (2:16), and also refers to creation (2:14–15)” (Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) . Zondervan. Kindle Edition.).
[\[16\]](#_ftnref16) “\[Malachi\] 2.10-16… begins with a reference to God’s creation of humanity (v. 10: ‘Did not one God create us?’) and continues a few verses later with an apparent allusion to Gen. 2.24: ‘Did he not make one?’… It has therefore been argued that the rejection of divorce is based upon a reading of the creation story… This sets Malachi’s criticism of divorce squarely beside the same two verses quoted in the gospels… In view of this, we find attractive Sigal’s suggestion… that ‘Jesus exegetes Deut. 24.1 in the light of Malakhi.’” See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew_, Vol. III (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 12. The quote from Sigal can be found in Phillip Sigal, _The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew_, Studies in Biblical Literature, No. 18 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007 \[orig. pub. 1986\]), 116: “Jesus stands with Malachi and in line with Malachi’s admonition to ‘remember the Torah of Moses.’ Jesus exegetes Deut. 24:1 in the light of Malachi… Jesus is not thereby annulling Deut. 24:1. He is only exegeting it.”
[\[17\]](#_ftnref17) There are differences, too, though arguably not contradictory ones: Malachi warns against marrying pagan wives, a problem Jesus never mentions. And, unlike Malachi, Jesus mentions “divorce certificates” (alluding to Deut. 24:1).
[\[18\]](#_ftnref18) Stuart (“Malachi,” 1343) says, “Moses and Malachi come at the issue of divorce from different angles. Moses allows it under certain conditions. Malachi condemns it except under certain conditions. But inasmuch as those conditions appear to be identical, employing even the same essential vocabulary in definition of the actions involved, their respective doctrines are compatible.”
[\[19\]](#_ftnref19) For example, adultery, incest, and rape are still wrong.
[\[20\]](#_ftnref20) For example, the death penalty is no longer prescribed for adultery, sex during menstruation is reduced to a question of personal dignity, and polygamy is discouraged.
[\[21\]](#_ftnref21) Frederick Dale Bruner, _Mathew: A Commentary; Volume 2: The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28_ , rev. and exp. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 260-61. Davies and Allison, quoting Cranfield, present a view which is virtually identical to Bruner’s. See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew_, Vol. III (London: T&T Clark, 1997), 14. Google preview: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matthew/ZXIV2WOTVvMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22from%20the%20beginning%22](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matthew/ZXIV2WOTVvMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22from%20the%20beginning%22)
[\[22\]](#_ftnref22) Barbara Roberts, _Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion_ (Ballarat, Victoria, Australia: Maschil Press, 2008), 88.
[\[23\]](#_ftnref23) Guy Duty, _Divorce and Remarriage: A Christian View_ (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1983), 68-69. Unfortunately, Duty reads “from the beginning” as if it meant “in the beginning.” Yet, his point remains valid: Separation from bed and board (“moving out” without divorcing) is no more a part of God’s original design or perfect will than divorce is. Yet, who among us would argue it should never be done? Therefore, merely noting that something was not part of God’s original design does not prove it is always wrong. We do not live in Eden, and requiring others to live as if they do can cause great harm. It is clear Jesus was urging us to follow the creation ideal and rebuking those who are to blame for breaking it. This does not mean, however, that he was ruling out making accommodations for situations where others have already broken that creation ideal.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “From the Beginning It Was Not So”—And Never Has Been (JDR-11)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-11-20
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: “From the Beginning It Was Not So”—And Never Has Been (JDR-11) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: When Jesus said “from the beginning it was not so,” was he hitting reset, overturning everything the law of Moses had said about divorce? No.
Tags: William F. | Luck, -Matthew 19:8, creation, Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, will of God, -Mark 10:4-9, -Matthew 19:4, Charles L. | Quarles, Dean | Taylor, dispensation, from the beginning, perfect tense, Rodney | Decker, translation
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/from-beginning-not-so-never-has-been-jdr-11
This post continues my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage (JDR), where I’m currently walking through Matthew 19. To understand my goals in this series, please see my past posts, especially the first two:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)
[“God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5/)
[Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/genesis-224-gods-creation-norm-for-marriage-jdr-6/)
[“Let Not Man Separate” Implies a Breakable Bond (JDR-7)](https://dwightgingrich.com/let-not-man-separate-implies-breakable-bond-jdr-7/)
[“Moses Allowed You to Divorce” Suggests a Breakable Bond (JDR-8)](https://dwightgingrich.com/moses-allowed-divorce-suggests-breakable-bond-jdr-8/)
[Why Did “Hardness of Heart” Cause God to Allow Divorce? (JDR-9)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-hardness-heart-cause-god-allow-divorce-jdr-9/)
[“Hardness of Heart” and Jesus’ Audience, Then and Now (JDR-10)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hardness-heart-jesus-audience-then-now-jdr-10/)
* * *
Summary of this post: Jesus agreed that “Moses allowed you to divorce” but emphasized that “from the beginning it was not so.” Was Jesus hitting reset, overturning everything the law of Moses had said about divorce? In this post I argue from grammar and context that the handful of English translations that read “_in_ the beginning” badly miss the boat, and even the translations (ESV, etc.) that read “from the beginning it _was_ _not_ so” are not as accurate as ones (NASB, etc.) that read “from the beginning it _has not been_ this way.” Jesus was saying that divorce, though it was allowed and sometimes even commanded by God in the law of Moses, has always been in tension with God’s original intent for marriage.
* * *
### Recap of Divorce in the Law of Moses
In my last several posts I considered Jesus’ words, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.” Many men of Israel—both in Moses’ day and Jesus’—had hearts that were hard toward God and their wives. Because their hearts were hard, they often divorced their wives for frivolous reasons. God, through Moses, gave laws to prevent the worst of such abuse. He recognized the use of official divorce certificates (rather than mere abandonment) and restricted husbands who wished to reclaim wives they had previously divorced. Hardhearted husbands also sometimes failed to provide for wives they no longer loved. In such cases, God commanded them to grant their wives divorces, releasing them to seek homes (and sometimes husbands) elsewhere.
Jesus’ rebuke (“because of your hardness of heart”) turned the moral logic of the Pharisees on its head. The law of Moses did _not_ grant Jewish men justification to divorce their wives for any cause they wished; rather, it condemned them as hardhearted for seeking unjustified divorce rather faithfully loving their wives. The law they cited in their defense actually witnessed against them.
### _When_ Was It Not So?
“Moses allowed you to divorce your wives,” Jesus said, “but from the beginning it was not so.” What did Jesus mean by “from the beginning it was not so”? Was Jesus hitting a cosmic reset button, overturning every instruction about divorce given since the beginning? Did Jesus, by this statement, fully revoke all permission for divorce? Do his words indicate a divine timeline, a sequence of separate dispensations of God’s will, each with its own special expectations and rules? In short, _when_ was it not so?
One way to continue is by sharing another bad translation of Jesus’ words. Jesus did not say this: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but _in the beginning it was not so_.”
“In the beginning it was not so.” Why is this a poor translation? I’ll suggest four reasons.
### (1) “From,” Not “In”
First, Jesus did not say “in the beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) as in John 1:1, but “from the beginning” (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς). Some translators and authors have missed this. Daniel Kauffman, for example, wrote this:
It was because of the degraded condition of fallen man that Moses permitted man to give a writing of divorcement, but it was not so in the beginning, neither is it under the Gospel.[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
Quarles, in his handbook on the Greek text of Matthew, explains why this phrase “from the beginning” is significant:
The prepositional phrase ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς is temporal and marks the beginning point of an action that continued for some time thereafter: “from the beginning on.”[\[2\]](#_ftn2)
This continuing action is evident in another instance when Jesus used the same phrase (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς), foretelling “great tribulation, such as has not been _from the beginning_ of the world until now” (Matt. 24:21). Similarly, in Matthew 19:8 Jesus wasn’t referring only to the moment of creation. No, he was referring to a state that began at creation _and continued from that point on_.
How long did it continue? One clue is found in the fact that, in Matthew’s record of Jesus’ divorce debate, Jesus uses this phrase “from the beginning” twice. In the first instance, he asked, “Have you not read that he who created them _from the beginning_ made them male and female…? (Matt. 19:4). Quarles says “the construction \[from the beginning\] seems to imply that God’s creative work continues through procreation,” as humans conceive and bear children.[\[3\]](#_ftn3) According to this clue, “from the beginning” probably means _from the beginning right up to and including the present_.
“From the beginning” starts with the moment of creation but does not end there. (Detail from The Creation of Adam, a fresco by Italian artist Michelangelo.)
### (2) “Has Been,” Not “Was”
A second reason to reject the translation “in the beginning it was not so” is found in the verb “was.” The Greek word that I translated “was” is γέγονεν. This word is in a tense-form that is called _perfect_. Please be patient as I dig into some grammatical weeds for a moment.
Decker, in his textbook _Reading Koine Greek,_ suggests that the perfect verb form focuses on a _state_ or _condition_ rather than the past action that caused that condition. Take, for example, the Greek verb λύω (“to loose”). While some forms of this verb should be translated by English past tense expressions such as “he loosed” or “he was loosing,”[\[4\]](#_ftn4) the perfect form is better conveyed by the present tense phrase “he is loose.” Consider the advice Decker gives to translators:
The equivalent of the perfect in English is a bit difficult, because we have no exact equivalent. The best we can do in most cases is to think in terms of a simple present form in English… If the simple present tense makes good sense in English, then do not conceive of the meaning in terms of the English helping verb _have_. Some statements, however, make good sense in English only as “I have been x,” but this is a matter of English idiom, not a reflection of the meaning of the Greek statement.[\[5\]](#_ftn5)
Thus, if we follow Decker’s suggestions, we should first try to translate Jesus’ statement using the present tense: “From the beginning it _is_ not this way.” That sounds awkward in English, however, so our next option should be this: “From the beginning it _has_ not _been_ this way.” This translation accurately clarifies that Jesus’ observation about the beginning remained true right up to his day—right up to the present.
This, in fact, is exactly how the NASB translates Jesus’ words: “From the beginning it has not been this way.” It also reflects how English Bible versions most often translate the perfect verb γέγονεν elsewhere in the NT.[\[6\]](#_ftn6)
Decker says “the perfect tense-form is almost always significant when it is used.”[\[7\]](#_ftn7) Other verb forms were available if Jesus had meant to say “was not so” [\[8\]](#_ftn8) or “had not been so,”[\[9\]](#_ftn9) as if God’s creation standard had come to an end when Moses allowed divorce. Luck summarizes well the significance of the grammar of Jesus’ statement:
Jesus is not trying to distinguish between a dispensation up to Moses, followed by a hiatus, in turn terminated by Jesus’ present teaching, but rather a continuing divine attitude that runs clear from the beginning of creation up to the point of the Lord’s speech—right through the time of Moses and the exercise of the Law![\[10\]](#_ftn10)
### (3) “From the Beginning” = God’s Timeless Creation Design
A third reason why “in the beginning it was not so” is a potentially misleading translation of Jesus’ words is found in Mark’s parallel record of Jesus’ teaching. Mark, like Matthew, quotes Jesus’ statement about hard hearts. But instead of following this up with a negative statement (“but from the beginning it was not so”), Mark follows with a positive statement that makes the same point, by saying what _was_ so. Compare the two accounts, first Mark’s, then Matthew’s:
They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “**Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment**. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:4-9)
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “**Because of your hardness of heart** **Moses allowed you to divorce your wives**, but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:4-8)
A comparison of these two accounts shows that Matthew’s clause “from the beginning it was not so” functions as a flashback. It points us back to what Jesus had just said: God “from the beginning made them male and female” (cf. Gen. 1:27), “therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24), and finally—in a timeless implication drawn from these two quotes—“What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
“From the beginning it was not so,” then, refers not merely to a specific time in the past when divorce was not permitted, but to God’s unchanging creation design. This design has been the foundation for marriage in _all_ ages. And according to that design, it has _never_ been God’s original will that man would separate what he has joined—not at creation, not during the time of Moses, and not today. (We Bible teachers, in our eagerness to emphasize the newness of Jesus’ teaching, sometimes obscure this point.[\[11\]](#_ftn11))
God’s original creation design for marriage has never been irrelevant—not even after God allowed divorce in the law of Moses. (Image from Wycliffe BibleTranslators of Russia, distributed by [FreeBibleImages](https://freebibleimages.org/illustrations/wr-creation-babel/).)
### (4) God’s Creation Standard Remained Relevant for the Pharisees
A fourth reason why “in the beginning it was not so” poorly reflects Jesus’ thought may be suggested by the first part of Jesus’ statement: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.” Notice that Jesus is accusing the Pharisees in his own time of hardness of heart (“your… you… your”). If a person is hard of heart, this means they are stubbornly resisting something. In this case, at least part of what the Pharisees were resisting was God’s original creation design for marriage.
What does this suggest? If God’s expectations for marriage had been truly and fully lifted during the time of the law of Moses, then Jesus could hardly have accused the Pharisees of being hardhearted in relation to those divine expectations. The fact that he did accuse them of hardheartedness about marriage and divorce suggests that God’s creation intent was a standard that was still, on some level, in effect.
### Summary and a Glance Ahead
For these reasons, I think the handful of English translations that read “_in_ the beginning” badly miss the boat, and even the many translations (ESV, etc.) that read “from the beginning it _was_ _not_ so” are not as accurate as ones (NASB, etc.) that read “from the beginning it _has not been_ this way.”[\[12\]](#_ftn12)
What is “this way” that Jesus said has never been from the beginning? Grammatically, “this way” (οὕτως) points back to the clause before: “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.”[\[13\]](#_ftn13) Jesus is saying, then, that the allowance of divorce, even though it was included by God it in the law given through Moses, was always in tension with God’s original intent for the permanence of marriage. Yes, God permitted and even sometimes commanded divorce in the Law of Moses, but every such situation of permitted or commanded divorce involved someone who was acting contrary to God’s original purpose for marriage, a purpose which had never been lifted.
Here, again, is how Luck put it:
Jesus is not trying to distinguish between a dispensation up to Moses, followed by a hiatus, in turn terminated by Jesus’ present teaching, but rather a continuing divine attitude that runs clear from the beginning of creation up to the point of the Lord’s speech—right through the time of Moses and the exercise of the Law![\[14\]](#_ftn14)
In other words, “from the beginning it has not been so”—divorce _never was and still is not_ part of God’s original intention for marriage.
This understanding of Jesus’ words resolves some questions but leaves others hanging. If you can’t spot the hanging questions yet, wait for my next post, where I plan to ask what Jesus’ words suggest about the relationship between God’s creation standard, the law of Moses, and new covenant believers today. Hopefully, after muddying the waters a little further, I can help us more clearly identify the flow of Jesus’ teaching about divorce.
Meanwhile, feel free to share your observations in the comments below.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) Daniel Kauffman, _Bible Doctrine_, (Scottsdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1914), 452. Available online: [https://books.google.com/books/about/Bible\_Doctrine.html?id=NmkCQ0br9OUC](https://books.google.com/books/about/Bible_Doctrine.html?id=NmkCQ0br9OUC)
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) Charles L. Quarles, _Matthew_, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2017), 221. I have printed in full several words that Quarles abbreviated.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Quarles, _Matthew_, 221.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) Aorist and imperfect, respectively.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) Rodney J. Decker, _Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 329-330.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) The verb γέγονεν occurs 31 times in the perfect form in the NT. In most occurrences, English Bible versions translate γέγονεν using some sort of present tense verb—usually a present perfect progressive verb phrase like “has been” or, less often, a simple present tense verb like “is.” The NASB, which aims to reflect Greek word forms carefully, uses past tense verbs only twice to translate γέγονεν.
Here is a rough survey of how γέγονεν is translated in three popular English versions: ESV: Past (9x); past perfect progressive (1x); present perfect progressive (12x); present (9x). NIV: Past (9x); past perfect progressive (1x); present perfect progressive (12x); present (5x); not translated (4x). NASB: Past (1x); past perfect progressive (1x); past with pres. perf. prog. footnote (4x); present perfect progressive (24x); present (1x).
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) Decker, _Reading Koine Greek_, 330.
[\[8\]](#_ftnref8) Ἐγένετο, the aorist form, found 195 times in NT.
[\[9\]](#_ftnref9) Ἐγεγόνει, the pluperfect form, found 2 times in the NT.
[\[10\]](#_ftnref10) William F. Luck, _Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View_, 2nd ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2008), 157-58. Available online: [https://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view](https://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view). Luck, ibid.: “The grammar here is interesting; ‘from the beginning it has not been this way’ (_gegonen_) does not mean from the beginning until a point in the past (i.e., the giving of the Mosaic ‘concession’). That translation would be clear had the text used the tense called ‘pluperfect.’ But it uses the simple perfect instead, which should be rendered ‘from the beginning all the way up to the point of my speaking these words.’” Webb drew on both this grammatical point and the previous one (_from_ the beginning) to emphasize that “\[divorce\] was never God’s intention—‘from the beginning’ until now, and from now on” but he unhelpfully insinuates that the OT divorce allowance was Moses’ idea, not God’s. Joseph A. Webb, _Till Death Do Us Part? What the Bible_ Really _Says About Marriage and Divorce_ (Longwood, FL: Webb Ministries, 2003), 67.
[\[11\]](#_ftnref11) Taylor appears to temporarily show confusion on this point. It appears he was alluding to Matt. 19:8 (though I can’t find a translation that includes his word “since”) when he wrote, “Jesus raised the duty and majesty of marriage higher than it had been for a long time—‘since the beginning.’” Later he more correctly expresses Jesus’ meaning when he writes, “Jesus stated to them what the fundamentals of marriage actually are… since the dawning of creation.” Dean Taylor, “One Flesh, One Covenant,” Pt. 1 of “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,” _The Heartbeat of_ The Remnant, April/May/June 2007, Ephrata Ministries, p. 4. Available online, accessed 4/21/2022, [http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2007-05-covenant.pdf](http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2007-05-covenant.pdf).
[\[12\]](#_ftnref12) Other translations similar to the NASB include the AMP, ASV, DLNT, WEB, and YLT. See [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:8](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:8).
[\[13\]](#_ftnref13) Quarles: “Οὕτως, ‘like this,’ in which a comp. is made to what precedes (Moses’s permission to divorce due to humanity’s hard-heartedness)” (_Matthew_, 222).
[\[14\]](#_ftnref14) Luck, _Divorce and Re-Marriage_, 157-58.”
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Hardness of Heart” and Jesus’ Audience, Then and Now (JDR-10)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-11-19
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: “Hardness of Heart” and Jesus’ Audience, Then and Now (JDR-10) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: When Jesus rebuked his listeners for "hardness of heart" he was addressing men who believed they had a right to divorce wives for any cause.
Tags: -Deuteronomy 24:1, William F. | Luck, -Matthew 19:8, Barbara | Roberts, divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, John | Coblentz, John P. | Meier, Law of Moses, -Deuteronomy 21:14, -Exodus 21:10-11, -Jeremiah 3:1, -Jeremiah 3:8, Essenes, Gordon J. | Wenham, hardness of heart, Hillel, historical context, Josephus, Pharisees, Philo, Raymond F. | Collins, Rod and Staff, Shammai
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/hardness-heart-jesus-audience-then-now-jdr-10
This post continues my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage, which starts with a walk through Matthew 19. Having considered the question _Did Jesus believe that marriage is indissoluble?_ I am now considering a “should” question: _Did Jesus believe divorce and remarriage are always wrong?_ Here are my posts so far:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)
[“God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5/)
[Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/genesis-224-gods-creation-norm-for-marriage-jdr-6/)
[“Let Not Man Separate” Implies a Breakable Bond (JDR-7)](https://dwightgingrich.com/let-not-man-separate-implies-breakable-bond-jdr-7/)
[“Moses Allowed You to Divorce” Suggests a Breakable Bond (JDR-8)](https://dwightgingrich.com/moses-allowed-divorce-suggests-breakable-bond-jdr-8/)
[Why Did “Hardness of Heart” Cause God to Allow Divorce? (JDR-9)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-hardness-heart-cause-god-allow-divorce-jdr-9/)
* * *
Summary of this post: Jesus accused a specific audience of “hardness of heart”: men who believed they had a right to divorce their wives for virtually any reason—something I’ve never heard any Christian teach. Nearly all Jewish men in Jesus’ day believed this; there is no historical evidence the divorce debate between the “liberal” Hillelites and “conservative” Shammaites had yet begun. Further, Jesus was responding to one particular proof text used by these men—Deuteronomy 24:1. It was the abuse of this text that drew Jesus’ ire, not the proper use of other OT divorce laws designed to protect women. Given this context, we are not justified in saying that everyone who seeks divorce has a hard heart.
* * *
### Whose Hearts Were Hard?
In my last post I began discussing Jesus’ explanation for why God allowed divorce under the law of Moses: “because of your hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8). As Israel repeatedly showed hardness of heart, God gave them more laws, including ones about divorce. These laws were both a concession to human weakness and a protection for those with hard-hearted spouses.
In this post I want to be more precise: Whose hearts, specifically, were hard? Whom was Jesus accusing of hardness of heart?
Let me begin answering this question by sharing several bad “translations” of Jesus’ words.
Jesus did _not_ say this: “Because of Israel’s hardness of heart, Moses allowed them to practice divorce.” No, Jesus directed his rebuke directly to the Pharisees in front of him: “Because of _your_ hardness of heart…” Meier notes the force of Jesus’ rebuke:
By claiming that Moses wrote this commandment for “you” (i.e., the Pharisees) to expose “your” hardness of heart, …Jesus implicitly lumps the Pharisees together with the rebellious Israelites of the wilderness generation. The Mosaic Law they presume to cite as experts actually bears witness against them.[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
Nor did Jesus say this: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to practice divorce.” That is more general than Jesus’ words. And he certainly did not say this: “Because of the hardness of your wives’ hearts, Moses allowed you to divorce them.”
Rather, Jesus said this: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.” In sum, Jesus was addressing his rebuke directly to the persons before him: men who were wrongfully divorcing their wives.[\[2\]](#_ftn2)
Roberts makes the same point:
The people with hard hearts were those divorcing their wives, which means the callous individuals in question must have been male… Jesus… does not say, “Moses, because of the hardness of _their_ hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives.” Nor does he implicate Israelites in general by saying, “Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted those divorces.” As it stands, Jesus’ sentence specifically implicates hardhearted husbands.”[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
Before we extend Jesus’ rebuke of hardness of heart to everyone considering divorce, we should ask why Jesus accused these husbands of hardness of heart. Why were they divorcing? What did they believe about divorce?
Image from Good News Productions International and College Press Publishing, distributed by [FreeBibleimages](https://freebibleimages.org/illustrations/gnpi-035-adultery-divorce/).
### What Did Jesus’ Audience Believe about Divorce?
Jesus’ teachings against divorce were given in a specific historical context. In all four records we have of Jesus teaching on divorce (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18) he was correcting the false teachings of the same group: men who were arguing that God’s law gave them the right to divorce their wives for virtually any reason they might mention.
Most modern writers say that two views on divorce were debated by Jews in Jesus’ day—the view of Rabbi Hillel, a “liberal” who said Deuteronomy 24 gives grounds for “any-cause” divorce (cf. Matt. 19:3) and the view of Rabbi Shammai, a “conservative” who said Deuteronomy permits divorce only on the grounds of adultery.[\[4\]](#_ftn4) Wenham clarifies that “on the issue of divorce, it was the Hillelites who were upholding tradition, and the Shammaites who were challenging it.” In fact, “to limit the husband’s right to divorce whenever he chose and for any reason was for most Jews a shocking limitation on male freedom.”[\[5\]](#_ftn5)
\[Edit (3/28/2023): After private correspondence with David Instone-Brewer, I now believe my main thesis in this section is still correct, but my next several paragraphs (in gray) are incorrect. Here is part of what he told me: “Yes, there is good evidence and it is the consensus, that Shammaites were current in Jesus’ day, and were not current after 70CE. That is, their followers did not survive the Destruction... I don’t know any evidence that divorce for any cause (the atomistic Hillelite interpretation of Deut.24.1) was known before Hillel’s interpretation. It is only ‘traditional’ in that it became the dominant form of divorce, and supplanted the biblical grounds by making them unnecessary. So it is true to say that it is now traditional, but it wasn’t before Hillel. Yes, Josephus and Philo only mention the Hillelite interpretation, which had already gained the ascendancy.”\]
Wenham’s clarification is crucial but may not go far enough. It’s possible that the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammaites had not even yet begun in Jesus’ day. Luck observes that “Josephus does not mention the distinction \[between Hillel and Shammai\], merely stating the position of Hillel as if it were the only position in vogue.”[\[6\]](#_ftn6) Meier surveys Jewish intertestamental writings on divorce at length and concludes that “the mainline tradition begun in the OT and witnessed in Philo, Josephus, and the School of Hillel” allowed divorce for “practically any reason.”[\[7\]](#_ftn7) The only known possible exception (besides Jesus) is the Essenes, a mystic Jewish sect, but this is disputed; Meier concludes that “their position on divorce remains a question mark.”[\[8\]](#_ftn8)
Given this evidence, some of the best-informed scholars warn against assuming Jesus was responding to the Hillel – Shammai divorce debate. Here, for example, is Meier (see footnote for more):
Nowhere in pre-70 Judaism is there any clear attestation of a detailed discussion or debate on which grounds for divorce are deemed sufficient. Therefore, despite the almost universal tendency on the part of NT exegetes to explain Jesus’ prohibition of divorce against the “background” of the debate between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, this tendency may actually be a prime example of the anachronistic use of later texts to explain earlier ones. That is, a text written down for the first time at the beginning of the 3d century A.D. (the Mishna) is called upon to elucidate a teaching of Jesus reaching back to the early part of the 1st century A.D.[\[9\]](#_ftn9)
What does this all mean for our question about Jesus’ original audience? When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for hardness of heart, _he was addressing the sort of man who thought he had a right to divorce a wife if she had burned his supper or even simply if he wanted to replace her with a more beautiful one_.
### The Abuse of Deuteronomy 24:1 as a Proof Text
Further, in at least three of the four passages where Jesus teaches on divorce,[\[10\]](#_ftn10) he was directly responding to a badly-distorted interpretation of one particular proof text that men were using to justify their divorces—Deuteronomy 24:1, the only text in the law of Moses to mention a “certificate of divorce.” This is evident, for example, in Matthew 5:31, where Jesus quotes a misinterpretation of that passage: “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.”
The same is true in Matthew 19 and in the parallel account in Mark 10. When Jesus said, “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Matt. 19:8), he was referring most directly to Deuteronomy 24:1, the text just cited by the Pharisees (“Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” Matt. 19:7).
If Jesus meant to comment also on OT laws that directly _commanded_ divorce (Ex. 21:10-11 and Deut. 21:14), then his statement makes best sense as an explanation of why these laws were necessary: Abused wives needed release from hardhearted husbands. Significantly, we have no record of Jesus rebuking wives who asked for divorce certificates to escape abusive or criminally negligent husbands.
In short, it was the abuse of Deuteronomy as a proof text justifying any-cause divorce that drew Jesus’ ire, not the proper use of other OT divorce laws designed to protect women.
Context is king! (Image by [svklimkin](https://pixabay.com/users/klimkin-1298145/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=1483735) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com//?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=1483735).)
### Applying Jesus’ Warning about “Hardness of Heart” Today
These observations about Jesus’ original audience are rarely considered, but are crucial. If we don’t recognize the original target of Jesus’ warning about hard hearts, then we are likely to misapply his words today.
When Jesus spoke against divorce, he was most certainly not speaking to, say, wives or husbands who were wondering what they should do after their spouses had abused or abandoned them. Nor was he speaking to Mennonites who were arguing over whether only separation is permitted or if sometimes divorce (but never remarriage) might also be okay. He was not speaking even to evangelical scholars who were teaching that there are two clear biblical grounds for both divorce and remarriage (adultery and abandonment)—or perhaps three (adding abuse).
No, _every time Jesus rebuked divorce, he was responding to people promoting a teaching that is so egregious that I have never heard it argued today from any Christian leader_—not even from those who argue that divorce is okay at will upon mutual consent. Jesus was rebuking the idea that a man has a God-given, biblical right to divorce his wife for anything at all that he might find unsatisfactory about her; all that really matters is that he goes through the correct legal hoops to provide a valid “certificate of divorce.”
Can you imagine any Christian leader making that argument today? No wonder Jesus spoke so harshly! And no wonder we, in very different circumstances, are often confused when we read his words without considering their original context.
What might Jesus say if he spoke directly to conservative Anabaptists today—particularly, say, to those hurting from adulterous or abusive spouses? Yes, I am certain he would still direct us to God’s creation intent for marriage, a beautiful and timeless standard of loving permanence. But I am also certain he would word his message very differently, meeting the very different needs of a very different audience.[\[11\]](#_ftn11) Is it even possible, perhaps, that Jesus would have some words of warning for those who take his rebuke of hardhearted husbands in the Gospels and use them to judge victims of marital betrayal today, denying them release from abusive marriages?
We must be very careful not to go beyond Jesus’ words, making him say things he never said. For example, consider the following statement from a Rod and Staff tract:
Jesus said, “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” All who seek divorce have hard, unbelieving hearts.[\[12\]](#_ftn12)
Really? Does _every_ person who seeks divorce have a hard, unbelieving heart? What about a wife who is seeking divorce to protect her children from an abusive father and husband? What about God in the OT, who divorced his “wife” Israel for her adulterous idolatry (Jer. 3:1, 8)? No, it is not true that “all who seek divorce have hard, unbelieving hearts.”
The cover of the Rod and Staff tract that says “all who seek divorce have hard, unbelieving hearts.”
### Looking Ahead: Jesus’ Words and the New Covenant
But didn’t Jesus inaugurate a new covenant standard of marriage permanence that left no room for either hard hearts or separation of marriages? Coblentz expressed this view eloquently:
Divorce was never sanctioned, but under the Old Covenant God permitted it because of the hard hearts of the people of Israel. God permitted it in anticipation of the New Testament era in which He would require a higher standard of righteousness through the grace and light of His Son… Under the New Covenant, hardhearted husbands and wives can be given new hearts by the transforming power of the Spirit. Jesus the heart-changer has come, and God’s standards for marriage can be restored to His intention “from the beginning.” …In the age of the Spirit, therefore, God commands, “Let not man put asunder.”[\[13\]](#_ftn13)
There is much to commend in Coblentz’s words, but they may also leave us with some questions. Moses allowed divorce, but “from the beginning it was not so,” Jesus said. What did Jesus mean by this? Was he intending to revoke everything Moses had written permitting divorce? Was he inaugurating new divorce restrictions under a new covenant? Answering these and similar questions will require at least a couple more posts.
Thank you for reading! Please share your insights or questions in the comments below.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) John P. Meier, _A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus_, _Vol. IV, Law and Love_ (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 177, n. 141.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) Yes, Jesus’ words definitely carry implications for women, too. See, for example, Mark’s record of Jesus’ warning to wives: “if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mk. 10:12), a text that may reflect a Greco-Roman audience for Mark’s Gospel, where wives had more freedom to divorce. Yet it remains true that when Jesus explained why the Mosaic divorce allowance was given, he specifically rebuked men, not women.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Barbara Roberts, _Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion_ (Ballarat, Victoria, Australia: Maschil Press, 2008), 66.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) An accurate description of the views of these two rabbis and their disciples would require several paragraphs correcting common misrepresentations. That is beyond the scope of this post.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) Gordon J. Wenham, _Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting_ (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 44.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) “Josephus does not mention the distinction, merely stating the position of Hillel as if it were the only position in vogue.” William F. Luck, _Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View_, 2nd ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2008), 152.
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) Meier, ibid., 95.
[\[8\]](#_ftnref8) Meier, ibid., 93.
[\[9\]](#_ftnref9) Full quote from Meier (ibid., 95): “Only when we get to the Mishna do we have, for the first time in Palestinian Judaism, clear documentation of a scholarly dispute over what precisely constitutes sufficient grounds for divorce. As far as datable documents are concerned, this is something startlingly new in Judaism… Nowhere in pre-70 Judaism is there any clear attestation of a detailed discussion or debate on which grounds for divorce are deemed sufficient. Therefore, despite the almost universal tendency on the part of NT exegetes to explain Jesus’ prohibition of divorce against the “background” of the debate between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, this tendency may actually be a prime example of the anachronistic use of later texts to explain earlier ones. That is, a text written down for the first time at the beginning of the 3d century A.D. (the Mishna) is called upon to elucidate a teaching of Jesus reaching back to the early part of the 1st century A.D., with written attestation in the 50s by Paul and ca. 70 by Mark. Considering the dearth of any clear attestation of the dispute over the grounds of divorce between the Houses in the pre-70 period, we would do well, at least initially, to explain Jesus’ teaching on divorce solely in light of what is truly prior to and contemporary with the Palestinian Judaism of the early 1st century A.D.”
Similarly, Collins: “Many New Testament scholars capitalize on the disagreement between the school of Shammai and that of Hillel to affirm that the Matthean Jesus sided with the school of Shammai in interpreting Deut 24:1 in a narrow sense, but there is no certainty that the tradition reflected in the Mishnah actually reflects the real halakhic situation before the destruction of the temple… One cannot simply assume that Matthew’s exception clause was formulated within the context of the difference of opinion between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. One cannot, moreover, and without further discussion, simply assume that the tradition in the Mishnah regarding the interpretation of Deut 24:1 reflects the real halakhic situation at the time of Jesus or at the time of the composition of Matthew’s gospel, although this is often presumed to be the case.” Raymond F. Collins, _Divorce in the New Testament_, Good News Studies, Vol. 38 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 193, 198-99.
[\[10\]](#_ftnref10) Luke 16:18 is unclear. However, given that his teaching in this passage virtually “quotes” his teaching elsewhere, he was probably addressing the same misinterpretation.
[\[11\]](#_ftnref11) Consider how Paul nuanced his message to different audiences in 1 Cor. 7:10-16.
[\[12\]](#_ftnref12) This comes from an anonymous 12-page tract: “Divorce—Is It Lawful?” (Crockett, KY: Rod and Staff, n.d.), 4. Available online: [https://www.milestonebooks.com/item/1-3104/](https://www.milestonebooks.com/item/1-3104/)
[\[13\]](#_ftnref13) John Coblentz, _What the Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage_ (Harrisonburg, VA: Christian Light Publications, 1992), 21-23.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why Did “Hardness of Heart” Cause God to Allow Divorce? (JDR-9)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-11-08
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Why Did “Hardness of Heart” Cause God to Allow Divorce? (JDR-9) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: God gave Israel laws allowing divorce because of their hardness of heart--as a concession to human weakness and protection for abused spouses.
Tags: R.T. | France, Theodore | Mackin S.J., William F. | Luck, -Matthew 19:8, Barbara | Roberts, divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, hardness of heart, Raymond F. | Collins, concession, Craig A. | Blaising, Craig S. | Keener, harden, Israel's hardening, Jerry | Jones, John H. | Sailhamer, kingship
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-hardness-heart-cause-god-allow-divorce-jdr-9
This post continues my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage. I began my walk through Matthew 19 with this question central: _Did Jesus believe that marriage is indissoluble?_ Starting in this post, I’m broadening my focus from that “could” question to begin answering a “should” question: _Did Jesus believe divorce is always wrong?_ Here are my posts so far:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)
[“God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5/)
[Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/genesis-224-gods-creation-norm-for-marriage-jdr-6/)
[“Let Not Man Separate” Implies a Breakable Bond (JDR-7)](https://dwightgingrich.com/let-not-man-separate-implies-breakable-bond-jdr-7/)
[“Moses Allowed You to Divorce” Suggests a Breakable Bond (JDR-8)](https://dwightgingrich.com/moses-allowed-divorce-suggests-breakable-bond-jdr-8/)
* * *
Summary of this post: I begin asking _why_ God permitted divorce under the law of Moses. Jesus said it was “because of your hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8)—an expression referring to unresponsive stubbornness, expressed both in rebellion toward God and disregard toward humans. As Israel repeatedly showed hardness of heart, God gave them more laws, including ones about divorce. These laws were both a concession to human weakness and a protection for those with hard-hearted spouses. A parallel example of a divine concession is human kingship in Israel. This, too, was contrary to God’s perfect will, yet he permitted it and ultimately used it for his glory and for human flourishing.
* * *
### Introduction to the Next Several Posts
In my last post I asked whether Jesus’ statement “Moses allowed you to divorce” offers any clues about whether marriage is indissoluble (Matt. 19:8 ESV). After surveying all the passages in the law of Moses that deal explicitly with human divorce, I concluded that none of them give any indication that divorce did not truly end a marriage. Taken together, they strongly indicate that the law of Moses pictured divorce as fully dissolving a marriage—just as surely as if it had been ended by death.
In the next several posts I want to step beyond the question of whether a marriage can be dissolved and consider _why_ God permitted divorce under the law of Moses. Jesus said Moses allowed divorce “because of your hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8). What is hardness of heart? How is it related to the giving of the law? Whose hearts were hard? Does everyone who seeks divorce today have a hard heart?
And what did Jesus mean by the clause that was really his main point—“but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8)? What wasn’t so, and when? And was Jesus completely overturning the Mosaic divorce allowance with this clause?
Here, again, is Jesus’ complete statement: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8).
There are many exegetical chestnuts in this sentence and cracking them isn’t easy. Writing these next several posts has proved harder than I expected, but I’ll do my best to zero in on what Jesus meant to say.
### What Is Hardness of Heart?
Hardness of heart is mentioned often in Scripture and, as the _Evangelical Dictionary of Theology_ says, “there is no one technical word or phrase for hardening in Scripture; rather a variety of words and phrases are used to describe the same phenomenon.”[\[1\]](#_ftn1) A variety of images are found behind these terms, including dryness, petrification, or covering something with stone or even a foreskin. The basic idea of hardness of heart, at least in the sense used here by Jesus, seems to be stubbornness and rebellion—a refusal to be sensitive, trusting, and responsive.
Photo by [Brendan Rühli](https://www.pexels.com/photo/heart-shaped-stone-6477070/).
A person’s heart can be hard toward either God or fellow humans. Which did Jesus mean here? France represents many commentators when he says “this familiar biblical term refers not so much to people’s attitudes to one another (cruelty, neglect, or the like) as to their attitude to God, whose purpose and instructions they have set aside.”[\[2\]](#_ftn2) Others, such as Roberts, conclude that “hardness of heart” was Jesus’ way of referring to men who “had a callous disregard for their marriage covenants and were divorcing their wives for no good reason.”[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
It seems to me that this is a false dichotomy. I think most commentators, if nudged, would agree that hardness of heart will inevitably be expressed toward both God and humans. Even Pharoah, the classic biblical example of hardness of heart, was hardhearted not only toward God (“Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go?” Ex. 5:2) but also toward Moses and Aaron (“he would not listen to them,” Ex. 7:13, etc.) and toward the whole nation of Israel, whom he wanted to retain as slaves (Ex. 14:4-8; cf. 5:4-18). Thus, Jones is probably right when he suggests the “core issue” of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day included both vertical and horizontal dimensions: “their disrespect for women that was fueled by their stubborn hearts.”[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
The specific compound word that Jesus used for “hardness of heart” (σκληροκαρδία) is found only two places in the Greek OT (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4).[\[5\]](#_ftn5) In both, hardness of heart toward God seems to be the dominant concern, yet the context clarifies that honoring God means having soft hearts toward humans as well. For example, here is the reason given in Deuteronomy for avoiding hardness of heart:
For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. (Deut. 10:17-19; cf. Deut. 15:7; Jer. 5:23-29)
Both passages also warn that hardness of heart will bring severe judgment from God. In fact, in Jeremiah, the ultimate result of Israel’s hardness is that God divorces her, sending her into exile (Jer. 3:1, 8). Perhaps, then, there was a subtle irony in Jesus’ mention of hard hearts: “If you hardhearted Pharisees keep on wrongfully divorcing your wives, God will rightfully divorce you!”
### What Does Hardness of Heart Have to Do with the Giving of Law?
Jesus said, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Matt. 19:8). Why would hardness of heart result in God giving laws that allowed divorce?
Collins offers one explanation:
Perhaps the answer is to be found in a Jewish tradition which suggested that the Law had been destroyed after Israel’s alliance with the golden calf and that, in its stead, a more permissive version of the Law was promulgated as a concession to the people’s hardheartedness. Within this perspective, the ‘concession’ of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would have belonged to the less demanding version of the Law given to Israel.[\[6\]](#_ftn6)
There are several puzzling hints in the OT of a similar possibility—that God may have originally offered Israel a brief law but then added laws in response to their sins. For example, in Jeremiah 7:22 God says, “In the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.” An even more cryptic comment is found in Ezekiel 20:25, in a passage recounting God’s dealings with unfaithful Israel in the wilderness: “Moreover, I gave them statues that were not good and rules by which they could not have life.” Mackin ties this statement to Jesus’ comment about hard hearts:
Jesus’ religious logic here, though so familiar to the Jews of his own time and earlier, is strange to the Western religious mind… \[Israel\] had again and again been faithless to the Lord’s commands. One of the consequences of this faithlessness was that he had given them “laws that were not good”—not so much as a punishment as to bring them to realize that he is still their Lord. This is Ezekiel’s thought in his book of prophecy (20:25)… This faithlessness was at its worst when Moses, on coming down from Sinai with the tablets of the law, found the people adoring the golden calf. Jesus’ implication here is that the accepted practice of getting rid of unwanted wives is a continuation of this same spirit of faithlessness, and _because_ of it the people were given “a law that was not good.” Their hardness of heart drew upon them Moses’ command to dismiss their wives. Were they not thus stubborn they would have received neither command nor permission.[\[7\]](#_ftn7)
Sailhamer cites NT evidence supporting this view of the giving of the law:
Paul says in Galatians 3:19 that God gave Israel the law “because of transgressions”… Why the plural? If we look at the various sets of laws edited into the Pentateuch, we can see that there were several “transgressions.” Throughout the narratives of Exodus 19–Deuteronomy there are numerous examples of Israel’s failure to follow God’s will… After each episode of disobedience we see that God gave Israel a new and more complete set of laws. As Israel continued to transgress the laws given to them, God continued to give them more. God did not give up on his people. When they sinned, he added laws to keep them from sinning further.[\[8\]](#_ftn8)
While some details of these proposals are certainly questionable,[\[9\]](#_ftn9) the general approach seems reasonable to me. France provides a good summary:
The Deuteronomic legislation \[Deut. 24:1-4\] is a response to human failure, an attempt to bring order to an already unideal situation caused by human “hardness of heart.” …Even after his people had rejected his design for marriage, God gave them laws to enable them to make the best of a bad job.[\[10\]](#_ftn10)
Photo by [Karolina Grabowska](https://www.pexels.com/photo/lawyers-looking-at-divorce-paper-7876050/).
### Why Did God Allow Divorce?
What did God want to accomplish by giving laws that allowed divorce? How did he expect these laws might help his people “make the best of a bad job”? Where these laws merely God’s way of turning a blind eye at sin, or did he want to accomplish some good? Keener emphasizes the former, but suggests both:
The rabbis, like other ancient legal scholars, recognized “concession” as an established legal category—something that was not quite right to begin with, but had to be allowed because people would not be able to do what was fully right. Jesus is saying that God permitted divorce as a concession to human weakness… His point is that Moses put up with their divorcing because the best he could get out of hard-hearted people was legal protection for the one divorced against her will. But if they had been compassionate and open to his ways, God could have held them to his original and ideal standard all along: they were not to initiate divorce.[\[11\]](#_ftn11)
Luck emphasizes the positive good God aimed to accomplish by allowing divorce:
The phrase “because of your hardness of heart” is \[sometimes wrongly\] interpreted as saying something like: “Well, God knows that divorce will take place, so He made a concession to you, allowing you to do what you wanted.”
…What then? For whom is the concession? For the wives whom these hard-hearted men have been divorcing since before the days of Moses… Knowing that they will be treacherous and turn their backs on their covenant partner, God has provided a law that will minimize the abuse. He will wink temporarily at hard hearted husbands putting away innocent wives so that these wives will be saved from their husbands, who would perhaps physically abuse them if forced to keep them. So the permission to divorce has nothing to do with condescending to wicked men, but everything to do with preserving innocent women.[\[12\]](#_ftn12)
Divorce laws were indeed a “concession to human weakness” (Keener), but Luck is right to warn that we should not imagine God was giving a thumbs up to any-cause divorce. Rather, the fact that laws recognizing divorce were needed should have been a rebuke to Israel.
Luck is right to focus on hard-hearted husbands and innocent wives. I plan to discuss this dynamic more in my next post.
### Israel’s Kingship—A Similar Divine Concession
A parallel example to Israel’s divorce laws can be seen in the question of whether Israel was to have a human king. When God brought Israel to Sinai, he declared his kingship over them: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6). When Israel asked for a king in the days of Samuel, he rebuked them, saying that their desire for a king was actually a rejection of God’s kingship and a desire to imitate the pagan nations around them. Yet Samuel also recognized that “the Lord has set a king over you” (1 Sam. 12:12-13).
Was Samuel contradicting himself? No, for God had already predicted this scenario in the law of Moses:
“When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose.” (Deut. 17:14-15) [\[13\]](#_ftn13)
Notice that the permission to have a king is presented as a concession—a concession with a built-in rebuke of Israel’s desire to be “like all the nations” around them. Some similar mixture of divine concession and rebuke seems to have been at work in the divorce allowance given through Moses.
Despite this biblical picture of kingship being contrary to God’s primary and original will for his people, and despite how Israel’s kings often led the nation into sin, as Scripture unfolds we see that God used human kingship for his glory and for human flourishing. In fact, it was through Israel’s line of kings that he sent his own Messiah-King, his Son.
Could God accomplish something similar through the tragedy of human divorce? Could he sometimes permit and use even this for his glory and for human flourishing?
### Glancing Ahead
Those questions take us beyond the scope of this post. In my next post I plan to take a closer look at Jesus’ audience. Whose hearts, according to Jesus, were hard? What does that suggest about how we should apply his words today? Does everyone who seeks divorce have a hard heart?
Thanks for reading! I invite you to add your insights or questions in the comments below.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) Craig A. Blaising, “Hardening, Hardness of Heart,” _Evangelical Dictionary of Theology_, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 494. For example, Stuart notes that three different terms for hardness are used in Exodus alone to describe Pharoah’s hardness of heart, and “all three.. essentially function synonymously,” so that “their meaning in modern English is simply ‘be/make stubborn’” (Douglas Stuart, _Exodus_, New American Commentary \[Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2006\], 147).
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) R. T. France, _The Gospel of Matthew_, New International Commentary on the NT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 719-20.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Barbara Roberts, _Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion_ (Ballarat, Victoria, Australia: Maschil Press, 2008), 82-83.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) Jerry Jones, _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: Seen Through the Character of God and the Mind of Jesus_ (Joplin, MI: College Press, 2016), 76.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) However, the related verb for “harden” (σκληρύνω) and noun for “heart” (καρδίας) are frequently paired elsewhere. This cautions us against confidently assuming Jesus was alluding specifically to any single OT text. Further, in both passages the term σκληροκαρδία in the Greek OT translates a Hebrew expression that actually says “foreskin” rather than “hardness.” This reinforces the fact that a wide variety of terms were used to express essentially the same concept of hardness.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) Raymond F. Collins, _Divorce in the New Testament_, Good News Studies, Vol. 38 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 96.
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) Theodore Mackin, S.J., _Divorce and Remarriage_, Marriage in the Catholic Church, Vol. 2 (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 50.
[\[8\]](#_ftnref8) John H. Sailhamer, _The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation_ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 561, cf. 42, 415, 556.
[\[9\]](#_ftnref9) Here are some examples: While the Deuteronomy 24 divorce permission came after Israel’s unfaithfulness with the golden calf, the first law commanding divorce preceded it, hard on the heels of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 21:10-11); Jeremiah and Ezekiel may be using prophetic hyperbole in their presentation of Israel’s history; Ezekiel’s comment is understood by some to refer not to God’s law but to God “giving over” Israel to the laws of pagan nations; Paul’s comment may mean something else, such as that the law was given to clarify the nature of sin as “transgression” (cf. Rom. 4:15; 7:7-8); and the authors cited here do not fully agree on _why_ God gave additional laws to Israel.
[\[10\]](#_ftnref10) France, _The Gospel of Matthew_, 719-20.
[\[11\]](#_ftnref11) Craig S. Keener, _…And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament_ (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 42.
[\[12\]](#_ftnref12) William F. Luck, _Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View_, 2nd ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2008), 157.
[\[13\]](#_ftnref13) See also the cryptic prophecies about a king (human? divine?) who would arise in Israel: Gen. 49:10; Num. 23:21; 24:7, 17; etc.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Moses Allowed You to Divorce” Suggests a Breakable Bond (JDR-8)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-08-16
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: “Moses Allowed You to Divorce” Suggests a Breakable Bond (JDR-8) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Jesus said "Moses allowed" divorce. The various OT laws mentioning or ruling on divorce assume it ends marriage as truly as death does.
Tags: -Exodus 21:11, David | Instone-Brewer, R.T. | France, -Deuteronomy 24:1-4, -Matthew 19:8, divorce and remarriage, Finny | Kuruvilla, Jesus and divorce, John | Coblentz, Law of Moses, Dean | Taylor, -Deuteronomy 21:14, Gordon J. | Wenham, Philo, -1 Corinthians 6:9-11, -1 Corinthians 7:39, -2 Samuel 20:3, -Deuteronomy 22:19, -Deuteronomy 22:29, -Leviticus 21:11, -Leviticus 21:7, -Leviticus 22:12-13, -Numbers 30:9, Andrew | Cornes, clean and unclean, Daryl | Wingerd, grounds for divorce, indissolubility of marriage, inspiration of Scripture, J. Carl | Laney, Jim | Chrisman, Jim | Elliff, Joseph A. | Webb, priests, Rubel | Shelly, Steve | Burchett, widows, William E. | Heth
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/moses-allowed-divorce-suggests-breakable-bond-jdr-8
This post continues my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage, where I’m examining Jesus’ words beginning with this question: _Did Jesus believe that marriage is indissoluble?_ Here are my posts so far:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)
[“God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5/)
[Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/genesis-224-gods-creation-norm-for-marriage-jdr-6/)
[“Let Not Man Separate” Implies a Breakable Bond (JDR-7)](https://dwightgingrich.com/let-not-man-separate-implies-breakable-bond-jdr-7/)
* * *
Summary of this post: I ask whether Jesus’ statement that “Moses allowed” divorce provides any clues about whether marriage is indissoluble. After showing that Jesus was not pitting Moses against God, I survey what God’s law said about divorce. Some laws narrowly commanded divorce; others narrowly forbade it. Multiple laws assumed divorce and that divorce dissolves a marriage. The famous Deuteronomy 24 passage prohibited a man from remarrying his former wife who had meanwhile been married to another. This passage is joined by others that likewise grouped divorce and death as equally and truly ending marriage.
* * *
### Introduction: Was Marriage Indissoluble Under the Law of Moses?
Jesus wrapped up his summary of God’s creation design for marriage in Matthew 19:3-6 with a strong command: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
The Pharisees were not satisfied with this response. They countered with a question, alluding again to Deuteronomy 24:1: “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matt. 19:7). Doesn’t this mention of a “certificate of divorce” imply that it is “lawful” (Matt. 19:3) to divorce a wife?
Jesus’ rebuttal focused again on God’s creation design for marriage: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). In other words, yes, it may have been “lawful” under the law of Moses to divorce, but that same law, in its record of the creation, shows that divorce was not part of God’s original and unchanging design. In short, the _should_ of marriage permanence remains clear, despite the certificates of divorce allowed under Moses.[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
But does Moses’ allowance of divorce indicate anything about whether a marriage _could_ be dissolved by anything other than death? Do the practices of divorce and remarriage under the law of Moses suggest that divorce was always only a legal fiction? Or do they suggest that marriages really could be dissolved, despite God’s creation intent?
As I address these questions in this post, I will focus on the first main clause in Jesus’ sentence: “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.” From the perspective of what was uppermost in Jesus’ mind, the other two clauses are even more important (“Because of your hardness of heart… but from the beginning it was not so”). I plan to address those clauses directly in a future post or two. First, however, I want to consider what we can learn from Jesus’ acknowledgement that Moses allowed divorce.
So, what does the law of Moses say about divorce? And do its laws about divorce give any indication as to whether marriage is indissoluble or not? Let’s survey some of the most important evidence for clues.
_Moses Breaking the Tablets of the Law_, a 1659 oil-on-canvas painting of the prophet Moses by the Dutch artist Rembrandt.
### The Law of Moses: Two Possible Misunderstandings
Two likely misunderstandings must be cleared up right away. First, Jesus is not pitting Moses against God. Jesus is not saying “God forbade divorce but Moses dishonored God by allowing it anyway.” Jesus is never recorded as speaking negatively of Moses.[\[2\]](#_ftn2) He believed the law of Moses came from God himself; in fact, in this very conversation with the Pharisees Jesus has already attributed an editorial comment from Moses (“Therefore, what God has joined…”) to God (“he who created them”).[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
The suggestion that Jesus’ words “Moses allowed” are describing “a merely human deviation from the divine purpose” is “a very modern inference,” as commentator R. T. France noted. Rather, “the laws given by Moses were understood to be the laws of God; ‘Moses’ means the Pentateuch, the God-given body of law which is Israel’s highest authority.”[\[4\]](#_ftn4) Thus, whatever commands we find in Moses’ law must be seen as coming from God himself.
Second, we should note that the law cited by the Pharisees, which is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, is really a law about remarriage, not divorce. This law is essentially a long “if” followed by a short “then” command. A summary version could read, “_If_ a man divorces his wife, she remarries, and her second marriage comes to an end, _then_ the man may not take her back as his wife again.”[\[5\]](#_ftn5) Thus, Dean Taylor rightly wrote of this passage, “Moses did not _institute_ divorce, he merely _regulated_ against a type of _remarriage_.”[\[6\]](#_ftn6) That said, it remains true, as Jesus acknowledged, that this law of Moses did “allow” divorce.
### Laws Requiring Divorce
What is less well known is that in some cases the law of Moses actually _required_ divorce. For example, in Exodus 21:11 a master-husband was instructed to give his Hebrew slave-wife her food, clothing, and marital rights, without diminishing them if he took another woman. If he withheld these rights, the law commanded that “she shall go out for nothing” (Ex. 21:11; cf. Ex. 21:26). Similarly, Deuteronomy 21:14 commanded that if a man “no longer delight in” his wife whom he had taken as a captive in war, he must “let her go where she wants” without selling her or treating her as a slave.
Both these passages contain linguistic links to the famous divorce and remarriage passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, links suggesting that these passages are talking about full divorce, complete with the right to remarry.[\[7\]](#_ftn7) They also appear to be talking about real marriage, despite the wife being originally secured by either slavery (temporary indentured servitude of a fellow Hebrew) or captivity (of a foreign enemy). If either of these seems least likely to qualify as real marriage, it would be the captive wife. Yet the Deuteronomy passage says explicitly, “you may… be her husband, and she shall be your wife” (Deut. 21:13). Further, that passage occurs right before a paragraph that demands that unloved “wives” be given equal rights as loved ones, a command that parallels the one in Exodus 21:11.
If a wife taken as a slave or captive had a right to secure a divorce if her husband would not provide for or “delight in” her, then surely a wife gained by more normal means had equal rights or better. Thus, Jews in Jesus’ day applied this passage to all marriages. They “recognized that the obligations of Exodus 21:10-11 could form the basis of a claim for divorce,” and “rabbinic literature preserves detailed discussions concerning the exact limits for gaining a divorce on the grounds” in that passage.[\[8\]](#_ftn8)
It is worth noting that some of the authors who have been influential for conservative Anabaptists on the topic of divorce (Coblentz, Webb, Wenham, etc.) do not even mention Exodus 21:11 or Deuteronomy 21:14.[\[9\]](#_ftn9) Several make statements that are clearly false in light of these passages. For example, Cornes wrote the following in his summary of the OT law:
Any individual law which specifically legislates about divorce only limits its availability. The law must therefore be seen as restraining divorce rather than enabling it.[\[10\]](#_ftn10)
Wenham and Heth likewise exclaimed, “There is, in fact, _no_ legislation respecting grounds for divorce in Old Testament law!”[\[11\]](#_ftn11)
Kuruvilla, drawing on Cornes, made a similar claim, even extending it to include the entire OT:
Throughout the Old Testament, there is no “enabling legislation” for divorce. Instead, Old Testament laws merely _restrict_ a practice that was already ongoing… Nowhere in the Old Testament are any statements given that “enable” divorce or remarriage.[\[12\]](#_ftn12)
Contrary to these claims, Exodus and Deuteronomy both clearly command that if a husband refused to care for his (slave or captive) wife, he must grant her the freedom of a divorce. Would God, through Moses, have commanded that wives of abusive husbands be freed to remarry if he thought that their first marriages remained undissolved?
A Jewish wedding. Image used with permission from Good News Productions International and College Press Publishing. Downloaded from [FreeBibleImages.org](https://freebibleimages.org/illustrations/gnpi-016-wedding-cana/).
### Laws Prohibiting Divorce
Other laws provided for women by protecting them from wrongful divorce. For example, what if a husband took a wife, decided he didn’t like her after having sex with her for the first time, and then tried to get rid of her by falsely accussing her of not being a virgin? Such a man was to be whipped and fined, and “he may not divorce her all his days.” He had to provide for her for life, without exception, for he had “brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel” and put her in danger of wrongful capital punishment (Deut. 22:19). Similarly, the rule for a man who raped an unbetrothed virgin was that he had to marry her and “may not divorce her all his days” (Deut. 22:29).[\[13\]](#_ftn13)
As far as I can discover, author Rubel Shelly is right in saying that these are “the only two specific situations named in which a man could not divorce his wife” under the law of Moses.[\[14\]](#_ftn14) And presumably, if a wife in these two situations was later uncared for, she could go to court to sue for either provision or her own right of divorce under the precedent of Exodus 21:11 or Deuteronomy 21:14.
How widely was divorce practiced in OT Israel? Given the pattern of Israel’s other sins, Instone-Brewer is probably right in saying “we must assume that divorce was as prevalent in Israel then as in other ancient Near Eastern societies.”[\[15\]](#_ftn15) What is clear is that divorce was widely “allowed” under the law of Moses and sometimes even commanded. Was God allowing something that was a legal fiction, or was he allowing (and sometimes commanding) something that was real, even though it fell short of his original design for marriage?
### A Law Prohibiting Remarriage
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 supports this picture of easily-available divorce. I’ve already summarized the basic point of the passage, and I’ll reinforce that summary now by emphasizing that the Jews in Jesus’ day entirely missed the point of the passage when they mined it in search of valid grounds for divorce. The passage does not provide grounds for divorce but restrictions against a certain kind of remarriage.
Let me quote the passage in full and then we’ll look for clues about marriage permanence.
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance. (Deut. 24:1-4)
Some things about this passage remain highly debated among commentators. What is “some indecency”? How, exactly, was the wife “defiled”? Why was it wrong for her former husband to take her again as his wife after she had been defiled? What relevance, if any, does this remarriage prohibition have for us today?
I won’t try to answer those questions now. I will point instead to some clear facts that may be clues about whether marriage is indissoluble. In this passage:
* A woman who is remarried is called “another man’s wife”—that is, she is now the “wife” of “another man” besides her former husband (v. 2).
* Her prior husband is called her “former husband” (v. 4), indicating he is no longer her husband.
* A certificate of divorce is expected for ending a second marriage just as surely as a first marriage, suggesting the second marriage was considered just as real as the first (v. 3).
* Divorce and death are presented in parallel as equally ending a marriage (v. 3).
* A woman’s former husband (including her first one) has _less_ right (none!) to claim her as wife than any other man does (v. 4); there is no assumption a first husband has special rights based on a persisting marital union.
Let me get technical for one paragraph. It is worth noting that the Hebrew word (_ri’šôn)_ translated “former” in the phrase “former husband” does not always mean “first” (e.g., Num. 21:26; Ps. 79:8; Is. 42:9). Thus, this law restricts a second husband from remarrying a former wife after she has married a third as surely as it restricts a first husband from remarrying. Therefore, _it is not right to say that a first husband is singled out by this law even negatively_, by receiving a special prohibition not given to subsequent husbands. (The CSB, NET, NIV, NLT, and multiple other translations are misleading in this regard; KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and others more cautiously read “former.”)
In short, while it is not clear whether the divorces in this passage were legitimate, everything about the passage suggests that divorce was seen as truly ending a marriage—just as truly as by death. Further, remarriage was seen as “putting a seal” on divorce, making any former marriage permanently dissolved.
The persistent widow, from Jesus’ parable (Luke 18:1-8). Used with permission from [FreeBibleImages.org](https://freebibleimages.org/photos/persistent-widow/).
### Laws Grouping the Divorced and the Widowed
Tellingly, several other passages in the law of Moses group divorce and death in a similar way. For example, both widowhood and divorce gave a priest’s daughter equal right to return to her father’s house and eat his priestly food, which she was forbidden to eat while she was married to a layman (Lev. 22:12-13). Similarly, if a married woman made a vow, her husband had a right to make her vow void when he first heard of it. But this law came with an exception: “Any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her” (Num. 30:9). As far as both these laws were concerned, a divorcing husband and a dead husband had equal authority over their former wives—none.
The marriage restrictions for a high priest also group divorce and widowhood together:
A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people (Lev. 21:14).
The restriction against marrying a widow was a matter of ritualistic cleanliness, not a timeless moral requirement (1 Cor. 7:39).[\[16\]](#_ftn16) It functioned like other restrictions in this passage, such as the one forbidding the high priest from making himself unclean by caring for the dead bodies of close relatives (Lev. 21:11). Similarly, the NT strongly implies that there is nothing immoral about marrying someone who was formerly sexually immoral (“a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute”) but who is now “sanctified” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Given this context, it appears that the law against priests marrying divorced women (cf. Lev. 21:7) was also a ritualistic restriction, not a moral one. Commentator Wenham suggests this restriction was designed to protect a priest’s reputation and also to ensure his wife’s children were really his own, thus protecting the priestly line.[\[17\]](#_ftn17)
In fact, divorced and widowed persons were so tightly grouped in Jewish thought that the Hebrew and Greek words translated _widow_ in the Bible were sometimes used to refer to a divorced woman.[\[18\]](#_ftn18) This broader conception of widowhood in the Hebrew language is found in 2 Samuel 20:3. After David returned to Jerusalem following his defeat of Absalom, he took his ten concubines whom Absalom had defiled and “put them in custody… but did not have relations with them. So they were locked up until the day of their death, living as widows” (NASB).
Similarly, the Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher Philo—during whose lifetime Jesus lived and died—counted a divorced woman as having been widowed in his interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4:
If a woman after parting from her husband for any cause whatever marries another and then again becomes a widow \[χηρεύσῃ\], _whether this second husband is alive or dead_, she must not return to her first husband.[\[19\]](#_ftn19)
Philo’s interpretation affirms our observation that divorced and widowed women were treated very similarly under the law of Moses, both classed as being unmarried.
### Conclusion: Marriage Was Dissoluble Under the Law of Moses
As far as I know, these are all the passages in the law of Moses that deal explicitly with human divorce.[\[20\]](#_ftn20) None of these passages give any indication that divorce did not truly end a marriage. Taken together, they strongly indicate that divorce was seen as fully dissolving a marriage. There is no indication that a man who divorced his wife had any special right to take her back again, and he was expressly forbidden from doing so if she had meanwhile been married to someone else.
Yes, every mention of divorce in the law of Moses is in tension with God’s creation design recorded in the first book of Moses. If every Israelite had lived up to God’s design, no marriage would ever have ended in divorce.
However, it is also true that if every human had lived up to God’s design, no marriages would have been dissolved by death, either. (This includes marriages ended by death as punishment for adultery, a topic I hope to address later.[\[21\]](#_ftn21)) Tragically, both death and divorce are part of human experience post-Eden, and both are pictured in the law of Moses—_God’s_ _law_—as truly ending marriage.
Was this picture merely an illusory concession to human practices? What did Jesus mean when he said these divorce allowances were given because of “hardness of heart”? And what about his statement that “from the beginning it was not so”? I plan to turn to these questions in my next posts.
Thanks for reading this long post! I invite you to add your insights or questions in the comments below.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) It is a sobering truth that merely living up to a law granted as a concession to human weakness does not ensure one is truly pleasing God.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) Even though some of Jesus’ teachings hinted that the law of Moses would come to an end (Matt. 11:13; Mark 7:19; Luke 16:16), he urged people to obey even the details of the law (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42) and warned they would be judged by Moses (John 5:45-46; cf. Luke 16:29-31). In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus’ teaching about divorce comes immediately after his statement that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void” (Luke 16:17).
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) See Matt. 19:4; cf. Matt. 15:3-6.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) R. T. France, _The Gospel of Matthew_, New International Commentary on the NT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 719.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) The KJV, unfortunately, obscures the flow of thought, but the NKJV, ESV, and most other modern translations make the if-then structure of Moses’ command clear. The moral logic and current relevance of Moses’ prohibition of a husband remarrying his former wife, however, remain highly debated. Since Jesus didn’t address these questions, I won’t address them in this post, either.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) Dean Taylor, “One Flesh, One Covenant,” Pt. 2 of “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,” _The Heartbeat of_ The Remnant, July/August/September 2007, Ephrata Ministries, p. 5. Available online, accessed 7/14/2022, [http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2007-07-one-flesh.pdf](http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2007-07-one-flesh.pdf).
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) The Hebrew word translated “let her go” in Deuteronomy 21:14 (_šālaḥ_) appears again in Deuteronomy 24:1, which describes a husband who divorces his wife and “sends her” out of his house. Likewise, the word translated “shall go out” in Exodus 21:11 (_yāṣā’_) appears in Deuteronomy 24:1 (24:2 in some translations) in the phrase “she _departs_ out of his house.” This woman then “goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deut. 24:2). This shared language implies that in all three passages the woman who is sent away is free to remarry, even though two of the passages never explicitly say so.
[\[8\]](#_ftnref8) David Instone-Brewer, _Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 102.
[\[9\]](#_ftnref9) Authors who discussed divorce in the OT without mentioning either Exodus 21:11 or Deuteronomy 21:14 include John Coblentz (_What the Bible Says about Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage_), Finny Kuruvilla (“Until Death Do Us Part”), J. Carl Laney (_The Divorce Myth_), Joseph A. Webb (_Till Death Do Us Part?_), Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth (_Jesus and Divorce_) and G. J. Wenham (_Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting_). Andrew Cornes (_Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice_) discussed only the Deuteronomy passage (p. 137-38). Despite acknowledging it discusses divorce, he surprisingly asserted that it actually discourages divorce. The authors of _Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View_ (Wingerd, Elliff, Chrisman, and Burchett) addressed both texts in an appendix (pp. 143-46), but only to explain why they “did not consider” them “relevant to our discussion.” I do not find their reasons compelling.
[\[10\]](#_ftnref10) Andrew Cornes, _Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice_ (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), 176-77.
[\[11\]](#_ftnref11) William E. Heth and Gordan J. Wenham, _Jesus and Divorce,_ updated ed. (Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 2002), 107.
[\[12\]](#_ftnref12) Finny Kuruvilla, “Until Death Do Us Part: Is Remarriage Biblically Sanctioned After Divorce?” (essay), (Anchor Cross Publishing, July 13, 2014), 4-5, [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/570e3c2f8259b563851efcf8/t/5911288c4402435d4e08c196/1494296716383/essay\_remarriage.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/570e3c2f8259b563851efcf8/t/5911288c4402435d4e08c196/1494296716383/essay_remarriage.pdf). The most obvious passage contradicting Kuruvilla’s broader claim is Ezra 10, where Israel divorced their foreign wives in an act of repentance. Nothing in the passage suggests that these marriages were not real, despite being contrary to God’s law. Nor is there any indication that any subsequent marriages would be legal fictions permitted by God even though the first marriages were not truly dissolved. Rather, the passage is best understood as a case where two _shoulds_ conflicted with each other—the _should_ of marital permanence and the _should_ of marrying only within Israel. Both of these _could_ be broken, and in this case Nehemiah ruled that the latter _should_ took precedent over the former. In the language of the passage, to have “broken faith” with God by marrying foreign women was worse than to subsequently break faith with these women by divorcing them, for the latter was required as part of renewing Israel’s “covenant with… God” (Ezra 10:2-3, 10-11).
[\[13\]](#_ftnref13) Her father, however, had legal right to refuse to give his daughter to him in marriage (Ex. 22:17).
[\[14\]](#_ftnref14) Rubel Shelly, _Divorce and Remarriage: A Redemptive Theology_ (Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2007), 50.
[\[15\]](#_ftnref15) David Instone-Brewer, _Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 23.
[\[16\]](#_ftnref16) This conclusion is reinforced by how Ezekiel repeats these commands in his vision of a renewed priesthood: “They shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman, but only virgins of the offspring of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest” (Ez. 44:22). The final “loophole” in this verse shows that it was not intrinsically wrong for a priest to marry a widow.
[\[17\]](#_ftnref17) Gordan J. Wenham, _The Book of Leviticus_, New International Commentary on the OT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 291-92.
[\[18\]](#_ftnref18) The _Lexham Bible Dictionary_ provides this definition for both the Hebrew word (אַלְמָנָה, _almanah_) and the Greek word (χήρα, _chēra_): “A woman whose husband has died, or who has been parted in some way from her husband” (M. J. Morris, “Widow,” in _The Lexham Bible Dictionary_, \[Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016\].
[\[19\]](#_ftnref19) Philo, _On the Special Laws,_ III.30, from Philo, Vol. VII, Loeb Classical Library, trans. F. H. Colson, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 493. Emphasis added. [https://archive.org/details/PhiloSupplement01Genesis/Philo%2007%20Decalogue%2C%20Special%20Laws%20I-III/page/n509/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/PhiloSupplement01Genesis/Philo%2007%20Decalogue%2C%20Special%20Laws%20I-III/page/n509/mode/2up).
[\[20\]](#_ftnref20) Other passages in the law of Moses contain information about marriage that have indirect significance to the question of marriage permanence (such as texts implying the legality of polygamy). There are also narrative portions of the books of Moses that are relevant. These include not only Genesis 1 and 2 and other passages reinforcing marriage faithfulness, but also stories such as the account where God encouraged Abraham to heed Sarah’s desire and “cast out” Hagar (Gen. 21:8-14), his slave whom he had taken “as a wife” (Gen. 16:3). Finally, God predicts his own divorce of Israel (“I will forsake them”), for he knows they will “whore after… foreign gods… and break my covenant that I have made with them” (Deut. 31:16-18).
[\[21\]](#_ftnref21) If the passages I have discussed in this post are overwhelmingly focused on protecting wives, the Mosaic laws about adultery focus on protecting husbands from unfaithful wives. If it was evident a wife had committed adultery, both she and her adulterous partner were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Let Not Man Separate” Implies a Breakable Bond (JDR-7)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-07-30
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: “Let Not Man Separate” Implies a Breakable Bond (JDR-7) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: For at least four reasons, Jesus’ command to "not separate" strongly implies he believed marriage is not an unbreakable bond.
Tags: -Matthew 19:9, divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, Andrew | Cornes, Daryl | Wingerd, indissolubility of marriage, Jim | Chrisman, Jim | Elliff, Steve | Burchett, -1 Corinthians 7:11, -Mark 10:9, -Matthew 19:6, graciousness, John | Piper, separate, should versus could
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/let-not-man-separate-implies-breakable-bond-jdr-7
This post continues my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage, where I examine Jesus’ words with a focus on this question: _Did Jesus believe that marriage is indissoluble?_ Here are my posts so far:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)
[“God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5/)
[Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6)](https://dwightgingrich.com/genesis-224-gods-creation-norm-for-marriage-jdr-6/)
* * *
Summary of this post: I ask whether Jesus meant “let not man separate” or “let not man _try to_ separate,” as some propose. Based on clues from literary and historical contexts, I argue that Jesus’ first listeners understood him to be prohibiting the full dissolution of marriage—and that Jesus expected to be understood this way. I note that some proponents of marriage indissolubility acknowledge such a conclusion is reasonable, yet point ahead to Jesus’ statement about remarriage being “adultery” as proof that marriage is indissoluble. I promise to address this statement and acknowledge some complexities of this divorce discussion.
* * *
Before I jump into today’s post, I feel I should clarify some potential misunderstandings about my goals in this series:
* If you are confused about my purposes or beliefs, please read [my post promoting radical faithfulness](https://dwightgingrich.com/radical-faithfulness-proposal-marriage-permanence/) in marriage.
* I’m trying to choose my post titles carefully. When I say a certain expression “does not imply an unbreakable bond,” I do not necessarily mean “implies a breakable bond.” Similarly, when I say “implies a breakable bond” in today’s post, I definitely do not mean “_proves_ a breakable bond.” That said, after a while, enough non-implications plus implications _do_ add up to a beyond-all-reasonable-doubt sort of proof. _I’m definitely not there yet, though, in this series_, so thank you for not saying I’ve claimed something I’ve not yet claimed!
* I’m somewhat conflicted about naming and quoting people that I’m disagreeing with, especially when I know them personally. I’ve been on the receiving end of enough critique to know that public critique—even when it is respectful and perhaps _especially_ from friends—can be uncomfortable and even potentially debilitating. I’m also aware it is easy to be misunderstood and that none of us still agrees with everything we’ve ever said or taught in public. That said, (a) it is standard, respectful academic procedure to sharpen thinking by quoting and evaluating the public teachings of others, (b) such public discussion of the public teachings of others seems consistent with the NT’s picture of the greater accountability expected of church leaders, and (c) for the purposes of my series it seems that direct quotations will help some readers better understand the significance, within the conservative Anabaptist context, of the questions I am discussing.
Please know I have a lot of respect for many of the people I’m quoting and disagreeing with in this series! Many of them, to paraphrase Jesus’ parable (Matt. 13:23), are bearing gospel fruit thirtyfold and sixtyfold, compared to my own tenfold (on a good day).
_**If I quote you in this series** and you think I’m misunderstanding you or quoting something you no longer affirm, please let me know. I will be happy to do my best to correct any misrepresentations. I hope we can learn from each other, and I sincerely wish you God-speed in your kingdom work and worship._
Thank you for reading these clarifications. And now… on to today’s post!
* * *
### Introduction: _Should Not_ or _Cannot_ Separate?
“Let not man separate” is the command that Jesus gives after summarizing the union that God designed for husbands and wives (Matt. 19:6). Since it is God who has joined a husband and a wife, separating marriages is a sin against God, not merely against humans.
This clause “let not man separate” offers a classic illustration of how Bible readers can get confused between the “should” and “could” of Scripture. The most obvious way to Jesus’ command is that he is saying humans _should_ _not_ do something that they _could_ do. As commentator R. T. France noted, “the argument here is expressed not in terms of what cannot happen, but of what _must_ not happen: the verb is an imperative: “_let_ not man separate.”[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
Bible teachers who believe marriage is indissoluble are often discontent with that simple reading, however.
John Piper, for example, waffled in his comments on this verse. First, he gave this summary: “Jesus… says that none of us should try to undo the ‘one-flesh’ relationship which God has united.” But later, citing this same statement of Jesus, Piper said “only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship.”[\[2\]](#_ftn2) So which is true? Man _should_ _not_ separate, or man _cannot_ separate?
To be fair, Piper’s two statements are indeed consistent with each other—but only because Piper added “try to” to Jesus’ prohibition on separating husbands and wives. Is this fair? Did Jesus mean “let not man separate,” as his words are recorded? Or did he actually mean “let not man _vainly try to_ separate” or perhaps “_imagine they have_ separated”?
The sign reads “STAY BACK,” not “It is impossible to go beyond this point.” Photo by [Danne](https://www.pexels.com/photo/danger-stay-back-signage-555709/).
### How Did Jesus Expect to be Understood?
How would Jesus’ hearers have understood him? I see at least four reasons why Jesus’ hearers would have understood him to be implying that a marriage can, indeed, be dissolved.
First, nothing Jesus has said so far suggests that marriage is indissoluble. Remember, when Jesus says we are not to separate “what God has joined,” he is pointing back to what he just said—that God made humans “male and female” and therefore a man shall “hold fast” to his wife and they shall become “one flesh.” As noted in previous posts, none of this language implies that marriage involves an unbreakable bond. To the contrary, all this language was used elsewhere to refer to bonds that _can_ be broken. This suggests that there is a real possibility that “what God has joined” could be “separated.”
Second, the words _joined_ and _separated_ are virtual opposites, and the way Jesus paired them reinforces the idea that they should be understood that way. For example, I could say, “I’m sleeping, so stop talking,” and we could debate whether _talking_ has the potential to undo my _sleeping_ or whether talking has some other possible effect that concerns me. But if I say, “I’m sleeping, so don’t wake me up,” then it is clear: _waking me up_ will end my _sleeping_! (Let’s not get distracted about why I’m talking in my sleep.) Similarly, Jesus’ direct pairing of the opposite terms _joined_ and _separated_ puts the burden of proof on anyone who argues that the latter does not undo the former.
Third, in no other case, to my knowledge, does Jesus forbid humans from doing something that is actually impossible to do. I’ve actually looked, and I can’t find such an example. The closest, perhaps, might be this: “When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matt. 6:3). On a literal level, true, it is impossible for your left hand to know what your right hand is doing! But that statement uses obvious hyperbole and is thus very different from Jesus’ straightforward command against separating what God has joined. On a practical level, there is nothing hyperbolic whatsoever about the possibility of separating a husband and a wife. It is a possible, common event.
Fourth, Jesus was engaging Jews on a question about divorce, and virtually everyone at the time—Jews and Greco-Romans alike—understood that divorce completely dissolved a marriage, freeing one for remarriage. “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” was the question. “What God has joined together, let not man separate” was Jesus’ answer. Significantly, Jesus’ term “separate” (_χωρίζω_) was frequently used in both informal and legal contexts at the time to refer to divorce. True, it can have a more general meaning, and it probably does carry broader implications here. But Jesus’ hearers would certainly have heard it as referring most directly to divorce—thus, in their understanding, obviously referring to the full dissolution of a marriage.
Judging by these four reasons, Jesus’ command to _not separate_ strongly implies that marriage is not an unbreakable bond. His listeners heard him clearly imply that marriage can indeed be dissolved by humans. What is more, Jesus, as a fellow Jew and a master teacher, _knew_ that his listeners would understand him this way. In short, Jesus was using ordinary words in ordinary ways to forbid an ordinary occurrence: the full breakup, destruction, and dissolution of a marriage.
### Cornes’ Concession
That much is relatively clear. And it is important to pause here and emphasize that, up until this point in Matthew 19 (verse 6), all Jesus’ words are consistent with one conclusion: _Marriage can, indeed, be dissolved by humans._
On this point Andrew Cornes is admirably clear and honest. Even though he ultimately argues for “the impossibility of true divorce or remarriage,” at this stage in his analysis of Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees, Cornes pauses to make the following statement:
Jesus has not (yet) said that husband and wife _cannot_ be separated, that this is an impossibility. He has only said that they _must not_ be separated. He has spoken only of the moral obligation not to divorce and stated that it would be a sin against God to divorce one’s partner or to cause the break-up of a marriage. In the next verses, however, he goes considerably further.[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
(In fact, Cornes wrote this comment right after his discussion of Mark 10:9. Since Mark’s account varies slightly from Matthew’s, Corne’s comment covers not only all Jesus’ statements we’ve discussed so far but also his comments about Moses, which Matthew includes in verses 7 to 8.)
### Was Jesus Prohibiting Only the _External_ Separation of Marriage?
Those who don’t think Jesus meant humans can _truly_ separate what God has joined, then, come to that conclusion either based on alternate readings of terms like _one flesh_ or because of what Jesus says later in the passage. For example, here is the assessment offered in _Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View_, a multi-author book that some conservative Anabaptists recommend:
Jesus’ prohibition of divorce in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9 is sometimes thought to refute the above point \[that a marriage “union is permanent until death”\]. Since He commands us _not_ to separate what God has joined together, it is reasoned that it is _possible_ to separate what God has joined together. After all, why would He prohibit us from doing something that is impossible? But by looking at the matter in its fuller biblical context (as is the intent of this book), we will see that Jesus must have been prohibiting the external separation of marriage. The vows spoken at a wedding can certainly be disregarded, and a marriage certainly can be separated in civil and legal ways, but these external disruptions of marriage do not and cannot destroy the morally binding one-flesh union created by God. Otherwise, no reason would exist for Jesus to call remarriage after divorce “adultery.”[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
This paragraph is so full that I can’t offer a comprehensive response here. The authors wrote a book to try to prove their argument and it could take a book to respond. That said, I want to make several quick observations.
First, yes, it is theoretically possible that Jesus could have meant _don’t legally or physically separate a union that it is impossible to truly separate._ It is possible, and it can appear almost certain, _if you bring particular assumptions to the text_. The four reasons I presented above, however, strongly indicate that Jesus knew his first listeners would not understand him this way. I see no reason to abandon the most natural reading unless forced to do so.
Second, notice how these authors, right at the climax of their argument, described marriage as “the morally binding one-flesh union created by God.” This pile-on of emotion-laden terms is a non-argument obviously intended to help convince the reader. I say “non-argument” because “morally binding” merely shows one _should not_ separate a marriage, not that one _cannot_. And the only term in that clause that could perhaps indicate that marriage is indissoluble—“one-flesh”—actually does not, [as we have seen](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/).
Third, and most important, the one actual argument the authors offered is based on what Jesus will say later in this account, when he calls remarriage after divorce “adultery.” If it is possible to separate a one-flesh union created by God, then how could Jesus call a post-divorce marriage “adultery”? This is a good question. In response, I’ll plant two small seeds now, with plans to develop them in future posts:
(1) Yes, Jesus calls remarriage after (some) divorce “adultery,” but what is the biblical picture of what adultery does to a marriage?
(2) What about the exception Jesus gave to the statement that remarriage is adultery? Would not even _one_ exception show that marriage is not truly indissoluble?[\[5\]](#_ftn5)
For reasons such as these, I find the arguments that Jesus was merely prohibiting the _external_ separation of marriage unconvincing. Certainly he did forbid that, but I believe he was prohibiting _complete_ separation, too.[\[6\]](#_ftn6)
As Mrs. Reagan learned in her campaign against drug use, something remains possible to do even after you’ve been told to “just say no” to it. (Yes, I know the comparison with Jesus’ divorce command is imprecise.) [Ronald Reagan Presidential Library](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photograph_of_Mrs._Reagan_speaking_at_a_%22Just_Say_No%22_Rally_in_Los_Angeles_-_NARA_-_198584.jpg), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
### Complexities and a Conclusion: “Let Not Man Separate” Implies Marriage is Dissoluble
Before I finish this post, I want to observe that there is inevitable complexity about talking about marriages that have been ended. For example, when Jesus says one who “marries” another “commits adultery,” he affirms that a remarriage is indeed a _marriage_ even as he condemns it (Matt. 19:9, etc.). Similarly, Paul says a divorced Christian wife “should remain unmarried or else be reconciled” to her Christian husband (1 Cor. 7:11). His words show that it is possible in one breath to talk about marriage having ended (“unmarried”) but about obligations still remaining.[\[7\]](#_ftn7)
Both examples underscore again the necessity of [distinguishing between the “could” and “should” of Scripture](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/). It must also be noted that neither Jesus nor Paul apply the above statements to _all_ divorce and remarriage situations; Jesus did not say all divorces and remarriages are adultery, nor did Paul say obligations remain after every kind of divorce.
Given these complexities, I acknowledge I puzzled long and hard over how to express myself in this post. I encourage both “sides” (those arguing for marriage indissolubility and those arguing against) to be kind to each other as we try to discuss a question of some philosophical complexity. Almost certainly, no matter which position we take, we will say some things that appear superficially contradictory (like Jesus and Paul did!). We must be gracious with each other while pushing for greater accuracy and clarity.
This post has uncovered points that will require further consideration. That said, I want to end by underscoring my main point in this post: Everything Jesus has said thus far in his conversation with the Pharisees (Matthew 19:3-6) suggests we should take Jesus’ command in its most natural, comprehensive sense: Humans can indeed dissolve the union that God creates in marriage, _but they must not do so._
* * *
Will further evidence override this conclusion? In my next posts I plan to continue walking through Matthew 19, looking for more clues to what Jesus believed about marriage permanence.
I invite your prayers for my continued study and writing. Thank you for reading my words here, and feel free to add your insights in the comments below.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) R. T. France, _The Gospel of Matthew_, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 718.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) John Piper, “Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper,” Desiring God Foundation, 7/1/1986, accessed 6/14/2022, [https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper](https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper)
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Andrew Cornes, _Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice_ (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), p. 192. I have much respect for Cornes even though ultimately I have come to disagree with him on the point of whether marriage is dissoluble. Cornes’ book includes exceptionally helpful reflections on singleness in the Bible and the church.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) Steve Burchett, Jim Chrisman, Jim Elliff, and Daryl Wingerd, _Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View_ (Kansas City, MO: Christian Communicators Worldwide, 2009), p. 17.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) Yes, I know I haven’t proven this point yet, but I’m tipping my hand to the reading of Jesus’ exception clause that I find most convincing.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) It might be worth mentioning in passing that in Mark’s account of Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees about divorce, they never hear him call divorce and remarriage adultery; only the disciples hear Jesus give this teaching after they question him privately “in the house” (Mk. 10:10-11). This eliminates the possibility, at least according to Mark’s version of events, that the Pharisees would have deduced from Jesus’ adultery statement that marriage was—contrary to all their understandings as Jews—indissoluble.
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) A helpful chapter on this topic (“Are Divorced People Still Married in God’s Eyes?”) is included in the following wide-ranging, yet accessible, book by Jim Newheiser: _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: Critical Questions and Answers_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2017), 230ff.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-07-24
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Genesis 2:24 as God’s Creation Norm for Marriage (JDR-6) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Genesis 2:24 presents a creation norm for marriage--both what normally happens (norm as normal) and what should happen (norm as standard).
Tags: divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, John | Coblentz, Gordon J. | Wenham, Andrew | Cornes, J. Carl | Laney, Joseph A. | Webb, -Matthew 19:6, -1 Corinthians 6:16, -Genesis 22:4, -Matthew 19:5, Biblical Mennonite Alliance, Clair | Martin, David | Bennet, norm, origin story, Paul and divorce, Southeastern Mennonite Conference
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/genesis-224-gods-creation-norm-for-marriage-jdr-6
This post is a sort of “extra” in my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage, glancing back to Genesis 2:24 to ask what it indicates about whether marriage is indissoluble. Here are my posts so far in this series:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)
[“God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)](https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5/)
* * *
Summary of this post: I ask whether Genesis 2:24 is a prediction or a command, and whether the union it describes is necessarily permanent. Based on Greek and Hebrew grammatical considerations, and based on how both Jesus and Paul used this verse, I argue that it functions as a creation norm for marriage. That is, Genesis 2:24 describes both what normally happens (norm as _normal_), and also what should happen (norm as _standard_). Thus, we should let this verse prompt us to ask _Am I living in line with God’s creation norm?_ rather than using it to assert a doctrine of marriage indissolubility.
* * *
### Introduction: What Does Genesis 2:24 Say?
The post I’m sharing today is less directly focused on Jesus’ words about divorce and remarriage. It is also perhaps a bit more philosophical than some of my posts. For these reasons, some readers might want to skip it, waiting for my next post on Jesus’ command, “Let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6).
On the other hand, if you’ve noticed how some Bible teachers quote Genesis 2:24 and claim it says marriage is indissoluble, and if you wonder whether that’s really what the verse is saying, then please continue reading.
In my last three posts I examined three terms Jesus used as he discussed Genesis 2:24. These are—to use KJV language for the moment—“cleave,” “one flesh,” and “hath joined.” Before I move further into Jesus’ words in Matthew 19, I want to consider Genesis 2:24 as a whole. I’m about to quote the verse again and, as you read it, ask yourself: what are the three verbs in this verse (“leave… cleave… become”) describing? Are they:
1) A _prediction_ of what happens and _cannot be undone_?
2) A _prediction_ of what happens _with no comment on whether it can be undone_?
3) A _command_ about what _should_ happen _but might not_?
Here is the verse, as quoted by Jesus:
Therefore a man _shall leave_ his father and his mother and _\[shall\] hold fast_ to his wife, and the two _shall become_ one flesh. (Matt. 19:5, ESV)
Is this verse saying that a man leaves, cleaves, and becomes one flesh with his wife, and that this cannot be undone? (Option 1)
Is it saying that a man leaves, cleaves, and becomes one flesh with his wife, but without comment about whether these can be undone? (Option 2)
Or is it issuing a command, saying a man (at least one who marries) _must_ leave, cleave, and become one flesh with his wife? (Option 3)
Or are none of these three options really the best way to think about Genesis 2:24?
“Fresh love.” Photo by [Engin Akyurt](https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-wearing-white-wedding-dress-and-man-wearing-black-suit-2946812/). Used with permission.
### Does Genesis 2:24 Show Marriage is Indissoluble?
Before we attempt to answer these questions, let’s look at what some Bible teachers have concluded based on this verse. Here is what John Coblentz wrote in a booklet from Christian Light Publications:
Whatever else we may conclude from these Scriptures, we can safely say that marriage is the joining of a man and woman in a lifelong bond.[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
A “Statement of Position on Divorce and Remarriage” from the Southeastern Mennonite Conference asserted the following immediately before presenting Jesus’ quotation of Genesis 2:24:
The indissolubility of the marriage bond is a principle that is basic to a consistent interpretation and application of Bible teachings in relation to problems issuing from divorce and remarriage. When confronted with the question of divorce, Jesus based His response solidly on God’s ordinance in creation…[\[2\]](#_ftn2)
Clair Martin, after discussing Genesis 2:24, shared this definition of marriage in a booklet published by the Biblical Mennonite Alliance:
Marriage is a universal process of divine origin and regulation in which an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, by mutual consent, are permanently made to be one flesh by God.[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
J. Carl Laney wrote the following while discussing Genesis 2:24:
Marriage… is a permanent relationship until death. There is no allowance made in Genesis 2:24 for divorce and remarriage.[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
And Joseph Webb concluded his discussion of the passage with these assertions:
God, who originated marriage and established the rules by which it was to operate, created the first union with Adam and Eve… This “one flesh” condition… is called a covenant for life… Any offspring of Adam who has become a part of such a covenant must understand this and realize that either partner can violate this covenant repeatedly but it is scripturally impossible to break it.[\[5\]](#_ftn5)
All five of these excerpts affirm Option 1 above; they either assume or explicitly argue that Genesis 2:24 is a prediction of what happens and _cannot be undone_—a man leaves, cleaves, and becomes _permanently_ one flesh with his wife. Is that what God, through Moses, said in this verse?
In the rest of this post, I’ll suggest an answer based on a brief consideration of both grammar and how Jesus and Paul put the verse to use when quoting it.
### Observations From Grammar
In both the Greek NT and the Greek OT versions of this verse, all three verbs of Genesis 2:24 are in the future tense (“shall leave… shall cleave… shall become”). This does not solve our dilemma, though, for future tense Greek verbs are commonly used not only to predict future events (Options 1 and 2) but also to give commands (Option 3). In fact, the most common way that commands are recorded in the Greek OT Law of Moses is with future tense verbs.
In the Hebrew OT, these verbs are in the imperfect tense. This indicates, according to commentator Gordon Wenham, that they express “repeated customary action.”[\[6\]](#_ftn6) Andrew Cornes explains further:
The narrator here is describing what regularly happens when men and women marry. It would probably be better, therefore, to translate with the English present tense: ‘Therefore a man leaves… cleaves… and they become’ (so RSV).[\[7\]](#_ftn7)
By this analysis, either Option 1 or Option 2 fits best with Genesis 2:24—the verse is making a prediction about what happens in marriage. In this view, the verse functions as an “origin story” about how the practice of marriage covenants began: Humans do this (“leave… cleave… become one flesh”) because of how Eve was made from Adam’s side.
These basic grammatical observations, then, suggest that it is best to view Genesis 2:24 as a prediction (or a description of a “repeated customary action”), not a command. But can marriage covenants be undone? We can’t find an answer to this question by analyzing the grammatical forms of verbs.
### Observations from Jesus’ and Paul’s Use of Genesis 2:24
What can we learn from Jesus’ and Paul’s use of this verse? Interestingly, they each used the verse slightly differently.
Paul seemed to see an inevitability in the verse: He used the verse to prove (“do you not know?”) that “he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her” (1 Cor. 6:16). It was not that a man _should_ become one flesh with a prostitute; rather, if he had sex with her, he inevitably _would_ become one flesh with her, even though he shouldn’t, and even though he should separate from that union after it was formed.
Jesus, on the other hand, deduced a “should” from this verse: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Yet he based this “should” on what he presents as an accomplished fact, a fact drawn from Genesis 2:24: “What God has joined together…” In other words, it is not that a man _should_ leave, cleave, and become one flesh with his wife. Rather, _it is because these are already true_ that no one should separate a husband and wife.
“Faithful love.” Photo by [itsmeseher](https://www.pexels.com/photo/elderly-couple-holding-hands-11948553/). Used with permission.
### Genesis 2:24 as a Creation Norm
Perhaps the best way to think of Genesis 2:24, then, is to see it as presenting a creation _norm_. I’m using _norm_ here in both senses of the term—what normally happens (norm as _normal_), and also what should happen (norm as _standard_).
First, and primarily, the verse conveys a norm by expressing what normally happens as a result of God’s creation design of male and female (Option 2, explicit). Because of God’s creation design, men and women leave their birth families, pair up, and are intimately joined, especially through sex. This is so central to God’s creation design that we can rightly say that God joins couples in marriage.
Second, this verse conveys a norm by implying that this human practice of joining in marriage is good; it is something that should be affirmed, protected within marriage, and not undone (Option 3, implied). Just as God’s creation design of male and female implies that same-sex “marriages” are contrary to God’s will, so his design of male and female implies that normally, within marriage, sexual couplings should not be separated.
In sum, design implies intended function; one norm indicates the other.[\[8\]](#_ftn8)
_What is missing from both Jesus’ and Paul’s discussions, however, is any sense that God’s creation design is not merely a norm but also fatalistically deterministic_. Neither, when quoting Genesis 2:24, says that the one-flesh unions that result from God’s creation design are indissoluble. Thus, there is no reason to assume that Option 1 above is correct; there is no reason to conclude that a man cannot break his one-flesh union with his wife, stop cleaving to her, and return again to his father and mother (or to a single life)—even though this is clearly contrary to God’s creation norm.
### Conclusion: Don’t Import Indissolubility into Genesis 2:24
The key question that both Jesus and Paul lead us to ask, then, is this: _Are we living in line with God’s creation norm for male and female unions?_ Are we saving one-flesh union for couplings that are fitting for Christians (Paul)? And are we being careful to not separate one-flesh marriage unions (Jesus)?
It is these sorts of questions—not imported assumptions about it being impossible to separate what God has joined—that we should take away from our reflections on Genesis 2:24.
* * *
Thank you for reading! Please leave a comment if you have additional insight into what Genesis 2:24 does or does not say. In my next post, I plan to return to my discussion of Jesus’ words. Does “let not man separate” imply marriage is an unbreakable bond?
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) John Coblentz, _What the Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage_ (Harrisonburg, VA: Christian Light Publications, 1992), 1. Coblentz also cites Genesis 24:4, 58, and 67 (Isaac’s marriage to Rebecca) before this statement. In context, Coblentz seems to be saying that marriage involves both an unbreakable bond and covenant obligations that can be broken without breaking the marriage bond.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) “Statement on Divorce and Remarriage,” (Southeastern Mennonite Conference, 1983). Available online, as copied by a student of Mark Roth: [https://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/divorce2.html](https://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/divorce2.html)
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Clair Martin, _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: A Biblical Perspective_, 24-pg. booklet (Biblical Mennonite Alliance, n.d., based on series of messages given in 2007), 2. Martin says “a friend” shared this definition.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) Carl J. Laney, _The Divorce Myth: A Biblical Examination of Divorce and Remarriage_ (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1981), p. 20.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) Joseph A. Webb, _Till Death Do Us Part? What the Bible_ Really _Says About Marriage and Divorce_ (Longwood, FL: Webb Ministries, 2003), pp. 8, 27. I have removed Webb’s non-traditional use of typeface.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) Gordon Wenham, _Genesis 1-15, Volume 1_, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 27, n. 24.a.
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) Andrew Cornes, _Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice_ (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), 60.
[\[8\]](#_ftnref8) After writing this section I read a similar interpretation in a book by David Bennet: “Jesus is clarifying that for a male and a female to become husband and wife—by leaving their families behind and becoming sexually one, forming a new kinship unit—that is not just ‘how things normally go’ but how God has made them and wishes them to be understood: what scholar Bernd Wannenwetsch has called ‘the norm as ought.’” See David Bennett, _A War of Loves: The Unexpected Story of a Gay Activist Discovering Jesus_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 240-241. Bennett provides this citation: Bernd Wannenwetsch, “Creation and Ethics: On the Legitimacy and Limitation of Appeals to ‘Nature’ in Christian Moral Reasoning,” in Anthony Clarke and Andrew Moore, eds., _Within the Love of God: Essays on the Doctrine of God in Honour of Paul S. Fiddes_ (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2014), www.oxfordscholarship.com.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-07-23
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: “God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-5) • Dwight Gingrich Online % %
Meta Description: In this post I argue that “what therefore God has joined together” in Matthew 19:6 does not indicate that marriage is an indissoluble bond.
Tags: divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, Rodney | Decker, indissolubility of marriage, J. Carl | Laney, -Matthew 19:6, -Genesis 22:4, aorist verbs, join
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/god-has-joined-together-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-5
This post continues my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage, where I examine Jesus’ words with a focus on this question: _Did Jesus believe that marriage is indissoluble?_ Here are my posts so far:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)
[“One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)
* * *
Summary of this post: I argue that “what therefore God has joined together” in Matthew 19:6 does not indicate that marriage is an indissoluble bond. Neither the definition nor the grammatical form of the verb “has joined” indicate permanence. Further, the word “therefore” shows that Jesus is summarizing what he already said about God’s design for a man to “cleave” to his wife and become “one flesh” with her. Since neither of those terms indicate permanence, neither does Jesus’ summarizing statement “what… God has joined together.”
* * *
### Introduction: “What God Joins, Man Cannot Unjoin”?
When Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ question about divorce, he began by quoting and explaining Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. We don’t have to guess what point he wanted to make from these passages, for he immediately continued with a pointed command: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6).
I’ll discuss the command clause (“let not man separate”) in my next post, but first I want to discuss the opening clause of Jesus’ statement: “What therefore God has joined together.” There are several ways that some Bible readers use this clause to argue that marriage is indissoluble.
First, some people use this clause to draw distinctions between unions that God joins and unions not united by God. In this thinking, only validly-contracted marriages are joined by God. Some Bible teachers then assert that unions joined by God are indissoluble in a way that other unions are not. As one Facebook meme I saw shouted: “WHAT GOD JOINS, MAN CANNOT UN-JOIN!”
An image I downloaded from a Facebook group. I do not know who created it. Note the sentence in all caps at the bottom. Notice also the claim (which I disproved in [my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)) that Paul is distinguishing between “one flesh” and “one body” in 1 Corinthians 6.
What sort of unions are joined by God? Some people emphasize that God joins only unions between believers, so that unions between unbelievers or “mixed marriages” of believers and unbelievers are less binding or permanent. This view has been fairly common throughout church history. It is addressed most directly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, so I won’t discuss it more here.[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
A more common view among conservative Christians I know is that the only sort of marriage that God joins is one which is a first marriage for both partners. According to this view, only such a marriage is a validly-contracted marriage, and a validly-contracted marriage cannot be broken in God’s eyes.
Second, grammatical arguments have also been used to assert that “What… God has joined together” refers to an inseparable bond. For example, Laney claimed the following:
The term for “joined together” means “yoked together,” and the aorist tense points to the permanence of the bond… A good paraphrase of verse 9 would read, “Stop severing marriage unions which God has permanently bound together.”[\[2\]](#_ftn2)
None of these arguments withstand scrutiny, however, when we look closely at Jesus’ grammar and flow of thought.
### The Grammar and Meaning of “Joined Together”
Let’s begin with Laney’s grammatical claim. Unfortunately, he did not demonstrate a good understanding of the Greek aorist verb tense. Rodney Decker, in his introductory Greek grammar, notes that the aorist “can often be represented in English with a simple tense, usually a simple past.”[\[3\]](#_ftn3) Further, it gives no indication about how long an action takes place or how long it lasts:
The aorist simply refers to a situation in summary without indicating anything further about the action… It describes a complete situation, referring to it as a whole without commenting on whether or not it involves a process.[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
That Laney was wrong is almost embarrassingly evident based on a simple scan of this verb tense elsewhere in the NT. One example just to prove the point: At the beginning of this same chapter we read that Jesus “entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” (Matt. 19:1). The verb “entered” here is in the aorist tense, yet obviously Jesus did not remain permanently in this region. Neither can we conclude from the aorist tense of “joined” that a husband and wife are “permanently bound together.”
What about the meaning of the word “joined”? The Greek verb translated “has joined together” (_συζεύγνυμι_) is found in the NT only in this account (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9). It is used once in the Greek OT (LXX), in Ezekiel 1:11, where it translates a Hebrew word that simply means “to unite,” with no indication of permanence.[\[5\]](#_ftn5)
Ezekiel described the living creatures in his vision as having wings that were “joined to” (ESV: “touching”) the wings of the creatures beside them. (Image from Sweet Publishing / [FreeBibleimages.org](http://www.FreeBibleimages.org), used by permission.)
The Greek verb _συζεύγνυμι_ is a compound word formed from prefix _σύν_ (“with” ) and the noun _ζεῦγος_. This noun is used in the NT to refer to a “pair” of turtledoves (Lk. 2:24) and a “yoke” of oxen (Lk. 14:19), both of which can be separated. A related verb (_ἑτεροζυγέω_, “to unite unequally”) is used in 2 Corinthians 6:14 in the warning, “Do not _be unequally yoked_ with unbelievers.” Such unequal yokes can be separated, however, for God instructs his people to “go out from their midst, and be separate from them” (2 Cor. 6:17).
Laney’s arguments, then, both fall flat.
### The Flow of Jesus’ Thought
Equally significantly, the context of Jesus’ statement does not suggest that he was meaning to distinguish between marriages joined by God and marriages not joined by God. Are we really to imagine Jesus was thinking, “What God has joined together—_but only the marriages he has joined together, not the others!_—let not man separate”? Nothing in the context of Jesus’ debate with the Pharisees suggests that this thought was in his mind.
It is crucial not to miss the word “therefore” in the clause “What _therefore_ God has joined together.” This word shows that Jesus is drawing on what came before. He is referring back to what he just said as he quoted from Genesis.[\[6\]](#_ftn6)
“What… God has joined together,” then, is Jesus’ way of referring back to God’s creation of “male and female” (Gen. 1:27). In other words, _Jesus is not referring to God joining each individual couple at the time of their wedding_, when they exchange vows. Rather, _the joining that Jesus is referring to is something God did at creation_, when he made male and female and designed for a man to “hold fast” to his wife and for the two to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
In previous posts I argued that neither “[hold fast](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)” nor “[one flesh](https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4/)” carry the idea that marriage cannot be dissolved. If this is so, then there is no reason to believe that Jesus’ statement summarizing these realities (“What _therefore_ God has joined together”) indicates marriage is indissoluble, either.
“What therefore God has joined together” (Matt. 19:6). Image by Didier Martin, used with permission from [https://freebibleimages.org/illustrations/dm-creation](https://freebibleimages.org/illustrations/dm-creation)/.
### Conclusion: “God Has Joined Together” Does Not Imply Permanence
In Matthew 19:4-6, then, Jesus is drawing principles from creation that are true of marriage in general. Yes, he will later emphasize that some who divorce and marry another are actually committing adultery (Matt. 19:9), raising questions about how God is involved in such unions and what should happen to such marriages. (I plan to address this verse in due time.) But Jesus’ initial point here is more basic: Man _should_ not separate what God, by his creation design of male and female, has joined.
In short, then, the clause “what God… has joined together” simply indicates that something has been united and gives no suggestion that this unity cannot be broken. Those who claim otherwise are using bad grammar or missing the flow of Jesus’ thought, and are importing ideas not actually stated in the text.
* * *
Thank you for reading! Your responses, as always, are welcome. In my next post, I plan to pause to take a more general look at Genesis 2:24, which has been foundational for everything Jesus has said so far in Matthew 19. Does this verse imply marriage is an unbreakable bond?
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) This view raises a host of interpretive challenges I will not try to address here. For example, it is indeed true that God seems to have higher expectations for marriages between believers than for mixed marriages (compare 1 Cor. 7:10-11 with 1 Cor. 7:12-16). But that probably has less to do with anything about marriage being indissoluble than about the higher expectations God places on believers for living together in peace. A careful discussion of that passage will have to wait for another time.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) J. Carl Laney, _The Divorce Myth: A Biblical Examination of Divorce and Remarriage_ (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1981), p. 56.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Rodney J. Decker, _Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), p. 120.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) Decker, ibid., p. 272.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) In Ezekiel 1:11 each living creature in Ezekiel’s vision is described as having two wings that are “adjoined to” the wings of its neighboring creature (NETS, _A New English Translation of the Septuagint_, International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. {New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007}, 948, [https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/38-iezekiel-nets.pdf](https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/38-iezekiel-nets.pdf)). The ESV says the wings “touched” each other, and the underlying Hebrew word is used of curtains “coupled” with clasps (Ex. 26:6), trade partnerships (2 Chron. 20:35), temporary military alliances (Dan. 11:6), and persons currently “joined with all the living” who know they will die (Eccl. 9:4-5).
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) This also means that we should not look ahead in the passage to determine what Jesus meant by “what… God has joined together.” For example, some might assert that Jesus was thinking of what he was going to say about some marriages being adulterous (Matt. 19:9), but this is contradicted by Jesus’ use of the connecting word “therefore” (_οὖν_), which points backward, not forward.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-07-14
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: “One Flesh” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-4) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In this post I argue that Jesus’ statement about a man and a woman becoming “one flesh" does not show he believed marriage is indissoluble.
Tags: William F. | Luck, Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, Gordon J. | Wenham, Andrew | Cornes, indissolubility of marriage, Joseph A. | Webb, -1 Corinthians 6:16, -Genesis 22:4, -Ephesians 5:28-31, -Matthew 19:5-6, Anthony C. | Thiselton, Jay E. | Adams, marriage, one flesh, prostitute, Raymond C. | Ortlund
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/one-flesh-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-4
This post continues my series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage. In this series I am studying Jesus’ words with one question foremost: _Did Jesus believe that marriage is indissoluble—that nothing besides death can truly end a marriage?_ Here are the posts in this series so far:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
[“Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/)
* * *
Summary of this post: In this post I will argue that “one flesh” in Matthew 19:5-6 does not indicate that marriage is a bond that can be broken only by death. Paul’s use of this term in 1 Corinthians 6:16 to refer to union with a prostitute shows that a one-flesh relationship is not necessarily permanent. In fact, one-flesh oneness can occur both in unions which _should never_ be broken (Eph. 5:31) and in unions which _must_ be broken, no matter how entangling (1 Cor. 6:16). One-flesh language in Paul and elsewhere should be understood to emphasize the unavoidable _depth_ of a sexual union, not its unavoidable _duration_.
* * *
### Introduction and Assertions that _One Flesh_ Indicates Permanence
When Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ challenge about divorce, he quoted Genesis 2:24 as a foundational text about God’s design for marriage:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. (Matt. 19:5)
Immediately after quoting this text, Jesus emphasized its final clause: “So they are no longer two but _one flesh_” (Matt. 19:6). _One flesh_ is a term that raises a lot of questions and varied interpretations. I discussed the term in a general sense in [a past blog post](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-does-one-flesh-mean/),[\[1\]](#_ftn1) but here I’ll focus on one question: Does _one flesh_ imply permanence?
Some Bible teachers argue that a one-flesh union is inseparable. In addition, some argue that a one-flesh union is possible only in a person’s first marriage; only in a validly-contracted marriage does God join a couple together into a permanent, one-flesh union. The hugely-influential Mennonite book _Doctrines of the Bible_ (1928), edited by Daniel Kauffman, put it like this:
The fact is that when two are married they are “one flesh” as long as both live, and during this time neither can become “one flesh” with some one else. To assume to do so makes both adulterers…[\[2\]](#_ftn2)
In this thinking, _one flesh_ virtually means _one_ _person_, so separation is truly impossible.[\[3\]](#_ftn3) Some have even compared a one-flesh marriage to scrambled eggs, asserting that a true one-flesh marriage can’t be unscrambled.
Andrew Cornes is one scholar who seems to think that _one flesh_ indicates an unbreakable bond. He emphasized that “become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24) does not describe a “process” but an “accomplished fact”:
The first thing to emphasize is that the expression is passive… It is not something which a couple can or should do; it is something which happens to them… The consummation of their marriage is part of what causes this to happen, and obviously they can choose to consummate their marriage or refrain from doing so. Nevertheless it is not they who make themselves one flesh… St Paul does indeed say that sexual intercourse is (at least to some extent) the catalyst which brings about this change into one flesh. But the change itself—the “being one flesh”—is certainly broader than that. It is not that husband and wife are one flesh when they are sexually united and cease to be one flesh when their bodies are apart. In marriage they become, permanently, one flesh.[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
I agree, at least in part, with most of what Cornes said here. It may indeed be true that the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 2:24 implies that God is the ultimate active agent in uniting man and woman as one flesh.[\[5\]](#_ftn5) It may also be true that the verse depicts becoming one flesh as an accomplished fact, not a process. Neither of these points, however, proves Cornes’ assertion that a married couple are “permanently” one flesh.
Joseph Webb argued even more strongly for both God’s agency and the permanence of all one-flesh relationships:
Only God can create a “one flesh” relationship between two persons. Know further that this “one flesh” condition is created through the making of a vow, and is called covenant for life; which can only be broken by the physical death of one of the partners… Sex relations do not establish the “one flesh” relationship.[\[6\]](#_ftn6)
Gordon Wenham was equally strong in his assertions:
The Creator himself had created man in two sexes so that when they meet, they become one flesh, that is, as closely related to each other as brother and sister or parent and child. These are relationships that cannot be undone. By this appeal to Genesis, Jesus transposed the debate to a different key. Divorce was not possible under certain circumstances defined by some rabbi; it was impossible because it clashed with the Creator’s intentions in creating marriage. Genesis makes traditional divorce impossible. The divorced couple, though separated from each other, are still related to each other in the one-flesh union.[\[7\]](#_ftn7)
Image by [S. Hermann & F. Richter](https://pixabay.com/users/pixel2013-2364555/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=1731755) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=1731755)
### Paul’s Use of _One Flesh_ in 1 Corinthians 6
The most obvious biblical challenge to these claims is Paul’s use of _one flesh_ in 1 Corinthians 6:16:
Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
Paul’s words here challenge at least two assumptions of the authors quoted above.
First, it challenges the idea that becoming one flesh is primarily a passive experience. Did Paul believe that God _alone_ creates a one-flesh union between a man and a prostitute? Isn’t Paul’s emphasis here quite the opposite—that humans can form one-flesh relationships even in the briefest of vow-less unions? Isn’t he emphasizing _human_ responsibility for these unions? True, it is God’s creation design that causes a sexual act to result in a one-flesh union, but humans must give account for initiating one-flesh unions.
Second, [as I mentioned in my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3/), Paul clearly expects and urges separation of such one-flesh unions when they occur with prostitutes. He does not think they are indissoluble. He does not think that anyone who once becomes one flesh with a prostitute is now bonded for life to her, obligated to give her the full rights of marriage. Rather, he says that those who engage in such immorality can be “washed” and “sanctified” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Paul’s usage shows clearly that one-flesh relationship is not necessarily permanent.
### Webb’s Rereading of Paul
**Webb disliked this reading of _one flesh_ in 1 Corinthians 6:16 so much that he proposed an interpretation of the passage that I’ve never seen anywhere else:** He asserted that Paul is forbidding Christians not from _visiting_ prostitutes, but from _marrying_ them!
In 1 Corinthians chapter 6, Paul was not saying that sex relations make “one flesh,” but rather that the joining of a man to a woman, _by their vows_, makes them “one flesh,” even if she is a harlot… Somehow, we must remove from the church’s teaching the concept that sex creates the one flesh relationship. 1 Corinthians 6:16 is the only verse, when misinterpreted, that even suggests such a thing. God’s Word only uses the phrase, “one flesh,” when it is speaking of marriage; not an illicit affair… Know that _if you marry_, even a harlot, you become one flesh with her![\[8\]](#_ftn8)
I find this interpretation of Paul simply unbelievable. From a cultural perspective, it was extremely unlikely that either a Jewish or a Greco-Roman man would ever be tempted to marry a prostitute. A prostitute would, by definition, be an adulterous wife.[\[9\]](#_ftn9) In both Jewish and Roman culture of the time, a wife’s adultery was automatic reason for a man to divorce her—in fact, he was virtually obligated to do so.
On the other hand, it was perfectly culturally acceptable for Greco-Roman men, including husbands, to frequent prostitutes. It was this common practice that Paul warned against in this passage, not some hypothetical temptation to _marry_ prostitutes.
Photo adapted [from fauxels](https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-and-woman-holding-hands-3228726/).
### Does _One Flesh_ = _One Body_?
Others try to preserve their belief that _one flesh_ refers only to indissoluble unions by another method: they deny that Paul applies the term to unions with prostitutes at all. Paul says that a person who is united with a prostitute becomes “one body” with her, they note. _One body_, they assert, is different from _one flesh_; a _one-body_ union can be broken, but a _one-flesh_ union cannot.
I have seen this argument on Facebook, and one author who asserted the same is Raymond Ortlund, Jr.:
The one who joins himself to a prostitute enters into a ‘one body’ connection with her. It falls short of, but nevertheless approaches, mimics and violates, the full, ‘one flesh’ union of marriage. It does not create ‘one flesh’, for all that that means; but it does draw a man and a woman into intimacy which properly belongs only to the marriage bond…
_Pace_ some commentators, I cannot dismiss Paul’s change of language from ‘one body’, as his description of a relationship with a whore, to ‘one flesh’, which his allusion to Gn. 2:24 requires, because the marriage relationship of one flesh, bringing a man and woman together for life, is of another, higher order than a merely sexual encounter. Paul, the master theologian, chooses his words carefully.[\[10\]](#_ftn10)
Why did Ortlund insist _one body_ means something different from _one flesh_? Did he provide any arguments from Paul’s vocabulary usage, his sentence structure, or any other observable data in this passage? No, the only reason Ortlund offered here is “because the marriage relationship of one flesh, bringing a man and woman together for life, is of another, higher order.”[\[11\]](#_ftn11)
In other words, Ortlund came to Paul’s text with the assumption that _one flesh_ is a loaded term, referring only to relationships that last “for life.” But this assumption is the very question we are testing: Is there a basis for assuming that _one flesh_ necessarily includes the idea of a relationship being indissoluble?
Contary to Ortlund’s assertion, Paul’s usage shows that he considered _one flesh_ and _one body_ to be virtually equivalent terms, with neither implying permanence.
First, note that _body_ is Paul’s default term for the entire discussion, occurring eight times in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. It best fits both his general discussion of bodily purity and his imagery of being members of Christ. It is also the term Paul will use in the next chapter, as he discusses the sexual obligations that husbands and wives owe each other (1 Cor. 7:4). The term _one flesh_ never occurs in that chapter about marriage. Thus, _body_ is Paul’s default term in these chapters, carrying neither positive nor negative connotations, suitable for discussing any kind of sexual relationship.
Second, the logic of Paul’s argument ties _one body_ and _one flesh_ very tightly together. Within this discussion about bodily purity, Paul cites the Genesis 2:24 “one flesh” statement _to prove_ his warning about becoming “one body” with a prostitute. _How can we know a man “becomes one body with” a prostitute? Because the Bible says “the two will become one flesh.”_ This tight logic shows that Paul was using both terms to refer to the same basic reality, even if _body_ and _flesh_ may each carry some unique connotations on the side.
Third, just as Paul uses both _body_ and _flesh_ in this passage to refer to union with a prostitute, so he uses both terms in Ephesians 5 when discussing the intimate oneness of a husband and wife:[\[12\]](#_ftn12)
Husbands should love their wives as their own _bodies_. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own _flesh_, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his _body_. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one _flesh_.” (Eph. 5:28-31, emphasis added)
So, yes, Paul does indeed mean that a man who unites with a prostitute becomes “one flesh” with her.[\[13\]](#_ftn13) Thus, if our conception of _one flesh_ is to be biblical, it must fit all sorts of sexual unions, not merely marriage unions. Laney put it well:
There is no sexual intercourse which does not result in two people becoming one flesh (1 Cor. 6:16)! A married man who has intercourse with a harlot has destroyed the uniqueness of the one-flesh relationship he enjoyed with his wife.[\[14\]](#_ftn14)
### Conclusion: _One Flesh_ Does Not Prove Permanence
According to Paul, then, the reality of a one-flesh relationship does not indicate an unbreakable bond. Rather, this one-flesh oneness can occur both in unions which _should never_ be broken (Eph. 5:31) and in unions which _must_ be broken, no matter how entangling (1 Cor. 6:16). One-flesh language in Paul and elsewhere should be understood to emphasize the unavoidable _depth_ of a sexual union, not its unavoidable _duration_.
But is it really fair to say that just because a union with a prostitute can be broken, therefore a marriage union can also be? No, that is not a fair argument, and that is not what I am saying here. Rather, I am responding to a specific argument about what the term _one flesh_ indicates about the permanence of any union. Paul’s use shows that _the term itself_ does not carry any idea of necessary permanence. Therefore, if marriage is truly indissoluble, it cannot be simply because it involves a one-flesh relationship.
This is important, for some writers liberally sprinkle their teachings with expressions like “one flesh relationship,” “one person,” or “mysterious union,” often without first carefully explaining them. The abundance of such words creates a general sense that marriage must be indissoluble, even if the writer has not really proven that point. Luck pushes us to think more deeply:
Though talk is often heard of ‘personal’ unity in marriage, I have yet to hear a psychological, philosophical or biblical explanation for what this new person is and how the two individuals have ceased to be. In all marriages with which I am familiar, including happy and intimate ones, I still observe two distinguishable individuals functioning in harmony—and, if distinguishable, then perhaps separable.[\[15\]](#_ftn15)
Jesus’ point about a man becoming “one flesh” with his wife, then, does not indicate that he believed marriage is indissoluble. Rather, he was arguing that husbands and wives who are joined so intimately _should not_ be separated.
* * *
Thank you for reading this post. ! I welcome your responses. In my next post, I plan to discuss the clause “what God has joined together.” Does it imply an unbreakable bond?
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) I think I still agree with most of what I wrote, though I’d phrase some things differently now.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) Daniel Kauffman, ed., _Doctrines of the Bible: A Brief Discussion of the Teachings of God’s Word_ (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1928), 434.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) As Taylor says, “God has mysteriously joined man and wife together into one person” (Dean Taylor, “One Flesh One Covenant,” Pt. 1 of “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,” _The Heartbeat of_ The Remnant, April/May/June 2007, Ephrata Ministries, 4. Available online, accessed 4/21/2022, [http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2007-05-covenant.pdf](http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2007-05-covenant.pdf)).
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) Andrew Cornes, _Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice_ (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), 59-60.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) I am not well equipped to discuss Hebrew grammar, but the point is certainly theologically true.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) Joseph A. Webb, _Till Death Do Us Part? What the Bible_ Really _Says About Marriage and Divorce_ (Longwood, FL: Webb Ministries, 2003), 8, 27. I have removed Webb’s non-traditional use of typeface and capitalization.
[\[7\]](#_ftnref7) Gordon J. Wenham, _Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting_ (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 73.
[\[8\]](#_ftnref8) Webb, ibid. I removed Webb’s non-traditional use of typeface and added italics for my own emphasis.
[\[9\]](#_ftnref9) Unless she were a _former_ prostitute—a scenario that then makes no sense of Paul’s warnings against uniting with her. Nothing in Paul’s teaching prohibited marrying former prostitutes who had been “washed” (1 Cor. 6:9-11) and who were already united to Christ.
[\[10\]](#_ftnref10) Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., _God’s Unfaithful Wife: A Biblical Theology of Spiritual Adultery_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 145 and 145, n. 16. Jay Adams likewise distinguishes “one body” and “one flesh” in this passage, but without defending his distinction and without asserting that a one-flesh union cannot be broken: “In 1 Corinthians 6… Paul distinguishes three sorts of unions:
1\. one _body_ (v. 16)—sexual relations with a harlot=a close union
2\. one flesh (v. 16)—the marriage union=a closer union
3\. one spirit (v. 17)—union with Christ=the closest union
It is not possible here to develop this important passage further.” See Jay E. Adams, _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible: A Fresh Look at What Scripture Teaches_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), 17. Thiselton likewise distinguishes _one body_ as referring to union with a prostitute and _one flesh_ as referring to marriage. But he does not defend this distinction nor consistently adhere to it. See Anthony C. Thiselton, _1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical & Pastoral Commentary_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 95.
[\[11\]](#_ftnref11) Ortlund does suggest one additional reason later, in his discussion of Ephesians 5. I will respond to that reason (via footnote 12) when I discuss the same passage below.
[\[12\]](#_ftnref12) Ortlund believes Paul uses “flesh” and “body” differently in the two passages:
It is worth nothing that, in contrast with 1 Cor. 6:16, Paul uses ‘body’ and ‘flesh’ in nearly equivalent terms here, because he is bringing together his ‘Body of Christ’ image of the church with the language of Gn. 2:24. But the categories operative in the Corinthians passage are different, as the inner logic of that passage requires. There, Paul is counting on a distinction between ‘body’ and ‘flesh’ as material to his message. The two words are ciphers for fundamentally different relationships, _viz._ a casual sexual encounter (‘one body’) _versus_ marriage (‘one flesh’). There, ‘body’ is prompted by the merely physical nature of promiscuity; here ‘body’ is prompted by Paul’s image of the church.” Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., _God’s Unfaithful Wife: A Biblical Theology of Spiritual Adultery_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 154-55.
I have already said that I do not see Paul intending to draw a “distinction” between casual sexual encounters and marriage in 1 Cor. 6. Rather, he is noting what both have in common. I don’t think Ortlund’s second assertion (about what “prompts” Paul’s used of each term) holds, either. For one thing, Paul uses “body” rather than “flesh” in 1 Cor. 7 when discussing marriage relations, so he does not reserve that term in that letter for “the merely physical nature of promiscuity.” For another, Paul is indeed thinking about his image of the church in 1 Cor. 6, not only in Eph. 5. In 1 Cor. 6 Paul says “your bodies are members of Christ,” and in Eph. 5 he says “we are members of his body.” The “member” language in both passages shows Paul is concerned with our individual union with Christ, and “of Christ” in 1 Cor. 6 is equivalent to “of his body” in Eph. 5. Again, Ortlund’s distinctions seem motivated more by his prior assumptions about what “one flesh” must signify than by any accurate observations about Paul’s usage of terms.
[\[13\]](#_ftnref13) For what it is worth, a clear majority of recent 1 Corinthians commentators appear to agree with me on this point, including Craig Blomberg, Roy Ciampa/Brian Rosner, Gordon Fee, David Garland, Roy Harrisville, Richard Hays, Craig Keener, and Mark Taylor. As Harrisville notes, “the terms ‘body’ and ‘flesh’ in this verse are virtually synonymous, use of the term ‘flesh’ controlled by the biblical quotation from Gen. 2:24.” See Roy A. Harrisville, I Corinthians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1987), 101. Among commentators whose views I was able to ascertain, the only one who appeared to disagree with me was Thiselton (see previous note).
[\[14\]](#_ftnref14) Carl J. Laney, The Divorce Myth: A Biblical Examination of Divorce and Remarriage (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1981), 21.
[\[15\]](#_ftnref15) William F. Luck, _Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View_, 2nd ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2008), 9-10.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-07-08
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: “Cleave” Does Not Imply an Unbreakable Bond (JDR-3) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In this post I argue that Jesus’ quotation about how a man will “cleave” to his wife does not show Jesus believed marriage is indissoluble.
Tags: divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, Dean | Taylor, J. Carl | Laney, -1 Corinthians 6:16, -Genesis 22:4, -Matthew 19:5, prostitute, cleave, covenant, David | Garland
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/cleave-does-not-imply-unbreakable-bond-jdr-3
This post resumes my blog series on Jesus, divorce, and remarriage. In this post I transition from introductory matters to exegesis, starting to address the question, _Did Jesus believe that marriage is indissoluble—that nothing besides death can truly end a marriage?_ I will begin my investigation of this question with a series of posts walking through Matthew 19:3-12, addressing many of the key terms and arguments sometimes used to claim that Jesus believed marriage is an unbreakable bond.
Here are the posts in this series so far:
[Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)](https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1/)
[Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
* * *
Summary of this post: In this post I argue that “cleave” in Matthew 19:5 (KJV; “hold fast” in ESV) does not indicate that marriage is a bond that can be broken only by death. I show that the Hebrew word translated “cleave” in Genesis 2:24 does not indicate an unbreakable bond when it is used elsewhere in the OT, not even when used of covenant relationships. I also show that the Greek word used in the NT quotations of Genesis 2:24 does not imply permanence, most clearly as Paul uses it to refer to unions with prostitutes. Thus, Jesus’ quotation about how a man will “cleave” to his wife does not show Jesus believed marriage is indissoluble.
* * *
### Introduction and Assertions that _Cleave_ Indicates Permanence
In Matthew 19:3 we read that the Pharisees came up to Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” Jesus’ first response was to remind them of God’s creation pattern of making humans as “male and female” (Gen. 1:27). He then quoted Genesis 2:24, which Matthew records like this: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and _hold fast_ to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Matt. 19:5 ESV).
The KJV term for “hold fast” is the lovely word “cleave,” an English word that is a double-edged sword, meaning either “to adhere closely to, to remain faithful to” or else “to split or divide, to sever.” Think meat cleaver. Ouch. Or not.
Some people argue that the expression “cleave,” or at least the original Hebrew word found in Genesis 2:24 (_dāḇaq_), indicates that a married couple is “glued” together in an inseparable bond. They present this as evidence that marriage is indissoluble.
Carl Laney made the following claim about “the Hebrew word for ‘cleave’”:
The word is also used of the leprosy that would cling forever to dishonest and greedy Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27). In marriage, the husband and wife are “glued” together—bound inseparably into one solitary unit.[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
Dean Taylor favorably quoted Laney and added the following:
I’ll never forget a brilliant, real-life object lesson of this passage I once saw in a children’s lesson. A few yeas \[sic\] ago, in order to graphically demonstrate the meaning of this word, Bro. \[ … \] from Charity Christian Fellowship, took a piece of wood that had been glued together the night before and attempted to separate it with great force as the children looked on expectantly. I’ll never forget the result—as we all looked on in astonishment, the board indeed splintered into pieces, but the union was still intact! The message was clear.[\[2\]](#_ftn2)
[Woodworking photo created by freepik – www.freepik.com](https://www.freepik.com/photos/woodworking)
### Old Testament Use of _Cleave_
A survey of how the same Hebrew word is used over 50 other times in the OT, however, shows that the word itself carries no message about how durable or weak a bond may be.
The book of Ruth shows how the word _dāḇaq_ can be used of literal, physical connections between humans. For example, when Naomi urged her daughters-in-law to remain in Moab, “Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, but Ruth _clung to_ her” (Ruth 1:14). In this case, the union indicated by _dāḇaq_ lasted only moments or minutes at most.
Later, Boaz used this word twice while instructing Ruth: “_Keep close to_ my young women… You shall _keep close by_ my young men” (Ruth 2:8, 21). Does the word _dāḇaq_ in these verses indicate a bond that can be broken only by death? Was Boaz advocating some sort of perverse polygamous union where Ruth would be “glued” permanently to his male and female servants? No, later in the chapter we read exactly how long this union between Ruth and Boaz’s servants lasted: “Ruth _stayed close to_ \[_dāḇaq_\] the women of Boaz to glean _until the barley and wheat harvests were finished_” (Ruth 2:23).
The word _dāḇaq_ is also used metaphorically of covenant relationships. For example, Israel was commanded to “hold fast” to the Lord (Deut. 10:20) and they were forbidden to “cling” to the pagan nations in Canaan (Josh. 23:12). Unfortunately, Israel’s bond with the Lord was _often_ broken, with the result that they were _commanded_ to break their bonds with pagan nations (Jer. 3, etc.). These examples are significant because, like Genesis 2:24, they involve covenant relationships. Thus we see that, even in a covenant relationship, _dāḇaq_ does not indicate an unbreakable bond.
### New Testament Use of _Cleave_
Similarly to these OT examples, the Greek word found in Jesus’ quotation of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5 (κολλάομαι) has no necessary connotation of permanence. For example, in Luke 10:11 it is used to refer to dust that “clings to” the disciples’ feet—dust that they will “wipe off” again. And in Luke 15:15 it refers to how the prodigal son “hired himself out” to a pig farmer, referring to a contract that later came to an end.
Image by [Ryan McGuire](https://pixabay.com/users/ryanmcguire-123690/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=438404) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=438404)
Significantly, the same Greek verb is found in 1 Corinthians 6:16, in Paul’s discussion of sexual immorality:
Do you not know that he who _is joined to_ a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
Again, to be clear: this is the same verb that is translated “cleave” in Jesus’ quotation of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5. Thus, if the KJV translated it consistently, Paul’s statement here would read, “Know ye not that he which _cleaves to_ an harlot is one body?”[\[3\]](#_ftn3) In other words, even before Paul directly quotes Genesis 2:24, he alludes to it by his choice of this verb.
David Garland drew the following conclusion from Paul’s use of this verb:
The verb… implies that the man and the prostitute are wedded together even if there are no wedding vows… They may regard their union as only a temporary liaison… but it is much more entangling than that; neither is free from the other when they part company. Paul derives his proof for this from Scripture.[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
Are the man and the prostitute really “wedded together”? While it is indeed true that Paul emphasized the deep significance of a union between a Christian man and a prostitute, we must ask how he wanted such a sinful union to be resolved. Did he imagine that a man who once united with a prostitute was henceforth _permanently married_ to her?
It is true that OT law normally expected a man who had sex with an unbetrothed virgin to subsequently lawfully marry her (Ex. 22:16-17; cf. Deut. 22:28-29). That is very different, however, from saying that a man who has sex with a _prostitute_ (not a virgin) is _already_ married to her (rather than obligated to marry her).
In addition, several points make the suggestion of a permanent union in 1 Corinthians 6:16 very unlikely:
(1) In the preceding verses (1 Cor. 6:9-11) Paul rejoiced that Corinthian believers who had formerly been “sexually immoral” and “adulterers” had been “washed” and “sanctified.” This suggests freedom from past immoral unions.
(2) The Corinthians who visited prostitutes almost certainly included married men. Did Paul imagine they were now obligated to practice polygamy?
(3) Did Paul imagine that a prostitute was “wedded” (with full marital obligations and without her knowledge) to every man who had ever united with her?
While it is indeed true that union with even a prostitute forms unavoidable entanglements—entanglements entirely unfitting for one who is already united to Christ—it is hard to imagine that Paul believed such entanglements included a responsibility to continue the union. Other Scriptures indicate that a Christian who had sinned in such a grievous way should repent (2 Cor. 12:21), put the sexual immorality to death (Col. 3:5), and abstain from it (1 Thess. 4:3)—in short, “flee from sexual immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18).
### Conclusion: _Cleave_ Does Not Prove Permanence
In both Hebrew and Greek usage, then, context alone determines how permanent a bond is when two things _cleave_ or _hold fast_ together. Nothing in the word _cleave_ itself indicates a permanent bond. Laney is wrong to say the word _cleave_ shows that “in marriage, the husband and wife are ‘glued’ together—bound inseparably into one solitary unit.” They _should_ be! But there is nothing in the word that proves that the bond _could_ not be broken.[\[5\]](#_ftn5)
Jesus’ quotation from Genesis about how a man will “cleave” to his wife, then, does not indicate that he believed marriage is indissoluble. Rather, he was arguing that husbands and wives _should not_ be separated.
Finally, I’d like to make a comment about the speaker who glued two blocks of wood as an illustration about the meaning of “cleave.” Bible teachers, may we remember the following: Just because we can come up with a powerful sermon illustration for a particular Bible interpretation does not prove that the interpretation is correct. Don’t substitute rhetoric for research. Don’t use a sermon illustration to convince people your interpretation is correct. Rather, prove your point from the Bible, then use illustrations to help people feel what you have already helped them rightly see. Exegesis comes first, then illustration. If we do otherwise, we are simply deceiving ourselves and others.
* * *
Thank you for reading this post. I welcome your responses! In my next post, I plan to discuss the intriguing term _one flesh_. Does it imply an unbreakable bond?
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) Carl J. Laney, _The Divorce Myth: A Biblical Examination of Divorce and Remarriage_ (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1981), p. 20.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) Dean Taylor, “One Flesh One Covenant,” Pt. 1 of “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,” _The Heartbeat of_ The Remnant, April/May/June 2007, Ephrata Ministries, p. 4. Available online, accessed 4/21/2022, [http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2007-05-covenant.pdf](http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2007-05-covenant.pdf). I want to clarify that, while I disagree with Dean on this point and some others, I have been blessed by him in other ways and he has always been gracious in our interactions. I enjoyed reading his personal testimony in his book _A Change of Allegiance: A Journey into the Historical and Biblical Teaching of War and Peace_ (Ephrata, PA: Radical Reformation Books, 2009).
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) The KJV actually reads, “Know ye not that he which _is joined to_ an harlot is one body?”
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) David Garland, _1 Corinthians_, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 234.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) See my discussion about how some Bible teachers confuse the _could_ and the _should_ of Scripture: “Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2),” June 19, 2022, [https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/](https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2/)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The “Divorce Evil” and the Response of the Mennonite Church (1880s to 1905)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-07-02
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: The “Divorce Evil” and the Response of the Mennonite Church (1880s to 1905) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: As Mennonites saw with alarm the "divorce evil" in America, they took an increasingly hardline stance against divorce, culminating in 1905.
Tags: Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Anabaptist history, Anabaptist periodicals, divorce evil, Gospel Witness, Herald of Truth, Mennonite Church, radical faithfulness, radical freedom, radical permanence
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/divorce-evil-response-mennonite-church-1880s-to-1905
_Click to download a 20-page historical paper:_
[The “Divorce Evil” and the Response of the Mennonite Church (1880s to 1905)](https://app.box.com/s/w04decpqhr3xhw6c20u4bitx5hj0r33k)
In 1905 the Mennonite Church in the United States and Canada officially resolved that no divorced and remarried person should be accepted as a church member. How did they arrive at this absolute position, given the strong consensus among early Anabaptists that divorce and remarriage were permitted in cases of adultery?
The reasons are complex and not fully clear. I have written several blog posts ([here](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-separatism-confessions/) and [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-transition-german-english/)) discussing various historical factors that probably helped pave the way for the Mennonite Church to take a harder stance against divorce and remarriage. These factors include a separatist mindset that encouraged the Mennonite Church to adopt unusually stringent teachings, the historical accident of American Mennonites losing touch with the early Anabaptist confessions that most clearly affirmed divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery, and the transition from the German language to English.
The 20-page paper I’m sharing today discusses several more immediate factors that help explain how and why the Mennonite Church reached a newly strict consensus on divorce in 1905. These factors include the development of Mennonite periodicals, the practice of church conferences, the eventual development of a General Conference, and, perhaps most importantly, a growing concern about the “divorce evil” in America.
The terms “divorce question,” “divorce problem,” and “divorce evil” all peaked in usage in American writings in about 1904, roughly one year before the Mennonite Church adopted a strict policy against admitting all divorced and remarried persons as church members. **Click the image to open an interactive graph**, and see the essay for bibliographic information.
In [my last blog post](https://dwightgingrich.com/radical-faithfulness-proposal-marriage-permanence/) I described three contrasting perspectives on marriage permanence, labeling them radical freedom (no restrictions against any mutually-desired divorce), radical faithfulness (second-mile devotion in marriage but acknowledging marriage can be broken by adultery, abuse, or abandonment), and radical permanence (nothing but death can end a marriage). I also suggested that radical permanence tends to be “a reactionary stance.”
It seems to me that the historical evidence shows this to be true, to a significant degree, for the Mennonite Church. Simply put, the early Anabaptists affirmed forms of radical faithfulness, but the Mennonite Church in 1905 affirmed radical permanence as they witnessed the growth of radical freedom in American society around them.
Here is the report in the Herald of Truth about the 1905 resolution that established the official position of the Mennonite Church against admitting any divorced and remarried persons as church members. Of personal interest to me is that one of the deacons present, Silas Bauman, was a brother to my great-great grandfather Martin Bauman (father of Henry Bauman, father of Verna Gingrich, mother of Elaine Gingrich, mother of me). He farmed one mile north of Floradale. Source: “Fourth General Conference,” Herald of Truth, (Elkhart, IN: Mennonite Publishing Company) November 30, 1905, Vol. XLII, No. 48, 382, [https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth42unse/page/n193/mode/1up](https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth42unse/page/n193/mode/1up).
In the following paper I share a lot of primary source evidence, mostly from Mennonite periodicals, that shows how Mennonites took an increasingly hardline stance against divorce as they became increasingly concerned about the “divorce evil” in society around them.
The challenge for us today is to avoid mistakes of the past and present without becoming merely reactionary ourselves. May God give us grace to teach and practice radical faithfulness—first to the heart and will of God as expressed in Scripture, and then to each other in our marriages.
**If you wish to discuss this paper, please leave a comment here**. I realize my historical survey and analysis are incomplete, but am grateful to be able to share part of a story that is otherwise difficult to discover, buried as it is in historical documents and the memories of Mennonites now deceased.
_Click to open or download paper:_
[The “Divorce Evil” and the Response of the Mennonite Church (1880s to 1905)](https://app.box.com/s/w04decpqhr3xhw6c20u4bitx5hj0r33k)
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Radical Faithfulness: A Proposal about Marriage Permanence
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-06-25
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Radical Faithfulness: A Proposal about Marriage Permanence • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I believe God calls us to radical faithfulness in our marriage relationships—not radical freedom nor radical permanence.
Tags: adultery, divorce and remarriage, unfaithfulness, radical faithfulness, radical freedom, radical permanence, -Genesis 2:18, -Mark 2:27-28, -Matthew 5:27-30, -Romans 3:3-6, abandonment, abuse, divorce causes, forgiveness, Gretchen | Baskerville, pragmatism, second mile, sound doctrine
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/radical-faithfulness-proposal-marriage-permanence
In this post I want to summarize the basic position I’ve come to in my understanding about marriage permanence. This post will be concise, even simplistic at times. I will use generalizations about what some Christians believe, generalizations that veer into caricature. And I won’t try to prove my own assertions from Scripture, either—that must wait for later.
This post is not really part of my series on Jesus and divorce, but I thought it would be helpful to summarize up front the basic perspective I’ve reached, emphasizing especially my desire for faithfulness in marriage. Perhaps it will prevent a little confusion about my goals as I proceed through future posts that deal with exegetical details.
Here, then, is my basic thesis: _God calls us to radical faithfulness in our marriage relationships—not radical freedom nor radical permanence_.[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
### Radical Freedom and Radical Permanence
_Radical freedom_ is the perspective on marriage that is dominant in Western culture today, including among many Christians. This perspective disregards the clear and strong teaching of Scripture that marriage is designed to be life-long, stressing instead a more general and genial message that God wants us to be fulfilled in our relationships. Radical freedom says a marriage should exist only as long as there is mutual agreement that it is wanted.
Radical freedom talks much about love but, in a perverse inversion of the second great commandment, love is defined as attraction rather than loyalty. Marriage often lasts only as long as love (attraction) does, rather than love (loyalty) being what preserves a marriage through the fickleness of feelings. Love for God (the first great commandment) is demoted to second place at best, as shown by the disregard of his commands about marriage. Radical freedom multiplies excuses for ending marriages and belittles the treachery and damage of divorce.
_Radical permanence_ rightly rejects radical freedom, but shrivels into a reactionary stance. It uses an incomplete selection of biblical prooftexts, interpreting them with simplistic literalism and applying them, too often, without mercy. It stresses the permanence of marriage but is in danger of forgetting that God designed marriage for our good (“it is not good that man should be alone,” Gen. 2:18). Love for God (defined as obeying his marriage laws) is stressed, but often in such a way that love of neighbor is constrained.
Radical permanence means believing a marriage union is _unconditionally_ permanent—“once married, always married”—with no exceptions ever possible. In a sort of fatalism, one’s actions within marriage are understood to have no effect whatsoever on the true duration of one’s marriage. Marriage is understood to persist even if a marriage partner persists in adultery—even if they leave and become married to someone else. If divorce is ever permitted, it is divorce redefined as separation only, with no possibility of remarriage. By claiming that marriage can never be truly ended except by death, rigid fatalism belittles the damage of sins such as adultery, abandonment, and abuse.
Image from [a photo by Margaret Almon](https://www.flickr.com/photos/nutmegdesigns/6209763208/in/album-72157627172996853/).
### Radical Faithfulness
_Radical faithfulness_ springs from the full witness of Scripture and seeks to reflect the heart of God. It takes seriously God’s creation intent for marriage to last until death, insisting that human love be understood within the parameters of the greatest commandment, to love God. It also remembers that “marriage was made for man, not man for marriage” and that “the Son of Man is lord even of marriage” (Mark 2:27-28, adapted). This means that, just as he did with Sabbath laws, Jesus has authority to recognize exceptions to the biblical laws surrounding marriage.
Radical faithfulness recognizes the seriousness of _anything_ that ends a marriage; it belittles neither treacherous divorce (divorce without due cause) nor the treachery that precedes many divorces (such as adultery, abandonment, or abuse). Imitating God’s example, it recognizes that true faithfulness can include judging those who are unfaithful (Rom. 3:3-6). It emphasizes that marriage permanence begins in the heart, by cultivating contentment rather than covetousness and a wandering, adulterous eye (Matt. 5:27-30). Stated positively, radical faithfulness means living in such a way that people looking on can clearly see one has “gone the second mile” to preserve and nurture marriage relationships.
What does “going the second mile” look like? It means offering a level of commitment to a marriage that exceeds what the other marriage partner reasonably expects or deserves. It means offering to carry more than your fair share of the burden of marriage, and for longer than looks reasonable to those looking on.
Going the second mile doesn’t mean carrying your enemy’s load with zero help from them for the rest of your life, but it does mean you aren’t parsing the log book to ensure the load-bearing is shared fairly. It doesn’t mean ignoring all offenses, but it does mean inviting repentance. It doesn’t mean the original relationship can or must always be fully restored after betrayal, not even always after repentance, but it does mean you pray for the grace to always offer forgiveness.
Going the second mile doesn’t mean you believe there are no valid grounds for recognizing that a marriage has been broken. It doesn’t mean believing there are never any biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage.[\[2\]](#_ftn2) It does mean that, when your marriage starts to get difficult, you diligently seek to bring it to life rather than looking for loopholes to escape it.
Photo by [Toa Heftiba](https://unsplash.com/@heftiba?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/faithful-words?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText)
Let’s be honest: If all Christians practiced this kind of second-mile, radical faithfulness in marriage, divorce rates would plummet and marital joy would skyrocket! In addition—though this may be harder for some of you to imagine—I believe that a move toward this kind of radical faithfulness would make our churches safer and healthier for those whose marriages have been destroyed by spouses who have been radically _un_faithful.
### Radical Unfaithfulness
For radical unfaithfulness is a problem we dare not ignore or minimize. The best book I have read for understanding the real-life dynamics of abusive marriages is Gretchen Baskerville’s 2020 book _The Life-Saving Divorce_. Baskerville has been a “Christian divorce recovery leader” since 1998. Based on her experience and studies she has examined, she estimates that in America “at least 42% of divorces, and probably about half of divorces, are for very serious problems, the kind of problems that make the marriage miserable: unfaithfulness \[sexual infidelity\], physical or mental abuse, drug or alcohol abuse, refusing to support the family, or simply walking out the door.”[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
What does this tell me? First, it tells me that at least half of divorces were almost certainly unjustified. They are the tragic fruit of, among other things, the perspective on marriage permanence that I’ve called radical freedom. This perspective encourages people to run from marriage as soon as it hits the sort of minor or moderate challenges that most marriages eventually face. Clearly, radical freedom is not serving marriages well.
But this research also tells me that nearly half of divorces are for “very serious” causes, namely adultery, abandonment, and various forms of abuse. _Nearly half_. That is, frankly, more than I would have guessed—more than what I have been led to believe by those who look at all divorces through a “God hates divorce” lens.[\[4\]](#_ftn4) And here I need to ask: Which perspective on marriage best serves those suffering from these broken marriages: radical freedom, radical permanence, or radical faithfulness? Consider, for example, Baskerville’s summary of research showing that, [in marriages with the kind of series problems named above, divorce is actually better for children](https://lifesavingdivorce.com/abuse-and-kids/) than attempting to preserve the toxic marriage.
Image borrowed from “Is it Always Best to ‘Stay for the Kids’? No, Not If the Home is Toxic,” a September 26, 2020 blog post by Gretchen Baskerville. See [https://lifesavingdivorce.com/abuse-and-kids/](https://lifesavingdivorce.com/abuse-and-kids/).
### Sound Doctrine
Asking which perspective on marriage best serves broken marriages might not sound like a good question. After all, it smacks of pragmatism (What works best?), a concern which must never override the wisdom of God as revealed in the words of Jesus and the Scriptures. Pragmatism that relies on human wisdom can quickly lead us astray. I’ve come to believe, however, that the perspective that not only serves all sorts of marriages best, but also best reflects the heart of God and the witness of Scripture, is radical faithfulness. In other words, I believe radical faithfulness is sound doctrine—teaching that is both true and healthy.
_This, then, is what I see in the Scriptures and what I mean to promote: radical faithfulness, not radical freedom nor radical permanence_. No, I have not proven here that this is the most biblical perspective on marriage permanence, but as I share from Scripture in future posts you’ll start to see why I believe that it is.
If this summary post seems helpful to you, I’d be glad to know. I’m also open to suggestions about how to express things better—with greater accuracy, balance, or clarity.
If this post doesn’t feel helpful for you, just set it aside. Hopefully we can learn something helpful together as we dig into the Scriptures in future posts.
See you again soon, and thanks for reading!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) Please don’t get hung up on the terms. They aren’t perfect but they give me something to hang my thoughts on. I debated long and hard for a couple of them, trying to be memorable and accurate without being needlessly offensive. It was to avoid offense that I ultimately rejected _rootless freedom_ and _rigid fatalism_ as alternatives to _radical faithfulness._ The trade-off is that you are subjected yet more often to what has become a buzzword: _radical._
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) Note: I added this clarifying sentence on 6/27/2022, after several readers had already commented on the post. I added it not because I changed my mind, but because one reader noted I did not express my position as clearly as I could have on the question of whether remarriage is ever biblically justified.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Gretchen Baskerville, _The Life-Saving Divorce: Hope for People Leaving Destructive Relationships_ (Torrance, CA: Life Saving Press, 2020), pp. 28-29. Baskerville’s book spends too little time on biblical interpretation to satisfy readers who have significant questions about divorce and remarriage, but it is the best book I have found for understanding the real-life dynamics of abusive marriages. I highly recommend it for pastors in particular, who should find it valuable no matter their own perspective on marriage permanence.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) “God hates divorce” is found in some translations of Malachi 2:16. The Hebrew of this verse is notoriously difficult to translate, and many scholars agree that “God hates divorce” is a very unlikely translation, despite the popularity that the KJV provided for this reading. The Christian Standard Bible gives a more likely reading: “If he hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord God of Israel, “he covers his garment with injustice,” says the Lord of Armies. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously.” The Coverdale Bible (1535) provides a pre-KJV reading that some scholars think is even more likely: “If thou hatest her, put her away, sayeth the Lord God of Israel and give her a clothing for the scorn…”
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-06-19
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Hyper-Literalism, Could vs. Should, and a Guiding Question (JDR-2) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Hyper-literalism and confusion over "could" versus "should" both cause problems when reading the Bible on divorce. Is marriage indissoluble?
Tags: divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, indissolubility of marriage, should versus could, Bible contradictions, biblical interpretation, exceptions, generalizations, hyper-literalism, prohibitions
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/hyper-literalism-could-vs-should-guiding-question-jdr-2
Before I begin discussing Jesus’ words on divorce and remarriage, I want to clarify a few things about my approach. In this post I’ll make two points about interpreting the Bible on the topic of divorce and remarriage:
* First, I’ll discuss the futility of taking a hyper-literal approach.
* Second, I’ll propose one point of confusion in Bible interpretation that divides “liberal” and “conservative” camps.[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
Finally, I’ll use this second point to introduce the question that will guide me as I examine Jesus’ words in forthcoming posts.
### Hyper-Literal Bible Interpretation
I want to begin by emphasizing, as strongly as possible, something that I think is utterly essential to acknowledge: _Understanding the NT teaching on divorce and remarriage is not as simple as just taking the words of Jesus and Paul at face value_. In fact, if one takes a hyper-literal approach to all the NT teachings on divorce—taking them all as universally-true statements, without any exception—then one ends up with multiple contradictions.
Here are just three examples:
* Jesus said, “What therefore God has joined together, _let not man separate_” (Matt. 19:6). On face value, in the minds of most readers, this leaves no room for divorce, period. But Jesus also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, _except for sexual immorality_, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Debates of theologians aside, most people reading that for the first time would conclude that divorce _is_ permitted for a husband whose wife has been sexually unfaithful. Which is true?
* Matthew 19:9 includes the exception noted above. But Mark 10:11, which records _the same historical event_ as Matthew, has Jesus condemning divorce without exception: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.” Full stop. So, did Jesus give an exception or didn’t he?
* Paul wrote, “If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her” (1 Cor. 7:12). Wait a minute: What does Paul mean by “_if_…she consents to live with him”? Doesn’t that condition contradict Jesus’ unqualified prohibitions of divorce?
The debate over whether the NT ever permits remarriage, then, cannot be reduced to a debate between those who, in simple faith, take the Bible’s teachings at face value and those who, with hardened hearts, try to weasel around its clear teaching. (Simple faith and hard hearts, of course, _do_ play important roles.) Rather, I suggest, _it is more foundationally a debate over which of the Bible’s statements about divorce have the best claim to be taken at face value, without qualification_—the prohibitions (almost always general statements[\[2\]](#_ftn2)) or the exceptions (always directed to specific circumstances).
Again, _no one takes all the NT divorce teachings at face value_, as being universally true without qualification. _It is impossible to do so_. And because it is impossible, _God clearly did not intend for us to do so_. We are misunderstanding him, somewhere, if we try to do so.
With those facts clearly before us, we should free each other for an honest, humble discussion about how best to synthesize the Bible’s varied teachings on divorce.
### _Should_ Versus _Could_
How do Christians end up with such different perspectives on divorce and remarriage? One reason, of course, is that they disagree about which texts should control our reading of other texts. (See above.)
Another underlying cause for disagreement between “liberal” and “conservative” camps, it seems to me, is that one emphasizes the “could” of Scripture while the other emphasizes the “should.” The only way to read Scripture well, however, is to appropriately acknowledge both. Let me explain.
A “liberal” approach to divorce and remarriage emphasizes the passages of Scripture that say a marriage _could_ be ended, whether rightly or wrongly. Since it is clear that marriage is _not necessarily_ permanent, it _must_ _not be necessary_ to try to make it permanent, right? (Wrong.) This approach sometimes cites the divorce exceptions of Jesus and Paul (Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:15), but, in truth, finding specific biblical grounds for divorce is no longer very important. What really matters is just the basic fact that a marriage _could_ come to an end. Such endings may be unfortunate, but they are to be expected and we should just try to navigate them with as much grace as possible, moving on to better relationships when old ones fade.
A ”conservative” approach, in contrast, emphasizes those Scriptures that say a marriage _should_ never be ended by anything besides death. Since it is clearly _necessary_ for marriage to be permanent, marriage _must necessarily be_ permanent, right? (Wrong.) This approach acknowledges that some Scriptures seem to talk about marriages ending, but it quickly overrides all such texts with other passages that seem to indicate that even when a marriage is formally ended by divorce, obligations remain. These passages mentioning obligations are then universalized to apply to all divorce situations, no matter what exceptions may appear in a face-value reading of other Scriptures. Thus, any remarriage is always an “adulterous marriage,” or perhaps should not be called a marriage at all.
Neither approach, it seems to me, reads Scripture fairly.
To be honest, I’ve never been seriously tempted by the “liberal” approach. It shows utter disregard for God’s word and for basic human fidelity, despite the apparently loving motives of some who promote it.
The “conservative” approach, however, is more or less what I grew up with. (Please be patient with my simplistic summaries.) Because I this is the approach I have been taught for most of my life, it is the position I will test in my forthcoming posts.
### Did Jesus Teach That Marriage Is Indissoluble?
The basic question I’ll consider in my posts is this: _Did Jesus believe that nothing besides death can truly end a marriage? Did he believe that marriage is indissoluble?_
I’ll begin with the NT’s fullest account of Jesus’ teaching on the subject, found in Matthew 19. I’ll start by examining several of his “_should_ statements” about the permanence of marriage, statements that are sometimes misinterpreted, it seems to me, as proof that a marriage _could_ never be fully broken. After discussing key excerpts from Matthew 19, I’ll aim to synthesize Jesus’ other teachings, too. Throughout, I will focus on my basic question: Did Jesus believe marriage is indissoluble?
This series, then, will not try to address the rights and wrongs of every imaginable potential divorce situation. Rather, I’m testing a more foundational point. If Jesus really _did_ believe a validly-contracted marriage cannot be dissolved by anything but death, then the “conservative” approach is fundamentally correct and all apparent exceptions must be read as not truly being exceptions after all.
But if we discover that Jesus never actually said anything that indicates he thought marriage is indissoluble, then this shapes how we must read what he did say. It means we have no reason to preclude, with the “conservative” approach, that Jesus’ exceptions cannot be taken at face value.
This series, then, is more about testing a key assumption many readers bring to Jesus’ words than it is about expounding the full meaning and significance of Jesus’ divorce teachings as might be done in a sermon. It is about testing the starting point of our thinking rather than trying to give a lot of practical guidance or application of Scripture to human life. That said, what I plan to share is anything but just theoretical. Answering the question _Did Jesus believe marriage is indissoluble?_ is just about the most relevant thing I can imagine for anyone who is dealing with a marriage that is currently on the rocks.
Before we begin digging into this question, however, I want to emphasize as strongly as I can that _Jesus’ main message about marriage was persistent and clear: God intends marriage to be for life, and any time a marriage union is separated, that marriage has fallen short of God’s creation design. Period_. This was the heartbeat of Jesus’ teaching on divorce, and it must be the heartbeat of the church’s teaching, too, when taken as a whole.
My inquiry does not question this divine purpose at all. Rather, it focuses on what happens when humans fail to live up to it. Is it possible for humans to separate what God has joined? And is it possible for one marriage to end, other than by death, in such a way that remarriage may be an option that God blesses?
In short, my posts will address the question of what _could_ happen to a marriage if it falls short of what God’s word clearly shows _should_ happen.
* * *
I have one more post to share before I dig into Jesus’ words. In my next post I’ll summarize the general perspective on marriage permanence that I have reached after my study on this topic over the past couple of years. I call this perspective “radical faithfulness,” and I’ll contrast it with the positions I’ve called “liberal” and “conservative” in this post.
Meanwhile, I'd like to hear from you.
What are your thoughts on a hyper-literal approach to the NT teachings on divorce and remarriage? Have you observed confusion between the “should” and “could” of Scripture on this topic? What parts of Jesus’ teaching on the topic do you hope I dig into as I investigate Jesus’ view on marriage permanence?
Thanks for reading!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) I’m using scare quotes because I’m not attempting to precisely define, identify, or affirm either group. In my usage here, “liberal” simply means more permissive of divorce and “conservative” less permissive. Readers will have differing opinions on which position, if either, best conserves biblical doctrine and God’s liberal grace.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) I say “almost” because the prohibition in 1 Corinthians 7:11 is tied to a specific circumstance.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-06-15
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction (JDR-1) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: My study on divorce in Anabaptist history led me to reexamine the Scriptures myself. This post begins a new series about Jesus on divorce.
Tags: -Revelation 21:1, divorce and remarriage, Jesus and divorce, Paul and divorce, Anabaptist history, sound doctrine, -1 Corinthians 7:15, clarity of Scripture
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-divorce-remarriage-intro-jdr-1
Greetings, friends! After months of silence, I have finally prepared some blog posts for you. I hope you will find these thought-provoking and helpful, as their preparation has been for me.
### My Study on Divorce in Anabaptist History
A major focus of my blogging in the past couple years has been on Anabaptist understandings of Jesus’ exception clause about divorce and remarriage in cases of sexual immorality (Matt. 19:9; cf. 5:32). The historical evidence (see [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1500s-unchangeable-plain-word-christ/) and [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1600-1860s-clearly-seen/)) clearly shows that early Anabaptists agreed Jesus’ exception permits both divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery. While their interpretations of the Bible’s divorce teachings were simplistic at points (and some also had erratic practices), I was impressed by their trust in the apparent clarity of Jesus’ teaching.
My historical study also convinced me that when American Mennonites officially abandoned this early Anabaptist belief and practice (in the late 1800s to early 1900s), they did so for social and pragmatic reasons more than because of any fresh or deeper study of Scripture. It appears they were primarily motivated by the widespread social concern about the “divorce evil” in America at the time, a concern that engaged churches of all denominations—and also political leaders, all the way up to the president. (Can you imagine a president today addressing Congress and warning that because “the divorce laws are dangerously lax” there is “a diminishing regard for the sanctity of the marriage relation”?)[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
Yes, Mennonites did develop new ways of explaining the Bible’s teachings on divorce. (They also suddenly began complaining about how confusing Jesus’ exception clauses are.) But it appears that their stricter position on divorce was adopted _before_ their new biblical interpretations were comprehensively developed or published. In other words, doctrinal conclusions probably controlled the exegesis more than the other way around.
That history really deserves a book-length treatment. Maybe someday?
(In many ways this history reminds me of what is happening today as Christians react to broader cultural concerns, such as that over racial conflict. Christians of varied camps typically begin with their conclusions, often influenced by non-Christian sources, and then develop biblical paradigms for defending those conclusions. In neither case—divorce then or racial conflict now—do many Christians have the liberty of starting without bias from Scriptural evidence to form well-balanced doctrine. Back to my topic…)
### My Study on Divorce in the Bible:
Starting with Paul
Meanwhile, my historical study had another effect: It stirred and freed me to take a fresh look at the biblical evidence for myself. What does the Bible actually teach about divorce and remarriage? This, too, deserves a book—especially for fellow Anabaptists who, like me, share a church history that includes (1) sharply contradictory teachings from our most important historical leaders and documents and (2) a tendency to prioritize divorce teachings as a boundary-marking doctrine.
Are divorce and remarriage always forbidden? Is separation sometimes okay, but never divorce? Is divorce sometimes okay, but never remarriage? Is remarriage okay only in cases of sexual immorality (based on Jesus’ exception)? Is remarriage also possible in cases of abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (based on Paul’s teachings)? Are there other similar legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage? Questions abound not only among biblical scholars but also—often unspoken, sometimes fiercely debated—among conservative Anabaptists.
[](https://dwightgingrich.com/heart_broken_nature_love-1/)
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/heart_broken_nature_love-1/)
Where, then, is the best place to begin a biblical study on divorce and remarriage? There are strong opinions about this! Some insist we begin with what Genesis 2 says about marriage. Others argue we should begin with the “clearest” of Jesus’ statements—defined as the ones with the least data, the ones with no mention of exceptions. A very good case can be made for beginning with Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel that was the teaching manual of the early church—which includes Jesus’ exceptions. An equally strong case can be made for starting with Paul’s writings, which may have preceded the writing of the Gospels and which provide apostolic interpretation of Jesus’ words.
I’ve concluded there are pros and cons to any starting point. What matters most is that one considers all the relevant biblical material well.
My study first centered on Jesus’ words, and I gradually started gaining more light there. Then early this year I dove deep into Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7, especially his statement in verse 15: “If the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved” (ESV). Does “not enslaved” mean _free to remarry_?
I carefully crafted a long series of blog posts (about 40 pages) digging into this question. I learned a lot from some of the best scholars and dug further into a few sub-questions on my own. I gained confidence about what Paul meant, confidence that remains with me today. Then I shared my conclusions with over fifteen respected friends and acquaintances, intentionally choosing some likely to agree and some likely to disagree.
Their response reinforced several things to me. First, this is a topic with entrenched opinions and social consequences, and people are slow to change their minds. Second, most people lack either interest or ability to dig into a highly technical discussion on the topic, no matter how clearly I try to write. And third, most Anabaptists will have a hard time listening well if one starts with Paul rather than Jesus, even if one presents biblical reasons for doing so.
### My Study on Divorce in the Bible:
Jesus and Expectations about Simplicity
These observations made me hit pause on my plans to share my posts online starting in April. As I regrouped, I decided the best thing to do might be to start over, beginning this time with Jesus and aiming, if I can, to write a little more simply.
Simplicity, of course, has its own dangers. Readers from conservative backgrounds often have many valid concerns and questions about divorce and remarriage that are not sufficiently addressed by most writers. Many authors leap to conclusions too quickly, leaving cautious readers behind. On the other hand, many conservative Anabaptists are highly skeptical of anyone who uses a lot of words to argue their point. Anything that hard to prove probably isn’t true, right? Isn’t the Bible clear? Isn’t Satan the author of confusion?
This is a catch-22 situation of the worst sort and honestly can be quite discouraging for someone who is sincerely searching and teaching the Scriptures. I’m trying to come to peace with the fact that there is no way to please everyone, and I won’t try to do so in this series. (I also need to give up the goal of fully pleasing myself, a hurdle equally unattainable and equally able to keep me from sharing my words.)
So, here goes: I’ll start sharing my thoughts, imperfect as they are, and see what sort of a “series” we end up with.
In an ideal world, a short explanation about divorce and remarriage would be all we would need. Nearly twenty centuries of contradictory interpretations have spread layers of paint and grime over the Bible’s words, however, hiding its original artwork from clear view. Our job, then, is to be art restorers, patiently removing misinterpretations and misunderstandings while leaving the original undamaged. To do this well, we need to leave our preferences behind and invite the Spirit to enlighten the eyes of our hearts, even if this means seeing some things differently than we have before.
As I revisit Jesus’ words, I mean no disrespect to those Mennonite church leaders of a century or so ago, who adopted and articulated the strict no-divorce position that many of us inherited. Nor do I mean any disrespect to those of you who share the same view today. Rather, I ask for myself the freedom to evaluate inherited teachings by Scripture—the same freedom that was exercised both by the first Anabaptists and by those Mennonite leaders who adopted the more recent teachings we inherited.
I extend this freedom to you, too. Every generation is entrusted with this freedom and responsibility, which should be carried out humbly—under God’s word, submitted to the Spirit, and with an ear to fellow saints past and present.
### Why Am I Writing?
Why, then, am I writing about divorce and remarriage? Three quick clarifications:
* No, thank God, I am not digging into this topic because of any difficulties either in my own marriage or of anyone close to me.
* No, I am not writing because I am a flaming liberal who is intent on deconstructing the clear teachings of Scripture. (For the record, I still fully affirm what I wrote in [my series on Jesus and homosexuality](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5/), where I reached a decidedly orthodox and counter-cultural conclusion.)
* And yes, one reason for this study is simply that I enjoy puzzling over tough questions of biblical interpretation. This certainly qualifies. I’ve had unanswered questions about divorce for years. (See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-now-taking-exception-clause/) for a bit of my story.)
More importantly, though, this is a topic with real-life implications, with people who urgently need what Paul called “sound doctrine”—teaching that is both true and healthy. _If I can help even a few people hear Jesus better and experience his life more fully, I will have achieved my main goal._
* * *
I realize I may have raised a lot of questions in your mind with this opening post—questions about me, about your own beliefs, or about what the Bible says. I still have questions, too, and have no desire to pose as an expert who can answer all divorce and remarriage questions.
You are welcome to share your questions and insights in the comments below. I look forward to learning from you and probably even hearing good reasons to revisit a few of my conclusions.
Do comment, but please be patient about jumping to conclusions or demanding answers. First we must engage the task of carefully reading Jesus’ words. God is faithful, and by his Spirit he will guide us together into as much understanding as we need to please him.
I plan to share a blog post at least once a week, at least for the next six weeks or so. The next two posts will also be introductory, then we’ll start walking slowly through Matthew 19. Please be patient if it takes me a while to get to your favorite Bible verses. 🙂
Thank you for reading, and welcome back!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) These are the words of Theodore Roosevelt, spoken to Congress on January 30, 1905. Evans Holbrook, “Divorce Laws and the Increase of Divorce,” _Michigan Law Review_ 8, no. 5 (1910): p. 387, accessed 6/15/2022, [https://doi.org/10.2307/1272577](https://doi.org/10.2307/1272577). The “divorce evil” was mentioned frequently in Mennonite periodicals that year, as they tracked the comments and decisions of public figures and church denominations. On November 18 of the same year the Mennonite Church officially adopted the position “That a person holding a divorce obtained for the sake of re-marriage, or being married a second time, and continuing to live with a second companion while the first companion is living should not be received into the church.”
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: 2021 Year-End Report
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2022-01-02
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding: 2021 Year-End Report • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: 2021 House Loan Report: All remaining lenders should be repaid within about 3-1/2 years—by about July of 2025.
Tags: annual report, churchfunding, microloans, Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Anabaptist history, Anabaptist periodicals, divorce evil, Mennonite Church, conferences, exception clause
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2021-year-end-report
**At the turn of every year, as an act of thankfulness and accountability, I like to give a report on our house loans.** This year I’ll try to keep it short!
(Background: As many of you know, we purchased our Atlanta house on March 25, 2016, paying the seller in full immediately, thanks to loans and gifts from nearly 90 individuals or families. Since this crowdfunding effort was the work of Christ’s church, we coined a new term: “churchfunding.” [Here is the post](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) that officially launched this adventure.)
**At the beginning of 2021, we owed $28,782.50 in house loans.** **By the end of the year, we owed only $21,232.50.**
**Here is how that $7,550 difference breaks down:**
* We repaid $7,000 in loans, at more than the promised rate of $500 per month.
* We were forgiven an additional $550 in principal and interest by a generous lender.
In total, our house debt declined by $1,550 more than we expected in 2021.
At the promised $500 per month, **we should have all remaining lenders repaid within about 3-1/2 years—by about July of 2025.** As promised, we are using a random number generator and prayer to select who is repaid each month. If you have a financial squeeze, let us know and we’ll see what we can do!
### **In Other Developments…**
**In many ways, 2021 was a pretty ordinary year for us** (apart from you-know-what). We didn’t do any significant repairs or improvements to the house, getting distracted in part by vehicle needs. Our van passed 250,000 miles this summer! Repairing a leaky portion of the roof is apparently next, hopefully followed soon by that leaky shower.
Besides my work, most days our family stays busy with homeschooling, driving the girls to their weekly string classes, taking hikes with homeschool friends, hobbies like reading and music, and doing things with our church family. I’m still responsible to schedule church musicians, and I lead music about once a month, usually helped by our oldest daughter (now a teenager!). I’m also in the rotation to preach a sermon every several months.
**In our local neighborhood we aim to be good neighbors for Christ’s sake.** Lately this has included taking a neighbor a Christmas meal, having a neighbor boy come over to play basket ball, and helping another neighbor look for a missing family member. We’ve also been reminded recently of the crime that occurs around us, praying for those who have been [touched by tragedy](https://www.ajc.com/news/family-wants-answers-after-mother-of-3-found-shot-to-death-in-atlanta-park/UIHNMZEU5NFIFLH7F6OGTNE5JE/?fbclid=IwAR3tC2W34XCB4hF3m1YV_mTcsj-lh833S5CsnWiVfBcpqJqCqE8AVSxSQ6I).
**I’ll mention two trips.** In July our family spent a day at [Edisto Beach State Park](https://southcarolinaparks.com/edisto-beach) in South Carolina. It was our first family trip to the ocean since moving to Georgia, and we really enjoyed it!
[](https://dwightgingrich.com/217573610_10165291739180177_249111139026673618_n/)
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/217573610_10165291739180177_249111139026673618_n/)
A highlight of the year was finally visiting my mother again, in Canada. It was our first time seeing her since the start of COVID–the first time since our trip to my dad’s funeral. The trip was an answer to many prayers. Family ties are so precious!
[](https://dwightgingrich.com/family-with-mom/)
[
](https://dwightgingrich.com/family-with-mom/)
### In Blogging (Lack of) News…
**As you may have noticed, I haven’t done much blogging lately.** I got stalled on [reporting the history of Mennonites and divorce](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-transition-german-english/), and now I’m wrestling more deeply with my own understanding of the biblical teaching on the topic. Recently I read a long book chronicling a journalist’s attempt to solve a murder case. The web of leads he got sucked into, some helpful, some dead ends, reminded me of the many exegetical rabbit trails I’ve run down as I’ve waded through varied interpretations of all the relevant biblical passages.
I invite your prayers as I continue to study—that my heart will be open to God’s truth, that I will be granted insight, and that God will guide my desire to serve the church by writing more on this topic. Maybe, at some point, a book? Surveying Anabaptist history and also sharing my own biblical exegesis and pastoral reflections?
**Meanwhile, here’s a quick completion of my answer as to why American Mennonites adopted a stricter no-divorce position.** I’ve already suggested that a spirit of separatism lended itself to adopting increasingly rigid doctrinal positions, that American Mennonites had lost touch with early Anabaptist documents affirming remarriage in case of adultery, and that the switch from German to English may have affected their interpretation of Jesus’ divorce sayings.
To complete the picture, I’d want to discuss at least these additional points:
* The topic of **the “divorce evil” was in the air** across the nation at the end of the 1800s (very much like “social justice” has been recently), troubling everyone from the President on down, so the Mennonites simply joined a larger political and ecclesial conversation, some of which was moving in a stricter direction.
* **New Mennonite periodicals**, founded by John Funk, alerted them as never before to differences in their own ranks on the question of divorce and remarriage, leading to brisk debate.
* In the periodicals there were calls for **annual conferences**, partly to resolve such matters of difference; it was at such a conference that a stricter position was officially adopted in 1905.
* Before this conference some Mennonite leaders, especially some activist younger leaders like Daniel Kauffman, began to say that the only sufficient response to the “divorce evil” was to give no exception whatsoever. This stance seems to have been adopted for **pragmatic reasons as much as for biblical ones**, for it was only after the 1905 conference that more fully developed doctrinal explanations were published in support of the stricter position.
That’s a quick survey! Each of those points deserve a book chapter, and I’m sure I should add several more.
(And, to be clear, _none of that history proves whether the adoption of a stricter position was good or bad_; that would require a separate conversation about exegesis, theology, and pastoral care.)
* * *
**Our family remains deeply grateful to everyone who helped us buy our Atlanta home**, and to all who have supported us in so many other ways. _Thank you!_
God is faithful! Please pray we, too, will be faithful, and that we can bear fruit for him in 2022.
For Christ and his church,
Dwight Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why did Mennonites Abandon the Early Anabaptist View of Jesus’ Exception Clause? (Transition from German to English)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2021-04-06
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Why did Mennonites Abandon the Early Anabaptist View of Jesus' Exception Clause? (Transition from German to English) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The transition from German to English may have helped pave the way for a new Mennonite interpretation of Jesus’ exception clause.
Tags: -Matthew 19:9, Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Anabaptist history, Herald of Truth, exception clause, -1 Corinthians 11:2, -Matthew 5:32, Andrew V. | Ste. Marie, Azusa Street Revival, Benjamin | Eby, confessions of faith, Dordrecht Confession of Faith, Dwight L. | Moody, Ehebruch, English language, fornication, Froschauer Bible, George R. | Brunk, Harold S. | Bender, Heinrich | Eby, holiness, Hurerei, John F. | Funk, John Landis | Ruth, John S. | Coffman, King James Version, Martin | Luther, Melvin | Gingerich, Mike | Atnip, nonresistance, oaths, ordinances, porneia, Richard K. | MacMaster, Samuel J. | Steiner, separatism, Shorter Catechism, Steven M. | Nolt, Theron | Schlabach, Willard M. | Swartley, William | Kostlevy
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-transition-german-english
**A third background factor that may have paved the way for a new Mennonite interpretation of Jesus’ exception clause was the transition from German to English.** The transition from German Bibles to the King James Version, which most Mennonites adopted as they switched to English,[1](#fn-3696-1) may have directly shaped their biblical interpretation on the topic of divorce and remarriage. Less directly, the transition to English brought increased interaction with Christians in other denominations, which led to both increased imitation of these denominations and new expressions of the Mennonite separatist impulse.
_**This post is part of a rambling series investigating Anabaptist understandings of Jesus’ exception clause about divorce and remarriage**, recorded in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Here, in order, are the most important posts so far in this series:_
_[Anabaptists Now: Taking Exception to Jesus’ Exception Clause](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-now-taking-exception-clause/)_
_[Anabaptists Then (1500s): An “Unchangeable Plain Word of Christ”](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1500s-unchangeable-plain-word-christ/)_
_[Anabaptists Then (1600-1860s): “It Is Clearly to Be Seen”](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1600-1860s-clearly-seen/)_
_[Why Did Early Anabaptists Believe Jesus Allowed Divorce and Remarriage in Cases of Adultery?](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-anabaptists-believe-jesus-allowed-divorce-remarriage/)_
_[When did Mennonites Discard the Early Anabaptist Interpretation of Jesus’ Exception Clause about Divorce?](https://dwightgingrich.com/when-did-mennonites-discard-early-anabaptist-interpretation-exception-clause/)_
_[Why did Mennonites Abandon the Early Anabaptist View of Jesus’ Exception Clause? (Separatism and Confessional Statements)](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-separatism-confessions/)_
### **BENJAMIN EBY ON SEPARATISM AND CONFESSIONS**
Before we continue, I want to summarize my last post in this series by sharing a quote from Benjamin Eby, an influential pioneer Mennonite farmer, bishop, school teacher, author, and printer. Several of his writings were republished in coming decades not only in his home province of Ontario, but also in other Mennonite centers such as Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Elkhart, Indiana. One such writing was his 1841 book on the history and doctrine of the Mennonites, _Kurzgefasste Kirchen-Geschichte_.[2](#fn-3696-2)
**In my last post I suggested two background factors that made it easier for Mennonites to lose their original teaching affirming that Jesus permitted divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery**: (1) their separatist mindset, which sometimes encouraged increasingly rigid doctrines and practices, and (2) the historical accident that their most popular doctrinal statements did not preserve the historical Anabaptist position on Jesus’ exception clause. **Both factors are evident in the following quote from Eby’s _Kurzgefasste Kirchen-Geschichte_, which explicitly mentions divorce:**
> Whoever examines the doctrine of the Mennonites in a consistent and impartial manner will soon see that it in no way conflicts with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that **the other Protestants’ teachings on war, swearing of an oath, and divorce**, were allowed by the Lord because of the hardness of their hearts, so that some greater evil would not come of it, as was allowed with the Jews. But we will refrain from accusing them too harshly, because the Lord has dealt with them and us with much patience, and his mercy and longsuffering is shown daily, so let us withhold all harsh judgment against the thinking of others. We are, by the positive Hope and according to the Word of Promise, convinced that the time will come when all the Christians will know that **going to war, swearing an oath, and divorce**, are issues that are impossible to find a place in the kingdom of God; but that they are from the evil, and that furthermore all those in authority must be willing to remove these distortions, and remain steadfast in the teachings of Jesus.
>
> We contend that it is proper and clear to present the complete foundation and teachings, which are explained in the attached Articles of Faith, so that every impartial person may judge for himself, and by this we from our heart desire and plead the light of the Holy Spirit to be upon each one.[3](#fn-3696-3)
**Several quick observations are in order:**
* It appears likely that Eby believed divorce was wrong _without exception_, as surely as he believed the same about going to war and swearing oaths. This suggests that some prominent Mennonite Church leaders taught this at least as early as 1841 (even while others did not).
* Eby shows a separatist mindset—gracious but unapologetic—and names the rejection of divorce as a point of denominational distinction for Mennonites.
* Eby ends this excerpt with a paragraph that leads directly to the next section of his book: a reprinting of the complete _Dordrecht Confession_. Significantly, he seems to believe this confession will show impartial readers that the Mennonite stance on divorce is correct. In other words, it is likely Eby read the _Dordrecht_’s silence about divorce and remarriage after adultery as prohibition; the confession didn’t mention an adultery exception, so therefore, he concluded, it does not exist.[4](#fn-3696-4)
### **THE TRANSITION TO ENGLISH**
**The transition to the English language is another background factor that may have enabled the gradual Mennonite abandonment of early Anabaptist teaching on Jesus’ exception clause.** ([See this post](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-anabaptists-believe-jesus-allowed-divorce-remarriage/) for a discussion of how an earlier transition from Latin to German may have shaped early Anabaptist interpretation.)
Mennonites in Virginia led the transition to English preaching, beginning before the mid-1800s. In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, “the first Mennonite minister… who was able and willing to preach in the English language” was ordained in 1850.[5](#fn-3696-5) Western states such as Ohio and Indiana were slower to transition but soon followed. The English-language _Herald of Truth_ was first published in 1864 and quickly gained a larger readership than its German counterpart. In 1880 John F. Funk also began publishing Sunday school helps in English, and “the Sunday school no doubt contributed greatly to the use of English.”[6](#fn-3696-6) By the last third of the 1800s, it was common for visiting speakers (such as revivalist John S. Coffman) to preach in English in Mennonite churches throughout North America. “In the transition period 1875-1900 preachers were often ordained specifically to preach English alongside of the regular German preaching of the older ministers.” [7](#fn-3696-7)
As the new century drew near, most of the young movers and shakers who increasingly shaped the Mennonite church “were a generation of youths who spoke and thought in English more than German,”[8](#fn-3696-8) and some preachers didn’t know German at all. “The real change to English came with authors who wrote only in that language, the first of these being Daniel Kauffman (Mennonite Church), with his first book in 1898, _A Manual of Bible Doctrines_.” [7](#fn-3696-7) At the fall conference in Pennsylvania in 1900, “everything was now done in English,”[10](#fn-3696-10) and German was fast fading from the pulpits of the Mennonite Church across United States and Canada.
([Click here](https://manifoldgreatness.wordpress.com/tag/anabaptist/) for an image of a 1793 KJV New Testament that was owned by a Mennonite couple in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.)
The Mennonite transition from German to English coincided with increased debate about divorce (more about the latter in a future post). And in 1905, as German was clearly on the wane, the Mennonite Church officially withheld membership from all remarried persons who had a former spouse still living, without exception.
### **THE GERMAN JESUS VS. THE ENGLISH JESUS**
**Did the switch to English help trigger a change in divorce doctrine? If so, how?** One possible answer is found in the switch from German Bibles to English Bibles.
In Greek, the same exception is cited by Jesus in both Matthew 5 and 19: “except for _porneia_ (πορνεία).” This Greek word has multiple potential meanings, and German and English Bibles went in different directions with their translation choices. Further, in the German Bibles—both Luther’s Bible and the similar “Froschauer Bible” more popular with Anabaptists—Jesus’ exception clause is translated differently in Matthew 5 and 19.
**In Matthew 5:32, the German Jesus says “except for _Ehebruch_.”** _Ehebruch_ is a standard German term referring to adultery, but it is more graphic than the English word _adultery_. _Ehebruch_ is a compound word that more woodenly means “breach of marriage” or “marriage-break.” This word can suggest that adultery breaks a marriage, bringing it to an end. In this potential reading, if your spouse commits _Ehebruch_, your marriage is broken and you are free to remarry.
**In Matthew 19:9, the German Jesus says “except for _Hurerei_.”** This term refers to sexual promiscuity. Both German words express ideas which can be included within the broad range of meaning of the Greek term _porneia_.
**In the KJV, in contrast, the English Jesus says “except for _fornication_” in both passages.** This term carries different implications than the German ones. Unlike _Ehebruch_, it does not suggest that _porneia_ breaks a marriage. And, while it can mean exactly the same thing as _Hurerei_, it is also often used more narrowly to refer only to pre-marital sin.
Both of these differences foreshadow the new ways that American Mennonites would interpret Jesus’ exception clause. First, they would deny that adultery ends a marriage, asserting that it is impossible for anything but death to end a marriage bond. Second, some Mennonites eventually (at least by 1950) began teaching that Jesus’ exception clause refers only to fornication during a Jewish betrothal period.
**The transition to English affected the relationship of Mennonites not only to the Bible itself, but also to their own history of biblical interpretation.** I have noticed, for example, that English translations of old German Anabaptist catechisms and statements of faith tend to use the KJV “fornication” when referring to Jesus’ exception clause, even when the original German documents used words such as _Ehebruch_ (“adultery”). Similarly, they sometimes use the English term _separate_ when the German original specified divorce (_scheiden_).
This excerpt from one of the most popular catechisms, “The Shorter Catechism” (first published in English in 1857, I believe), illustrates both translation problems:
> The persons united by such marriage are so closely bound to each other, that they can in no wise separate \[_scheiden_; “divorce”\], except in case of “fornication \[_Ehebruch_; “adultery”\].
Mennonites of the late 1800s did not maintain a clear distinction between the English _separate_ and the German _scheiden_ (“divorce”).[11](#fn-3696-11) But a distinction was certainly made between the English terms _separate_ and _divorce_ as the century ended, and already in the mid-1800s some were teaching that separation was permitted in cases of adultery, but never divorce.
Virtually no one in the Mennonite Church read NT Greek. (Were there any exceptions?) Unlike many biblical scholars today, their only access to Jesus’ words was through either German or English. Of these two, English was increasingly seen as the language of the educated. _Quite literally, the terms of the debate were changing._
### **ASSESSING THE EVIDENCE**
I want to be clear that I have not found explicit evidence in primary sources about how the move from German to English shaped the interpretation of Jesus’ words about divorce. The circumstantial evidence still appears compelling to me, however. I find it hard to imagine that these changes in terminology had no effect at all on Mennonite understandings, even if it is hard to weigh their likely influence.
**I am not the only person to suggest such an influence**. In a recent article in the _Mennonite Quarterly Review_, Andrew V. Ste. Marie reflected on some of the same differences between German and English terminology:
> \[A\] fruitful avenue of research would be to investigate how the shift from German to English may have affected views on divorce and remarriage… We have ripe ground for understandings of divorce and remarriage to shift as the heart language of Mennonites shifted from German to English.[12](#fn-3696-12)
**Further, the transition to English did directly shape Mennonite theology and practice in other areas.**[13](#fn-3696-13) One example is the newly-defined doctrine of “ordinances,” which developed during the time of John S. Coffman and was standardized under his convert, Daniel Kauffman.[14](#fn-3696-14) The key verse here is 1 Corinthians 11:2, which reads thus in the KJV: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” The Greek word translated as _ordinance_ (paradosis, παράδοσις) is used four other times by Paul. It is always translated elsewhere in the KJV as _tradition(s)_, which captures the Greek sense much better.[15](#fn-3696-15)
Coffman and Kauffman regularly cited 1 Corinthians 11:2 when they presented their new list of seven Mennonite ordinances. They brought their English-language definitions of _ordinance_ to this verse—definitions cited from Webster or borrowed from systematic theologians rather than Greek scholars. Kauffman himself defined _ordinance_ as “a religious ceremony with a heavenward meaning.” With these definitions in hand, Kauffman reflected on 1 Corinthians 11:2 in his book _Manual of Bible Doctrines_ (1898): “This reference on the part of the apostle, to these things \[‘the head-covering and the communion’\] as ordinances, forever settles the question as to whether the subject under consideration is or is not an ordinance.” Kauffman, doubtless with the best of intentions, brought his own definitions of _ordinance_ to the Bible, found the word _ordinance_ in 1 Corinthians 11, and assumed it matched and buttressed his theology of ordinances.[16](#fn-3696-16)
**Did the change from German terms to English terms similarly help shape the new, more stringent teaching about divorce? I don’t know for sure.** I can also think of several arguments why the change in language perhaps made little difference:
* Only a minority of the English-speaking non-Mennonite denominations of the time adopted teachings as strict as those of the Mennonite Church.
* Funk used German and English Bible quotations in parallel in the German and English versions of his periodicals, as if interchangeable.[17](#fn-3696-17)
* The Virginia Conference was perhaps the first Mennonite group to transition to English preaching, yet they came out most strongly in 1867 in favor of the historic Anabaptist position approving remarriage after adultery.
* Many Anabaptists who retained the German language longer (Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonite) nevertheless adopted very strict no-divorce policies.
In response to the last argument, it should be noted that even those Amish and Mennonite churches that retained the German language were influenced by trends in the English-speaking church.[18](#fn-3696-18) German-speaking and English-speaking Anabaptists were not sealed off from each other. It is very likely that the progressive leaders in the English-speaking Mennonite Church (who ran the publishing companies and eventually ushered in a new fundamentalist church culture) also influenced how the German-speaking Anabaptist churches taught about divorce.
But what shaped the beliefs of these activist English leaders? The English Bible, or something else?
### **RESPONSES TO ENGLISH PROTESTANT INFLUENCES**
The example of ordinances reminds us that the transition to English could shape doctrinal beliefs both directly (from the English Bible) and indirectly (from exposure to other English-language sources). I’ll end this post by briefly discussing such indirect effects.
Increased exposure to English Protestants probably encouraged the growing tendency toward a stricter stance against all divorce in at least two contrasting ways: through separatism and imitation.
**First, as Mennonites lost the German language, they looked for other factors that could mark them as a separate people.** Some scholars think, for example, that this was one motivation behind the growing standardization of uniform attire and the prayer veiling.[19](#fn-3696-19) The Mennonite stance against divorce was another marker of separation—recall both the 1841 Benjamin Eby quote at the beginning of this post (which lumped divorce with war and oaths as three topics separating Mennonites from other Protestants) and also the 1895 testimony quoted in [my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-separatism-confessions/) of two men who joined the Mennonites in part because of their stance against divorce (which was lumped again with nonresistance as a marker). **_It is probable that the loss of German provided extra motivation to strengthen Mennonite teachings against divorce._**
**Second, Mennonites increasingly imitated Protestant doctrine and practice in the late nineteenth century.** John Funk is only the most obvious example: he was converted in a Presbyterian church in Chicago, was a personal friend of D. L. Moody and a partner with him in Sunday school work in Chicago, and during his long “reign” as a Mennonite patriarch tried to graft some of the best of what he saw in the Protestant world to strong Anabaptist roots. During this time, Mennonites were certainly aware of what other denominations were teaching about divorce. I hope to discuss this more in a future post on Mennonite periodicals, but here I’ll give an example not mentioned (to my knowledge) in periodicals of the time.
Zeal for holy living was in the air during the revival era at the turning of the century. The “Mennonite Church, particularly in the western United States, began grappling with some of the holiness and sanctification debates” that were happening within the Methodist world.[20](#fn-3696-20) These debates birthed several new holiness denominations (such as the Church of the Nazarenes) which taught, among other things, “a holy living style that rejected worldly dress, divorce, musical instruments, and membership in secret societies.”[21](#fn-3696-21) In 1903, for example, a radical branch of the holiness movement in Chicago adopted some “new teachings” on divorce which were especially rigid.[22](#fn-3696-22) The next year, 1904, leaders from this Chicago holiness group made divorce the central topic of a Los Angeles revival effort. They sternly rebuked the Nazarenes there for “allowing the remarriage of the so-called ‘innocent party’ in a divorce” and for offering church membership for those who were divorced and remarried.[23](#fn-3696-23) These new, firmer teachings on divorce and remarriage then became “prominent features of the Azusa Street Revival” in 1906 which helped trigger the birth of the Pentecostal movement.[24](#fn-3696-24)
**_Daniel Kauffman, from Missouri, and George R. Brunk, from Kansas, were among the new English-language Mennonite leaders who directly interacted with the topics raised by these new Methodist holiness debates._**[25](#fn-3696-25) **_It is very likely that they were aware of the strict divorce teachings of the more separatist holiness groups and that they were favorably impressed._** The dots are all there, even if I can’t quite connect them. At any rate, it was at precisely this time (1905) that the Mennonite Church officially adopted its own firm stance against remarriage in cases of adultery.
### **CONCLUSIONS**
**So then, did the transition to English help prompt the new Mennonite stance against divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery?** In theory, it seems to me that it should have made a difference, both through the effect of English Bible translations and through increased exposure to English sources. I find it hard to imagine that the transition to English had no effect on the divorce debate.
**I want to end on a cautious note, however, particularly regarding the direct effect of the KJV.** I am not sure whether the adoption of English Bibles was indeed a supporting cause for the adoption of stricter teachings on Jesus’ exception clause, or whether the KJV just made it easier afterward for English-speaking Mennonites to justify and retain their new interpretation. The latter is almost certainly true. The former deserves more study.[26](#fn-3696-26)
* * *
In my next post or two, I hope to move from background factors (separatist mindset, confessional documents, language transition) to factors more directly involved in the renewed Mennonite debate over divorce: (1) the growing social concern in America over rising divorce rates and (2) the birth of Mennonite periodicals which encouraged and enabled increased debate on a wide range of topics.
**Meanwhile, I’d love to hear your responses in the comments below.** Particularly, if you have any more puzzle pieces to add to this discussion about the transition from German to English and how it impacted divorce debates, I’m all ears. And someone who knows German needs to finish this puzzle so we can see the picture it makes!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support/)
* * *
1. The Revised Bible was also used. For example, I found a parallel KJV-RV Bible for sale online that the Mennonite Publishing Company published in 1891. Like the KJV, the RV uses the word “fornication” in Jesus’ exception clause. [↩](#fnref-3696-1)
2. This book has been republished in English translation as recently as 1999 by the car-driving Old Order Markham-Waterloo Mennonite Conference of Ontario. [See here](https://ocul-wtl.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Benjamin%20Eby%20%20Origin%20and%20Doctrine%20of%20the%20Mennonites&tab=Everything&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&sortby=date_d&vid=01OCUL_WTL:WTL_DEFAULT&facet=frbrgroupid,include,9060012215792779147&mode=basic&offset=0). [↩](#fnref-3696-2)
3. Benjamin Eby, _Kurzgefasste Kirchen-Geschichte_, English text adapted from rough translations provided by several of my friends (Berlin, ON: published by author’s son, Heinrich Eby, 1841), pp. 162-64. Emphasis added. German text: [https://archive.org/details/cihm\_35039/page/n169/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/cihm_35039/page/n169/mode/2up) [↩](#fnref-3696-3)
4. Another reading is possible: Eby, like the authors of the _Dordrecht_ _Confession_, affirmed an adultery exception which permitted divorce and remarriage, but did not mention it. He may have been contrasting this narrow exception of the Mennonite Church with those Protestants who permitted divorce for multiple causes. This reading appears less likely to me, given how he groups divorce with going to war and swearing oaths, which were traditionally prohibited without exception by Mennonites. [↩](#fnref-3696-4)
5. John Landis Ruth, _The Earth Is the Lord’s: A Narrative History of the Lancaster Mennonite Conference_ (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2001), 529 [↩](#fnref-3696-5)
6. Harold S. Bender, “English language,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1956. Accessed April 6, 2021. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=English\_language&oldid=129549](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=English_language&oldid=129549) [↩](#fnref-3696-6)
7. Bender, Ibid. [↩](#fnref-3696-7)
8. Theron F. Schlabach, _Peace, Faith, Nation: Mennonites and Amish in Nineteenth-Century America_ (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1988), 299. [↩](#fnref-3696-8)
9. Bender, Ibid. [↩](#fnref-3696-9)
10. Ruth, Ibid., 761. [↩](#fnref-3696-10)
11. See footnotes 14 and 35 [in this post](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1600-1860s-clearly-seen/). [↩](#fnref-3696-11)
12. Here is the full comment from Ste. Marie’s article about changing views on divorce: “Rather than attributing this shift to the influence of one or a few leaders, perhaps a more fruitful avenue of research would be to investigate how the shift from German to English may have affected views on divorce and remarriage. Luther’s rendition of Matthew 19:9 says that the man who divorces his wife and remarries “der bricht die Ehe,” “breaks the marriage,” while the King James Version says he “committeth adultery.” The German word for “adultery” is _Ehebruch_, a compound word which literally means “marriage-break.” (The verb form is _ehebrechen_, “to marriage-break.”) To a mind at home in German, Jesus could be easily understood, not as charging a remarried man with committing a sexual sin per se, but with breaking his first marriage. If, however, the wife’s “fornication” or adultery is itself understood to be an act of _Ehebruch_, then the marriage could be understood as “broken” already, before the man has remarried. In English, with “adultery” being understood as the act of illicit extramarital sexual activity, with no necessary connotation of breaking the bonds of marriage, we have ripe ground for understandings of divorce and remarriage to shift as the heart language of Mennonites shifted from German to English. I’m grateful to Mike Atnip for this insight.” (Andrew V. Ste. Marie, “Research Note: Nineteenth-Century Mennonites Deal with Divorce and Remarriage,” _MQR_ 94, April 2020, p. 248-49, n. 51. [↩](#fnref-3696-12)
13. Here are several less significant examples: (1) While the German word _Bischof_ was rarely used by eighteenth-century Mennonites and Amish, they did adopt the English word _bishop_ in the nineteenth century, after they began to use more English (Richard K. MacMaster, _Land, Piety, Peoplehood: The Establishment of Mennonite Communities in America 1683-1790_ {Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1985}, 200). The practice of powerful church leaders, of course, long preceded the use of the English term. (2) Mennonite writings in English have tended to refer to _devils_ rather than _demons_, “likely due to the influence of the King James Version” (Swartley, Willard M. “Exorcism.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1989. Web. 3 Mar 2021. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Exorcism&oldid=162903)](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Exorcism&oldid=162903\)). [↩](#fnref-3696-13)
14. For a fuller discussion of this topic, see my essay draft “125 Years of Seven Ordinances: An Historical and Biblical Review,” available here: [https://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/125-Years-of-Seven-Ordinances-DGO-Preview-2015.pdf](https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/125-Years-of-Seven-Ordinances-DGO-Preview-2015.pdf). [↩](#fnref-3696-14)
15. Cf. esp. 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6 for close parallel usage. This KJV inconsistency in translating παράδοσις is paralleled by its indiscriminate use of the English word _ordinance_. In the KJV NT the term _ordinance(s)_ is found nine times. These nine occurrences translate six different Greek words, and they reflect a wide variety of meanings. 1 Corinthians 11:2 is the only instance where the word _ordinance_ refers to Christian teaching. [↩](#fnref-3696-15)
16. Would the Mennonite Church have ended up with a similar focus on a list of seven ordinances even if they had never adopted the KJV? The impetus for a list of seven is hard to pin on the English language and may have been shaped more by the Roman Catholic list of seven sacraments or by the symbolic perfection of the number seven. On the other hand, the KJV use of _ordinance_ in 1 Corinthians 11 helped the prayer veiling achieve the status of an ordinance and helped raise the whole topic of ordinances to a higher prominence in Mennonite thought. Perhaps this was reinforced by the fact that the preferred term of the Dutch Mennonite theologian Dirk Philips (1504-68) for sacraments was a Dutch word normally translated as “ordinances”? The “Froschauer Bible” of Zwingli, the most popular Bible for the early Anabaptists, used the word _satzungen_ (“statutes” or “rules”) in 1 Corinthians 11:2 ([see here](https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0002/bsb00024266/images/index.html?id=00024266&seite=1113&fip=193.174.98.30&nativeno=&groesser=150%25)), following Luther’s initial 1522 translation ([see here](https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Newe_Testament_Deutzsch/1_Kor#11)). Luther’s final 1545 translation used the word _Weise_ (“ways”; [see here](https://www.bibel-online.net/buch/luther_1545_letzte_hand/1_korinther/11/#1)), which is probably closer to the sense of the Greek. [↩](#fnref-3696-16)
17. Cf. the initial question about Matt. 19 in the September, 1867 issues of the _Herald of Truth_ and its German counterpart, both of which quote the Matthew text ([German text](https://archive.org/details/derheroldderwahr04unse/page/n72/mode/1up); [English text](https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth04unse/page/n84/mode/1up)) and also the parallel presentation of Matt 5:32 in Brenneman’s long article in February 1868 ([German text](https://archive.org/details/derheroldderwahr05unse/page/n16/mode/1up); [English text](https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth05unse/page/n16/mode/1up)). In the May, 1877 issue of the _Herald of Truth_ a letter mentions someone excommunicated for “fornication”; the German parallel used is _hurerei_ ([German text](https://archive.org/details/derheroldderwahr14unse_0/page/n37/mode/1up); [English text](https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth14unse_0/page/n41/mode/1up)). My impression is that the _Herald of Truth_ uses “fornication” as a general, multi-purpose term, as the KJV does, without the implication that it is restricted to pre-marital sin. [↩](#fnref-3696-17)
18. As early as the late 1700s many Amish were actively listening to (non-Mennonite) English revivalist preachers, and by the 1870s many Amish had subscribed to the Mennonite periodical _Herald of Truth_ or its German counterpart. In fact, in the 1890s so many Amish were reading this paper that for a time it was billed as the “Organ of 14 Mennonite and Amish Conferences” (Steven M. Nolt, _A History of the Amish_ {Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 1992}, 162). During the second half of the 1800s about two-thirds of the Amish transitioned to become “Amish-Mennonites” (Nolt, 188), and most of these eventually merged with the Mennonite Church. [↩](#fnref-3696-18)
19. Examples: “Distinctive dress provided an acceptable alternate form of separation for these assimilated Mennonites at a time when they were losing the German language and the social isolation of small rural communities” (Samuel J. Steiner, _In Search of Promised Lands: A Religious History of Mennonites in Ontario_ {Kitchener, ON: Herald Press, 2015}, 214). “The people of God were to be a separate people… Sometimes it was by maintaining a geographic isolation, sometimes by means of the German language, and then also by distinctive, simple clothing or by a combination of all of these… When the language barrier was surrendered and geographic isolation was lost, a final effort was made to strengthen the third separation device, that of simple dress” (Melvin Gingerich, _Mennonite Attire through Four Centuries_ {Breinigsville, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1970}, 148). [↩](#fnref-3696-19)
20. Samuel J. Steiner, _In Search of Promised Lands: A Religious History of Mennonites in Ontario_ (Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press, 2015), 214. [↩](#fnref-3696-20)
21. Ibid., 214. [↩](#fnref-3696-21)
22. William Kostlevy, _Holy Jumpers: Evangelicals and Radicals in Progressive Era America_ (United States: Oxford University Press, USA, 2010), 190. [↩](#fnref-3696-22)
23. Ibid., 129. [↩](#fnref-3696-23)
24. Ibid., 133. [↩](#fnref-3696-24)
25. Steiner, Ibid., 214. [↩](#fnref-3696-25)
26. The whole topic of how the transition from German to English has affected and continues to affect Amish and Mennonites in America is much debated, as this book review clearly demonstrates: [https://dev.plainnews.org/2018/11/21/book-review-of-german-language-cradle-of-our-heritage/](https://dev.plainnews.org/2018/11/21/book-review-of-german-language-cradle-of-our-heritage/). [↩](#fnref-3696-26)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Worshiping and Imitating Our Servant King” (Sermon)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2021-03-28
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "Worshiping and Imitating Our Servant King" (Sermon) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Jesus saw himself as both Son of Man (the Messiah-King of Daniel 7) and Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53). He invites our worship and imitation.
Tags: -Daniel 7, -Isaiah 53, -Matthew 16:21, -Matthew 17:22-23, -Matthew 20:17-34, -Matthew 21:1-11, -Psalm 118, -Zechariah 9:9, church leadership, Jesus' example, Messiah, Palm Sunday, service, Son of Man, Suffering Servant, worship
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/worshiping-imitating-servant-king
**I was invited to preach a Palm Sunday sermon today.** It was a blessing to meditate on the example of our Servant King. Perhaps if I share this here now, some of you will find it in time to watch it this evening–or sometime later during this special week of remembering our Lord’s suffering and death.
**Sermon Title:** Worshiping and Imitating Our Servant King
**Main Text:** Matthew 21:1-11 (Jesus’ Triumphal Entry)
**Supporting Texts:** Psalm 118; Isaiah 53; Daniel 7; Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-34
**Teaser:** Our world is full of images of power-hunger leaders, leaders who are willing to use even violence to hold onto power. Today we are going to see a King whose example sharply contrasts with such worldly rulers. His way of ruling should inspire both our worship and our imitation.
**I was blessed by the responses after the sermon,** including someone who shared an impromptu performance of Michael Card’s song [Ride On to Die](https://youtu.be/BV8yYYEaU0s).
I’ve excluded those responses here, to preserve privacy, but **your responses are welcome in the comments below!**
* * *
_If you want to support more content like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why did Mennonites Abandon the Early Anabaptist View of Jesus’ Exception Clause? (Separatism and Confessional Statements)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2021-03-06
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Why did Mennonites Abandon the Early Anabaptist View of Jesus' Exception Clause? (Separatism and Confessional Statements) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: A separatist mindset and vague confessions and catechisms prepared Mennonites to reject early Anabaptist approval of remarriage after divorce.
Tags: divorce and remarriage, Anabaptist history, Herald of Truth, confessions of faith, Dordrecht Confession of Faith, John F. | Funk, nonresistance, Richard K. | MacMaster, Shorter Catechism, Theron | Schlabach, A.K. | Zook, catechism, Church of God in Christ Mennonite, Civil War, John | Holdeman, John M. | Brenneman, Martyrs Mirror, Menno | Simons, restorationism, Revolutionary War, separation, shunning
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-mennonites-abandon-early-anabaptist-view-exception-clause-separatism-confessions
**American Mennonites gradually abandoned the early Anabaptist interpretation of Jesus’ words, “except for _porneia_”** (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). They eventually resolved, instead, to exclude from the church any remarried person whose former spouse was still alive, even if their divorce had been triggered by adultery.
In [my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/when-did-mennonites-discard-early-anabaptist-interpretation-exception-clause/), I shared when this change took place. It began no later than the mid-1800s (likely decades before) and was finalized in a General Conference of the Mennonite Church in 1905.
**But why did this change happen, and why at this time?** This _why_ question is a little harder to pin down. I don’t think there was a single cause, but rather a cluster of reasons. I’ll begin discussing these reasons in this post.
_**Brief aside:** To avoid (or create!) confusion, I should clarify that **I am telling the story here primarily of the “[Mennonite Church](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Mennonite_Church_\(MC\)),” not of all Mennonites in America**, let alone of all Amish, too._ _The Mennonite Church was the oldest and largest branch of Anabaptists in America, composed of primarily Swiss-Germans, both Mennonites and some former Amish. It gave birth over time to many other groups, including Old Order Mennonites and, later, various conservative “fellowships” and “conferences” (including, indirectly, the [Midwest Mennonite Fellowship](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Midwest_Mennonite_Fellowship) of the church of my youth). Those who remained (along with others who joined) are now known as [Mennonite Church USA](https://www.mennoniteusa.org/) and [Mennonite Church Canada](https://mennonitechurch.ca/)._ _The Mennonite Church has been the most influential branch of American Anabaptists, partly because of its many publications, some of which strongly shape conservative Anabaptists even to this day._
_[**Click here to see a timeline of Amish and Mennonite separations and mergers**](https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CPF-Timeline-of-Amish-Mennonite-Separations-Mergers-1693-2012.pdf), created by my friend Ernest Eby. The branch I’m focusing on is the “Old” Mennonite Church, as well as the Amish-Mennonites who joined them._
**Why did the Mennonite Church step away from early Anabaptist teachings permitting divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery? Several background historical conditions played a supporting role. In this post I’ll discuss two: the separatist mindset of Anabaptists, and the role of confessions and catechisms.**
In a subsequent post I plan to discuss a possible third: the transition to the English language.
Again, I want to be clear that what follows is a series of informed propositions, not a publishable thesis. I am not sure how heavily to weigh each of these factors, and I’m sure I’m missing other factors worthy of discussion.
### **A SEPARATIST MINDSET**
**A first historical factor that probably helped nudge Mennonites toward a stricter divorce theology was their long tradition of seeing themselves as a people apart.** Their two-kingdom theology separated them not only from “the world,” but also from most other Christians, who were seen as participating in the world through political involvement and moral compromise. “Their worldview pitted the faithful remnant of true Christians in hard struggle against the established churches and against the vast majority of ‘Christians’ who did not live righteously.” [1](#fn-3614-1)
It is important to remember that even on the topic of divorce and remarriage early Anabaptists were mostly[2](#fn-3614-2) “conservative” in comparison to Reformers such as Luther and Zwingli, who permitted divorce for more reasons that just adultery. ([See this post](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1500s-unchangeable-plain-word-christ/) for more about Zwingli and divorce. [See here](http://teleiosministries.com/martin-luther-on-marriage-divorce.html) for relevant quotes from Luther.)
**When Anabaptists moved to America, this sense of being a people apart evolved, but continued.** On the one hand, these American Anabaptists no longer had the evangelistic zeal of their ancestors, which meant the church was now mostly composed of biological descendants rather than converts. This reinforced their isolation. On the other hand, they were no longer hiding for their lives, facing persecution from fellow “Christians.” This led to some increased assimilation within the surrounding culture. Mennonites engaged in business deals with non-Mennonite neighbors, shared church buildings, attended each other’s services, and even sometimes intermarried.
But before complete assimilation could occur, events such as the Revolutionary War reminded this nonresistant people of their identity:
> The greatest result of the whole revolutionary experience for Mennonites and Amish was to heighten their sense of separation from their neighbors. Rather suddenly, they had found themselves to be a people somewhat apart from the new people the patriots were forming. So they… emerged from the American revolution to be, more than before, “the quiet in the land.”[3](#fn-3614-3)
The Civil War (1861-65) found Mennonites and Amish less united in their response, but “unlike Protestants in major denominations… \[they\] had not put politics and sectionalism above faith to the point of dividing the church into northern and southern branches”[4](#fn-3614-4) Whatever their wartime choices, American Anabaptists experienced renewed debate about how to live as a separate people. Leaders such as Brenneman and Funk—the same leaders who played lead roles in the _Herald of Truth_ divorce debate I summarized in my last post—published new booklets promoting nonresistance.
**Separation over military participation reinforced separation over marriage.** Almost all Mennonite and Amish groups in the 1800s tried to prevent interdenominational marriages. Many churches excommunicated members who married outside the church; others placed such members on probation. A few churches gave reluctant permission, and one prominent Lancaster minister (1890) mourned the fact that Mennonite youth who were not yet members were forced to get conduct their interdenominational marriages elsewhere:
> Why must our menonite \[sic\] children when they are united in the bonds of matrimony, be sent to those least esteemed in the church? We try to raise them up in the nonresistent \[sic\] doctrine in our Sunday schools, but when they get married, we must send them to those war ministers to get married.[5](#fn-3614-5)
Such a strong separatist mindset probably also shaped how American Anabaptists felt about divorce and remarriage.
To be clear, Anabaptists had always warned strongly against (wrongful) divorce. It appears that American Anabaptists even pushed against the traditional practice of calling church members to shun spouses who were under church discipline; when Amish leaders in the 1860s tried to force a wife to shun her husband, church members called her an adulteress when she reluctantly complied! This suggests that, among American Anabaptists, the marriage bond was seen as even more binding than it had been seen by some early Anabaptists (such as Dutch Mennonites and Hutterites).
**As divorce and remarriage gradually became more frequent in the surrounding culture and churches (more on this in a future post), Mennonite leaders were keen to observe the rulings of other denominations and to urge a strict course for their own churches.** Though I have not found any record of actual church decisions on the matter from the 1700s or early 1800s, I suspect that as churches around them veered “left” on divorce, Amish and Mennonites gradually pulled harder to the “right.”
An author in the _Herald of Truth_ put it this way (1883): “Instead of divine law, to regulate it \[marriage and divorce\], the civil law is made the criterion by many Christian churches.”[6](#fn-3614-6) Similarly, the _Herald_ reported in 1895 that two men, “neither of them having been born in a Mennonite family,” gave a presentation titled, “Why am I a Mennonite?” Their sixth reason was summarized thus:
> 6\. Nonresistance. Also that adulterers (divorced persons remarrying) cannot enter the kingdom of God. Virtuous life required of every member…[7](#fn-3614-7)
**A strong stance against divorce and remarriage was part of the “brand” of American Mennonites, part of their identity as a people apart.** Their separatist mindset tied them to their Anabaptist ancestors, even though they had come to embrace a somewhat more stringent doctrine about divorce and remarriage than what their ancestors had taught.
### **CONFESSIONS AND CATECHISMS**
Confessions of faith have been one important way Anabaptists have remained rooted in the theology of their ancestors. Significantly, however, **the confession of faith that became most popular and authoritative for both Amish and Mennonites in America, the _Dordrecht Confession of Faith_ (1632), does not mention divorce or remarriage at all**. ([Here is the Dordrecht Confession’s article about marriage](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Dordrecht_Confession_of_Faith_\(Mennonite,_1632\)#XII._Of_the_State_of_Matrimony).)
This is surely an historical accident, in the sense that the authors of this confession almost certainly did, with all other Anabaptists of their time, permit divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery. It is also an accident in the sense that the popularity of this confession had nothing to do with its silence on this topic. Historical accidents, nevertheless, can produce real results.
American Anabaptists did use some other documents that preserved the historic Anabaptist teaching. For example, the “long” confession (c. 1600) included in the Martyr’s Mirror _did_ [explicitly affirm remarriage after adultery](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Confession_of_Faith_\(P.J._Twisck,_1617\)#Article_XXV:_Of_marriage.) (as noted by the 1882 _Herald of Truth_ article quoted in [my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/when-did-mennonites-discard-early-anabaptist-interpretation-exception-clause/)). Menno Simon’s writings, republished in America, taught the same. But most people probably had to go digging through long texts to find those witnesses. The _Dordrecht_ confession, by contrast, was used alongside several catechisms for instructing candidates for baptism and membership. Virtually every Mennonite encountered it.
**Did the catechisms clarify the historic Anabaptist affirmation of remarriage in cases of adultery? No, they did not.** While many Anabaptist catechisms and confessions from 1600 to the 1860s affirm _divorce_ in cases of adultery, I have not found any documents from this period that mention the question of _remarriage_ in such cases. They certainly do not forbid remarriage, but neither do they explicitly affirm it. They are silent. Many of these post-1600 documents probably assumed the historic Anabaptist teaching without repeating it.[8](#fn-3614-8)
The Church of God in Christ Mennonite denomination (started in 1859 by John Holdeman) offers an informative contrast. This was a restorationist group, so they intentionally reached back to early Anabaptist writings to shape their own theology and practice. [This excerpt from their 1896 confession](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Church_of_God_in_Christ,_Mennonite,_Articles_of_Confession_\(1896\)#11._Marriage) cites both the “long” confession (c. 1600) and the writings of Menno Simons as it affirms, mostly intact,[9](#fn-3614-9) the historic Anabaptist teaching on remarriage after adultery:
> We do believe that the Lord prohibited divorcing excepting in case of adultery. Yet we do not believe that a brother or sister should apply for a divorce. We understand the Savior’s expression in Matthew 19:9, as did the Martyr brethren in their 33 articles of faith as we read in “Martyr’s Mirror,” page 387, article 25, when they expressed themselves as follows: “And thus re-establishing marriage between one man and one woman, and so inseparably and firmly binding the bond of matrimony, that they might not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in case of adultery or death.” Also read in Menno Simon part 2, page 311.
But the confession considered most authoritative by most early American Mennonites (_Dordrecht_) did not mention the question of divorce and remarriage after adultery. Many other documents they used most often addressed only the first half of the question.
**Given this situation, it isn’t surprising that American Mennonites gradually lost clarity and agreement about what they believed on the topic.** This lack of teaching set the stage for renewed debate, eventually leading to a new (and different) consensus.
### **CONCLUSION**
The separatist mindset of American Mennonites probably pushed them to become even more rigorous than their Anabaptist ancestors in their interpretation of Jesus’ exception clause. This “push” factor was not counterbalanced with any “pull” in their most popular Anabaptist confession and catechisms, which did not address the topic of remarriage after adultery. **Together, these historical factors helped set the stage for the Mennonite Church to retreat from early Anabaptist views about valid grounds for divorce and remarriage.**
* * *
In my next post I hope to wrestle with the question of whether the language transition from German to English shaped Mennonite views on divorce and remarriage.
**Meanwhile, I invite your responses to this post in the comments below. Thanks for reading!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. Theron F. Schlabach, _Peace, Faith, Nation: Mennonites and Amish in Nineteenth-Century America_, The Mennonite Experience in America, V. 2 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1988), 20. In this quote, Schlabach is discussing early Anabaptists in Europe. [↩](#fnref-3614-1)
2. I say “mostly” because some early Anabaptists affirmed the practice of converts divorcing their unbelieving (non-Anabaptist) spouses and remarrying; a practice which the magisterial Reformers strongly opposed. Except for the Hutterites, and except for the Dutch Mennonite who advocated shunning spouses who were under discipline, within a generation or so almost all Anabaptists had rejected this additional ground for divorce, limiting it only to one: adultery. [↩](#fnref-3614-2)
3. Richard K. MacMaster, _Land, Piety, Peoplehood: The Establishment of Mennonite Communities in America 1683-1790_, The Mennonite Experience in America, V. 1 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 19850, 279. [↩](#fnref-3614-3)
4. Schlabach, 199. [↩](#fnref-3614-4)
5. Schlabach, 83. [↩](#fnref-3614-5)
6. A. K. Zook, “Matrimony,” original article for _The Herald of Truth_, Vol. 20, No. 14 (published July 15, 1883), 212; [https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth20unse/page/n111/mode/1up](https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth20unse/page/n111/mode/1up). [↩](#fnref-3614-6)
7. “Proceedings of the Mennonite S. S. Conference of Indiana and Michigan,” Herald of Truth, Vol. 32, No. 22 (Nov. 15, 1895), 346; [https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth32unse/page/n176/mode/1up](https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth32unse/page/n175/mode/1up). [↩](#fnref-3614-7)
8. See [the conclusion to this post](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1600-1860s-clearly-seen/), including footnote 36, for more analysis of this documentary evidence. [↩](#fnref-3614-8)
9. I say “mostly intact” because of the statement that Christians should not apply for a divorce. This may be based on the idea of some early Anabaptists that marriages initiated outside the church are not particularly valid or binding. The Holdemans seem to have concluded that, in contrast, marriages between church members cannot be broken. Most early Anabaptist writings, however do not appear to restrict believers from divorcing spouses who commit adultery. [↩](#fnref-3614-9)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## When did Mennonites Discard the Early Anabaptist Interpretation of Jesus’ Exception Clause about Divorce?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2021-03-01
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: When did Mennonites Discard the Early Anabaptist Interpretation of Jesus' Exception Clause about Divorce? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: American Mennonites gradually lost the historic Anabaptist understanding of Jesus' exception clause, finally officially rejecting it in 1905.
Tags: -Matthew 19:9, divorce and remarriage, Anabaptist history, Herald of Truth, Mennonite Church, John F. | Funk, John M. | Brenneman, -1 Corinthians 7:10-39, -Luke 16:18, -Matthew 19:3, -Matthew 5:31-32, fundamentalism
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/when-did-mennonites-discard-early-anabaptist-interpretation-exception-clause
**How did American Mennonites end up abandoning the early Anabaptist interpretation of Jesus’ exception clause about divorce?** When and why did they reject the position that remarriage was permissible after a spouse had committed adultery? Months ago, I left my readers hanging, promising to answer this question.
I am sorry I have not done so. Here is why: As I dug into the question, I discovered there was a wealth of historical evidence to examine. In my first posts on the historical views of Anabaptists about remarriage after sexual immorality, I included virtually all the primary source evidence I could find (as an amateur historian working from home). If I were to do the same for the period beginning in the mid-1800s, however, I would end up with a book. This would require months of study to ensure I was treating the evidence justly.
After weeks digging into the evidence, I became overwhelmed. So, I crawled out of my hole and did other things, like make music and spend time with my family.
**Recently, however, I received an email from a reader in the Netherlands. It included these questions: “Could you explain to me what happened that the Anabaptists changed their view about remarriage? When did this happen and what was the cause that made them change their mind?”**
This email prodded my conscience, so I will attempt an answer.
**I want to be clear that what follows (in future blog posts) is a series of informed propositions, not a publishable thesis.** I am quite sure all the factors I will summarize played a role in why American Anabaptists changed their minds about remarriage after sexual immorality, but I do not know which of these factors was most important, and I am sure I am missing some factors I should include.
I will also make little attempt to document my claims here, because doing so would double my writing time. If you want references on a specific point, feel free to let me know, and I’ll see what I can do.
That said, here is what I think I know so far. I’ll address the _when_ question in this post, and hopefully follow it up with one or more posts discussing _why_.
**When did American Mennonites abandon the early Anabaptist position on remarriage after adultery?**
It seems clear that this change happened over the period of many decades—probably a century or more. It was finally officially resolved for the Mennonite Church on November 18, 1905, in a General Conference meeting held at Berlin (now Kitchener), Ontario. Here are the relevant lines from the meeting minutes:
> Ques. 4. Is it scriptural to receive a person into church fellowship while he lives as husband with another woman before a divorced wife be dead?
>
> Resolved, That in the light of the scriptures (Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:3; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10-17:39 \[sic\]), we hold that a separation between husband and wife is allowable only for the cause of fornication. That a person holding a divorce obtained for the sake of re-marriage, or being married a second time, and continuing to live with a second companion while the first companion is living should not be received into the church. That we pledge ourselves to use all consistent efforts to convince humanity of the sin of divorcement and prevent further propagation of the evil.
This resolution may appear unclear on its own, but the historical context clarifies the intent. The Mennonite church had been publicly debating for decades now whether divorce and remarriage were ever permissible, and some of the most vigorous debate was over whether adultery was justification for remarriage. This resolution clearly stated the official position of the Mennonite Church: No one who was living in a second marriage while a first spouse was still alive could be part of the church. There were no exceptions.
Further, the language implied another conviction that was frequently taught at the time: in cases of sexual immorality (“fornication”), only “separation” was permitted, not divorce.
Here is the report in the _Herald of Truth_ about the 1905 resolution that established the official position of the Mennonite Church against remarriage in cases of adultery (large red arrow). Of personal interest to me (small red arrow) is that one of the deacons present, Silas Bauman, was a brother to my great-great grandfather Martin Bauman (father of Henry Bauman, father of Verna Gingrich, mother of Elaine Gingrich, mother of me). Source: “Fourth General Conference,” _Herald of Truth_, (Elkhart, IN: Mennonite Publishing Company) November 30, 1905, Vol. XLII, No. 48, 382, [https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth42unse/page/n193/mode/1up](https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth42unse/page/n193/mode/1up)
**1905, then, is our end point to the _when_ question.** The topic of remarriage after divorce would be debated by Mennonites again in the mid-20th century (as more churches experienced firsthand the difficulties of divorce among their membership and as the fundamentalism of the prior generation came under general review). But, for the more conservative streams of the American Mennonite church, this 1905 resolution staked a position that has been firmly held as gospel truth ever since.
**A start point is not possible to pin down, but the September 1867 issue of the _Herald of Truth_ (the quasi-official Mennonite periodical edited by John F. Funk) provides an important window.** In this issue, John M. Brenneman, an important bishop from Ohio, raised a question:
> \[In\] Matt 19:9, it is said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” Query:—What is forbidden here? putting away one’s wife; or marrying another? or, in case of fornication, is it permitted to do both? An answer is required.
An editorial assistant provided an answer:
> “Neither a prohibition nor a permission is expressed here. Simply what constitutes the crime of adultery is here explained… I do not think it can be shown anywhere in the Bible that it is right for a follower of Christ to put away his wife for any cause whatever, be it fornication or faithlessness in any respect.”
Later the same month, Brenneman raised his question at the Virginia Conference, and received a very different answer—one that matched the historic Anabaptist understanding: “It was also decided that for the same reason that a man is allowed to put away his wife, he is allowed to marry again.”
After the Virginia Conference decision was printed in the _Herald of Truth_, Funk reported, “We have received a large number of letters making inquiries and objections to the decision of the Virginia Conference.” Significantly, Funk himself declined to take a side in the debate. Instead, a flurry of exchanges occurred in the _Herald_, including a letter from Brenneman where he vigorously defended the Virginia Conference decision. Other writers disagreed, and the Ohio and Indiana Conferences adopted resolutions contrary to the Virginia Conference.
Finally, sensing he was losing the argument, Brenneman wrote a short and rather pitiful apology in the July, 1868 issue of the _Herald_:
> It appears, I have given an occasion of offense to many beloved brethren by my awkward article on divorce and marrying again, according to Matt. 19:9… I am very sorry, that I have made known my thoughts on this subject through the Herald; but it is done now, and can not be undone… If the brethren do not esteem me altogether too unworthy, I would desire that they earnestly entreat the Lord to be merciful to me, and to give me understanding in that in which I am yet ignorant, and to enlighten me in that which is yet dark to me. Your humble, weak and unworthy brother, J. M. BRENNEMAN.
**Clearly, as of 1867, there was strong disagreement within the Mennonite Church over divorce, including the more specific question of whether divorce and remarriage are permissible after sexual immorality.** The strength of the opinions suggests that a variety of teachings may have existed in parallel in different conferences for some time, perhaps for decades or more. There were some church leaders who did not know how to interpret Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9, some who believed remarriage was permissible after adultery, and others who were equally confident that remarriage was never permitted (and, according to some, not even divorce).
**The more restrictive camp won out in this particular exchange, but it is important to note that intermittent discussion and a variety of views continued to be printed in the _Herald_ in coming decades.** Multiple examples could be cited. In an article written for the May 1, 1882 issue, we find this defense of the historic Anabaptist view:
> Christ says in plain language that fornication is the only reason for which they could separate and marry another. These are not my words but the words of Christ, and the Old Mennonites so understand them. I refer you to the first part of the article on _Matrimony_ in the Confession of Faith in the Martyrs Mirror…
A comment in the August 1, 1883 issue summarized the disagreement well:
> “The Congregational ministers of Chicago have unanimously decided not to solemnize marriage where either party has procured a divorce on other than scriptural grounds.” Not only Congregational, but all ministers everywhere ought to occupy the same ground. In fact, the writer \[probably editor Funk\] doubts the propriety of the re-marriage of those who have been divorced on any grounds, but **there is a difference of opinion upon this point**. \[Emphasis added.\]
It was not until the 1905 General Conference that the question was officially settled for the entire Mennonite Church. Some disagreement undoubtedly remained, but official policy was–for the time–clear.
**The _why_ question is a little harder to pin down.**
“What was the cause that made” American Mennonites “change their mind” and reject the historic Anabaptist understanding of Jesus’ exception clause? I don’t think there was a single cause, but rather a cluster of reasons. I will aim to summarize several of those causes in forthcoming blog posts.
**Meanwhile, I invite your responses to this post in the comments below. Thanks for reading!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: 2020 Year-End Report
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2021-01-02
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding: 2020 Year-End Report • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: It's time again to give witness to God's faithfulness in meeting our housing needs. We are deeply grateful for our churchfunding supporters.
Tags: annual report, churchfunding, microloans, windows
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2020-year-end-report
**It’s time again to give witness to God’s faithfulness in providing for our housing needs.** As many of you know, we purchased our Atlanta house on March 25, 2016, paying the seller in full immediately, thanks to loans and gifts from nearly 90 individuals or families. Since this crowdfunding effort was the work of Christ’s church, we coined a new term: “churchfunding.” ([Here is the post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) that officially launched this adventure.)
**At the beginning of 2020, we owed $35,062.50 in house loans.** **By the end of the year, we owed only $28,782.50.**
**Here is how that $6,280 difference breaks down:**
* We repaid $5,180 in loans, at a little more than the promised rate of $500 per month.
* We were forgiven $1,100 in principal and interest by several generous lenders.
In total, our house debt declined by $280 more than we expected in 2020.
At the promised $500 per month, **we should have all remaining lenders repaid within five years—by about October of 2025.** As promised, we are using a random number generator and prayer to select who is repaid each month. If you have a financial squeeze, however, let us know and we will consider prioritizing your repayment as possible.
### **Cash Flow and House Happenings**
**Ironically, given the coronavirus economy of 2020, our cash flow was slightly bigger than previous years.** A temporary end to piano lessons and slowdown to my Choice Books work were both offset by government stimulus efforts, and after I transitioned to teaching piano online (mostly), my student pool has ballooned to 35 as I head into 2021.
A nearly-empty Concourse A at “the world’s busiest airport” during the height of the coronavirus scare in spring of 2019. I used to service Choice Books displays two days each week at the Atlanta airport. Currently I go there one day every two weeks, though more stores are gradually reopening.
On the other hand, our vehicles are now 15 and 18 years old (go, Toyota!) and we are still years away from having saved enough for a dreamed-of western trip as a family. But, as I often pray with thanksgiving, God is meeting all our needs, which he identifies as food and clothing/shelter, and much more besides. We are grateful.
**Our main house improvements this year involved windows.** First, I used my spring coronavirus “vacation” to finally strip and repaint the big original steel window in our living room.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LivingRoomWindowRepair1.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LivingRoomWindowRepair1.jpg)
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LivingRoomWindowRepair3.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LivingRoomWindowRepair3.jpg)
We also got the windows replaced on the northern side of the house, in the piano studio and the laundry room.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PianoWindowRepairNew2.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PianoWindowRepairNew2.jpg)
The originals were single pane and one was broken.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PianoRoomWindowOld.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PianoRoomWindowOld.jpg)
Other projects included painting the front door and some exterior trim…
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FrontDoorPainted.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FrontDoorPainted.jpg)
…building a cabinet in a bathroom…
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BathroomCabinet.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BathroomCabinet.jpg)
…and painting the laundry room and installing coat racks for the girls.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LaundryRoomPaint.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LaundryRoomPaint.jpg)
Next projects? Well, a dishwasher is on order. Perhaps after that we’ll get the shower in the master bedroom working? Or build more closet shelves? Or make the basement entrance functional?
Meanwhile, we’re thankful for what we have–and that God protected our house in October, when we saw the worst flash flood in our backyard that we’ve seen yet.
Water pouring over our backyard bridge. The manhole in our side yard was spewing hundreds of gallons of dirty water down our driveway, too.
### O**ther News**
**Our public and private lives continue much as last year.** We continue to worship with [Cellebration Fellowship](https://www.cellebrationfellowship.com/), where I am now responsible for scheduling music leaders for each Sunday. I take my turn leading, too, sometimes with the help of my daughters. This year we have met variously in a building, online, and in a campground.
I am thankful for the devotion to Christ that is evident in the words and actions of so many in the “Cell Fell” group. Here’s a photo of most of us from a little over a year ago:
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/cellfell2019-scaled-1.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/cellfell2019-scaled-1.jpg)
**On our street we aim to be good neighbors in Jesus’ name.** Sometimes that means sharing food (which Zonya often does) or tools (as I just did now). Over Thanksgiving we loved our neighborhood by spending several hours clearing a nearby hiking trail.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CleanPath.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CleanPath.jpg)
Often our service is through the ordinary means of faithfulness in raising children, loving students, selling Christian books, and writing the occasional blog post.
**I’ll end with four 2020 happenings that were noteworthy for our family.**
**First (in every way), my father passed away in February.** Though we have not traveled back to Canada since his funeral (thank you, coronavirus), I miss him. He left a legacy of gentle integrity, hard work, and dependence on God’s mercy. I especially think of him while working with my hands around the house, since he was a master craftsman.
Here is a photo of my family, taken at Dad’s funeral, which happened about two weeks before the Canada-USA border started shutting down.[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FamilyPhoto.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FamilyPhoto.jpg)
Second, we finally managed to go camping somewhere besides our backyard. Here is an amazing sunrise we saw from our north Georgia campsite.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/120909696_10164140293420177_1612911273593787386_o.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/120909696_10164140293420177_1612911273593787386_o.jpg)
Third, we got our first pets! We raised chickens from eggs this spring and bought the girls a cat for Christmas. Having animals around complicates life, but is good for all four of my girls.
You could say our pets have been babied just a little.
Fourth, my wife’s brother got married in December, and my daughters and I provided the special music. Preparing for this occupied much of our time for a couple months.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/AlbertsWeddingMusic.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/AlbertsWeddingMusic.jpg)
* * *
**We remain deeply grateful for all our churchfunding supporters.** We want to faithfully steward this house for Jesus in 2021. Please pray we will walk faithfully in the Spirit of Jesus. May God bless you and make you salt and light in your own community!
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “In the Sight of God”: Divine Perspective from 1 Peter
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-09-13
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "In the Sight of God": Divine Perspective from 1 Peter • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Three times in this letter Peter specifically describes how things look "in the sight of God" or "in God's sight." Do you see as God sees?
Tags: justice, -1 Peter 2:20, -1 Peter 2:4, -1 Peter 3:4, -1 Peter 5:5, humility, in the sight of God, perspective, servants, suffering, wives
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/sight-of-god-divine-perspective-1-peter
**I enjoyed a slow read through 1 Peter this afternoon**, sitting quietly in my backyard and giving myself time to meditate as I read. 1 Peter was a letter written to “elect exiles” (1:1), and it definitely offers a counter-cultural way of seeing life. I think its message is timely for today.
**Three times in this letter Peter specifically describes how things look “in the sight of God” or “in God’s sight.”** Do you see things as God sees them? Let’s find out. Here’s a quiz for you:
1. Who is “chosen and precious” in God’s sight?
2. What is “a gracious thing” in God’s sight?
3. What is “very precious” in God’s sight?
These questions, obviously, have multiple correct answers. But the answers that Peter provides suggest a pattern–a pattern that can be summarized by the proverb Peter quotes near the end of his letter: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:6).
### The Rejected Jesus
Who is “chosen and precious” in God’s sight?
**The Lord Jesus Christ, Peter says, is “a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious” (2:4).** He is “the stone that the builders rejected” which “has become the cornerstone” (2:7).
In this letter Peter emphasizes how Jesus shed his blood (1:2); how the prophets predicted his sufferings (1:11); and how he suffered unjustly and patiently on the cross both as our substitute and our example (2:21-24; 3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1).
God saw “the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1:19), and God chose Christ. Of course, Christ was already “foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1:20). But there is a sense in which Christ was chosen all over again by God after the cross. The cross had displayed his true identity as a humble, suffering Lamb who had shed his blood to “sprinkle” (1:2) and “ransom” (1:18) a people for God.
In the sight of God, this rejected Christ is “chosen and precious.” Therefore, **the God who opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble** raised Jesus from the dead (1:3) and exalted him to share in his own glory (1:11; 3:21-22; 5:1).
### A Servant Who Endures Unjust Suffering
What is “a gracious thing” in God’s sight?
Peter knew that it was a gracious gift to be “counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name” of Jesus; persecution was reason for “rejoicing” (Acts 5:41). In this letter, Peter extends that reality to other suffering besides persecution. _Any unjust suffering endured patiently in imitation of Christ_ has meaning or “credit,” Peter insists; “this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly” (2:19, 20).
**Peter applied this truth especially to servants whose masters were unjust** **(2:18): “If when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God” (2:20).** Why is this true? Peter continues:
> For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (1 Pet. 2:21-23)
This is incredibly counter-cultural. Peter says that when a servant is “beaten” (2:20) by his or her master, this is a chance for them to fulfill their calling. I don’t think Peter is saying that suffering itself is the calling of Christians, but he _is_ saying something very close to this: he is saying that _patient endurance of suffering in the imitation of Christ_ is at the heart of the Christian’s calling.
On the one hand this is a hard saying. No reviling of unjust masters, Peter insists. No threatening. How unlike the methods of many today who seek social justice!
But it is also an incredibly empowering teaching. Any unjust suffering, Peter says, can have eternal meaning and purpose. Patient, Christ-like endurance of any injustice earns the credit of God’s favor, pleasure, or commendation. (See how the CSB, NLT, and NIV translate the ESV phrase “a gracious thing in the sight of God.”)
Following in the steps of Jesus through unjust suffering leads to sharing in Christ’s glory, for **the God who is watching opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble**.
### A Wife With a Gentle and Quiet Spirit
What is “very precious” in God’s sight?
After addressing servants whose masters were not “good” or “gentle” (2:18), Peter addresses wives whose husbands “do not obey the word” of the gospel (3:1). Such men were likely distant not only from the gospel, but also from their wives who had converted to Christ. By doing so, they had abandoned their husband’s religion, potentially damaging his social standing.
Peter advises such women not to try to entice their husbands by adding appealing hairstyles, jewelry, or attractive clothing (3:3). Instead, they should win their husbands (to the gospel and also to themselves) by the adornment of “respectful and pure conduct” (3:2) that was the overflow of “the hidden person of the heart” (3:4). **In particular, Peter praised “the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (3:4).**
Peter tells wives to follow the example of “the holy women” of old “who hoped in God” and submitted to their husbands–even to husbands whose choices were sometimes frightening, as Abraham’s choices were at times for Sarah (3:6). This teaching does not forbid women from escaping from domestic violence, but it does mean Christian wives will choose to “subject themselves even to unjust treatment because of their faith in Christ.”[1](#fn-3561-1)
Again, this is counter-cultural teaching. Who today praises the imperishable beauty of a wife’s gentle (humble) and quiet (peaceable) spirit? How much less when a wife is saddled with a husband who has withdrawn his heart from her, or who leaves her with cause for fear?
Who praises such a spirit? God does–**the God who opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble**. Hope in me, he says; “do not fear” (3:5-6). Your beauty is very precious to me. I will give you grace.
### Where Is Your Focus?
**“Set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” Peter urges his readers (1:13).** This Jesus, the stone rejected by men but chosen by God, is the example for all of us–servants, wives, and everyone else. And his pattern of suffering followed by glory is the bedrock of our hope.
**Don’t be a typical resident of a Western democracy, focused on demanding your own rights.** Don’t focus on securing full justice here and now. Don’t focus on threatening others with justice until you get yours.
Don’t belittle the value of quietly living a peaceable life. Don’t miss the eternal credit of enduring suffering without reviling or threatening. Don’t miss the promise of God’s favor.
**Do live as an “elect exile” (1:1), focused on the promises of your heavenly citizenship.** Do focus on the grace that will be brought to you when Jesus appears. Do patiently endure suffering. And do entrust yourself to God.
**What ultimately matters, remember, is how things truly stand “in the sight of God.” He opposes the proud, and _he will indeed give grace to the humble_.**
> “Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.” (1 Pet. 5:6-7)
* * *
How do you think we need to improve our perspective to better see things as God sees them? **Please share your insights in the comments below.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. Karen Jobes, _1 Peter_, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 206. More from Jobes: “Christian women married to unbelieving men are not to despise and reject their husbands, making the household climate one of hostility, but to subject themselves even to unjust treatment because of their faith in Christ, and in so doing accomplish God’s better way… The exhortation… immediately raises the question of whether women should stay in marriages where there is physical abuse. There is nothing in this passage of Scripture that would either sanction the abuse of wives or suggest that women should continue to submit themselves to that kind of treatment. The nature of the suffering that Peter is addressing here is primarily verbal abuse and loss of social standing.” [↩](#fnref-3561-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why Did Early Anabaptists Believe Jesus Allowed Divorce and Remarriage in Cases of Adultery?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-08-10
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Why Did Early Anabaptists Believe Jesus Allowed Divorce and Remarriage in Cases of Adultery? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: How did early Anabaptists synthesize Jesus' exception clauses with other biblical texts about divorce and remarriage? Here are seven answers.
Tags: adultery, Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Joseph A. | Webb, Anthony C. | Thiselton, one flesh, Anabaptist history, exception clause, Ehebruch, Froschauer Bible, Harold S. | Bender, John F. | Funk, Martin | Luther, porneia, Willard M. | Swartley, Menno | Simons, -, Abraham | Friesen, Alvin J. | Beachy, Angel M. | Mergal, Bible translations, C. Arnold | Snyder, Charles A. | Hay, Christian | Neff, Christocentric, Christology, Conrad | Grebel, Cornelius J. | Dyck, Dirk | Philips, Douglas | Harper, expositional sermons, Felix | Mantz, Frankenthal Disputation, G.H. | Williams, Gerhard | Roosen, Gospel of Matthew, Hans | de Ries, Hans | Denck, harmonize Scripture, hermeneutics, Huldrych | Zwingli, Ian | Boxall, J.C. | Wenger, Jacob | van Liesveldt, John | Hooper, John | Wyclif, John Howard | Yoder, Joseph F. | Sohm, Leland D. | Harder, Leonard | Gross, Leonard | Verduin, Ludwig | Haetzer, Münster, Nicholas | Biestkens, Paul, Perry | Yoder, Peter | Reidemann, prostitution, Sanford G. | Shetler, Sermon on the Mount, sermons, Stuart | Murray, Swiss Brethren, Sydney | Penner, Thieleman J. | van Braght, Timothy | George, Vulgate, Walter | Klaassen, wedlock, William | Tyndale, William E. | Keeney, Wismar Articles
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-anabaptists-believe-jesus-allowed-divorce-remarriage
**How did early Anabaptists synthesize the biblical teachings about divorce and remarriage?** Why did they believe what they did? What hermeneutical principals and practices led them to believe divorce and remarriage are permitted in cases of adultery? How did they fit Jesus’ exception clauses together with other passages that can appear to leave no permission for either divorce or remarriage?
In this post I pause my historical survey of _what_ Anabaptists have believed about Jesus’ exception clauses to consider these _how_ and _why_ questions. To learn _what_ Anabaptists have believed, see my other posts in this series:
[Anabaptists Now: Taking Exception to Jesus’ Exception Clause](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-now-taking-exception-clause/)
[Anabaptists Then (1500s): An “Unchangeable Plain Word of Christ”](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1500s-unchangeable-plain-word-christ/)
[Anabaptists Then (1600-1860s): “It Is Clearly to Be Seen”](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1600-1860s-clearly-seen/)
If I find time and strength, I hope to write one more historical post explaining how and why North American Mennonites eventually adopted a much firmer stance than their Anabaptists forebears, a stance that forbade all divorce and remarriage without exception. That story is fascinating but complex, for suddenly, after centuries that offer only several dozen relevant documents, there is an explosion of evidence to sift through.
**But first, it will be helpful to ask the how and why questions about early Anabaptists. Specifically, how did they fit Jesus’ exception clauses together with other Bible passages that make no mention of any exception for either divorce or remarriage?**
I would be interested to hear how others might answer this question—particularly historians with a wider knowledge of medieval and Reformation views on divorce and remarriage. **Here is a non-comprehensive list of seven intertwining factors that stand out to me:**
1. They started with Jesus’ words.
2. They started with Matthew’s Gospel.
3. They used new German translations of the NT as they read Jesus’ words.
4. They accepted Jesus’ exceptions at face value without letting other more general biblical statements override them.
5. They insisted that Paul agrees with Christ.
6. They pointed to 1 Corinthians 6 when explaining how adultery uniquely breaks a one-flesh marriage union.
7. They believed that the prohibition of divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 did not apply to Jesus’ exceptional cases involving adultery.
This blog post will discuss these points. I’ll add some evaluative comments along the way, with the caution that I am not attempting a comprehensive analysis of either Anabaptist theology or biblical evidence on the topic. (I should also warn you that the theological deductive work gets a little dense near the end of this post, though I think the payoff is worth the effort–at least if you care deeply about not taking Bible verses out of context.)
**How, then, did early Anabaptists approach the task of interpreting Jesus’ exception clauses?**
**1\. They started with Jesus’ words.**
This fact is immediately obvious in most Anabaptist writings on the subject. The first Anabaptist writing on divorce (“Concerning Divorce,” c. 1527-33), begins with the words, “The Pharisees sought to catch Jesus,” and launches into a summary of Jesus’ teaching from Matthew 19.[1](#fn-3544-1) Later in the same document we read this:
> When Christ in Matthew 5 often saith, “But I say unto you,” **he thereby annuls the Law** insofar as it is grasped legalistically and not spiritually, Ephesians 2, Romans 10. As **He is also the perfection of the Law**, therefore **He is the Mediator of a better Testament** which hath been established upon better promises, Hebrews 8.[2](#fn-3544-2)
The c. 1600 confession included in the _Martyrs Mirror_ has a similarly Christocentric perspective: “Christ as a perfect Lawgiver, rejected and abolished the writing of divorcement and permission of Moses, together with all abuses thereof.”[3](#fn-3544-3) Perhaps the strongest exaltation of Jesus’ words is found in a written Anabaptist response (pub. 1590) to the Frankenthal Disputation (1571):
> **Christ our Lord and Savior, of whom Moses and the prophets, indeed even the great glory of God itself testify, says**: “It has been said that whoever wants to divorce his wife shall give her a bill of divorcement; but I say unto you, whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, forces her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” **All God-fearing Christians will allow these words to suffice**, nor will they add to or detract from them.[4](#fn-3544-4)
Walter Klaassen, in an essay called “The Bern Debate of 1538: Christ the Center of Scripture,” summarizes the Christocentric Anabaptist approach to biblical interpretation and notes how it affected their view of divorce (according to minutes from the Bern debate):
> The Anabaptists seem to have been the only Protestants in the sixteenth century who took a historical view of the Bible. They viewed the drama of God’s redemption as a process, initiated by God in particular with Abraham, and moving forward to a climax in Jesus Christ, in whom God would conclude human history. The Old Testament with its Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants they viewed as preparatory, as paving the way, for the final and complete revelation of God in Jesus Christ…
>
> It was not the New Testament as a book that provided the key to the Anabaptist understanding of the Old Testament, but the new Covenant or the new and final revelation of God in Christ. **Christ was for them the center of Scripture.** **Any specific word in the Bible stands or falls depending upon whether it agrees with Jesus Christ or not…** Certainly Christ’s words and life did not abrogate the whole of the Old Testament, but since in Old Testament times there was only a partial revelation the demand was not so high. There the rule of an eye for an eye was allowed because men were not able to rise higher; in Christ even such limited retaliation is forbidden. **There men were allowed to divorce their wives; here it is forbidden except on one condition**.[5](#fn-3544-5)
**2\. They started with Matthew’s Gospel.**
This fact is as obvious as the first. **Matthew 19 is the passage most commonly used by Anabaptists on the topic of divorce and remarriage.** This passage records Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees and includes (a) references to several key OT passages (Gen. 1 and 2; Deut. 24) and also (b) the exception clause that featured so prominently in early Anabaptist teaching.
Matthew 5 is also frequently cited, as part of the Sermon on the Mount that was so central to Anabaptist life. In this sense, the emphasis on Matthew is closely tied to the Christocentric focus of the Anabaptists (point number one, above), as Murray has noted:
> Anabaptists… insisted on the priority of the Gospels and Jesus’ teaching there, explaining other NT texts in the light of the Sermon on the Mount… The Sermon on the Mount seems to have acted as a further canon within an already Christocentric canon.[6](#fn-3544-6)
Mark and Luke, by comparison, are rarely cited in Anabaptist discussions of divorce and remarriage. The idea that these Gospels are stricter or clearer than Matthew on this topic is never mentioned; no conflict was seen between the Gospel accounts. The reasons why Mark and Luke are rarely mentioned are probably very innocent: Why cite these Gospels when Matthew’s Gospel comes first in the NT canon, when it includes the theologically-rich Sermon on the Mount, when it has two passages recounting Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage instead of only one (Mark 10; Luke 16), and when the other Gospels add only minor details?
**The Anabaptists may have drawn a newly Christocentric theology from Matthew (and the Sermon on the Mount), but the idea of prioritizing Matthew’s Gospel was certainly not original with them.** In 1519, Ulrich Zwingli (under whose teaching the earliest Swiss Brethren developed their convictions[7](#fn-3544-7)) initiated a new practice of preaching expositional sermons, chapter by chapter through Scripture. He began this radical program with a sermon series through Matthew, then skipped past Mark and Luke to preach through other NT books and then parts of the OT.[8](#fn-3544-8)
This strong emphasis on Matthew was typical, in fact, for most of church history prior to the nineteenth century, and “is manifest already in Christian literature of the late first and early second centuries.”[9](#fn-3544-9) Given this pattern of church history, it would have been highly unusual for Anabaptists to have started anywhere _besides_ with Matthew as they formulated their understandings of divorce and remarriage.
**3\. They used new German translations of the NT as they read Jesus’ words.**
The early German-speaking Anabaptists used a Bible version (the “Froschauer Bible”) that was, for the most part, translated by Luther. Even the Dutch Bibles most commonly used by Anabaptists were based in large part on Luther’s translation.[10](#fn-3544-10)
In fact, the first Swiss Brethren were influenced by Luther’s translation before they even broke with Zwingli. As students of Zwingli, they helped him with his work of translating the Bible. Zwingli completed a translation of the entire Bible (the “Froschauer Bible,” published c. 1530) before Luther did (1534), but he used whatever parts of Luther’s translation were already available, including Luther’s New Testament (published in 1522).
This is a 1531 Froschauer Bible that was used by many generations of Anabaptists. The Bible is located at the Ohio Amish Library at the Amish & Mennonite Heritage Center (Behalt) in Millersburg, Ohio. The photo above is found on their webpage ( [https://ohioamishlibrary.org/](https://ohioamishlibrary.org/)), which also hosts the images in the PDF file below, along with an account of this Bible’s history: [https://ohioamishlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Binder1.pdf](https://ohioamishlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Binder1.pdf).
https://ohioamishlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Johannes-Holly.pdf
**Prior to Luther’s translation, most Europeans encountered the Scriptures through the Latin Vulgate translation. Two differences in how these Latin and German Bibles translate Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 may help explain how Anabaptists (and other Reformers) diverged with Roman Catholic views on divorce and remarriage.**[11](#fn-3544-11)
**One difference is found in the translation of Jesus’ exception clause.** The Vulgate has _excepta fornicationis causa_ (Matt. 5:32) and _nisi ob fornicationem_ (Matt. 19:9). The key word in both passages, _fornicationis_, refers either (a) to fornication (unmarried sex) or (b) to prostitution or sexual promiscuity. For the same passages, Luther’s Bible and the “Froschauer Bible”[12](#fn-3544-12) have _es sei denn um Ehebruch_ (Matt. 5:32) and _es sei denn um der Hurerei willen_ (Matt. 19:9). The key words here are _Ehebruch_, which refers to adultery, and _Hurerei_, which refers to sexual promiscuity.
_**The German translations, in sum, retain the Vulgate suggestion that Jesus was referring to sexual promiscuity, drop the suggestion that he was referring to premarital sexual sin, and introduce the idea that he was referring to adultery.**_ The original Greek word underlying all the above translations, _πορνεία_, was used in various contexts to refer to all of the above ideas and more, so both the Vulgate and Luther offer translations that are lexically possible, though different.
**A second difference is in the terms used to refer to adultery**, as found in the phrases “makes her commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32) and “commits adultery” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). The Vulgate has _facit eam moechari_ and _adulterat_ (Matt. 5:32) and _moechatur_ (Matt. 19:9). Both terms here (_moechor_ and _adultero_) equally refer to the act of committing adultery. Luther’s Bible and the “Froschauer Bible” translate the same phrases as _die Ehe bricht_ (Matt. 5:32) and _bricht die Ehe_ (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Both expressions could be translated literally as “breaks the marriage (covenant),” and both are transparently related to the German word for adultery, _Ehebruch_ (see above), which itself could be translated literally as “breach of marriage.”[13](#fn-3544-13)
The Vulgate terms for adultery are related either to the Greek family of words referring to adultery (_moechor_; cf. _μοιχεύω_ and _μοιχάομαι_, which are used in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9), or else to our English word adultery (_adultero_). At first glance the German terms may seem more paraphrastic or even biased, but it is important to consider how the concept of adultery is actually used in the Bible.
_**Unfaithfulness is at the core of the biblical concept of adultery.**_ Physical adultery is, after all, a sin that only married people can commit; it is not merely sexual sin but a breach of trust. This is why in the OT the Hebrew term _na’aph_ (“adultery”) is often used as a picture of the spiritual adultery of turning to other gods[14](#fn-3544-14)—that is, “breaking covenant” with God[15](#fn-3544-15) without any necessary reference to sexual sin. Both physical and spiritual adultery are described as “breaking faith.”[16](#fn-3544-16) Similar usage is found in the Greek NT.[17](#fn-3544-17) Spiritual adultery is breaking or turning from your covenant with God; sexual adultery is, as the German language recognizes, breaking or violating your marriage covenant. (Interestingly, Tyndale’s translation reflected a similar understanding.[18](#fn-3544-18))
**On both of these points where German Bibles differed from the Vulgate, the Anabaptists clearly affirmed the German understanding of the text.** They were not completely dependent on Luther’s translation, for “in the first generation of Anabaptists, the leaders who were educated could lead Bible studies from the biblical text itself, rather than from a translation; e.g., Felix Manz taught from the Hebrew text and Conrad Grebel from the Greek.”[19](#fn-3544-19) But, whether they consciously affirmed Luther’s translation of Jesus’ words in these passages or simply didn’t question it, they clearly agreed.[20](#fn-3544-20) They clearly taught that Jesus’ exception clause referred to adultery, and they also taught that adultery breaks a marriage:
> He who cleaves to a harlot, as Paul says, sinneth against his own body and is one flesh with the harlot, 1 Corinthians 6. Therefore he is separated from his own flesh in that he has attached himself to the alien flesh of the harlot, and **his marriage is broken** for they are no more one flesh, but the fornicator has become one flesh with the harlot. (_Concerning Divorce_, Swiss Brethren, c. 1527-33)[21](#fn-3544-21)
>
> Where one committeth adultery in this way, the other should put him or her away… For where one mixeth with the transgressor before he or she hath repented, one committeth adultery with the other even though they were husband or wife before. For **it is no longer a marriage, because it is broken until** through repentance it is healed. (Peter Reidemann, Hutterite leader, 1540-41)[22](#fn-3544-22)
>
> If a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together and the unbeliever commits adultery, then **the marriage tie is broken**. (_Wismar Articles_, Dutch Mennonites, 1554)[23](#fn-3544-23)
These excerpts show that, for the Anabaptists, to “break” a marriage was not merely to _violate_ the marriage covenant, but to _severe_ it. The switch from Latin to vernacular Bible translations reinforced this understanding.
**4\. They accepted Jesus’ exceptions at face value without letting other more general biblical statements override them.**
**Some Bible teachers popular among conservative Anabaptists today say we should start with the “clear” texts of Scripture and use them to interpret the “unclear” exception clauses in Matthew.** Joseph Webb, for example, lists “the biblical portions that establish a clear doctrinal position concerning marriage and divorce, and by which all unclear texts should be compared”: Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Hebrews 13:4; Malachi 2:14.[24](#fn-3544-24) Daniel Kauffman similarly listed “seven plain, positive Bible declarations” (including most of Webb’s passages plus 1 Corinthians 7:10-11) to which the “two doubtful statements” of Jesus’ exception clauses must be harmonized. [25](#fn-3544-25)
**Early Anabaptists, in contrast, did not suggest that Jesus’ exception clauses should be interpreted through other allegedly clearer texts. Yet, despite their prioritization of Matthew’s Gospel, they didn’t ignore these other texts, either. Rather, they simply laid all texts beside each other and accepted each as contributing valuable truths.**
**1 Corinthians 7:39** has been especially popular among Anabaptists from the earliest days to the present, receiving greater emphasis than Matthew in some documents. While conservative Anabaptists today usually point to this verse to teach that marriage must (or can) not be parted except by death, early Anabaptists focused on another emphasis of the verse: that marriage must be “only in the Lord.”[26](#fn-3544-26)
Despite this focus, early Anabaptists sometimes quoted this verse in the context of affirming divorce or remarriage in cases of adultery. For example, immediately after emphasizing that a “marriage is broken” by adultery, the earliest Swiss Brethren tract on the topic (c. 1527-33) continues, “therefore the abandoned one \[innocent companion\] may marry whomsoever he wishes to, only it must be in the Lord, 1 Corinthians 7.”[27](#fn-3544-27) “Only in the Lord” was the truth that 1 Corinthians 7:39 added, and it’s statement that “a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives” was not understood to cancel out the Matthew 19 exception that adultery permits divorce and remarriage.
Similarly, a 1627 confession from Amsterdam cites **Romans 7:2** immediately after affirming that “nothing can separate” a husband and a wife “save adultery.”[28](#fn-3544-28) “Nothing can separate” was the truth communicated by Romans 7:2; “save adultery” was the truth added by Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19, which are also cited.[29](#fn-3544-29)
**Malachi 2** is the second biblical text cited by the earliest Swiss tract on divorce.[30](#fn-3544-30) It is the first text cited by Roosen’s catechism (1702), with the comment that “God also complains” about the state of matrimony, “that men acted in this manner contrary to his will.” Immediately after this, Roosen turns to a lengthy quotation and explanation of Matthew 19. There he includes a clear affirmation that Jesus’ exception clause means one is not bound “by the band of matrimony” in cases when a spouse has been sexually promiscuous. Then he ends his paragraph by quoting, without comment, 1 Corinthians 7:39.[31](#fn-3544-31)
Hans de Ries (1578) cites **Hebrews 13** alongside Matthew 19 and Genesis 2 after stating that marriage “may not be separated except for the cause of adultery.”[32](#fn-3544-32) A confession (c. 1600) included in the _Martyrs Mirror_ similarly quotes Hebrews 13:4 after teaching that husbands and wives may “not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in case of adultery or death.”[3](#fn-3544-3)
What about Jesus’ teaching against divorce in **Mark and Luke**, which includes no exception clause? These passages were not entirely ignored, either. Menno Simons (1552) cites both Mark 10 and Luke 16 alongside Matthew 5 and 19 immediately after saying that a husband and wife “can not be separated from each other to marry again otherwise than for adultery, as the Lord says.”[34](#fn-3544-34) For Menno Simons, “the Lord says” everything found in any of these Gospels.
**But what should be done with the fact that Matthew includes a divorce exception but Mark and Luke do not?** Conservative Anabaptists have been so trained to see a need to “harmonize” the “contradictory” Gospel accounts of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage that it can be hard to understand how early Anabaptists could see things differently. Consider, though, how _**we already use the early Anabaptist approach to another “exception clause” that is included in Matthew but not in Mark**_.
Matthew 12:39 and Mark 8:12 record the same event, an interaction between Jesus and some Pharisees. In Matthew’s version, Jesus says this: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” But in Mark’s account he says this: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
Which is true? Did Jesus mean that _no sign_ would be given (Mark), or did he mean that _no sign_ _except the sign of the prophet Jonah_ would be given (Matthew)? On a hyper-literal level, both cannot be true at the same time. Should we conclude that one Gospel writer is “clear” and the other “doubtful”? Should we appeal to other texts to determine which is true?[35](#fn-3544-35)
Dutch Mennonite bishop Dirk Philips did not think so; he quoted this Matthew 12 “exception clause” from Jesus without qualification, even in a passage where Philips’ main point was that “to require signs and not permit oneself to be satisfied with words is a sign of unbelief.”[36](#fn-3544-36) For both Philips and Jesus, the main point was the same: that Jesus was not going to pander to the unbelieving Jewish leaders’ desire for a sign. Mark strongly emphasizes this point by making no mention of any exception. Matthew includes a secondary point: Jesus’ exception that he would give the mysterious Jonah-like sign of his own death and resurrection. Yet Philips saw no need to prioritize Mark over Matthew; both Gospels clearly communicated the same primary message, and Matthew’s inclusion of an exception did not reduce the value or trustworthiness of his account.
The early Anabaptists seem to have read Jesus’ statements about divorce and remarriage in the same way. Mark and Luke emphasized Jesus’ main point (that divorcing one’s spouse and marrying another is equivalent to adultery) without intending to deny any possible exception. Matthew’s main point was the same, even though he included an important secondary point (the exception that sexual promiscuity itself breaks a marriage and thus grants the offended spouse the right to divorce and marry another).
Again we see how early Anabaptists tended to approach the various biblical passages about divorce and remarriage: _**They laid all texts beside each other and accepted each as contributing valuable truths, without using the more general texts to override the more specific ones.**_
Of course synthesizing the biblical witness on this topic is not always that easy, a fact that will be evident as we discuss (in a separate point below) how Anabaptists interpreted 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and following verses.
**5\. They insisted that Paul agrees with Christ.**
This is a brief point, but it is foundational for the next two points, which synthesize Paul’s writings with Jesus’ teaching. After quoting from Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7, the early Swiss tract _Concerning Divorce_ (c. 1527-33) emphasizes Paul’s agreement with Christ:
> \[Paul’s teaching\] **cannot weaken the words of Christ, nor does it contradict Him**, otherwise Paul would be speaking after Moses (if hardness of heart or unbelief could permit divorce) and he would be “scattering,” as Christ says in Matthew 12, “He who gathereth not with me scattereth abroad,” and that could not edify the body of Christ. The meaning of Paul’s words depends rather on what Paul has in mind in this chapter, just as he says in I Corinthians 2, “But we have the mind of Christ,” and I Corinthians 7, “I think that I also have the Spirit of God.”[37](#fn-3544-37)
This means, first of all, that **Christ’s words were given priority** (see first point above); Paul was said to agree with Christ, not Christ with Paul. But it also means that—unlike with some conservative Anabaptists today—**Paul was not seen to be at odds with Christ** in any way. The reason Paul does not contradict Christ is because Paul has the mind of Christ and the Spirit of God within him.
Menno Simons likewise insisted that “Paul also holds the same doctrine” as Christ about the permanence of marriage[38](#fn-3544-38) and quotations from Jesus and Paul peacefully coexist throughout Anabaptist writings on the topic.
**6\. They pointed to 1 Corinthians 6 when explaining how adultery uniquely breaks a one-flesh marriage union.**
Early Anabaptists _accepted_ Jesus’ word in Matthew that it was not adulterous to divorce and remarry when one’s spouse had already committed adultery, and they _explained_ that word by pointing to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:
> Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” …Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. (1 Cor. 6:16, 18)
The link between Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 6 was the shared quotation from Genesis 2:24: “The two will become one flesh.” The early Swiss Brethren tract _Concerning Divorce_ (c. 1527-33) makes this connection and draws a deduction:
> He who marries the one divorced causeth her to commit adultery, for Christ saith, “These two are one flesh.” But he who cleaves to a harlot, as Paul says, sinneth against his own body and is one flesh with the harlot, 1 Corinthians 6. Therefore he is separated from his own flesh in that he has attached himself to the alien flesh of the harlot, and his marriage is broken for they are no more one flesh, but the fornicator has become one flesh with the harlot. Therefore the abandoned one \[innocent companion\] may marry whomsoever he wishes to, only it must be in the Lord, 1 Corinthians 7.[39](#fn-3544-39)
**Marriage is a one-flesh union, Jesus affirmed; sex with a harlot also forms a one-flesh union, Paul noted. The author(s) of this tract believed a third point: when a married man become one flesh with a prostitute he is “separated from his own flesh,”** an expression that appears to mean “separated from his wife.”
The written Anabaptist response (pub. 1590) to the Frankenthal Disputation (1571) is so similar to the tract above that it appears to be an adapted quotation. It shows that, at least among the Swiss Anabaptists, a consistent interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:16-18 lasted for several generations:
> Adultery alone is cause for divorce for Christ says: two will become one flesh. Whoever commits adultery sins against his own flesh, becoming one flesh with a whore, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6\[:15-18\]. Therefore he is now divided from his own flesh in that he has attached himself to the foreign flesh of a whore. Thus is the marriage ended, for they are no longer one flesh, for the adulterer has become one flesh with the whore. Thus the divorced party may now marry anyone he or she desires, as long as it takes place in the Lord.[40](#fn-3544-40)
The Hutterite leader Peter Reidemann taught a similar perspective (1540-41), though without citing 1 Corinthians 6:
> Where one committeth adultery…, the other should put him or her away and have no more in common with him or her before he or she hath shown real fruits of repentance. For where one mixeth with the transgressor before he or she hath repented, one committeth adultery with the other even though they were husband or wife before. For it is no longer a marriage, because it is broken.”[41](#fn-3544-41)
**This understanding of 1 Corinthians 6 raises an obvious question: Is it not possible to be one flesh with more than one person at once?** Such a thought was clearly abhorrent to most Anabaptists, who repeatedly pointed back to the creation model and emphasized that marriage was to be between one man and one woman. Menno Simons, for example, considered polygamy (as practiced by the Anabaptist rebels in Münster) to be an “abomination” and was eager to clear himself and the Anabaptists with him from false accusations of practicing it.[42](#fn-3544-42)
Adultery is arguably a breach of covenant in a way that polygamy is not, at least in societies where polygamy is expected. Therefore, it would be theoretically possible to accept polygamous marriage while still saying that adultery justifies divorce.
But it appears that for early Anabaptists the matter was more black and white: **Jesus taught that it was not adulterous for a man to divorce and remarry after his one-flesh spouse had already committed adultery; Paul said that sex with a prostitute formed a one-flesh union. For early Anabaptists, the latter text explained the former.** Only one one-flesh union was truly possible at once, and when a marriage one-flesh union was broken by a subsequent one-flesh union, divorce and remarriage where permitted—at least if the adulterer refused to repent after reasonable entreaty.
**7\. They believed that the prohibition of divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 did not apply to Jesus’ exceptional cases involving adultery.**
Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is sometimes seen as decisive evidence proving that Christians are never allowed to divorce and remarry:
> To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
What makes this passage so powerful is that Paul says he received this teaching from the Lord. Most interpreters agree that Paul means he is summarizing teaching that was passed on to him from Jesus. Some make the more specific suggestion that this is Paul’s inspired commentary on the teachings of Jesus on divorce and remarriage that we find in the Gospels. **It is sometimes argued, therefore, that Jesus did not intend to leave any exception for divorce or remarriage; Paul only reluctantly acknowledges that separation sometimes happens.**
In addition, some interpreters draw a parallel between Jesus’ exception clause and Paul’s parenthetical statement (“but if she does…”) which tells a separated woman to “remain unmarried.” This reading strengthens the argument that Paul believed Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage are always wrong, even in cases of adultery.
**The early Anabaptists did not agree with this argument. I have not found a direct explanation from early Anabaptists of why they disagreed, but they did leave several hints.**
**First, at least some early Anabaptists were certain that 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 refers only to believers.** Dirk Philips (1568) was so certain of this that he used this paragraph to argue that Jesus, too, was referring to “two believing persons” when he said “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6)—a conclusion that carries a certain logic if Paul is here summarizing Jesus.[43](#fn-3544-43)
Whether or not we agree with Philip’s reading of Jesus’ words in Matthew, there is good reason to agree with his reading of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. After all, in the very next paragraph Paul transitions to describe marriages between believers and unbelievers and he clarifies that he has no word from the Lord on such situations:
> To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him… But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. (1 Cor. 7:12-13, 15).
This abrupt transition suggests that Paul’s first paragraph (1 Cor. 7:10-11) is directed to couples where both spouses are believers. “Virtually all modern writers” agree on this,[44](#fn-3544-44) and Peter Walpot (1577) made the same argument:
> He \[Paul\] means that **where both are believers (as the thought in the following verses clearly shows)** that it is “the Lord, and not I” that commands the wife not to be separated from her husband as was the common Jewish practice…[45](#fn-3544-45)
This raises a question that leads us to **a second hint** about how early Anabaptists read 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: Is a person who commits adultery a believer or an unbeliever? Put differently, does a marriage where one spouse commits adultery best match Paul’s first paragraph (1 Cor. 7:10-11), his second (1 Cor. 7:12-16), or neither?
**According to early Anabaptists, adultery radically undermined a person’s claim to belong to Christ.** Adultery separated a person not only from their spouse but also from Christ, so that adulterers were “not members of the body of Christ” (Swiss Brethren tract, c. 1527-33).[46](#fn-3544-46) Menno Simons taught (1556) that it was “an abomination” for “true believers” to even “mention” adultery[47](#fn-3544-47) and he said (1552) that false preachers who “commit adultery… are not in the communion of Christ, but… are in the communion of” the devil.[48](#fn-3544-48)
The Wismar Articles (1554) seem to assume that an adulterer is not a believer, even while acknowledging the possibility of having “fallen” into adultery and desiring to repent:
> If a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together and the unbeliever commits adultery, then the marriage tie is broken. And if it be one who complains that he has fallen in sin, and desires to mend his ways, then the brethren permit the believing mate to go to the unfaithful one to admonish him, if conscience allows it in view of the state of the affair.[49](#fn-3544-49)
If 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is about marriages of believers (first hint) and adulterers are not considered believers (second hint), then early Anabaptists can hardly have believed that Paul’s words in this passage applied to Jesus’ exceptional cases that involve adultery.
**A third hint** from Menno Simons complicates this picture a little but still affirms it. According to Simons (1550), Paul’s parenthetical statement (“but if she does \[separate\]…”) refers not to divorce but to shunning—separating from a spouse who is under church discipline:
> There is no divorce but by reason of adultery… **To shunning Paul has decidedly consented, 1 Cor. 7:10**; although this is not always coupled with adultery; but not to divorce. For divorce is not allowed by the Scripture only by reason of adultery, Matt. 5:32; Luke 6:18; therefore we shall never consent to it for other reasons.[50](#fn-3544-50)
How can we synthesize this perspective with our first two hints? Perhaps Simons thought a weak believer could fall into adultery, resulting in a situation where their status as a believer was _in question_ while they were under church discipline. Or perhaps Simons (unlike Philips) did not believe 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 was only about marriages of two believers; it also included cases where a believer would shun a _former_ believer.
Either way, the following is clear: Simons did not think 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 was the most important text for cases involving adultery. Rather, in cases of unrepentant adultery Jesus’ exception clause (Matt. 5:32) superseded 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; unrepentant adultery was “reason” to “consent” to divorce, even if an adulterer might also face the shunning that Menno Simons believed Paul was permitting in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Similarly, the c. 1600 confession cites 1 Corinthians 7:10 in a way that groups it with other general verses prohibiting divorce (Matt. 19:4-6, 8), while elsewhere affirming that Jesus’ exception clause permits divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery.[51](#fn-3544-51)
**These clues show that early Anabaptists did not see Paul’s prohibition on divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 as applying to cases of adultery.** In their rigorous minds, when someone committed adultery—particularly when they refused to repent of it even when urged to do so by the church—it showed that they were not really a believer at all.[52](#fn-3544-52)
**Did early Anabaptists believe, then, that Paul’s instructions about mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 refer to cases of adultery?** No, apparently not. Although the Wismar Articles clearly assume that cases of adultery involved marriages where “a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together,” both Menno Simons (co-author of the Wismar Articles) and the early Swiss Brethren tract (c. 1527-33) understand these verses to be about cases of abandonment, not adultery. Moreover, the Swiss tract emphasizes that while a believer is “not under bondage” when abandoned by their spouse, this does not free them to remarry; only adultery permits divorce and remarriage.[53](#fn-3544-53)
**In sum, early Anabaptists clearly did not believe that 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 means Paul understood Jesus to forbid divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery. Neither, apparently, did they believe that Paul’s next paragraph (1 Cor. 7:12-16) was intended to address such cases.** Though adultery could perhaps involve couples where both spouses professed faith (vv. 10-11) and though adultery certainly normally involved unbelieving spouses (vv. 12-16), adultery was not on Paul’s mind when he wrote either paragraph.[54](#fn-3544-54) Therefore, in cases of adultery, we must look to Jesus instead, who explicitly addressed such situations in his exception clauses.
The evidence for how Anabaptists interpreted these paragraphs comes in the form of hints rather than in the full-fledged exposition we might wish for. (I can’t help wishing some early Anabaptist had written a comprehensive commentary on 1 Corinthians 7!) The evidence we do have, however, is clear enough to show that the early Anabaptists were capable of going beyond simple proof-texting to thoughtful, contextual Bible reading.
**These seven factors, then, help to explain why early Anabaptists believed that Jesus permitted divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery:**
1. They started with Jesus’ words.
2. They started with Matthew’s Gospel.
3. They used new German translations of the NT as they read Jesus’ words.
4. They accepted Jesus’ exceptions at face value without letting other more general biblical statements override them.
5. They insisted that Paul agrees with Christ.
6. They pointed to 1 Corinthians 6 when explaining how adultery uniquely breaks a one-flesh marriage union.
7. They believed that the prohibition of divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 did not apply to Jesus’ exceptional cases involving adultery.
I find much that is compelling in this early Anabaptist approach, even though I have uncertainty about some details. I’ll spare you more commentary from me, though. It’s your turn.
**What do you think?** Were you already agreeing or disagreeing with the early Anabaptist reading of Jesus’ exception clause before reading this post? Does it change your mind in any way to know more about _how_ and _why_ they arrived at their understandings?
Which factors on my list appear most significant to you? Are there factors you’d like to add? Can you add nuance to my analysis? **I’d be glad to read any thoughts you share in the comments below.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. _Concerning Divorce_, trans. J.C. Wenger, Mennonite Quarterly Review (April 1947):114-119. Available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873) [↩](#fnref-3544-1)
2. Ibid., emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3544-2)
3. “Confession of Faith, According to the Holy Word of God,” _The Bloody Theater of Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 401. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The\_Confession\_of\_Faith\_(P.J.\_Twisck,\_1617)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Confession_of_Faith_\(P.J._Twisck,_1617\)) [↩](#fnref-3544-3)
4. “Concerning divorce: Whether the ban and unbelief are reasons for divorce,” A Short, Simple Confession, 1590, trans. Abraham Friesen, Leonard Gross, Sydney Penner, Walter Klaassen, and C. Arnold Snyder, Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists: 1529-1592 , ed. C. A. Snyder (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2017), 322. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3544-4)
5. Walter Klaassen, “The Bern Debate of 1538: Christ the Center of Scripture,” _Essays in Biblical Interpretation: Anabaptist-Mennonite Perspectives_, ed. Willard M. Swartley (Elkhart, IN: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1984), pp. 110-111. Emphasis added. Available online. June 28, 2020. [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The\_Bern\_Debate\_of\_1538:\_Christ\_the\_Center\_of\_Scripture](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Bern_Debate_of_1538:_Christ_the_Center_of_Scripture) [↩](#fnref-3544-5)
6. Stuart Murray, _Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition_ (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press,2000), 75, 79. [↩](#fnref-3544-6)
7. When Zwingli arrived in Zurich in 1519, Felix Manz “joined him enthusiastically and became a regular attendant at Zwingli’s Bible classes.” Conrad Grebel joined “the little group of returned students and humanists who gathered with Zwingli to study Greek and Hebrew” in late 1520. See Christian Neff and Harold S. Bender, “Manz, Felix (ca. 1498-1527),” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1957. Web. July 31, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Manz,\_Felix\_(ca.\_1498-1527)&oldid=145842](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Manz,_Felix_\(ca._1498-1527\)&oldid=145842) and Haraold S. Bender and Leland D. Harder, “Grebel, Conrad (ca. 1498-1526),” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1989. Web. July 31, 2020, [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Grebel,\_Conrad\_(ca.\_1498-1526)&oldid=164020](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Grebel,_Conrad_\(ca._1498-1526\)&oldid=164020) [↩](#fnref-3544-7)
8. “When one visits the Great Minster Church in Zurich today, the following inscription can be read over the portal: “The Reformation of Huldrych Zwingli began here on January 1, 1519.” …For on that first day of January, which happened to be Zwingli’s birthday, the new pastor began his pulpit ministry by announcing his intention to dispense with the prescribed texts of the traditional lectionary. He would follow a new paradigm: preaching expositional sermons, chapter by chapter, starting with the Gospel of Matthew. After completing Matthew, Zwingli resumed the same _lectio continua_ method by taking up Acts, then the letters to Timothy, Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, the Gospel of John, and the other Pauline letters. He then turned to the Old Testament, beginning with the Psalms, then the Pentateuch and the historical books.” Timothy George, “Reformational Preaching,” _First Things_, Jan 9, 2017, accessed July 31, 2020. [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/01/reformational-preaching](https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/01/reformational-preaching) [↩](#fnref-3544-8)
9. Ian Boxall, _Discovering Matthew: Content, Interpretation, Reception_, Discovering Biblical Texts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 1. More from Boxall: “The evidence of surviving manuscripts of the Gospels in Greek and other languages points to a general preference for Matthew’s version in the tendency among scribes to harmonize disagreements between the Gospels” (p. 2). “Reasons for Matthew’s popularity, religiously and culturally, are at least threefold. First, the Gospel is superbly and memorably ordered, suggesting an author who is master of his material” (p. 2); “Second, the widespread usage of Matthew in liturgy and catechesis has ensured the importance of this Gospel within the churches. It is the preferred Gospel in church lectionaries” (p. 3); “A third reason for Matthew’s popularity is the centuries-old belief that Matthew is the earliest of our four canonical Gospels, and one of only two (John being the other) attributed to an apostle and eyewitness of Jesus” (p. 4). [↩](#fnref-3544-9)
10. John Hooper, “The Anabaptists and Holy Scripture,” _Bible League Trust_, Website. Accessed July 2, 2020. [https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/the-anabaptists-and-holy-scripture/](https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/the-anabaptists-and-holy-scripture/). Hooper explains: “The translation used by German speaking Anabaptists would at first have been early but incomplete editions of Luther’s Bible, published by one of the most talented printers in Switzerland, Christoph Froschauer of Zurich… In 1529 Luther’s Bible was still lacking a translation of the Prophets so Froschauer inserted a separate rendering of these books, based on the work of two Anabaptists, Hans Denck and Ludwig Haetzer, which they had published in Worms a couple of years earlier. Thus the complete ‘Froschauer Bible’ was published in 1529, several years before Luther’s translation would be ready, and it became the favoured version of Anabaptists and their successors for many generations. Even earlier, in 1526, a complete Dutch Bible had been published by Jacob van Liesveldt, a printer in Antwerp. He based his translation partly on the Latin Vulgate and for the rest relied on what was available of Luther’s German Bible. In 1560 a Mennonite called Nicholas Biestkens published the whole of Luther’s Bible in Dutch, ‘with certain words reflecting Mennonite usage and experience.’ No doubt for this reason the Biestkens translation became very popular amongst the Mennonites and quickly ran to a hundred or so editions.” In the second-last sentence Hooper quotes from G. H. Williams, _The Radical Reformation_, 3rd ed. (Ann Arbor, MI: Truman State University Press, 2000) p. 1244. For more information on Anabaptist use of “Froschauer Bibles,” see these websites: [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Froschauer\_Bibles\_and\_Testaments](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Froschauer_Bibles_and_Testaments) and [http://www.reynolds-lake.ca/genealogy/documents/general/BachmanFroschauerBible.php](http://www.reynolds-lake.ca/genealogy/documents/general/BachmanFroschauerBible.php). [↩](#fnref-3544-10)
11. Here are both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, in full, in both the Vulgate and Luther’s Bible. Latin Vulgate: _Ego autem dico vobis: quia omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam, excepta fornicationis causa, facit eam moechari: et qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat_. (Matt. 5:32). _Dico autem vobis, quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, moechatur: et qui dimissam duxerit, moechatur_. (Matt. 19:9). Luther’s Bible: _Ich aber sage euch: Wer sich von seinem Weibe scheidet (es sei denn um Ehebruch), der macht, daß sie die Ehe bricht; und wer eine Abgeschiedene freit, der bricht die Ehe._ (Matt 5:32). _Ich sage aber euch: Wer sich von seinem Weibe scheidet (es sei denn um der Hurerei willen) und freit eine andere, der bricht die Ehe; und wer die Abgeschiedene freit, der bricht auch die Ehe._ (Matt. 19:9). See _Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Vulgate)_, BibleGateway.com, Zondervan. Accessed July 31, 2020. [https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-VULGATE/](https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-VULGATE/). (The Vulgate has been revised multiple times since Jerome’s initial translation in the late 4th century. The version quoted here is a text that has roots in a 1598 edition and is probably very similar to the text known in Luther’s day.). See also _Luther Bibel 1545_, BibleGateway.com, Zondervan. Accessed July 2, 2020. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2019%3A9&version=LUTH1545](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2019%3A9&version=LUTH1545). [↩](#fnref-3544-11)
12. The “Froschauer Bible” of Zwingli matches Luther’s translation for the terms discussed in the following paragraphs. The only difference I can see between these translations in the verses discussed here is that the “Froschauer Bible” uses a different term to refer to divorce. This is based on my observation of a 1534 publication of Zwingli’s Bible (“Bibel Teütsch, der ursprünglichen Hebreischen und Griechischen warheit nach, auffs treüwlichest verdometschet ; Was über die nächst außgegangnen edition weyters hinzu kommen sye, wirt in nachvolgender Vorred gnugsam begriffenn, Zürich, 1534,” _Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum_, Digitale Bibliothek, accessed July 31, 2020, [http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00024266/image\_964](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00024266/image_964) (Matt. 5:32) and [http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00024266/image\_978](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00024266/image_978) (Matt. 19:9). [↩](#fnref-3544-12)
13. This is the definition offered by John Howard Yoder (“One Flesh Until Death: Conversations on the Meaning and Permanence of Marriage,” unpublished, 1968-1984, available online, accessed July 31, 2020. [https://chamberscreek.net/library/yoder/marriage.html](https://chamberscreek.net/library/yoder/marriage.html). See 1. A. of this document for Yoder’s brief comment about _Ehebruch._ Andrew V. Ste. Marie makes the same point in a recent article: “Luther’s rendition of Matthew 19:9 says that the man who divorces his wife and remarries ‘der bricht die Ehe,’ ‘breaks the marriage,’ while the King James Version says he ‘committeth adultery.’ The German word for ‘adultery’ is _Ehebruch_, a compound word which literally means ‘marriage-break.’ (The verb form is _ehebrechen_, ‘to marriage-break.’) To a mind at home in German, Jesus could be easily understood, not as charging a remarried man with committing a sexual sin per se, but with breaking his first marriage.” Ste. Marie continues, drawing implications for Jesus’ exception clause: “If, however, the wife’s ‘fornication’ or adultery is itself understood to be an act of _Ehebruch_, then the marriage could be understood as ‘broken’ already, before the man has remarried.” See Andrew V. Ste. Marie, “Research Note: Nineteenth-Century Mennonites Deal With Divorce and Remarriage,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 94 (April 2020), 248, n. 51. [↩](#fnref-3544-13)
14. Jer. 3:8-9; Ez. 16:38; Hos. 3:1; etc. [↩](#fnref-3544-14)
15. Lev. 26:15; Deut. 31:16; Ez. 16:59; etc. [↩](#fnref-3544-15)
16. Num. 5:6, 12; Josh. 22:20; etc. [↩](#fnref-3544-16)
17. Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38; James 4:4 [↩](#fnref-3544-17)
18. William Tyndale, who examined Luther’s translation alongside the Hebrew and Greek while producing his own translation, expressed a similar understanding of adultery. Instead of “causes her to commit adultery” Tyndale wrote “causeth her to breake matrimony” (Matt. 5:32), and instead of “commits adultery” he wrote “breaketh wedlocke (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) as well as “commyt advoutry” (Matt. 19:9). (See “Tyndale Bible,” _Bible Study Tools_, website, accessed July 31, 2020, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/tyn/matthew/5.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/tyn/matthew/5.html) and [https://www.biblestudytools.com/tyn/matthew/19.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/tyn/matthew/19.html).) According to Merriam-Webster, “in Old English the suffix –lāc, from which the lock in wedlock was formed, was used to denote an activity. Wedlock has the distinction of being the only surviving example of the use of this suffix in English… Since the Old English wedd meant ‘pledge,’ the term wedlock means etymologically ‘the activity of giving a pledge.’ Its first known use, however, referred to a nuptial vow or marriage bond and was used in phrases like ‘to keep wedlock’ and ‘to break wedlock’—with reference to marital fidelity.” (See [https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-origin-compound-words/wedlock](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-origin-compound-words/wedlock).) Therefore, the expression “breaks wedlock” would mean either “breaks/violates his wedding vows” or “breaks/violates his marriage bond.” Tyndale’s “breaketh wedlocke” is an improvement over Wycliffe’s “doeth lechery,” for the latter focuses on sexual promiscuity without conveying the idea of unfaithfulness to a covenant. Similarly to Luther and Tyndale, “the Old English word” for adultery “was _æwbryce_ ‘breach of law(ful marriage)’ (similar formation in German _Ehebruch_)” (Douglas Harper, “Adultery,” _Online Etymology Dictionary_, accessed August 1, 2020, [https://www.etymonline.com/word/adultery#etymonline\_v\_5152](https://www.etymonline.com/word/adultery#etymonline_v_5152)). [↩](#fnref-3544-18)
19. Perry Yoder, “Bible Study,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1988. Web. July 31, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Bible\_Study&oldid=166262](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Bible_Study&oldid=166262). [↩](#fnref-3544-19)
20. “For we do not order or forbid this divorcing, but we ask the government to act in this matter, and we submit to what the secular authorities ordain in regard to it. Yet, our advice would be to such as claim to be Christians, that it would be much better to exhort and urge both parties to remain together, and that the innocent party should become reconciled to the guilty (if humbled and reformed) and exercise forgiveness in Christian love; unless no improvement could be hoped for, or the guilty person who had been pardoned and restored to favor persisted in abusing this kindness, and still continued in leading a public, loose life, and took it for granted that one must continue to spare and forgive him. In such ease I would not advise or order that mercy should be shown, but would rather help to have such a person scourged or imprisoned. For to make a misstep once is still to be forgiven, but to sin presuming upon mercy and forgiveness is not to be endured. For, as before said, we know already that it is not right to compel one to take back again a public whore or adulterer, if he is unwilling to do it, or out of disgust cannot do it. For we read of Joseph, Matthew 1:18 sq., that although he was a pious man, yet he was not willing “to take unto him Mary his espoused wife” (when he saw that she was pregnant); and was praised because “he was minded to put her away privily,” and not lodge complaint against her and have her executed, as he might well have done.” See Martin Luther, “Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount,” trans. Charles A. Hay (1892). Available online. _Step Bible_, Tyndale House, Cambridge. Accessed July 31, 2020. [https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=Luther|reference=Mat.5](https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=Luther|reference=Mat.5). [↩](#fnref-3544-20)
21. _Concerning Divorce_, trans. J.C. Wenger, _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ (April 1947):114-119. Available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873). Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3544-21)
22. Peter Rideman, _Confession of Faith_ (Rifton, NY: Plough Publishing, 1970), 97-102. Emphasis added. This translation was made from the 1565 published German edition. [↩](#fnref-3544-22)
23. “Wismar Articles (Dutch Anabaptist, 1554),” _Global Anabaptist Wiki_, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016, [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Wismar\_Articles\_(Dutch\_Anabaptist,\_1554)#Article\_IV](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Wismar_Articles_\(Dutch_Anabaptist,_1554\)#Article_IV). Emphasis added. See also the 1853 confession from the Church in Rudnerweide in Odessa in South Russia, which I discussed in my last post. [↩](#fnref-3544-23)
24. Joseph A. Webb, _Till Death Do Us Part? What the Bible Really Says About Marriage and Divorce_ (Longwood, FL: Webb Ministries, 2003), 57. [↩](#fnref-3544-24)
25. Here is Kauffman’s list of “plain” Scriptures: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9); “The wife is bound by the law as long as the husband liveth” (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2, 3); “Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11); “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18); “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery” (Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11); “If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (Mark 10:12); “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9). See Daniel Kauffman, _Bible Doctrine_, (Scottsdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1914), 450-451. Available online: [https://books.google.com/books/about/Bible\_Doctrine.html?id=NmkCQ0br9OUC](https://books.google.com/books/about/Bible_Doctrine.html?id=NmkCQ0br9OUC). [↩](#fnref-3544-25)
26. This point, in fact, was probably the primary concern about marriage that is evident among Anabaptists for the first 350 years of their history. [↩](#fnref-3544-26)
27. _Concerning Divorce_, trans. J.C. Wenger, _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ (April 1947):114-119. Available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873) [↩](#fnref-3544-27)
28. “Scriptural Instruction,” _The Bloody Theater of Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 32; also 27. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Olive\_Branch\_Confession\_(1627)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Olive_Branch_Confession_\(1627\)) [↩](#fnref-3544-28)
29. Menno Simons similarly alludes to either 1 Corinthians 7:39 or Romans 7:2 (both talk about a wife being “bound” to her husband) in a passage where he affirms divorce and remarriage are permissible in cases of adultery: “No man may leave his wife, nor a wife her husband, and marry another (understand arightly what Christ says), except it be for adultery. Paul also holds the same doctrine that they shall be so bound to each other that the man has not power over his own body, nor the woman over hers” (“Instruction on Excommunication,” _The Complete Writings of Menno Simon_, trans. Leonard Verduin, ed. J. C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), p.970). [↩](#fnref-3544-29)
30. _Concerning Divorce_, trans. J.C. Wenger, _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ (April 1947):114-119. Available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873) [↩](#fnref-3544-30)
31. Gerhard Roosen, _Christian Spiritual Conversation on Saving Faith, for the Young, in Questions and Answers, and a Confession of Faith of the Mennonites_ (Lancaster, PA: John Baer and Sons, 1857), 108-109. Available online: [https://archive.org/details/christianspiritu01menn/page/108/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/christianspiritu01menn/page/108/mode/2up) [↩](#fnref-3544-31)
32. Hans de Ries, “The Middelburg Confession of Hans de Ries (1578),” trans. Cornelius J. Dyck, published with commentary in Dyck, “The Middelburg Confession of Hans de Ries, 1578.” _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ 36 (April 1962): 147-154, 161. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The\_Middelburg\_Confession\_of\_Hans\_de\_Ries\_(1578)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Middelburg_Confession_of_Hans_de_Ries_\(1578\)) [↩](#fnref-3544-32)
33. “Confession of Faith, According to the Holy Word of God,” _The Bloody Theater of Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 401. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The\_Confession\_of\_Faith\_(P.J.\_Twisck,\_1617)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Confession_of_Faith_\(P.J._Twisck,_1617\)) [↩](#fnref-3544-33)
34. Menno Simons, “Reply to False Accusation,” _The Complete Writings of Menno Simons_, trans. Leonard Verduin, ed. J. C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 561. [↩](#fnref-3544-34)
35. Both Matthew 16:4 and Luke 11:29 record Jesus saying, “No sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” [↩](#fnref-3544-35)
36. Dirk Philips, “The Enchiridion or Handbook of Christian Doctrine and Religion,” _The Writings of Dirk Philips_, trans. and ed. by Cornelius J. Dyck, William E. Keeney, and Alvin J. Beachy, Classics of the Radical Reformation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992), 222-23). [↩](#fnref-3544-36)
37. _Concerning Divorce_, trans. J.C. Wenger, _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ (April 1947):114-119. Emphasis added. Available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873) [↩](#fnref-3544-37)
38. Menno Simons, _The Complete Writings of Menno Simons_, trans. Leonard Verduin, ed. J. C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 970. [↩](#fnref-3544-38)
39. _Concerning Divorce_, trans. J.C. Wenger, _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ (April 1947):114-119. Available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873). A paragraph later in the same document repeats some of the same assertions and adds the suggestion that 1 Corinthians 6 implies believers are married to Christ: “From aversion and wrath the believer will be driven out and expelled. Nevertheless that is not a separation in God’s sight for they are still one flesh inasmuch as neither of them has attached his own flesh to the alien flesh of a harlot and become one flesh with the harlot. Therefore, it is only fornication which can effect a divorce. He who cleaveth to the Lord is one spirit with Him, 1 Corinthians 6, flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone, Ephesians 5.” [↩](#fnref-3544-39)
40. “Concerning divorce: Whether the ban and unbelief are reasons for divorce,” A Short, Simple Confession, 1590, trans. Abraham Friesen, Leonard Gross, Sydney Penner, Walter Klaassen, and C. Arnold Snyder, Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists: 1529-1592 , ed. C. A. Snyder (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2017), 322. Commentators have often debated what Paul meant when he said a sexually immoral person “sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). It appears some Anabaptists may have thought he meant “sins against his wife,” for both the previous documents draw a link between (a) sinning against one’s own body/flesh and (b) being separated/divided from one’s own flesh, that is from one’s own wife. This is an intriguing interpretation, but it faces strong competition, for the terms “flesh” and “body” are also used explicitly to refer to both physical flesh and Christ’s body in the same passage. [↩](#fnref-3544-40)
41. Peter Rideman, Confession of Faith (Rifton, NY: Plough Publishing, 1970), 102. [↩](#fnref-3544-41)
42. Here is one example of many from Simon’s writings: “We are falsely accused, by our opponents, of following the teachings of Munster, concerning the king, the sword, rebellion, retaliation, polygamy and other abominations. But my kind readers, know ye that I, never in my life, accepted any of the foregoing doctrines; but on the contrary, I have opposed them for more than seventeen years, and to the best of my abilities, have warned all mankind against this abominable error.” Menno Simons, “The Conversion of Menno Simons,” 1554, _The Complete Works of Menno Simons_ (Elkhart, IN: John F. Funk & Brother, 1871). Available online: [http://www.mennosimons.net/ft002-renunciation.html](http://www.mennosimons.net/ft002-renunciation.html). [↩](#fnref-3544-42)
43. Philips was discussing the problem of believers wanting to marry unbelievers, not the problem of believers who had a spouse who later fell into sin such as adultery. But the basic point still appears relevant: Philips thought these verses addressed believers, not unbelievers. In Philip’s mind “there is no uniting by God” when a believer marries an unbeliever. After quoting 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Philips writes, “From this it is easy to understand that the Lord spoke of two believing persons” in Matthew 19:6. “To allege on this basis and thereby compare thus that these words of the Lord also apply when a believer takes an unbeliever is not further spoken to, but only about two believers. To apply these words to an apostate and unbeliever, that is a great misunderstanding.” Almost certainly, given what he wrote elsewhere about divorce and remarriage being permissible in cases of adultery, Philips felt it was equally wrong “to apply these words” to someone married to an adulterer (Dirk Philips, “About the Marriage of Christians,” 1568, _The Writings of Dirk Philips_, trans. and ed. by Cornelius J. Dyck, William E. Keeney, and Alvin J. Beachy, Classics of the Radical Reformation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992), 568). [↩](#fnref-3544-43)
44. “Virtually all modern writers regard vv. 10-11 as concerning marriages between Christians,” writes Thiselton, and he agrees (Anthony Thiselton, _The First Epistle to the Corinthians_, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 523, 526). Conservative Mennonite commentator Sanford G. Shetler also agrees: “He is presumably speaking here of those marriages where both partners are Christians” (_Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians 55 A.D._, Harrisonburg, VA: Christian Light Publications, 1971, 47). Other commentators who agree include Kenneth E. Bailey (_Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes_, 206); Craig L. Blomberg (_1 Corinthians_, NIV Application Commentary, 134); Gordon Fee (_The First Epistle to the Corinthians_, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the NT, 323); David Garland (_1 Corinthians_, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT, 278-83); Richard B. Hays (_First Corinthians_, Interpretation, 119); Leon Morris (_1 Corinthians_, Tyndale NT Commentaries, 105); Mark Taylor (_1 Corinthians_, The New American Commentary, 172); and Ben Witherington (_Conflict and Community in Corinth_, 173). [↩](#fnref-3544-44)
45. Peter Walpot, “Article Four: Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers,” _A Beautiful and Pleasant Little Book Concerning the Main Articles of our Faith_ or _The Five Articles of the Greatest Conflict Between Us and the World_, trans. Elizabeth Bender (wife of Harold S. Bender), unpublished manuscript, pg. 7. Emphasis added. Available online: [http://dwightgingrich.com/concerning-divorce-between-believers-unbelievers-hutterite-document/](http://dwightgingrich.com/concerning-divorce-between-believers-unbelievers-hutterite-document/) [↩](#fnref-3544-45)
46. Concerning Divorce, trans. J.C. Wenger, _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ (April 1947):114-119. Available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873). [↩](#fnref-3544-46)
47. Menno Simons, _The True Christian Faith_, pub. in _The Complete Works of Menno Simons_ (Elkhart, IN: John F. Funk & Brother, 1871). Available online: [http://www.mennosimons.net/ft035-sinfulwoman.html](http://www.mennosimons.net/ft035-sinfulwoman.html). [↩](#fnref-3544-47)
48. Menno Simons, _A Fundamental and Clear Confession of the Poor and Distressed Christians_, pub. in _The Complete Works of Menno Simons_ (Elkhart, IN: John F. Funk & Brother, 1871). Available online: [http://www.mennosimons.net/ft108-supperofthepreachers.html](http://www.mennosimons.net/ft108-supperofthepreachers.html). [↩](#fnref-3544-48)
49. “Wismar Articles (Dutch Anabaptist, 1554),” Global Anabaptist Wiki, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016, [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Wismar\_Articles\_(Dutch\_Anabaptist,\_1554)#Article\_IV](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Wismar_Articles_\(Dutch_Anabaptist,_1554\)#Article_IV) [↩](#fnref-3544-49)
50. Menno Simons, “On the Ban: Questions and Answers,” 1550, _Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers_, ed. George H. Williams and Angel M. Mergal, _The Library of Christian Classics_ (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1957), 265. Emphasis added. It is curious why Simons cited verse 10 rather than verse 11; it is the latter verse that recognizes the possibility of a wife separating from her husband. The probable explanation is that he cited the verse that begins Paul’s sentence, intending thereby to refer to both verses 10 and 11. That practice is found in some other citations of the time. [↩](#fnref-3544-50)
51. “Confession of Faith, According to the Holy Word of God,” _Martyrs Mirror_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 401, [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The\_Confession\_of\_Faith\_(P.J.\_Twisck,\_1617)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Confession_of_Faith_\(P.J._Twisck,_1617\)). Cornelis Ris, in contrast, lumps 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 in with Jesus’ exception statements, summarizing both by saying that separation of married couples is “altogether prohibited except for the cause of fornication.” Both approaches show that Anabaptists did not see Paul’s summary of the charge he received from the Lord as contradicting or overruling Jesus’ exception clauses. See “Mennonite Articles of Faith by Cornelis Ris (1766),” Global Anabaptist Wiki, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016, [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Mennonite\_Articles\_of\_Faith\_by\_Cornelis\_Ris\_(1766)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Mennonite_Articles_of_Faith_by_Cornelis_Ris_\(1766\)). [↩](#fnref-3544-51)
52. Jesus’ words about a lustful look being adulterous gives good grounds for such a conclusion. After all, one does not normally go from being completely faithful to one’s spouse in one moment and lying in bed with another in the next. Between those two states is found the person “who looks at a woman with lustful intent,” who “has already committed adultery with her in his heart” and is already in danger of being “thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:28-29). Paul, likewise, states categorically that adulterers (likely thinking primarily of those who have physically committed adultery) “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9). If this is the case, then cases of physical adultery surely involve an unbeliever. [↩](#fnref-3544-52)
53. Menno Simons, _The Complete Writings of Menno Simons_, trans. Leonard Verduin, ed. J. C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 200; _Concerning Divorce_, trans. J.C. Wenger, _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ (April 1947):114-119, available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873). [↩](#fnref-3544-53)
54. In this view, in Paul’s first paragraph he was doing as Mark and Luke did in their Gospels: summarizing the main point of Jesus’ teaching (divorce and remarriage are contrary to God’s design) without intending to discuss the exceptional case of adulterous spouses. Paul’s second paragraph (about mixed marriages) was not about adultery, either, for when Paul introduces this paragraph, he clarifies that he has no word from the Lord (1 Cor. 7:12). This means that Paul cannot be discussing scenarios that match Jesus’ exception clause in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, or else he could not have said he lacked a word from the Lord on the matter. Thus, when Paul discusses occasions when unbelievers leave their Christian spouses, he must be thinking of cases of abandonment, but not cases of adultery. [↩](#fnref-3544-54)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Anabaptists Then (1600-1860s): “It Is Clearly to Be Seen”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-07-14
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Anabaptists Then (1600-1860s): "It Is Clearly to Be Seen" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: No extant Anabaptist writings from 1600 to the 1860s deny the historic view that Jesus’ exception clause permits divorce and remarriage in case of adultery.
Tags: adultery, Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Anabaptist history, Herald of Truth, Mennonite Church, exception clause, Andrew V. | Ste. Marie, Dordrecht Confession of Faith, fornication, Harold S. | Bender, John F. | Funk, Martin | Luther, Shorter Catechism, catechism, Martyrs Mirror, Menno | Simons, -, Bible translations, Christian | Neff, Cornelius J. | Dyck, Gerhard | Roosen, Hans | de Ries, Joseph F. | Sohm, Leonard | Gross, Swiss Brethren, Thieleman J. | van Braght, Amish, Amos | Hoover, Beulah Stauffer | Hostetler, Christian | Burkholder, Christian | Lugbüll, Cornelis | Ris, Der Herold der Wahrheit, Elbing catechism, Elizabeth | Bender, Evangelical Mennonite Brethren, G. Edwin | Bontrager, General Conference Mennonite Church, Golden Apples in Silver Bowls, Ira D. | Landis, Jacob | Stauffer, Joe A. | Springer, John A. | Hostetler, Joseph | Funk, Kleine Gemeinde, Mennonites, Montbéliard Mennonite Church, Nanne | van der Zijpp, Peter | Burkholder, Peter J. | Klassen, Peter J. | Twisck, Pieter | Pietersz, Robert | Friedmann, Roosen's Catechism, Rudnerweide confession, Sijwaert | Pietersz, Waterlander Mennonites
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1600-1860s-clearly-seen
**This is the second of several historical posts surveying how Anabaptists have interpreted Jesus’ exception clauses (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) regarding divorce and remarriage in cases of _porneia_ (“sexual immorality”).** [The first post presented the views of the earliest Anabaptists](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1500s-unchangeable-plain-word-christ/), in the 1500s. This current post continues our survey up to the 1860s.
After this post, I’d like to pause my historical survey to attempt a summary of how Anabaptists approached the task of interpreting Jesus’ exception clauses. After that summary, a third historical survey post is in the works, examining how Anabaptist interpretations evolved in the late 1800s to result in an inflexible stance against all divorce and remarriage, with no exceptions.
This series of historical posts springs from [an earlier post summarizing how conservative Anabaptists today](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-now-taking-exception-clause/) handle Jesus’ exception clauses.
**Introductions aside, let’s resume our historical survey.** I have found less evidence for the years 1600 through the 1860s than for the 1500s—probably in part because churches in these centuries sometimes relied on existing documents rather than producing new ones and also partly because historians have tended to focus on the first generations of Anabaptists. But the evidence I’ve found reveals the general pattern of belief quite clearly: **Anabaptists in these centuries did not contradict the interpretation of the earliest Anabaptists. Rather, they repeatedly affirmed that Jesus’ exception clauses allow a believer to divorce a spouse who has committed adultery.**
About the year 1600 a **“Confession of Faith, According to the Holy Word of God”** was written, which was later included by Thieleman J. van Braght in his 1660 compilation _Bloody Theatre or Martyrs Mirror_. The original authors may have been “two Old Frisian preachers, Sijwaert Pietersz and Peter J. Twisck,” but it “is primarily composed of sentences borrowed from the works of Menno Simons.”[1](#fn-3509-1) Its inclusion in the _Martyrs Mirror_ has made it influential. Article XXV of this confession, “Of Marriage,” includes the following excerpt:
> Christ as a perfect Lawgiver, rejected and abolished the writing of divorcement and permission of Moses, together with all abuses thereof, referring all that heard and believed Him to the original ordinance of His heavenly Father, instituted with Adam and Eve in Paradise; and thus re-establishing marriage between one man and one woman, and so irreparably and firmly binding the bond of matrimony, that **they might not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in the case of adultery** or death.[2](#fn-3509-2)
The title page of my maternal grandfather Edwin Gingrich’s copy of the Martyr’s Mirror. Few other books have shaped Anabaptist self-identity so powerfully.
In 1618 the Dutch Mennonite **Hans de Ries**, who helped author a couple Waterlanderer confessions I quoted in my last post, wrote **another short confession**. This one was designed to forge unity with a non-Anabaptist group of Christians who had arrived in Amsterdam after being persecuted as Independents in England. This confession’s brief article on marriage opens with these lines:
> We hold marriage to be an ordinance of God, instituted in such manner that every husband shall have his own wife and every wife her own husband. These may not be separated **except for reasons of adultery**.[3](#fn-3509-3)
About 1625, Pieter Pietersz of the Waterlander branch of the Dutch Mennonites wrote **_The Way to the City of Peace_**, a treatise or allegory written in conversation form which became a sort of statement of faith for the Waterlanderers. In one passage Pietersz rebukes those who taught “that a wife must leave her husband if he has fallen into sin”:
> Here they ban innocent women who have not overstepped the law of the Lord, God having commanded that they should not leave their husband, **except for adultery**, Matt. 19:9; 5:32.[4](#fn-3509-4)
In 1627 in Amsterdam **a confession called “Scriptural Instruction”** was drawn up and sent as an “olive branch” to congregations in over half a dozen nearby provinces. This confession was designed to imitate and join the example of Hans de Ries, “who had given much thought and effort to reuniting the discordant and divided body of the Mennonite church in Holland.”[5](#fn-3509-5) Evidently the four preachers who drafted this confession thought the following statement on marriage could be affirmed by all Dutch Mennonites:
> The marriage of the Children of God… must be… kept inviolate, so that each man shall have his own, only wife, and each wife her own husband; and nothing shall separate them, **save adultery**. Lev. 18; 20; 1 Cor. 5:1; Matt. 19; Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:2; Matt. 5:32; 1 Cor. 9:5.[6](#fn-3509-6)
The **Dordrecht Confession of Faith** (1632) is the most famous and influential of the old Anabaptist confessions. It includes Article XII, “Of the State of Matrimony.” This article does not mention divorce or remarriage, saying only that “the Lord Christ did away and set aside all the abuses of marriage which had meanwhile crept in.” [7](#fn-3509-7) This language (“abuses,” etc.) mirrors the confession from c. 1600 printed in the _Martyrs Mirror_ (which in turn mirrors earlier Anabaptist writings on the topic) and thus should not be misunderstood as a claim that Christ forbade all divorce.[8](#fn-3509-8)
The Dordrecht Confession of Faith was included in the **_Martyrs Mirror_** (1660). **Theileman J. van Braght**, the compiler of that volume, shows by his editorial comments that he, too, affirms the historic Anabaptist understanding of Jesus’ exception clause. After describing the martyr John Schut’s belief that a marriage “may not be dissolved, save on account of adultery,” van Braght comments that Schut was “following herein the teaching of Christ. Matt. 19.”[9](#fn-3509-9) His inclusion of the c. 1600 confession cited above is additional evidence of his beliefs.
In 1702 Gerhard Roosen, a minister in Hamburg, Germany, produced the **first comprehensive Anabaptist catechism** in the German language, called **_Christian Spiritual Conversation on Saving Faith_**. This became “one of the most popular catechisms among the Mennonites of Europe and America,” with at least twenty-two editions published by 1950.[10](#fn-3509-10) The article “On Matrimony” discusses Malachi 2:14-15, Matthew 19:4-9, and 1 Corinthians 7:39 in support of the following conclusion:
> Concerning the state of matrimony, Christ made amends for the abuses and decline which had crept into it… Christ also again brought the first state of matrimony to its primitive order… From this \[Matt. 19:4-9\] it is clearly to be seen, that Christ teaches all christians \[sic\], that a man (**except in case of fornication** \[_Hureren_; “whoring”[11](#fn-3509-11)\],) is bound to his wife by the band of matrimony, as long as she lives, and that the wife is also bound to her husband by the same tie as long as he lives.[12](#fn-3509-12)
Roosen’s book also includes a document called “Brief Instruction: From Holy Scripture, in Questions and Answers, for the Young.” This is actually a reprint of the **very first German Anabaptist catechism**, which appeared in Danzig, Prussia, in 1690.[13](#fn-3509-13) This brief catechism became widely known in English as “The Shorter Catechism.” There the following is found:
> _Quest_. 27. Can also a lawful marriage, for any cause, be divorced \[_getrennet_; “separated”\]? _Ans_. No. For the persons united by such marriage are so closely bound to each other, that they can in no wise separate \[_scheiden;_ “divorce”\], **except in case of “fornication** \[_Ehebruch;_ “adultery”\]**.”** Matt. 19, 9.[14](#fn-3509-14)
Also in 1702, the Swiss Brethren published an **adapted version of the Dordrecht Confession of Faith** in their compilation **_Golden Apples in Silver Bowls_**. For this book they added the underlined clause below to the article on marriage:
> The Lord Christ, too, renounced and swept away all the abuses within marriage which meanwhile had crept in, such as separation, divorce, and entering into another marriage while the original spouse is still living. He referred everything back to the original precept and left it at that (Mt. 19:4-6).[15](#fn-3509-15)
**Does this represent a new, firmer line, rejecting divorce and remarriage even in cases of adultery?** It is hard to know. On the one hand, the additional clause certainly strengthens this confession’s stance against the “abuses” of marriage by listing them explicitly. In particular, the rejection of “entering into another marriage while the original spouse is still living” a very clear warning. It is noteworthy that, when these Swiss Brethren chose to add to the original confession, they chose to strengthen the warnings against abuses rather than add a reference to Jesus’ exception clause.
On the other hand, previous confessions had already spoken explicitly against separation and divorce, so such language is not new. Warnings against wrongful remarriage were also previously given, including in the earliest Swiss document on divorce.[16](#fn-3509-16) The mere inclusion of these additional comments, then, does not prove the Swiss Brethren had abandoned their understanding of Jesus’ exception clause. After all, the original Dordrecht Confession likewise fails to mention Jesus’ exception clause, yet the historical context of its Dutch Mennonite authors makes it virtually certain that they nevertheless recognized an exception for adultery. For us to confidently state that this adapted confession represents a change in Swiss Brethren thinking, a clear alternative explanation of Jesus’ exception clause would need to be present.
**In short, the most we can say for sure is that the Swiss Brethren felt a need to specify what sort of abuses Christ renounced, rather than feeling a need to mention Jesus’ exception clause.** Several possibilities could explain this choice, including (a) that they were growing less confident in their historic interpretation of the exception clause or (b) that their historic consensus affirmation of the exception clause was still strong enough that they felt no need to mention it. In support of option (b) is the fact that Roosen’s catechism book (see above) and the Elbing catechism (see below), which both clearly permit divorce in cases of adultery, became very popular from the later eighteenth century on among the Swiss Brethren and their descendants in American (the “Mennonite Church” or “Old Mennonite Church”).[17](#fn-3509-17) Given the lack of any similar supporting evidence for option (a), **I think option (b) is the better reading** of the Swiss Brethren adaptation of the Dordrecht Confession.[18](#fn-3509-18)
In 1766 a Dutch Mennonite preacher named **Cornelis Ris compiled several previous confessions into his own** in an attempt to unify the congregations of his time on the “old foundation of the recognized confessions.” His confession, “like the Dordrecht Confession, had only temporary significance in the Netherlands, but attained a true and wide significance outside its home” and was published by the General Conference Mennonite Church as recently as 1906 as its recognized confession.[19](#fn-3509-19) The 1904 English printing contains the following excerpt:
> The will of God concerning this state is clearly expressed, viz., that only two persons free from all others and not of too close blood relationship may enter into it, to be united and bound together without any reserve even unto death. Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:28. The separation of such is moreover, altogether prohibited **except for the cause of fornication**. Matthew 5:31, 32; 19:7-10; 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11.[20](#fn-3509-20)
In 1778 **a catechism was published at Elbing, Prussia**. It is hard to overstate how popular this catechism became among diverse groups of Anabaptists in both Europe and North America, continuing to be used even as recently as the mid-twentieth century.[21](#fn-3509-21) It was first translated into English in 1848 and the General Conference authorized a revision of the English translation in 1896. The 1904 printing of this document includes the following question and answer:
> May married persons be divorced? No: they shall not be divorced, **save for the cause of fornication** \[_Ehebruch_; “adultery”\]. – Matt. 19:3-9, Matt. 5:22.[22](#fn-3509-22)
An entry from 1781 in **the church register of the Montb****é****liard Mennonite Church in eastern France** (about 7 miles from Switzerland) records an account of remarriage after divorce for adultery:
> Today, on November 25, 1781, Christian Lugbüll… and Anna Eicher… wed each other. However, Christian Lugbüll was earlier wed to Anna Blanck…, but \[Anna\] deserted her husband with great immorality and prostitution, and did not want to tolerate her husband, and the husband, Hans \[i.e. Christian\] Lugbüll had to take to flight due to her licentious prostitution, and \[Anna\] then had a bastard more than a year and a day after Hans \[i.e. Christian\] Lugbüll had left her. Therefore **a counsel about this matter was held in Schoppenwihr in Alsace on the 13th of October, 1781, with 24 ministers and it was decided that he could marry again**, but Anna Blanck \[could\] not, because she had committed adultery and not the husband.[23](#fn-3509-23)
This account is valuable evidence for at least two reasons. First, it shows a Mennonite church of nearly 1800 actually practicing, with official approval, the freedom to remarry that was proclaimed in Anabaptist confessions and catechisms. Second, it shows their practice was similar to that outlined in the Dutch Wismar Articles of 1554, which stated that after adultery the innocent spouse “shall consult with the congregation” and only remarry “subject to the advice of the elders and the congregation.”
**I have not been able to find any early North American Mennonite writings that discuss Jesus’ exception clauses. There is good reason, however, not to read this silence as a rejection of the historic Anabaptist position.**
In 1804 a small book was published in Pennsylvania by a bishop named **Christian Burkholder**. An enlarged reprint published later that year carried the signatures of twenty-seven ministers of the Lancaster Mennonite Conference and “was probably adopted as an official church edition.”[24](#fn-3509-24) The book went through at least eight German and five English editions during the nineteenth century. It was first translated into English in 1857, with title **“Useful and Edifying Address to the Youth,”** when it was included as Part IV in Roosen’s _Christian Spiritual Conversation on Saving Faith_.
This book includes a brief discussion of marriage. There is no mention of Jesus’ exception clause, but near the end of the discussion we read this: “Further I would recommend you to consider the 12th article in our small Confession of Faith, and the 25th in the large one.” The references are almost certainly to the Dordrecht Confession of Faith (“small”) and the confession from c. 1600 (“large”; see above).[25](#fn-3509-25) The Dordrecht Confession was “the first Mennonite book printed in America” (in 1727),[26](#fn-3509-26) and both of these confessions were included in the _Martyrs_ _Mirror_, which was translated into German and published in the Ephrata Colony in 1748.
What is important for our discussion here is that **Burkholder’s book demonstrates that American Mennonites in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century were directing their members to the large confession of c. 1600**, which states that a husband and wife may “not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in the case of adultery or death.”
Even apart from this explicit comment in Burkholder’s book, we know from publication data that from early colonial times up through the nineteenth century and beyond **North American Mennonites were actively publishing, translating, and using multiple European Mennonite documents that taught the historic Anabaptist interpretation of Jesus’ exception clauses**.
For example, in 1837 the prominent Virginia bishop **Peter Burkholder**, together with translator **Joseph Funk**, published an English edition of the c. 1600 large confession, as well as “The Shorter Catechism” (originally pub. 1690). In Funk’s translation the latter includes this question and answer:
> Q. 27. Can the bonds of an orderly regular marriage be broken for every cause?
> A. No : for they are united and bound together with ties of the most tender obligations and engagements, so that in no case they may part asunder, except it be for the cause of fornication. Matth. 5: 32.[27](#fn-3509-27)
Many more such republications occurred. Here is a list of North American republication dates for some relevant documents:[28](#fn-3509-28)
* Menno Simon’s _Foundation of Christian Doctrine_: In German: 1794, 1835, 1849, 1851, 1853, and 1876. In English: 1835, 1863, 1869.
* _Martyrs Mirror_: In German: 1748, 1814; 1848-49; 1849; 1870; 1915. In English: 1748-49; 1837; 1886; 1938.
* Roosen’s catechism, _Christian Spiritual Conversation on Saving Faith_: In German: 11 editions (1769-1950). In English: 5 editions (1857-1950).
* Elbing catechism: In German: 1824, etc. In English: 1848, etc.
* Confession of Cornelis Ris: In German, 1904, 1906. In English: 1850, 1895, 1902, 1904.
It is also true, of course, that **Mennonite immigrants brought European copies of these documents to American and used them there long before they republished them**. The fact that they republished them shows that these documents, and the teachings they contained, were important to early Mennonite generations in North America.
Our chronological journey takes us next to 1853 in **South Russia**, where the Church in Rudnerweide in Odessa published a **“Confession or Short and Simple Statement of Faith of Those Who are Called the United Flemish, Frisian, and High German Anabaptist-Mennonite Church.”** This confession quotes emphasizes the strength of the marriage covenant or “bond of matrimony”:
> In matrimony man and wife are so bound together and mutually obligated that for no reason and for no cause whatever may they be parted from each other, **except for fornication and adultery**, even as we read concerning this in the evangelist Matthew, where the Pharisees and Sadducees came to Christ, tempted Him and said, “Is it right that a man should be divorced from His wife for any cause?” …He said to them, “…Whoever divorces his wife, except for causes of fornication, and marries another, he breaks the marriage bond and he who marries a person who has been divorced also breaks the marriage bond.” From this **it may be clearly seen and understood** that the bond of matrimony is a firm indissoluble bond which may not be broken nor may the parties be divorced from each other **except for cause of fornication**, even as the Lord Christ said.[29](#fn-3509-29)
The previous confession raises the question of what **Bible translations** were used by early Anabaptists. Where our English versions quote Jesus as saying that the one who wrongfully divorces and remarries “commits adultery,” this confession says “breaks the marriage bond.” This phrase probably means “violates the marriage covenant,”[30](#fn-3509-30) which accurately expresses the central idea of what it means to “commit adultery.” This wording almost certainly is borrowed from Luther’s translation.[31](#fn-3509-31) I will return to this question of Bible translations later.
**1864 marked the beginning of a new era for the Mennonite Church in North America.**[32](#fn-3509-32) In January of that year, John F. Funk published the first issue of a new periodical that would track and shape the thinking of Mennonites for nearly half a century: the _Herald of Truth_. Funk was not the first Mennonite publisher in America,[33](#fn-3509-33) but his publishing efforts were so prolific and his influence so large that he has been called “more than any one leader the founder of the publication and mission work of the Mennonite Church” and “the most important figure in the life of the Mennonite Church in the nineteenth century.”[34](#fn-3509-34) Funk’s paper would document and enable many important conversations among Mennonites, including debates about divorce and remarriage.
**The first clear evidence that I have found of Mennonites who disagreed with the historic Anabaptist interpretation of Jesus’ exception clause comes from an 1867 issue of _Herald of Truth_.**[35](#fn-3509-35) I plan to begin my next historical survey post with that story.
**I’ll end this post, however, with the earliest reference to divorce that I found in this periodical**, from February, 1865:
> I cannot find anywhere in the Scriptures that husband and wife are permitted to separate from \[_scheiden_; “divorce”\] each other, **except in case of fornication** \[_Hurerei_; “whoring”\]; and even then they are at liberty to do as they choose, to separate \[_scheiden_; “divorce”\], or not…[36](#fn-3509-36)
The way that this author expresses his interpretation of Jesus’ exception clause is telling. His offhand manner suggests that he was confident his interpretation was shared by many of his readers; if a spouse was sexually promiscuous, their husband or wife was permitted to divorce.[37](#fn-3509-37)
**How should we summarize the evidence from 1600 to the 1860s? Did Anabaptists in these centuries continue to understand Jesus’ exception clauses as their forebears did?**
**In support of a Yes answer are the following facts:**
1. I have not found any Anabaptist writing from this period that explicitly contradicts the early Anabaptist interpretation of Jesus’ exception clauses. Some speak against divorce without mentioning Jesus’ exception clause at all, but none offers an alternative interpretation of Jesus’ words.
2. Anabaptist writings from the 1500s that affirmed both divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery or fornication continued to be republished without revision and used widely during this period.
3. Multiple new writings from this period (at least ten quoted above) explicitly mention an exception for divorce in cases of adultery or fornication, including several catechisms which gained wide usage.
**Three facts should be considered in support of a No answer, however:**
1. The latest document quoted above that explicitly affirms that _remarriage_ is permitted in cases of adultery is the oldest one quoted in this post—the confession from c. 1600 that was included in the _Martyrs Mirror_. Probably many (all?) of the authors of these documents assumed that remarriage was permitted alongside divorce.[38](#fn-3509-38) But, except for the c. 1600 confession, the documents above explicitly mention only _divorce_ when citing Jesus’ exception clause.
2. The confession that was most widely used during this period, the Dordrecht Confession, makes no mention of Jesus’ exception clause, and thus did not reinforce the historic Anabaptist interpretation of his words for the generations of Anabaptists who used it.
3. As I mentioned above, there is explicit evidence that in the 1860s some members of the Mennonite Church thought remarriage was wrong in cases of adultery and, further, that they affirmed separation but not actual divorce. Such views may have begun decades or more before Funk’s paper preserved them for our discovery.
Despite these important qualifications, the following reality remains highly significant:
**From what I can discover, no extant Anabaptist writings from 1600 until the 1860s deny that Jesus’ exception clause permits both divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery. All documents either affirm this historic Anabaptist interpretation as part of what is “clearly to be seen” or do not address the question at all.**[39](#fn-3509-39)
This is very striking because, within fifty years, it would be commonplace for North American Mennonite writings to deny that Jesus’ exception clause permits either remarriage _or_ divorce.
It often takes time for theological beliefs to change, and changes in official church positions take even longer. I hope to explore the contours and possible causes of these changes in a future post.
**But first, I’d like to consider how early Anabaptists went about the task of interpreting Jesus’ exception clauses.** Where did they begin? How did they synthesize these clauses with other biblical texts? Did they do this well? Did they make mistakes? Do they have things to teach us? I welcome your prayers as I ponder these questions.
* * *
**What strikes you most about the evidence from the period 1600 through the 1860s?** How should we assess both the continuity of belief and the subtle hints of change? Are you aware of historical evidence or dynamics that I should add to my evaluation? **I welcome your comments below—and thanks for reading!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. “The Confession of Faith (P.J. Twisck, 1617),” Global Anabaptist Wiki, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016. [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The\_Confession\_of\_Faith\_(P.J.\_Twisck,\_1617)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Confession_of_Faith_\(P.J._Twisck,_1617\)) [↩](#fnref-3509-1)
2. “Confession of Faith, According to the Holy Word of God,” _The Bloody Theater of Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 401. Emphasis added. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The\_Confession\_of\_Faith\_(P.J.\_Twisck,\_1617)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Confession_of_Faith_\(P.J._Twisck,_1617\)) [↩](#fnref-3509-2)
3. Hans de Ries, “Short Confession of Faith and the Essential Elements of Christian Doctrine,” 1618; “A Short Confession of Faith by Hans de Ries (1618),” trans. Cornelius J. Dyck, Global Anabaptist Wiki, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016. [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=A\_Short\_Confession\_of\_Faith\_by\_Hans\_de\_Ries\_(1618)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=A_Short_Confession_of_Faith_by_Hans_de_Ries_\(1618\)). Emphasis added. From Cornelius J. Dyck, “A Short Confession of Faith by Hans de Ries,” _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ 38 (January 1964): 5-19. [↩](#fnref-3509-3)
4. Pieter Pietersz, _The Way to the City of Peace_, _Spiritual Life in Anabaptism_, trans. and ed. by Cornelius J. Dyck (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1995), 267. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3509-4)
5. Christian Neff and Nanne van der Zijpp, “Olive Branch Confession (1627),” Global Anabaptist Wiki, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016. [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Olive\_Branch\_Confession\_(1627)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Olive_Branch_Confession_\(1627\)) [↩](#fnref-3509-5)
6. “Scriptural Instruction,” _The Bloody Theater of Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 32; also 27. Emphasis added. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Olive\_Branch\_Confession\_(1627)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Olive_Branch_Confession_\(1627\)) [↩](#fnref-3509-6)
7. Here is the entire Article XII: “We confess that there is in the church of God an honorable state of matrimony, of two free, believing persons, in accordance with the manner after which God originally ordained the same in Paradise, and instituted it Himself with Adam and Eve, and that the Lord Christ did away and set aside all the abuses of marriage which had meanwhile crept in, and referred all to the original order, and thus left it. Genesis 1:27; Mark 10:4. In this manner the Apostle Paul also taught and permitted matrimony in the church, and left it free for every one to be married, according to the original order, in the Lord, to whomsoever one may get to consent. By these words, in the Lord, there is to be understood, we think, that even as the patriarchs had to marry among their kindred or generation, so the believers of the New Testament have likewise no other liberty than to marry among the chosen generation and spiritual kindred of Christ, namely, such, and no others, who have previously become united with the church as one heart and soul, have received one baptism, and stand in one communion, faith, doctrine and practice, before they may unite with one another by marriage. Such are then joined by God in His church according to the original order; and this is called, marrying in the Lord. 2 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 9:5; Genesis 24:4; Genesis 28:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39.” “Dordrecht Confession of Faith (Mennonite, 1632),” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1632. Accessed June 17, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Dordrecht\_Confession\_of\_Faith\_(Mennonite,\_1632)#XII.\_Of\_the\_State\_of\_Matrimony](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Dordrecht_Confession_of_Faith_\(Mennonite,_1632\)#XII._Of_the_State_of_Matrimony) [↩](#fnref-3509-7)
8. Over two-thirds of this brief article focuses on a primary concern of early Anabaptists, that an “honorable state of matrimony” consists of “two free, _believing_ persons” (emphasis added) and that Christians must marry only “in the Lord.” Another confession from 1630 that is included in _Martyrs Mirror_ likewise devotes over half of the space of its marriage article to the importance of marrying only a believer, without any mention of divorce. In addition, it contains another lengthy portion (about three times the length of its marriage article) that discusses church discipline in cases when a believer marries an unbeliever (“Confession of Faith,” _The Bloody Theater of Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 36-37). The 1627 confession cited above also devotes nearly its marriage article to marrying “only in the Lord.” Such evidence illustrates how, for early Anabaptists, marriage between a believer and an unbeliever was a much more urgent point of debate and concern than the topic of divorce after adultery. [↩](#fnref-3509-8)
9. “John Schut, A.D. 1651,” _The Bloody Theater of Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 654. [↩](#fnref-3509-9)
10. Robert Friedmann, “Christliches Gemütsgespräch (Monograph),” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1953. Web. July 12, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Christliches\_Gem%C3%BCtsgespr%C3%A4ch\_(Monograph)&oldid=155562](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Christliches_Gem%C3%BCtsgespr%C3%A4ch_\(Monograph\)&oldid=155562) [↩](#fnref-3509-10)
11. The English translations of some of these documents appear to be rather loose. I will add alternative translations in brackets for some key words, also providing the original German word. (I used [this online dictionary](https://en.langenscheidt.com/) to help me understand the German terms and also ran phrases through Google Translate.) In this case, I am not certain of the part of speech of _Hureren_, but the family of words clearly refers to “whoring,” not premarital sex. The German original for this passage can be found on page 124 of this scanned book: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/\_/397qR\_AMjOQC?hl=en&gbpv=1](https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/397qR_AMjOQC?hl=en&gbpv=1) [↩](#fnref-3509-11)
12. Gerhard Roosen, _Christian Spiritual Conversation on Saving Faith, for the Young, in Questions and Answers, and a Confession of Faith of the Mennonites_ (Lancaster, PA: John Baer and Sons, 1857), 108-109. Emphasis added. Available online: [https://archive.org/details/christianspiritu01menn/page/108/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/christianspiritu01menn/page/108/mode/2up) [↩](#fnref-3509-12)
13. Christian Neff and Harold S. Bender, “Catechism,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1953. Web. July, 2 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Catechism&oldid=162939](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Catechism&oldid=162939) [↩](#fnref-3509-13)
14. Roosen, ibid., 147. Emphasis added. Bontrager says that “a rigid view” of divorce and remarriage “was taken from 1690 to 1800” (G. Edwin Bontrager, _Divorce and the Faithful Church_ (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1978), 104). He gives no evidence or additional comment for this assertion, but it seems likely that his starting date is an allusion to this “Shorter Catechism.” Does this catechism present a “rigid view”? The English translation could suggest so; after all, the question is about whether “divorce” is permitted, the answer is “no,” and the follow-up statement only offers permission to “separate.” However, the original German question asks about whether a marriage can _wiederum getrennet werden_, and the answer uses the word _scheiden._ While both terms can mean “separate,” it appears that the former term is a more general reference to separation (or “splitting up”), while the latter term is more often explicitly a reference to divorce. Further, the word translated “fornication” above is _Ehebruch_, which is more accurately translated “adultery” (or, in a translation that reflects etymology, “marriage-breaking”). In summary, it appears to me that a more careful translation of the original German would read like this: “Can also a lawful marriage, for all sorts of reasons, be **separated**? _Ans_. No. For the persons united by such marriage are so closely bound to each other, that they can in no wise **divorce**, except in case of **adultery**.” This reading hardly indicates a more “rigid view” than that of the early Anabaptists. (Note: I found the original German catechism question here: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/\_/397qR\_AMjOQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=eine%20ordentliche](https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/397qR_AMjOQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=eine%20ordentliche). [↩](#fnref-3509-14)
15. “Christian Confession of Faith Of the Peace-Loving And Distinguished Christians Who are called Mennonites,” trans. Elizabeth Bender and Leonard Gross, _Golden Apples in Silver Bowls_, ed. Gross (Lancaster, Pa.: Lancaster Mennonite Historical Society, 1999), 252. [↩](#fnref-3509-15)
16. “And he who separates or permits to separate except for the one cause of fornication, and changes {companions}, commits adultery. And he who marries the one divorced causeth her to commit adultery… We declare that when a man or woman separates except for fornication (that is, adultery), and takes another wife or husband, we consider this as adultery and the participants as not members of the body of Christ, yea, he who marries the separated one we consider a fornicator” (“Concerning Divorce,” c. 1525-1533). This document explicitly mentions all three abuses listed in the 1702 expanded confession: separation, divorce, and marrying another. [↩](#fnref-3509-16)
17. Christian Neff and Harold S. Bender, “Catechism,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1953. Web. July 10, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Catechism&oldid=162939](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Catechism&oldid=162939) [↩](#fnref-3509-17)
18. In a recent article, Andrew V. Ste. Marie cites this adapted confession as evidence that a firm stance against all divorce and remarriage (no exceptions) was not a new idea in the time of Daniel Kauffman: “Among the Mennonites whose origins could be traced to the Swiss Brethren Anabaptist tradition, the roots of the diversity in the discussion on divorce and remarriage go all the way back to the sixteenth century. A tract from the first generation of Swiss Brethren titled _On Divorce_ argues that adultery is grounds for divorce and the innocent party may remarry. The Swiss Anabaptist Short Simple Confession from 1572 argues for the same position. However, even in Europe, there is evidence of another view. The modified version of the Dordrecht Confession printed in the Swiss Brethren devotional book Golden Apples in Silver Bowls in 1702 teaches… {The same quote I provided above.} Jacob Stauffer, founder of the “Stauffer” or Pike Mennonites, also expressed a stricter view, writing c. 1850 that ‘the covenant of marriage cannot and dare not be broken to marry another except through natural death.’ Thus, the roots of the multiple views on divorce and remarriage go all the way back to Europe in the Swiss Brethren experience.” (“Research Note: Nineteenth-Century Mennonites Deal With Divorce and Remarriage,” _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ 94 (April 2020), 249.) It seems to me that Ste. Marie overstates his evidence here in two ways. First, he does not consider other possible ways to understand the Swiss Brethren additions to the Dordrecht Confession, as I have done above. (In fact, he is somewhat misleading in failing to clarify that most of quotation he provides was actually part of the original document.) Second, even if this adapted confession should be understood to outlaw all divorce and remarriage, with no exceptions, this still provides evidence of “diversity in the discussion on divorce and remarriage” only as early as the eighteenth century, not “the sixteenth century.” Despite my disagreements on these points, I found much of the rest of Ste. Marie’s article helpful and am grateful he mentioned it to me. [↩](#fnref-3509-18)
19. “Mennonite Articles of Faith by Cornelis Ris (1766),” Global Anabaptist Wiki, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016. [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Mennonite\_Articles\_of\_Faith\_by\_Cornelis\_Ris\_(1766)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Mennonite_Articles_of_Faith_by_Cornelis_Ris_\(1766\)) [↩](#fnref-3509-19)
20. Cornelis Ris, _Mennonite Articles of Faith as Set Forth in Public Confession of the Church: a Translation_ (Berne, IN: Mennonite Book Concern, 1904). Emphasis added. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Mennonite\_Articles\_of\_Faith\_by\_Cornelis\_Ris\_(1766)#XXXI.\_Of\_Marriage](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Mennonite_Articles_of_Faith_by_Cornelis_Ris_\(1766\)#XXXI._Of_Marriage) [↩](#fnref-3509-20)
21. “This catechism… became not only the catechism of the Amish in America, but also of the Mennonite Church (MC), the General Conference Mennonite Church, the Evangelical Mennonite Brethren (now Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches), and the Kleine Gemeinde (now called Evangelical Mennonites). It is nothing short of astounding to discover that the Elbing-Waldeck catechism became the standard source of doctrinal, prebaptismal instruction for such widespread groups as the American groups just listed, the Mennonites of Russia (except the Mennonite Brethren group 1860ff.), those of West Prussia, and those of France; further that it is still in widespread use in North America wherever catechisms are used, in both English and German; and finally, that no other catechism, except the much larger and somewhat different Gemüthsgespräch — and that only among the Mennonite Church (MC) of Eastern Pennsylvania — has ever successfully competed with it in any language in these countries” (Christian Neff and Harold S. Bender, “Catechism,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1953. Accessed June 17, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Catechism&oldid=162939](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Catechism&oldid=162939)). [↩](#fnref-3509-21)
22. _The Catechism or Simple Instruction From the Sacred Scriptures, as Taught by the Mennonite Church_ (Berne, IN: Mennonite Book Concern, 1904). Emphasis added. Available online with an introduction: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Elbing\_Catechism\_(Mennonite,\_1778)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Elbing_Catechism_\(Mennonite,_1778\)). German version available here: [https://archive.org/details/katechismusoderk00elbi\_7/page/48/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/katechismusoderk00elbi_7/page/48/mode/2up) [↩](#fnref-3509-22)
23. _Montbéliard Mennonite Church Register: 1750-1958_, trans. and ed. by Joe A. Springer (Goshen, IN: Mennonite Historical Society, 2015), p. 147. Emphasis added. [https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Montbeliard-Church-France-Divorce.pdf](https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Montbeliard-Church-France-Divorce.pdf). I am grateful to Joe Springer for alerting me to this account. [↩](#fnref-3509-23)
24. Ira D. Landis, and Robert Friedmann, “Burkholder, Christian (1746-1809),” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1953. Web. July 12, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Burkholder,\_Christian\_(1746-1809)&oldid=143506](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Burkholder,_Christian_\(1746-1809\)&oldid=143506) [↩](#fnref-3509-24)
25. I did not find any other confession that has a 25th article on marriage, and the only other one I found having a 12th article on marriage is the Strasbourg Discipline from 1568 ([https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Strasbourg\_Discipline\_(South\_German\_Anabaptist,\_1568)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Strasbourg_Discipline_\(South_German_Anabaptist,_1568\))), a document with far less historical importance. [↩](#fnref-3509-25)
26. John A. Hostetler, _God Uses Ink: The Heritage and Mission of the Mennonite Publishing House After Fifty Years_ (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1958), 9. [↩](#fnref-3509-26)
27. “Extract from the Catechism,” _The Confession of Faith, of the Christians Known by the Name of Mennonites, in Thirty-Three Articles; With a Short Excerpt from Their Catechism_, trans. Joseph Funk (Winchester: Robinson & Hollis, 1837), 431. [https://archive.org/details/confessionoffait00menn/page/430/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/confessionoffait00menn/page/430/mode/2up). See here for more background information: [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Burkholder,\_Peter\_(1783-1846)](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Burkholder,_Peter_\(1783-1846\)). Interestingly, in this Funk translation of the c. 1600 confession, the possibility of remarriage after divorce for adultery is not explicitly mentioned: “so inseparably joined and bound together that nothing but death or adultery shall part and seperate {sic}” (p. 211). Joseph F. Sohm’s careful 1886 translation (see above) is probably more accurate: “so irreparably and firmly binding the bond of matrimony, that they might not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in the case of adultery or death.” [↩](#fnref-3509-27)
28. I have made no attempt to be exhaustive. Documentation for these dates can be found on GAMEO.com or in _God Uses Ink_ (Hostetler, ibid.). [↩](#fnref-3509-28)
29. “Confession, or Short and Simple Statement of Faith (Rudnerweide, Russia, 1853),” trans. Peter J. Klassen, Global Anabaptist Wiki, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016. [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Confession,\_or\_Short\_and\_Simple\_Statement\_of\_Faith\_(Rudnerweide,\_Russia,\_1853)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Confession,_or_Short_and_Simple_Statement_of_Faith_\(Rudnerweide,_Russia,_1853\)). Emphasis added. Quotation marks and spelling of “Sadducees” corrected for clarity. This confession was adopted by a congregation in Oregon in 1878 and also reprinted a couple times in the late 1800s in Elkhard, Indiana–once for use by a church in Turner County, South Dakota and once by an elder of the Evangelical Mennonite Brethren. [↩](#fnref-3509-29)
30. It may be incorrect to interpret the phrase as “ends the marriage” although violating the marriage covenant certainly puts the marriage itself in question. [↩](#fnref-3509-30)
31. It is probable that the other confessions I have quoted in my historical survey likewise used Bible versions shaped by Luther’s translation. It is common for English translators of historical documents to simply use a common English translation such as the KJV whenever Bible quotations occur, rather than directly translating from the historical document. This can make it difficult to trace how the authors of historical documents were influenced by the translations they used. In this case of this confession, it appears Klassen translated biblical quotations directly from the German text of the confession, rather than substituting any existing English translation. [↩](#fnref-3509-31)
32. For an historical overview of this largest of the American Mennonite groups, see: Harold S. Bender and Beulah Stauffer Hostetler, “Mennonite Church (MC),” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. January 2013. Web. July 13, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Mennonite\_Church\_(MC)&oldid=167350](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Mennonite_Church_\(MC\)&oldid=167350) [↩](#fnref-3509-32)
33. Henry Funk in Pennsylvania (d. 1760), Joseph Funk in Virginia (1778-1862), and Benjamin Eby in Ontario (1785-1853) were important predecessors—two of them being relatives! None of these, to my limited knowledge, published anything on divorce that I have not mentioned in this post. [↩](#fnref-3509-33)
34. Cornelius J. Dyck, _An Introduction to Mennonite History_, 2nd ed. (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1981), 220, 217. [↩](#fnref-3509-34)
35. Andrew V. Ste. Marie writes that “Jacob Stauffer, founder of the “Stauffer” or Pike Mennonites, also expressed a stricter view, writing c. 1850 that ‘the covenant of marriage cannot and dare not be broken to marry another except through natural death’” (Ste. Marie, Ibid., 249, quoting from _A Chronicle or History Booklet About the So-Called Mennonite Church_, trans. Amos Hoover (Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Mennonite Historical Society, 1992), 186). Ste. Marie may be correct that Jacob Stauffer did not understand Jesus’ exception clause to provide any permission for divorce or remarriage; I have not been able to check the context of this quote to get a clearer sense of what Stauffer may have meant. At any rate, Stauffer’s statement is less than twenty years older than the 1867 _Herald of Truth_ article, so the historical picture is similar either way. [↩](#fnref-3509-35)
36. “Answer to ‘A Brother’s Question,’” _Herald of Truth_, Vol. 2, No. 2, 11, [https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth02unse/page/n6/mode/1up](https://archive.org/details/heraldoftruth02unse/page/n6/mode/1up) This sentence occurs in the context of the writer arguing against a husband and wife shunning each other in cases of church discipline. [↩](#fnref-3509-36)
37. In coming decades Mennonites would increasingly draw a distinction between divorce and mere separation, but I don’t think such a distinction is intended here. In this sentence the word translated “separate” (twice) appears in the German (in _Der Herold der Wahrheit_, the German twin publication to _Herald of Truth; [see here](https://archive.org/details/derheroldderwahr02unse/page/n6/mode/1up)_) as _scheiden_, which is a word that is regularly used to refer to divorce, not merely informal separation. (See footnote to “Shorter Catechism” above for more discussion of this word.) In place of the word “fornication,” the German text has _Hurerei_; “whoring,” thus referring not to premarital sex but to sexual promiscuity. [↩](#fnref-3509-37)
38. Some arguably imply as much, given the way they cite or quote Jesus’ exception clauses and given the prior Anabaptist interpretation of those clauses. For example, Roosen’s 1702 catechism quotes Jesus’ words about both divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:9) immediately before offering the following commentary: “From this it is clearly to be seen, that Christ teaches all christians, that a man (except in case of fornication,) is bound to his wife by the band of matrimony, as long as she lives…” This suggests that “bound to his wife” means “not free to divorce and remarry,” which suggests that “in case of fornication” a man would be free to do both. [↩](#fnref-3509-38)
39. Of course, it is possible I have missed important evidence, for (a) I am not formally trained in Anabaptist historical study, (b) I do not have physical access to any Mennonite archives, and (c) I do not read German. If I have missed evidence, I am eager to update my post and adjust my conclusions as needed. That said, I have seen nothing in primary or secondary literature to suggest that my conclusions here are inaccurate. It appears to me that, even if contradictory evidence were found, it would only offer an exception to the rule, which would still stand. [↩](#fnref-3509-39)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Up From the Dust (Poems by Dwight)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-07-11
Category: Poetry by Dwight Gingrich
Meta Title: Up From the Dust (Poems by Dwight) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: One dark night this week, a line came to me: "This world will grind me down into the dust." And then another: "But on the third day I will rise again."
Tags: death, fall, hope, John | Donne, joy, Phil | Keaggy, resurrection, sin, sorrow
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/up-from-the-dust
**2020 is proving to be a difficult year for many.** Is this year a tragedy or some cosmic joke? What is clearly evident in this year of “2020 vision” is that this world, and we who live in it, are broken. The fruits of Genesis 3—injustice, violence, disease, death—are on display even in lands of prosperity as rarely before in my lifetime.
Such times call for both honesty and hope. One night this week, as I lay awake pondering the brokenness of our world, a line came to me: “This world will grind me down into the dust.” And then another line comforted me as I returned to sleep: “But on the third day I will rise again” (cf. Luke 18:33, etc.).
The next morning I wrote the first of these two poems. After I wrote it, I realized the final line really called for a second poem—a revisitation of the dark themes of the first poem through the lens of its final line. So, a few days later, I wrote the second.
I wrote both with a handful of Bible passages open before me, but I’ll leave you to find those connections. I really should credit John Donne for the “[Death, be not proud](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44107/holy-sonnets-death-be-not-proud)” line, however, and Phil Keaggy should know that I almost included his phrase “joy comes crashing in” from his amazing song “[A Little Bit of Light](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSvKy_i9PBg).”
I wrote these quickly, with only minor edits afterward. They may not be perfect as art, but hopefully they rise fresh from my heart to meet yours and remind us both of the hope we have in Christ.
* * *
**UP FROM THE DUST**
This world will grind me down into the dust
With daily heavy drum of sin and death;
What I’ve restored will surely turn to rust
Until I, beaten, draw my final breath.
The nations rage; in wrath my tale is told
As famine, pestilence, rebellion fill
My feed and suffocate me in their fold.
For many shall offend and some will kill,
Their love run cold, or end with their own selves;
Unthankful, proud, blasphemers, false—until
The final enemy will strike us all;
Of all I love, not one escape unharmed.
We slowly fade and then we quickly fall.
These things must come, and yet, be not alarmed;
This world will daily grind me down, and then
Up from the dust at last I’ll rise again.
—Dwight Gingrich, July 7, 2020
**UP FROM THE DUST AGAIN**
Up from the dust at last I’ll rise again!
Death, be not proud; my pawn you’ll take, it’s true,
But even now my King begins to reign,
And reigning, takes the sting away from you.
My fun’ral march He ornaments with praise
And laughter interrupts my darkest night;
A cloud of witnesses observes my race,
So I despise the shame and brave the fight.
All works for good; in suff’ring we rejoice.
We do not grieve as those who have no hope,
But in this broken world we raise our voice
Proclaiming “Christ is Lord!” For all the scope
Of things created, fallen though they be,
Are reconciled in Him who works for me.
My labor’s not in vain! Though beaten down,
Up from the dust I rise to grasp my crown.
—Dwight Gingrich, July 10, 2020
* * *
**If you enjoyed these poems, feel free to leave a comment below. Thanks for reading!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers” – An Early Hutterite Document
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-07-01
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: "Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers" – An Early Hutterite Document • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is an previously unpublished translation of Article IV ("Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers") of Peter Walpot's "Article Book."
Tags: divorce, divorce and remarriage, Elizabeth | Bender, Robert | Friedmann, Article Book, Hutterites, Jason | Kauffman, Kenny | Woolman, Peter | Walpot
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/concerning-divorce-between-believers-unbelievers-hutterite-document
(This post may not interest most of my regular blog readers, but will be valuable for some historians.)
**One of the most important writings of the early Hutterites was the “Article Book” of 1577, written by their bishop Peter Walpot.** “It was one of their main doctrinal statements, used both within the community and also as a source when dealing with the outside “world” in order to demonstrate the biblical correctness of their particular teachings.”[1](#fn-3492-1)
In my research I learned that this “Article Book” contains an article on called “Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers.” This document is not the most important document for understanding the most widespread early Anabaptist beliefs about divorce and remarriage, but it provides an important and fascinating glimpse into early Hutterite beliefs and practices.
I was unable to locate an English translation of this work, but Kenny Woolman of the [Hutterian Brethren Book Centre](https://www.hbbookcentre.com/) kindly emailed me a PDF of an unpublished translation by Elizabeth Bender, which he said he had gotten “from the Archives in Goshen, now Elkhart.” This translation leaves a few blanks for untranslated words and shows other evidence of being a rough draft, but conveys the general sense of the document clearly.
I have since learned that a condensed form of this article is printed in English translation in _[The Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren](https://www.worldcat.org/title/chronicle-of-the-hutterian-brethren-vol-1-known-as-das-groe-gesichtbuch-der-hutterischen-bruder/oclc/769302048) (Vol_ _1)_ (ISBN: 9780874860214), but sharing Bender’s translation here makes the full document available for free online.
Jason Kauffman, Director of Archives and Records Management for the [Mennonite Church USA Archives](http://mennoniteusa.org/what-we-do/archives/) in Elkhart, Indiana, has given me permission to share it here.
### “Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers”
Article IV[2](#fn-3492-2) of Peter Walpot’s “Article Book” (_A Beautiful and Pleasant Little Book Concerning the Main Articles of our Faith_ or _The Five Articles of the Greatest Conflict Between Us and the_ _World_), translated by Elizabeth Bender.[3](#fn-3492-3)
**Source/permission:** Used with permission of the Mennonite Church USA Archives, Elkhart, Indiana.
**Citation:** Leonard Gross Papers, 1530-2018. HM1-447, Box 17, Folder 18. Mennonite Church USA Archives. Elkhart, Indiana.
[DOWNLOAD HERE](https://app.box.com/s/576qgx4w1filpmweqnhepkjaulepljxq)
[Hutterite Article Book - Article IV - E Bender translation](https://app.box.com/s/576qgx4w1filpmweqnhepkjaulepljxq)
**Feel free to leave a comment about this document below.**
1. Robert Friedmann, “Hutterite Article Book,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1953. Web. July 1, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Hutterite\_Article\_Book&oldid=121143](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Hutterite_Article_Book&oldid=121143) Note: Friedmann indicates the “Article Book” was published in 1547, but my understanding is that it was revised a number of times, with the final version (as shared here) produced in 1577. [↩](#fnref-3492-1)
2. Friedmann says it is the fifth article, but his numbering appears confused, for he also describes an additional “fifth article” found in one codex. I am using the numbering that Elizabeth Bender used. [↩](#fnref-3492-2)
3. Wife of Harold S. Bender, daughter of John Horsch. [↩](#fnref-3492-3)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Anabaptists Then (1500s): An “Unchangeable Plain Word of Christ”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-06-27
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Anabaptists Then (1500s): An "Unchangeable Plain Word of Christ" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: That adultery is grounds for divorce and remarriage, the early Anabaptists agreed, is part of the "unchangeable plain word of Christ” concerning marriage.
Tags: divorce and remarriage, Anabaptist history, exception clause, Harold S. | Bender, John F. | Funk, Martin | Luther, Menno | Simons, -, Abraham | Friesen, Alvin J. | Beachy, C. Arnold | Snyder, Cornelius J. | Dyck, Dirk | Philips, Frankenthal Disputation, Hans | de Ries, Huldrych | Zwingli, J.C. | Wenger, John Howard | Yoder, Leonard | Gross, Leonard | Verduin, Stuart | Murray, Swiss Brethren, Sydney | Penner, Walter | Klaassen, William E. | Keeney, Wismar Articles, Elizabeth | Bender, G. Edwin | Bontrager, Nanne | van der Zijpp, Robert | Friedmann, Waterlander Mennonites, Hutterites, Jason | Kauffman, Kenny | Woolman, Peter | Walpot, Albert | Verspeck, Christian | Hege, Ernest A. | Payne, Ernst H. | Correll, Gillis | van Aachen, Hans | Busschaert, hard sayings, Herman | van Tielt, Hoyte | Riencx, J. Howard | Kauffman, Jacob | Jansz, Jacob D. | Goering, Jan | Gleysteen, John | Horsch, Judith C. | Areen, Karl | Koop, Leenaert | Bouwens, loophole, Michael | Sattler, Schleitheim Confession, Simon | Jacobszoon, Simon | Michielszoon, Theodor | Sippell, Thomas | von Imbroich, Werner O. | Packull
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-then-1500s-unchangeable-plain-word-christ
**The early Anabaptists earned an undeniable reputation for holding firmly to the teachings of Jesus as they understood them, no matter the cost.** Though they shared many theological beliefs with the magisterial Reformers, the Anabaptists often accused the Reformers of “explaining away” the “hard sayings” of Jesus. ”[1](#fn-3477-1) The Anabaptists were committed to both (a) beginning their interpretation of Scripture with Jesus’ words and (b) obeying the hard teachings of Jesus. The topic of divorce and remarriage raises an interesting possible tension between these two commitments.
On the one hand, Jesus repeatedly gave uncompromising warnings against divorce and remarriage, even equating it with adultery. Yet he also gave the New Testament’s only words that explicitly suggest divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery may be permissible. How did the Anabaptists resolve this tension? Which words of Jesus did they consider to be “clear”?
**The short answer is that the early Anabaptists displayed no anxiety over Jesus’ exception clauses about divorce and remarriage, [unlike many conservative Anabaptists today](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-now-taking-exception-clause/).** Rather than push these texts to the periphery of their discussions about divorce, they made them central pillars in their teaching. They did not seem to think that these exception clauses were “loopholes” that enabled people to avoid Jesus’ harder sayings. Rather, they appear to have seen them as reflecting the seriousness of adultery and the radical tension that exists between a true disciple of Christ and anyone who persists in sexual sin.[2](#fn-3477-2)
**Divorce and remarriage were topics that the Anabaptists engaged from their earliest years.** If a single event can be pinpointed as the “official” birth of the Anabaptist movement (a debated question), it is probably a secret meeting on January 21, 1525, in Zurich, Switzerland, where some radical students of Zwingli rebaptized each other. **The earliest Anabaptist document discussing divorce and remarriage** that I have found could have been written as early as within two years of that meeting and definitely no later than 1533. It has been attributed to Michael Sattler (1490-1527), but scholars are uncertain.[3](#fn-3477-3)
Titled “Concerning Divorce,” this tract synthesizes Jesus’ exception clauses with other Scriptures with seeming ease. Here are some excerpts:
> We, like Christ, do not permit a man to separate from his wife **except for fornication**; for when Christ in Matthew 5 often saith, “But I say unto you,” he thereby annuls the Law insofar as it is grasped legalistically and not spiritually… Therefore He does away with the old divorcing, no longer permitting hardness of heart to be a valid occasion for divorce but renewing the regulation of His Father, saying, “It hath not been so from the beginning, when God ordained that man and wife should be one; and what God hath joined together man shall not separate.” Therefore one may not separate for trifling reasons, or for wrath, that is, hardness of heart, nor for displeasure, aversion, faith or unbelief, but **alone for fornication**. And he who separates or permits to separate **except for the one cause of fornication**, and changes \[companions\], commits adultery. And he who marries the one divorced causeth her to commit adultery, for Christ saith, “These two are one flesh.” But he who cleaves to a harlot, as Paul says, sinneth against his own body and is one flesh with the harlot, 1 Corinthians 6. Therefore he is separated from his own flesh in that he has attached himself to the alien flesh of the harlot, and his marriage is broken for they are no more one flesh, but the fornicator has become one flesh with the harlot. Therefore **the abandoned one** \[innocent companion\] **may marry whomsoever he wishes to**, only it must be in the Lord…
>
> Paul teaches in I Corinthians 7, If the unbelieving one doth not desire to dwell with the believer and departs, so let him depart; a sister or brother is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace. This cannot weaken the words of Christ, nor does it contradict Him… There are many reasons for the unbeliever to separate, one this, the other that; yea, furthermore because unbelief hates and persecutes faith with its works, just as Christ testifies in Matthew 10, “They of thine household shall be thy foes.” And therefore from aversion and wrath the believer will be driven out and expelled. Nevertheless that is not a separation in God’s sight for they are still one flesh inasmuch as neither of them has attached his own flesh to the alien flesh of a harlot and become one flesh with the harlot. Therefore, **it is only fornication which can effect a divorce**.
>
> Hardness of heart and unbelief may not occasion divorce, but **only fornication**, and as long as there is not a change to another flesh, we declare that when a man or woman separates **except for fornication (that is, adultery)**, and takes another wife or husband, we consider this as adultery and the participants as not members of the body of Christ, yea, he who marries the separated one we consider a fornicator according to the words of Christ, Matthew 5, 19.
>
> He who further divorces and will not hearken to Christ, scatters abroad and knows nothing, and him we will avoid as faithless, as one who damns himself, Titus 3. To the wise I am speaking; judge ye what I say. May God give us understanding from above in all things, to the knowledge of Himself and to His glory. Amen.”[4](#fn-3477-4)
**This tract appears even more fascinating when we consider its historical context.** The first Swiss Anabaptists, long before their baptismal meeting, were Bible students. Under Zwingli’s teaching in Zurich, they boldly evaluated the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the light of the Bible and grew increasingly determined to live as true disciples of the Jesus they encountered in its pages. This stance is evident in the tract above; biblical quotations and references abound, but there is no hint of any dependence on the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Standing on Jesus’ words, the Anabaptists, like Luther and Zwingli before them, were not afraid to break with “the Church’s absolute prohibition of divorce.”[5](#fn-3477-5) From this perspective, “Concerning Divorce” could appear to be a radical, perhaps even libertarian, tract.
But there is another historical context that may be more important. In 1525—the same year that the Anabaptists broke from Zwingli—the city of Zurich, under Zwingli’s leadership, drafted what has been called “the first modern divorce law.”[6](#fn-3477-6) This law authorized divorce not only for adultery, but also for “greater reasons than adultery, as destroying life, endangering life, being mad or crazy, offending by whorishness, or leaving one’s spouse without permission, remaining abroad a long time, having leprosy, or such other reasons, of which no rule can be made on account of their dissimilarity.”[7](#fn-3477-7) The law also authorized divorce for those “who are not fitted for the partners they have chosen,” which was probably a reference to impotence.[8](#fn-3477-8) Zwingli was the first to turn Reformation views of marriage and divorce into law, and the revolutionary laws in Zurich became a model for surrounding cities—though most cities retained somewhat greater restrictions on divorce.[9](#fn-3477-9)
In this context, “Concerning Divorce” is clearly a conservative tract, arguing strongly against permissive new laws that permitted divorce “for trifling reasons.”[10](#fn-3477-10) In addition, as the tract is directed to those who face persecution, it argues that being “driven out and expelled” by one’s own household is not grounds for divorce.
It is doubly striking, perhaps, in this context of arguing strongly against divorce, that the tract also argues that adultery is indeed grounds for both divorce and remarriage. **Jesus’ exception clause was not considered a loophole; rather, for the Swiss Anabaptists it was one of the hard sayings of Jesus that he permitted divorce and remarriage _only_ in cases of adultery.**
**The early Dutch Anabaptists clearly agreed, as multiple strands of evidence demonstrate. Menno Simons (1496-1561) is a good place to begin.**
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Mennos.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Mennos.jpg)
The following statements leave no doubt that Simons understood Jesus to permit both divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery:
> These two, one husband and one wife, are one flesh and can not be separated from each other to marry again **otherwise than for adultery**, as the Lord says. Matt. 5; 19; Mark 10; Luke 16. This is our real position, doctrine, and practice concerning marriage, as we here confess with the holy Scriptures. By the grace of God it will ever remain the position of all pious souls, let them lie and slander as they like. We know and confess truly that it is the express ordinance, command, intent, and unchangeable plain word of Christ. (“Reply to False Accusation,” 1552)[11](#fn-3477-11)
>
> We acknowledge, teach, and assent to no other marriage than that which Christ and His apostles publicly and plainly taught in the New Testament, namely, of one man and one woman (Matt. 19:4), and that they may not be divorced **except in case of adultery (Matt. 5:32)**; for the two are one flesh, but if the unbelieving one depart, a sister or brother is not under bondage in that case. 1 Cor. 7:15. (“Foundation of Christian Doctrine,” 1539-40; revised 1558)[12](#fn-3477-12)
>
> We know too that the bond of undefiled, honorable matrimony is so firm and fast in the kingdom and government of Christ, that no man may leave his wife, nor a wife her husband, and marry another (understand arightly what Christ says), **except it be for adultery**. Paul also holds the same doctrine that they shall be so bound to each other that the man has not power over his own body, nor the woman over hers. (“Instruction on Excommunication,” 1558)[13](#fn-3477-13)
According to Menno Simons, the teaching that a husband and wife who are joined as “one flesh” can later, by adultery, be “separated from each other to marry again” is part of “the express ordinance, command, intent, and unchangeable plain word of Christ” concerning marriage. This belief comes through clearly even though Simons, like the Swiss Brethren before him, was clearly intent on _reducing_ divorces, not justifying them.
**Simons’ fellow bishop Dirk Philips (1504-1568) taught the same.** In this excerpt, he indicates by his Scripture citations that he thought divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery was consistent with God’s one-flesh creation mandate for marriage:
> Christ wanted… to forbid the separation and rejection which the Jews practiced with their wives because of all kinds of reasons which they thought good or preferred, and that in order to marry another… The Lord willed and commanded that one should do that \[separate\] no more **except in the case of an act of adultery**, which is the only and true reason for which a husband may leave or reject his wife and take another, Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:3\[ff.\]; Matt. 5:32. (“Omitted Writing About the Ban and Avoidance,” 1567?)[14](#fn-3477-14)
According to Philips, adultery does not offer a loophole from Jesus’ teachings against divorce, but a “true… reason” for permitting one to both “leave” a spouse and “take another.” Philips had exegetical evidence for this belief; in the following excerpt he states that divorce and remarriage are “joined” in Jesus’ Matthew 19:9 statement, so that adultery is grounds for both:
> Christ said in the Gospel: “Whoever repudiates his wife **(except because of fornication)** and marries another, he commits adultery,” Matt. 19:9… Jesus Christ (in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, Col. 2:3…)… named **adultery as the only true ground for divorce**… Christ does not mention only repudiation and dissolution of marriage, but also being married to one another. This proposition is joined, the one to the other. (“Evangelical Excommunication,” 1567?)[15](#fn-3477-15)
**This interpretation of Jesus’ words was official church policy among the Dutch Anabaptists.** In 1554 a conference of bishops was held where Menno Simons was then living—at Wismar in Mecklenburg, Germany. Those present, besides Simons, included Dirk Philips, Leenaert Bouwens, Gillis van Aachen, Herman van Tielt, Hans Busschaert, and Hoyte Riencx. The conference produced a series of statements known as **the Wismar Articles**. These articles address difficult questions the Dutch Mennonite churches were facing on topics such as shunning, marriage, divorce, and bearing arms. The articles were printed that same year in Amsterdam and reprinted several times afterward.[16](#fn-3477-16)
Several of the articles in this document address questions of marriages between believers and unbelievers. Two of these clearly permit remarriage in cases of adultery:
> Article IV.
>
> In the fourth place, if a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together and **the unbeliever commits adultery**, then the marriage tie is broken. And if it be one who complains that he has fallen in sin, and desires to mend his ways, then the brethren permit the believing mate to go to the unfaithful one to admonish him, if conscience allows it in view of the state of the affair. But **if he be a bold and headstrong adulterer, then the innocent party is free**—with the provision, however, that she shall consult with the congregation and remarry according to circumstances and decisions in the matter, be it well understood.
>
> Article V.
>
> In the fifth place, concerning a believer and a nonbeliever–if the nonbeliever wishes to separate for reasons of the faith, then the believer shall conduct himself honestly without contracting a marriage, for as long a time as the nonbeliever is not remarried. But **if the nonbeliever marries or commits adultery**, then the believing mate may also marry, subject to the advice of the elders and the congregation.[17](#fn-3477-17)
**It was not just Swiss and Dutch Anabaptists who held this interpretation of Jesus’ exception clauses. According to all the evidence I have found, early Anabaptists across Europe shared these beliefs.**
In 1540-41, the Hutterite leader **Peter Reidemann** wrote his _**Rechenschafft unserer Religion, Leer und Glaubens**_ (“Account of Our Religion, Doctrine, and Faith”), which “represents the official position of the Hutterites in matters both of doctrine and practice.”[18](#fn-3477-18) The section of his book titled “Concerning Adultery” includes the following:
> If one or the other of the partners in marriage go to another man or woman… where one committeth adultery in this way, **the other should put him or her away and have no more in common with him or her** before he or she hath shown real fruits of repentance. For where one mixeth with the transgressor before he or she hath repented, one committeth adultery with the other even though they were husband or wife before. For **it is no longer a marriage**, because it is broken until through repentance it is healed, therefore this should be punished by separation.[19](#fn-3477-19)
In 1558 a twenty-five year old Anabaptist leader named **Thomas von Imbroich** was beheaded as a martyr at Cologne, Germany. While in prison he wrote a lengthy confession. This confession and other writings by Imbroich had a wide-spread influence both within and beyond Anabaptist circles.[20](#fn-3477-20) Writing as a representative of the Anabaptists of the Lower Rhine, he stated the following:
> We also confess and believe that no one should or may separate two persons who have come together in a Christian marriage (which is brought together by God with the consent of both parties, besides which there is no other) **except in the case of fornication**, according to Christ’s words…[21](#fn-3477-21)
In 1561, a “valiant hero and soldier of Jesus Christ, named **John Schut**,” was executed for his faith in the city of Vreden in Westphalia (northwestern Germany). According to the account in the _Martyrs Mirror_, the lords who tried Schut questioned him about his beliefs, including “what he held in regard to marriage”:
> He replied that a man and a woman are united together in marriage, and that such union may not be dissolved, **save on account of adultery**; following herein the teaching of Christ. Matt. 19.[22](#fn-3477-22)
In 1571, a Calvinist prince called a **disputation at Frankenthal** in the Palatinate (in southwestern Germany), hoping to unify his subjects. A diverse group of fifteen Anabaptist leaders came, representing not only the Palatinate, but also Switzerland, the Netherlands, Moravia, and the imperial cities of southern Germany.[23](#fn-3477-23) They were asked many questions, including whether the ban and unbelief separates a marriage. They responded, “We believe that nothing may part a marriage but adultery.”[24](#fn-3477-24)
An official government report (protocol) of this Frankenthal Disputation was published, to which the Anabaptists wrote a response. Their response was published several times in several versions, the most complete extant version being published in 1590. In this version, the ninth article titled **“Concerning divorce: Whether the ban and unbelief are reasons for divorce”** opens with the following paragraph:
> Christ our Lord and Savior, of whom Moses and the prophets, indeed even the great glory of God itself testify, says: “It has been said that whoever wants to divorce his wife shall give her a bill of divorcement; but I say unto you, whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, forces her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” \[Matthew 5:31-32\] **All God-fearing Christians will allow these words to suffice, nor will they add to or detract from them. Therefore, adultery alone is cause for divorce** for Christ says: two will become one flesh. Whoever commits adultery sins against his own flesh, becoming one flesh with a whore, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6\[:15-18\]. Therefore he is now divided from his own flesh in that he has attached himself to the foreign flesh of a whore. **Thus is the marriage ended**, for they are no longer one flesh, for the adulterer has become one flesh with the whore. **Thus the divorced party may now marry anyone he or she desires**, as long as it takes place in the Lord.[25](#fn-3477-25)
In 1577 five ministers of the **Waterlander Dutch Mennonites drafted a confession** in an attempt to unify their church. The Waterlanders “had arisen as a movement in large measure in protest against the rigor of church discipline among the Mennonites, particularly after the Wismar Articles had been drafted” by Simons, Philips, and others.[26](#fn-3477-26) The Waterlanders “were the first Dutch Mennonites to have a confession of faith.”[27](#fn-3477-27) In fact, their 1577 confession “is probably the oldest in the Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition” in the sense that (a), unlike Anabaptist confessions before it, it “was meant to be a statement for the church” rather than a personal statement and (b) it was designed as “a complete theological formulation” rather than a narrow statement “on specific doctrines.”[28](#fn-3477-28)
This confession includes the following statement:
> When a husband and wife have, in chastity, been united in the state of marriage, this marriage is so binding that it may not be separated or broken for any reason **except adultery**, according to the words of Christ, Matthew 18.[29](#fn-3477-29)
The following year (1578) **Hans de Ries**, one of the authors of the Waterlander Confession, was imprisoned for his faith. While in prison he wrote **another confession** to explain to the town council of Middelburg what he and his fellow Mennonites believed. This confession contains one sentence about marriage:
> Marriage is honorable when one man and one woman live virtuously together, being two souls but one body, one flesh, which may not be separated **except for the cause of adultery**, as Christ taught and commanded (Matthew 19, Hebrews 13, Genesis 2).[30](#fn-3477-30)
Also in 1577, **Peter Walpot** (1521-78), “bishop of the Hutterian Brethren in Moravia during their Golden Age,”[31](#fn-3477-31) completed his magnum opus, commonly called **the “Article Book.”**[32](#fn-3477-32) The fourth article is titled “[Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers](http://dwightgingrich.com/concerning-divorce-between-believers-unbelievers-hutterite-document/).” Since this article apparently has not yet been published in English, it deserves a brief introduction.[33](#fn-3477-33)
As with most early Anabaptist theological writings, this is clearly an occasional work; we are joining a conversation midstream, with specific names and current events being discussed. Apparently this article is addressed to some other Anabaptist-type group, for they are addressed as “dear friends” and reportedly “want to avoid infant baptism.” But the disagreement is fierce between the Hutterites and Walpot’s unknown audience, for he also calls them “negligent shepherds,” says they are “of little understanding and completely unenlightened,” and warns them, “You have completely departed from the mind and judgment of Christ.”
The main point of disagreement is over how to counsel Christian converts who have unbelieving spouses. Walpot accuses his audience of insisting that a converted wife must remain with her husband even if the husband is not “pleased” to live with her (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-13)—for example, if he does not permit her to attend the Anabaptist preaching; if she “must watch her children get mixed among the heathen… and grow up completely like the world”; and “even if her husband strikes her and puts her out the door.” As a result, she “will finally come to the point of despair about you and melt into the world.” Without having heard the proverbial “other side of the story,” my best guess is that most of us would have some disagreement with both Walpot and his audience; one may have been too slow to counsel separation, the other too quick.
**For our purposes, what is significant about this article is the agreement found in the midst of the vigorous debate.** Clearly, it was axiomatic for both the Hutterites and their dialogue partners that, according to Jesus’ exception clauses, adultery “parts a marriage.” Here is Walpot’s explanation of his own understanding:
> Marriage is \[a\] special picture and direction to the godly of the union and continuing obligation that they owe and have vowed to God’s Spirit and the Lord… Therefore Christ was moved to cut off all frivolous, unimportant and bad reasons \[for divorce\] arising from or originating in human loathing or displeasure (as was common, acceptable practice among the Jews) and rescind it among his people. Thereby the original institution \[of marriage\] was re-established in its first status and no one could break it off for his human wishes or will **(except for adultery)**. [34](#fn-3477-34)
Later, Walpot indicates that his opponents use Jesus’ exception clauses to argue against allowing a believer to be separated from an unbelieving spouse:
> You force the verse in Matthew 5 and 19, that **nothing but adultery and unchastity should break the marriage**, no matter what attitude of \[sic\] the unbelieving one takes toward the believer. You don’t ask very much whether the unbeliever does so willingly, of which Paul speaks and to which he attaches everything else.[35](#fn-3477-35)
The last document I’ll quote in this post takes us back to where we started: the Swiss Brethren. In 1578—roughly fifty years after the tract “Concerning Divorce” from Sattler’s day—**the Swiss Brethren at Hesse produced a confession that included an article by the same name: “Concerning Divorce.”** It is a near-perfect summary not only of their own historic position regarding Jesus’ exception clauses, but of the position of most Anabaptists in the 1500s:
> We believe, acknowledge and confess that husband and wife, who through a providential bringing together in holy matrimony have become one flesh, cannot be separated by anything, neither by ban, belief or unbelief, anger, quarrels or hardness of heart, **with the exception of adultery**.[36](#fn-3477-36)
(The remaining Anabaptist confessions I have found from the 1500s do not offer evidence that either agrees or disagrees with the documents I have shared in this post.[37](#fn-3477-37))
**In summary, the early Anabaptists were mostly unified on the question of grounds for divorce and remarriage;** most said there was one and only one such ground: adultery. All agreed that Jesus’ exception clause did mean adultery was grounds for both divorce and remarriage.
**There was one clear point of disagreement**; a minority of early Anabaptists argued for an additional ground: having an unbelieving spouse. The Hutterites certainly taught that when an unbelieving spouse was not pleased to live with a Christian convert, the Christian should separate. (See Peter Walpot above.) According to court records, the Swiss Brethren disagreed with how the Hutterites “separate marriages.”[38](#fn-3477-38) Some have said that “this kind of divorce for the reason of unbelief was a phenomenon peculiar to Hutterites,”[39](#fn-3477-39) but it is possible that the teaching of Dirk Philips regarding Christians who married unbelievers after conversion may also have produced similar results.[40](#fn-3477-40) In Philips’ case, he clearly disallowed remarriage in such situations; in some sense the marriage was still seen to exist. In the case of the Hutterites, I am unaware whether remarriage was ever counseled; the sources I read affirmed only divorce.
It is telling that divorce of a spouse because of unbelief was a point of disagreement and contention among early Anabaptists. Going beyond Scripture is one sure cause for theological and pastoral conflict, in our time as surely as that of the early Anabaptists.
On the other hand, **I have not found any hint of any dispute among early Anabaptists about whether adultery was grounds for both divorce and remarriage.** Anabaptists repeatedly and firmly rebuked the easy divorce permitted by many Protestant leaders such as Zwingli. They eagerly began their teaching with Jesus’ “hard sayings” about divorce, emphasizing that he did away with “the old divorcing” of the Jews. Yet, Menno Simons speaks for all early Anabaptists when he says that a husband and wife who are joined as “one flesh” can later, by adultery, be “separated from each other to marry again.”
**This, the early Anabaptists insisted, is part of “the express ordinance, command, intent, and unchangeable plain word of Christ” concerning marriage.**
* * *
**What strikes you most about how the early Anabaptists read Jesus’ divorce and remarriage exception clauses?** What do you make of the contrast between their beliefs and the beliefs of most conservative Anabaptists today ([see my last post](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-now-taking-exception-clause/))? **Share your insights in the comments below!**
**I have at least three more goals for this historical survey.** In my next post I hope to (1) share a handful of documents from the 1600s to 1900 and then (2) reflect on how the Anabaptists prior to 1900 seem to have synthesized other biblical texts with their understanding of Jesus’ exception clauses. Did they do this well? Where were they mistaken? What can they teach us? Then I’d like to (3) ask how conservative Anabaptists got “from there to here” in their understandings about divorce and remarriage.
Here are two ways you can help: (1) Please pray God will guide my understanding and writing about divorce and remarriage. I sincerely want to honor Christ. (2) If you have any relevant historical documents or insights, please share them. I am missing many pieces of the historical puzzle and would be happy to update even this current post if more relevant evidence is found. Thank you!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. “The Reformers were more inclined than the Anabaptists to view the Bible as a flat book and to concentrate on the more immediate context, or to interpret all texts in light of certain doctrines seen as central to the whole of Scripture. Indeed, rather than interpreting other texts in relation to the example and teachings of Jesus, some of the ‘hard sayings’ of Jesus were interpreted (Anabaptists would say ‘explained away’) in light of other passages thought to be clearer. This was a major point of dispute between Reformers and Anabaptists and led to considerable divergence in ethical and ecclesiological conclusions. How does one decide which passages are clear and which obscure?” (Stuart Murray, _Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition_, Studies in the Believers Church Tradition (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2000), 62. [↩](#fnref-3477-1)
2. Disclaimer: I am not a historian, so am not equipped to assess all the nuances of early Anabaptist understandings on this topic. I am sure I am missing some valuable evidence (despite some Facebook friends graciously sending me images of several important documents). I am also focusing my attention on a narrow question—How did the early Anabaptists understand Jesus’ exception clauses?—so am not trying to present a complete picture of their views on divorce and remarriage. But disclaimers aside, I am confident that the quotes in this post accurately represent what early Anabaptists normally taught about Jesus’ exception clauses. I have not found any statement from early Anabaptists that contradicts the evidence presented here. [↩](#fnref-3477-2)
3. “P. J. Twisck (1565-1636), who was married to Menno Simons’ granddaughter, assigned it to Sattler” (J. C. Wenger, _Even Unto Death: The Heroic Witness of The Sixteenth-Century Anabaptist_ (John Knox Press, 1961). Available online: [http://www.bibleviews.com/evenuntodeath.html](http://www.bibleviews.com/evenuntodeath.html) ), but “is signed by the initials ML, which argues against Sattler’s authorship” (_The Legacy of Michael Sattler_, John Howard Yoder, ed. (Walden, NY: Plough Publishing House, 2019), vii.). This tract was found published in a 1533 collection that included influential _Schleitheim Confession_ (1527), also thought to have been written by Sattler (Ernest A. Payne, “Michael Sattler and the Schleitheim Confession,” Baptist Quarterly 14.8 (October 1952): 337-344. Available online: [https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/14-8\_337.pdf](https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/14-8_337.pdf)). [↩](#fnref-3477-3)
4. _Concerning Divorce_, trans. J.C. Wenger, Mennonite Quarterly Review (April 1947):114-119. Available online: [https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873](https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=195&sid=757d9d661ee2fb957171da3e40019591&start=10#p4873). Emphasis added. Another translation of the end of the first paragraph uses female pronouns: “The one who finds herself thereby divorced may now marry, whom she will, only let it be in the Lord.” Source unknown. Available online: [https://coveredbaptists.proboards.com/post/5466/thread](https://coveredbaptists.proboards.com/post/5466/thread) [↩](#fnref-3477-4)
5. Judith C. Areen, “Uncovering the Reformation Roots of American Marriage and Divorce Law,” 26 Yale J.L. & Feminism 29-89 (2014), 42. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 1642. [https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1642](https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1642) [↩](#fnref-3477-5)
6. Ibid., 44. [↩](#fnref-3477-6)
7. Zurich Ordinance, quoted in Areen, 46. [↩](#fnref-3477-7)
8. Areen, 46-47. [↩](#fnref-3477-8)
9. Ibid., 44, 48. [↩](#fnref-3477-9)
10. I am tempted to see a veiled reference to Zwingli in the final paragraph of this tract: “He who further divorces and will not hearken to Christ, scatters abroad and knows nothing, and him we will avoid as faithless, as one who damns himself, Titus 3. To the wise I am speaking; judge ye what I say.” [↩](#fnref-3477-10)
11. Menno Simons, _The Complete Writings of Menno Simons_, trans. Leonard Verduin, ed. J. C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 561. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3477-11)
12. Ibid., 200. Emphasis added. C.f. also: “Again, under this kingdom, and under this King, no other wedlock must be tolerated, except between one man and one woman, as God had in the beginning established in the union of Adam and Eve; and Christ has further said, that these two are one flesh, and that they shall not separate, save for the cause of fornication, Matt. 5:32” (Menno Simons, “Appeal to Corrupt Sects,” _A Foundation and Plain Instruction of the Saving Doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ_, pub. in _The Complete Works of Menno Simons_ (Elkhart, IN: John F. Funk & Brother, 1871). Available online: [http://www.mennosimons.net/ft019-corruptsects.html](http://www.mennosimons.net/ft019-corruptsects.html)). [↩](#fnref-3477-12)
13. Ibid., p.970. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3477-13)
14. Dirk Philips, _The Writings of Dirk Philips_, trans. and ed. by Cornelius J. Dyck, William E. Keeney, and Alvin J. Beachy, Classics of the Radical Reformation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992), 586). Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3477-14)
15. Ibid., 605-606. Emphasis added. In context, Philips is contrasting shunning one’s spouse in cases of church discipline with divorcing them in cases of adultery. A Christian who avoids his spouse for the sake of church discipline is different from a Christian who divorces his spouse for adultery. In shunning, unlike a case of adultery, a believer does not remarry, but instead must be “waiting patiently on the spouse” and praying to “be reconciled” to them. The fact that Jesus joins (re)marriage to divorce in Matthew 19:9 shows that Jesus is talking about a kind of separation (divorce) that is more than just shunning, Philips argues. Therefore Jesus’ words against divorce in Matthew 19:9 cannot be used to argue against asking a Christian to shun their spouse who is under church discipline. [↩](#fnref-3477-15)
16. “Wismar Articles (Dutch Anabaptist, 1554),” Global Anabaptist Wiki, “initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College,” last modified March 24, 2016, [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Wismar\_Articles\_(Dutch\_Anabaptist,\_1554)#Article\_IV](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Wismar_Articles_\(Dutch_Anabaptist,_1554\)#Article_IV). There are some problems with parts of the text we now possess of the Wismar Articles. According to John Horsch,“These Wismar Decisions have been preserved, but evidently not in their original form. The articles, in the form in which they have been handed down to us, are of doubtful authority; the text is in part clearly corrupt and unreliable” (John Horsch, _Menno Simons. His Life, Labors, and Teachings_ (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1916), chap. VIII. Available online: [http://www.mennosimons.net/horsch08.html](http://www.mennosimons.net/horsch08.html)). Likewise, Harold Bender stated that “unfortunately the text in which these resolutions have been persevered is so corrupt that it is impossible to be sure of the original meaning” (Harold S. Bender, _Brief Biography of Menno Simons_, “V. Labors in Holstein, 1546-1561,” _The Complete Writings of Menno Simon_, trans. Leonard Verduin, ed. J.C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 43). It is unlikely, however, that these concerns threaten the authenticity of the statements on divorce and remarriage quoted above, for, despite the fact that these textual questions were raised in Herald Press publications, the same publisher later printed a book by G. Edwin Bontrager that quotes Article IV of the Wismar Articles without qualification as part of a survey of historical Anabaptist beliefs on divorce and remarriage (_Divorce and the Faithful Church_ (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1978), pg. 104). Goering likewise quotes Article IV in his 1956 article on divorce and remarriage on GAMEO (Goering, Jacob D. and Leo Driedger, “Divorce and Remarriage,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1989. Accessed Feb. 15, 2022. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Divorce\_and\_Remarriage&oldid=173115](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Divorce_and_Remarriage&oldid=173115)). To my knowledge, no one has suggested that Articles IV and V as we know them misrepresent the early Dutch Anabaptist position on divorce and remarriage. To the contrary, they fit perfectly with other available evidence. [↩](#fnref-3477-16)
17. “Wismar Articles,” Global Anabaptist Wiki. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3477-17)
18. Robert Friedmann, “Rechenschafft unserer Religion, Leer und Glaubens,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1959. Web. July 21, 2020, [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Rechenschafft\_unserer\_Religion,\_Leer\_und\_Glaubens&oldid=149028](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Rechenschafft_unserer_Religion,_Leer_und_Glaubens&oldid=149028) [↩](#fnref-3477-18)
19. Peter Rideman, _Confession of Faith_ (Rifton, NY: Plough Publishing, 1970), 97-102. This translation was made from the 1565 published German edition. Emphasis added. This excerpt clearly extends hope for repentance and reconciliation. Yet, when read alongside (a) the response to the Frankenthal disputation and (b) Walpot’s Article Book (see both below), it also appears to affirm divorce in cases of adultery. It makes no statement about the possibility of remarriage. [↩](#fnref-3477-19)
20. Leonard Gross, _Golden Apples in Silver Bowls_, trans. by Elizabeth Bender and Leonard Gross, ed. by Leonard Gross (Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Mennonite Historical Society, 1999), p. 308, n. 104. [↩](#fnref-3477-20)
21. “A Confession of Faith and Epistle of Thomas von Imbroich,” _Golden Apples_, p. 83. Emphasis added. Leonard Gross speculates that “this passage probably is an intended answer to those critics who assumed that all Anabaptists were like the Münsterites {who} accepted… polygamy and other excesses.” Gross again: “This passage may well also speak to the fact that Hutterite missioners, during these very years, were drawing away some Swiss Brethren into the Hutterian fold, sometimes, taking one spouse but leaving the other one behind” (Ibid., p. 310, n. 116). [↩](#fnref-3477-21)
22. “John Schut, A.D. 1651,” _The Bloody Theater of Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians_, ed. Theileman J. van Braght, trans. Joseph. F. Sohm (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951), 654-55. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3477-22)
23. Christian Hege, “Frankenthal Disputation (1571),” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1956. Web. June 27, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Frankenthal\_Disputation\_(1571)&oldid=145061](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Frankenthal_Disputation_\(1571\)&oldid=145061) [↩](#fnref-3477-23)
24. Ernst H. Correll, Harold S. Bender, and J. Howard Kauffman, “Marriage.” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1987. Web. June 18, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Marriage&oldid=143645](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Marriage&oldid=143645) [↩](#fnref-3477-24)
25. “Concerning divorce: Whether the ban and unbelief are reasons for divorce,” _A Short, Simple Confession_, 1590, trans. Abraham Friesen, Leonard Gross, Sydney Penner, Walter Klaassen, and C. Arnold Snyder, _Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists: 1529-1592_ , ed. C. A. Snyder (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2017), 322. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3477-25)
26. Cornelius J. Dyck, “The First Waterlandian Confession of Faith,” _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ 36 (January 1962): 5-13. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Waterlander\_Confession\_of\_Faith\_(1577)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Waterlander_Confession_of_Faith_\(1577\)) [↩](#fnref-3477-26)
27. Nanne van der Zijpp, “Waterlanders,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1959. Web. June 28, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Waterlanders&oldid=134967](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Waterlanders&oldid=134967) [↩](#fnref-3477-27)
28. Dyck, ibid. [↩](#fnref-3477-28)
29. Hans de Ries, Albert Verspeck, Jacob Jansz, Simon Michielszoon, and Simon Jacobszoon, “Waterlander Confession of Faith (1577),” trans. by Dyck, quoted by Dyck, ibid. Emphasis added. It is curious why this statement cites Matthew 18 rather than 19. Evidently there was an error either in writing, translating, or publishing. [↩](#fnref-3477-29)
30. Hans de Ries, “The Middelburg Confession of Hans de Ries (1578),” trans. Cornelius J. Dyck, published with commentary in Dyck, “The Middelburg Confession of Hans de Ries, 1578.” _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ 36 (April 1962): 147-154, 161. Emphasis added. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The\_Middelburg\_Confession\_of\_Hans\_de\_Ries\_(1578)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Middelburg_Confession_of_Hans_de_Ries_\(1578\)) [↩](#fnref-3477-30)
31. Robert Friedmann, “Walpot, Peter (1521-1578),” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1959. Web. June 27, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Walpot,\_Peter\_(1521-1578)&oldid=146324](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Walpot,_Peter_\(1521-1578\)&oldid=146324) [↩](#fnref-3477-31)
32. Robert Friedmann, “Hutterite Article Book,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1953. Web. June 27, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Hutterite\_Article\_Book&oldid=121143](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Hutterite_Article_Book&oldid=121143) [↩](#fnref-3477-32)
33. I was given a copy of a mostly-complete English translation on June 25, 2020 by Kenny Woolman of the Hutterian Brethren Book Centre ([https://www.hbbookcentre.com/](https://www.hbbookcentre.com/)), who told me, “I believe I got it from the Archives in Goshen, now Elkhart.” Jason Kauffman, Director of Archives and Records at Mennonite Church USA Archives, gave me permission to post this document, and [I have done so here](http://dwightgingrich.com/concerning-divorce-between-believers-unbelievers-hutterite-document/). [↩](#fnref-3477-33)
34. Peter Walpot, “Article Four: Concerning Divorce Between Believers and Unbelievers,” _A Beautiful and Pleasant Little Book Concerning the Main Articles of our Faith_ or _The Five Articles of the Greatest Conflict Between Us and the World_, trans. Elizabeth Bender (wife of Harold S. Bender), unpublished manuscript, pg. 7. Available online: [http://dwightgingrich.com/concerning-divorce-between-believers-unbelievers-hutterite-document/](http://dwightgingrich.com/concerning-divorce-between-believers-unbelievers-hutterite-document/). Emphasis and bracketed portions added. This translation leaves a few blanks for untranslated words (none affecting passages quoted here) and shows other evidence of being a rough draft. After the above excerpt, Walpot continues by asserting that when the “Word causes such disharmony and disunity in the unbeliever that he becomes hostile to the believing spouse,” then “it is more needful for the believer to keep his eyes on what is godly to keep his heart in peace and not make too many concessions… be it for fear or love of the spouse.” In short, in such cases, despite Jesus limiting divorce to cases of adultery, a Christian spouse must separate. [↩](#fnref-3477-34)
35. Ibid., 13. Emphasis added. Cf. page 10, where Walpot argues that when an unbeliever is not pleased to live with a believer, “a sister or brother is in such a case as if unmarried and not bound.” Walpot asks, referring to Paul, “Where does he give the verse and cause of adultery, that besides it nothing parts a marriage?” Walpot is arguing, against his opponents, that Jesus’ solitary exception does preclude separation from an unbelieving spouse who is not pleased to live together in a way that honors the believer’s conscience. Walpot’s argument, again, is based on shared ground; both he and his opponents agree on Jesus’ exception. [↩](#fnref-3477-35)
36. “Swiss Brethren Confession of Hess” (1578), trans. Werner O. Packull, _Confessions of Faith in the Anabaptist Tradition_, ed. Karl Koop, Classics of the Radical Reformation II (Walden, NY: Plough Publishing House, 2019), 79. Emphasis added. An older translation is available online: “We believe and confess, that man and woman who have by the divine foreordination, destiny and joining in marriage become one flesh, may not be divorced by ban, belief or unbelief, anger, quarreling, hardness of heart, but only by adultery” (Theodor Sippell, ed., “The Confession of the Swiss Brethren in Hesse, 1578.” _Mennonite Quarterly Review_ 23 (1949): 22-34, p. 32). Quoted in Robert Friedmann, “Divorce from Unbelievers,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1956. Web. July 30, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Divorce\_from\_Unbelievers&oldid=143540](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Divorce_from_Unbelievers&oldid=143540). [↩](#fnref-3477-36)
37. One document, Pilgram Marpeck’s “Confession of Faith,” does not appear to discuss divorce or marriage at all (available in German here: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/images/1/15/Confession\_of\_Faith\_by\_Pilgram\_Marpeck.pdf](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/images/1/15/Confession_of_Faith_by_Pilgram_Marpeck.pdf)). Two others discuss marriage but focus on the problem of marriages between believers and unbelievers. See the Strasbourg Discipline from 1568 ([https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Strasbourg\_Discipline\_(South\_German\_Anabaptist,\_1568)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Strasbourg_Discipline_\(South_German_Anabaptist,_1568\))) and the Concept of Cologne from 1591 ([https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Concept\_of\_Cologne\_(Anabaptists,\_1591)](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Concept_of_Cologne_\(Anabaptists,_1591\))). [↩](#fnref-3477-37)
38. Hans Pauly, _TäuferAkten_ (i.e., court records of trials of Anabaptists, sentences pronounced upon them, etc.) of Hesse, ed. Theodor Sippell, “The Confession of the Swiss Brethren in Hesse, 1578,” _Mennonite Quarterly Review_, 23 (1949), 22-34, 22. Available online: [https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/images/a/ac/SwissBrethrenConfession1578.pdf](https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/images/a/ac/SwissBrethrenConfession1578.pdf) [↩](#fnref-3477-38)
39. Ernst H. Correll, Harold S. Bender and J. Howard Kauffman, “Marriage,” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1987. Web. June 27, 2020. [https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Marriage&oldid=143645](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Marriage&oldid=143645) [↩](#fnref-3477-39)
40. Cornelius J. Dyck, William E. Keeney, and Alvin J. Beachy, trans. and eds. of _The Writings of Dirk Philips_ (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992), 553, 577 (n. 5). This possibility is raised in the editors’ introduction and endnotes to Philips treatise “About the Marriage of Christians,” Ibid., 552-577. [↩](#fnref-3477-40)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Anabaptists Now: Taking Exception to Jesus’ Exception Clause
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-06-22
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Anabaptists Now: Taking Exception to Jesus' Exception Clause • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In this post I share a survey of conservative Anabaptist approaches to Jesus' exception clauses about divorce and remarriage, adding my own reflections.
Tags: Daniel | Kauffman, divorce and remarriage, Finny | Kuruvilla, John | Coblentz, Gordon J. | Wenham, Rod and Staff, Daryl | Wingerd, Jim | Chrisman, Jim | Elliff, Joseph A. | Webb, Steve | Burchett, William E. | Heth, John | Piper, Biblical Mennonite Alliance, Clair | Martin, Southeastern Mennonite Conference, Anabaptist history, exception clause, porneia, -, J.C. | Wenger, loophole, Beachy Amish-Mennonites, betrothal view, Bill | Gothard, Christian Light Publications, Conservative Mennonite Church of Ontario, David | Bercot, divorce-only view, John L. | Stauffer, Midwest Fellowship
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-now-taking-exception-clause
**“I don’t know if what you are doing is right or not. I really don’t know. I feel I have to tell you that. But… yes, I will play piano at your wedding.”**
That is what I told a friend, in words I can’t recall specifically now, roughly twenty years ago. I had met my friend through the Christian student club at Nipissing University, where I was pursuing an English degree. I’m not sure which year we had that conversation, but in one of our years together my friend, a Pentecostal, was the Bible study teacher for the club and I, a Mennonite, was the club president. (He also played an energetic guitar while singing “I’m Trading My Sorrows.”)
My friend had been married before. I never met his first wife, for she had left him some years previously. He didn’t want their marriage to end, but she made the decision for him. Despite her blatant unfaithfulness, he repeatedly sought to win her back. She refused, and eventually they divorced.
Now my friend had met a new friend, a smiling young lady who also attended the Christian student club and had a ready testimony. After their wedding, they moved overseas where they served as missionaries until she tragically died less than ten years later.
I have a terrible long-term memory, so I can’t tell you any details about their wedding; but I do remember I played piano. The main reason I remember even that basic fact is because of the conversation I had to have with my friend before I agreed to play.
**I grew up in a congregation that was first part of the Conservative Mennonite Church of Ontario (CMCO) and then, since my early teens, part of Midwest Fellowship.** In that setting I clearly caught, however it was taught, that divorce was terribly wrong and that remarriage was even worse.[1](#fn-3444-1) Adultery was certainly no excuse for remarriage, for remarriage itself was adultery. I imagine I learned that through simple presentation of relevant Scripture texts and also through our congregational study of books by people like Daniel Kauffman and John Coblentz.
As I grew older and moved out of our congregational bubble, I naturally met people from other denominations with other understandings of what the Bible teaches about divorce and remarriage. I have never lost my belief that every time divorce happens a marriage has fallen short of God’s design; someone, somewhere, has sinned. And I’ve always remained convinced that there is far too much divorce and remarriage happening among people who claim to follow Jesus.
But I’ve also had persistent, unresolved questions throughout my adult life. What did Jesus mean by “except it be for fornication” (to use the KJV expression)? If divorce is ever justified, when is it? And is remarriage ever blessed by God? What about couples who have wrongly remarried; should they now separate?
**A number of years ago I was asked to express my affirmation with a Mennonite denominational position statement on divorce and remarriage.** The statement said that initiating divorce or remarrying while a spouse is still living is always wrong and that those who thus remarry must separate. In response, I summarized God’s creation design regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. But also, being honest, I added more, including these words:
> God’s ideal is crystal clear: marriage should be for life, a mirror of Christ’s loving relationship with the Church. God’s perspective on less-than-ideal situations is not always so clear. I notice that the NT texts about marriage (both Jesus’ words and Paul’s teachings) are presented as discussions of what a Christian _should do_. They are not directly presented to answer every question of the appropriate response of either a repentant Christian or the church after this ideal has been violated. Thus we rely on exegetical and theological deduction when we address questions like, “What about someone who has already divorced and remarried and now wants to faithfully honor Christ?” While such secondary questions are crucially important, I think it is honest and helpful to observe that no NT text appears to have been directly intended to answer that question. Most attempts to answer such questions either rely on the witness of church history or are based on important but slender and difficult exegetical data.
I am confident that my experience is not unusual among those of us who have grown up in the conservative Anabaptist world.[2](#fn-3444-2) Many of you, I’m sure, could tell similar stories. Others of you, who are more confident in your interpretations on this topic, could probably tell stories of when your beliefs bumped up against differing beliefs within our own conservative Anabaptist world.
### The diversity and uncertainty of conservative Anabaptist beliefs about divorce and remarriage were driven home to me recently in an informal poll I conducted on Facebook.
I was curious how accurate my hunches were about how conservative Anabaptists handle Jesus’ exception clauses. Here, to refresh our memories, are the two times Jesus mentioned some exception to his prohibition of divorce:
> But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, **_except on the ground of sexual immorality_**, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt. 5:32)
>
> And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, **_except for sexual immorality_**, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matt. 19:9)
The two clauses are very similar and are usually understood to mean the same thing. But how do conservative Anabaptists handle them? I created a poll to find out.
I’ll share the results of that poll here and use it as a springboard for discussion. You are also welcome to add your own responses in the comments below.
**Here is the poll I presented:**
> In your experience, what are the most common ways that conservative Anabaptists handle Jesus’ exception clauses in the Matthew 5 and 19 passages about divorce and remarriage? Which of the following is most common in your experience?
>
> A. The exception refers to fornication during the Jewish betrothal period. It allowed for “divorce” from a betrothed “wife” or “husband” and gave permission to marry another. It has no application for married couples today.
>
> B. The exception refers to adultery after marriage. It allows for divorce (or separation) only, but no remarriage.
>
> C. Either of the above are equally possible as a matter of biblical interpretation; what is clear is that Jesus is prohibiting remarriage in all cases.
>
> D. Focusing on exception clauses is just looking for loopholes; let’s focus on Jesus’ and Paul’s clear teaching instead.
>
> E. Some other approach?
>
> I’m not asking what _you_ believe, just trying to see if I’m discerning the most common approaches within the conservative Anabaptist world. Thanks in advance for your help!
A brief explanation is in order about options A and B above.
**Option A is what I will call the “betrothal” view.** This view says that Jesus’ exception clauses refer only to the Jewish practice of betrothal, not to fully married persons. A Jewish person who entered a betrothal covenant was already called a husband or wife, even though the wedding might not happen for another year. They could have their marriage annulled (the term “divorce” was even used) if unfaithfulness was discovered in their partner. They were then completely free to marry another. This is what Joseph initially planned to do with Mary when he discovered she was pregnant (Matt. 1:18-19).
**Option B is what I will call the “divorce-only” view.** This view says that Jesus’ exception clauses refer to fully married persons. According to this view, Jesus is giving permission for a married person to divorce their spouse if that spouse commits sexual immorality (usually defined as adultery). Jesus was not, however, giving permission to remarry.
**Now to the results of the poll.** Sixty-four people answered this poll, representing a fairly diverse range of conservative Anabaptist church influences in at least twenty American states, two Canadian provinces, and Mexico. It is not possible to tally the results with scientific accuracy, for some people gave multiple or qualified responses. But the general picture is clear enough.
**First, here are the responses from respondents who offered only one answer to my poll,** shown as a percentage of all respondents. (The raw vote total is included below each heading.) For example, about 17.2% of all 64 respondents (11 people) said they have heard only the betrothal view taught:
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/BarGraph1.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/bargraph1-1721353453473-compressed.jpg)
(You can enlarge the images by clicking on them.)
**Here is a record of all responses, showing how many times each answer was mentioned in any way.** Many people gave answers like “Mostly A, but also sometimes D.” In such a case, this chard treats both A and D alike, without recognizing that A was prioritized over D. For example, about 54.7% of all 64 respondents (35 people) said they have heard the betrothal view taught, whether often or rarely:
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/BarGraph2.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/bargraph2-1721353454546-compressed.jpg)
**Finally, here is another graph displaying all responses, also including (in orange) a rough attempt to represent the weight respondents intended for each answer** when they gave more than one answer:
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/BarGraph3.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/bargraph3-1721353455910-compressed.jpg)
**How can we summarize these results?**
* My hunches were probably right; only one person suggested an alternative conservative Anabaptist approach to Jesus’ exception clauses, which was really option D with some ugliness added.[3](#fn-3444-3)
* **The most common approach is probably the betrothal view**, mentioned by over half the respondents. My perception is that many Anabaptists today have encountered this view through popular-level Protestant teachers such as Bill Gothard and Joseph Webb ([_Till Death Do Us Part? What the Bible Really Says About Marriage and Divorce_](https://cpr-ministries.com/till-death-do-us-part/)). More professionally-published sources have also been influential, such a paper by John Piper (“[Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper](https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper)”) and a recent multi-authored book called [_Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View_](https://www.ccwtoday.org/other-products/divorce-remarriage-a-permanence-view/). I am not sure when this view entered Anabaptist circles, but already in 1950 John L. Stauffer was promoting it,[4](#fn-3444-4) and in about 1992 John Coblentz wrote that “this view has had wide acceptance among conservative people.”[5](#fn-3444-5) _Note: This paragraph originally indicated that J. Carl Laney promotes this view, but I was mistaken._
* **The divorce-only view is also very popular among conservative Anabaptists**, mentioned by nearly half of the respondents. This view appears to have somewhat longer roots within Anabaptism (more on that in another post), but Protestant scholars such as Gordon Wenham and William Heth ([_Jesus and Divorce_](https://amzn.to/3fJ6Hlp)) have also been influential within some Anabaptist groups. Anabaptist influencers David Bercot (“[What the Early Christians Believed About Divorce and Remarriage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rThN8a2SK8Y)”) and Finny Kuruvilla (“[Divorce and Remarriage: What About the Exception Clause?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS8GnnQPyoU)”) are also promoting this view through their summaries of early church practices.
* Over a third of respondents have heard both the betrothal and divorce-only views presented as being equally-valid interpretative options.
* Over a third of respondents have heard warnings against looking for loopholes and encouragement to focus on clearer texts instead of the exception clauses.
### What can we learn from this poll about how conservative Anabaptists approach Jesus’ exception clauses?
For most of the rest of this post I plan to discuss some weaknesses I perceive in some conservative Anabaptist approaches to these words of Jesus. I will cite specific examples to support my observations. _Please know that when I name names, I have absolutely no desire to belittle anyone._ People whom I highly respect and love as past mentors and teachers are among those who may feel challenged by some of my words. This is a difficult topic and many good Christians have not reached full agreement. Part of me does not want to name names, but I think citing some public documents can make this discussion more fruitful. _My desire is simply that together we will learn to better hear and understand Jesus’ words._ If you feel I am mishandling his words, you are welcome to let me know.
**With those expressions of love in mind, here are four general observations about the poll results:**
**First, it appears that most conservative Anabaptists do not rely on or allow these exception clauses to determine their theology and ethics of divorce and remarriage.** Rather, for these texts, their desired theological ends justify their uncertain interpretive means. Why are only these two specific interpretations (betrothal and divorce-only) currently popular among conservative Anabaptists—especially since these interpretations are very much the minority within Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and the Orthodox Church? It is surely because, rightly or wrongly, many conservative Anabaptists have their minds made up about what Jesus _could not mean_ before even considering these texts.
An example of this is a tract available from the conservative publisher Rod and Staff. It rebukes those who use Jesus’ exception clause as a loophole but never offers a positive interpretation of what Jesus actually did mean:
> Sometimes the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 is used to support divorce in cases of unfaithfulness. But such reasoning cannot be reconciled with the other New Testament passages on divorce and remarriage, which are very clear in their statement. The hardness of heart would grasp for a loophole here and fail to reckon faithfully with the clear statement of God’s Word in a number of other passages. This is hardly a safe approach to the Word.[6](#fn-3444-6)
**Second, it is clear that conservative Anabaptists have not reached a consensus about what Jesus did mean when he said “except it be for fornication.”** They do not even agree on whether this clause has any direct relevance for Christians today or whether it was something spoken only for Jewish listeners.
Here I want to emphasize an important side point: If the betrothal view is correct, then we have zero verbal permission from Jesus not only for _remarriage_, but also for _separating_ a marriage _for any reason whatsoever_. According to this view, Jesus’ words “Let not man separate” are given no qualification whatsoever for married couples—only for those who were betrothed. If we are going to allow for any separation of married persons (even when we don’t call it divorce), we have to assume that Jesus would have been okay with it and find possible justification elsewhere, such as from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:11. This assumption may indeed be valid; maybe we should consider the possibility that Jesus sometimes used typical Jewish hyperbole in his teaching. But if we adopt this interpretation, we must be honest: we are affirming that an unspoken qualification is attached to Jesus’ words, “Let not man separate.” We are saying, “Jesus said ‘Let not man separate,’ but we know that there are times when he would approve of separation anyway.”
**Third, many conservative Anabaptists are deeply uncomfortable with these exception clauses.** Truth be told, they would be happier if Jesus had not spoken them. These clauses throw a wrench into the otherwise clear teaching of Scripture. The term “exception clause” makes it feel too much like Jesus is “making an exception” for something that is intrinsically evil. If you’ll pardon another pun, many conservative Anabaptists “take exception” to Jesus’ exception clauses. This is evident in several of the examples I share in this post.
**Fourth, when conservative Anabaptists do try to explain Jesus’ exception clauses, they are often quite happy to present mutually opposing interpretations as equally possible.** As long it can be shown that there are ways these exception clauses can possibly be harmonized with other biblical texts that appear to forbid divorce and remarriage, many conservative Anabaptists are content not to decide between contradictory interpretations.
**I want to underscore that the two popular conservative Anabaptist interpretations of Jesus’ exception clauses indeed sharply disagree with each other on an exegetical level.**
In pastoral practice, the two probably lead to similar results in conservative Anabaptist churches. The divorce-only view allows a believer to divorce from an adulterous spouse; but is rarely put into practice. The betrothal view technically does not give authorization for any sort of separation; but, as with the divorce-only view, sometimes separation is permitted for a variety of difficult circumstances without any direct authorization from these texts. Most importantly, both approaches strongly prohibit any remarriage, so the practical results are similar.
**Despite the similar theological and practical results, on an exegetical level these two views are diametrically opposed.** There are two key exegetical questions that must be solved to properly understand Jesus’ exception clauses:[7](#fn-3444-7)
1. **What do the exception clauses themselves mean?** Especially, what does _porneia_ (πορνεία; the word translated “fornication” in the KJV) mean? This is a **lexical** question, a problem of word definitions.
2. **How do the exception clauses fit within Jesus’ complete sentences?** In particular, in the Matthew 19:9 exception clause (which is where much of the debate is focused), does the exception clause modify only what comes before it, or does it modify Jesus’ entire statement? That is, does it identify an exception for divorce only, or also for marrying another? This is question of **syntax**, or sentence structure.
**On these two key questions the betrothal and divorce-only views completely disagree.** On the first question, the betrothal view says that _porneia_ refers narrowly to premarital sin—fornication. But the divorce-only view says _porneia_ is a more general word referring to a variety of sexual sins, including adultery.[8](#fn-3444-8)
On the second question, the betrothal view says the exception clause modifies the entire subject-portion of Jesus’ sentence (“whoever divorces his wife and marries another”). Thus, Jesus was recognizing an exception for both divorce and marrying. What Jesus was really saying in Matthew 19:9 could be paraphrased like this: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, except if his betrothed wife commits sexual immorality; then he is free to divorce her and marry someone else.”
The divorce-only view, in contrast, says the exception clause modifies only the first half of the subject of Jesus’ sentence (“whoever divorces his wife”). Thus, Jesus was recognizing an exception for divorce only. Jesus’ statement could be paraphrased like this: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, except if his wife commits sexual immorality; then he may divorce her, but remarriage would still be adultery.”
**The exegetical disagreement between these two views can be summarized in chart form.**
Here is the exegesis that leads to the betrothal view:
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Chart1.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/chart1-1721353456995-compressed.jpg)
And here is the exegesis that leads to the divorce-only view:
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Chart2.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/chart2-1721353458156-compressed.jpg)
Given these distinct differences, a thoughtful reader needs to come to a confident conclusion on only one of these two questions to eliminate one of these views (betrothal or divorce-only) as a possible reading.
**The betrothal interpretation of the second question (about syntax) demands further comment.** I get the sense that few people take time to consider the implications of how the betrothal view interacts with the syntax of Jesus’ statement; most discussions of this view focus on the lexical question instead, along with possible supporting historical evidence.
_The betrothal view, however, demands that we understand Jesus’ exception clause as modifying both the divorce and marriage parts of the subject of his sentence._ If this were not so, then Jesus would have been saying this: A betrothed person who discovers that their husband or wife has been sexually unfaithful may be released from the betrothal covenant, _but they may never marry anyone else_. This proposal is self-evidently and historically unreasonable.
(It may be useful to point out that Jesus does not say “remarry” but “marry another.” Further, as I understand it, the Greek can be understood to say “marry an other”—referring not to a _second_ woman but a _different_ woman.)
**The point I want to emphasize here is that, if the exception clause does not modify the marriage part of Jesus’ statement, the betrothal view is impossible.**
This fact is sometimes missed. In a Christian Light Publications book, for example, Coblentz notes how the exception clause comes _after_ Jesus’ mention of divorce and _before_ his mention of adultery. Based on this sentence order, he concludes that “the exception refers to the putting away.”[9](#fn-3444-9) Despite establishing this firm conclusion, Coblentz later says, “Unfortunately, seeing the exception clause as referring to the ‘putting away’ does not resolve all the controversy.”[10](#fn-3444-10) After this statement, he proceeds to discuss the strengths of the betrothal view. In the end, he seems to prefer the divorce-only view, but he still affirms the betrothal view as possible.[11](#fn-3444-11)
Clair Martin, in an official publication of the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, relies significantly on Coblentz. He agrees that the betrothal and divorce-only views are “both in line with scripture.”[12](#fn-3444-12) He examines only the lexical question of the definition of _porneia_ and never addresses the syntactical question of how the exception clause modifies Jesus’ statement. He seems unaware that this factor also separates the betrothal and divorce-only views. His main concern seems to be to close “one of the most prominent loopholes that people use to get around this subject.”[13](#fn-3444-13)
**The inverse, of course, is also true: If you are going to say that the betrothal view is a valid interpretive option, then you must acknowledge that one of the most commonly-cited arguments in favor of the divorce-only view is not conclusive: The syntax of the sentence does _not_ prove that Jesus is making an exception only for divorce.** This means, if we are honest about our exegesis, that those who promote the betrothal view should acknowledge that the syntax of the sentence also permits Jesus to be making an exception for both divorce and (re)marriage.
**What does it say about conservative Anabaptists that so many are content to hold mutually-contradictory interpretations as equally valid?** Positively, it reflects a determination to honor the teaching of Scripture that is understood to be clear, without letting disputed texts prevent obedience. It could also reflect exegetical humility—an awareness that the Bible is not always as plain as our Anabaptist heritage likes to claim.
Negatively, it could reflect the fact that most conservative Anabaptist church leaders have never studied Jesus’ exception clauses carefully; indeed, that they are not equipped to do so. It could also reflect a proof-text approach to Bible interpretation and systematic theology that does not sufficiently consider the original literary and cultural contexts of the biblical texts. More positive and negative implications are surely involved, and not everyone who takes a both-and stance shares the same mix of positive or negative motivations.
**One way to avoid such tension, of course, is to simply ignore Jesus’ exception clauses altogether (response D in the poll).** Two particularly clear examples of this are provided by publications from the Southeastern Mennonite Conference and the Beachy Amish-Mennonites.
The former group adopted a “Statement of Position on Divorce and Remarriage” in 1983. This statement lists both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 among its proof texts, but never quotes them and never makes any mention of “fornication.” It does quote (with commentary) Mark 10:11, which is parallel to Matthew 19:9 except for the crucial difference that it lacks the exception clause: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth \[or continues to commit\] adultery against her.” Avoiding Jesus’ exception clauses altogether, this statement simply states, “The act of adultery does not dissolve the marriage bond.”[14](#fn-3444-14)
A doctrinal position statement ratified by Amish Mennonite (Beachy) ministers in 2003 takes a similar approach. (In fact, though it presents itself as an original publication, it is obviously an adaptation of the former document, virtually identical in many sentences and following the same overall structure.) This statement cites seventeen different passages of Scripture, including some verses from Matthew 19. But it never once cites or alludes to either of Jesus’ exception clause statements (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Romans 7:1-3 (or a particular interpretation of that text) is cited in whole or part seven times in this brief document and clearly serves as the interpretive lens through which all other texts are read—or excluded.[15](#fn-3444-15)
**The approach exemplified by these two documents, while understandable on one level given the desire to uphold God’s creation design for marriage,** _**is functionally dishonest in its handling of Jesus’ words.**_ We do not honor Jesus when we avoid his “hard sayings” and quote Scripture selectively to support our theological positions. We do not serve God’s people well, either, when we do this. Unfortunately, this approach is a relatively common way that some conservative Anabaptists “solve” the topic of divorce and remarriage.
### What is a better way to solve the interpretive dilemma of Jesus’ exception clauses?
Are there better options than either (a) promoting two mutually-contradictory interpretations of Jesus’ words or (b) pretending he never said what he did? What solution might conservative Anabaptists be likely to adopt?
**Without professing prophetic ability, I suggest several possible outcomes.** First, either the betrothal or the divorce-only view may be successfully championed by someone until it becomes the consensus view. This would significantly shore up the goal of preserving a rare-divorce, no-remarriage culture in conservative Anabaptist churches. _And I must emphasize that nothing I have written in this post proves that either of these two views is wrong,_ even though I do see some weakness in both that are beyond the scope of this post.
Second, if a significant consensus is not reached, I suspect a growing number of people, observing the uncertainty, will question the current conservative Anabaptist approach to divorce and remarriage more broadly. We will continue to see people, either quietly or publicly, walk away from the unqualified no-divorce, no-remarriage teaching they have absorbed.
**It must be acknowledged, after all, that there are not only two possible ways to deal with Jesus’ exception clauses.** There are several views that are similar to the betrothal view, for example, which suggest that Jesus was referring to incestuous or otherwise unlawful marriages. Others have proposed, without any hard evidence, that Matthew added the exception clauses in an attempt to tone down Jesus’ rigid stance against divorce and remarriage (which is different from the proposal that Matthew added the clauses to accurately reflect Jesus’ unspoken assumptions). Still others argue that the exception clauses are not really exceptions at all, but rather Jesus’ way of saying that he was making no comment on the Deuteronomy 24 exception that the Pharisees asked him about (the “preteritive” view).
But apart from either adapting the betrothal view or finding a way to functionally remove any exception from Jesus’ lips, **_there is also the possibility of revisiting how our two key exegetical questions might fit together_.**
**There are two primary options.** One option makes little sense, as we noted above; there is no good reason to imagine Jesus was prohibiting betrothed persons from ever marrying if their first betrothal was ended by the discovery of sexual immorality:
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Chart3.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/chart3-1721353459488-compressed.jpg)
The other option is that Jesus was recognizing that both divorce and marrying another are honorable options when a spouse (or betrothed person[16](#fn-3444-16)) violates a marriage through sexual immorality:
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Chart4.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/chart4-1721353460633-compressed.jpg)
**For conservative Anabaptists, the problem with this last view is not only that it appears to directly contradict clear Scriptures that prohibit both divorce and remarriage; it also is the most common Protestant way of interpreting Matthew 19:9.**[17](#fn-3444-17) This, to many conservative Anabaptists, makes it doubly suspect and likely to undermine their Anabaptist vision of obedience to Jesus.[18](#fn-3444-18)
**How, then, are we to resolve this dilemma that conservative Anabaptists have with Jesus’ exception clauses?** One necessary solution, most certainly, is to engage Scripture more closely in search of more sure answers. In doing this crucial task, however, I suggest that we also take a closer look at our own Anabaptist heritage.
**You may be surprised, as I was, to learn that it is only in recent history that Anabaptists have taken exception to Jesus’ exception clauses. But that is a story for another post.**
* * *
**Thank you for reading.** Please pray for me as I continue to study and write, and **please share your insights in the comments below!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. The congregational “Statement of Faith and Practice,” as of 2002, simply says, “Divorce and remarriage is contrary to God’s Word.” _Constitution and Statement of Faith and Practice of the Otter Lake Mennonite Church_, Revised Constitution 2002, pg. 14. [↩](#fnref-3444-1)
2. I normally use that term as it is commonly used in my world, to refer to anyone from Amish or Mennonite churches that range from Old Order churches on one “end” to roughly the Biblical Mennonite Alliance on the other “end.” In this post I am referring mostly to the car-driving subset of that group, since I have almost no direct experience with Old Order groups. [↩](#fnref-3444-2)
3. He described like this: “I grew up in Joe Wenger Mennonite church. My takeaway would be that they are teaching no divorce for any reason. Yet, if you leave or show any inclination to leave, they’ll gladly try to take your spouse aside and try to convince them you’re off in the head. My point being, in teaching not acceptable but in action there are plenty of divided marriages. The go-to verse would be, ‘In the beginning it was not so, but through the hardness of your hearts,’ etc.” [↩](#fnref-3444-3)
4. John L. Stauffer, “Biblical Principles–Divorce and Remarriage,” _The Christian Ministry_, Scottdale, PA, III, 3 (July-September, 1950), 89-94; as mentioned in an annotated bibliography by J. C. Wenger, _Separated Unto God_ (Harrisonburg, VA: Sword and Trumpet, 1990; orig. pub. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1950), 182. [↩](#fnref-3444-4)
5. John Coblentz, _What the Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage_ (Harrisonburg, VA: Christian Light Publications, 1992), 34. This booklet is available in full online: [https://anabaptists.org/books/mdr/](https://anabaptists.org/books/mdr/) [↩](#fnref-3444-5)
6. “Divorce—Is It Lawful?” 12-page tract (n.a., n.d.), Rod and Staff, 5-6. Accessed online, June 20, 2020. [https://www.milestonebooks.com/item/1-3104/](https://www.milestonebooks.com/item/1-3104/) [↩](#fnref-3444-6)
7. Gordon Wenham says that interpretations of Jesus’ Matthew 19:9 statement “hinge on two main issues”: “the meaning of the Greek term _porneia_” and “the grammar of the exception clause” in relation to the rest of the sentence (Gordon Wenham, _Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting_ (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 78). Both the nature of Jesus’ statement and my reading of other authors confirm Wenham’s claim. [↩](#fnref-3444-7)
8. Some suggest it refers narrowly to adultery, but that position is harder to defend on lexical grounds and also unhelpfully excludes other forms of sexual immorality that married persons may commit, such as homosexual relations or bestiality. [↩](#fnref-3444-8)
9. Coblentz, ibid., 29. [↩](#fnref-3444-9)
10. Coblentz, ibid., 34. [↩](#fnref-3444-10)
11. Coblentz, ibid., 38. [↩](#fnref-3444-11)
12. Clair Martin, _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: A Biblical Perspective_, Biblical Perspectives on Present Day Issues, #2 (Publication Board of Biblical Mennonite Alliance, 2010), 6. [↩](#fnref-3444-12)
13. Ibid., 6. [↩](#fnref-3444-13)
14. “Statement on Divorce and Remarriage,” (Southeastern Mennonite Conference, 1983). Available online, as copied by a student of Mark Roth: [https://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/divorce2.html](https://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/divorce2.html) [↩](#fnref-3444-14)
15. “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” (Sugarcreek, OH: Calvary Publications: 2003). Available online: [http://www.beachyam.org/librarybooks/beliefs/marriage.pdf](http://www.beachyam.org/librarybooks/beliefs/marriage.pdf). A note at the beginning of this statement says this: “This doctrinal position statement was formulated by a five-man bishop committee and ratified by the Amish Mennonite (Beachy) ministers…” I presume the five bishops were Beachy, not Southeastern Mennonites. [↩](#fnref-3444-15)
16. In this approach, Jesus’ exception clause explains Joseph’s plan to divorce Mary while also referring to sexual betrayal within marriage; sexual unfaithfulness is seen to permit divorce and marrying another at any stage of the relationship. [↩](#fnref-3444-16)
17. It must be noted, however, that merely adopting this reading of Matthew 19:9 does _not_ mean one agrees with most Protestants on the topic of divorce and remarriage in general. Most Protestants allow divorce and remarriage not only in cases of adultery, but also in cases of desertion, citing a “Pauline privilege” in 1 Corinthians 7:15. In addition, many Protestants say that “other actions that break the marriage covenant such as physical abuse” are also grounds for divorce and remarriage (Andrew David Naselli, “What the New Testament Teaches About Divorce and Remarriage,” _Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal_ 24 (2019): 3–44, pg. 5. Available online: [http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019\_Divorce\_and\_Remarriage.pdf](http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019_Divorce_and_Remarriage.pdf)). [↩](#fnref-3444-17)
18. I have learned that this wariness about Protestants surprises some of my friends who are not from Anabaptist roots. For such readers, here are a few excerpts from a twenty-page Rod and Staff Publishers tract titled “More than Protestantism: The Thrilling Story of a Church Founded upon Christ”: “Born-again Christians everywhere are being urged today to work toward the revival and unification of Protestantism. Before we rush to make common cause with this ecumenical movement, let us look at the record of history… At first Luther and Zwingli defended the principle of liberty of conscience and denounced all persecution, but, tragically, both leaders depended heavily upon the support of favorably inclined secular rulers… This eventually involved them in the use of persecution against religious dissenters… Many born-again Christians at this point began to break with Protestantism… A long and bloody persecution ensued in the next 50 years, in which from 20,000 to 50,000 of these New Testament Christians were martyred by the Roman Catholics and the Protestants… Thus these churches founded upon Jesus Christ and His Word had to break with the compromises and evils of Protestantism, just as the reformers ultimately broke with the Catholic organization… They were called ‘Anabaptists’ (rebaptizers) by their enemies because they practiced believer’s baptism… But the main difference between the Anabaptists and their opponents was not the question of baptism, but the question of the relation between the church and the rest of society… It is a sad fact of history that all the prominent reformers approved of persecution and death for the Anabaptists. A certain Baptist scholar of our own time discovered through exhaustive research that more Anabaptists were put to death for their religion by the Protestants than were similarly put to death by the Roman Catholics!… ‘Why not Protestants?’ you may be asked. The record of history shows us the answer clearly: from the false teachings of Protestantism… come the hellish evils of the unholy alliance between State and Church, the persecution of religious dissenters, the ‘religious’ wars that killed millions, modern nationalism, racism, and dictatorship! Surely Protestantism is only another ‘lamb-like beast’ drunken with the blood of the martyrs!” [↩](#fnref-3444-18)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Is Marriage Indissoluble? A Look at Two Passages from “Rabbi” Paul
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-05-30
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Is Marriage Indissoluble? A Look at Two Passages from "Rabbi" Paul • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 are two passages cited most often as proof that marriages are indissoluble. Is this what Paul meant to say?
Tags: David | Instone-Brewer, divorce, R.T. | France, divorce and remarriage, Law of Moses, Hillel, Shammai, marriage, exception clause, -, bound, Douglas J. | Moo, free, Gamaliel, indissoluble, John | McRay, law, marriage contract, rabbi, Ulrich | Luz
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/is-marriage-indissoluble-two-passages-rabbi-paul
**What do we mean when we say that marriage is indissoluble?** More importantly, is this an accurate way to express the biblical witness about marriage? I will not answer that second question in this post (does that make my title clickbait?), but I do want to examine two passages from Paul that appear to answer it very clearly.
### When people assert that marriage is indissoluble, they generally mean that nothing except death can end a marriage union. Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 are two passages cited most often as evidence for this assertion.
These parallel passages certainly do offer vital biblical evidence that must shape our understandings about divorce and remarriage. I have come to believe, however, that sometimes our thinking and speaking about these passages is not as careful as it should be. In our haste to cite these passages as being “clear,” we may not read them with the diligence that the Scriptures deserve.
**Let me start by suggesting that neither passage quite says that only death can end a marriage union.** Neither passage says that there is a “marriage bond” that holds every marriage together till death, or that [the one-flesh marriage union](http://dwightgingrich.com/what-does-one-flesh-mean/) is a sort of glue that cannot be broken by man. Rather, both passages say something slightly but significantly different. Here is the shorter passage:
> A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 7:39-40)
**What does “bound” mean?** What sort of reality is implied by words such as “bound” and “free”? If we had only this passage and not the near parallel in Romans 7, we might be able to conclude that the passage is talking about some “marriage bond” or one-flesh union that is indissoluble—some mysterious ontological oneness that is impossible to separate.
But the language of “bound” and “free” is a hint that these passages are talking about different realities. The longer passage makes this clearer:
> Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. (Rom. 7:1-3)
**How is a married woman bound to her husband? “By law,” Paul says. To understand these passages well, we must remember that we are dealing not with metaphysical realities but with legal codes—with _law_.**
**By what means does law _bind_ someone?** Here it is instructive to look at how δέω, the Greek word translated “bound” in both Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, is used elsewhere in the New Testament. Here are a few typical examples: A colt was “bound” most likely _with a rope_ (Matt. 21:2), Peter was “bound” _with two chains_ (Acts 12:6), a woman was “bound” by Satan _with sickness_ (Luke 13:16), and Paul declared that the word of God was not “bound” or _prevented by persecution_ from spreading (2 Tim. 2:9). A wife, however, is not supposed to be bound to a man by a rope, a chain, sickness, or political oppression.
The closest NT parallel to how δέω is used in our two passages is probably found in Jesus’ words in both Matthew 16 and 18:
> “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.” (Matt. 16:19, emphasis added; cf. Matt. 18:18)
**In these passages, “bind” and “loose” are terms “used in rabbinic literature for declaring what is and is not permitted.”**[1](#fn-3419-1) **The way the law binds someone, then, is _by declaring what is and is not permitted_.**
The words for “bind” and “loose” in these Matthew passages are the same words that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 7:27: “Are you _bound_ to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you _free_ from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” He then repeats the same word “bound” a couple paragraphs later in one of our key passages: “A wife is _bound_ to her husband as long as he lives.” (1 Cor. 7:39).
Paul, bound, teaching in Rome. Is this the way a wife is “bound” to her husband? (Image from Sweet Publishing / [FreeBibleimages.org](http://FreeBibleimages.org).)
**Paul, trained under the Rabbi Gamaliel, is using the language of rabbis.**[2](#fn-3419-2) He is not declaring a spiritual or scientific law that describes an unchangeable reality. Rather, he is “declaring what is and is not permitted” under the law, probably referring to the law of Moses.[3](#fn-3419-3) Legal rulings are not made against things that are impossible to do. To the contrary, any law, even a divine one, can be broken.
**The law typically describes what _could but_ _shouldn’t_ happen and then says what _will_ happen or _should_ happen if what _shouldn’t_ happen _does_ happen.** (Read that fast three times in a row!) It is important not to confuse these different dynamics.
The language of “binding” in 1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 7 indicates, first of all, that something _could but_ _shouldn’t_ happen. Paul says that the law does not permit a wife to leave her husband while he is alive. The fact that this law was necessary implies that it is indeed possible for a husband or wife to separate from their spouse. It is possible for them to violate the law that binds them together.
This does not mean, of course, that as soon as a law is broken it has no say over the person who broke it. The Romans passage says one thing that certainly _will_ happen if what _shouldn’t_ happen does happen. Paul says that if a woman breaks the law that binds her to her husband, then “she is called an adulteress” (Rom. 7:3). Who calls her an adulteress? Paul does not explicitly say, but the implication is that it is the law, first of all, who calls such a woman an adulteress. Since her husband is still alive, the law’s requirement that she be faithful to him is still binding on her. This law, still in effect even though broken, labels her an adulteress. This _will happen_. Humans are free to disregard the law binding husband and wife, but they will also suffer the legal consequences if they do so.
What about the phrase “as long as he is alive” (Rom. 7:2; cf. 1 Cor. 7:39)? This phrase does not address the question of whether or not it is _possible_ for humans to end a marriage. Rather, it describes how long “the law is binding on a person” who is married (Rom. 7:1). At any point before death, a married person can break the law that binds them to their spouse, violating the union that was supposed to last until death. At that point, the law says what _will happen_: They will stand guilty of adultery.
**How should a person guilty of adultery be held accountable? What does the law say _should happen_ next? In neither passage does Paul answer this question. Neither passage says what should be done if a marriage is broken prematurely by sexual unfaithfulness.**
We know from Leviticus—“for I,” like Paul, “am speaking to those who know the law” (Rom. 7:1)—that the law of Moses did _not_ simply say, “It is _impossible_ for a woman to separate from her husband.” Nor did it simply say, “A woman _must not_ separate from her husband.” Nor did it simply say, “If a woman unites with a man besides her husband she will be called an adulteress.” No, **the law had more to say than what Paul records in either of our passages.**
This is what **the law of Moses** originally taught about adultery: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:10). Under this law, what _should happen_ after adultery was death, which ended the marriage union and left the violated marriage partner alive and free to remarry. In addition, as Moo reminds us, this same law of Moses also recognized situations when a husband was permitted to divorce his wife and remarry:
> Any body of law that Paul may be citing—Roman or OT (cf. Deut. 25:1-4 \[sic; should be Deut. 24:1-4\])—allows for remarriage on grounds other than the death of the spouse. His readers, who “know the law” (v. 1), would certainly recognize this possibility without it in any way spoiling the effectiveness of Paul’s analogy.[4](#fn-3419-4)
It is probably significant that in both of these passages Paul refers to how a _wife_ is bound to her husband until he dies. Under the law of Moses (unlike Roman law), a wife, unlike her husband, had no right to initiate divorce. For a husband, his marriage could end not only through the natural death of his wife but also in at least two other ways: 1) his wife could commit adultery and die by capital punishment, or 2) he could divorce his wife if he “found some indecency in her” (Deut. 24:1). In this sense, under the law of Moses a woman was “bound to her husband as long as he lives” in a way that her husband was not bound to her.
Yet, **even for the woman, the law of Moses recognized at least two ways that her marriage could end apart from the natural death of her husband:** 1) her husband could commit adultery and die by capital punishment, or 2) her husband could divorce her for some offense less than adultery (Deut. 24:1), leaving her free to remarry. The latter scenario, at least, is an exception to Paul’s statement about what the law required for a wife.
**Is Paul misrepresenting the law? It is better, I suggest, to conclude that Paul accurately summarizes _what the law under normal circumstances required of a wife_, without meaning to deny any exceptions implied by specific case laws dealing with special circumstances.**[5](#fn-3419-5)
For **Jews in Jesus’ day**, legal divorce had largely replaced the death penalty in cases of adultery. It was understood that it was divorce that _should happen_ next after adultery.[6](#fn-3419-6) It was also understood that divorce ended the marriage, so that the woman no longer had a husband and the man no longer had a wife. Therefore, in such a situation, the law cited by Paul that bound a wife to her husband was understood to no longer apply, for she was no longer “a wife” (1 Cor. 7:39) or “married woman” (Rom. 7:2). Rather—as had been the case under the Law of Moses after the death penalty—the wronged marriage partner was free to legally remarry.
(There was a severe gender inequity in how this was applied. Men generally were not liable to be charged with adultery, since polygamy was still legal under Jewish law. Thus, it was women who were divorced when suspected of adultery, but men were not. After a divorce adulteresses, like their former husbands, were free to remarry. But there was a stigma in marrying an adulteress and, as a reasonable precaution, adulteresses were not permitted to marry their lovers.[7](#fn-3419-7))
**Christians today**, even more truly than the Jews of Jesus’ day, are no longer bound by law to carry out capital punishment for adultery. We are under Christ’s new covenant. Jesus warned that the provision for divorce found in Deuteronomy 24 was given because of the “hardness of heart” of God’s people (Matt. 19:8), so it is unlikely that he thought this exception still applies under the new covenant—certainly not in the broad way that it was interpreted by many in Jesus’ day.[8](#fn-3419-8) But, leaving that question aside, we still have the other “unnatural” way that a woman could find herself released from the law that bound her to her husband: By her husband committing adultery.
**What _should happen_ next after a husband or wife commits adultery in our time? Again, neither of the passages we are discussing here answers our question.**
In Corinthians 7:39-40 Paul had no reason to answer our question because the main reason that he cites this law about marriage, apparently, is to show that it is lawful for widows to remarry. Since he is discussing widows, the question of adultery is irrelevant. In Romans 7:1-3 Paul had no reason to answer our question because he is introducing the law of marriage primarily to make a similar point, one relevant to his theological argument: just as death ends a marriage and frees one to remarry, so Christians have died to the law so that they can be married to Christ. Again, his focus is on the fact that the law is _not_ binding on a married couple after one of them dies. He is not concerned to detail exactly _how_ the law _was_ binding on a husband or wife whose marriage had been damaged by adultery. He does mention an adulterous wife in passing here (the language may imply she had remarried), but he says nothing about what should happen next.
What should happen to the adulteress? What should the wronged husband do? What were either of them _permitted_ or _required_ to do? Again, neither passage answers such questions.
**If you are waiting for me to answer those questions in this post, I will (once again) leave you disappointed. Those are crucial questions, but my purpose here is different.** My goal is to invite us think more diligently about these two passages, for they are often cited as being among the most “clear” New Testament passages on divorce and remarriage. I agree that these passages are indeed very clear on what _should not_ happen. But I am proposing here that they say little about what _should happen_ if the law that binds wife and husband together has been violated.
If I were to paraphrase the main point of what Paul is saying in both Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, it might look like this:
> The law requires that a woman remain faithful to her husband as long as he lives; after that, she is allowed to remarry any Christian man she wishes. If she unites with another man while her husband is still alive, the law declares that she is an adulterer, but it doesn’t say that about a woman who remarries after her husband is dead.
**I have often heard that these two passages from Paul are “clearer” than the exception clauses of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 regarding the topics of divorce and remarriage. For the reasons described above, I am not sure this is so.**
Specifically, I don’t think these passages are clearer than Jesus’ sayings are _regarding the question of whether divorce is permitted in the case of adultery_. Unlike Jesus’ exception clauses, these passages from Paul don’t even mention the topic of divorce. (Read them again if that statement surprises you.)
Since they don’t even mention divorce, how can they be clearer than Jesus’ sayings on the topic? How can we use them to cancel out his words?
### Before I close, however, let me underscore two things that are indeed clear in both these Pauline passages.
**First, God’s intent is that our marriages last for life.** This was clear in the law of Moses not only from its prescriptive laws, but also from the creation account that Moses recorded. This is also a consistent message from Christ and the witness of the NT.
**Second, God still holds humans accountable today when marriages end before death.** Whether or not _marriage_ itself is truly indissoluble (“incapable of being undone”[9](#fn-3419-9)) may be a question that these specific passages do not answer. But there is no question that married people are bound together by a divine _law_ that is indissoluble (“perpetually binding or obligatory”[10](#fn-3419-10)). Almost every marriage that ends before death does so because one of the spouses has sinned by breaking God’s law[11](#fn-3419-11), and anyone who breaks God’s law should fear being held accountable by him.
**Now may that same good God, the God who redeems law-breakers, teach us from the whole biblical witness—not just a couple of the “clearest” passages—how to respond faithfully when unfaithfulness is found in our marriages.**
* * *
**It is a weighty thing to teach on the topic of divorce and remarriage.** The cost of broken marriages has been tremendous and is growing. Many people are confused and looking for true and loving counsel. Sincere Christians have long disagreed on minor and major points of interpretation and practice. My own understanding is still incomplete. For these latter reasons, this topic is even more difficult for me to handle than [the series on homosexuality I shared last fall](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5/), where my biggest challenge was to present my understandings courageously, compassionately, and clearly.
On the other hand, it is a blessing to be able to ponder this topic at a time when I have no burning personal need to do so, besides a long-standing desire for better understanding of God’s word and will. It is a joy to know he is able to give us whatever understanding we need!
I have been intentionally seeking resources from a variety of perspectives so that my preferences and assumptions have a chance to be tested. My personal preference is usually to consider “small” exegetical questions one at a time (though in context, of course), rather than trying immediately to answer the big theological or practical questions. Hence my last two posts, [one on the term “one flesh”](http://dwightgingrich.com/what-does-one-flesh-mean/) and this on two short parallel passages.
I have also been puzzling over Jesus’ use of “one flesh” in Matthew 19 and his central statement there: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6). I hope to be able to share more here if God entrusts me with more understanding. If not, I won’t!
**Meanwhile, you can help in two ways**: _1) Pray God will guide me, both in my thinking and in knowing when to write and when to wait. 2) If you read anything here that is contrary to Scripture, please show me from Scripture where I am wrong. I am eager to be increasingly true to Christ and the Scriptures._
Also, if you have a favorite resource that you think is exceptionally helpful for understanding the biblical witness on divorce and remarriage, you are most welcome to mention it, though I cannot commit in advance to giving it the time it may deserve.
**Thank you for reading, and please share your insights in the comments below!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. R. T. France, _The Gospel of Matthew_, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 626. Luz agrees: “The primary meaning is ‘forbidding’ and ‘permitting’ with a halakic decision of the rabbis, that is, the interpretation of the law.” See Ulrich Luz, _Matthew 8-20: A Commentary on Matthew 8-20_, ed. H. Koester (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 365. [↩](#fnref-3419-1)
2. Gamaliel was influenced by the famous rabbi Hillel—the one who argued for “any cause” divorce as discussed in Matthew 19, as opposed by Shammai who argued for narrower grounds for divorce. McRay suggests that Paul seems to have been influenced by the Hillel point of view in how he felt free to make legal adjustments for new situations “which the law did not envision,” such as dealing with mixed marriages (1 Cor. 7:12). See John McRay, _Paul: His Life and Teaching_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 45. [↩](#fnref-3419-2)
3. Most commentators agree that this is the law Paul is referring to, and it makes best sense to me. [↩](#fnref-3419-3)
4. Douglas J. Moo, _The Letter to the Romans_, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018), 438, n. 649. [↩](#fnref-3419-4)
5. Paul’s approach matches some marriage contracts from near his time. These sometimes stated that a marriage was for life, while nevertheless assuming the possibility of divorce and remarriage. Here, for example, is a translation from a Greek marriage contract from Egypt in 92 BC: “And it shall not be lawful for Philiscus to bring in any other wife but Apollonia, nor to keep a concubine or boy, nor to have children by another woman while Apollonia lives.” Notice how “while Apollonia lives” matches Paul’s language in Romans 7:2: “while he lives.” (David Instone-Brewer, “1 Corinthians 7 in the light of the Graeco-Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri,” _Tyndale Bulletin_, 2001, [https://www.tyndalearchive.com/Brewer/MarriagePapyri/1Cor\_7a.htm](https://www.tyndalearchive.com/Brewer/MarriagePapyri/1Cor_7a.htm) Accessed May 28, 2020.) [↩](#fnref-3419-5)
6. Roman law required this for its citizens, too; a husband who refused to divorce his adulterous wife was to be punished. [↩](#fnref-3419-6)
7. David Instone-Brewer, _Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 121-23. [↩](#fnref-3419-7)
8. Jesus’ exception clause was likely an allusion to the Shammaite interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. But he offered an authoritative rewording of the text that narrowed it to allow divorce only on the grounds of sexual immorality, not merely shameful behavior. The way Jesus expressed his exception suggests that he narrowed the exception originally permitted in Deuteronomy 24:1 and thereby disagreed not only with the “liberal” Hillelites but also, to a lesser degree, with the “conservative” Shammaites. [↩](#fnref-3419-8)
9. Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on _The Random House Unabridged Dictionary,_ s.v. “Indissoluble,” abridgement of first definition, [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/indissoluble](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/indissoluble) [↩](#fnref-3419-9)
10. Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on _The Random House Unabridged Dictionary_, s.v. “Indissoluble,” third definition, [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/indissoluble](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/indissoluble) [↩](#fnref-3419-10)
11. I say “almost” because some people have been tragically separated from their spouses by events such as war, with no way to know if they are still alive. By far the majority of marriages that end before death do so because one or both of the spouses have been unfaithful to their spouses. [↩](#fnref-3419-11)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What Does “One Flesh” Mean?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-05-09
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: What Does "One Flesh" Mean? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: What does the Bible mean when it says a husband and wife become "one flesh"? Your answer may shape your conclusions about divorce and remarriage.
Tags: divorce and remarriage, Gordon J. | Wenham, William E. | Heth, marriage, one flesh, -, Claus | Westermann, family ties, flesh, incest, kinship, my bone and my flesh, sex, Warren W. | Wiersbe
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-does-one-flesh-mean
**What does the Bible mean when it says a husband and wife become “one flesh”?** This phrase describing marriage is variously understood, leading to different conclusions in debates about divorce and remarriage.
### Here are some conclusions I’m drawing about what the phrase “one flesh” means:
1. _It expresses the reality that woman and man are “made of the same stuff.”_ This is clear from the context where the phrase first occurs in Genesis 2:22-24:
> And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
>
> “This at last is bone of my bones
> and flesh of my flesh;
> she shall be called Woman,
> because she was taken out of Man.”
>
> Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
The basic sequence is clear: (1) God makes woman from man’s body; (2) the man recognizes that the woman was “taken out of” his body and therefore in some way belongs to him; (3) it is because of this same-source likeness that a man and a woman become “one flesh” today.
2. _But it also hints of a compatible difference._ Since Eve was taken out of Adam, they fit back together a little like a single two-piece puzzle picture. God did not present Adam with someone identical to him, but rather someone who fit him–who completed him–who was compatible because she was different-yet-same. None of these descriptions are sufficient and every one of them can be abused, but the basic duality of gender difference is everywhere in the original context of our “one flesh” phrase: man/woman, Adam/Eve, father/mother, husband/wife.
3. _It refers to physical oneness, especially sexual union._ This is clear from the original context, which emphasizes the physicality of Adam (his body) and his wife (made from his body). The language of “bones” and “flesh” underscores this physical emphasis, as does Paul’s use of the term “one flesh” to show that “he who is joined to a prostitute becomes _one body_ with her” (1 Cor. 6:16). Some commentators point out that Genesis doesn’t say Adam “knew” his wife until chapter 2, after the comment about being one flesh. Therefore, they say, the term refers to something that was real before (and therefore apart from) any sexual union. But that is an invalid argument. First, surely the patriarchs “knew” their wives far more often than the Bible mentions! Second, the term “one flesh” is first used not to refer directly to Adam and Eve, but to how men and women ever since have become one flesh in marriage. Therefore, whether or not Adam and Eve “knew” each other immediately upon first meeting each other is irrelevant to the definition of “one flesh.”
4. _But it probably also refers to other kinds of oneness that unified bodies embody._ This is suggested by how the Hebrew term for “flesh” is sometimes used elsewhere. Commentator Westermann says “the Hebrew בשׂר \[flesh\] does not stand in opposition to spirit or soul, like the Greek σάρξ \[_sarx_, flesh\], but describes human existence as a whole under the aspect of corporality \[body-ness\].”[1](#fn-3370-1) In other words, the word “flesh,” though explicitly referring to bodies, can implicitly refer to humans (or even animals) as whole beings. Consider how the term “all flesh” is used throughout the OT: God talks about destroying “all flesh” in the flood (Gen. 6:13); he is described as “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (Num. 27:16); and “all flesh” will see God’s glory and worship him (Isa. 40:6; 66:23). In these passages “all flesh” is roughly equivalent to “all humanity,” and flesh is described as having spirits and being capable of worship. This suggests the possibility that becoming “one flesh” could mean becoming “one human.”
5. _It is probably related to traditional Jewish language that expresses blood relationships and family ties._ Adam says Eve is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Similarly, the phrase “my bone and my flesh” was used by Laban to describe his nephew Jacob (Gen. 29:14) and by others in similar situations (Judg. 9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:12-13). If someone is flesh of my flesh they are part of my family; if someone becomes one flesh with me, it might mean that we have formed a new family. This possibility is reinforced by the language of “leaving” and “cleaving” in the Genesis passage; the man leaves his birth family and forms a new family bond. Commentator Wenham emphasizes that the “one flesh” language means that “just as blood relations are one’s flesh and bone…, so marriage creates a similar kinship relation between man and wife. They become related to each other as brother and sister are.”[2](#fn-3370-2)
6. _But it actually expresses a relationship that is closer than any blood relationship._ Here Wenham’s emphasis seems imbalanced. He acknowledges that becoming one flesh involves sexual union, shared children, and a spiritual and emotional relationship, but he _emphasizes_ that it refers to a kinship tie formed in marriage. He even points to this one flesh relationship of a husband and wife as the reason for Deuteronomy 24’s prohibition on a divorced couples remarrying each other: “A man may not remarry his wife because his first marriage to her made her into one of his closest relatives… The partners to a marriage become one flesh.” Thus, to restore the marriage would be “a type of incest.”[3](#fn-3370-3) If this is true, then why is it not incest for any married couple to continue to have sexual relations with each other after their initial union has made them one flesh?
_(Update: Wenham has now abandoned this interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 as guarding against incest, saying it is not “plausible.” He now says the command was designed to prevent the original husband from charging his wife with “some indecency” as “a ploy to acquire her dowry” that she would later receive from her second husband._[4](#fn-3370-4)_)_
Apparently a one flesh union is not the same thing as a kinship bond, despite some similarities. I suggest that the difference is not that a husband and wife remain _distant_ enough that sexual union is permissible, but that sexual union is permissible because they are _closer_ than any other kinship bond. When Paul talks about a man and a woman becoming one flesh, he says that a man who loves his wife “loves himself”; he should care for her as for his own body and cherish her as “his own flesh” (Eph. 5:28-33). In fact, the one flesh union of a man and woman (even a prostitute) is compared to how we are “members” of Christ’s body–actually part of the _same body_ as him (1 Cor. 6:15; Eph. 5:30). Jesus said that a married couple are so unified that “they are _no longer two_ but one flesh” (Matt. 19:6).
**In summary, my current best understanding of the Bible’s “one flesh” language is that it indicates the formation of a new two-in-one human being.** One flesh union is possible because men and women are “made of the same stuff” and designed to fit each other. Our sexual union embodies and enables a more general profound oneness. This union is intended for marriage but can be experienced (contrary to God’s intent) outside of marriage. In one flesh union a new family bond is produced, but the union goes beyond mere kinship so that _the best way to describe a one flesh couple is to say “they are no longer two.”_
Commentator Provain paints a similar picture:
> Adam is cut in half, so that there come into existence two ‘sides’. One becomes male and the other female. These are now separate beings, who nonetheless exist in the closest possible relationship; she is, as the male affirms, ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ (2.23). Elsewhere in the OT, this combination of ‘bone’ and ‘flesh’ refers to a member of one’s family (e.g. Gen. 29.14). In Genesis 2 the language has an even more intimate significance, for the male and the female are destined to become again ‘one flesh’ in marriage (Genesis 2.24) – **to ‘return’, as it were, to their original condition as the inhabitants of one body**.[5](#fn-3370-5)
### **Different understandings of the “one flesh” language of Genesis 2 can lead to different conclusions about divorce and remarriage today.**
Here are two examples:
1. Gordon Wenham, in part because of what he believes _\[Update: “believed”\]_ about a “one flesh” marriage union producing a permanent kinship relationship, feels that even today “it would seem wisest” for a divorced and remarried person “to adhere to the Deuteronomic” regulation and not return to their first spouse.[6](#fn-3370-6)
2. Warren Wiersbe, who believes that the “one flesh” language implies that “marriage is basically a physical relationship,” concludes that “the phrase ‘one flesh’ implies that anything that breaks the physical bond in marriage can also break the marriage itself.”[7](#fn-3370-7)
I am not sure either of those applications are essential conclusions of those specific understandings of the term “one flesh.” I am also not sure what all practical conclusions _should_ be drawn from this phrase. This one phrase cannot bear the weight of all our divorce and remarriage questions–particularly questions about what should happen next after God’s original design has been marred.
**This phrase does, however, suggest very practical implications:** If the “one flesh” summary statement means that God intends to form new two-in-one human beings, then monogamous, life-long marriage is clearly the creation norm. Why would you want to experience the personal fragmentation of sexual union with more than one partner? Why not rather invest “selfishly” in the health of your marriage and the good of your marriage partner (“yourself”) for as long as you both live?
* * *
**What do you think the term “one flesh” means?** What understandings have you heard of? What conclusions have you seen people make based on their understanding of this term? Please let me know if I’m missing something. **Share your thoughts in the comments below. Thanks for reading!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. Claus Westermann, _A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1–11_ (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), 233. [↩](#fnref-3370-1)
2. Gordan J. Wenham, _Genesis 1–15_, Vol. 1. (Dallas, TX: Word, 1987), 71. [↩](#fnref-3370-2)
3. Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth, _Jesus and Divorce_, updated edition (Carlisle, CA: Paternoster Press, 2002), 109-10. This interpretation is attributed here to Wenham. [↩](#fnref-3370-3)
4. Gordan Wenham, _Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting_ (Bellingham, WA, Lexham Press, 2019), 29. Wenham does not clarify in this new book whether he still thinks it is wrong for Christians today to return to a first spouse after a subsequent marriage. [↩](#fnref-3370-4)
5. Ian Provan, _Discovering Genesis: Content, Interpretation, Reception_, Discovering Biblical Texts (DBT) (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 78. Kindle Edition. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3370-5)
6. Wenham and Heth, 201. [↩](#fnref-3370-6)
7. Warren W. Wiersbe, _Be Basic (Genesis 1-11): Believing the Simple Truth of God’s Word_, The BE Series Commentary (David C. Cook), 49-50. Kindle Edition. Wiersbe also believes that “marriage is a civil relationship, regulated by law, and should be a spiritual relationship and a heart relationship, governed by the Word of God and motivated by love.” [↩](#fnref-3370-7)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Song: “Before All Things (Colossians 1:15-20)”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-04-11
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: A Song: "Before All Things (Colossians 1:15-20)" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here is a new congregational song, a musical arrangment of the "hymn" in Colossians 1:15-20. Jesus, God's Son, is "Before All Things."
Tags: creation, -, Andrew | Peterson, congregational music, firstborn, music, reconciliation, Scripture song, Son of God
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/song-before-all-things
**Our church is enjoying a sermon series through Paul’s letter to the Colossians.** At the start of the series, it was suggested that the musicians in our midst might want to compose new songs based on the letter. I immediately thought of the “hymn” in Colossians 1:15-20 and decided I’d like to put it to music. This task has proven difficult however, since the passage doesn’t follow the rhythms or rhymes of English poetry, despite being full of other poetic features.
This week I meditated on the passage again (in Greek and English) until I could more or less say it by memory (in English). On Wednesday some musical lines finally started to come, but I wasn’t very impressed. Thursday morning my wife recalled and played Andrew Peterson’s fine arrangement of this passage (“[All Things Together](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIe0jOhopyI)“). Hearing Peterson further opened my musical streams and also gave me the idea of beginning each verse with questions. Finally better music started to come, and that day I composed most of this song.
**After a couple more days of adaptations and valuable feedback from my family, I am content with the result.** Today–the Saturday between Good Friday and Resurrection–my family and I recorded the song. Special thanks to my daughters for sharing their pleasant voices, which made the song so much better, and to my wife for willingly overseeing lights and camera.
**I do not pretend this is great music, but I am happy that it meets my original goals of sticking closely to the biblical text and yet being singable by a congregation.** I envision a soloist singing the questions at the start of each verse, with the congregation responding. The rest of each verse could be either sung by the soloist or, with a little practice, by the entire congregation. The chorus and bridge are simple for all to sing.
**In writing this song I tried to follow the text of Colossians as closely as possible** (using the ESV translation), with minor adjustments to ease the rhythm and retain clarity. I also tried to follow the original structure of this “hymn,” which has two stanzas (1:15-16 and 1:18b-20–the two verses of my song) tied together by several transitional lines (1:17-18a–the chorus of my song). There is an “extra” line in the second stanza of the song that breaks the rhythm–an exclamation that Jesus is preeminent (first) not only in the original creation, but also in the new creation. I saved that line for the bridge of my song.
Here is this passage in Greek. This note was written by me in June 2014, when I first became fascinated with the literary structure of this passage. I knew very little Greek at the time, but I shared it on Facebook with this comment: “Sunday school thoughts: Here, from today’s CLP lesson, is the central ‘Christ poem,’ Colossians 1:15-20–in Greek! Even those of us who don’t know Greek can see something of the poetry of Christ’s firstborn status both as creator and as re-creator.”
**Bible students may recall that this passage is sometimes called a “Christ hymn”**; it is often praised for its “high Christology.” While it is true that this passage describes Jesus in terms fitting for an anointed king, the word “Christ” itself is conspicuously missing from the passage and its immediate context. Instead, we find the language of sonship: “the Father… delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col. 1:12-13). This sonship language ties directly into the firstborn imagery in the hymn.
These observations explain the answers I provided to the opening questions in each verse. Who is the One whom the song discusses? “Jesus, God’s own Son”; “Jesus, the Son of God.”
Here are the lyrics to the song:
* * *
BEFORE ALL THINGS
(Colossians 1:15-20)
Verse 1:
Who is the image of the invisible God?
Jesus, God’s own Son
Who is the firstborn of all creation?
Jesus, God’s own Son
For by him all things were created,
In heaven and on earth,
Visible and invisible.
Whether thrones, dominions, rulers
Or authorities
All were created through him and for him.
Chorus A:
And he is before all things
He is before all things
And all things in him hold together
He is before all things
He is before all things
And he is the head of the body, the church.
Verse 2:
Who is the beginning?
Jesus, the Son of God
Who is the firstborn from the dead?
Jesus, the Son of God
For in him all the fullness
Of God was pleased to dwell
And reconcile through him all to him
By the blood of his cross
Making peace with all
All whether on earth or in heaven.
(Chorus A)
Bridge:
He’s the firstborn of all creation
The firstborn of all creation
That in all things he might be first
And the firstborn from the dead
The firstborn from the dead
That in all things he might be first
You’re the firstborn of all creation
The firstborn of all creation
That in all things you might be first
And you’re the firstborn from the dead
The firstborn from the dead
That in all things you might be first
Chorus B: (2x)
And you are before all things
You are before all things
And all things in you hold together
You are before all things
You are before all things
And you are the head of the body, the church.
You are the head of the body—You’re first!
Optional ending: (Repeat as desired)
Jesus, you are first
In all things you are first
In all things you hold first place of all
Jesus, you are first
We worship you as first
We worship you as first over all
Copyright April 9, 2020 by Dwight Gingrich. To be freely used for nonprofit uses only by the church of Jesus. All other rights reserved.
* * *
**Is there a passage of Scripture that you have wished was set to music?** Do you have any feedback on my efforts here? **You may share your thoughts in the comments below.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: 2019 Year-End Report
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2020-01-01
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding: 2019 Year-End Report • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: annual report, churchfunding, microloans, church
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2019-year-end-report
**A new year means it’s time for another update on our “churchfunding” house loan adventure!** How is it working for us by now? In short, we are making monthly repayments as planned and remain deeply grateful for all who helped us buy this house.
([Here is the post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) that officially launched this churchfunding adventure. We purchased our Atlanta house on March 25, 2016, paying the seller in full immediately, thanks to loans and gifts from nearly 90 individuals or families.)
**At the beginning of 2019, we owed $41,687.50 in house loans.**[1](#fn-3331-1) **By the end of 2019, we owed only $35,062.50.**
**Here is how that $6,625 difference breaks down.** We repaid $5,750 in loans in 2019 at the planned rate of $500 per month. Why is this total not $6000? Several lenders, when offered their promised repayment, declined the 10% interest we had promised. Also, two lenders forgave a total of $750 in principal. In total, we were forgiven $875 in principal and interest in 2019. We are thankful for this generosity! $875 (forgiven) plus $5,750 (paid) equals $6,625. This means our house debt declined by $625 more than we expected in 2019.
Since we began repayments in April of 2016, a total of 28 lenders have receive partial or total repayment. Another 33 lenders are still awaiting their first repayment.
**When can the remaining lenders expect repayment?** At the promised $500 per month, **we should have all remaining lenders repaid within six years—by about October of 2025.** As promised, we are using a random number generator (and prayer!) to select who is repaid each month. If you have a financial squeeze, however, feel free to let us know and we will consider prioritizing your repayment as possible.
### **Cash Flow and House Happenings**
**Our cash flow is still tight, but slightly better than a year ago, thank God.** I continue to work three days a week for Choice Books, but my number of piano students grew in 2019. I temporarily reached 30 students, finishing the year with about 27—about nine more than a year ago! In addition, as was true a year ago, I have more students who hope to resume or begin lessons in January. By now my biggest growth obstacle is time—do I really want to begin teaching Friday evenings or Saturdays?
Our largest expense in 2019 was finally getting three big trees removed from our backyard. What a relief!
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bouttecrane.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bouttecrane.jpg)
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BoutteClimberb.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BoutteClimberb.jpg)
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BoutteTree.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BoutteTree.jpg)
One tree was dead, two were unhealthy, and all three were a hazard not only to our house, but even more to our neighbor’s house. Several initial quotes back in 2016 were for $5000 and $6000, so we cut vines off around the base of the trees, waited for the vines to die and drop, and prayed whenever it got windy. A shout-out to [Boutte Tree](https://www.bouttetree.com/), who gave us a fair deal ($3,240) and demonstrated a lot of expertise getting the job done!
Other “extra” expenses for 2019 included:
* A 1-1/2 year Greek class I finished in July ([highly recommended—see here](https://biblicalgreekprogram.org/))
* Physical therapy for my shoulder (covered under [Samaritan Ministries](https://www.samaritanministries.org/)–mention us if you sign up!)
* Continued cello and violin lessons for our two oldest daughters (see videos below)
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BoutteLogs.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BoutteLogs.jpg)
**House projects in 2019 were very minor**, though I did do some flood-proofing in the basement and also began soundproofing the door between my piano studio and Zonya’s kitchen—a much-needed effort!
House prices in our neighborhood continue to rise. More vacant homes are being refurbished and inhabited, including on our own street. **The real estate website Zillow**, which estimated our house value at $81,000 back in March 2016 just before we bought it for $65,000, [**now estimates our house is worth about $215,000**](https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/251-W-Lake-Dr-NW-Atlanta,-GA,-30314_rb/).
### **Church and Witness**
As [I shared last year](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2018-year-end-report/), we are no longer actively pursuing a formal church plant in our neighborhood. We have been attending [Cellebration Fellowship](http://www.cellebrationfellowship.com/) in Clarkston, GA, for over a year now. The people there have been welcoming, and we have fit in as we are able. I’m recruited to play piano most Sundays and I preached one sermon this year; the girls enjoy Sunday school; and we’ve all been blessed by the various personal expressions of friendship we’ve received. Loneliness is still real for most of us, however, and Zonya and I are experiencing the common midlife awareness that life has not turned out as we once dreamed.
Despite our questions, **“the house that God bought” saw ministry opportunities over the past year, such as:**
* Many piano students and a “Living Room Recital”
* A neighbor girl who often comes looking for our daughters
* A hungry man who sometimes knocks on our door
* Several new neighbors glad for friendship and support
* Our own children, whom Zonya faithfully homeschools
* A couple who stays overnight when they come to Atlanta for medical appointments
* My blog writing efforts
* Praying for God to put his angels around our neighborhood each night
* International students who came for a vegetarian Thanksgiving
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/IMG_0765.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/img0765-1721353396914-compressed.jpg)
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/IMG_0752.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/IMG_0752.jpg)
### **Dad’s Health**
**At risk of turning this post into a virtual Christmas letter, I’ll mention one more big change in our family in 2019: This fall we learned that my dad’s cancer has returned**, with a tumor in his chest (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma). In early December we traveled to Canada, where we helped Dad and Mom and my siblings weigh this sorrow and make decisions about treatment. Dad and Mom have decided not to pursue any chemo, but simply to trust to God the number of his remaining days. Doctors predict less than six months; God knows.
It was a special privilege to spend time with Dad during this visit, joining him and Mom at the medical clinic when the results of his latest biopsy were shared, hearing stories from his boyhood days, and praying together as a family. Thanks to each of you who are praying for Dad!
Me with my parents, Ken and Elaine Gingrich.
**We remain deeply grateful for all our churchfunding supporters.** We welcome your prayers as we seek God’s light for the coming year. We want to faithfully steward this house for Jesus in 2020 and be salt and light in our community.
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight Gingrich
1. Accountant readers might notice that figure is $250 less than what I reported a year ago. That is because on December 31, 2018—after I published my 2018 year-end report—one lender changed his $250 loan into a gift. (Thanks again!) [↩](#fnref-3331-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (Audio and PDFs)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-11-27
Category: Audio Resources
Meta Title: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (Audio and PDFs) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I received encouragement to share my blog series on Jesus and homosexuality in more formats, so here are mp3 and YouTube (audio only) recordings, plus PDFs.
Tags: Jesus and homosexuality
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-audio-pdfs
**I received encouragement to share my blog series on Jesus and homosexuality in more formats, so I’ve recorded all six sessions.** Here are mp3 and YouTube (audio only) recordings, plus PDFs for downloading and sharing the series in print.
_Directions: To download an audio or PDF file, right-click the relevant link and click “save.” You can also listen online from this page._ _To see the original blog posts, click on the session titles._
To offer feedback on the content in this series, I invite you to visit the original blog posts. If you have something to say about the audio or PDF versions shared here, please comment below. Thank you!
### **Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?**
(1) [Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series](https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5/) ([PDF text](https://app.box.com/s/ipn0fe7kwynvkjruv2kchq2dv1v26f5i); [mp3 audio](https://app.box.com/s/ca23qf5air4ws6qh7yrra4ak1k7mdpag))
(2) [How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5) ([PDF text](https://app.box.com/s/dk2eqzkqwf2e4cierfuz88luu9f2g3ga); [mp3 audio](https://app.box.com/s/zzgh530zx2y3y266p3hfbs12q4b361gb))
(3) [Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5) ([PDF text](https://app.box.com/s/x4fk64k0wceb5eposheg6cn1gfhbb3vw); [mp3 audio](https://app.box.com/s/boajwhko9t8be1mqcan2uk6i2tbwrmx3))
(4) [Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5) ([PDF text](https://app.box.com/s/7lucxslivtfca1bytn5j1ecagtjj1019); [mp3 audio](https://app.box.com/s/y8d9q0mglawf7eo8d6h4v2yedxg1k966))
(5) [Historical Conclusions: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-5-of-6) ([PDF text](https://app.box.com/s/j04mjcdv7z9y1wgjgx5oel2fo73wk6o7); [mp3 audio](https://app.box.com/s/vx0enzhg2bz1efofflg2txlng64ngb6z))
(6) [Conclusions for Today: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality Now?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6) ([PDF text](https://app.box.com/s/cxzkumpiwwi3w1tr0lyf776pqoakfx4v); [mp3 audio](https://app.box.com/s/2e5s2gfxqs5p5kiafqgnen7uwq08ixm4))
* * *
_If you want to support more content like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (6 of 6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-10-14
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (6 of 6) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Must Christians today agree with the historical Jesus about homosexual activity? Does Jesus still believe the same today? What has the church believed?
Tags: D.A. | Carson, new covenant, Anthony C. | Thiselton, Martin | Luther, Menno | Simons, -, hermeneutics, resurrection, Jesus and homosexuality, African Methodist Episcopal, Asher | Witmer, Assemblies of God, Aubrey | Spears, Augustine of Hippo, biblical authority, church history, church universal, Council of Trent, Derek | DeMars, Elaine | Phillips, Emily | Hallock, epistemology, ethics, experience, Greek Orthodox, hate, heresy, heterosexuality, Hildegard of Bingen, historical Jesus, history, homosexuality, Jesus' words, John | Calvin, Ken | Brubacher, Kevin | DeYoung, love, Luke Timothy | Johnson, Matthew | Vines, Megan | Phelps-Roper, Michael | Glass, National Association of Evangelicals, Paul and homosexuality, Peter | Damian, Polycarp, Pope Gregory III, Pope Paul VI, redemptive movement, Richard B. | Hays, Robert | Gagnon, Rollin G. | Grams, Rosaria | Butterfield, S. Donald | Fortson III, Sarah | Bessey, sexual ethics, sexual orientation, sexual sin, Southern Baptist Convention, Tertullian, Thomas | Hopko, truth, vice lists, Vincent of Lerins, Westboro Baptist Church, Westminster Larger Catechism, William | Witt, William J. | Webb, Wolfhart | Pannenburg
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6
**Do Christians today need to agree with the historical Jesus on the question of homosexual activity?** In my last post I presented this conclusion: _the total available historical evidence fits only with the hypothesis that Jesus—the historical Jesus of Nazareth—did not approve of homosexual behavior._ Nearly all Christians everywhere have always believed this. But should Christians today feel bound to affirm the sexual teachings of rabbi Jesus who lived nearly 2000 years ago in ancient Judea?
Could Jesus have been mistaken about homosexuality? Hiding his true beliefs? Awaiting a time when further revelation would be possible?
**This is part of** **a six-part blog series on Jesus and homosexuality:**
1. 1. [Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5)
2. [How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5)
3. [Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5)
4. [Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5)
5. [Historical Conclusions: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-5-of-6)
6. Conclusions for Today: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality Now?
**William Witt offers an informative article about various “attempts to reconcile the endorsing of same-sex practices with the authority of Scripture.”**[1](#fn-3214-1) Witt identifies three ways people try to do this:
* The first approach (“selectivist”) argues that the Bible is mistaken on some matters that reflect ancient social values, and that the more “positive” themes in the Bible call us to embrace liberation and love.
* A second approach (“revisionist”) argues that “Scripture does not condemn loving committed same-sex relations, and loving committed relationships are the only kind of sexual relationships the modern advocate is interested in endorsing.”[2](#fn-3214-2)
* A third approach (“ecclesial dispensation”) argues that “although the Scriptures prohibit same-sex activity, nonetheless, the Church is free not to be bound by these proscriptions in the same way that it has recognized that it is not bound by other prohibitions in the Bible.”[3](#fn-3214-3)
Though I won’t follow Witt’s three categories, I will explore some of these ideas in this post.
Adapted from an image belonging to Good News Productions International and College Press Publishing, used with permission from [Free Bible Images](https://freebibleimages.org/illustrations/gnpi-063-good-shepherd/).
### Is Jesus Okay With Homosexual Activity?
**What if Jesus was indeed okay with homosexual behavior, _but could not say so because he lived in a homophobic society_?** Or, to suggest a similar possibility, **what if Jesus knew that homosexual activity was not acceptable yet, under the Law of Moses, _but would be after the new covenant was inaugurated_ by his death and resurrection?**
Jesus did indeed remain secretive about some beliefs that he knew would be explosive for his Jewish hearers. A famous example that scholars talk about is his “Messianic secret”—how the Synoptic Gospels show that Jesus avoided publicly saying that he was the Messiah. This parallel falls flat, however, for several reasons. First, Jesus clearly told his inner circle that he was the Messiah (Matt. 16:16-17). Second, even in public he used “code language” that was later understood to mean much the same thing (“Son of Man”; cf. Dan. 7:13). Neither is true, however, of any supposed secret belief of Jesus that homosexual behavior was okay.
On ethical matters, in fact, we often see Jesus openly challenging the assumptions and practices of the Jewish religious leaders. On some points he indicated they were too strict (washings before meals, Matt. 15:1-20; Sabbath laws, Matt. 12:1-8). At other times he called for greater strictness (divorce, Matt. 19:1-9; use of the temple, Matt. 21:12-17). If Jesus had thought the Jewish leaders were too legalistic (cf. Matt 23:23-24), too oppressive (cf. Matt. 23:4), or too hypocritical (cf. John 8:7) regarding their stance against homosexual activity, he could have said so.
**The same evidence weighs, too, against the idea that homosexual activity is now acceptable under Jesus’ new covenant—as if Jesus “is” okay with homosexual behavior now though he “was” not then.** Though Jesus apparently lived faithfully under the Law of Moses (cf. Rom. 15:8), he left hints that its era was almost over. He challenged the Jewish animosity toward Gentiles (Luke 4:24-28) and foretold their full inclusion (John 10:16; Matt. 28:19). His teachings laid the groundwork for eliminating at least two of the primary boundary markers of ancient Jews—food laws and the Sabbath[4](#fn-3214-4)—and his apostles soon understood that the third—circumcision—was also lifted, at least for Gentile converts.[5](#fn-3214-5) When it comes to sexual ethics, however, Jesus left no hints that they would loosen under his new covenant, and his apostles came to no such conclusions.
**When we examine Scripture as a whole, there is no trajectory from rigidity toward laxity regarding sexual ethics.** True, there is at least one OT sexual restriction that may not be in force under the new covenant—the prohibition on sex during a woman’s menstrual period (Lev. 20:18), which may have hinged on ceremonial blood taboos. And the maximum temporal penalty for sexual sin changed. Christians no longer inflict the death penalty but rather, in fulfilment of the death penalty, “hand over to Satan” those within the church who persist in unrepentant sin (1 Cor. 5:5; cf. esp. 1 Cor. 5:13 with Deut. 22:21-24).
Being handed over to Satan is arguably more serious than being put to death, however, and the general pattern of the NT is that sexual sin is taken even more seriously than in the OT. Jesus racheted up sexual standards regarding lust (Matt. 5:27-30) and returned the question of divorce to its creation pattern (Matt. 19:1-9). The OT pattern of God largely overlooking polygamy is challenged in the NT, so that being a “one-woman man” is now the standard for a godly man (1 Tim. 3:2).[6](#fn-3214-6)
Jesus’ apostles repeatedly warned against all sorts of sexual activity outside of male-female monogamous marriage. DeYoung makes this point clearly:
> **It cannot be overstated how seriously the Bible treats the sin of sexual immorality.** Sexual sin is never considered _adiaphora_, a matter of indifference, an agree-to-disagree issue like food laws or holy days (Rom. 14:1–15:7). To the contrary, sexual immorality is precisely the sort of sin that characterizes those who will not enter the kingdom of heaven. There are at least eight vice lists in the New Testament (Mark 7:21–22; Rom. 1:24–31; 13:13; 1Cor. 6:9–10; Gal. 5:19–21; Col. 3:5–9; 1Tim. 1:9–10; Rev. 21:8), and sexual immorality is included in every one of these. In fact, in seven of the eight lists there are multiple references to sexual immorality (e.g., impurity, sensuality, orgies, men who practice homosexuality), and in most of the passages some kind of sexual immorality heads the lists. [7](#fn-3214-7)
**The pattern regarding homosexual activity in particular is similar.** William Webb, in his influential book _Slaves, Women & Homosexuals_, suggests eighteen criteria for determining whether a given teaching of Scripture should be applied at “face value” or whether it needs to be reinterpreted through a “redemptive-movement framework” before we can apply it correctly in our own culture. He argues that, when it comes to slavery, there is a trajectory within the Bible toward greater redemption—a trajectory that should make “the abolition of slavery and its many related injustices… a passionate value of modern Christians.”[8](#fn-3214-8) Similarly, he argues that the biblical witness regarding women nudges us away from the “hard” forms of patriarchy seen at places in the OT toward a “complementary egalitarian” approach.[9](#fn-3214-9)
Regarding homosexual activity, however, Webb sees no such trajectory. This is what he does see:
> Biblical tradition moved the cultural norms on homosexuality from a significant amount of tolerance and acceptance to non-tolerance and non-acceptance within the covenant community… Scripture thus sets a clear direction… on the homosexual issue… **When one comes to the New Testament, there is no softening of the Scripture’s negative assessment of homosexuality found in the Old Testament**… [10](#fn-3214-10)
>
> The women texts, like the slavery texts, are generally “less restrictive” or “softening” relative to the broader culture, while the homosexuality texts are “more restrictive” or “hardening” relative to the surrounding environment… [11](#fn-3214-11)
>
> We have no biblical texts that suggest that “there is neither homosexual nor heterosexual in Christ.” **Nor do we find any biblical text that suggests that homosexuality might be acceptable in some form or another**… [12](#fn-3214-12)
>
> **Virtually all of the criteria applicable to the issue suggest to varying degrees that the biblical prohibitions regarding homosexuality, even within a covenant form, should be maintained today.** There is no significant dissonance within the biblical data. [13](#fn-3214-13)
Webb’s explanation of _why_ the biblical writers opposed homosexual behavior is also worth noting. Their basic reason does not permit any ethical change or development:
> The issue that the biblical writers have with homosexuality is not really about covenant or the lack of it; it is not really about the equality or lack of equality between the two individuals. The deepest issue for the biblical authors was the breaking of sexual boundaries between male and female. **Until God redesigns the physical/sexual construction of male and female, this distinction or boundary continues to influence our contemporary world**. [14](#fn-3214-14)
**Some claim that “sexual orientation is a new concept, one the Christian tradition hasn’t addressed,” and that Paul “doesn’t have long-term, loving same-sex relationships in view.”**[15](#fn-3214-15) Therefore, it is argued, the Bible does not speak directly to our modern homosexual experience. But “Paul witnessed around him _both_ abusive relationships of power or money _and_ examples of ‘genuine love’ between males.”[16](#fn-3214-16) He also, like other ancient writers of the time, was familiar with what we today call homosexual orientation. Ancient explanations for the causes of sexual orientation were varied and debated, underscoring that the concept itself was well known.
Forston and Grams present abundant historical evidence for the following claim:
> **Scholars who contended several decades ago that only in modern times did people discover the concept of orientation have been proven wrong, as the evidence has accumulated over time…** There are clear examples of adult males and females involved in homosexual relationships in antiquity. These people did not just perform homosexual acts. Their passionate love of one another, their long-term same-sex desire, and even, on occasion, their marriage or cohabitation with one another are discussed in the sources we have. There is, in short, nothing distinct about contemporary conversations concerning homosexual orientation.[17](#fn-3214-17)
And again, even if sexual orientation were a new idea, the basic issue the biblical writers had with homosexual behavior (“the breaking of sexual boundaries between male and female”) does not allow for any such loopholes or future ethical development.
**The pattern of biblical evidence is consistent and strong:** _Neither Jesus nor any biblical author imagined that any form of homosexual behavior is ever ethical. Nor did they leave any clues hinting that they imagined it would ever become acceptable in some future context. **In short, it is contrary to the biblical witness to propose that Jesus is okay with homosexual behavior today.**_
### **Must We Agree With Jesus?**
**This, then, is the crucial question: Must Christians agree with Jesus about homosexual behavior?** Amazingly, an increasing number of professing Christians are answering _no_.
A variety of explanations are offered. Many, such as Roman Catholic NT professor Luke Timothy Johnson, note that Christians have never followed Jesus perfectly in other matters—so why make such a fuss about not following what he said about homosexual behavior?
> Christianity as actually practiced has never lived in precise accord with the Scriptures. War stands in tension with Jesus’ command of nonviolence, while divorce, even under another name (annulment), defies Jesus’ clear prohibition.[18](#fn-3214-18)
Such an argument is embarrassingly fatalistic. Why not try to obey _all_ of Jesus’ teachings (Matt. 28:20) instead?
Some argue that Jesus was just plain wrong—that he was “a product of his time and his culture” who was “conditioned to believe that Gentiles were dogs” (Matt. 15:22-26).[19](#fn-3214-19) The Gospels do indeed contain hints that there were limits on the earthly Jesus’ knowledge, such as Jesus’ statement that he didn’t know the time of his own coming (Matt. 24:36). But there are no hints that anyone—Jesus, his apostles, or the Gospel writers—believed that Jesus’ ethical teaching was fallible. On the contrary, the risen Jesus insisted that his apostles must teach “all nations… all that I have commanded”—and this because he possessed “all authority” (Matt. 28:18-20).
**Once Jesus is seen as fallible on matters of ethics, then other authorities are given the deciding vote.** Many appeal to experience—whether human experience or what they consider to be their experience of God’s Spirit speaking a new word. L.T. Johnson again:
> I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us…
>
> If the letter of Scripture cannot find room for the activity of the living God in the transformation of human lives, then trust and obedience must be paid to the living God rather than to the words of Scripture.[20](#fn-3214-20)
Such an approach pits “the living God” against Jesus. It is hard to square with the author of Hebrew’s foundational claim that “in these last days he \[God\] has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb. 1:2). Worse, it runs aground on Jesus’ own claim:
> The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; **the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day**. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but **the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak**. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. (John 12:48-50)
**It is Jesus’ own word (including his word on adultery_, πορνεία, and ἀσέλγεια_) that will judge us on the last day**—the word he spoke by command of the eternal Father—not some subsequent word that someone professes hearing from the Spirit.
Richard Hays, in _The Moral Vision of the New Testament_, draws “implications for Christian ethics” from on the life and teachings of the historical Jesus:
> If God really did raise Jesus from the dead, everything that Jesus taught and exemplified is vindicated by a God more powerful than death. **He must therefore be seen as the bearer of the truth and the definitive paradigm for obedience to God**.[21](#fn-3214-21)
**At this point I cannot help slipping briefly into preacher mode:**
_Know that if you reject the historical, biblical Jesus to create a Jesus of your own imagination, then you have also forfeited the historical, biblical salvation and must create one on your own._
_But how can you be sure you have the real Jesus if you have adapted his portrait in the Gospels to suit the winds of the twenty-first century? And how can you be confident of real salvation unless you have submitted to the real Jesus?_
_Do not attempt to fashion your own Jesus unless you are confident you can also fashion your own salvation. Do not reject the terms for eternal life that the biblical Jesus laid out unless you are ready to forfeit the eternal life he offered. Do not imagine you can claim the love the historical Jesus offered unless you are willing to enter through the narrow gate he described. Do not imagine you can change his paradigms of love and truth and still enter his kingdom._
_History matters. Who Jesus really was and what he really taught, as preserved the very best historical accounts we possess—the documents of the New Testament—is eternally crucial. On the last day, you will not stand before a Jesus of your own imagination. You will stand before the same Jesus who walked Judea and Galilee in the first century, and you will be judged by the word that he spoke then, not by some revision of that word that you now prefer._
_If you think you are wiser than the ancient, historic, narrow-minded Jewish Jesus of the Gospels, then he will be too wise accept you into his kingdom. If you reject the ethics of the Jesus who rose from the dead, then don’t imagine he will grant you the privilege of sharing in his resurrection._
_If you come to the historical, biblical Jesus only to deny who he really was before the world around you, then the historical, biblical Jesus will deny you before his Father on the last day._
_But if you come to the real Jesus on his terms, submitting to his historical portrait in the Gospels, the you will find the real Jesus immeasurably meek and gentle of heart, with a welcome warmer than you could ever hope for, a love greater than any of us deserve._
**Yes, we must agree with Jesus. If our Christianity is not rooted in history, then it has no future, either.**
### **What, Then, Is the Loving Thing To Do?**
**It is clear to me that history and theology agree: we are building with straw if we argue that Christians today can rightly affirm homosexual activity.** Historical evidence shows that Jesus did not affirm homosexual behavior and that the pattern of Scripture consistently contradicts it. And from a theological perspective, the words of Jesus (preserved in historical accounts) do not allow us to affirm what he denied. Jesus’ own theological understanding of his own authority forces any honest follower of his to stay true to the ethics he taught.
What, then, should a faithful follower of Jesus do? I suggest two responses.
**First, we should hold fast to what followers of Jesus have always believed about homosexual behavior.** Here the book [_Unchanging Witness_](https://amzn.to/2OJLsFR) by Fortson and Grams is incredibly helpful. They devote 137 pages to discussing what the church from start to present has taught about homosexuality. Nearly half those pages consist of lengthy quotes from primary sources. (To read excerpts from those quotes, [**see the appendix at the end of this post**](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6/#appendix).)
Given the evidence from church history, Fortson and Grams are well able to make the following claims:
> Both the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of Christian tradition have uniformly taught the same thing: homosexual practice is sinful. We agree with Saint Vincent of Lerins (AD 434) in his approach to determining heresy in the church. Heresy is that which is neither biblical nor universally taught… We believe the evidence is clear: **both Scripture and the church universal (“everywhere, always, by all”) have taught that homosexual practice is sin. Those who teach otherwise are teaching heresy….**
>
> The issue is not, after all, whether the Bible addresses homosexual practice: it does. It is not whether diverse interpretations on this issue have existed in the history of the church: they have not…. Both Scripture and the church have clearly and consistently said the same thing. **The issue comes down to this: the authority of Scripture and the relevance of the church’s teaching….** That is the point at which some in the church in the West are dividing from the rest of the church universal, from the teaching of the church in other centuries, and from what must indeed be considered the teaching of all Christians.[22](#fn-3214-22)
**“The teaching of all Christians?” From within the echo chamber of our own generation such a statement can sound jarring and unbelievable.** Isolated individual congregations and church leaders have occasionally publicly affirmed homosexuality for over a century. Now non-denominational pro-gay organizations are multiplying within Western churches, even within evangelical ones. A growing list of self-professed or former evangelicals have come out in support of homosexual relationships as well—people such as Matthew Vines, Justin Lee, Mark Achtemeier, Jim Wallis, David Gushee, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Danny Cortez, Jen Hatmaker, Rachel Held Evans, Joshua Harris, and more.
Yet the fact remains that only a tiny minority of today’s professing Christians belong to denominations that affirm homosexual behavior. According to the best evidence I can find, not until about the past fifty years did _any_ denomination _ever_ affirm homosexual behavior. The Metropolitan Community Church began in 1968 specifically around the cause of affirming homosexuality and “is comprised mostly of former Protestants and Catholics who could not find affirmation of their gay lifestyle in traditional Christian churches.”[23](#fn-3214-23)
In the early 1970s, a growing number of leaders in many mainline Protestant denominations began bucking the official positions of their denominations by blessing gay ordination or same-sex unions. Not until 1978, however, did the United Presbyterian Church in the USA (today part of PCUSA) officially welcome practicing gays and lesbians into church membership, while still restricting them from ordination.[24](#fn-3214-24) Not until 1985 did the General Synod of the United Church of Christ adopt an “Open and Affirming” resolution on homosexuality.[25](#fn-3214-25) As recently as 1991 the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America “reaffirmed its historic position on gay ordination,” and not until 2005 was the denomination suspended from the larger Anglican Church because they persisted in including “sexually active homosexuals in all ministries of the church.”[26](#fn-3214-26) Only in 2007 did the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American “finally” encourage its leaders not to discipline ministers who were in a “mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship.”[27](#fn-3214-27) The United Methodist Church is currently badly torn over the issue of homosexual relationships, but still today their official denominational position is that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”[28](#fn-3214-28)
German theologian [Wolfhart Pannenburg](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/09/07/wolfhart-pannenberg-1928-2014/) warned in 1996 that **any church that would cease “to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm…** would stand no longer on biblical grounds but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture.” It “**would cease to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church**.”[29](#fn-3214-29)
Panneburg’s claim is, on a quantitative level, simply true, whether measured by the church of the past or the present. The vast majority of Christians alive today, especially in places where Christianity is growing fastest, strongly affirm the Church’s historic position on homosexual behavior.
Will this consensus hold? I do not know. But even if it doesn’t, we will always have the witness of nearly 2000 years of church history. Rightly or wrongly, the Church has argued for centuries over questions such as the authority of the Pope, infant baptism, whether Christians can use the sword, gender roles in the church, interpretations of biblical prophecy, and even the humanity and divinity of Jesus. But almost none of these same Christians ever had a moment’s difficulty understanding God’s will regarding homosexual behavior.
**The historic rejection by Christians of homosexual activity has been consistent and uncompromising. The historic responses of professing Christians to homosexual behavior, however, have varied.** They range from the utterly tragic—castration or even at times death—to the exemplary—such as some pastoral advice found in modern Roman Catholic and Orthodox sources.
As an example of the latter, consider these words from Orthodox theologican Thomas Hopko:
> The homosexual Christian is called to a particularly rigorous battle. His or her struggle is an especially ferocious one. It is not made any easier by the mindless, truly demonic hatred of those who despise and ridicule those who carry this painful and burdensome cross; nor by the mindless, equally demonic affirmation of homosexual activity by its misguided advocates and enablers.[30](#fn-3214-30)
Hopko’s words lead naturally to my second suggested response for those who want to follow Jesus.
**Second, we should offer “truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) about homosexuality to our neighbor.** Here is Webb again:
> **So the real question is, what is the loving thing to do?** If a particular behavior incites God’s anger to the point where habitual participants are susceptible to banishment from his kingdom, then what is the loving thing to do? In this case, it should be obvious. The loving thing to do would be to rescue the individual from destruction (negatively) and to invite them into the glorious kingdom of Christ (positively). The continued practice of bestiality and adultery, as with sustained homosexual activity, places one’s participation in the kingdom at risk… If some action… has the potential for kingdom banishment, let alone divine displeasure, then loving my neighbor becomes a painful and tension-charged action. Silence is not love. A “live and let live” distancing is not love. **Loving one’s neighbor in this instance means caring for their entire well being—temporal and beyond—even if such an act of interactive love has an extremely painful and straining side**.[31](#fn-3214-31)
In that vein, I want to end with a handful of pastoral comments followed by a list of additional resources.
**Pastoral comment #1: If you experience same-sex desires and perhaps have even been acting on them, know this: Jesus loves you!** He, too, battled the weakness of his own human flesh (Matt. 26:41; Luke 22:44). He knows your longing for intimate relationship. You are not alone. You are not less-than. Jesus wants you to experience his love. If this is a message you long to hear, please **listen to the conversation my friend Asher Witmer recently had with his new friend Ken Brubacher, titled [“Does Jesus Love Homosexuals?”](https://www.asherwitmer.com/episode-005-does-jesus-love-homosexuals/)** Prepare to be encouraged as Ken tells his story of being transformed by Jesus’ love!
**Pastoral comment #2: “Getting saved” from homosexuality is not the same as becoming heterosexual.** Heterosexuals need saving just as surely as homosexuals do. The creation standard for ethical sex is not merely heterosexual orientation, nor even loving heterosexual relationships, but monogamous, loving, till-death-do-us-part heterosexual marriage—and almost every post-puberty person alive has fallen short. Further, “getting saved” from homosexuality does not necessarily or merely mean achieving a heterosexual orientation. Rather, as with people of all sexual experiences, it means living in line with Paul’s bracing and comforting words: “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (1 Cor. 6:13).
**Pastoral comment #3: Each of us must settle this question in our minds: Who or what do I trust as my basis for determining truth?** If I live by the “truth” of my body, I will sacrifice the Lord. If I live by the truth of the Lord, I will present my body as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). If I live by the “truth” of my body—that wondrous, insatiable, selfish, sickly sack of fickle, fading flesh—my actions will declare that I do not believe the Lord’s promise of eternally glorious resurrection bodies for his children. If I live by the truth of the Lord and his resurrection promise, I will plant my current dying body as a seed in the ground, confident it will spring up as a glorious, imperishable, powerful body when Jesus returns (1 Cor. 15:35-55). Which do you trust? Your body? Or the Lord? The wonderful Christian hope is that, if you trust the Lord, you will find that the Lord is indeed “for the body” (1 Cor. 6:13).
**Pastoral comment #4: Church, if your evangelistic message is “God hates you,” then your message is not God’s message.** If your opening salvo to people with same-sex desires is “God hates fags,”[32](#fn-3214-32) then please don’t claim Jesus’ blessing when you are “hated by all” (Matt. 10:22). We read of Jesus that “sinners were all drawing near to hear him” (Luke 15:1)—this even as he called them to repentance (Luke 5:32). Eventually most sinners rejected Jesus, but not before many of them had been drawn by his loving invitation. Similarly Paul warned clearly of wrath to come, but emphasized that God’s present stance toward sinners is one of “kindness” (Rom. 2:4-5).[33](#fn-3214-33) God’s children should be rich in kindness, too!
**Finally, here are some additional resources on homosexuality that Christians (or those exploring Christianity) may find helpful.** Some deal mostly with biblical exegesis, some more with pastoral issues, and some with both.
* **“The Great Exchange: Same-Sex Attraction,” an excellent overview sermon by Aubrey Spears ([audio](http://clovermedia.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/store/61a3864b-19b0-4ed1-a47c-4f3d1422ce2b/7572d4795b/audio.mp3); [manuscript with notes](https://clovermedia.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/7572d4795b/attachments/Great_Exchange__The__Incarnation__2018.pdf)).** This mixes exegetical and pastoral concerns well. See also “Male and Female He Created Them: Gender and Gender Dysphoria ([audio](http://clovermedia.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/store/61a3864b-19b0-4ed1-a47c-4f3d1422ce2b/af1361a4bf/audio.mp3); [manuscript](https://clovermedia.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/af1361a4bf/attachments/Gender_and_Gender_Dysphoria__Incarnation__2018.pdf)), both part of Spears’ series “[A Better Story: God, Sex, and Human Flourishing](https://theincarnation.org/sermons-and-resources/sermons?).”
* **“[The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues](https://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/Political%20Correctness/The%20Bible%20and%20Homos.pdf),” an interview with Robert Gagnon, one of the foremost experts on homosexuality and the Bible.** Gagnon has written perhaps [the standard scholarly book](https://amzn.to/2MJoBYu) on the topic, and [his website is full of helpful resources](http://robgagnon.net/). (Caveat: Though Gagnon’s scholarship is invaluable, I do not always affirm his tone or his politics.)
* **[Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition](https://amzn.to/2ILvxTJ), a recent book by Donald S. Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams that I read as my primary preparation for this series.** It is solid on biblical exegesis and ancient historical contexts but especially fills a gap by surveying the witness of the church throughout history.
* **[What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?](https://amzn.to/33olkEk), a more accessible but still solid book by Kevin DeYoung.** Here is [a video of a sermon by DeYoung](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy2NQdSdrrI) on the same topic.
* “**[Thinking Biblically About Homosexual Practice](https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/03-leviticus/text/articles/Phillips_Biblicaltextshomosexuality.htm),” a concise talk by Dr. Elaine Phillips at Gordon College, MA.** Easy to read. Compassionate. Both exegetical and pastoral.
* **“[A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/practical-issues/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality/),” an article by William Lane Craig.** This is a good addition to this list for two reasons: (a) it includes a philosophical discussion of finding the basis of right and wrong, and (b) it surveys recent medical evidence of the damaging effects of homosexual lifestyles.
* **“[The Hermeneutics of Same-Sex Practice: A Summary and Evaluation](http://willgwitt.org/hermeneutics_of_same-sex_practice/),” an article by William G. Witt.** This is a bit dense, but is a helpful analysis of some ways that people try to deal with biblical evidence while affirming homosexual practice.
* **[The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith](https://amzn.to/2Mc2zOV), a book by Rosaria C. Butterfield.** I found this autobiography (by a former lesbian) moving and insightful. Here is an interview with Butterfield (“[Should Evangelicals Evolve on Homosexuality?](https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-evangelicals-evolve-on-homosexuality)“) that is also helpful. \[2024 Edit: Recently some have expressed concern that Butterfield has misrepresented Preston Sprinkle on this topic. I am not informed enough to give my own perspective. Either way, Butterfield's autobiography remains valuable.\]
* [Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God, A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope](https://amzn.to/2BkCp6t)**, by Christopher Yuan (son) and Angela Yuan (mother)**, is another moving and biblically-faithful autobiography. I have not yet read is [Gay Girl, Good God](https://amzn.to/2IN25MR), by Jackie Hill Perry, but have heard it is good.
* **“[A Gospel for Failures,](https://mattmoore.online/2019/09/09/a-gospel-for-failures/)” an article by Matt Moore, written after he left his gay lifestyle and just before he married John Piper’s daughter last month.** “Humility requires that I not seek to make myself look better than Jonathan Merritt described me in the Washington Post, because the truth is that the public doesn’t know the half of how sinful I am….I will, however, defend the truth of the gospel. “
* “**[The Powerful Witness of Same-Sex Attracted Christians](https://www.plough.com/en/topics/community/church-community/a-man-of-honor),” an article by Emily Hallock.** “People with same-sex attraction who want to follow Jesus may be among the most important witnesses of our time. They are taking a brave, uncompromising stand for the gospel that requires great personal sacrifice…. The church needs to be there for people like my dad.”
I’m sure I’ve skipped some of your favorite resources, but I wanted to keep this list short and mostly limited to resources I’ve personally used.
### Conclusion
**My main goal in writing these posts has been simple but crucial: to convince readers that agreeing with Jesus and affirming homosexual behavior are incompatible.** I believe it is intellectually inconsistent and disastrous to the church of Jesus to try to combine the two.
**I think you need to make a choice, and I hope with all my heart that you choose Jesus.**
**The burden that drove me to write this series has been delivered.** Where my words have been imperfect, I ask for grace from you and from God. **If you have something to add, please share it in the comments below.**
May the grace of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be with each of you. _And may our churches become places where those with homosexual desires find a feast of love and truth!_
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
* * *
### **Appendix:
****Witnesses From the Historic Church**
**The following quotes are an extremely small representation of the evidence shared by Fortson and Grams in their book _Unchanging Witness_.** They also provide counter-evidence to claims that medieval vows of spiritual friendship effectively sanctioned homosexual unions.[34](#fn-3214-34)
> Neither fornicators nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God. (Polycarp, _Letter to the Philippians_ 5, ca. 155, quoting Paul)
>
> I should suppose the coupling of two males to be a very shameful thing. (Tertullian, _Against the Valentinians_ 11, ca. 200)
>
> Offenses which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites…. Divine law… hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. (Augustine, _Confessions_ 3.8, 397)
>
> If any ordained person has been defiled with the crime of sodomy… let him do penance for ten years, according to the ancient rule. (Pope Gregory III, _Penitential Regulation_, ca. 731-41)
>
> If blasphemy is the worst \[crime\], I do not know in what way sodomy is better…. While the sons of Israel were led into captivity for blaspheming God and worshipping idols, the Sodomites perished in heavenly fire and sulphur. (Peter Damian, _Book of Gomorrah_, ca. 1048-54)
>
> A man who sins with another man as if with a woman sins bitterly against God and against the union with which God united male and female… And a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight, and so is she who subjects herself to such a one in this evil deed. (Hildegard of Bingen, _Scivias_ 2.6, 1179)
>
> They \[Sodom and Gomorrah\] departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan… (Martin Luther, “Lecture on Genesis,” ca. 1535-45)
>
> Thus it is written by Paul: …Adulterers, whoremongers, perverts, effeminate… will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they repent. (Menno Simons, _The New Birth_, 1537)
>
> He \[Paul\] brings as the first example, the dreadful crime of unnatural lust… they not only abandoned themselves to beastly lusts, but became degraded beyond the beast, since they reversed the whole order of nature…. Paul… calls those disgraceful passions, which… redound to the dishonouring of God. (John Calvin, _Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans_, 1540)
>
> Divine law… excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind… and all others who commit deadly sins. (_Council of Trent_, 6th Session, XV, 1545-63)
>
> The seventh commandment forbids: adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy and all unnatural desires. (_Westminster Larger Catechism_, 1648)
>
> In Sacred Scripture they \[homosexual relations\] are… presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God… This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved. (_Persona Humana_, 1975, approved by Pope Paul VI)
>
> The position of the Orthodox Church toward homosexuality has been expressed… beginning with the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life…. The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality should be treated by society as an immoral and dangerous perversion and by religion as a sinful failure. (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, 1976)
>
> The moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior in the Old Testament are pointedly repeated in the New Testament… We must hold no malice toward, nor fear of, homosexuals—such attitudes are not of Christ. At the same time we must not condone sexual behavior that God has defined as sinful. (Assemblies of God, 2001)
>
> As black preachers, we are progressive in our social consciousness, and in our political ideology as an oppressed people we will often be against the status quo, but our first call is to hear the voice of God in our Scriptures, and where an issue clearly contradicts our understanding of Scripture, we have to apply that understanding. (Gregory G. Groover Sr., African Methodist Episcopal pastor in Boston, [explaining why AME preachers had just voted](https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-african-methodist-episcopal-church) at the AME national convention in 2004 to forbid ministers from performing marriage or civil union ceremonies for same-sex couples)
>
> Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and other passages throughout the Bible specifically identify homosexual behavior as sinful… In this area of our lives \[moral purity\] as in all others, God call\[s\] us to be obedient to his revealed moral rules, in no small part because these moral laws are given for our own good. (National Association of Evangelicals, 2012, [still current](https://nae.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Theology-of-Sex.pdf))
>
> The sacrament of marriage consists in the union of a man and a woman…. Acting upon any sexual attraction outside of sacramental marriage, whether the attraction is heterosexual or homosexual, alienates us from God. (Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States, 2013)
>
> Homosexuality is not a “valid alternative lifestyle.” The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ. (Southern Baptist Convention, [current undated](http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp))
1. William G. Witt, “The Hermeneutics of Same-Sex Practice: A Summary and Evaluation,” online article, [Mar. 4](https://www.esv.org/Mar.%204/), 2012, [http://willgwitt.org/hermeneutics\_of\_same-sex\_practice/](http://willgwitt.org/hermeneutics_of_same-sex_practice/), accessed Oct. 5, 2019. [↩](#fnref-3214-1)
2. Witt, ibid. [↩](#fnref-3214-2)
3. Witt, ibid. [↩](#fnref-3214-3)
4. Jesus’ teaching about what does and does not defile a person effectively eliminated the Jewish category of unclean foods (Mark 7:19), and he proclaimed himself lord of the Sabbath, thus establishing a basis for understanding it as fulfilled in himself rather than in a weekly day of rest (Mark 2:27-28). [↩](#fnref-3214-4)
5. A few people argue that Jesus himself made a subtle hint that circumcision was ending. Carson: “Jesus’ healing of the whole man… becomes a fulfilment of Old Testament circumcision” (D. A. Carson, _The Gospel according to John_, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991, 316). Glass argues this point more forcefully (and questionably): “John’s Gospel attacks circumcision in three ways. It contrasts Jesus’ healing, which makes a man every bit whole, with circumcision, which chops a bit off. It downgrades circumcision from a command of God to a practice of the ancestors. It does so in the Greek language and therefore in a cultural setting that saw circumcision as an obscene mutilation” (Michael Glass, “The New Testament and Circumcision,” Oct. 2001, Circumcision Information and Resources Page, [http://cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass1/](http://cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass1/), accessed Oct. 5, 2019). What is clear is that Jesus’ apostles soon came to understand that mandating circumcision for Gentiles was contrary to Jesus’ new covenant (Acts 15; Gal. 5:2-12; 1Cor. 7:18; cf. Rom. 2:29; 4:11-12). [↩](#fnref-3214-5)
6. I doubt this requirement was aimed in a limited way against polygamy, but it almost certainly was assumed to include it. [↩](#fnref-3214-6)
7. Kevin DeYoung, _What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?_ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway),74, emphasis added. DeYoung’s book is an excellent popular-level book, readable and based on good scholarship. [↩](#fnref-3214-7)
8. William J. Webb, _Slaves, Women & Homosexuality: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 247. [↩](#fnref-3214-8)
9. Ibid., 250. While I question some of Webb’s assessments and conclusions, especially regarding the “women” part of his topic, his book is a stimulating and valuable read. [↩](#fnref-3214-9)
10. Ibid., 82, emphasis added. Note: I wish Webb would have distinguished here between (a) people who experience homosexual desire and (b) homosexual activity in these statements. Elsewhere he clearly discusses how Christians must have “compassion for those who struggle with homosexual feelings and behavior” (Ibid., 252). [↩](#fnref-3214-10)
11. Ibid., 83 [↩](#fnref-3214-11)
12. Ibid., 88, n. 36, emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3214-12)
13. Ibid., 250, emphasis added. Webb says other things also worth noting: “While the garden” of Eden “presents sexuality (monogamous heterosexuality) as normative, no one would use this pattern to condemn sexual abstinence… But to argue for homosexuality from these abstinence cases (as some do) produces a considerable leap in logic. It is one thing to abstain from heterosexual relationships; it is quite another to find sexual fulfillment through means outside of heterosexual relationships. Abstinence cases break from creation pattern, but they do so by _limiting_ one’s sexual fulfillment. Homosexual cases break from the creation pattern by _broadening_ the scope of one’s sexual fulfillment (as bestiality would broaden one’s sexual fulfillment options beyond the creation pattern),” p. 132. “Alternative options” to monogamous heterosexual marriage “existed in the surrounding cultures, and a negative assessment of the practice” of homosexuality “by biblical authors sets up dissonance with the acceptance of the practice by many in other cultures. This increases the possibility that the author of Genesis understood the creation story as a statement about normative sexual patterns being heterosexual,” p. 133. “The concern with homosexuality was much broader than simply a violation of covenant or simply an issue of the participant’s passive/active status… With bestiality, as with homosexuality, one is breaking the ‘boundaries’ of biological design and sexual order. Reproduction of species does not take place between and animal and a human; nor does it take place between two humans of the same sex. With bestiality one crosses the boundary between human and animal; in the act of homosexuality one breaks the structural boundaries between male and female. It is also these boundary lines, not covenant, which were important in the incest laws,” pp. 177-78. “At most, homosexuality advocates have demonstrated that _some_ features of biblical sexuality are cultural,” such as semen-emission and menstrual intercourse laws. “Their case would have been much stronger if they had demonstrated through ‘closely related issues’ that certain components of a biblical development of ‘homosexuality’ (not just ‘sexuality’) were cultural. Thus the one-category-removed approach makes the homosexual case extremely weak. Ultimately, it is not persuasive,” p. 171. “The continued survival of a species depends upon heterosexual activity. This is why homosexuality remains an anomaly within any species where survival is viewed as a good value,” p. 217. ” [↩](#fnref-3214-13)
14. , Ibid., 200, emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3214-14)
15. “A Brief Biblical Case for LGBTQ Inclusion,” online article, The Reformation Project, founded by Matthew Vines, [https://www.reformationproject.org/biblical-case](https://www.reformationproject.org/biblical-case), accessed Oct. 6, 2019. [↩](#fnref-3214-15)
16. Anthony C. Thiselton, _The First Epistle to the Corinthians_, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 452. Here is a fuller quote: “Many also argue that abusive pederasty was the standard form in which Paul encountered male intimacy. But Wolff shows that this is far from the case. Paul witnessed around him _both_ abusive relationships of power or money _and_ examples of ‘genuine love’ between males.” [↩](#fnref-3214-16)
17. Fortson and Grams, ibid., 304, 312, bold added. [↩](#fnref-3214-17)
18. Luke Timothy Johnson, “Homosexuality & The Church: Scripture & Experience,” online article, Commonweal Magazine, June 11, 2007, https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/homosexuality-church-0, accessed Oct. 5, 2019. Johnson’s later comparison of homosexuality with slavery also falls flat given the observations of Webb summarized above; there is a trajectory in Scripture away from the heartless forms of slavery accepted in the cultures around God’s people toward an ethic that commands masters to treat slaves as they would want to be treated themselves, but there is no such trajectory in Scripture toward affirming homosexual activity in any form. [↩](#fnref-3214-18)
19. Sarah Bessey, “Penny in the Air: My Story of Becoming Affirming,” blog post, June 5, 2019, [https://sarahbessey.com/penny-in-the-air-my-story-of-becoming-affirming/](https://sarahbessey.com/penny-in-the-air-my-story-of-becoming-affirming/), accessed Oct. 5, 2019. A much better explanation of this account in Matthew 15 is offered by Derek DeMars: “As interpreters have long pointed out, Jesus’ words to the woman are tinged with irony. He was speaking (as wisdom-teachers of the time often did) with a challenge or riddle intended to draw wisdom out of the other person. That’s why his final response to the woman is, ‘Because you have answered this way…’ (Mark 7:29). He was testing her.” Derek DeMars, “Was Jesus a Bigot? A Response to Sarah Bessey on Affirming Homosexuality,” blog post, Aug. 13, 2019, [https://derekdemars.com/2019/08/13/was-jesus-a-bigot-prejudice-and-homosexuality/](https://derekdemars.com/2019/08/13/was-jesus-a-bigot-prejudice-and-homosexuality/), accessed Oct. 5, 2019. [↩](#fnref-3214-19)
20. Luke Timothy Johnson, ibid. Bessey gives a similar role to experience in her narrative of how she came to affirm homosexuality. She tells of her relationship with a woman who prayed for her, comparing her own change of understanding to that of Peter with Cornelius: “Eventually I learned that in addition to being a powerful and mighty woman of God, in addition to being an anointed pastor, in addition to being a devoted follower of Jesus, in addition to being kind and bold, faithful and content, funny and compassionate and godly, she was also a lesbian. **And just like that, the penny dropped.** All the study, all the footnotes, all the scholars, went from being a jumble of intellectual opinions to a lived experience in one encounter with the Holy Spirit alongside a beloved sister in Christ” (Sarah Bessey, ibid., emphasis in original). [↩](#fnref-3214-20)
21. Richard B. Hays, _The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics_ (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1996), Kindle Edition, location 4692. [↩](#fnref-3214-21)
22. Fortson and Grams, ibid., 3-5. Bold added. [↩](#fnref-3214-22)
23. Fortson and Grams, ibid., 11. [↩](#fnref-3214-23)
24. Ibid., 156. [↩](#fnref-3214-24)
25. Ibid., 144. [↩](#fnref-3214-25)
26. Ibid., 149-51. [↩](#fnref-3214-26)
27. Ibid., 154. [↩](#fnref-3214-27)
28. “2016 Book of Discipline,” United Methodist Church, shared on the official denominational website, [http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-denominations-position-on-homosexuality](http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-denominations-position-on-homosexuality), accessed Oct. 13, 2019. [↩](#fnref-3214-28)
29. “What Wolfhart Pannenburg Says About This Debate in the Church,” Christianity Today, November 11, 1996, 37, emphasis added. Quoted by Fortson and Grams, ibid., 162-63. [↩](#fnref-3214-29)
30. Thomas Hopko, “The Homosexual Christian,” Orthodox Church in America, [https://www.oca.org/reflections/misc-authors/the-homosexual-christian](https://www.oca.org/reflections/misc-authors/the-homosexual-christian), accessed Oct. 7, 2019. Here is another helpful example, this time Roman Catholic, shared by Fortson and Grams: “While the church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, _Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care_, 2006). [↩](#fnref-3214-30)
31. Webb, ibid., 183, bold added. [↩](#fnref-3214-31)
32. This, of course, is the message that Westboro Baptist Church famously declares, and even the URL for their church website: [https://godhatesfags.com/](https://godhatesfags.com/). A (former) insider’s view of this church is available through the recent book _Unfollow:_ _A Memoir of Loving and Leaving the Westboro Baptist Church_, by Megan Phelps-Roper. You can [read an excerpt here](https://us.macmillan.com/excerpt?isbn=9780374275839). I have not read the whole book. [↩](#fnref-3214-32)
33. It is true, properly understood, that God hates not only sin but also people who persist in sin (Ps. 5:4-6; 7:11-12; etc.). But nowhere in Scripture do we see this message proclaimed in evangelism. The evangelistic message of the early church was not that God hates sinners, but that God desires “to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness” (Acts 3:26). “The Lord… is patient… not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). [↩](#fnref-3214-33)
34. All but two of the following quotes come from S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, _Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition_ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 27-163. The exceptions are the AME quote (which Fortson and Grams summarize) and the SBC quote (not included in their three pages of SBC quotes). [↩](#fnref-3214-34)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (5 of 6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-10-07
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (5 of 6) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Did Jesus say some people are born gay? Did he heal a centurion's male lover? And what about Jesus and his "beloved disciple"?
Tags: divorce, R.T. | France, Craig | Blomberg, creation, D.A. | Carson, Donald A. | Hagner, Craig S. | Keener, -, Christocentric, Ulrich | Luz, Jesus and homosexuality, Aubrey | Spears, ethics, homosexuality, love, Robert | Gagnon, Rollin G. | Grams, S. Donald | Fortson III, sexual orientation, A. Phillip | Brown, beloved disciple, celibacy, centurion, David | Gushee, Donald | Mader, Edward W. III | Klink, eunuch, female, Gordon | Hugenberger, Grant | Osborne, Jennifer | Foutz, Joel B. | Green, John | McNeill, Katherine | Dunbabin, Lazarus, male, Michael J. | Wilkins, Paul | Oestreicher, pederasty, Pliny, servant, Theodore W. Jr. | Jennings
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-5-of-6
**In this post I want to summarize our findings about Jesus and homosexuality from my last three posts and evaluate three possible counter-arguments from the Gospels.** Did Jesus say some people are born gay? Did he heal a centurion’s male lover? And what about Jesus and his “beloved disciple”?
I will finish answering the question “_Was_ Jesus okay with homosexual behavior?” Then my final post will address the question “_Is_ Jesus okay with homosexual behavior now?”
**This is part of** **a six-part blog series on Jesus and homosexuality:**
1. 1. [Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5)
2. [How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5)
3. [Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5)
4. [Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5)
5. Historical Conclusions: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?
6. [Conclusions for Today: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality Now?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6)
**In this series on homosexuality, I have focused on Jesus, discussing other biblical witnesses primarily in relation to him. There are at least two reasons for this focus.**
First, I believe that being a Christian starts with following Jesus. It certainly does not end there (see my “[Red Letter Reductionism](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/essays/)” essay), but it is never less: “Whoever says he abides in him \[Jesus\] ought to walk in the same way in which he walked” (1 John 2:6). If we can learn directly from Jesus how we ought to think and act regarding homosexuality, let us do so.
Second, Jesus is often seen as the “weak link” in the Bible’s stance against homosexual behavior. If the idea that Jesus approved of “loving same-sex relationships” turns out to be historically unbelievable, then this illusion of a weak link is removed, and the witness of all of Scripture is seen to be consistent.
In discussing Jesus’ views of homosexual behavior, I have also presented much of the other biblical evidence on the topic. But I have not directly asked valuable questions like “Must Christians obey the Leviticus laws against homosexual behavior?” Nor have I attempted a detailed exegesis of Paul’s teachings against homosexual activity. Rather, **I have placed these biblical passages alongside other ancient texts and looked for consistent patterns, with one guiding question: _What light do these passages shine on what Jesus himself believed?_**
What, then, did we find?
### Our Findings So Far
**First, [we examined Jesus’ apparent silence on homosexuality](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5).** Jewish teachers in Jesus’ day who mentioned homosexual behavior consistently condemned it, and it was nearly unknown among Jews at the time. It was something “out there” that non-Jews did, and no Jewish rabbi had to stake out his public position on the topic. If any rabbi had been suspected of disagreeing with this Jewish consensus, he would have been rapidly rejected by fishermen and Pharisee alike.
Given this historical evidence, _**there was little reason for Jesus to specifically mention homosexual behavior, and every reason to assume he agreed with the Jewish consensus**_.
**Second, [we asked if Jesus’ emphasis on love is proof that he approved of loving homosexual relationships](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5/).** Does “love your neighbor” mean Jesus affirmed “gay love”? Ancient Jews saw no contradiction between commanding neighbor-love and condemning homosexual activity (see Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 19:18). Paul likewise paired these teachings in his letters to Rome and Corinth (e.g. Rom. 1:24-27; 13:9). Unlike our culture, the New Testament actually _contrasts_ love and sexual indulgence (e.g. Eph. 5:2-3). In Jesus’ view, “Love your neighbor” is the “second” commandment, subordinate to the “most important” commandment, “Love the Lord your God” (Mark 12:28-31). Thus, it is not truly loving to help your neighbor violate God’s will.[1](#fn-3107-1)
Given this ancient context, _**Jesus’** **emphasis on love is not proof that he approved of “loving homosexual relationships.” If anything, it is the opposite.**_
**Third, [we considered three ways that Jesus’ original Jewish audience would have understood him to be addressing the topic of homosexual behavior](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5/), despite never explicitly naming it.** Jesus taught “You shall not commit adultery” (Matt. 5:27; 19:18), a command that was understood by ancient Jews to also prohibit, by implication, all other unlawful sexual behaviors. Jesus taught against _πορνεία_ (_porneia_, “sexual immorality,” Matt. 15:18-19), which “was universally understood in Judaism to include same-sex intercourse**“**[2](#fn-3107-2) And Jesus warned against _ἀσέλγεια_ (_aselgeia_, “debauchery,” Mark 7:21-22), “a word that Jesus… could easily turn to as a synonym for homosexual activity and other similarly shocking behavior forbidden by the Jewish law,”[3](#fn-3107-3) a word used in 2 Peter 2:7 to describe the “filthy conduct” (NKJV) of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
_**What might Jesus’ Jewish listeners say if they heard the claim that Jesus said nothing about homosexual activity? “Of course he did! We clearly heard him mention adultery, πορνεία, and ἀσέλγεια!”**_
**But Is There Counter-Evidence?**
**Despite this evidence, some still point to several events in Jesus’ ministry as proof that Jesus affirmed homosexual behavior, as long as it was loving and consensual.** Here are three examples that are perhaps most often mentioned. It is my impression that relatively few scholars find the following arguments significant, but some do, so I will address them.
**Counter-argument 1: Jesus said some people are born gay.** (Matt. 19:12)
**This argument uses Jesus’ words about eunuchs:**
> For **there are eunuchs who have been so from birth**, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. (Matt. 19:12)
Rembrandt, The Baptism of the Eunuch, 1626. (From Wikimedia Commons.)
Clearly Jesus affirmed that some people are born as “eunuchs.” But what is a eunuch (_ευνούχος_)?
Here it is easy to get lost down a deep, dark hole, exploring all the ways that the word _ευνούχος_ was used. The first thing I want to say is that, yes, the word _ευνούχος_ (eunuch) may sometimes have been used to refer to someone who experienced same-sex desires (scholars do not all agree).[4](#fn-3107-4) However, _ευνούχος_ was not a word that specifically referred to homosexuals, and most eunuchs were not homosexual.
[BDAG](https://amzn.to/2noNDTy), probably the most respected dictionary of New Testament Greek, lists three uses of the word _ευνούχος_, matching them to Jesus’ use in this passage:
> 1\. a castrated male person, eunuch. Mt 19:12b…
> 2\. a human male who, without a physical operation, is by nature incapable of begetting children, impotent male… Mt 19:12a…
> 3\. a human male who abstains fr. marriage, without being impotent, a celibate Mt 19:12c…
Here we need to remember that, in any given circumstance, a word means what it means _in that specific context_, not necessarily what it sometimes means in other contexts. Linguists warn of a word study fallacy called _illegitimate totality transfer_. Blomberg’s definition of this fallacy is on point, particularly the second half:
> Assuming that a word carries several or all of its possible meanings in each of its appearances when in fact the most probable meaning of any word is that which contributes the least amount of new information to the overall context.[5](#fn-3107-5)
**So what does the context indicate Jesus meant by _ευνούχος_ (eunuch) in Matthew 19:12?**
Well, Jesus actually uses the word in three different-but-related ways. That is, each occurrence of _ευνούχος_ has its own immediate context (“from birth,” “made… by men,” “made themselves”), yet they all share the same larger context within Jesus’ discussion. The immediate context for each use is relatively clear; but how does the larger context constrain and specify what Jesus means here (in all three uses) by _ευνούχος_?
In the larger context, Jesus is responding to a question of the Pharisees about divorce. Jesus responds by affirming the creation model of male-female marriage with its “one flesh” sexual union (Matt. 19:3-9). His disciples, dismayed at the strict limitations Jesus places on divorce, suggest a second option: “not to marry” (Matt. 19:10).
**Jesus’ comments about eunuchs occur within his response to this second option, “not to marry.”** Jesus and his disciples, as good Jews, do not imagine any third option; the two options are male-female marriage or “not to marry.”[6](#fn-3107-6) Eunuchs, in Jesus’ discussion, fall into the latter category—no marriage and therefore, in the Jewish worldview Jesus shared, no sexual union.
Thus, despite the differences between the three categories of eunuchs Jesus describes, the common ground for all three that makes Jesus’ illustration work is that _they are people who are not engaging in sexual relationships_.
Other issues like sexual orientation or even reproduction are not the subject of conversation in this passage.[7](#fn-3107-7) Rather, Jesus is saying that some people fall into the “not to marry” category for three possible reasons: they were born with conditions that leave them unsuited for marriage;[8](#fn-3107-8) they were castrated; or they voluntarily give up marriage “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”[9](#fn-3107-9)
**So, did Jesus say that some people are born gay? Not really, although his words do indicate that not every male is born suited for marriage. More importantly, however, _his words indicate that for everyone, whatever their sexual desires, there are only two options: faithful male-female marriage until death or “not to marry.”_**
Gagnon’s summary is on point:
> Jesus’ comparison of men who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven with “born eunuchs” shows that Jesus categorized “born eunuchs” as persons not having any sex (Matt 19), for certainly Jesus was not giving the disciples permission to have sex outside of marriage and thereby avoid his newly enunciated standard for marriage. So, from that standpoint, **any argument that is made about “born eunuchs” including homosexual persons (with which I would agree) leads to the view that Jesus did not give homosexually oriented persons the option of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman**. [10](#fn-3107-10)
Jesus’ words about eunuchs are not a blessing on same-sex relationships, but they are a clear reminder to the church to honor those who, whatever their condition as “eunuchs,” are faithfully celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.[11](#fn-3107-11)
**Counter-argument 2: Jesus affirmed a gay couple—a centurion and his “boy.”** (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10)
This argument is based primarily on a story, one historical fact, and two Greek words. The story is the account of Jesus healing a centurion’s servant. The historical fact is that, in ancient Greco-Roman culture, it was not uncommon for a master to have a servant who also functioned as his male lover. In addition, the term _παῖς_ (_pais_), found in both Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of this story, can mean “boy” and was sometimes used to refer to such a lover.[12](#fn-3107-12) Finally, Luke’s account describes the servant as being _ἔντιμος_ (_entimos_) in the eyes of the centurion—a word that can mean “dear.”
Some who promote homosexual relationships among Christians go far beyond these facts (see [here](http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html), [here](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/when-jesus-healed-a-same-sex-partner_b_1743947), and [here](https://www.gaychristian101.com/Centurion-And-Pais.html)). Jesuit priest John McNeill, for example, translates the centurion as talking about “my beloved boy” and proposes this interpretation:
> Here we have the most direct encounter of Jesus with someone who would today be pronounced ‘gay,’ and Jesus’ reaction was acceptance of the person without judgment and even eagerness to be of assistance to restore the ‘_pais_‘ to health, and by implication to restore the loving relationship of the two, making possible the renewal of any sexual activity which they would have enjoyed together prior to the illness.[13](#fn-3107-13)
The centurion with his sick servant. (Image copyright www.LumoProject.com. Used with permission from [Free Bible Images](https://freebibleimages.org/photos/centurion-servant/).)
**There are multiple problems with this interpretation. First, _παῖς_ (_pais_) usually carries no sexual connotations whatsoever**; only other contextual clues can provide this meaning. When used of human relationships in the New Testament and other early Christian literature, _παῖς_ refers either to a _boy_, a _son_, or a _servant/slave_.[14](#fn-3107-14) There are no sexual connotations in any of [the other places _παῖς_ is used in the NT](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816&t=KJV).
Later in Matthew, in a quote from Isaiah, Jesus is described as being God’s beloved _παῖς_: “My servant… my beloved” (_ὁ παῖς μου… ὁ ἀγαπητός μου_; Matt. 12:18). Clearly, a _παῖς_ can even be described as “beloved” without there being any necessary sexual connotations, or else such language would not have been used by God about his own servant.
**Second, in neither Matthew nor Luke do we find the centurion talking about “my beloved boy”** (McNeill’s expression). What we have instead is the narrator Luke saying that the centurion’s _δοῦλος_ (slave/servant) was _ἔντιμος_ in the eyes of the centurion.
Much has been made of how the terms _παῖς_ and _δοῦλος_ are used in Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts, but no explanation is sure enough to strongly determine our interpretation of the passage.[15](#fn-3107-15) More clearly, _ἔντιμος_ fails to support the case for a homosexual relationship. Though the term can be translated “dear,” the two main senses of the word in the NT are “honored, respected,” and “valuable, precious.”[16](#fn-3107-16) “Dear,” in fact, is related to the latter sense; it can imply an emotional attachment based on value, without the presence of sexual desire. Most English translations of this verse use a term such as “highly valued.” Similarly, Luke’s only other use of _ἔντιμος_ is usually translated as “distinguished” or “honorable” (Luke 14:8).
Some argue that it is unreasonable to imagine a Roman centurion would plead for Jesus to heal a mere servant unless that servant were his lover. But are we willing to argue that sexual interest is the strongest possible motivation? If this centurion could possess a faith greater than Jesus had found in Israel (Matt. 8:10; Luke 7:9), why could he not also possess a great (non-sexual) concern for a valued servant? If the centurion who called for Peter was “a devout man who feared God with all his household,” “gave alms generously,” and had “a devout soldier… among those who attended him,” (Acts 10:2, 7), why could this believing centurion not likewise sincerely care for “those who attended him”?
**Third, if we take into account Luke’s assessment of how valuable (_ἔντιμος_) the servant was to the centurion, then we must also consider Luke’s report of how valuable the centurion was to the Jews.** Luke reports that elders of the Jews “pleaded… earnestly” with Jesus on behalf of the centurion, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue” (Luke 7:4-5). If “a deeply observant God-fearer \[Gentile proselyte\] would not practise paederasty,”[17](#fn-3107-17) surely a pious Jew would avoid supporting it. Perhaps this centurion was not a God-fearer but only a benefactor; nevertheless, _**can we really imagine [Jews in Jesus](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5/) day offering such high praise for someone they know is practicing pederasty? Can we imagine them pleading with Jesus to heal a pederast’s “beloved boy”? Can we imagine the Jewish crowds standing quietly by as Jesus took an active pederast and “preached him into the kingdom” (Matt. 8:11-12)?**_
In contrast to such scenarios, Green’s assessment of the centurion’s possible motives is refreshingly reasonable:
> His desire to see his slave returned to health need not imply an extraordinary humanitarian concern on his part, since care for sick slaves was advised in Roman antiquity as a way to prolong their usefulness. At the same time… Luke’s language suggests that the centurion not only regarded the slave as useful, but actually esteemed him. There is no socio-historical reason to doubt that, as an urban slave in the home of a wealthy master, this dying man might might have enjoyed friendship with the centurion.[18](#fn-3107-18)
The hypothesis that Jesus affirmed a gay couple by healing the centurion’s “boy” creates far more problems than it solves.
**Counter-argument 3: Jesus had a homosexual relationship with his “beloved disciple.”** (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20)
**The disciple “whom Jesus loved” is first mentioned in John’s account of the Last Supper. There we read that “one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side”** (John 13:23). A more word-for-word translation could read “reclining on the chest of Jesus,” but “the position of the Beloved Disciple is not to be understood as resting ‘on top of’ Jesus.”[19](#fn-3107-19) We know this disciple was very close to Jesus, yet not actually on top of him, because later when he wanted to ask Jesus a question (John 13:25), “the easiest way for him to address Jesus was to lean back until his head literally rested”[20](#fn-3107-20) on Jesus’ “chest.”[21](#fn-3107-21)
This physical proximity may make us uncomfortable. Scholars, however, point to abundant evidence that such practices were normal and non-sexual in Jesus’ day. For special meals like the Passover, people reclined next to each other on couches to eat.[22](#fn-3107-22) If this Last Supper meal followed standard banquet procedure, three people were reclining at the head table—including Jesus and beloved disciple, leaning on his left elbow, just to Jesus’ right.
In this image of the Last Supper, Peter (foreground) is addressing the beloved disciple (left), who is next to Jesus (center), with another disciple (Judas?) on Jesus’ left. If the beloved disciple wanted a private word with Jesus, he would lean back till his head was next to Jesus’ chest. (Image is property of Good News Productions International and College Press Publishing. Used with permission from [Free Bible Images](https://freebibleimages.org/illustrations/gnpi-087-last-supper/).)
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus similarly describes Lazarus lying “on the chest” of Abraham (Luke 16:23). “One might also lay one’s head on another’s bosom, which in that culture, far more tactile than our own, had no necessary sexual connotations.”[23](#fn-3107-23)
Klink reminds us of our own cultural biases:
> The Western reader must be immediately reminded that such physical closeness was (and is) quite different in an Eastern context. **In many parts of the world today, men walk down the street holding hands as a sign of friendship, not as a sign of homosexuality.** This is an especially common practice between two men operating together in a business relationship, reflecting mutual respect and trust. With this in view, the actions of the Beloved Disciple become wordless communication that shows mutual trust and respect.[24](#fn-3107-24)
**Some point to an event during Jesus’ crucifixion as more evidence that Jesus had an erotic relationship with “the disciple whom he loved”**:[25](#fn-3107-25)
> When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-27)
Keener, however, points to multiple ancient Greek texts in which people either promise to take a friend’s mother as their own if the friend dies or entrust their mother to the care of a friend.[26](#fn-3107-26) He also points to texts which “described a disciple’s virtue in terms of caring for the teacher’s family.”[27](#fn-3107-27) In this case, there was an additional motivation for Jesus’ choice:
> Most important, because Jesus’ brothers did not believe (7:5), Jesus entrusted his believing mother to a disciple… This model suggests that the ties of the believing community must be stronger than natural familial bonds, a moral amply illustrated by the Jesus tradition (Mark 3:33-35; 13:12).[28](#fn-3107-28)
**How, then, do we explain this disciple’s special title as the one Jesus “loved”?** First, the beloved disciple was probably the apostle John, who was indeed part of the “inner circle” of three disciples closest to Jesus. Second, he was probably also the author of the Gospel, and may have used this term as a form of authorial modesty and gratitude for receiving Jesus’ love.[29](#fn-3107-29) Third, his anonymity invites the reader to interact with him not just as an historical figure, but as an “ideal disciple” to be imitated.[30](#fn-3107-30)
Whatever the reasons for this title, we should note that John also records Jesus as having special “love” for Lazarus (“he whom you love,” John 11:3, 36) and for his sisters Mary and Martha (John 11:5).[31](#fn-3107-31) Further, “the verbs agapaō and phileō and their cognates”—the words used for “love” in all these passages—“nowhere in John’s Gospel have a sexual connotation.”[32](#fn-3107-32)
As Keener writes, “given John’s Jewish context, any implied sexual relationship” between Jesus and the beloved disciple “would be impossible without the Gospel somewhere indicating a lifting of Jewish sexual taboos.”[33](#fn-3107-33) If John’s readers would have protested at the idea, so would have Jesus’ other disciples.[34](#fn-3107-34)
The problem with all homosexual interpretations of Jesus and the beloved disciple is revealed clearly in this assertion by Anglican priest Paul Oestreicher: “It would be so interpreted in any person today.”[35](#fn-3107-35)
But Jesus _didn’t_ live “today,” and not in Oestreicher’s Western culture, either. **When we read these texts within the historical context of Jesus’ own ancient Jewish culture, it becomes clear that no one _then_ saw any reason to come to any such homosexual interpretation of Jesus’ actions. Why should we imagine we can understand their own culture better than they did?**
### Was Jesus Okay With Homosexual Activity?
I have discussed the big picture arguments regarding Jesus’ “silence” about homosexuality and his ethic of love. I have also evaluated three details from Jesus’ life and ministry that have been used to paint a pro-homosexual Jesus. More importantly, we have examined all this evidence within the larger historical context of Jesus’ own time and place.
**I believe the evidence points clearly in one direction**: **_The total available historical evidence fits only with the hypothesis that Jesus—the historical Jesus of Nazareth—did not approve of homosexual behavior._**
This fact is not surprising, for **it appears that Jesus built his sexual ethic on the Genesis 1-2 creation account**, as is seen in Matthew 19:3-8. The structure of Jesus’ argument in this passage (drawing on God himself) is that _because_ God made humans male and female they become one flesh in marriage. Jesus used this creation reality to forbid the separation of male-female one flesh unions. But it is equally relevant to the question of homosexual unions, for the basis given in the creation account for becoming “one flesh” is the same-yet-different duality of male and female.
According to Genesis, Eve was taken from Adam and made to be “a helper” who was “corresponding to him” (Gen. 2:20, CSB). Another male would not “help” Adam, nor was Eve designed to “correspond” to another female. Thus, male-male and female-female unions have no foundation in God’s creation design, but actually contradict it. The fact that Jesus drew on this “from the beginning” creation design (Matt. 19:8) as the foundation for his answer to divorce strongly indicates he would have done the same in his answer to homosexual behavior—[just as other Jews in his day in fact did](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5/).
### **Conclusion**
**At this point some readers will be more than content**, believing that it is clear what Christians today should believe about the ethics of homosexual behavior. Other readers, perhaps agreeing with much of my historical analysis, will nevertheless feel the question of Christian belief and practice is still open. For the latter readers, I have one more post addressing this question: Is it okay for Christians today to affirm homosexual behavior?
For now, however, we should pause to reaffirm what we already know: **While individual pieces of evidence can be used to paint a pro-homosexual Jesus, the total available historical evidence fits only with the hypothesis that Jesus did not approve of homosexual behavior.**
**Have you puzzled over the three details of Jesus’ life that we examined in this post?** Have I missed other possible counter-evidence that seems strong to you? Are you finding this series helpful? Troubling? Am I scratching where it itches—without merely satisfying itching ears (2 Tim. 4:3)? **If you have a comment, please leave it below.** And thanks again for reading!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. This is what someone like David Gushee misunderstands when he makes the following statement: “I now believe that the traditional interpretation of the most cited passages is questionable and that all that parsing of Greek verbs has distracted attention from the primary moral obligation taught by Jesus — to love our neighbors as ourselves, especially our most vulnerable neighbors” (David Gushee, “I’m an evangelical minister. I now support the LGBT community — and the church should, too,” Nov. 4, 2014, The Washington Post, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/04/im-an-evangelical-minister-i-now-support-the-lgbt-community-and-the-church-should-too/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/04/im-an-evangelical-minister-i-now-support-the-lgbt-community-and-the-church-should-too/), accessed Oct. 5, 2019. Gushee’s sentiment is also why I have placed little emphasis on “all that parsing of Greek verbs” in this series. I contend that the basic stance of the Scripture on homosexual activity is clear when simply placed within its overall historical context, without a lot of parsing of individual words. The individual words can only be understood correctly when this larger context is clear. [↩](#fnref-3107-1)
2. Robert Gagnon, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues,” 2003, online article based on an interview with Zenit News Agency, March 21 and 28, 2002, pub. by OrthodoxyToday.org, [http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php](http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php), accessed August 28, 2019. [↩](#fnref-3107-2)
3. G. Thomas Hobson, “ἀσέλγεια in [Mark 7:22](https://www.esv.org/Mark%207%3A22/),” _Filologia Neotestamentaria_ 21 (2008), 65, 67, 70, bold added. See here for the full article: [https://www.academia.edu/31907497/ASELGEIA\_IN\_MARK\_7\_22](https://www.academia.edu/31907497/ASELGEIA_IN_MARK_7_22), accessed September 2, 2019. [↩](#fnref-3107-3)
4. For a positive conclusion, see Robert Gagnon and J., “Jesus, eunuchs, and the allegation of a ‘gay Jesus,'” email correspondence with links, dated 1/18/07, [http://robgagnon.net/AnswersToEMails.htm](http://robgagnon.net/AnswersToEMails.htm), accessed September 28, 2019. However, much of the evidence shared in J.’s link refers to ancient concepts of eunuchs in cultures and languages far from Jesus’ context, and not specificially to the use of the word _ευνούχος_ itself. For a contrasting opinion, see [this article by A. Phillip Brown, III](https://answersingenesis.org/answers/in-depth/v12/does-jesus-reference-to-eunuchs-affirm-transgender-people/), which claims that “the Greek term _eunouchos_ is never used to denote a person with intact sexual organs who is intersex, transgender, or engages in homosexual behavior.” If _ευνούχος_ should indeed be understood to include people with same-sex attractions, it is still a matter of scholarly debate whether such persons were equivalent to what we today call a “homosexual.” I agree with Fortson and Grams (in [_Unchanging Witness_](https://amzn.to/2mC9qHl)) that the ancient world did have understandings of sexual desire effectively equivalent to our modern category of homosexual orientation. For a contrasting opinion, here is France’s commentary on what “born a eunuch” means: “In the context of modern discussions about homosexual orientation it might be suggested that it also includes those who are psychologically disinclined to heterosexual intercourse and thus debarred from fatherhood, but evidence for such an understanding of homosexuality in the ancient world is hard to find. Most references to homosexual behavior in the ancient world are to what we now call bisexuality, the choice of some who are capable of heterosexual intercourse to find sexual fulfillment also (or instead) with members of their own sex. Such a choice could hardly be described as being ‘born a eunuch,’ and the idea of an innate and irreversible homosexual orientation belongs to modern Western psychology rather than to the world in which Jesus lived.” R. T. France, _The Gospel of Matthew_, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 724-25. [↩](#fnref-3107-4)
5. Craig L. Blomberg with Jennifer Foutz Markley, _A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 136. [↩](#fnref-3107-5)
6. I am indebted to Hugenberger for this observation: “What is notable for our discussion is that as far as Jesus is concerned, there is no THIRD option! One must either be chaste (“a eunuch… for the sake of the kingdom”) or one must be faithful in a heterosexual marriage (“male and female” “united to his wife”). Surely if Jesus wanted to affirm life-long committed homosexual unions, here is where he needed to do it because his own disciples were astonished at the radical and difficult requirements he seemed to set before them. But Jesus did not allow that third option” (Gordon Hugenberger, “Homosexuality,” June 15, 2004, https://www.parkstreet.org/teaching-training/
articles/homosexuality (now a dead link), quoted by Aubrey Spears in “The Great Exchange: Same-Sex Sex Attraction,” sermon, [https://clovermedia.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/7572d4795b/attachments/Great\_Exchange\_\_The\_\_Incarnation\_\_2018.pdf](https://clovermedia.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/7572d4795b/attachments/Great_Exchange__The__Incarnation__2018.pdf), accessed September 24, 2019). [↩](#fnref-3107-6)
7. It is true that, just as a minority of males “born eunuchs” have homosexual desires, so a minority of males who are castrated experience a change in sexual orientation or desire ([Sex Med](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4822485/#). 2016 Mar; 4(1): e51–e59. Published online March 2, 2016. doi: [10.1016/j.esxm.2015.11.001](https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.esxm.2015.11.001).). In both cases, however, _homosexual orientation is not the experience of most eunuchs._ Thus, given both physiological realities and the literary context of Jesus’ conversation, it makes little sense to interpret his words as meaning, “Some are born with homosexual orientation, some are made homosexual by others, and some choose for themselves to be homosexual for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Context similarly suggests that Jesus and his disciples are not narrowly concerned with ability to reproduce, either, as if Jesus were saying, “Some are born unable to reproduce, some are rendered unable by others, and some choose for themselves to not reproduce for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is not discussing varied sexual experiences (fertility vs. sterility) within marriage; rather, he is discussing the option that does not include sexual union: “not to marry.” [↩](#fnref-3107-7)
8. Here is a sample of explanations of this first category of “eunuch” in commentaries: “The impotent” (Hagner); “those born without sexual organs or impotent” (Osborne); those “born without the capacity for sexual relations, such as those born without properly developed genitalia” (Wilkins); “people without fully functioning sexual organs” (Blomberg); “those who are physiological incapable of procreation” (France); “those who were born without sexual organs” (Keener); “those who are naturally impotent” (Luz). See Donald A. Hagner, _Matthew 14-28_, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 33b (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995), comment on Matt. 19:12; Grant R. Osborne, _Matthew_, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament, Kindle Edition, comment on Matt. 19:12; Michael J. Wilkins, _Matthew_, The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan, Kindle Edition, 645; Craig L. Blomberg, _Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture_, The New American Commentary (B&H Publishing Group), Kindle Edition, 294; R. T. France, _The Gospel of Matthew_, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 724; Craig S. Keener. _A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew_.(Eerdmans), Kindle Edition, comment on Matt. 19:10-12; Ulrich Luz, _Matthew: A Commentary_ (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 501. [↩](#fnref-3107-8)
9. Almost all English Bible translations that avoid the word “eunuch” (or the older equivalent “gelding”) in this passage are in essential agreement with my paraphrase here. Bible Gateway lists seventeen such translations ([of sixty total in English](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:12)). About seven of the seventeen mirror the NABRE: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Another five differ mainly by focusing on reproductive ability, as with the NCV: “There are different reasons why some men cannot marry. Some men were born without the ability to become fathers. Others were made that way later in life by other people. And some men have given up marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.” Another four simply use “chaste” or “celibate” as in GW: “Some men are celibate because they were born that way. Others are celibate because they were castrated. Still others have decided to be celibate because of the kingdom of heaven.” The final one, The Message, is just plain wonky on this verse! [↩](#fnref-3107-9)
10. Robert Gagnon, from email to “J,” January 16, 2007, shared at “Answers to Emails,” [http://robgagnon.net/AnswersToEMails.htm](http://robgagnon.net/AnswersToEMails.htm), accessed September 26, 2019, emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-3107-10)
11. The following comments by Wilkins are timely: “Those who have chosen to remain single as the expression of the way that they believe they can best serve God need us as their community of brothers and sisters. Jesus declares that celibacy is an acceptable lifestyle for those for whom it is given by God. Paul expands on Jesus’ statement to indicate that if one remains unmarried, one is in a position to be undistracted by the amount of work that goes into taking care of one’s family responsibilities, and the kingdom of God receives benefit (1 Cor. 7:27, 39–40). Unfortunately, many of our churches endorse marriage as a sign of maturity, and those who are married tend to get the more ‘responsible’ ministry opportunities in the church. Single people are seen as those who have not ‘settled down’ yet. We should reevaluate the way we view and value single people within our ministries.” Michael J. Wilkins, _Matthew_, The NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan), Kindle Edition, 658. [↩](#fnref-3107-11)
12. Mader explains: “Within the institution of paederasty, _pais_ had a rather specific reference to the younger, passive partner in a paederastic relationship” (Donald Mader, “The Entimos Pais of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10,” online article, Greek Love Through the Ages, [https://www.greek-love.com/antiquity/matthew-luke-loved-boy-pederasty](https://www.greek-love.com/antiquity/matthew-luke-loved-boy-pederasty), accessed September 28, 2019). Mader’s entire article is worth consulting, though I question some of his critical assumptions and disagree with his final conclusion. One factor he fails to consider is how the Jewish elders implored Jesus on behalf of the centurion. See below for more on this. [↩](#fnref-3107-12)
13. John J. McNeill, _Sex as God Intended: A Reflection on Human Sexuality as Play Including Festschrift Essays Celebrating the Life and Work of John J. McNeill_ (Maple Shade, NJ: Lethe, 2008), 63, 65. As quoted in Fortson and Grams, p. 22. [↩](#fnref-3107-13)
14. These are the three uses listed in BAGD, _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_, 2nd ed., by Walter Bauer et al. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 604. [↩](#fnref-3107-14)
15. In both accounts the centurion always refers to his sick slave as a _παῖς_ but refers to another servant/slave as a _δοῦλος._ Matthew always calls the sick servant a _παῖς_, while Luke always call him a _δοῦλος_. It is hard to know what to make of these patterns. On the one hand, it shows that the two terms have considerable overlap in meaning. On the other hand, it may be significant that the centurion always refers to his sick servant by the term that can imply more emotional connection_._ Those who argue that a homosexual relationship was present make much of this fact, but _παῖς_ could simply hint at a non-sexual closeness. What about the choices of the Gospel writers? It is possible that Matthew, as a Jew writing to a primarily Jewish audience, was able to use _παῖς_ to suggest the feelings of a God-fearing centurion toward his servant without considering any possible connotations of pederasty. Luke, however, was probably a Gentile, as were many in his audience; they probably shared a greater familiarity with Greco-Roman practices of pederasty than Jews did. Thus Luke may have chosen _δοῦλος_ to avoid any connotations of pederasty for his readers, then added _ἔντιμος_ to retain a sense of how the centurion valued his servant. I am indebted to Mader (ibid.) for pointing me in this direction, though the conclusion is my own. [↩](#fnref-3107-15)
16. These are the glosses provided in BAGD, ibid., 268-69. [↩](#fnref-3107-16)
17. Mader, ibid. Mader states this despite arguing that the account “suggests an attitude of toleration toward a non-exploitive, caring paederastic relationship.” He tries to evade his own observation about God-fearers by arguing that either this God-fearer was not deeply observant or that the factors suggesting piety were added (invented) by Luke. [↩](#fnref-3107-17)
18. Joel B. Green, _The Gospel of Luke_, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 286. [↩](#fnref-3107-18)
19. Edward W. Klink III, _John_, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Zondervan), Kindle Edition, comment on John 13:23. [↩](#fnref-3107-19)
20. D. A. Carson, _The Gospel according to John_, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 474. [↩](#fnref-3107-20)
21. Here the ESV has “leaning back against Jesus,” which does not translate the Greek word στῆθος (“chest”), but does correctly convey that the beloved disciple was now actually touching (“against”) Jesus. [↩](#fnref-3107-21)
22. “It is important to note that meals in the ancient world did not involve tables with chairs but involved reclining on couches, usually U-shaped (called a triclinium) around a low table. Participants would support themselves on their left elbows and eat with their right hands” (Klink, ibid.) [↩](#fnref-3107-22)
23. Craig S. Keener, _The Gospel of John: A Commentary_, Vol. II (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 915, n. 184; cf. 915-16, also 900-901. Other scholars agree. Gagnon: “A text in Pliny’s Epistles refers to a senator named Veiento who ‘was reclining… on the chest’ of the emperor Nerva, again without any sexual connotation (4.22.4)… I wrote Dr. Katherine Dunbabin, professor of classics at McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario) and author of _The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), and asked her whether the paragraph above reflected her own understanding of the matter. She responded (reproduced with permission): ‘I think the Pliny passage shows incontrovertibly that there is no necessary sexual connotation involved in a diner reclining “on the chest” of another; there is no suggestion whatsoever that Fabricius Veiento had any sort of sexual relationship with the emperor Nerva! What the passage does imply is intimacy; here in the sense that Veiento (whose past history was extremely shady) was being received as a favoured associate of the emperor/host'” (Robert A. J. Gagnon, “Was Jesus in a Sexual Relationship with the Beloved Disciple?” essay, Feb. 10, 2008, [http://robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexBelovedDisciple.pdf](http://robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexBelovedDisciple.pdf), 5, accessed Sept. 30, 2019). [↩](#fnref-3107-23)
24. Klink, ibid., comment on John 13:25, emphasis added. Carson: “Westerners may recoil at the physical proximity of two men. In many parts of the world, of course (e.g. the Philippines, the Arab world), men walk down the street holding hands. This is a sign of friendship, not homosexuality. Men and women in such cultures may _not_ hold hands in public: that would be a sign of licentiousness.” D. A. Carson, _The Gospel according to John_, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 474. [↩](#fnref-3107-24)
25. Jennings asserts, “The plain sense of this episode is to buttress our hypothesis that Jesus is to be understood as having a lover…. The relationship is depicted by the text as a homoerotic one, which is here acknowledged as entailing a loyalty that has consequences even beyond the death of Jesus. … This scene should be read as underlining not Jesus’ love for his mother (which is suggested nowhere in this or any other Gospel) but Jesus’ love for his beloved.” Oestreicher similarly misreads this text as indicating that “John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus’s family.” But the text actually says that Jesus’ mother went to live in the beloved disciple’s home, not that the beloved disciple joined Jesus’ family. See Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., _The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament_ (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2003), 26-27, quoted at [https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/SF/jesus.html](https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/SF/jesus.html), accessed Sept. 29, 2019; Paul Oestreicher, “Was Jesus Gay? Probably,” online article, _The Guardian_, Apr. 20, 2012, [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably), accessed Sept. 29, 2019. [↩](#fnref-3107-25)
26. Keener, ibid., 1144. [↩](#fnref-3107-26)
27. Keener, ibid., 1145. [↩](#fnref-3107-27)
28. Keener, ibid., 1145. [↩](#fnref-3107-28)
29. “If we wonder why the beloved disciple chooses this form of anonymity, two answers are suggested by the emphases of the Fourth Gospel. Just as ‘the beloved disciple,’ if a self-designation, implies not arrogance (as if to say ‘I am more loved than others’) but a profound sense of indebtedness to grace (‘What a wonder—that I should be loved by the incarnate Word!’…), so the silence as to the identity of the beloved disciple may be a quite way of refusing to give even the impression of sharing a platform with Jesus… At the same time, the author thus serves as a model for his readers: becoming a Christian means a transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, such that he receives the glory.” Carson, ibid., 473. [↩](#fnref-3107-29)
30. “The anonymity functions as a literary device that forces the reader to engage with the Beloved Disciple primarily by his narrativized identity. For the reader then, the identity of the Beloved Disciple is not simply who he is (behind the narrative) but what he is (within the narrative). The anonymity of the Beloved Disciple depicts the “ideal disciple,” one having special access and intimate relationship with Jesus… This in no way minimizes the historical reality of the Beloved Disciple, but creates alongside his historical identity a narrativized identity and role that is significant to the message of the Gospel.” Klink, ibid., comment on 13:23. [↩](#fnref-3107-30)
31. Gagnon: “It is interesting that Mary and Martha tell Jesus about their brother Lazarus’s serious illness in these terms: ‘Lord, see, the one whom you love (phileis) is sick’ (11:3). Two verses later we read that Jesus ‘loved (ēgapa) Martha and her sister and Lazarus.’ He loves all three but nevertheless Lazarus can be referred to simply as ‘the one whom you love’ (hon phileis). This sounds a great deal like the reference in 20:2 to the disciple ‘whom Jesus loved’ (hon ephilei ho Iēsous), which singles out a specific disciple even though the broader context makes clear that Jesus loves all his disciples (13:1, 34; 14:21-23; 15:9-13). If Jesus’ special love for Lazarus is not understood in a sexual sense—otherwise, Jesus would be having sex with more than one person, contrary to his own teaching about monogamy in Mark 10 and Matthew 19—how can his special love for one disciple be understood in a sexual sense? When ‘Jews’ saw how Jesus wept for Lazarus and said, ‘See, how he loved (ephilei),’ they obviously were not drawing the conclusion that Jesus was in a sexual relationship with Lazarus. Rather, Jesus loved Lazarus as
though he (Lazarus) were his own brother. The same applies to the references to the beloved disciple.” Ibid., 4. [↩](#fnref-3107-31)
32. Gagnon, ibid., 3. [↩](#fnref-3107-32)
33. Keener, ibid., 917. [↩](#fnref-3107-33)
34. Gagnon: “In the context of early Judaism, where homosexual practice of any sort would incur a capital sentence, how likely is it that Jesus would have had sexual intercourse with a male disciple and have done so _without apparently raising an eyebrow among any of his other disciples_?” Gagnon, ibid., 5-6. [↩](#fnref-3107-34)
35. Oestreicher, ibid. [↩](#fnref-3107-35)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Don’t You Know?! (ουκ οιδατε;)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-10-02
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Don't You Know?! (ουκ οιδατε;) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Yes, there are times when it's okay to say "I know." According to Paul, it's even okay to say "Don't you know?" from time to time. Here's when he said it.
Tags: -, Paul, epistemology, artificial intelligence, certainty, knowledge, midlife
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/dont-you-know
**The twenty-first century is a spectacularly bad time to schedule a midlife crisis, particularly if you are by nature skeptical.** If you don’t know what I mean, read on.
Image by [Free-Photos](https://pixabay.com/users/Free-Photos-242387/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422)
**As I hover on the brink of my mid-forties, I find that there are a lot of things I don’t know.** **Take life decisions, for example.** I never did know what I wanted to be when I grew up, and I’m still not sure sometimes. I don’t know how to sort out the mixture of divine guidance and human fallibility in my various moves, including my move to the United States in 2003 and our move to Atlanta in 2016. I don’t know which of my past actions to count as mistakes and which to read as good decisions, all things considered. I often don’t know the best way to make right the things I do know I’ve done wrong.
Image by [Free-Photos](https://pixabay.com/users/Free-Photos-242387/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422)
Looking ahead, I often don’t know the best ways to help my wife, my daughters, and myself grow into the persons God designed us to be. I don’t know how long we should keep participating in the church we’re going to now or what church effort it would be wise to plug into after that. I don’t know where finances will come from for our senior years, and I don’t know how I could adjust current financial choices to better prepare for those years—or if God’s preferred preparation is to simply be generous now. Speaking of generosity, I don’t know how to help most of the people around me who need help, partly because I am more aware than ever that I, too, need help.
_I don’t know._
**I also don’t know a lot about God and the Bible.** Although it makes best sense to me, I don’t know for _sure_ that creation happened in six 24-hour days—or why I first typed “six _14-hour_ days”! I don’t know for sure what Jesus meant by “except for fornication” when he taught about divorce. I don’t know whether John 7:53-8:11 was originally part of John’s Gospel or not, or exactly how we should think about the borders of the biblical canon. I don’t know why God elects to save some and not others, nor how his election interacts with the human volition of potential missionaries and potential converts. I don’t know why he allowed me to hear the gospel while many others haven’t.
Image by [Free-Photos](https://pixabay.com/users/Free-Photos-242387/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422)
I don’t know exactly how gender roles should be expressed in the home and the church. I don’t know exactly how the children of believers fit within the church, or how we best help them transition to make the faith their own. I don’t know why some Christians experience miraculous manifestations more often than the rest of us. I don’t know how, living right here in Atlanta, to best help Jesus’ church become a place where differing gifts, cultures, ethnicities, and more live together in “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17).
_I don’t know._
Oh, I have some reasonably-informed working positions on some of those questions. Most of them don’t exactly leave me troubled—at least not most of them most of the time.
But I don’t _know_. And I don’t always know how to respond to people who think that _they_ know, and that I should, too.
**Worse, I live in a time when it is perhaps harder than ever to know anything for sure.** We have access to more knowledge than ever, yes, but we also have access to more articulate counter-arguments than ever. No matter what hard-won conclusion you think you have reached, a simple “Google” will take you to someone who is equally confident you are completely wrong, with mounds of evidence that supposedly defends their conclusions.
Image by [Free-Photos](https://pixabay.com/users/Free-Photos-242387/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422)
AI (artificial intelligence) experts warn that we are on the brink of a new era when it will be nearly impossible to tell authentic video footage from computer-generated video. Simply by taking a photo or two from your Facebook feed and some random audio of your voice, they (who?) will be able to “record” a video of “you” saying anything they want. If it is hard to be sure about anything now, just wait a decade. It will be even harder.
I don’t know. And I _won’t_ know the answers to many of my questions, either. That, too, is becoming clearer as the years pass and my limitations press in.
**Is it possible to truly know anything? Or do we now know (!) that it is arrogant to say “I know”?** Is it actually a form of oppression to expect others to know anything and to hold them accountable for their ignorance or uncertainty?
**The apostle Paul didn’t seem to think so. As I’m reading through 1 Corinthians, I’m noticing a recurring question: οὐκ οἴδατε; Or, if you prefer English to Greek: “Don’t you know?”**
Actually, I suspect Paul’s tone could sometimes best be translated with an exclamation mark added: “Don’t you know?!”
**Paul expected his readers to know a lot of things.** He didn’t expect them to know everything, for he knew he possessed special apostolic revelation, revelation that could be passed on only through a long process of teaching. But he did seem to think there are certain facts that any follower of Jesus should know.
Image by [Free-Photos](https://pixabay.com/users/Free-Photos-242387/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=945422)
**In a day when we find it hard to be certain about anything, we need Paul to clear the fog and put some spine in our backs.** Yes, there _are_ times when it’s okay to say “We know.” Apparently it’s even okay to say “Don’t you know?” from time to time. After all, when you can say “I know” about the most important things in life, then you can live with only partial knowledge about the rest, right?
What about you? _Do you know anything?_
**Here, for our mutual reflection, are all the passages in Paul’s letters where he asks the question: οὐκ οἴδατε; Don’t you know?** Since I can’t generate a video of Paul asking you these questions, you get to read them. In a world of uncertainty, here are a few of the things you can _**know**_—and some things you should do based on that knowledge:
### **Οὐκ Οἴδατε; Don’t You Know?**
**…that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey**, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Rom. 6:16)
**…what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?** “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. (Rom. 11:2-5)
**…that you \[plural\] are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?** If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Cor. 3:16-17)
**…that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?** Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (1 Cor. 5:6-7)
**…that the saints will judge the world?** And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (1 Cor. 6:2)
**…****that we are to judge angels?** How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? (1 Cor. 6:3-6)
**…****that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?** Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
**…that your bodies are members of Christ?** Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! (1 Cor. 6:15)
**…that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?** For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. (1 Cor. 6:16-17)
**…****that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?** You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cor. 6:19-20)
**…that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?** In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:13-14)
**…that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize?** So run that you may obtain it. (1 Cor. 9:24)
**James uses the same words to begin this question:**
**…that friendship with the world is enmity with God?** Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4)
**And Paul uses a parallel expression (_ἀγνοεῖτε_; “Do you not-know?” or “Are you ignorant?”) in these verses:**
**…that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?** We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3-4)
**…that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?** For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Rom. 7:1-4)
**What do you know?** What things do you consider knowable? How do you talk with others about these things? **If you know a thing or two, share it in the comments below.** And thanks for reading!
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (4 of 6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-09-23
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (4 of 6) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Ancient Jews knew Jesus did address homosexuality--when he taught about adultery, when he mentioned πορνεία, and especially when he warned about ἀσέλγεια.
Tags: adultery, Law of Moses, Philo, Craig S. | Keener, biblical interpretation, porneia, -, law, Jesus and homosexuality, homosexuality, Robert | Gagnon, Rollin G. | Grams, S. Donald | Fortson III, aselgeia, David W. | Pao, Decalogue, Eckhard J. | Schabel, G. Thomas | Hobson, Geoff | Ashley, historical evidence, homosexuality and ancient Jews, James | Edwards, Richard | Klaus, Russian doll, Ten Commandments
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5
**In this post I want to challenge a popular assumption about Jesus and homosexuality.** It is common knowledge that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. That assertion is technically accurate based on our existing historical sources (though he said many things that were never recorded). Yet, as I explained in the second post in this series, it is a flimsy argument for saying Jesus was okay with homosexual behavior.
In this post I want to go further. **I plan to argue here that Jesus’ Jewish listeners did indeed hear him speak against homosexual behavior, even though he may never have explicitly mentioned it.**
**This is part of** **a six-part blog series on Jesus and homosexuality:**
1. 1. [Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5)
2. [How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5)
3. [Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5)
4. Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality
5. [Historical Conclusions: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-5-of-6)
6. [Conclusions for Today: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality Now?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6)
**We’ve all seen it—that child who insists on interpreting their parents’ instructions as narrowly as possible.** Mommy says, “Don’t draw on the wall!” So Daughter writes her name instead. “But Mommy, you didn’t say I can’t _write_ on the wall. You just said I can’t _draw_ on the wall.”
Or Daddy warns his children, “We have company coming in a few hours. Don’t make a mess in the living room!” The children all start heading to their bedrooms to play except for one child. He tells his siblings, “Hey, Daddy didn’t say we can’t _play_ in the living room. He just said ‘don’t make a mess.’ Let’s get our blocks and cars and build a town over there in the corner.”
“I don’t know… I don’t think Daddy will like that,” his siblings protest.
“But we’ll keep it really neat. There won’t be any mess. We’ll be careful!”
So, the children get out their blocks and toy vehicles and stuffed animals. They carefully arrange an “orderly” town that soon sprawls across the entire room.
Daddy returns moments before the guests arrive, surveys the busy living room with surprise and frustration, and calls his children to attention. “But Daddy, this isn’t a mess! We arranged it very carefully!” his son protests.
What do his siblings immediately say? “It was his idea! _We knew you didn’t want us to bring our toys into the living room_, but he wouldn’t listen!”
**I suggest something similar is happening when we suggest that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.** If Jesus’ original Jewish audience could time-travel and speak with us, they would say, “_Of course Jesus spoke against homosexual behavior_! We heard him plainly!”
### Three Ways Jesus Spoke About Homosexuality
**What did Jesus’ Jewish audience hear that we miss?** What might we hear, too, if we listen as students of history rather than as combatants in a twenty-first century culture war? What teachings of Jesus might we be interpreting too woodenly? What did Jesus say that communicated his disapproval of homosexual behavior?
**I suggest there are at least three ways Jesus referred to homosexual behavior, despite never explicitly naming it.** I’ll begin with the most general and move toward the most specific.
**First, Jesus taught “You shall not commit adultery.”**
The Gospels record that Jesus explicitly cited this command at least twice (Matt. 5:27; 19:18), besides alluding to it on other occasions (Matt. 15:19; 19:9). It seems illogical to our minds, trained by Western legal traditions, to think that “do not commit adultery” could also mean “do not commit homosexual acts.” But that is exactly how many ancient Jews thought.
**We can perhaps begin to understand this way of thinking if we envision a Russian nesting doll** (matryoshka doll), as in the following image.
A rough illustration of how ancient Jews thought of their paradigmatic law code. The more general commands (larger dolls) implied other related and more specific commands (smaller dolls nesting inside the bigger ones). In this way a person could sum up and include many “smaller” commands simply by citing a “bigger” one. (This diagram is adapted from an image by [Monika Schröder](https://pixabay.com/users/monika1607-2963260/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=1861410) from [Pixabay](https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=1861410).)
**In Jewish thought, the more general commands of their law** (the larger dolls) **implied other related and more specific commands** (the smaller dolls nesting inside the bigger ones). In this way a person could sum up and include many “smaller” commands simply by citing a “bigger” one.
**Let’s consider how “You shall not commit adultery” fits into this picture.** This command was part of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. As the [_Encyclopedia Judaica_](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/decalogue) notes, “The Decalogue came to be regarded as a summary of biblical law.”[1](#fn-2991-1)
If the Ten Commandments were a _summary_ of God’s law, then they could also function as an _outline_, with each of the Ten Commandments serving as headings for other related commands. This is exactly what happened. “Some \[ancient Jewish\] sources classify the 613 commandments of the Torah under the the headings of the commandments of the Decalogue.”[2](#fn-2991-2)
One person who thought this way was Philo, a Jewish philosopher alive at the same time as Jesus. **Philo asserted that “under” the commandment “against adulterers… many other commands are conveyed by implication**, such as that against seducers, that against practisers of unnatural crimes, that against all who live in debauchery, that against all men who indulge in illicit and incontinent connections.”[3](#fn-2991-3)
While discussing the Decalogue’s commandment against adultery, **Philo specifically mentioned several forms of homosexual activity:**
> The law commands that the man-woman who adulterates the precious coinage of his nature shall die without redemption… And let the man who is devoted to the love of boys submit to the same punishment, since he pursues that pleasure which is contrary to nature… wasting his power of propagating his species, and moreover, being a guide and teacher of those greatest of all evils, unmanliness and effeminate lust… and last of all, because, like a worthless husbandman, he allows fertile and productive lands to lie fallow.[4](#fn-2991-4)
**There is evidence within the New Testament that Jesus and his apostles shared this approach to interpreting the Law of Moses.** Jesus, for example, cited the two great commandments (love of God and love of neighbor) and then said that “all the Law and the Prophets” depend on (hang from, are derived from) “these two commandments” (Matt. 22:40).
Paul similarly suggested the Ten Commandments are encapsulated within the great commandments:
> The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up \[summarized\] in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”(Rom. 13:9).
**Jesus seems to have applied this kind of thinking specifically to adultery.** For example, Jesus, like some other rabbis of the time, taught a broad definition of adultery that included the attitude of the heart: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that **everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery** with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).
Jesus even “expanded” adultery to include actions that were contrary to God’s creation design but which had specifically been given loopholes by the Law of Moses:
> Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: **whoever divorces his wife**, except for sexual immorality, **and marries another, commits adultery**” (Matt. 19:8-9).
Under _adultery_ then, Jesus also forbade other sexual sins such as _lust_ and _divorce_.
If we combine Jesus’ and Paul’s statements, we could say that inside of “Love your neighbor” is found “You shall not commit adultery,” and inside of “You shall not commit adultery” are both “Do not look at a woman with lustful intent” and “Do not divorce”—and, Philo adds, “Do not engage in homosexual behavior.”
**Robert Gagnon summarizes this ancient Jewish way of reading “You shall not commit adultery”:**
> The Decalogue commandment against adultery was treated as a broad rubric prohibiting all forms of sexual practice that deviated from the creation model in Genesis 1-2, including homoerotic intercourse.[5](#fn-2991-5)
Given this way of thinking about laws, **it is likely that ancient Jews would have understood Jesus to be prohibiting all sorts of unlawful sexual activity, including homosexual activity, when he taught “You shall not commit adultery.”**
_(This way of thinking is radically different from our Western legal tradition. Our legal codes are exhaustive, and any action not explicitly banned remains legal. Ancient law codes were paradigmatic, and people were expected to extrapolate from the examples given to all similar situations. For help in understanding these differences and how they impact the commands we are discussing here, [**see the appendix at the end of this article**](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5/#stuart).)_
### Second, Jesus taught against _πορνεία_ (_porneia_).
This Greek word is found on Jesus’ lips in both Matthew and Mark’s Gospels.[6](#fn-2991-6) Jesus listed _πορνεῖαι_ (plural) among the defiling sins that proceed from the human heart:
> What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, **sexual immorality**… (Matt. 15:18-19; cf. Mark 7:21)
_Πορνεία_ (_porneia_) is commonly translated “sexual immorality.” It is a broad term which refers to “every kind of extramarital, unlawful, unnatural sexual intercourse.”[7](#fn-2991-7)
New Testament scholar James Edwards says that _πορνεία_ “can be found in Greek literature with reference to a variety of illicit sexual practices, including adultery, fornication, prostitution, and homosexuality.”[8](#fn-2991-8)
When Jesus spoke against _πορνεία_, he was speaking to Jews, not Greeks. What kinds of sexual activity would they have considered unlawful or illegitimate? **Would Jews have considered homosexual behavior to be _πορνεία_?**
We don’t have to guess. In the Septuagint (the Greek OT translated about 200 B.C.), _πορνεία_ was used “for any sexual practice outside marriage between a man and a woman that is prohibited by the Torah” (Edwards).[9](#fn-2991-9) Homosexual activity certainly fits this description.
Remember the conclusion reached by Fortson and Grams regarding Jewish writings near the time of Jesus:
> Jews consistently condemned homosexual practice of any sort… Jews understood the Old Testament to speak against homosexual behavior, and they accepted biblical authority in matters of sexual ethics.[10](#fn-2991-10)
And remember how Keener summarized Jewish practices from the same period:
> Jewish people… unanimously rejected homosexual behavior… Jewish homosexual practice was nearly unknown.[11](#fn-2991-11)
Given this historical context, Gagnon’s summary is no surprise: “**In Jesus’ day, and for many centuries before and thereafter, _porneia_ was universally understood in Judaism to include same-sex intercourse.**“[12](#fn-2991-12) The related verb ἐκπορνεύω[13](#fn-2991-13) is even used in the NT to describe what Sodom and Gomorrah did: “indulged in sexual immorality” (Jude 1:7).
What would Jesus’ Jewish listeners say to us today if we suggested he never said anything about homosexual behavior? “Of course he did!” they might respond. “We clearly heard him warn against _πορνεία_!”
### Third, Jesus taught against _ἀσέλγεια_ (_aselgeia_).
Mark includes this word in his record of Jesus’ teaching about sins that come out of the heart:
> From within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, **sensuality**… (Mark 7:21-22)
_Ἀσέλγεια_ is sometimes translated “sensuality” (ESV, NASB). But that expression hardly carries the negative connotation in today’s “sexy” world that _ἀσέλγεια_ apparently carried among ancient Jews. “Lewdness” (NIV) or “debauchery” (NET) come closer. While _πορνεία_ was used widely to refer to all kinds of unlawful sexual intercourse, _ἀσέλγεια_ seems to have been used more narrowly to refer to sexual sins that Jews considered especially shameful.
G. Thomas Hobson surveys the usage of the word _ἀσέλγεια_ in classical Greek, pre-New Testament, and post-New Testament contexts in [his 2008 journal article “ἀσέλγεια in Mark 7:22.”](https://www.academia.edu/31907497/ASELGEIA_IN_MARK_7_22) His findings are worth quoting at length:
> It’s a word that Jesus… could easily turn to as a synonym for homosexual activity and other similarly shocking behavior forbidden by the Jewish law… **ἀσέλγεια was πορνεία… taken to its most disgusting degree**… The term may have been used to refer to what were regarded as the most shameless violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah.
>
> It would appear that the writer of Mark, writing for a general audience, saw a need to spell out an element of Jesus’ teaching that addressed a sexual lifestyle issue among Gentiles, a matter that was less of an issue for Matthew’s predominately Jewish audience. Furthermore, for some reason, neither πορνεία \[“sexual immorality”\] nor μοιχεία \[“adultery”\] specifically addressed the sexual sin he had in mind. **It is likely… that Jesus was speaking of violations of the Torah such as homosexual behavior, incest, or bestiality**, rather than comparatively less shocking sins such as adultery and fornication.[14](#fn-2991-14)
In fact, **there is one place in the New Testament (2 Pet. 2:7) where the word _ἀσέλγεια_ is used explicitly to refer to the actions of people who were homosexuals**. Hobson again:
> Second Peter uses ἀσέλγεια more than any other NT document. It links ἀσέλγεια explicitly with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, picturing Lot (2 Pet 2,7) as “greatly distressed by the licentiousness (ἀσέλγεια) of the wicked” around him. [15](#fn-2991-15)
Given this usage of _ἀσέλγεια_, what might Jesus have meant by the term in Mark 7:22? Hobson once more:
> Exactly what did Jesus consider to be “utter shamelessness”? What did he consider too far “over the line”? The danger is to impose twenty-first century AD politically correct ideas on Jesus… In context, **it is far more likely that Jesus had in mind what his fellow Jews** (like the author of 2 Peter) **meant when they used the word: images of Sodom and Gomorrah, images of outrageous violation of the one-flesh union of man and woman**…
>
> If Jesus had wished to speak of homosexual behavior in his list of sins that defile the human heart, to what other word could Mark have turned in his translation? Παιδεραστία \[“paederasty,” from “love-of-boys”\] was too narrow a term. Ἀρσενοκοίτης \[“man-bedder”\] had barely been coined by Paul. And πορνεία \[“sexual immorality”\] is too broad a concept, although it is the only word Matthew chooses to use in his version of Jesus’ sin list. **Ἀσέλγεια was an ideal word for identifying both homosexual behavior and other similar sexual sins of which even the Mishnah was reticent to speak any more than was absolutely necessary**…
>
> The appearance of ἀσέλγεια on the lips of Mark’s Jesus must be accounted for somehow, and it will not do to say that a word of such shock value as ἀσέλγεια was a throw-away detail, or was intended as nothing more than a synonym for πορνεία \[“sexual immorality”\] or μοιχεία \[“adultery”\]… It is argued here that, as he seeks to faithfully communicate Jesus’ teaching, **Mark found it necessary to emphasize to his readers that Jesus did explicitly reaffirm the Torah’s prohibition of the most shocking sexual offenses**.[16](#fn-2991-16)
Again, what might Jesus’ Jewish listeners say to us today if they heard us suggest Jesus never said anything about homosexual activity? “Of course he did!” they might respond. “We clearly heard him mention _ἀσέλγεια_!”
And, of course, it is clear that Jesus’ first followers _did_ indeed understand that homosexual behavior was incompatible with following Jesus. (I’ll share more of that evidence in [my final post](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6/).)
### Conclusion
**A primary goal of this blog series is to help us interpret Jesus within his own ancient Jewish historical context.** If we read his silence, his speech, and his actions as if he were our next-door neighbor or even a twenty-first century rabbi, we are sure to reach conclusions that are historically invalid at best and dangerously deceptive at worst.
It is frequently claimed that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. That may be technically true according to our post-Scientific Revolution, post-Enlightenment way of reading science journals and law codes. But it is also very misleading according to ancient Jewish ways of talking about laws and sins.
Jesus’ general language condemning sexual immorality would have been understood by his original listeners to prohibit all mutually-recognized sexual sins—including homosexual activity as surely as bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and many other activities he also “failed” to mention.
**Any ancient Jew would have concluded that Jesus did indeed address the topic of homosexual behavior. He did so when he taught about adultery, even more so when he mentioned _πορνεία_, and especially when he warned about _ἀσέλγεια._**
**Are you able to hear Jesus through ancient Jewish ears? If you have a comment, please leave it below.** And thanks for reading! I realize the posts in this series take some time to read and absorb, and I hope you have found the time worthwhile.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
* * *
### Appendix:
The Implications of Ancient Law Codes
_The following is excerpted from “The Paradigmatic Nature of Biblical Law,” an excursus in Douglas Stuart’s commentary on Exodus:_[17](#fn-2991-17)
“Modern societies generally have opted for exhaustive law codes. That is, every action modern society wishes to regulate or prohibit must be specifically mentioned in a separate law… By this approach, all actions are permitted that are not expressly forbidden or regulated. Thus it is not uncommon that criminals in modern Western societies evade prosecution because of a ‘technicality’ or a ‘loophole’ in the law…
“Ancient laws did not work this way. They were paradigmatic, giving models of behaviors and models of prohibitions/punishments relative to those behaviors, but they made no attempt to be exhaustive. Ancient laws gave guiding principles, or samples, rather than complete descriptions of all things regulated. Ancient people were expected to be able to extrapolate from what the sampling of laws did say to the _general_ behavior the laws in their totality pointed toward… Ancient judges were expected to extrapolate from the wording provided in the laws that did exist to _all other_ circumstances and not to be foiled in their jurisprudence by any such concepts as ‘technicalities’ or ‘loopholes’… The Israelites had to learn to see the underlying principles in any law and not let the specifics of the individual casuistic citation mislead them into applying the law too narrowly…
“It is in connection with the paradigmatic nature of Israel’s covenant law that Jesus, following the established tradition in Judaism, could make so sweeping an assertion as that two laws sum up all the rest… Properly understood, two laws do indeed sum up _everything_ in the entire legal corpus of the Old Testament. So do ten laws (the Ten Words/Commandments); so do all six hundred and thirteen… If a reasonable number of comprehensive and comprehensible laws… are provided to a people as paradigms for proper living, there is no excuse for that people to claim ignorance of how to behave or to claim innocence when their sins are found out.
“Most laws are expressed as commands in the masculine singular—the _you_ of the laws is ‘you, a male person’—from a technical, grammatical point of view. But here again the reader/listener would not have the slightest ground to say, ‘It prohibits individual men from doing such and such, but I’m a woman/we’re a group, so the wording of the law exempts me/us.’ Implicit in the wording is the need for paradigmatic extrapolation to all persons, singular or plural, male or female…
“Without an awareness of all six hundred and thirteen commandments and seeing within them the high standards of God’s holiness… a person corrupted by a fallen world does not easily get the point of what the two great commandments are intended to summarize. Once one has learned the breadth and depth of God’s expectations for his holy people, however, the two greatest commandments serve brilliantly as comprehensive reminders of all that is expected of God’s covenant people.”
_In his discussion of the Ten Commandments, Stuart applies this understanding to command about adultery:_
“**This commandment does not explicitly condemn** premarital sex, postmarital sex (as by a widow or widower), cohabitation without formal marriage, bestiality, or incest, all of which are dealt with elsewhere in various ways; **but _by implication_ it certainly does condemn all those practices**… Again the principle of law as paradigmatic is essential for appreciating the implications of this command: reasonable and careful extrapolation from the paradigm of the adultery law yields the realization that all sex outside of marriage, whether before, during, after, or instead of a person’s actual legal marriage would be a violation of the divine covenant… The commandment also argues, implicitly, against divorce. If marriage is so important that is must be protected against adulteration—even the sort of adulteration that might occur in brief interludes—it certainly is important enough to protect against dissolution altogether.”[18](#fn-2991-18)
1. “Decalogue,” David Kadosh, _Encyclopedia Judaica_, The Gale Group, 2008, [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/decalogue](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/decalogue), accessed August 2, 2019. [↩](#fnref-2991-1)
2. David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 351. [↩](#fnref-2991-2)
3. Philo, _The Decalogue_, XXXII. (168), [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book26.html](http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book26.html), accessed September 2, 2019. [↩](#fnref-2991-3)
4. Philo, _The Special Laws_, Book 3, VII. (38, 39). English source: [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book29.html](http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book29.html) Greek source: [http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/philo/specialg.pdf](http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/philo/specialg.pdf), pp. 82-83, accessed September 2, 2019. Philo’s comment about a “man-woman” seems to be concerned with men who change their appearance and actions to be like women. As for his comment about “the man who is devoted to the love of boys, it is worth noting that Philo does not seem concerned about child abuse or sexual abuse in any modern sense of those terms. Rather, the concerns he mentions are that such unions (1) are “contrary to nature,” (2) contribute to population decline, (3) train boys to be effeminate, and (4) cause women to remain barren. As with other ancient Jewish authors, the question of consensuality apparently was not a prime factor for Philo in evaluating the ethics of homosexual unions; other factors weighed more, and could not be overruled by the presence of consent. [↩](#fnref-2991-4)
5. Robert Gagnon, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues,” 2003, online article based on an interview with Zenit News Agency, March 21 and 28, 2002, pub. by OrthodoxyToday.org, [http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php](http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php), accessed August 28, 2019. [↩](#fnref-2991-5)
6. It is likely that Jesus did much of his teaching in Aramaic, in which case the Gospel writers (or the sources upon which they drew) chose which Greek words to use. Historians generally agree, however, that their translations reliably convey the message of Jesus’ teaching. [↩](#fnref-2991-6)
7. See Geoff Ashley’s survey of definitions of _πορνεία_ in “Jesus and Homosexuality,” online article, The Village Church, [https://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/articles/jesus-and-homosexuality](https://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/articles/jesus-and-homosexuality), accessed September 2, 2019. Compare also with the usage noted in BAGD (_A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_, by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker): “of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” Mounce similarly notes that “the word group to which _porneia_ belongs generally relates to any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse” (_Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words_). [↩](#fnref-2991-7)
8. James R. Edwards, _The Gospel According to Mark_, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 213. [↩](#fnref-2991-8)
9. Ibid. [↩](#fnref-2991-9)
10. S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, _Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition_ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 235. [↩](#fnref-2991-10)
11. Craig S. Keener, _Romans_, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009), Kindle Edition, commentary on Romans 1:24-27. [↩](#fnref-2991-11)
12. Gagnon, Ibid. [↩](#fnref-2991-12)
13. The relationship between the words can be glimpsed even by someone who dooes not read Greek; compare _πορνεία_ and _ἐκπορνεύω_, or, in transliteration, _porneia_ and _ekporneuo_. [↩](#fnref-2991-13)
14. G. Thomas Hobson, “ἀσέλγεια in Mark 7:22,” _Filologia Neotestamentaria_ 21 (2008), 65, 67, 70, bold added. See here for the full article: [https://www.academia.edu/31907497/ASELGEIA\_IN\_MARK\_7\_22](https://www.academia.edu/31907497/ASELGEIA_IN_MARK_7_22). See also this summary by Richard Klaus: “Jesus Did Mention Homosexuality!” online article, White Rose Review, October, 2014, [https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2014/10/jesus-did-mention-homosexuality.html](https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2014/10/jesus-did-mention-homosexuality.html), accessed September 2, 2019. [↩](#fnref-2991-14)
15. Ibid., 68. [↩](#fnref-2991-15)
16. Ibid., 72-74, bold added. [↩](#fnref-2991-16)
17. Douglas K. Stuart, _Exodus,_ New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 442-444. [↩](#fnref-2991-17)
18. Ibid., 464-65, bold added. [↩](#fnref-2991-18)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (3 of 6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-09-16
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (3 of 6) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Does "love your neighbor" mean Jesus affirmed "gay love"? How do love and homosexuality fit together in Jesus' ethics? What is love, and who defines it?
Tags: Philo, -, Jesus and homosexuality, love, Matthew | Vines, Paul and homosexuality, Robert | Gagnon, Rollin G. | Grams, Rosaria | Butterfield, S. Donald | Fortson III, homosexuality and ancient Jews, Ben | Witherington III, Gareth L. | Cockerill, hermeneutic roundabout, Immanuel | Jakobovits, Jesus and love, Kyle | Harper, love and sexual ethics, love your neighbor, sexual freedom, Ted | Grimsrud
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5
**If there is one thing that all Americans may agree on about Jesus, it is that he taught us to love.** “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” are two of our favorite Jesus quotes. “Judge not” and “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone” are often thrown in (or _at_) for good measure. **But how do love and homosexuality fit together for Jesus and his followers? Here there is far less agreement.**
**This is part of** **a six-part blog series on Jesus and homosexuality:**
1. 1. 1. [Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5)
2. [How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5)
3. Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?
4. [Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5)
5. [Historical Conclusions: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-5-of-6)
6. [Conclusions for Today: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality Now?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6)
**In my last post I argued, based on evidence from Jewish history, that it is virtually certain that rabbi Jesus agreed homosexual behavior is wrong.** This is true even if he never explicitly mentioned homosexuality. Overwhelming historical evidence demands that this must be our working hypothesis in any discussion of Jesus and homosexuality, virtually certain **unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary**. (And then we need to explain how this evidence was somehow missed by all his first listeners.)
**Is Jesus’ teaching on love such evidence?** Is Jesus’ emphasis on love proof that he approved of loving homosexual relationships? **Does “love your neighbor” mean Jesus affirmed “gay love”?**
An adaptation of an image I found online. The original message is true, but the question I added at the bottom must also be answered honestly.
### Love and Homosexuality:
What Did Ancient Jews and Christians Say?
**Jesus’ life was marked by unusual compassion and love.** He not only taught love of friend and enemy alike; he also modeled it by welcoming and honoring social “nobodies” of all sorts:
* He welcomed children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them” (Luke 18:16).
* He had compassion on the crowds: “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).
* He attracted women: “There were also many women there… who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him” (Matt. 27:55).
* He said nice things about prostitutes: “Truly, I say to you… the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31).
* He protected a woman caught in adultery: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7).
* And he was accused of being a friend of the wrong crowd: “Look at him! …A friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Matt. 11:19).
**Matthew Vines emphasizes Jesus’ example of love at the climax of his viral video “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality”:**
> Jesus placed a particular focus on those others overlooked, on those who were outcast, on mistreated and marginalized minorities. And if we are working to emulate the life of Christ, then that’s where our focus needs to be, too… How fully have you absorbed, not just the existence of gay and lesbian Christians, but the depth of the pain and the hurt that their own brothers and sisters have inflicted on them? Does that pain grieve you as though it were your own?” [1](#fn-2918-1)
Vines’ words here about love are true and on point. This is a message that all Christians, myself included, need to consider and act on. As Preston Sprinkle reminds us, when we discuss homosexuality, we are discussing “people to be loved… not just an issue.”[2](#fn-2918-2)
However, Vines makes these statements about Jesus’ love in the context of arguing that “the Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships.” He claims that those who use the Bible to speak against homosexual behavior are denying gay people love: “You are uniquely unworthy of loving and being loved by another person, and all because you’re different, because you’re gay.” Here, it seems to me, Vines is badly misunderstanding both the nature of love and the significance of Jesus’ example of love.
**Jesus’ life of love was truly remarkable, yet it is virtually meaningless as evidence that Jesus approved of homosexual relationships. Here are three reasons, rooted in history, why I can make such a confident claim:**
**First****, ancient Jews saw no contradiction between commanding neighbor-love and condemning homosexual activity.** In the Law of Moses, the famous command to love one’s neighbor and the commands against homosexual behavior are found practically shoulder to shoulder:
> “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22).
>
> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).
>
> “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself” (Lev. 19:34).
>
> “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Lev. 20:13).[3](#fn-2918-3)
It is questionable, at best, to say that _because_ Jesus quoted and affirmed “Love your neighbor” from Leviticus he _therefore_ disagreed with “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman” from the same text. Instead, these passages demonstrate that **ancient Jews did not think that affirming homosexual relationships was a logical or necessary outworking of an ethic of love.**
Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits confirms this conclusion in his entry on “homosexuality” in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. He contrasts modern liberal Christian attitudes about love with the perspective found in Jewish law:
> Whereas the more liberal attitude found in some modern Christian circles is possibly due to the exaggerated importance Christians have traditionally accorded to the term “love,” **Jewish law holds that no hedonistic ethic, even if called “love,” can justify the morality of homosexuality** any more than it can legitimize adultery, incest, or polygamy, however genuinely such acts may be performed out of love and by mutual consent.[4](#fn-2918-4)
**Second, the apostle Paul did not see any contradiction between urging neighbor love and warning against homosexual practice.** Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth contains an entire chapter exalting love—the famous “Love Chapter” (1 Cor. 13). But it also includes this: “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral …nor men who practice homosexuality… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Similarly, Paul’s letter to the Roman church, which contains the New Testament’s longest passage critiquing homosexual activity (Rom. 1:24-27), also emphasizes that all the commandments “are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'” (Rom. 13:9).
**Here we must detour briefly to address a question about which whole chapters have been written: Was Paul really speaking against homosexual behaviors of all kinds in these passages?** That is indeed how the church read Paul for nearly 2000 years, but a seemingly unending variety of revisionist readings have been appearing in recent decades. Are we wrong to understand Paul as speaking generally against homosexual behavior in these passages? (See also 1 Timothy 1:9–10.)
The first response to this question must be to remember that Paul was a Jew. He was trained as a Pharisee, and he stood in a longer religious tradition where “for a period of about 2000 years, all Jews everywhere taught that homosexual unions of any sort were sinful and against nature.”[5](#fn-2918-5) That historical context was our starting point in interpreting Jesus’ silence ([see the last post](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5/)), and it must also be our starting point in interpreting Paul’s teachings.
That Paul was standing in this Jewish tradition is reinforced by the fact that he apparently drew directly on the Law of Moses to coin an original term for a male homosexual. He apparently created the word _ἀρσενοκοῖται_ (“male-bedders,” found in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10) from two words found in the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, _ἄρσενος_ (“male”) and _κοίτη_ (“bed”). This word, like its source text, appears to be a very general reference to males who practice same-sex relations.[6](#fn-2918-6)
In this Jewish context, it is nearly meaningless to argue that Paul’s statements _could be understood_ to leave a _loophole_ for _some positive forms_ of homosexual behavior. In this historical context of prohibiting _all_ same-sex sexual relations and preserving the male-female created order, it is somewhat beside the point to suggest that Paul “doesn’t have _long-term, loving_ same-sex relationships in view.”[7](#fn-2918-7) In this context, debates about the precise meanings of the terms Paul used to condemn homosexual behaviors become secondary. To counter centuries of consistent Jewish teaching against _all_ forms of homosexual behavior, we would need to see clear _positive_ endorsement of some sort of homosexual behavior by Paul, not merely a failure to explicitly condemn all forms.
But we don’t see that. Instead, if we read Paul’s statements about homosexuality within the context of previous Jewish writings on the topic, we see that his statements are right at home. Just like them, he builds his case on both Jewish law (“_ἀρσενοκοῖται_“) and nature/creation (Rom. 1:24-27). And just like them, he speaks against the homosexual union itself (“_ἀρσενοκοῖται,_” “male-bedders”) and against unions that involved mutual desire (“passion for one another,” Rom. 1:27). He even speaks against female-female unions (Rom. 1:26). _**In short, there is nothing in Paul’s teaching on the ethics of homosexuality to indicate that he was carving a path contrary to Jewish predecessors.**_
Kyle Harper, in a recent book published by Harvard University Press, warns against “any hermeneutic roundabout that tries to sanitize or soften Paul’s words” about same-sex relationships:
> For Paul, same-sex attraction symbolized the estrangement of men and women, at the very level of their inmost desires, from nature and from the creator of nature… \[pg brk\] For the historian, any hermeneutic roundabout that tries to sanitize or soften Paul’s words is liable to obscure the inflection point around which attitudes toward same-sex erotics would be forever altered \[within Roman culture\]… Paul’s overriding sense of gender—rather than age or status—as the prime determinant in the propriety of a sexual act was nurtured by contemporary Jewish attitudes… By reducing the sex act down to the most basic constituents of male and female, Paul was able to redescribe the sexual culture surrounding him in transformative terms.”[8](#fn-2918-8)
Despite Harper’s warning, there are many current revisionist readings of Paul to consider, and also many interpretive questions to answer.[9](#fn-2918-9) For those who wish to dig deeper into Paul, I recommend [this transcript of an interview with Robert Gagnon](http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php) or, for a much more detailed discussion, the book [_Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition_](https://amzn.to/2IcLaTZ), by Fortson and Grams (especially chapters 16-18).
With apologies, then, both for getting side-tracked with Paul and for giving him such cursory treatment, we return to Jesus.
**Here, again, is our take-away point from Paul: Paul did not see any contradiction between urging neighbor love and warning against homosexual practice.** Both the Jewish Scriptures (before Jesus) and Paul (after him) condemned homosexual behavior while also teaching the command “love your neighbor as yourself.” On these ethical matters of love and homosexuality, Paul and Moses were in complete agreement.
**Jesus was also a Jew. He taught neighbor love _using the very same commandment from the Law of Moses_ that Paul used. This is no reason to conclude he disagreed with Moses and Paul on the ethics of homosexual behavior.**
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/LoveCollageFinal.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/lovecollagefinal-1721353183096-compressed.png)
**Third, rather than equating love with sexual freedom, the New Testament commonly _contrasts_ love and sexual indulgence.**
**Don’t miss how radically different this is from our culture!** In fact, this is one of those times when the “culture” of the New Testament (or even just of ancient Jews) is so radically different from our own that it is mind-bending.
Modern Western culture, at least since the 1960’s, typically equates love with sexual freedom. The language of love has been adopted by those promoting LGBTQ+ lifestyle choices, so that banners proclaiming messages such as “Love Wins” or “Love Is Love” are commonplace in Gay Pride marches and on social media. This use of “love” language is so ubiquitous that it is almost automatic for a person to feel they are being unloving if they speak against homosexual behavior.
To step from this mindset into the ethics of the New Testament is akin to jumping into a cold lake on a very hot day. The shock is great enough that most people complain that the water is too cold, rather than considering that the problem may be found in their own overheated bodies.
Rather than equating love with sexual freedom as our culture does, the New Testament _specifically_ _contrasts_ love and sexual immorality. **It is not just that the NT sees some “sexual freedom” as loving and some as not; rather, it sees them as polar opposites. You are asked to choose one or the other.**
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians may contain the clearest example:
> **Walk in love**, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. **But sexual immorality** and all impurity or covetousness **must not even be named among you** (Eph. 5:2-3, emphasis added).
Paul’s letter to the Colossians tells us to “put to death” what we might call “sexual freedom” and to “put on” love instead:
> **Put to death** therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire… **Put on then**, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness… **And above all these put on love** (Col. 3:5, 12, 14, emphasis added).
Paul’s letter to the Galatians also agrees, essentially saying, “_Do not_ practice sexual immorality, impurity, or sensuality, but _instead_ love each other”:
> “**Do not** use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, **but** through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”… Now **the works of the flesh are evident**: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality… **But the fruit of the Spirit is love**” (Gal. 5:13-14, 19, 22, emphasis added).
Peter agrees with Paul (see 1 Peter 4:3-8), as does the writer of Hebrews. Near the end of his letter he writes, “Let brotherly love continue.” Then he gives several examples of how to practice brotherly love, including this:
> Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous (Heb. 13:4).[10](#fn-2918-10)
Again, it is easy to miss how radical the New Testament ethic is. Remember that **these writers are all Jews who agree that homosexual activity _of any sort_ is sinful** ([see my last post](https://wp.me/p52EFv-Kx)). When they mention “sexual immorality,” they think that term includes homosexual practices ([more on this in my next post](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5/)). We should not imagine that they think some homosexual activity is immoral and some is loving. Rather, as Jewish Christians, **they all believe that _all_ homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s will _and, therefore, contrary to true love._**
An adaptation of an image found online.
### Love and the “Most Important” Commandment
**How can we explain this radical New Testament idea that sexual freedom and true love are at odds with each other?**
One source of this thinking is the Jewish heritage of the New Testament writers. For example, the Jewish philosopher Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, complained about how some people abused the term _love_ in his day:
> Seduction is an offence which is similar and nearly related to adultery, as they are both sprung from one common mother, incontinence. But **some of those persons who are accustomed to dignify shameful actions by specious names, call this love**, blushing to confess the real truth concerning its character.[11](#fn-2918-11)
Remember also the statement of Rabbi Jakobovits as quoted above:
> Jewish law holds that no hedonistic ethic, even if called “love,” can justify the morality of homosexuality.[12](#fn-2918-12)
**Another foundation for this New Testament perspective is Jesus’ teaching on the two great commandments. In Jesus’ view** (also the historic Jewish view)**, love for neighbor is properly understood as the “second” commandment, not the first.** It must always be defined in relation to the “most important” commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God”:
> One of the scribes… asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “**The most important** is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ **The second** is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28-31, emphasis added)
Ben Witherington’s helpful definition of neighbor love takes this priority into account: **“Love in the NT is not mainly or merely a warm, mushy feeling or sentiment but** _**a decision of the will to do what God commands in regard to the neighbor.**_**“**[13](#fn-2918-13) It is not ultimately loving to help your neighbor violate God’s will.
In Jesus’ and Paul’s eyes, love for someone new was never a valid argument in favor of adultery or divorce—_not even if both marriage partners wanted the adultery or divorce to happen_. To the contrary, Paul said that the commandment “You shall not commit adultery” is “summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Rom. 13:9). In Paul’s view, to _not_ commit adultery is to love your neighbor. Since neighbor love was “a decision of the will to do what God commands in regard to the neighbor,” this meant that even mutually-desired divorce was prohibited _because it violated God’s creation pattern of male-female marriage for life_.
The same realities apply to “loving, committed same-sex relationships” (see Vines above). In the ethics of ancient Jews and Christians, **neither divorce** (“except on the ground of sexual immorality,” Matt. 5:32) **nor homosexual activity were considered legitimate expressions of human love, for they both violated what Jesus called the “most important” commandment: love of God.**
It is important to keep the “most important” love commandment in mind when listening to perspectives like the following, from a lecture by Ted Grimsrud, Senior Professor of Peace Theology at Eastern Mennonite University:
> In terms of their mission, **Christian churches should take as their starting point a** **general stance of welcome or invitation or hospitality toward all people**… Jesus’ welcome to sinners included welcoming both people who had violated Torah (for example, the woman caught in adultery, Zacchaeus the tax collector, and the woman “of the city” who washed his feet) and people who were inappropriately labeled “unclean” (such as poor people, lepers, or menstruating women)…
>
> The Bible _does_ place a high priority on the need for the faith community to sustain a clear identity as God’s people—so we should resist forces within the community that compromise that identity. Not everything goes, but we limit hospitality only in order to serve the vocation of welcome… **In relation to same-sex intimacy, same-sex marriage, and “homosexuality” in general**, the fundamental call to hospitality does not fully resolve the issues. However, **we should see the call to hospitality as the _starting point_**.[14](#fn-2918-14)
This perspective takes something truly beautiful—“hospitality,” or love of neighbor—and promotes it out of its place as the second commandment to become “the _starting point_.” Given this beginning, it is little wonder that Grimsrud goes on to seek a “hermeneutic roundabout” for each biblical prohibition of same-sex relations.[15](#fn-2918-15) **Making Jesus’ “most important” commandment the starting point for our discussion of love and homosexuality leads to different conclusions.**
### What Is Love? And Who Gets to Define It?
What, then, is love? What does it truly look like? Who gets to decide if a given action is actually loving? Is it possible to love a person while hating what they do?
**It appears to me that it is impossible to agree on what _true love_ is until we also agree in significant measure about what _truth_ is.**
What, for example, does it mean to love someone who experiences homosexual desires?
* Supporting a person in their goals of achieving whatever pleasures, rights, or freedoms they desire?
* Withholding support, even when it is asked for, if you disagree with their goals?
* Warning them of the dangers of their goals, based on truth as best you can see it?
* Withholding warning, even if it may mean their ultimate destruction?
Until we agree on truth, it is pretty much impossible to agree on which of the above (or any other alternative) is actually loving.
Love without truth is like cake batter without a mold. Fortson and Grams explain:
> What happens with the criterion of “love” in a culture that highly values “freedom” is that “love” is defined in terms of “freedom.” The “loving thing to do” becomes letting people do what they want to do, as long as the rights of others are not infringed. **Like cake batter, love takes the shape of the mold into which it is poured.** In the West this mold consists of liberation and equality. No society will stand with so meager a basis for thinking through its great moral challenges. Citizens of Western culture lack a robust enough moral vocabulary and ethic to explain why they object to things their consciences feel are wrong. In the public square they are restricted to the language of freedom and equality in all moral matters.[16](#fn-2918-16)
**What “cake mold” did Jesus use to define true love?** Clearly, the mold any ancient Jew used was the commands of God, including his commands about sexual immorality. Nothing could be truly loving unless it was in line with God’s law. As Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
### Conclusion
**Jesus’ teachings on love, then, do not in any way suggest that he was okay with homosexual relationships.** If we conclude this, then we (like Vines above) are importing our own “cake mold” into the first century. We are assuming that Jesus defined _love_ according to _our_ values and _our_ concepts of truth, not by those of ancient Jews or the law of God.
As we have seen, ancient Jews and early Christians alike both taught that one can love one’s neighbor and disapprove of homosexual activity at the same time. In fact, the authors of the New Testament believed that sexual immorality in all forms was diametrically _opposed_ to true love.
**Jesus’ emphasis on love is not proof that he approved of “loving homosexual relationships.” If anything, in light of biblical ethics, it shows the opposite.**
**Thank you for reading. If you have a comment, please leave it below.** And “walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:2).
* * *
**Postscript:** It is not the purpose of this series to address the important pastoral questions of how to love and bless those of you who have same-sex desires or live homosexual lifestyles. (If that is you, special thanks for reading.) I cannot sign off this post without emphasizing, however, that **_Jesus’ view of love as described above must never be used to justify violence of any sort (physical or psychological) toward homosexual people_**. Quite the opposite. What does love look like when offered to a person with homosexual desires? Among other things, it looks like hospitality, as Rosaria Butterfield describes in her book [_The Gospel Comes With a House Key_](https://rosariabutterfield.com/the-gospel-comes-with-a-house-key).
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” originally a speech given at College Hill United Methodist Church in Wichita, Kansas, on March 8, 2012; video and transcript available at [https://matthewvines.tumblr.com/](https://matthewvines.tumblr.com/), transcript accessed September 8, 2019. Vines advertises that his video, which has over 1,112,000 views, “dismantles every Bible-based argument against homosexuality.” That is a bold claim for a speech produced by a 21-year-old. Vines makes a powerful emotional appeal, but I think he falls far short of his claim, though I don’t have time here to respond to most of his arguments. [↩](#fnref-2918-1)
2. Sprinkle has written a book with this title: [_People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just an Issue_](https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/blog/2016/5/6/people-to-be-loved). I have not read the book, only reviews, so this mention is not meant to be an endorsement (nor a critique). [↩](#fnref-2918-2)
3. Compare also “Love the sojourner” and “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God,” both from Deuteronomy (10:19; 22:5). [↩](#fnref-2918-3)
4. Immanuel Jakobovits, “Homosexuality,” _Encyclopaedia Judaica_, Vol. 8 (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1971), 961-62, emphasis added. As quoted by Mark F. Rooker in _Leviticus_, Vol. 3A in The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2000), 247. [↩](#fnref-2918-4)
5. S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, _Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition_ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 248. [↩](#fnref-2918-5)
6. Fortson and Grams explain further: “_Arsenokoitai_ is a word not found in Greek literature outside Christian circles… Significantly, the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13 offers the words needed to understand how the word _arsenokoitai_ came into being… Not only are the words found together, but a Greek manuscript in Paul’s day would not have separated them with spaces. While Paul would have known the two words were distinct, he would have seen them together in Leviticus 20:13 and apparently chose to keep them that way… Since the word _arsenokoitai_ is not found elsewhere in Greek literature—except where Christian authors use it and usually in reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9—it is apparently a word Paul coined from Leviticus 20:13.” Ibid., 294-95. [↩](#fnref-2918-6)
7. “A Brief Biblical Case for LGBTQ Inclusion,” online article, The Reformation Project, founded by Matthew Vines, [https://www.reformationproject.org/biblical-case](https://www.reformationproject.org/biblical-case), italics added, accessed September 9, 2019. [↩](#fnref-2918-7)
8. Kyle Harper, _From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 94-95. Harper is Professor of Classics and Letters and Senior Vice President and Provost at The University of Oklahoma. [According to reviewer Kevin DeYoung](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/first-sexual-revolution-triumph-christian-morality-roman-empire/), “Harper’s book is a work of academic history. For the most part, he doesn’t comment on the history he presents either to approve it or condemn it.” [↩](#fnref-2918-8)
9. Was Paul aware of such a thing as homosexual orientation, or is using the word “homosexual” to translate Paul anachronistic? Was Paul thinking only of pederasty or promiscuity? What exactly does he mean by “contrary to nature” and “natural relations”? [↩](#fnref-2918-9)
10. Gareth Lee Cockerill comments on Hebrews 13:1-5: “These four pairs of exhortations are an expansion of the ‘brotherly love’ with which they begin. The first two pairs describe behavior that directly expresses this brotherly love—hospitality to strangers (v. 2), concern for the imprisoned, and aid for the persecuted (v. 3). The last two forbid conduct that violates brotherly love—sexual unfaithfulness (v. 4) and greed (v. 5).” _The Epistle to the Hebrews_, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 678. [↩](#fnref-2918-10)
11. Philo, _The Special Laws_, Book 3, XI. (64) [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book29.html](http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book29.html), emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-2918-11)
12. Immanuel Jakobovits, “Homosexuality,” _Encyclopaedia Judaica_, Vol. 8 (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1971), 961-62, emphasis added. As quoted by Mark F. Rooker in _Leviticus_, Vol. 3A in The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2000), 247. [↩](#fnref-2918-12)
13. Ben Witherington III, _Paul’s Letter to the Romans_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 316, emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-2918-13)
14. Ted Grimsrud, “The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage,” lecture presented at Oak Grove Mennonite Church (Smithville, Ohio), January 18, 2015, transcript posted at [https://peacetheology.net/2015/01/20/the-bible-and-same-sex-marriage/](https://peacetheology.net/2015/01/20/the-bible-and-same-sex-marriage/), accessed September 14, 2019, bold added. [↩](#fnref-2918-14)
15. It is beyond the scope of this series to respond to each of Grimsrud’s interpretations in his lecture. However, virtually all of the arguments he uses and more are addressed in the recent book by Fortson and Grams recommended above. [↩](#fnref-2918-15)
16. S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, _Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition_ (Nashville, NT: B&H Academic, 2016), pp. 176, emphasis mine. [↩](#fnref-2918-16)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (2 of 6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-09-09
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (2 of 6) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality. What did his silence mean? This post answers by examining ancient Jewish beliefs about homosexuality.
Tags: Philo, Craig S. | Keener, -, prostitution, Jesus and homosexuality, homosexuality, Robert | Gagnon, Rollin G. | Grams, S. Donald | Fortson III, homosexuality and ancient Jews, abomination, Enoch, Everett | Fox, Flavius | Josephus, gender distinction, J. P. | Meier, Mishnah-Sanhedrin, Plato, Pseudo-Phocylides, Sherlock | Holmes, silence, The Letter of Aristeas, Thomas R. | Schreiner
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5
**According to existing historical records, Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality.**[1](#fn-2885-1) This fact leads many to critique the church today for focusing on “things that Jesus never once talked about,” as Richard Rohr has put it.[2](#fn-2885-2)
**What should we conclude from Jesus’ silence?** Did his silence mean homosexual behavior was a non-issue to him? Was he okay with it?
**This is part of** **a six-part blog series on Jesus and homosexuality:**
1. 1. [Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5)
2. How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?
3. [Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5)
4. [Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5)
5. [Historical Conclusions: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-5-of-6)
6. [Conclusions for Today: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality Now?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6)
**Arguments from silence can be powerful.** A famous example comes from the Sherlock Holmes short story “[The Adventure of Silver Blaze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze).” Here is some dialogue that shows how silence helped Holmes solve a mystery:
> Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
>
> Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
>
> Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
>
> Holmes: “That was the curious incident… Obviously the midnight visitor was someone whom the dog knew well. It was Straker who removed Silver Blaze from his stall and led him out on to the moor.”
The key lesson from this example is that silence is meaningful _when you have a strong reason to expect noise instead_.
There is a strong reason to expect a dog to bark if a stranger intrudes at midnight. Is there a strong reason to expect Jesus to have spoken about homosexuality? When the dog did not bark, Holmes concluded he must have been “okay with” the intruder. Can we include the same about Jesus and homosexual behavior? How should we interpret Jesus’ silence about homosexuality?
**In this post I am going to explain why I think Jesus’ silence on homosexuality behavior is _not_ very meaningful—why it is _not_ good evidence he approved of it. His silence is best understood as agreement with the existing Jewish consensus about homosexuality.**
A meme I found on Facebook. The person who shared it meant Jesus must approve of homosexuality, since he said nothing on the topic. I don’t think that’s what his silence meant.
### Ancient Jewish Beliefs About Homosexuality:
What They Did
What was the range of beliefs about homosexuality among ancient Jews?
**Let’s consider first what Israel actually _did_. It is clear that some Israelites engaged in homosexual activity during the time between the conquest of Canaan under Joshua (about 1400 BC) and the fall of Jerusalem at the beginning of the Exile (586 BC).** Homosexual activity was common among the Canaanites before Israel entered the land, and over time Israel increasingly imitated them.
Various forms of homosexual activity are recorded several places in the Old Testament, some consensual and some not. For example:
> Behold, the men of the city \[of Gibeah\], worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” (Judges 19:22; about 1300 to 1100 BC)
>
> There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. (1 Kings 14:24; about 930 BC)
Eventually homosexual prostitution happened right in the temple in Jerusalem:
> And he \[King Josiah\] broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord (2 Kings 23:7; about 620 BC)
On the one hand, this evidence shows that many Israelites were okay with homosexuality—just as some Israelites were okay with sacrificing babies to idols and oppressing the poor and many other activities contrary to the Law of Moses. On the other hand, we have this evidence because it was preserved in texts that were part of the sacred scriptures of Israel, and these texts called these historical activities “abominations” (1 Kings 14:24).
**Significantly, when we examine the period right before and during the life of Jesus, we do not find Jews practicing homosexuality like they did prior to the Exile.**
Before the Exile, Jews widely imitated the sexual practices of the nations around them, just as they had imitated their idolatry. After the return from Exile, however, Jews showed an “obvious contrast with ancient Greek culture” around them regarding homosexuality, says commentator Craig S. Keener, an expert on the early Jewish and Greco-Roman setting of the New Testament. He summarizes the evidence:
> **Jewish people… unanimously rejected homosexual behavior**… Jewish people associated homosexual activity especially (and probably largely accurately) with Gentiles. Although Jewish sources report Jewish adulterers, johns, and murderers, **Jewish homosexual practice was nearly unknown**… Idolatry and homosexual behavior \[were recognized by\] Jewish people… as exclusively Gentile vices.[3](#fn-2885-3)
### Ancient Jewish Beliefs About Homosexuality:
What They Wrote
**When we move from historical practices to written perspectives, the evidence is unanimous: Ancient Jewish literature consistently condemns all forms of homosexual behavior.** It is clear that, for ancient Israelites who were attempting to be faithful to the Sinai covenant, homosexual activity was never okay.
Let’s examine what ancient Jewish writings say about homosexuality. I’ll summarize the Old Testament evidence, but emphasize the evidence that is closer to Jesus’ day.
The Books of Moses present male-female marriage as the creation pattern (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:18-25). They also record two examples of homosexual activity that occurred before Israel existed: Ham “saw the nakedness of his father” Noah (Gen. 9:20-25) and the men of Sodom tried to “know” the men who were visiting Lot (Gen. 19:4-11). Both stories are brief, cryptic, and much argued over. In both cases, however, the narratives imply that the activity was not good.
The Law of Moses forcefully prohibited homosexual and transgender behavior:
> You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination… If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; cf. Deut. 22:5; 23:17-18)
**Significantly, these commands used the most general terms possible for homosexual behavior** (“a man lies with a male”), avoiding narrower terms that would have applied only to cases such as temple prostitution.[4](#fn-2885-4) Underscoring this reality, both commands ended with the phrase “as with a woman”; it is clearly contrary to the rest of the Law of Moses to imagine that the commands were intended to mean “You shall not _commit rape_ with a male as with a woman” or “You shall not _engage in prostitution_ with a male as with a woman,” for both rape and prostitution were prohibited “with a woman” as well. Instead, these commands prohibited a male from doing with a man what would be, in the appropriate circumstances, right and good to do “with a woman.”[5](#fn-2885-5)
These commands prohibited the act of homosexual union itself, not merely any possible negative attending attitudes or circumstances. They were not written in a form that distinguished between good homosexual activity (loving, consensual, faithful) and bad homosexual activity (lustful, violent, promiscuous), but between male and female.[6](#fn-2885-6) These commands, therefore, excluded female-female sexual relations as surely as male-male.[7](#fn-2885-7)
Even consensual homosexual acts were forbidden by these commands, as is indicated by the shared guilt (“both of them have committed an abomination”).[8](#fn-2885-8) These blanket prohibitions of all homosexual acts formed the foundation, along with the Genesis creation account, for all future Jewish thinking about homosexuality.
The prophet Ezekiel described Sodom’s sins in a way that suggested her acts of “abomination” (compare with Lev. 20:13)[9](#fn-2885-9) were a chief reason for her destruction:
> Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and **did an abomination** before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. (Ez. 16:49-50)
**What about Jews living nearer to the time of Jesus? What did they write about homosexual behavior?** Here are seven examples:
> \[Moses\] compels us to recognize that we must perform all our actions… according to the standard of righteousness… For most other men \[non-Jews\] defile themselves by promiscuous intercourse… For they not only have intercourse with men but they defile their own mothers and even their daughters. — “The Letter of Aristeas” (second century B.C.)[10](#fn-2885-10)
>
> Neither commit adultery nor rouse homosexual passion… Do not transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature… And let not women imitate the sexual role of men. — Pseudo-Phocylides, _Sentences_ (between 100BC and 100AD)[11](#fn-2885-11)
>
> The entertainment recorded by Plato \[in _Symposium_\] is almost entirely connected with love; not that of men madly desirous or fond of women, or of women furiously in love with men, for these desires are accomplished in accordance with a law of nature, but with that love which is felt by men for one another… for the greater part of the book is occupied by common, vulgar, promiscuous love. — Philo, _On the Contemplative Life_ (early first century A.D.)[12](#fn-2885-12)
>
> All the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities of wickedness and abominable fornications, that is, friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which it is disgusting to report. — _2 Enoch_ 34:2 (first century A.D.)[13](#fn-2885-13)
>
> What about our laws about marriage? That law… abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if anyone does that, death is its punishment. — Flavius Josephus, _Against Apion_ (about 97 A.D.)[14](#fn-2885-14)
>
> These are the felons who are put to death by stoning. He who has sexual relations with (1) his mother… (4) with a male, and (5) with a cow. — _Mishnah, Sanhedrin_ (second century A.D.)[15](#fn-2885-15)
>
> The unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God, nor will… those who commit outrages and have sexual intercourse with males. — “The Testament of Jacob” (ancient; date unclear)[16](#fn-2885-16)
**It is important to notice several features of these quotes:**
* Their foundation for ethics was the Law of Moses.[17](#fn-2885-17)
* They appealed also to creation, and therefore considered same-sex promiscuity to be unnatural in a way that heterosexual promiscuity is not.[18](#fn-2885-18)
* They focused on same-sex acts themselves, not merely on contextual factors such as promiscuity or violence.[19](#fn-2885-19)
* They spoke against even mutual, consensual homosexual relations (“friend with friend,” 2 Enoch).
This is what Jews in Jesus’ day believed about homosexual behavior. This is the world into which Jesus was born.
There were no gay night clubs in Jerusalem. There was no “welcoming and affirming” synagogue in Nazareth. There were no Roman lawyers trying to convince Pilate to require Jewish bakers to make cakes for homosexual weddings. There were no Jews “coming out” on social media. There were no rainbow flags projected onto the temple mount. The Jerusalem Times was not publishing feel-good stories about LGBTQ persons.
Jewish denominations were debating topics like angels, the resurrection, how Jews should relate to their Roman occupiers, and even when divorce was justified.[20](#fn-2885-20) But there was no intramural rabbinical debate about homosexuality. Jewish leaders came to Jesus to explore and test his views on many issues, but no one asked him about homosexuality. No one had to. Everyone knew that everyone already knew the answer. Homosexuality behavior was something “out there” that non-Jews did, and no Jewish rabbi had to stake out his public position on the topic.
**“What did Jews writing after the Old Testament period, from the fifth century BC through the sixth century AD think about homosexual practice?”** authors Fortson and Grams ask. After examining the evidence, here is their answer:
> There is no debate at all: Jews consistently condemned homosexual practice of any sort after the return from the exile and right through the early church period. Jews understood the Old Testament to speak against homosexual behavior, and they accepted biblical authority in matters of sexual ethics.[21](#fn-2885-21)
In fact, despite increasing homosexual activity within Israel prior to the Exile, the perspective of all existing ancient Jewish writings from the very first (the time of Moses) through the early Christian period is consistent:
> For a period of about 2000 years, all Jews everywhere taught that homosexual unions of any sort were sinful and against nature.[22](#fn-2885-22)
### Interpreting the Evidence
For purposes of our discussion here about Jesus’ silence, this is the key sentence from Fortson and Grams: **“There is no debate at all: Jews consistently condemned homosexual practice of any sort after the return from the exile and right through the early church period.”**
This fits with Craig S. Keener’s summary of the same time period, as quoted above:
> Jewish people… unanimously rejected homosexual behavior… Although Jewish sources report Jewish adulterers, johns, and murderers, Jewish homosexual practice was nearly unknown.
“Nearly unknown.” “No debate at all.” This is the world into which Jesus was born.
**If homosexual activity was “nearly unknown” among Jews of the time, then it is no wonder that we do not know of any explicit word from rabbi Jesus on the topic.**
**If there is “no debate” about what Jews taught in this period about homosexuality, then there was little reason for Jesus to be debating the topic, either—or for us to debating what Jesus might have believed about it.**
Historical Jesus scholar [J. P. Meier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Meier) makes the same point about Jesus and sexual ethics in general:
> On sexual matters… one could call both Jesus and the Essenes extreme conservatives … apart from the two special cases of divorce and celibacy, where he diverged from mainstream Judaism \[and arguably was more stringent than they were\], his views _were_ those of mainstream Judaism. Hence there was no pressing need for him to issue or for the earliest Christian Jews to enshrine moral pronouncements about matters on which all Law-abiding Jews agreed. **If almost all Jews agreed that acts of fornication and adultery were wrong, there was no reason for Jesus, who shared these views** (see, e.g., Mark 7:21-22; Luke 16:18) **to exegete the obvious.**[23](#fn-2885-23)
Adultery was not a frequent topic in Jesus’ teaching.[24](#fn-2885-24) Sins of the heart were a more urgent concern, for many of his hearers aimed to “outwardly appear righteous to others”—avoiding public sins like adultery—“but within \[were\] full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:28).
If Meier’s observation is valid for adultery, how much more for homosexuality, which was “nearly unknown” among Jews at the time? Robert Gagnon summarizes things well:
> Jesus’ alleged silence has to be set against the backdrop of unequivocal and strong opposition to same-sex intercourse in the Hebrew Bible and throughout early Judaism.”[25](#fn-2885-25)
### Conclusions
What, then, should we conclude from Jesus’ silence about homosexuality?
**Given that (a) homosexual practice was “nearly unknown” within Jesus’ Jewish culture, and given that (b) there is “no debate” that Jews in Jesus’ day “consistently condemned homosexual practice of any sort,” it is wishful thinking to argue that, _just because our historical records do not record rabbi Jesus specifically mentioning the topic_, he therefore _approved_ of homosexual relationships.**
Remember the lesson from Sherlock Holmes: silence is meaningful _when you have a strong reason to expect noise instead_. In this case there was little reason to expect a word from Jesus. If Jesus was silent on the topic, then we, with his original audience, can safely assume that he agreed with the Jewish consensus that homosexual behavior is sinful.
**There is another silence, however, that is very telling.**
Given the universal consensus among first-century Jews that homosexuality was exceedingly evil, **imagine the outcry that would have arisen if Jesus’ listeners had noticed any reason to believe he was affirming homosexual activity**. If Jesus, as a Jewish rabbi, had been understood to disagree with the Jewish consensus about homosexuality, he would have been immediately and forcefully rejected by fishermen and Pharisees alike. The silence from Jesus’ listeners on this point speaks powerfully: they saw no reason to think that Jesus affirmed homosexual behavior.
**If they didn’t, why should we?**
**Thanks for reading. Comments are welcome, but thanks (again) for understanding that I have limited time for follow-up discussions.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. I say “explicitly” because I think Jesus actually _did_ talk about it, and even came very close to naming it. I’ll explain more in post 4. Some who are lobbying for Christians to accept homosexuality think Jesus mentioned it, too. I’ll explain why I disagree with their claim in post 5. [↩](#fnref-2885-1)
2. Richard Rohr, “Love Is Who You Are,” online article, adapted from Richard Rohr, _True Self/ False Self_ (Franciscan Media: 2003), disc 2 (CD), Center for Action and Contemplation, August 11, 2016, [https://cac.org/love-is-who-you-are-2016-08-11/](https://cac.org/love-is-who-you-are-2016-08-11/), accessed September 7, 2019. [↩](#fnref-2885-2)
3. Craig S. Keener, _Romans_, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009), Kindle Edition, commentary on Romans 1:24-27, emphasis added. Schreiner agrees: “Homosexual relations were not uncommon in the Greco-Romans world, while they were consistently frowned upon by Jews. Jews who practiced same-sex relations doubtless existed, but if they remained in Jewish society, they almost certainly kept it a secret to avoid social ostracism. Thomas R. Schreiner, _Romans_, 2nd ed., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 87. [↩](#fnref-2885-3)
4. S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams underscore this point: “Temple prostitution is addressed in the Old Testament, and particular language was available in Hebrew to reference it. It could, therefore, have been clearly mentioned here had the author wanted to limit the laws to that context… Other prohibitions of certain homosexual acts in the ancient Near East… do not oppose homosexuality in general; they refer to specific types of homosexual acts. If, then, these laws specified what was prohibited, why did Lev 18:22 and 20:13 not specify particular kinds of homosexual acts? The answer to this question seems clear: _any_ type of homosexual act was being prohibited.” [↩](#fnref-2885-4)
5. Gane provides a more word-for-word translation of the phrase “as with a woman,” but comes to essentially the same conclusion: “Both instances of the ban on homosexuality contain the phrase ‘lyings (plural of _miskab_) of a woman’ (18:22; 20:13)… By itself this idiom is morally neutral… ‘Lyings’ are illicit when one party usurps the customary sexual activity (hence the plural, apparently) that rightfully belongs to another… In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the one who usurps a woman’s ‘lyings’ is any male.” Roy Gane, _Leviticus, Numbers_, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 327-328. Kindle Edition. [↩](#fnref-2885-5)
6. Gagnon identifies the same purpose in this concluding phrase: “The reason for the prohibition is evident from the phrase ‘lying with a male as though lying with a woman.’ What is wrong with same-sex intercourse is that it puts another male, at least insofar as the act of sexual intercourse is concerned, in the category of female rather than male… The non-procreative character of same-sex intercourse was no more the primary consideration in the rejection than it was for the proscription of bestiality. Incest and adultery, two other sexual acts rejected in Leviticus 18 and 20 are certainly not wrong because they are non-procreative; but neither is the primary reason for their rejection that fact that children might arise. All three are wrong because they constitute sex with another who is either too much of an ‘other’ (sex with an animal) or too much of a ‘like’ (sex with a near kin and sex with a member of the same sex). These are transcultural creation categories, not superstitious dregs from a bygone era” (Robert Gagnon, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues,” 2003, online article based on an interview with Zenit News Agency, March 21 and 28, 2002, pub. by OrthodoxyToday.org, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php, accessed August 28, 2019.) [↩](#fnref-2885-6)
7. Several more observations confirm this: 1) It is very difficult to imagine a patriarchal society such as ancient Israel blessing lesbianism while prohibiting male homosexuality. 2) There is no evidence ancient Jews ever believed this law offered a loophole for lesbianism; rather, those who mentioned lesbianism spoke against it. 3) Ancient laws were paradigmatic rather than listing every conceivable situation (see [Appendix at end of forthcoming post three in this series](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5/#stuart)); thus, for example, the Ten Commandments, though addressed grammatically to males, apply equally to females. [↩](#fnref-2885-7)
8. The translation of Leviticus 20:13 by Jewish scholar Everett Fox confirms these interpretations: “A man who lies with a male (as one) lies with a woman—abomination have the two of them done, they are to be put-to-death, yes, death, their bloodguilt is upon them!” Everett Fox, _The Five Books of Moses_ (New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1995), 607. Fox’s translation aims to convey the literary forms, word-plays, and rhetorical power of the underlying Hebrew. [↩](#fnref-2885-8)
9. Yuan notes that the verbal parallel between Ezekiel and Leviticus actually involves a phrase, not just one word: “In Hebrew, ‘abomination’ is _toevah_ and ‘did’ is _asah_. These two words appear next to each other not only in Ezekiel 16:50, but also in Leviticus 20:13. The prophet Ezekiel, inspired by the Holy Spirit, used these two words to connect Sodom’s sin with Leviticus 20:13″ (Christopher Yuan, book review of Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate, by Justin Lee. The Gospel Coalition, January 7, 2013, [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/torn/](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/torn/), accessed September 5, 2019). It should be noted that Ezekiel uses _toevah_ to refer to a wide range of sins, not only sexual ones. Further, _toevah_ and _asah_ are found together in multiple places in the OT, including elsewhere in Ezekiel, not only in these two verses. Nevertheless, given (a) that Sodom did commit sins of a homosexual nature, and (b) that homosexual acts were described using the same word pair “did-abomination” (asah-toevah) in Leviticus 20:13, it seems probable that Ezekiel is thinking here of Sodom’s acts of homosexuality. Duguid suggests the same possibility: “The sexual sin to which it gave its name” (sodomy) “may lie behind the ‘detestable things’ of Ezekiel 16:50” (Duguid, Iain M.. _Ezekiel_, The NIV Application Commentary, p. 170. Zondervan. Kindle Edition). [↩](#fnref-2885-9)
10. _The Letter of Aristeas_, trans. H. T. Andrews, in _The Apocrapha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament_, ed. R. H. Charles (New York, NY: Clarendon, 1913), 83-122. Note: for these quotations of intertestamental Jewish literature, I am relying heavily on quotes and citations provided by S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams in _Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition_ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016). See there book for the extended contexts of these quotes and for more. [↩](#fnref-2885-10)
11. Pseudo-Phocylides, _Sentences_, 3 and 192, trans. P.W. van der Horst, _The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha_, vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1985). [↩](#fnref-2885-11)
12. Philo, _On the Contemplative Life_ 1:59, in _The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus_, trans. C. D. Yonge, 4 vols. (London, England: Henry G. Bohn, 1854-55). [↩](#fnref-2885-12)
13. “2 Enoch,” in _The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha_, vol. 1, ed. James H. Charlesworth, trans. F. I. Andersen (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 158. [↩](#fnref-2885-13)
14. Flavius Josephus, _Against Apion_ 2:199, trans. William J. Whiston (public domain, 1828). [↩](#fnref-2885-14)
15. _Mishnah, Sanhedrin_ 7.4, in Jacob Neusner, _The Mishnah: A New Translation_ (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 596. [↩](#fnref-2885-15)
16. “The Testament of Jacob,” in _The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha_, vol. 1, ed. James H. Charlesworth, trans. W. F. Stinespring (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 917. [↩](#fnref-2885-16)
17. “The Letter of Aristeas,” Pseudo-Phocylides, Josephus, Mishnah. [↩](#fnref-2885-17)
18. “A law of nature,” Philo; “the limits set by nature,” Pseudo-Phocylides. Some argue that the concept of “contrary to nature” meant “contrary to cultural custom.” But this makes little sense of the term’s use by those pagan Greeks who critiqued their own culture’s widespread acceptance of same-sex relationships. It makes more sense to see the term, in both its Greek and its Jewish uses, as meaning roughly “contrary to physical design; contrary to the way things were made to work.” In the Jewish context, this is equivalent to saying “contrary to how God created things to function.” Paul uses the term in Romans 1 in the context of explicitly referring to God as Creator. [↩](#fnref-2885-18)
19. “Intercourse with men,” “Letter of Aristeas”; “friend with friend in the anus,” 2 Enoch; “the mixture of a male with a male,” Josephus; “sexual relations… with a male,” Mishnah; “sexual intercourse with males,” “The Testament of Jacob.” [↩](#fnref-2885-19)
20. I cannot recall any example of when any Jew was surprised by Jesus’ position on a sexual topic except when his own disciples were surprised at his rigid stance on divorce and remarriage. [↩](#fnref-2885-20)
21. S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, _Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition_ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 235. [↩](#fnref-2885-21)
22. Ibid., 248. [↩](#fnref-2885-22)
23. J. P. Meier, _A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus_, volume 3 (New York, 2001), 502-503 as quoted in G. Thomas Hobson, “ἀσέλγεια in Mark 7:22,” _Filologia Neotestamentaria_ 21 (2008), 73. [↩](#fnref-2885-23)
24. Jesus _did_ teach directly on adultery. But the times he mentioned adultery fall into two camps: times he cited adultery in passing in lists of well-known sins or commands (cf. Matt. 15:19; 19:18), and times when he expanded the “textbook” definition of adultery to include lust or wrongful divorce (cf. Matt. 5:28, 32). The latter were the only times he “exegeted” adultery, to use Meier’s term. [↩](#fnref-2885-24)
25. Gagnon, ibid. Gagnon also summarizes what we can learn from Jesus’ “alleged silence”: There is no historical basis for arguing that Jesus might have been neutral or even favorable toward same-sex intercourse. All the evidence we have points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Jesus would have strongly opposed same-sex intercourse had such behavior been a serious problem among first-century Jews.” [↩](#fnref-2885-25)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (1 of 6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-09-03
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality? (1 of 6) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is the introduction to a series on Jesus and homosexuality. This series will place Jesus' silence and teachings on the topic into historical context.
Tags: Douglas J. | Moo, Jesus and homosexuality, historical Jesus, homosexuality, historical evidence, behavior, desire, Hallock | Emily
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5
**I have never discussed homosexuality on this blog.**[1](#fn-2874-1) **I’ve decided it’s time to change this.** So, after some reading and conversations to prepare, **I’ve drafted a six-part blog series on Jesus and homosexuality:**
1. Introduction, Explanations, and a Summary of this Series
2. [How Should We Interpret Jesus’ Silence About Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-2-of-5)
3. [Does “Love Your Neighbor” Mean Jesus Affirmed “Gay Love”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-3-of-5)
4. [Why It’s Wrong to Say Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-4-of-5)
5. [Historical Conclusions: Was Jesus Okay With Homosexuality?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-5-of-6)
6. [Conclusions for Today: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality Now?](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-6-of-6)
_Since this is a difficult topic, please bear with me as I share a long preamble in this post. It doesn’t really matter what I believe; what matters is what Jesus believes. Yet perhaps if I explain myself a little first, I can clear the ground for discussing what really matters. However, **[if you want to jump ahead to my condensed answer to the blog title, go here](http://dwightgingrich.com/was-jesus-okay-with-homosexuality-1-of-5/#summary).**_
**There are many reasons not to write about homosexuality.** The topic is a linguistic and political minefield, full of labels and terminology that are constantly evolving in meaning and “correctness.” It’s intrinsically complex, involving questions such as causation (nature vs. nurture, etc.), public policy, and church discipleship. And it’s a sure way to win some enemies—while also winning friends whose responses you can’t always fully endorse.
I’ve also heard it suggested that this is a topic best left for private conversations—face-to-face interactions with people whose trust you have already earned through friendship. I agree that those kinds of interactions offer possibilities that mere blogging does not.
**My greatest fear in sharing this series** is that my “medicine,” though urgently needed by some readers, will prove to be a painful “overdose” for others—readers who are already convinced of the truth of what I share, and who need help knowing how to live with these truths. If that describes you, please forgive me for not being able to give personalized “medical care” according to each reader’s need. I hope you can still sense love in my words.
### Why I Am Writing
Despite these reservations, **I’ve noticed something that has convinced me it is time to write.** I’ve noticed that many who are promoting homosexual behaviors do not have a similar reluctance about expressing their views in public. I’m noticing that both social media and traditional media are filled with statements justifying and celebrating homosexuality. The closet has long been abandoned for the megaphone. In fact, most North Americans probably hear far more public comments promoting homosexual behaviors than questioning them. I know I do.
When one hears a new idea often enough, it often becomes easy to believe, especially if it is simply and winsomely defended while opposing views are ignored or caricatured. As the years pass, I’m seeing more and more friends and acquaintances abandon what they once believed about homosexuality. Some are now practicing homosexuals. Others are celebrating their choices.
For many people today, contrary to the experience of most people throughout most of history, it now appears much more logical and loving to approve of homosexual relationships than to disapprove of them. In our culture, at least temporarily, the arguments in favor of homosexuality appear to be winning the day.
I know a few blog posts are unlikely to make much difference, and I feel poorly equipped for the task. But “somebody needs to do it,” so I’ll try.
An image I found online. I added the “Really?” What would Jesus do? The original image implied Jesus would affirm homosexuality. My addition calls that into question.
### What I Am Writing About
**To keep my job easier, I’ll narrow my focus.** Narrowing my focus is essential unless I want to write a book, but it also brings dangers. Having a narrow focus means I’ll pass over many crucial pastoral questions that deserve clear and compassionate thought:
* “I think I’m gay. What should I do about it?”
* “My friend is LGBTQ+. How should I relate to them?”
* Is “gay Christian” a helpful label? What about the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual”? (_I am using the former in this blog series as a catch-all term to describe all forms of LGBTQ+ behavior, not because I unquestioningly accept the paradigm, but in order to avoid verbal mouthfuls._)
* How can we support those who experience persistent desires they did not choose, and which they have repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked God to remove?
* Is it possible to change one’s sexual orientation, or good to try?
* How, if at all, should Christians try to shape social policy about sexuality and gender identity?
* How can we love someone well while disagreeing with them about something as fundamental as sexual morality?
* And many more…
I will also fail to meaningfully discuss several crucial questions of Bible interpretation, such as:
* How should Christians interpret and apply the Old Testament, including its commands against homosexuality?
* What did Paul mean by the specific words he used in the passages where he mentions same-sex behavior?
_Please hear me: By skipping such questions, I do not at all mean to imply that they are unimportant._ Rather, I mean to focus my energy where I feel best equipped to contribute. (For one helpful post addressing some pastoral questions, with links to more resources, read “[The Powerful Witness of Same-Sex Attracted Christians](https://www.plough.com/en/topics/community/church-community/a-man-of-honor)” by Emily Hallock.)
**My goal in these blog posts is to examine a single question, one that is more foundational than most listed above: Was Jesus okay with homosexuality?**
**I am intentionally phrasing the question in past tense, because I intend to focus on historical evidence**, considering what Jesus of Nazareth—the person who lived in the first century, rather than the Jesus of today—actually believed. I am not making this distinction because I believe that those are two different Jesuses. However, I want us to push past our fuzzy feelings about Jesus today to consider actual historical evidence.
It is easy to say “I think Jesus believes X” if we pull him and one or two of his sayings (or his silence) out of his first century context into our own. But if we consider his actual historical context our possibilities are more constrained.
In considering Jesus’ historical context, I will use both the Bible and other ancient writings, treating them essentially alike as historical documents. (The Bible is more than a collection of historical documents, but it is certainly not less.) I will address some theological questions along the way and especially in my final post, “Conclusions for Today: Is Jesus Okay With Homosexuality Now?” But my goal is to focus on historical evidence and, where I make theological deductions and pastoral applications, to keep them tied closely to that historical evidence.
### Who I Am Writing for and
What I Hope to Accomplish
**I am aiming for a specific audience as I write.** As my blog purpose statement says, “_This website exists to build up the Church of Jesus Christ by helping her listen carefully to the Scriptures.”_ This means I am writing primarily to people who identify as Christians. For such readers, I am aiming to shore up your biblical beliefs about homosexuality or, if you have already lost them, to invite you to reconsider the evidence. I also have my children in mind, hoping they will read this or similar material someday. Other readers are welcome to listen in, but please realize I will not be trying to answer your questions.
**Please hear me: I am certainly not writing to attack my homosexual friends.** You probably did not choose your desires any more than I chose mine. I’ve heard too many stories of people becoming aware of homosexual desires from childhood to believe that all such desire can be explained by personal choice or by external factors such as abuse. I ache for the many who desperately long to escape homosexual desires, but with no success. I ache for those who turn to the church for compassion and support but find only rejection and ridicule.
**Please hear me also in this: I do not believe that the mere experience of homosexual desire makes us guilty before God.** I say that even though I believe that such desires are disordered or, to use a more ancient term, “contrary to nature” and God’s initial good creation design. I believe we all live in a broken world and that we experience its brokenness in unpredictable and seemingly unfair ways. Some of us are disordered in other ways, leaving us more prone to things such as anger, anxiety, depression, or experiencing deception. I do not believe we are guilty merely for possessing such tendencies any more than I am guilty for having been born with a susceptibility to the shoulder injury I experienced. Rather, we are accountable for whether we feed and act on our disordered desires, or whether we submit them to God.
And even then, whatever your own life choices, one of my life mantras applies to you as surely as to me: “We all need more love than we deserve.” I desire to offer you dignity and love, even (especially) when we disagree. After all, disagreement, too, is a form of love, for “only what is true can ultimately be pastoral.”[2](#fn-2874-2)
**When my title asks “Was Jesus okay with homosexuality?” I am primarily asking about behaviors, not desires.** I do believe Jesus held beliefs about homosexual desire similar to what I sketched above—that the experience of mere desire (weakness/hunger/temptation)[3](#fn-2874-3) is neither intrinsically sinful nor something to be celebrated as being in line with God’s original good creation design. Yet I also believe that [God places people with many varied weaknesses in Christ’s church and intends to use such realities for good](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-3-of-4/). My title, therefore, refers primarily to the question of whether Jesus affirmed homosexual _behaviors_.
**My main goal in writing these posts is to convince readers that agreeing with the historical Jesus and affirming homosexual behavior are not compatible.**
I believe it is intellectually inconsistent and also disastrous to the church of Jesus to try to combine the two. If you want to affirm homosexual behavior and yet remain “Christian,” then the onus is on you to do some theological footwork to explain why you can believe differently than the historical Jesus and still remain “Christian.” Most Christians by far disagree with you, and so do most secular gay scholars. _**I think you need to choose between the two, and I sincerely hope you choose Jesus.**_
Enough about me. Now that I’ve told you where I’m going, let’s jump right in.
### A Summary of What I Plan to Say
**Here is the sort of argument we sometimes hear from those seeking to undermine Christian opposition to homosexual behavior. It is simple, and it is attractive:**
1. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, much less spoke against it.
2. He said love is the greatest commandment.
3. He befriended social outcasts, including those who were called “sinners” by the religious elites.
4. Therefore, he was (and is) okay with loving homosexual relationships.
The first three points are, on face value, all true. But what do they mean? Does 4 logically flow from 1, 2, and 3?
These three points need to be read in light of their historical and literary contexts or else they will be misunderstood. All three, or at least the first two, are true only with asterisks. And even if we accept them at face value, point 4 is not proven by points 1, 2, and 3.
**Here is a summary of my response to such thinking:**
1. All known Jewish teachers for about 2000 years who addressed homosexual behavior agreed that it is very sinful, so Jesus had no more reason to address the topic than to address a topic like bestiality. If he, as a Jewish rabbi, had disagreed with this consensus, he would have been immediately rejected. His silence on the topic would have been assumed to be agreement—and should be assumed so by us, unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary.
2. Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself” was a quote from the Old Testament book that also contains its strongest teachings against homosexual activity. Ancient Jews and Christians saw no conflict between promoting love and opposing homosexual behavior. Jesus taught that loving God is the “most important” commandment and that loving your neighbor is “second” to loving God. Thus loving your neighbor, according to Jesus, involves treating your neighbor in a way that pleases God. Jesus’ teachings on love do not indicate he was okay with homosexual activity.
3. Though Jesus was a friend of sinners, he called them to repent. He also affirmed and even strengthened core Jewish sexual ethics. He spoke against sexual immorality using language that was normally understood by ancient Jews to include homosexual behavior, and his followers spoke explicitly against homosexual activity.
4. Therefore, no churches anywhere until a few in the past few decades have ever taught that Jesus was (and is) okay with homosexual relationships.
My responses are not as pithy and memorable as the arguments they oppose. Truth involves complexity. But I have tried to summarize these key points briefly, since short arguments are more easily remembered and remembered arguments are more convincing.
Really, it is startling to even have to make these arguments. The historical evidence about what Jesus believed about homosexuality is so overwhelming that it wasn’t seriously questioned by any church denomination until the early 1970s—about the time I was born.
But if my responses here are too brief for you, fear not. I plan to discuss these points and more in the next blog posts, providing historical evidence for my claims.
**Meanwhile, thanks for reading. Please comment if you wish, but thank you for understanding that I have limited time for follow-up discussions.** I am already investing most of the time I have available in writing these blog posts. **Have a blessed week!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
* I mentioned the topic briefly twice in book reviews. [↩](#fnref-2874-1)
* Roman Catholic Church, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” accessed August 4, 2019, [http://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc\_con\_cfaith\_doc\_19861001\_homosexual-persons\_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html). Here is the context for that statement: “We wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.” I am not Roman Catholic, so would want to replace the allusions to the Roman Catholic Church with references to Jesus’ church and the Scriptures. Apart from this, I agree with this statements. [↩](#fnref-2874-2)
I realize I am lumping together here some dynamics that some prefer to distinguish for theological or psychological reasons. Such distinctions may be valid, but here I am simply trying to reflect the thought of James 1:14-15: “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” I am in general agreement with Moo’s commentary on this passage, though he did not write with homosexual desires explicitly in mind and though his commentary does not answer all my questions: “Temptation, James has said, involves the innate desire toward evil as it is enticed by the superficial attractiveness of sin. If a person should welcome rather than resist that temptation, desire conceives; and if not turned away immediately, it produces sin. James implies that temptation, in and of itself, is not sinful. Only when desire ‘conceives’—is allowed to produce offspring—does sin come into being. The point is an important one, for some extremely sensitive Christians may feel that the fact of their continuing to experience temptation demonstrates that they are out of fellowship with the Lord. To be sure, as one develops more and more of a Christian ‘mind,’ the frequency and power of temptation should grow less. But temptation will be a part of our experience, as it was the experience of the Lord himself (Heb. 2:18), throughout our time on earth. Christian maturity is not indicated by the infrequency of temptation but by the infrequency of succumbing to temptation.” Douglas J. Moo, _The Letter of James_, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 76. [↩](#fnref-2874-3)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Season for Faith
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-03-18
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: A Season for Faith • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The turning of the seasons is a time of revelation. But what do you see? Mindless physical cycles, or a faithful Father sustaining his creation?
Tags: creation, -, -1 Timothy 6:17, -2 Peter 3:3-4, apologetics, birds, Book of Nature, Book of Scripture, faith, faithfulness, flowers, G.K. | Chesterton, immutability, materialism, nature, play, random, repetition, seasons, spring, thankfulness
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/season-for-faith
**Spring is almost here again!** Here in Georgia, we are already enjoying our first blooms—daffodils, irises, redbuds, camellias, and more are brightening Atlanta neighborhoods. Even in our own yard the beauty—some of it “volunteer” and some of it intentional—is plentiful. Here are some glimpses in photographs I took this morning.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/P1390299b.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/p1390299b-1721353186759-compressed.jpg)
**The turning of the seasons is a time of revelation.** But what does the turning of the seasons reveal? Your answer to this question will reveal the state of your heart. Two people can look at same thing and see something very different.
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/flowercollage-1721353188138-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/flowercollage-1721353188138-compressed.jpg)
**Some people observe the ceaseless rhythms of the seasons and see only mindless, physical cycles—matter in motion through space and time.** They see nothing of God. Here is how Peter describes such people:
> Scoffers will come in the last days… They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” (2 Pet. 3:3-4)
**Others look at the same seasonal rhythms and catch a renewed glimpse of a faithful Creator who sustains all that he has made, caring for it until he brings it to consummation.** These people remember God’s promise to Noah, given after Noah had emerged from a catastrophic flood when all such gracious natural rhythms had been upended:
> “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22)
Strikingly, both groups observe the same reality—that things are “continuing as they were,” with patterns like seasons that do “not cease.” And yet, while observing the same phenomena, what they actually see is very different.
[](http://thesynergists.co.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FlowerCollage2.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/flowercollage2-1721353189653-compressed.jpg)
**Paul tells us that all people are without excuse**, for God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:20). But some people have “suppressed” this truth (Rom. 1:18). They no longer see God through his creation. Both Paul and Peter warn that these people, having lost sight of God, must now serve “the lusts of their hearts” (Rom. 1:24), “following their own sinful desires” (2 Pet. 3:3). Their end is wrath and death.
The ones who see God in the turning of the seasons, however, live “lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God” (2 Pet. 3:11-12). They “honor \[God\] as God” and “give thanks to him” (Rom. 1:21) as they watch the snow disappear and the buds burst anew with familiar green. Each virgin leaf, though matching millions of leaves from centuries past, brings them fresh evidence of the Ancient of Days. The turning seasons remind them that their heavenly Father will never again “strike down every living creature” as he did in the flood (Gen. 8:21). They know he will preserve this world until he creates “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:13). For this, through every season, they longingly wait.
**Oh, but the turning of the seasons requires no Guiding Hand, right?** Isn’t it all just a matter of planets obeying inertia and gravity, and living creatures obeying the directions of their DNA?
Not so fast, O my soul.
With amazing regularity, in a predictability of cycles, meals appear on my table. Most of the food has been cooked or baked. In the process, each loaf of bread, cut of meat, or bowl of vegetables has undergone very complex and yet very natural transformative chemical reactions. The rising of bread, the browning of meat, the softening of vegetables, the hardening of eggs—each follows laws of nature as surely as do spinning planets and spring plants. Yet I do not doubt the loving hand of my wife behind each natural process. Is it not equally reasonable to believe that a loving God is behind the turning of seasons? Being a spiritual being, our Creator hides himself better than my wife does, but “in him all things hold together,” we are told (Col. 1:17).
**Chesterton pondered the turning of days and saw a young, playful Father:**
> Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, ‘Do it again’; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, ‘Do it again’ to the sun; and every evening, ‘Do it again’ to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical encore.[1](#fn-2853-1)
Maybe monotony is no proof of atheistic materialism. Maybe daily cycles and turning seasons both spring from a playful Father “who richly provides us with everything to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17).
If it stretches your adult imagination to picture God as playful, then at least ponder James’ claim that all God’s good gifts, including the gift of seasons, spring from a divine heart that knows “no variation”:
> Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17)
**Is this what you see revealed in the unvarying turning of the seasons—an unvarying Father? Or does the turning of the seasons reveal that your heart is unable to see?**
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/P1390293b.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/p1390293b-1721353191266-compressed.jpg)
**As I near my mid-forties, I find it easier to see how some lose faith mid-journey.** My youthful dreams of doing great things for God (though I seldom knew exactly _what_) now appear quaint. I increasingly feel great admiration for those who “only” have a record of a lifetime of faithfulness toward God and humanity.
“Life has seasons,” I like to say, usually as a solace for hard times. But is there Anyone supervising the seasons? Or are the seasons of nature and of my life merely mechanistic or random rotations?
Will I let myself fade into the fancy that my life is Fatherless and futile? Am I only able to see mindless matter moving through space and time? Or will I allow the turning of the seasons to renew my faith?
_**Will I bend to examine a familiar new flower? Will I note the spring’s first sounding of an old bird song? And will I breathe new thanksgivings—each breath of thanks pumping fresh faith into my lungs?**_
The Book of Nature points me to a powerful heavenly Father. The Book of Scripture tells me he is a “faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love… to a thousand generations” (Deut. 7:9). I will trust him with the unending seasons of our lives.
* * *
**What are you thankful for as Spring nears again? What are you doing to renew your vision of God through the cycling seasons of life? Share your thoughts in the comments below.**
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. G. K. Chesterton, ‘The Ethics of Elfland,’ _Orthodoxy_ (House of Stratus, 2001), p. 41. [↩](#fnref-2853-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Every Promise in the Book Is Mine?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-02-14
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Every Promise in the Book Is Mine? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: It's a catchy chorus, but is it true? Is every promise in the Bible mine? Yes, and No. But more Yes than you might think, according to Hebrews 13:5-6.
Tags: biblical interpretation, -, American civil religion, Bible promises, individualism, patriotism, Promised Land, prosperity gospel, Sensational Nightingales
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/every-promise-in-book-is-mine
**“Every promise in the book is mine!”** Do you remember that song? Here’s the complete chorus:
> Every promise in the book is mine,
> Every chapter, every verse, every line,
> All are blessings of His love divine,
> Every promise in the book is mine!
It’s a catchy little song. I think I learned it in Sunday School years ago. For a much slower version in a gospel style, complete with verses full of Bible promises, check out this performance by the Sensational Nightingales:
**It’s catchy, but is it true? Is every promise in the Bible mine?**
**NO AND YES**
**The short answer is clearly No.** God promised Abraham that he would make his name great (Gen. 12:2), but I have no reason to believe I will become famous like Abraham. The Spirit through Paul promises that “the woman… will be saved through childbearing,” but I’ll need to let my wife claim that promise (1 Tim. 2:14-15).
Given the proliferation these days of devotional books and digital memes with random Bible promises, it’s important to remember to ask: _Is this promise mine?_
**And yet, the short answer—No—is not the whole answer.**
Consider this example: God promised David a son who would become king over God’s people (2 Sam. 7:12-16). I will never have such a son. And yet Isaiah, centuries later, wrote this as he recalled God’s promise to David: “To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder” (Is. 9:6). The “us” in this verse includes not only Isaiah, who was part of David’s royal line, but also the non-Judean “Galilee of the nations” (Is. 9:1). And we, too, have had a son born “to us”—all we who have Jesus as our King. Handel was right to help us sing this promise!
Paul sums it up neatly: “All the promises of God find their Yes in him”—in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). Therefore, as Paul boldly announces elsewhere, “all things are yours” if you belong to Christ (1 Cor. 3:21).
**So, is every promise in the book mine? If I belong to Christ, the full answer is clearly Yes.** In some way, in Christ, I will benefit from every promise God has ever given—even, I think, from the one about the woman being saved through childbearing, though I’m not exactly sure how.
Both the No and the Yes are important to remember as we read promises in the Bible. Most of us begin our Christian lives with the Yes in full view, eagerly claiming promises. Then many of us “wise up” as we learn a few basic rules of Bible interpretation, and we remind each other—rightly, though sometimes a little smugly—of the No: “To whom was that promise originally given?” we ask.
**I tend to hang out in that No camp much of the time, but recently I was reminded to broaden my thinking and simplify my trust in God’s promises.** I have the writer of Hebrews to thank, but let me start with Joshua.
**“I WILL NEVER LEAVE” WHO?**
When Moses died and Joshua faced the gargantuan task of leading the Israelites into a promised land full of giants and walled cities, **God gave Joshua a promise:** “No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so **I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you**” (Josh. 1:5).
That was a very specific promise, right? God had been with Moses in a unique way. He had given Moses the same promise when he first called him into leadership: “I will be with you” (Ex. 3:12). Now God transferred the same assurance to Joshua.
As a Bible interpreter, **I would tend to be cautious about using either verse as a proof text for God’s presence with Christians**. “Right teaching, wrong text,” I might quip. In both verses, the promise of God’s presence was given to a special individual facing a specific task. At most, I might acknowledge that these verses could apply more narrowly to Christian _leaders_ today, at least if I’m confident they have indeed been called by God.
**But the writer of Hebrews has no such qualms.** Listen to how he understands God’s promise to Joshua. Writing to God’s people at large, he says, “Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you'” (Heb. 13:5).
His next words draw a conclusion (“so”) from this promise and confirm that he is applying it to both himself and his readers: “So we can confidently say, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?'” (Heb. 13:6). Notice the _we_: by implication, he means “we \[he and his readers\] can confidently say” that God has promised to never leave us.
In fact, the writer of Hebrews is so sure that God’s promise to Joshua is also a promise for his readers that he uses it as assurance that a second OT promise, too, is theirs to claim! “Because God has promised not to leave us”—claiming the promise to Joshua—we can confidently say “The Lord is my helper”—claiming an assurance from Psalm 118:6-7. His confidence about one OT promise gives him boldness that he has inherited another, too.
And the author of Hebrews is not just writing to Christian leaders like Moses or Joshua. In fact, if anything he is _not_ writing to leaders, for here are his very next words: “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7).
**So there we have it: You and I, if we are part of God’s people, can claim God’s promise to Joshua: “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”** This promise in the book is mine.
**WHAT ABOUT OTHER PROMISES?**
**But what about this promise, also given to Joshua at the same time: “Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses”** (Josh. 1:3)? Again, there is a clear No and a clear Yes.
No, I should not expect all my neighbors in Atlanta to be driven out before me so I can inherit the gold dome of Georgia’s capital building, the rich Buckhead neighborhood, or the new Mercedes Benz Stadium. Nor should I expect a divine inheritance of land if I move to Israel or Palestine.
But Yes, for Paul says “the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world” belongs “the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all” (Rom. 4:13, 16). Or, as Jesus put it, “the meek… shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). So, yes, this promise in the book is mine, too.
**The same No and Yes apply to many other Bible promises you might consider, including famous ones like Jeremiah 29:11** (“I know the plans I have for you… plans to prosper you and not to harm you…” NIV). In each case it is important to consider the original nature of the promise, identifying its original recipients. Then reconsider the original promise in light of Christ’s coming: how might his coming have shaped the promise’s ultimate fulfillment and audience? Who will now enjoy its benefits, and how?
That, admittedly, can be complicated.
If you want a simpler question, try this one: What does this promise—no matter to whom originally given—tell me about _God’s nature_ and _his heart toward his people_? Then rest assured that God’s heart toward you—if you belong to Christ—is no less generous. Even if you aren’t sure exactly _if_ or _how_ to rightly “claim” a given promise, let it assure you of God’s heart toward his people. God’s plans are, indeed, to “prosper” his people who seek him with all their heart (Jer. 29:12-13), even if that prospering does not involve us being returned to Israel after 70 years of exile in Babylon.
**“Claiming promises” is a practice that has gone badly off the rails far too often,** resulting in heresies such as [the prosperity gospel](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-the-prosperity-gospel/) and the American civil religion that considers America a “[city upon a hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill).”
**And yet…**
**“Every promise in the book is mine.”** **It requires some explanation and a few caveats. But in some ultimate way, in Christ, it is true.** Go ahead and sing it, if you’d like.
Now all we need to do is fix the last word and make it plural. “Mine”? Really? Aren’t we western Christians individualistic enough already? “Every promise in the book is _ours_” would be much better, except that “ours” isn’t very euphonious. Any poets to the rescue?
* * *
**What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below. And thanks for reading.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## God “Was Able”? Or “Is Able”?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2019-01-20
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: God "Was Able"? Or "Is Able"? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In Romans 4:21 the Greek seems to say "he is able," while most English translations say "he was able." Why the switch from present tense to past tense?
Tags: -, Bible translations, Douglas J. | Moo, Thomas R. | Schreiner, faith, Greek, John E. | Toews, Steven E. | Runge
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/god-was-able-or-is-able
**In this post I’m doing a dangerous thing—questioning grammatical details in English Bible translations when I am only a second-year Greek student.** So please take this post with a grain of salt. If you are a Greek scholar and you see I am missing something, please let me know and I’ll happily correct this post. Meanwhile, since blogs are good for thinking out loud, here goes!
\[Edit: I’ve received responses from a couple people who know Greek better than I do, including my Greek teacher, Joseph Neill. Here is part of what he wrote:
_Could it be translated as “God is able”? Yes, but the grammar does not require it; in fact, it leans the other way I think. But based on God’s nature and the greater context (4:23 especially), it is right for us to understand from this passage that not only was God able, but God is able. (Context might lean this way.) So, if this is what Paul had in mind (God is able), I think he would have said exactly what he did say. But then again, if he did not have all this in mind (but rather God was able) he would have still said it exactly how he did say it. =)_
Later: _I would need to study and think more about it to be sure I got it right, especially the part that suggested Paul could mean either was or is (in English thought) and he would have worded it the same either way. I would like to find examples that conclusively prove this hunch of mine.
_
See **[this comment](http://dwightgingrich.com/god-was-able-or-is-able/#comment-190176)** below for his full response, as well as similar thoughts in comments from Marlin Sommers.\]
**Today I continued reading through Romans in Greek** for the first time. Near the end of chapter four, I noticed something interesting:
> ὃ ἐπήγγελται δυνατός ἐστιν καὶ ποιῆσαι. (Rom. 4:21)
A hyper-literal translation might read something like this:
> What \[he\] has promised, able \[he\] **is** also to do.
Here is the same clause in some popular English translations:
> What he had promised, he **was** able also to perform. (KJV)
>
> What He had promised He **was** also able to perform. (NKJV)
>
> What God had promised, He **was** able also to perform. (NASB)
>
> What God had promised, he **was** also able to do. (CSB)
>
> What God promised he **was** also able to do. (NET)
>
> God **was** able to do what he had promised. (ESV)
>
> God **had** power to do what he had promised. (NIV)
**Do you see the difference?** The Greek uses a present-tense verb (“is” _ἐστιν_), but these English translations use past-tense verbs (“was” or “had”). The Greek seems to say “he **is** able also to do,” while the English translations say “he **was** able also to do.”
**Why might these English translations do this?**
**Here’s one possible explanation: Some Greek writers frequently insert “present tense” verbs into narratives of past events. But they do this without intending to imply that the action is happening presently.** This is sometimes called the “historical present.” In other words, the Greek “present tense” does not neatly match English present tense verb usage, sometimes being used instead for other rhetorical purposes. (Hence my scare quotes around “present tense” above.)
You can see this in a translation such as the NASB, which marks these verbs with an asterisk. Here’s a random example from Mark:
> As they \*approached Jerusalem… He \*sent two of his disciples, and \*said to them… (Mark 1:1-2)
Is the same thing happening here in Romans 4:21? I doubt it. This use of the Greek “present tense” is usually found in narratives—in stories. This passage is not a story but rather a discussion about a story. Steven Runge, who discusses the “historical present” in depth in his recent book _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, does not appear to include even one example of the “historical present” from any of Paul’s letters. Almost all of his examples come from the Gospel narratives.
**Another possible explanation for the English translations here is that they switch from present to past in order to match the other half of the clause:** “what he **had** promised.” But there, too, the Greek seems to carry more of a present tense: “what he **has** promised.”
(The weeds: The Greek verb here, _ἐπήγγελται_, is a perfect tense-form. The perfect tense-form is often understood as describing a _present_ state that is the result of a past action. Though it was dying out in the Greek Koine of the NT era, there was also a pluperfect tense-form that is basically a past version of the perfect tense-form: “**had** promised” instead of “**has** promised.”)
In summary, it seems to this second-year Greek student that _neither_ half of the clause clearly carries a past tense sense. The first half (probably) depicts a present state (“what he **has** promised”) and the second half (more clearly) asserts a present reality (“he **is** able also to do”).
**This brings me to my third and best working explanation: The English translations above do not follow the Greek as closely as they could.** Interestingly, I am not alone in my assessment. There are a few English translations that agree with me, some old, some recent:
> What He hath promised He is able also to do (YLT “Young’s Literal Translation)
>
> Whatever things God hath promised, he is mighty also to do. (Wycliffe)
>
> What he has promised he is able also to do. (Darby)
>
> What God has promised, He also is able to do. (TLV “Tree of Life Version”)
>
> God is able to do whatever he promises. (NLT)
Similarly, though I haven’t found any commentaries that directly address this translation question, several appear to indirectly affirm my conclusions. First, a comment from Moo:
> It is Abraham’s conviction that God **is** fully able to do whatever he promised that enabled his faith to overcome the obstacle of the tangible and visible “facts.”[1](#fn-2831-1)
And, better, a direct translation by Schreiner, followed by commentary:
> Abraham grew strong in faith “by being fully assured that God **is** able to do what he had promised” (πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι ὃ ἐπήγγελται δυνατός ἐστιν καὶ ποιῆσαι…)… He surely **has** the power to accomplish what he **has** promised.[2](#fn-2831-2)
\[Edit: In his 2018 revision of this commentary, Schreiner interprets Romans 4:21 as even more clearly expressing the timeless nature of God’s ability. His translation now reads: “by being fully assured that God **is** able to do what he promised” (instead of “_had_ promised”). And his comment now reads: “He surely **has** the power to accomplish what he **promises**” (instead of “has promised”). See page 246.\]
In sum, I give Darby top marks for following the Greek most closely: “What he has promised he is able also to do.” And I give the NLT top marks for best expressing the timeless truth that Abraham grasped: “God is able to do whatever he promises.”
**Whether or not I am right in the above, this I do know is true: My own faith, like Abraham’s, will be strengthened only if I am confident that God _is_ able—past, present, future, _always_ able—to do everything he has promised.**
This timeless nature of God’s power is expressed clearly even in English translations several verses earlier in Romans 4: “The God who gives life to the dead and calls things into existence that do not exist” (Rom. 4:17 CSB).
John Toews puts it this way:
> More is said about God than about Abraham’s faith. The character of the God “_faithed_” determines the character of the faith exercised. The point of the text is that the fulfillment of the promise is based on the power of God. Even more important than Abraham’s faith is God’s faithfulness.[3](#fn-2831-3)
**What a mighty God we serve!**
* * *
**Greek scholar or not, share your insights in the comments below. And thanks for reading.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. Douglas Moo, _Romans_, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 286. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-2831-1)
2. Thomas R. Schreiner, _Romans_, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 238-39. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-2831-2)
3. John E. Toews, _Romans_, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2004), 123. [↩](#fnref-2831-3)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: 2018 Year-End Report
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-12-31
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding: 2018 Year-End Report • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In 2018 we continued repaying churchfunding house loans and serving in our community. Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta, however, is currently "on pause."
Tags: annual report, churchfunding, microloans, Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2018-year-end-report
**Since our “churchfunding” house loan was a public adventure, I want to give public updates from time to time.** How is it working for us by now? In short, we are making monthly repayments as planned and remain deeply grateful for all who helped us purchase this house. However, _**there are changes to our church planting activities which I will share at the end of this post**_.
([Here is the post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) that officially launched this churchfunding adventure. We purchased our Atlanta house on March 25, 2016, paying the seller in full immediately, thanks to loans and gifts from nearly 90 individuals or families.)
**At the beginning of 2018, we owed $48,037.50 in house loans. By the end of 2018, we owed only $41,937.50. Here is how that $6,100 difference breaks down.**
We repaid $5,470 in loans in 2018 at the planned rate of $500 per month. Why is this total not $6000? Several lenders, when offered their promised repayment, declined the 10% interest we had promised. One declined $500 in principal as well. We are thankful for this generosity!
In total, we were forgiven $630 in principal and interest in 2018. $630 plus $5,470 equals $6,100. This means our house debt declined by $100 more than we expected in 2018.
**When can the remaining lenders expect repayment?**
**At the promised $500 per month, we should have all remaining lenders repaid within 7 years—before the end of 2025.**
**Cash Flow and House Happenings**
**Our cash flow is tighter than I predicted a year ago that it would be.** I continue to work three days a week for Choice Books (extra over this holiday season), but my number of piano students plateaued in 2018. I temporarily reached 23 students, but finished the year with the same number I had a year ago—about 18. On the positive side, as was true a year ago, I have a handful of students planning to resume or begin lessons in January. If I could reach 30 students, our cash flow would be more manageable.
Our largest expense in 2018 was buying a “new” (2002) Toyota Camry to replace an old Jetta. We were not sad to see the Jetta go, though we received less than we asked for it, and slightly less than the buyer promised to pay. Other “extra” expenses included a Greek class for me ([highly recommended—see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/a-story-in-greek/)), cello and violin lessons for our two oldest daughters, and some business tax I had overlooked.
**House projects in 2018 were very minor.** A hall closet finally got proper shelving:
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/36811493101604754843501776410446698841112576o-1721385460882-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/36811493101604754843501776410446698841112576o-1721385460882-compressed.jpg)
And, much to the mutual relief of thirsty neighborhood children and a mother weary of distributing drinks, we installed a fountain in our front yard!
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/35686938101604037715501771422423070273961984o-1721385462452-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/35686938101604037715501771422423070273961984o-1721385462452-compressed.jpg)
The dead backyard trees and leaky shower and unusable basement entrance I mentioned a year ago are still awaiting their turns.
Meanwhile, **we experienced our first significant flooding in our basement just this past week**, due to heavy rains. A leaky and inadequate city sewer line through our yard exacerbated the problem. Priya and I carried out about 100 gallons of water in pails. I expected this would happen sometime. Now we know where the “weak points” are. I am hopeful we can seal off some of the leaks and slow the flooding next time.
House prices in our neighborhood continue to rise. More vacant homes are being refurbished and inhabited, including on our own street. **The real estate website Zillow**, which estimated our house value at $81,000 back in March 2016 just before we bought it for $65,000, [**now estimates our house is worth about $188,000**](https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/251-W-Lake-Dr-NW-Atlanta,-GA,-30314_rb/). It predicts the value could increase by around 15% in the next year to nearly $216,000. God knows and time will tell.
**Church Changes**
**“The house that God bought” saw many ministry opportunities over the past year, such as:**
* 23 Sunday morning church gatherings (avg. 13 in attendance)
* Several Bible study sessions
* Many piano students and a “Living Room Recital”
* Sharing our yard, bike pump, and fountain with neighbor children
* Sharing food with hungry people knocking at our front door
* Hosting international students for Thanksgiving
* Homeschooling our children
In early November, however, **the couple [who invited us to Atlanta to join them in church planting](http://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta/) decided to step out of this church planting effort.** The Smuckers are focusing instead on other learning and ministry opportunities in the community. As a result, _**Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta is no longer an active gathering**_.
Our family is seeking God’s direction for this changed situation. We have opened up ourselves to the counselors who helped us during our decision to move here. Meanwhile, we have been attending a church on the east side of the city, [Cellebration Fellowship](http://www.cellebrationfellowship.com/), where my Choice Books supervisor and his family have also recently started attending. The pastor and church there have shown us grace.
We realize that many of you who supported us in our churchfunding house loan project did so in part because you were excited about supporting a church plant effort. We have not given up on this possibility, but feel a need to re-evaluate this goal in light of changed circumstances.
We welcome your prayers as we seek God’s light for life and ministry in the coming year. If you have questions or counsel, we invite you to contact us privately.
**We remain deeply grateful for all our churchfunding supporters.** We want to faithfully steward this house for Jesus in 2018 and be salt and light in our community.
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight & Zonya Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## I and my Wife and Paul’s Grammar
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-12-19
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: I and my Wife and Paul's Grammar • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In Greek: "ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρναβᾶς." In English: "Barnabas and I." That's how the ESV "corrects" Paul's good Greek grammar to make it good English grammar.
Tags: -, Bible translations, Greek, grammar
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/i-my-wife-pauls-grammar
**“I and my wife are thankful God answered our prayers and gave us children.”**
Yes, “I and my wife.”
Now, grammar grumps, cool your fingers and curb your complaints. 🙂 I claim divine precedent for putting myself before my wife. Or at least scriptural precedent. Or at least Pauline precedent.
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/rszapostle-paul-1721353355030-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/rszapostle-paul-1721353355030-compressed.jpg)
Oh, and I’m not relying on mere gender doctrine, either—which would actually tell me to put myself last. I have better justification for my grammar.
In 1 Corinthians 9:6, Paul wrote, “Is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?”
Except that isn’t what he actually wrote.
This is what he actually wrote: “μόνος ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρναβᾶς οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι;”
**In Greek: “ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρναβᾶς”** (“I and Barnabas”)
**In English: “Barnabas and I”**
That’s how the ESV “corrects” Paul’s good Greek grammar to make it good English grammar. The KJV and about a dozen other English translations retain Paul’s order, but most read like the ESV.
Surprisingly, however, here is the NIV: “I and Barnabas.”
Wow! I see no semantic reason for retaining the Greek order of these words, and the NIV places a high priority on using normal English language conventions. Yet here they are more hyper word-for-word than the ESV. What gives?
**At any rate, there you have it: Both Paul and the NIV give me permission to put myself first.**
**I and you will just have to get over it.**
* * *
**Do I really want to read your comments on this one? Share them below if you feel you must.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-12-12
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Jesus' weakness in the manger was essential. His weakness on the cross was crucial. Just so, our weakness today is indispensable to God's mighty kingdom.
Tags: Anthony C. | Thiselton, -, Ben | Witherington III, Christopher | de Vinck, disability, gospel, grace, healing, Henri J.M. | Nouwen, honor, J.C. | Wand, Ken | Gire, Mark, powerlessness, sinners, sovereignty, strength, useful, weakness
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-5-of-5
This is the final post of a series called “Wanted: Weak Christians.” Here are the other posts:
[Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5) — Introduction](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-1-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5) — Who Are They?](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-2-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5) — How Are They Indispensable?](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-3-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5) — Advice to the Strong](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-4-of-5/)
Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5) — The Power of the Powerless
* * *
> **He is blind and has been blind since birth.** He can neither see nor speak, though occasionally he laughs. His head is large, and his hands are small. His legs are twisted, and his feet are as tiny as a five-year-old’s. He can’t learn. He can’t even lift his head. He has to be spoon-fed and sponge-bathed, and someone has to change his diapers. Sometimes he has convulsions, rattling not only the frame of his bed but the hearts of those who love him…
>
> Who would think that in that bed was the power to move presidents? Who would think that muteness could be so eloquent? That blindness could open so many eyes? Who would think that so many lives would be uplifted by someone who couldn’t lift his own head?
>
> _You_ would. You would think those things. If you had been to Oliver’s room…
So writes Ken Gire, in his forward to Christopher de Vinck’s memoir about his brother, Oliver. Few books have moved me as powerfully as this one.
Gire continues:
> **From the bed in Oliver’s room comes a glimmer of Bethlehem.** If you will not look away, you will see something of what was revealed in the straw and swaddling clothes of the manger.
>
> You will see _the power of the powerless_.
>
> It is the way God works in a world that idolizes strength and worships the means of attaining it. “His strength is perfected in weakness,” is the way the Bible puts it. And weakness is what you find when you come to Oliver’s room.[1](#fn-2794-1)
**The book is called _The Power of the Powerless_.** Henri J. M. Nouwen writes the introduction:
> Chris… writes about… people who by many are considered misfits, vegetables, tragic flaws of nature, people about whom many feel that it would have been better if they had not been born. But for Chris these people are God’s messengers, they are the divine instruments of God’s healing presence, they are the ones who bring truth to a society full of lies, light into the darkness, and life into a death-oriented world.[2](#fn-2794-2)
If the words of Gire and Nouwen resonate with you, [read de Vinck’s book for yourself](https://amzn.to/2Envywk). His brother **Oliver illustrates the central point of this blog series: “weak” people are indispensable in Jesus’ church.**
[](https://amzn.to/2Qq4Z02)
[
](https://amzn.to/2Qq4Z02)
“In patristic thought the theme recurs that believers _need_ those to whom they can show active care, protection, support, and love,” writes Thiselton. “Otherwise they cannot serve as Christ served ‘for others.’” [3](#fn-2794-3) We need “weak” Christians, and God _intentionally composed_ Christ’s church to include them.
“The church is a school for sinners, not a museum for saints.”[4](#fn-2794-4) This witticism, Thiselton notes, “underlines that a church made up only of self-styled ‘gifted’ elite would not be the church _of Christ_.”[5](#fn-2794-5)
**IS WEAKNESS ALWAYS GOOD?**
**Weakness and mutual suffering are not the sum total of God’s purposes for us, of course.** His eternal design includes much more. That body you inhabit, which is the scene of so much dishonor and weakness? “It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power” (1 Cor. 15:43).
Even now, what was true of the blind man in John 9 is also sometimes true of us: He was born blind, not because he or his parents had sinned, true enough, but _also not because God intended for him to remain blind his entire life_. Rather, he was born blind “that the works of God might be displayed in him”—the works, that is, of God healing him and thus demonstrating that Jesus was sent from God (John 9:3).
If this blind man had resisted being healed by Jesus, his weakness would have missed its purpose. What about us?
And should we really lump all forms of weakness together as equal? Surely it is not only the “strong” who should seek to become skilled physicians of the soul who can distinguish between different soul diseases. Those who are “weak” must likewise seek to be honest about the mix of physical, emotional, and spiritual causes of their weaknesses, submitting to God’s grace for each.
It is also true that, **though weaknesses need not destroy our usefulness in the church in general, they may limit our usefulness for specific missions**. Well-meaning Christians won’t always agree when this is the case; recall Paul and Barnabas splitting ways over John Mark (Acts 15:37-40).
We do not know what sort of weakness (spiritual? emotional? physical?) caused Mark to “withdraw” from the “work” of Paul’s first missionary trip. Whatever the cause, Paul experienced Mark’s withdrawal as an indication that he could not be trusted to persevere in the hard work of traveling gospel ministry. Yet Mark’s life contains many lessons for both “weak” and “strong” Christians. Consider:
* Barnabas took Mark with him on a mission trip to Cyprus; quite likely he proved useful there under his cousin Barnabas’s softer leadership.
* Mark later proved to be “very useful” to Paul “for ministry” (2 Tim. 4:11).
* Mark was humble enough that, despite having been rejected by Paul, he was willing to again be one of Paul’s “fellow workers” (Phm. 1:24).
* Paul was humble enough to call Mark “very useful,” to count him as a “fellow worker,” and to make a special point of insisting that others “welcome him” (Col. 4:10).
* Mark’s great usefulness was revealed most powerfully when he wrote his Gospel.
Was it wise for Paul to refuse to take Mark along on his return missionary trip? We really don’t have enough data to answer that question well. What we do know is that “weak” Mark proved indispensable to the Church for all ages.
Mark’s story also suggests that “weak” Christians may grow in strength and usefulness. Similarly, right after our key passage about God honoring the weak, Paul urges us to “earnestly desire the higher gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31). We should not assume that God intends for us to remain lacking in new gifts that could equip us for new forms of service.
**LOVE, WEAKNESS, AND THE GOSPEL**
**But something is even more important than “the higher gifts.”** Something is better even than if _all_ of us possessed _all_ the gifts, better than if we all appeared strong and bursting with honor. “I will show you a still more excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:31).
That more excellent way is the way of love (1 Cor. 13). And in this broken world, love blossoms most fragrantly in Christ’s body when we do _not_ each possess all the gifts that are most honored among us. Love blooms most fully when some of us appear weak.
And so we rest in God’s design. “God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose” (1 Cor. 12:18).
If simply getting out of bed in the morning to feed your family requires every ounce of your of faith, then perhaps God says of you as Jesus said of the widow who put two small coins into the temple offering box:
> Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on. (Luke 21:3-4)
Perhaps this widow overheard Jesus’ words. If so, imagine how honored she felt!
Witherington reminds us that the same sort of honor must be given to the seemingly weak within the church:
> Paul’s word about giving more honor to the weaker members of the body of Christ, the less “presentable” ones, needs to be heeded. He believes that even these folk have essential gifts and functions to exercise. It is a mistake to bring the world’s evaluative system into the _ekklēsia_ and to set up an honor roll that favors the more presentable and dignified, or those with the more outwardly showy or dramatic gifts. Paul believes that the body of Christ is only truly strong when it gives special honor and attention to its weakest members. The more presentable members do not need such attention.[6](#fn-2794-6)
**In offering honor to its weakest members, the church displays something that is essential to the gospel message itself.** Listen to Paul’s description of those whom God has gathered around the “folly” of cross:
> God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1 Corinthians 1:27-29)
Paul was speaking, in part, about himself. Later he contrasts himself and the other authentic apostles with the arrogant Corinthians:
> I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. _We are weak, but you are strong_. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless… We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things. (1 Cor. 4:9-13, emphasis added)
Again, this “weakness” was not a distraction from Paul’s ministry. Nor was it a mere happenstance, a set of circumstances that was neither here nor there. Rather, **_this “weakness” was essential to the nature of the gospel Paul was preaching. It was essential for the display of God’s grace._**
Jesus’ weakness in the manger was an essential element of the gospel story. His weakness on the cross was crucial for our salvation. Just so, our weakness today remains an indispensable part of the good news of God’s mighty kingdom.
“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness,” the Lord assured Paul (2 Cor. 12:9).
The Lord’s assurance is for us, too. Therefore we, like Paul, can respond with courage: “I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”
**Are you weak? Do others consider you weak?**
Do not despair. Your weakness is exactly what God needs to complete his composition.
He chose you. He placed you. His design is that “the power of Christ” will “rest upon” you.
You may appear weak, dishonorable, and even unpresentable. But you are indispensable.
_God needs you_. Your weakness is God’s gift to his church.
(Dare I preach this even to myself? “_God needs me._ My weakness is God’s gift to his church.” I believe. Help thou my unbelief!)
**Trust the Artist. Someday we will see that every shadow has enhanced his glory and our joy.**
* * *
**Thank you for reading this blog series.** I would love to hear your feedback. What is your experience of strengths and weaknesses in the church? Where have you seen Christians do well or poorly in how we honor the “weak” among us? What have I missed in my exposition? **Please share your insights in the comments below. Thank you!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. Ken Gire, foreword to _The Power of the Powerless_, by Christopher de Vinck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 9-10. Bold print added. [↩](#fnref-2794-1)
2. Henri J. M. Nouwen, introduction to _The Power of the Powerless_, by Christopher de Vinck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 18. [↩](#fnref-2794-2)
3. Thiselton, ibid., 1008. [↩](#fnref-2794-3)
4. On page 287 of _The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), Thiselton credits this quote to “J.C. Wand.” Though I have not been able to find the original source, my research confirms that this Wand is otherwise known as John William Charles Wand, Anglican bishop of London after World War II. [↩](#fnref-2794-4)
5. Thiselton, _First Epistle_, 1008. [↩](#fnref-2794-5)
6. Witherington, ibid., 263. [↩](#fnref-2794-6)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-12-10
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: “Strong” Christians, be physicians of the soul. If someone’s symptoms are due to weakness, then offer primarily help, not warning or encouragement.
Tags: -, sin, weakness, admonishment, counselling, cure, cures, depression, devotion, diseases, encouragement, G.K. | Beale, Gene L. | Green, help, John | Owen, loyalty, physician of the soul, problem Christians, Puritans, rebuke, Richard | Baxter, strong Christians, symptoms, Timothy | Keller, warning
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-4-of-5
This is part four of a series called “Wanted: Weak Christians.” Here are the other posts:
[Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5) — Introduction](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-1-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5) — Who Are They?](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-2-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5) — How Are They Indispensable?](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-3-of-4/)
Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5) — Advice to the Strong
[Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5) — The Power of the Powerless](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-5-of-5/)
* * *
**What if your weakness is God’s gift to Christ’s church?**
I asked this question at the end of my last post, and I plan to return to it. But first, in this post, I want to (1) summarize this blog series so far, and (2) give some advice to “strong” Christians.
**SUMMARY**
This blog series is my attempt to encourage discussion of Paul’s teaching about “the parts of the body that seem to be weaker” (1 Cor. 12:22). **Here, without adornment, are the main ideas we’ve covered:**
* Discussions about the body of Christ usually conjure images of spiritual gifts and individual strengths. But when God “composed the body,” he also intentionally wove into its fabric members who “seem to be weaker,” people whom “we think less honorable” or even “unpresentable.” Valuing only strengths will lead to bad fruit.
* In the analogy of the body, the “weaker” members are the hands and feet, but especially the “necessary” or “private parts,” which we honor by covering with clothing.
* In Christ’s body, the “weaker” Christians are those who tend to be considered weak or embarrassing because of some perceived lack, such as in social status, psychological disposition, aptitude, confidence, spiritual gifting, or knowledge. Often they are perceived as being less “spiritual” in some way. The symptom that is perceived as weakness often truly exists. But more importantly, it exists as “weakness” in the eye of the beholder—in the eyes of other Christians who often feel themselves “strong” by comparison.
* “Weaker” Christians are “indispensable” to the rest of Christ’s body. God gives them gifts that are essential. Further, God uses them to unify the church, as other members share in their suffering and extend them honor. Mutual suffering, even mutual embarrassment, stimulates mutual care, which binds the body together in unity.
* God designed our physical bodies so that our brains, eyes, and hands instinctively work together to honor our crucial reproductive organs with appropriate clothing. In the same way, God designed Christ’s body so that its Spirit-filled members work together to give honor to fellow Christians who appear weaker, knowing they are valued by God and essential to the church. In this way, God gives “greater honor to the part that lacked it.”
God’s composition is not something you or I would have dreamed up. But what if what your world most needs is _someone with needs_? What if your weakness is God’s gift to Christ’s church?
**ADVICE TO THE “STRONG”**
On the other hand, perhaps you don’t think of yourself as one of the “weaker” ones in Jesus’ church. Perhaps you have been granted the gifts, social graces, and spiritual empowerment that have secured you a respected place among God’s children. Maybe you are typically the strong one in your relationships, usually helping others along, often leading. You feel weak the odd time, but generally people admire you, want to be around you, and want to be like you.
If so, that’s okay. It’s not wrong to be strong (how’s that for a slogan?), as long as you remember that your strength is actually God’s strength, and that it won’t always be yours. Just as “weaker” Christians are indispensable, so are “stronger” ones.
**How, then, should a “stronger” Christian relate with “weaker” Christians?** This question deserves books; I will discuss one sentence of Scripture. **Consider this four-point sermon outline from Paul:**
> And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. (1 Thess. 5:14)
**Paul is matching the cure to the disease.** He identifies three types of Christians with problems: the idle, the fainthearted, and the weak. And he names three responses to these Christians: admonish, encourage, and help. The way he pairs these responses with these “problem Christians” is most instructive.
**The “idle”** are disorderly, disruptive, and unruly. They are not so much lazy as “busy doing the wrong things,”[1](#fn-2782-1) such as being busybodies and spreading false teachings. These people need to be **“admonished”**—firmly warned and even disciplined if necessary (cf. 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).
**The “fainthearted”** are timid and discouraged. They may be worried, sad, or low on faith. “These people did not need to be admonished but persuaded not to give up.”[2](#fn-2782-2) If **“encouraged,”** they will succeed.
**The “weak”** may be the least specific category. The word here is a variation of the same word translated “weaker” in our main passage, 1 Corinthians 12.[3](#fn-2782-3) Here, as there, commentators suggest diverse references, such as spiritual shortcomings, physical sickness, economic need, low social status, or psychological weakness. Whatever the case, what these people need is **“help.”**
_**Our English word “help” may be too vague and weak, however.**_ The same Greek word[4](#fn-2782-4) is found three places in the New Testament, where it is translated as “be devoted to” (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13) or “hold firm to” (Tit. 1:9). The word seems to imply proximity, focus, and allegiance. Someone who “helps” in this sense will not hold others at a distance, will not devalue or forget them, and will not reject them. Paul is saying we should “take an interest in \[the weak\], pay attention to them, and remain loyal to them… Those whom society walks over and puts down are lifted up and given support by the church.”[5](#fn-2782-5)
**Finally**—point four in Paul’s outline—all three kinds of Christians require, and must be offered, **patience**.
**AT THE PIANO: WHEN ONLY HELP WILL HELP**
**In identifying the “idle,” “fainthearted,” and “weak,” Paul seems to be describing three levels of ability:** Those who are able and active but unruly, those who are able but inactive because discouraged, and those who are unable and need help. _**Because of these differing levels of ability, offering the correct response is crucial.**_
What will happen if we give the unruly encouragement or help? They will probably abuse them. What will happen if we warn the fainthearted? Their discouragement will only deepen. And if we help them without encouraging them? They may never learn to do what they, with encouragement, could do for themselves.
And what about the weak? What if we warn them? What if we feed them motivational words? What will warnings and “encouragements” do to their souls _if they are truly unable, for whatever reason, to do what we are expecting them to do_?
**Let me illustrate. Recently we hosted a piano recital in our home.** Each of my three daughters played a solo. One of my daughters is developing socially somewhat more slowly than her sisters. She turns inward when she is asked to interact with new people.
When this daughter’s turn came, I asked her aloud, “Do you want to tell us what song you’re playing?” Immediately I read on her silent face the expected answer: _No_. So I whispered to her, “Shall I say it?” _Yes_, she nodded. She then relaxed, I introduced her song, and we were treated to a lovely, sensitive performance of “Silent Night.”
You can catch the tail end of our daddy-daughter conversation here, along with her performance:
**Now what would have happened if,** when my daughter communicated that she did not want to introduce her song, I had admonished her in front of a living room full of people? “Why are you being stubborn? Don’t you realize that you are dishonoring our guests? We can wait here until you find enough respect to talk.” As her dad, I simply can’t imagine saying anything like this.
What if, instead of rebuking her, I had encouraged her, saying “You can do it!” or “Don’t be afraid!” or “Everyone here is friendly, you’re safe.” While this would have been less damaging, it still wouldn’t have been pretty. Suddenly the girl who was already trying to avoid attention would have been thrust doubly into the center of everyone’s focus. Shame and fear would have washed over her. Even if she had eventually found words, her piano performance would probably have suffered.
**No, what my daughter needed in that moment was not admonishment, not encouragement, but _help_.** We’ve all been there! She needed someone who was devoted to her and who would care for her. She needed me to speak for her. And when I gave her the help she needed, she freely shared her gift with the group—a pleasing performance of a carol she had diligently prepared. As her father, I was, and am, delighted and proud.
**“Strong” Christians, what was true for my daughter is equally true for the “weaker” Christians in our midst.** While every Christian benefits from regular encouragement, and we all need warning from time to time, **what “weak” Christians need most of all is _help_.**
What that special needs teen needs is someone to continually give him attention by rubbing his back, so he doesn’t feel a need to speak out during the service—and a congregation who will laugh good-naturedly when he does. What that post-operation preacher needs is someone to read his sermon for him. What that immigrant family needs is an opportunity to share a song in their own language. What that timid music team member needs is permission to look down at her music instead of at the congregation, so she is not distracted from worship by social anxiety.
I witnessed each of these and more yesterday at the church we visited.
Sure, it takes a lot of patience sometimes, but what “weak” Christians need most of all is _help_.
**PHYSICIANS OF THE SOUL**
**Christians, then, must learn to be what the Puritans called “physicians of the soul.” We must learn to not only _note symptoms_ but also _diagnose diseases_ correctly and then _apply the right cures_.**
The easiest thing for all of us, of course, is to note symptoms—some dishonorable behavior in our “weaker” brother or sister—and then diagnose them _based on our knowledge of ourselves_. “If _I_ acted the way he did, I would be stubborn, selfish, or unrepentant.” But I am not him and you are not me, and essentially identical symptoms may be caused by very different diseases. We need to listen devotedly to our “weaker” brother or sister, learning to know them well. If not, we will diagnose wrongly and could apply a “cure” that actually worsens their disease.
**Tim Keller has written [a helpful article about the Puritans and soul care.](https://www.ccef.org/resources/blog/puritan-resources-biblical-counseling)** Here are a few excerpts:
> The Puritans had sophisticated diagnostic casebooks containing scores and even hundreds of different personal problems and spiritual conditions. John Owen was representative when he taught that every pastor must understand all the various cases of depression, fear, discouragement, and conflict that are found in the souls of men. This is necessary to apply “fit medicines and remedies unto every sore distemper.” Puritans were true physicians of the soul. Their study of the Scripture and the heart led them to make fine distinctions between conditions and to classify many types and sub-types of problems that required different treatments…
>
> In addition, the Puritans were able to make fine distinctions in diagnosing the root causes of the problems. \[Richard\] Baxter’s sermon, “What are the Best Preservatives against Melancholy and Overmuch Sorrow?” discerns four causes of depression (sin, physiology, temperment, and demonic activity) which can exist in a variety of interrelationships…
>
> The Puritans’ balanced understanding of the roots of personal problems is not mirrored in the pastoral practice of modem evangelicals. Most counselors tend to ‘major’ in one of the factors mentioned by Baxter. Some will see personal sin as the cause of nearly all problems. Others have built a counseling methodology mainly upon an analysis of “transformed temperments.” Still others have developed “deliverance” ministries which see personal problems largely in terms of demonic activity. And of course, some evangelicals have adopted the whole ‘medical model’ of mental illness, removing all ‘moral blame’ from the patient, who needs not repentance but the treatment of a physician.
>
> But Baxter not only shows an objective openness to discovering any of these factors in diagnosis, he also expects usually to find all of them present. Any of the factors may be the main factor which must be dealt with first in order to deal with the others.
>
> So we see sophistication of the Puritans as physicians of the soul… Biblical counselors today, who sometimes are rightfully charged with being simplistic, could learn from the careful diagnostic method of these fathers in the faith…
>
> Most of us talk less about sin than did our forefathers. But, on the other hand, the Puritans amazingly were… extremely careful not to call a problem ‘sin’ unless it was analyzed carefully. One of their favorite texts was: “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoking flax he will not quench” (Matthew 12:20). [6](#fn-2782-6)
**This, then, is my advice to “strong” Christians: seek to be physicians of the soul.** We won’t always get it right, of course. But do not assume everyone is as strong as you are. If someone’s symptoms are due primarily to weakness, then be very slow to offer warning. Be judicious even in how you offer encouragement. Aim primarily to offer help.
Understand, however, that help is not help, biblically speaking, unless it is an expression of authentic devotion and loyalty. In fact, be wary of communicating that you are providing help. Seek ways to personally share in the suffering of the “weaker” members of Christ’s body, experiencing empathy and not merely offering sympathy.
**Join God in honoring your “weaker” brothers and sisters, that your mutual joy may be full.** Remember that God is the one who placed both of you in his composition. All colors are indispensable there, not just your brilliant ones. Mourn when your strength inhibits Christ’s grace. Offer help to the “weak” with great patience and devotion. Don’t, by holding them at a distance, miss an opportunity for God to increase the unity of Christ’s church.
* * *
**This post grew beyond my expectations.** I want to speak a final word primarily to “weaker” Christians in my final post. (And don’t we all have at least one turn being weak?)
**But for now, I invite your responses to this post.** I’m sure I’m missing a lot that should be said, so likely my balance isn’t perfect. Did you find something here helpful? Do you have more to add? **Please share your insights in the comments below. And thanks for reading.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. G.K. Beale, _1-2 Thessalonians_, IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 164. [↩](#fnref-2782-1)
2. Gene L. Green, _The Letters to the Thessalonians_, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 253. [↩](#fnref-2782-2)
3. The lexical form for the words in both texts is ἀσθενής. [↩](#fnref-2782-3)
4. Lexical form: ἀντέχομαι. [↩](#fnref-2782-4)
5. Green, ibid., 254. [↩](#fnref-2782-5)
6. Tim Keller, “Puritan Resources for Biblical Counselling,” blog post, June 1, 2010, Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation, [https://www.ccef.org/resources/blog/puritan-resources-biblical-counseling](https://www.ccef.org/resources/blog/puritan-resources-biblical-counseling), accessed December 5, 2018. [↩](#fnref-2782-6)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-12-04
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is a hinge-point in God's master plan for using “weak” Christians to unify the church: mutual suffering and embarrassment leads to mutual care.
Tags: Anthony C. | Thiselton, -, Ben | Witherington III, honor, weakness, body of Christ, Brian S. | Rosner, church unity, clothing, composition, D. B. | Martin, David A. | deSilva, Gordon | Fee, indispensable, John | Chrysostom, John | Dickson, Kenneth E. | Bailey, Roy E. | Ciampa, shame
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-3-of-4
This is part three of a series called “Wanted: Weak Christians.” Here are the other posts:
[Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5) — Introduction](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-1-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5) — Who Are They?](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-2-of-4/)
Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5) — How Are They Indispensable?
[Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5) — Advice to the Strong](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-4-of-5/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5) — The Power of the Powerless](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-5-of-5/)
* * *
**Why, then, does God include seemingly weak members in Christ’s body?** Again, the answer is surprising: he includes such people because the rest of the body needs them. In a word, they are “indispensable.”
> The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable. (1 Cor. 12:21-22)
**_Indispensable_.** Stop and weigh that word. Consider similar words from other translations, such as _necessary_ or _essential_.[1](#fn-2771-1)
Do others consider you a “weaker” person? Do you feel like one? God is speaking to you. He has intentionally included you in the composition of his church. He considers you “indispensable.” He does not look the other way when you walk into the room. He does not wish you weren’t there. He _put_ you there, and he wants you. He _needs_ you. More precisely, he needs you because _others in Christ’s body need you_. You are indispensable to other Christians.
**How might seemingly weak persons be indispensable?** Paul does not address this question directly, but the context suggests some answers:
> The parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Cor. 12:22-25)
**HOW DOES GOD HONOR “WEAK” CHRISTIANS?**
Let’s begin with God’s action in verse 24. Paul says that God has given “greater honor to the part that lacked it.” When and how did God do this? I see several possibilities.
**One possibility** recalls that the word “indispensable” is probably a euphemism for reproductive organs. Paul is talking about our “unpresentable” but “necessary” body parts—our “private parts,” to use a contemporary euphemism. Witherington explains: “God composed the body by giving the parts that were lacking in appearance even more honor, bestowing on them the most crucial of functions, that is, reproduction.[2](#fn-2771-2)
In this reading, God has honored the seemingly weaker members of Christ’s church by giving them important work to do, work that the church needs for its survival. In Kenneth Bailey’s interpretation of this passage, he concludes that Paul is talking about spiritual reproduction—more specifically, evangelism.[3](#fn-2771-3) This is too specific and narrow of an interpretation, though members of Christ’s church who seem to be weak do indeed play important and often overlooked parts in the broader task of promoting the gospel.[4](#fn-2771-4) In the history of redemption, we see how God repeatedly chose secondborns over firstborns in the bloodline of the Messiah. He entrusted women who were social outcasts for the same noble task—those who were barren (Sarah), sexually immoral (Tamar and Rahab), foreign (Ruth and Rahab again), or pregnant out of wedlock (Mary). In the New Testament, Jesus chose men like Matthew (a despised tax collector) and Paul (a former persecutor) among his apostles. Today, many of us could tell a story about some overlooked or socially backward church member who, at just the right time, possessed an insight or a gift that helped the church through a crucial moment. Truly, “God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong” (1 Cor. 1:27). “He gives gifts that the body needs to people who might otherwise be thought of as unimportant or dispensible,”[5](#fn-2771-5) calling them “indispensable” instead.
**Again, when and how has God given “greater honor to the part that lacked it”? Here is another possible answer:** Perhaps it happened when he honored it with clothing. God indeed gave “greater honor” to our private parts when he clothed Adam and Eve. He didn’t deck their face or hands with clothing; presumably he clothed their torsos, including their genitals and Eve’s breasts—the parts of their bodies that they used especially for love-making and child-rearing. Whether we consider our private parts to be full of shame or glory (and in this fallen world they bear a potent mix of both), God granted them the privacy they needed, thus honoring them.
Similarly, consider the honor that God has given to the lowly within Christ’s church, quite apart from any work they may or may not do. “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven,” Jesus said. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.” On the contrary, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:4-6). At the final judgment, our destiny will be determined in part by how we have treated “the least of these my brothers” (Matt. 25:40). Consider the emphasis the early church placed on caring for the poor, the sick, the widows, and the orphans. Consider how, time and again, Paul focused his exhortation primarily on the “strong,” urging the former to lovingly limit their freedoms out of consideration for the “weak.” God, by the teaching and example of Jesus and his apostles, has indeed “clothed” those who seem to be weak with greater honor, giving them the sort of deference that is normally reserved for royalty.
**This leads closely to a third possible way that God has given “honor to the part that lacked it”**: by God-given instinct, it is the same body parts that God covered in Eden that we are most careful to cover (or adorn in the marriage bed!) today. Martin explains:
> The genitals may _seem_ to be the most shameful part of the body, but our very attention to them—our constant care to cover them and shield them from trivializing and vulgarizing public exposure—demonstrates that they are actually the most necessary of the body’s members, those with the _highest_ status.[6](#fn-2771-6)
In clothing our bodies, we are imitating what God has already done.
In this reading, God grants honor to the seemingly weaker members of Christ’s body through the actions of the other members. Yes, Paul says that it is God who has given the honor. But a couple sentences earlier he also said this: “On those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor.” Clearly, one way God works is through the actions of his people. And when his people are merely imitating what he has already done, then, all the more clearly, it is God who is working through them. We will discuss this more in a minute.
**There are at least three ways, then, that God has given “greater honor to the part that lacked it.” _First, he entrusts important tasks to them. Second, in his upside-down kingdom he repeatedly exalts the lowly for no apparent reason but to demonstrate his generosity, saying that “the last will be first” (Matt. 20:16). And third, he gives honor to those who need it through the care of their brothers and sisters in Christ._**
All three options are related, and all are true. I am not sure how many layers of meaning Paul had in mind as he wrote.[7](#fn-2771-7) I suspect, though, that our third option was uppermost in his mind.
**It seems to me that Paul is saying something like the following:** God designed our physical bodies so that our brains, eyes, and hands instinctively work together to honor our crucial reproductive organs with appropriate clothing. In the same way, _**God designed Christ’s body so that its true members instinctively work together to give honor to fellow Christians who appear weaker or less presentable, knowing they are valued by God and essential for the vitality of the church.**_ In this way, God is giving “greater honor to the part that lacked it.”
Bessy’s attempt to apply 1 Corinthians 12:23 didn’t produce the results she was hoping for.
**HOW ARE “WEAK” CHRISTIANS INDISPENSABLE?**
**We can now propose three answers to our initial question.** How might seemingly weak persons be indispensable in Christ’s church? First, God often gives them important abilities and tasks that might be mishandled if left to the more glamorous members. Second, they provide essential opportunity for God to demonstrate his sovereign grace. And third, they draw other body members to participate in God’s work of raising up the lowly.
Let’s consider this third point more closely. **We have done some theological guesswork to consider _when_ and _how_ God has given “greater honor to the part that lacked it.” The question that Paul explicitly answers, however, is _why_:**
> God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, **that** there may be no division in the body, but **that** the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Cor. 12:24-25)
God’s design is that, as honor is given to the weaker members, the body avoids division. Instead of experiencing division, the members care for one another.
**Wait a minute. This is ironic. Weakness can help prevent division?** How many times have Christians parted ways because one considers another too weak? How many times have they divided over differing definitions of weakness, or differing ideas of how to “care for” those who are weak? How many times have I simply avoided getting too close to someone whose weakness leaves me feeling uncomfortable?
Weakness is supposed to lead to unity? And yet this is part of God’s upside-down master plan. How does it happen? Listen again to Paul:
> God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but **that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together**. (1 Cor. 12:24-26)
Have you ever noticed that, no matter how much you may fight with your brother at home, you will defend him to the death in public? Something similar was true in the ancient honor-shame culture of Paul’s day. He may have been alluding to such social values here. David deSilva explains:
> A principle Plutarch advocates \[for sibling relationships\] is that, where inequalities are unavoidable (for example, in age and thus seniority), the brother in the senior position must downplay his advantage out of sensitivity to the junior, while the brother in the ‘inferior’ position should respect the difference in status… In doing so, each honors the other and unity is preserved… This is also the ethos we find Paul promoting \[in 1 Corinthians 12:22-26\] as he considers the various gifts (even degrees of giftedness) within the church —those more visibly gifted must compensate by bestowing honor of \[sic? perhaps “on”?\] those less gifted in order “that there may be no dissension.”[8](#fn-2771-8)
**This sounds glorious, and glory is indeed the intended outcome. But the process is often painful.** Sometimes honoring a “weaker” person means “covering” for them—enduring discomfort of our own in order to preserve their dignity. Thiselton is right: “Paradoxically, our very embarrassment over the so-called ‘less presentable’ parts leads to care and attention in how we cover or even adorn them.”[9](#fn-2771-9)
Paul is similarly blunt: “If one member suffers, all suffer together.” He does not say this _should_ happen; he says it _does_ happen. Having a person with social difficulties, material needs, mental health challenges, or spiritual limitations in your church not only _should_ cause you suffering; it _will_.
Chrysostom waxes eloquent on this point:
> Often when a thorn has pierced the heel, the whole body feels it and becomes concerned. The back bends over, the abdomen and the legs join in, the hands, running forward like bodyguards and servants, remove the thorn, the head bows down, and the eyes look on with great concern. As a result, even if the foot is at a disadvantage because it cannot raise itself up, it is made equal by the lowering of the head and enjoys equal honor…
>
> Again, if something happens to the eyes, all the members feel pain, all are made idle. The feet do not walk or the hands work, and the stomach does not enjoy its usual foods. Yet the ailment belongs to the eye. Why does your stomach waste away? Why are your feet constrained? Why are your hands fettered? Because they are bound up with the eyes, and the whole body suffers more than it can say. If it did not suffer as a whole, it would not trouble itself with all this care for one part.[10](#fn-2771-10)
Read that last sentence again: “If it did not suffer as a whole, it would not trouble itself with all this care for one part.” Or, as Thiselton said above, “Our very embarrassment over the so-called ‘less presentable’ parts leads to care.”
**This is God’s purpose, a hinge-point in his master plan for using “weak” Christians to produce unity in the church: mutual suffering, even mutual embarrassment, is intended to produce mutual care.** Sharing in another’s suffering is divinely-orchestrated motivation. The experience of shared suffering moves us to care for the “weak” person whose suffering we are sharing.
_**And make no mistake: those who are deemed “weaker” often experience great suffering.**_ It is suffering upon suffering not only to endure whatever weaknesses we possess, but also to be keenly aware that others perceive us as being weak. This awareness is often enough to weaken us still further, threatening a downward spiral of inability and shame. The suffering can be immeasurable.
**But God’s design is different: Mutual suffering produces mutual care, and all that _mutual_ sharing strengthens the _unity_ of Christ’s body.**
Further, all members are enabled to share together in honor and joy. After all, “we do not say to a victorious runner, ‘I congratulate your legs’; congratulations go to the _person_.”[11](#fn-2771-11) Thus, whether the honor is given to those who seem to more naturally deserve it or to those who seem to more naturally lack it, all share in the joy. Oh, for a greater outworking of this divine plan!
**GOD’S COMPOSITION**
**Again, this is _God’s composition_.** When Paul says that “God… composed the body” in this way, he emphasizes the noun “God”[12](#fn-2771-12) and then uses a telling verb. Thiselton explains:
> The verb \[used here by Paul\]… is used of a painter _mixing and blending_ colors, of composing a harmonious work or substance, or of _compounding the various elements which together_ form the human body… The picture is of a craftsman _mixing a compound_, or of a musician composing _a harmony_, or of a divine agency creating a body by _combining elements to form a compound_. At all events, it is God who decides \[what honor or function each person is given\].[13](#fn-2771-13)
**God’s composition is not something you or I would have dreamed up.** We all want to be the one equipped to give. We don’t want the embarrassment of needing someone else’s gift. We want to be the helper in every relationship, or at least not the one needing help. We want the insight, articulation, and charisma to lead convincingly and effectively. We want to be the one making the world better for others.
**But what if…?** What if your weakness holds a gift that, though unglamorous, is exactly what the church needs? What if your inability to lead well prepares you to be exactly the sort of follower some leader needs? What if your poverty enables someone else to give? What if your helplessness allows another to rely on or give God’s grace more fully? What if your dishonor allows another to share in the sufferings of Christ? What if your needs pull the church together in unity as they care for you?
What if what your world most needs is _someone with needs_?
**What if your weakness is God’s gift to Christ’s church?**
* * *
This series is nearly done, but we’ll meditate on that last question a little more in our final post. This series is not merely theoretical for me. I suspect it isn’t for you, either. Sometimes it isn’t easy to talk about those parts of our lives that lack honor. Sometimes it isn’t appropriate, either.
**If you have something you’d like to share, though, please leave a comment below. And thanks for reading.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. _Necessary_ is by far the most common English translation. _Indispensable_ is the second most common, also frequent. Thiselton suggests the following: “Normal we should translate the Greek as _necessary_, since ἀνάγκη usually means _necessity_ or _compulsion_. But since the “superior” or “strong” groups see themselves as the _essence_ of the church, the wordplays implicit in vv. 22 and 23 may be best served by rendering it _essential_” (ibid., 1007). Some translations say something like _much more necessary_ or _the most necessary_, but the words translated _much more_ probably modify the whole argument rather than just the word _necessary_: “it is _much more_ the case that the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable.” After all, though Paul says we give “greater honor” and “greater modesty” to those body parts that need it, he does not seem to be arguing for degrees of necessity (something the Corinthian “elites” affirmed), but that all are needed. (See Thiselton, ibid., 1006.) [↩](#fnref-2771-1)
2. Ben Witherington, _Conflict and Community in Corinth: Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 259. [↩](#fnref-2771-2)
3. Kenneth E. Bailey, _Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians_ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 344-45. Bailey draws seven parallels between natural and spiritual reproduction, including that each is “a very private affair” that is “sacred and honorable,” involving “deep relations” and “long-term commitments.” These may be true, but almost certainly were not in Paul’s mind when he wrote this passage. [↩](#fnref-2771-3)
4. See _The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission: Promoting the Gospel with More Than Our Lips_, by John Dickson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010) for the distinction between evangelism and gospel promotion and for a helpful discussion of New Testament teachings about how Christians with diverse gifts all play a role in the latter. [↩](#fnref-2771-4)
5. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, _The First Epistle to the Corinthians_, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 606. [↩](#fnref-2771-5)
6. D. B. Martin, “Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators,” _Journal of the American Academy of Religion_, 1991, 51:567. Quoted in Garland, ibid., 596. [↩](#fnref-2771-6)
7. Gordon D. Fee shares my uncertainty here: “It is less clear, however, precisely what Paul had in mind by ‘greater honor.’ Most likely he means that the parts that appear to be weak and less worthy are in fact accorded the greater honor of having important functions or receiving special attention. See _The First Epistle to the Corinthians_, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 680. [↩](#fnref-2771-7)
8. David A. deSilva, _Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 167-68, also 168 n. 17. [↩](#fnref-2771-8)
9. Thiselton, ibid., 1009. [↩](#fnref-2771-9)
10. John Chrysostom, _Homily 31_, ibid., 209. [↩](#fnref-2771-10)
11. Thiselton, _1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical & Pastoral Commentary_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 210. [↩](#fnref-2771-11)
12. Thiselton, _First Epistle_, 1010. [↩](#fnref-2771-12)
13. Thiselton, ibid., 1010. [↩](#fnref-2771-13)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-11-27
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Who is a weak Christian? Notice the precise imprecision of Paul’s words: They are persons who “seem to be” weaker, those whom “we think” are less honorable.
Tags: Craig | Blomberg, Anthony C. | Thiselton, David | Garland, -, faith, disability, honor, weakness, depression, body of Christ, John | Chrysostom, shame, mental health, second class, social classes, spiritual gifts
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-2-of-4
This is part two of a series called “Wanted: Weak Christians.” Here are the other posts:
[Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5) — Introduction](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-1-of-4/)
Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5) — Who Are They?
[Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5) — How Are They Indispensable?](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-3-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5) — Advice to the Strong](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-4-of-5/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5) — The Power of the Powerless](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-5-of-5/)
* * *
**Who, then, are the ones who “seem to be weaker” in Christ’s body?** We have already noted Paul’s mention of hands and feet. [Chrysostom (AD 349-407)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom) identifies another set of body parts:
> What is thought to be less honorable than our organs of generation? And yet they receive greater honor. Even the destitute, though the other parts of their bodies may be naked, will not allow those parts to be uncovered. [1](#fn-2754-1)
Modern commentators agree. “The necessary member” was an ancient euphemism for the male reproductive organ.[2](#fn-2754-2) Paul seemingly alludes to this when he says the parts of the body that seem to be weaker “are necessary” (1 Cor. 12:22 KJV). Other commentators suggest Paul is also alluding to female reproductive organs and the mother’s breast,[3](#fn-2754-3) or even “the excretory tracts.”[4](#fn-2754-4)
**“WEAK” CHRISTIANS IN CORINTH**
**So then, who are the feet, hands, and private parts in Christ’s body? In the immediate context (see 1 Cor. 12:7-10), they are especially those Christians who lacked the charismatic gifts that were most highly valued in the church at Corinth**—those who were weak in the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, and especially speaking in spiritual languages (“tongues”). But in the context of the entire letter, the language of weakness is applied more broadly, such as to those who lacked the sort of rhetorical wisdom that Greeks valued (1 Cor. 1:22, 26; 2:3-4), to those who lacked noble birth (1 Cor. 1:26), and even to those who possessed weak consciences because they lacked knowledge (1 Cor. 8:7-13). It is in this latter context that Paul says, “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak” (1 Cor. 9:22).
**A common thread among all these examples is that the “weak” are those who are looked down on by others.** For a wide variety of possible reasons, they are considered to be socially second class.[5](#fn-2754-5)
Who else might these “second-class Christians” be? Commentators suggest many possibilities. Are they describing you? Are they describing someone close to you?
**EXAMPLES OF “WEAK” CHRISTIANS**
**Read the following excerpts thoughtfully. Has God carefully and intentionally placed some of the following people in the part of Christ’s body where you live?**
> In the Church, too, there are many and diverse members, some more honorable and some less… One person gives away everything, others desire only to be self-sufficient and to have the bare necessities, while still others give alms from their abundance. Nevertheless, all adorn each other, and if the greater reckons the lesser as nothing, he does great harm to himself… If someone who gives everything away reproaches someone who does not, he has forfeited much of the fruit of his efforts. _–John Chrysostom_[6](#fn-2754-6)
Is the weaker member in your church someone who does not give as much as you think they should? Someone who lacks the gift of giving (Rom. 12:8)? Or perhaps the weaker person is someone who gives so freely that they don’t seem to be planning wisely for future needs?
> There are choirs of virgins, the assemblies of widows, the company of those whose glory is in chaste marriage. These exhibit many degrees of virtue… If the virgin treats the married woman with contempt, she loses no small part of her reward. _–John Chrysostom_[7](#fn-2754-7)
Is the weaker member in your church someone who married because they didn’t have the dedication to remain single? Or, perhaps more likely in our culture, is it the older single who is considered weaker—not “marriage material”?
> What is of less account than beggars? Yet these, too, have a major role in the Church: they stand as fixtures and splendid adornment at the doors of the sanctuary. Indeed, without them the Church would not attain its full stature… While we preachers sit before you and recommend what will do you good, the one who sits before the doors of the church addresses you no less than we do, by his mere appearance, without saying a word… “My friend, do not be proud. Man’s life is a shifting and precarious thing. Youth hastens to old age, beauty to deformation, strength to weakness, eminence to disgrace…” This advice and more like it the poor give us by their looks and by what has happened to them, which is an even clearer warning. _–John Chrysostom_[8](#fn-2754-8)
Are you too poor to give much? Too poor or sick to devote as much energy as you wish to Christian service? Is there someone in your church who is always needing a handout from the deacons, or perhaps from anyone they know still cares enough to give?
Garland brings us back to Paul’s “head” and “eye” language, adding observations about class divisions:
> “Eye” and “head” are transparent metaphors for those in leadership roles, who are more likely to be more affluent and better educated. The “hands” and “feet” represent the laboring class or slaves. “Eyes” and “heads” in the church always get special treatment and then begin to think that they are special. A sense of superiority can breed notions of self-sufficiency…, since those who think that they are all-important can imagine that the minor players are superfluous and dispensable.[9](#fn-2754-9)
Are there stark differences of wealth or education in your church? Are you just a “dumb farmer” or a “dumb welder”—or perhaps just a “dumb college student”? Do you or others feel you have little to offer either because you lack education or you possess a kind of knowledge that isn’t valued in your social world?
Thiselton surveys Paul’s use of the language of “weakness” throughout 1 Corinthians. Drawing on other scholars, he concludes that Paul is likely referring to people who seem to lack things such as social status, psychological disposition, aptitude, or maturity:
> Paul refers to people in the church whose role, or more probably temperament, or perhaps both, present them as less endowed with power or status than others. The “strong” or the “gifted” perceived them as not providing much effective _weight_ or _power_ in the church’s mission, and not much _confidence_ borne of _status_. They were insufficiently impressive to count for much, either socially or spiritually, within the church, or in terms of what “contacts” or ability they might show for mission or for speaking with wisdom and knowledge to outsiders. Probably they never did effective mighty works or healing, seldom or never prophesied, and perhaps never spoke in tongues.[10](#fn-2754-10)
Are there persons in your church who are awkward or fearful in social interactions? Do they show, by a hundred involuntary subtle cues, that they are (or see themselves as) poor or inferior?
Do you lack the gift of abundant faith (1 Cor. 12:9)? Does it take as much of your faith for you to get out of bed in the morning as some of your Facebook friends use of their faith when they cast out demons or heal the sick? Do you or does someone you love have mental health challenges ([read this](http://bradhambrick.com/spiritualhealth/)) or wrestle with depression like many great saints past and present ([read this](http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/the-hard-apprenticeship-of-sorrow))? Do you lack the exhilarating spiritual feelings or experiences that the more expressive saints around you frequently display?
**MORE EXAMPLES OF “WEAK” CHRISTIANS**
**Other examples have been or could be suggested.** What about the physically disabled? Those with overwhelming suffering? Those with crooked teeth or weight challenges? Those with awkward grammar, poor spelling, or the wrong accent? What about those who suffer great financial loss rather than pressing their rights in court? Those who unfairly suffer tarnished reputations rather than proving their innocence in a public relations campaign?
What about those who are too black, too brown, or too white? What about those who are not Anabaptist enough (or Baptist or Pentecostal or…)—or those who still smell too Anabaptist? What about those who don’t keep their house or yard or vehicle clean enough—or those who keep everything so polished that you are scared to set foot on their property? What about those who talk too much, or who are too quiet? What about those who share their spiritual struggles too freely, or those who are uncomfortable sharing their struggles in public?
Could we also include those who wrestle for years with the same temptations? Even those who fall into the same sin far too frequently? What about the “weak person” Paul talks about in Romans 14, who is wrongly sensitive about how certain days or foods should be handled?
_**Examples are endless, and we won’t agree on all of them. I would love to hear your examples!**_
**WEAK? ACCORDING TO WHOM?**
**Notice the precise imprecision of Paul’s language:**
> The parts of the body that _seem to be weaker_ are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that _we think less honorable_ we bestow the greater honor. (1 Cor. 12:22-23)
**Paul is talking about persons who “seem to be” weaker, those whom “we think” are less honorable.**
Paul is saying that the weakness is, at least in part, in the eye of the beholder. Put more strongly, he is indicating that the persons you and I consider weak may not be weak at all.
On the other hand, they may be weak. But that does not reduce their value. Value in Christ’s body is not measured by either strength or the appearance of strength. No one loses value by being weak or by appearing weak. All alike have been placed by God, who values each and who “composed the body” (1 Cor. 12:24) according to his infinite wisdom.
**Why, then, does God include seemingly weak members in Christ’s body?** We’ll consider that question in the next post.
* * *
**Are there weak Christians in your church?** Are you, perhaps, a weak Christian? Do you think others consider you one? What values do we tend to use to measure who is strong and who is weak? How valid are these values?
**Share your insights in the comments below. And thanks for reading!**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
1. John Chrysostom, _Homily 31 on First Corinthians_, trans. Judith L. Kovacs, as quoted in _1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators_, The Church’s Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 208-209. [↩](#fnref-2754-1)
2. David Garland, _1 Corinthians_, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 595, n. 7. [↩](#fnref-2754-2)
3. Anthony C. Thiselton, _The First Epistle to the Corinthians_, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1008. [↩](#fnref-2754-3)
4. Craig Blomberg, _1 Corinthians_, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 246. [↩](#fnref-2754-4)
5. In 1 Corinthians 11:30 Paul says “many of you are weak and ill” because of partaking wrongly in the Lord’s Table. Almost all commentators agree that here Paul is using the term “weak” in a literal manner, to describe how rich Christians (probably members of the upper social classes) experienced physical illness as God’s judgment. This usage of “weak” (non-metaphorical, given by God as judgment, experienced by the social elite) contrasts sharply with the other examples in this paragraph. Therefore, I don’t think we should count the weak Christians of chapter 11 among the weak Christians Paul is describing in chapter 12. [↩](#fnref-2754-5)
6. _Homily 30 on First Corinthians_, ibid., 208 [↩](#fnref-2754-6)
7. Ibid., 208 [↩](#fnref-2754-7)
8. Ibid., 208 [↩](#fnref-2754-8)
9. Garland, ibid., 595. [↩](#fnref-2754-9)
10. Thiselton, ibid., 1007. [↩](#fnref-2754-10)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-11-27
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is part 1 of a 4-part series called "Wanted: Weak Christians." When God “composed the body,” he intentionally included members who seem to be weak.
Tags: -, honor, weakness, body of Christ, shame, spiritual gifts, leaders
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-1-of-4
This is part one of a series called “Wanted: Weak Christians.” Here are the other posts:
Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5) — Introduction
[Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5) — Who Are They?](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-2-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5) — How Are They Indispensable?](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-3-of-4/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5) — Advice to the Strong](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-4-of-5/)
[Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5) — The Power of the Powerless](http://dwightgingrich.com/wanted-weak-christians-5-of-5/)
* * *
> “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” 1 Cor. 12:27
**When we consider the New Testament teaching about Christians being the body of Christ, we often think of spiritual gifts.** This is natural and right, for immediately after the statement above Paul continues with these words: “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:28.) Spiritual gifts are the “problem topic” that Paul is addressing in all of 1 Corinthians 12-14. The reason he introduces the body imagery is to guide his readers in the use of these gifts. Other key passages that speak of the church as Christ’s body likewise mention the gifts that the Spirit gives to each body member. (See Romans 12:4-8 and Ephesians 4:11-16.)
So, when we think of Christ’s body, we often think of spiritual gifts. **And when we think of spiritual gifts, we usually think in terms of strengths.** This, too, is natural and right, for Paul says the gifts are evidence of God’s power at work through us: “All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:11).
**In sum, discussions about the body of Christ usually conjure images of mutual strength**, with each member contributing a unique strength to enhance the whole. Some conclude that the most urgent thing to do is to identify your spiritual gifts, and tests to help us do so have multiplied. We compare ourselves with each other. Then we are encouraged to focus on our strengths and let them guide us into our life purposes.
**I want to suggest that this picture, though partly accurate and useful, can quickly become misleading and deadly.** It urgently needs to be balanced with another aspect of Paul’s body imagery, an aspect that we rarely consider at length. I intend to encourage such reflection by this four-part blog essay.
What are we missing? When “God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose” (1 Cor. 12:18), he didn’t just create an arrangement of things we recognize as strengths. No, _**when God “composed the body” (1 Cor. 12:24), he also intentionally wove into its fabric members who seem to be weak.**_
Here is how Paul explains it:
> The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 1 Cor. 12:21-26
**The basic idea is simple, but astounding: God intentionally includes within Christ’s church people who “seem to be weaker,” people whom “we think less honorable” or even “unpresentable.”**
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/defective-927081_1280.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/defective-9270811280-1721353192899-compressed.jpg)
Not everyone can be a leader—an eye or a head. Not everyone possesses great insight or the ability to exercise authority well. Christ also needs some to be hands and feet. He needs some people who are primarily doers rather than visionaries.
It is a common human desire to be a world-changer, at least in some small world such as our own community, church, or even family. But basic logic reminds basic human nature that for every leader there must be multiple followers. And this is how God wants things to be in Christ’s body. God doesn’t want everyone to be a leader. Even most people whom he appoints as leaders are called to lead only a few people.
But **Paul isn’t merely distinguishing between leaders and followers. Rather, he is distinguishing between those who appear strong and those who appear weak and even unpresentable.**
How embarrassing! What can weak and unpresentable people offer Christ’s body? Won’t they be a hindrance to ministry, a distraction from Christ’s glory?
**Who, then, are the ones who “seem to be weaker” in Christ’s body?** That’s the question we’ll consider in the next post.
* * *
**For now, do these opening thoughts resonate with you? Share your responses in the comments below. Thanks for reading.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Hospitable Barbarians and Homeless Hearts
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-10-09
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Hospitable Barbarians and Homeless Hearts • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We gave him one safe night, a shower, laundry services, a meal and a half, prayer, and an invitation to change his mind. It was all we could do.
Tags: homelessness, hospitality
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/hospitable-barbarians-homeless-hearts
**We gave him one safe night, a shower, laundry services, a meal and a half, prayer, and an invitation to change his mind. It was all we could do.**
Yesterday friends from out of state contacted us to let us know a young man from their community was in our city. He had chosen a homeless life, recently turning down a job offer in favor of a life that he thinks will be a greater adventure of imitating a homeless Jesus and telling others about him. But when he contacted friends back home yesterday morning they learned someone had tried to rob him since arriving in Atlanta. So our out-of-state friends contacted us, also giving us some background on the young man, background that includes attendance at their church gatherings and some family history that would be challenging for any one of us to process well. We gave our out-of-state friends permission to pass our contact information on to the young man, and he called me yesterday afternoon.
So I picked him up at Centennial Park, and he spent the evening and the night with us. Last evening I put him on the phone with our out-of-state friends, giving him a chance to hear their concern and their desire that he come back home. But he admits little sense of the dangers of his chosen path, so was not deterred. Then we called one of the shelters downtown that he had heard about, to see if they had a room for the night. As I expected, they didn’t. “Come at 6:30 in the morning,” they told us. So he slept on our sofa instead.
Just now I returned from the shelter, after helping him find the line of men waiting for a bed or other assistance. When we first pulled up, a couple men along the sidewalk wondered why we were there. They saw the young man’s guitar; “Are you here to sing?” When they learned he was looking for a room, I heard them wondering why he was carrying a guitar. Actually, he was carrying a guitar, a big backpack, and an over-sized duffel bag—about three times as much luggage as any other man I saw there. Does he realize this may make him the target for more robbery attempts like the one he experienced at gun point the other night? And will the shelter allow him to keep that much luggage there? Will he manage to keep it all dry as the tale end of Hurricane Michael blows through here the next few days (as I showed him last night)? How long will his laptop survive if his phone has already broken during his first week on the road? What will he do if he loses communication? How happy will the over-worked shelter be to host someone who purposefully left home and declined a job offer just two or three weeks ago? They are overwhelmed already with people in desperate need, people mastered by addictions, people without anyone who is calling them home.
But he has the armor of God like Ephesians describes, he told me last night. And when I asked him how I could pray for him, he told me he’s not really concerned about his safety. Rather, he wanted me to pray that he can have good conversations with people about Jesus and that he will find other church people along the way as he hikes northward. Church people who will need to host him while he declines their advice that he choose a safer, self-supporting life? There are plenty of people where he came from who need Jesus, our out-of-state friend reminded me on the phone last night. Why couldn’t he talk to others about Jesus there? Why not stay near people who know him, who truly care when they see signs that he is making dangerous choices?
You seem to have lived your life between two poles, I told him last night—between the southern state you left and the northern state where you are headed. And he’s usually traveled between the two, he acknowledged, at the wrong time of the year. So now he’s heading north just as the weather there is turning cold, expecting to arrive within six months but without any real travel plans. He has been homeless once before, he said. But that was in the South. Things will be much harder northward as winter nears. But the other pole is pulling again, and I think he hopes to find himself on the road there.
And so, as I left our young friend at the shelter this morning, I felt a sinking feeling inside. “You know how to find me if you need me,” I told him before I left. It was still dark.
**Last night after dinner we read the first half of Acts 28**, which tells of how the shipwrecked Paul received hospitality on the island of Malta from the hands of the “native people.” That’s the ESV’s nice way of translating a term that more literally means “barbarians” (i.e., people who didn’t speak the Greek language that civilized people used). As we read this passage with our new young friend at our table, I couldn’t help mentally noticing that we were cast, ironically, in the role of the hospitable barbarians. Unlike the barbarians in Acts 28, I’m under no illusions that our new friend is a god. I’m pretty sure he’s not an apostle, either. (We might be barbarians, though.) But he did need some hospitality, so we gave it as best we knew how.
Northern friends, if you see our friend or one of his brothers, consider helping him a little if you can. He will probably thank you for a meal or a chance to read the Bible together. You might even, as I did, see a bit of yourself in his face.
**We gave him one safe night, a shower, laundry services, a meal and a half, prayer, and an invitation to change his mind. It was all we could do.**
**_PS: I wonder how often God feels the same way about me…_**
* * *
**Thoughts? Share them in the comments below. And thanks for reading.**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (4 of 4)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-07-25
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (4 of 4) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We must pray for deep understanding of kingdom realities—the sort of understanding and faith that grips our hearts, produces profound repentance, opens the door for deep healing, and results in plentiful fruit!
Tags: suffering, healing, -Matthew 13:24-50, -Matthew 13:51-52, -Matthew 5:10-12, -Matthew 6:19-34, -Matthew 7:20-21, anxiety, final judgment, fruit, growth, hear, heart, Nabeel | Qureshi, repentance, soil, understanding, wealth
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-4
_**This is the final part of the sermon I shared this past Sunday at Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta.** Here is my outline for the blog version of the sermon:_
[Part 1: What Is “Fruit”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-1/)
[Part 2: Two Kinds of Hearers](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-2/)
[Part 3: Isaiah 6 and Hardness of Heart](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-3/)
Part 4: Four Kinds of Hearers and One Goal
* * *
**FOUR KINDS OF HEARERS AND ONE GOAL**
With the interpretation of his Parable of the Sower/Soils (Matt. 13:18-23), Jesus expands the picture from two kinds of hearers to four kinds. We do not have time to unpack each kind of soil (hearer) in detail, but will observe several key points.
Only the first soil mentions “heart” (Matt. 13:18). Only first and last soil mention “understanding” (Matt. 13:18, 23). But it is clear that _all soils represent hearts in various conditions of understanding or not understanding_. The four soils suggest a range of receptivity to the message of the kingdom and a range of levels of understanding.
This is a more nuanced picture than the “insiders” and “outsiders” division of the earlier verses, _but the parable interpretation still ends up with only two groups: those who bear fruit and those who don’t._ Life prior to the final judgment is messy, so it’s not always clear who is “inside” and who is “outside.” And it takes time even for healthy plants to bear fruit. Yet only when there is good fruit do we have assurance that God has granted true understanding.
_This point must be underscored: What counts before God on the day of judgment, according to this parable and the next in this chapter, is that we bear fruit._ Merely experiencing some initial joyful growth of the word in our hearts is not enough. Fruitfulness is utterly essential! “You will recognize them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but _the one who does the will of my Father_…” (Matt 7:20-21).
How much fruit? Perhaps a hundredfold, perhaps sixty, perhaps thirty. The amount may depend on how much you seek to understand, and it may also depend on what God has entrusted to you. But bear fruit you must, and bear fruit you “indeed” _will_, if your heart truly understands the word of the kingdom of heaven.
**The first soil** most closely matches how Jesus has described the unbelieving crowds. They hear the word but don’t understand it. One new idea is added: Here God’s judgment is carried out by him permitting Satan to remove the word from their hearts. Humans and angelic forces each possess agency, yet God is sovereign over all.
**The second and third soils** invite the most personal reflection, for they fall between the extremes of full unbelief and fruitful understanding. These soils depict things that may prevent those with false or inadequate understanding from achieving fruitfulness. Consider the rocky soil: If we don’t truly understand (grasp on a heart level, fully believe) Jesus’ kingdom teachings about the blessings of suffering for him (Matt. 5:10-12), then our growth will be short-lived and our lives will prove fruitless. And consider the thorny soil: If we don’t understand Jesus’ kingdom teachings about our caring heavenly Father and the superlative value of eternal rewards (Matt. 6:19-34), then we will be choked by the “anxiety of the age” and the “deceitfulness of riches.”
**Brothers and sisters: Are there ways that we might be rocky or thorny soil?** Are we quickly shaken by tribulation or suffering for Jesus? Are there days when we are consumed by cares and anxiety? Have we bought into the never-ending lie that we will be a little happier, a little more secure, if only we achieve a little more earthly wealth? How might these blindnesses, these false kingdoms, be ruling our lives? What do you think?
But all is not lost if we see in ourselves some of these tendencies! Jesus’ parable invites all who have ears, to _hear_! Indeed, the other parables in this same chapter can help us understand the needed kingdom truths. The parables about the weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43) and about the nets (Matt. 13:47-50) fortify us against the dangers of the rocky soil by reminding us that good and evil people need to coexist until the end of time, and that the true tribulation we must fear is the final judgment. The parables about the mustard seed and the leaven (Matt. 13:31-33) similarly encourage patient endurance. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (Matt. 13:44-46) remind us of the joy and inestimable value of the kingdom, far greater than any earthly anxieties or riches that could turn us into thorny soil.
Thus, the rest of the parables are designed not only to hide kingdom knowledge from unbelievers, but also to give true disciples increasing understanding, so we can avoid proving to be either rocky or thorny soil. Our response to the parables reveals what kind of soil we are. Will we take up the challenge to have ears and hear?
**Brothers and sisters: Our goal must be to be “good soil.” _We must pray for deep understanding of kingdom realities—the sort of understanding and faith that grips our hearts, produces profound repentance, opens the door for deep healing, and results in plentiful fruit!_**
Nabeel Qureshi was a Muslim who became a Christian after years of difficult searching that stretched his mind, will, and emotions. I listened to his story by audio book this week. I was challenged by his example of seeking after God:[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
* How his dad heard some of the same apologetic arguments that Nabeel heard, but how he, unlike Nabeel, was unable to see his own deceptive thinking.
* How Nabeel realized multiple times that he needed to count the cost and decide if he was truly willing to conform to whatever truth God may show him.
* How Nabeel realized only _after the fact_ that sometimes he was _subconsciously_ not allowing himself to believe some things because of the costs that would come with true belief.
* How it took diligent searching over many years with several stages of increasing belief and repentance before Qureshi came to a saving knowledge of Jesus.
* How even after Nabeel acknowledged Jesus’s true identity in prayer to God, more diligent search was required to come to secure healing and fruitfulness for God.
We should not confuse _gaining a heart that understands_ with simply _becoming a Christian_. No, the call to understand is not simply about _becoming_ a Christian, but about _being_ one. It takes continued growth in understanding for continued fruitfulness. We need to grow in knowledge, in faith, in having our hearts seized and transformed by the King of the kingdom of heaven. This will lead to ongoing repentance, healing, and fruitfulness.
So **let me end as Jesus ended, with a question: “Have you understood all these things?”** (Matt. 13:51). That is: Have you followed with your ears and your minds? Did the words I shared ring true in your heart? Are you allowing them to grasp you deep inside and stir up a new vision of reality? Do you believe what you have heard? Have you been moved to repentance? Have you already begun to ask God for deeper healing and more fruitfulness?
If yes, then I give you Jesus’ words: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Matt. 13:52). Treasure the truths you have heard today, both the old ones and anything that may have been new for you. Thank God for the gift of spiritual understanding! Bring out your treasures frequently, admiring them and sharing them with others. **If you do, you have God’s promise: You will indeed bear fruit and yield “in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”**
* * *
**Do you have any feedback on this exposition of Matthew 13:1-23?** **_Your responses are welcome in the comments below!_**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
* * *
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) See [_Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity_](https://amzn.to/2Oa8zqs), book by Nabeel Qureshi.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (3 of 4)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-07-24
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (3 of 4) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Jesus quotes from Isaiah 6 to emphasize that Israel's hardness against him is evidence of God's judgment on the nation. He also declares the disciples are blessed, for they can hear!
Tags: Craig | Blomberg, D.A. | Carson, Israel's hardening, Grant | Osborne, healing, repentance, understanding, -Acts 28:25-27, -Deuteronomy 29:4, -Isaiah 29:10, -Isaiah 53:1, -Isaiah 6:9-10, -John 12:40, -Matthew 15:15-20, -Matthew 16:17, -Matthew 16:5-12, -Matthew 17:9-13, -Matthew 3:8, -Micah 5:2, -Romans 10:16, -Romans 11:8, belief, hardness, Israel, Israel's judgment, John | Oswalt, judgment, Mark A. | Seifrid, typology
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-3
_**This is the third part of the sermon I shared on Sunday at Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta.** Here is my outline for the blog version of the sermon:_
[Part 1: What Is “Fruit”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-1/)
[Part 2: Two Kinds of Hearers](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-2/)
Part 3: Isaiah 6 and Hardness of Heart
[Part 4: Four Kinds of Hearers and One Goal](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-4/)
* * *
**ISAIAH 6 AND HARDNESS OF HEART**
This brings us to **Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10**:
> 14 “Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
> ‘“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
> and you will indeed see but never perceive.’
> 15 For this people’s heart has grown dull,
> and with their ears they can barely hear,
> and their eyes they have closed,
> lest they should see with their eyes
> and hear with their ears
> and understand with their heart
> and turn, and I would heal them.”'”
Jesus quotes something God foretold to the prophet Isaiah about Israel in about 700 BC and says it has been fulfilled in the Jewish nation of his own day. We should probably not think of this passage as being prophecy in the same way as the Micah passage about the Messiah being born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). Rather, it is typology—the hardness of Israel toward Isaiah and his message is a picture that was repeated in even fuller measure by the hardness of Israel toward Jesus and his message. _If God’s words were true about Israel in Isaiah’s day, how much more true were they about the evil generation who rejected Jesus!_
God spoke these words to Isaiah when he first called him to be a prophet. God told Isaiah to tell his people, “Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.” This was a warning to Isaiah’s hearers about how his message would affect them. God told Isaiah, “Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes.” “This \[was\] not God’s planning in advance to make Israel sin; instead, it \[was\] his confirming them in their repeated, freely chosen decisions to reject him.”[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
As Israel heard Isaiah’s message and rejected it, their hearts would only become more “dull” or hard, until they had no spiritual hearing or sight left and were fit only for destruction and exile. Only a “stump” or “holy seed” would remain. As commentator Oswalt summarizes, “Isaiah is to speak a message that will harden the people’s hearts and prevent them from being healed.”[\[2\]](#_ftn2) But that is not the full picture. Oswalt continues:
> Isaiah is called upon to preach a message that, given the already-hardened hearts of his generation and several of the following, will only push them farther away from God. But some will turn, among them faithful followers of Isaiah, who will preserve his words until the day when the cauterizing fires of the Exile fall and there will finally be a generation willing to listen. Then real healing will result, and the stage will be set for the promised Messiah to come… The only hope of healing for these people is in near total destruction… Their religion is already half-pagan, and if they are allowed to continue, they will ultimately be completely pagan and all of the revelation will have been for nothing. But God is not going to allow that to happen, either to his revelation or to his people. So the cleansing must be frighteningly thorough. But afterward, when the forest has been felled and even the remaining stumps have been burned, one of those stumps will still have life in it.[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
Given this context, it is clear that when Jesus quotes Isaiah here in Matthew, he is not merely making a dry observation that the crowds around him have poor hearing or are intellectually dull. Rather, he is warning that the Jewish nation as a whole is beyond recovery, that God has turned his back and is withdrawing the opportunity of national repentance. The nation is headed for inevitable judgment!
We are talking about having a _heart_ that _understands_ and bears fruit. Our words _understand_ and _heart_ appear twice in this Isaiah quote. First, Jesus warns that the crowds will “never understand” (v. 14). Why? Because their “heart” is dull—it has been hardened by repeatedly hearing and rejecting the word of the kingdom. This hardening is part of God’s judgment, which he has given “lest they should… understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them” (v. 15b).
Notice the sequence in the last two lines of the prophecy: _understanding with the heart_ leads to _turning_ (repentance). Then comes _healing_, so that we can “bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matt. 3:8). In sum the following sequence depicts what God longs for his people: understanding –> repentance –> healing –> fruit (doing God’s will).
But here God is preventing that sequence from even starting! He is making repentance, healing, and fruit-bearing impossible, by making understanding impossible. Osborne again:
> “In essence \[God is saying\], “I want them to remain this way lest….” Their guilt has produced a sovereign judgment, and Jesus’ use of parables is part of that judgment. The parables as riddles will stymie any possibility of “turning” back to God. They have committed in effect an “unpardonable sin”…, and God has turned his back on them! The parables will shut their eyes and close their ears.”[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
**This Isaiah passage is quoted other times in the NT**, and not only in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke:
* Jesus quotes the same passage in John 12:40, in a passage summarizing the unbelief of the Jews who rejected him. This passage, significantly, uses the word “believe” as a synonym for “understand.” In other words, the sort of understanding that Jesus requires for us to be fruitful goes far beyond mere mental assent. To really “understand” is to have something grip your heart so powerfully that you are utterly convinced it is true and worth revolutionizing your entire life for.
* Paul quotes this Isaiah passage at the very end of Acts (Acts 28:25-27), as evidence that God is sending his salvation to the Gentiles, since most Jews would not “believe” the gospel.
* Paul quotes similar language from Isaiah and Deuteronomy in Romans 11 (cf. Is. 29:10 and Deut. 29:4 with Rom. 11:8), as part of an extended discussion (Rom. 9–11; esp. Rom. 10:16-11:10) explaining God’s election and Israel’s stubborn ignorance. (See also the Is. 53:1 quote at Rom. 10:16, an Isaiah passage also quoted in the John 12 passage referenced above.)
_This hardening of Israel against Jesus is one of the great mysteries of the New Testament._ Why would God prevent his people from understanding the gospel of the kingdom? Commentators do their best to explain:
> “God’s judicial hardening is… a holy condemnation of a guilty people who are condemned to do and be what they themselves have chosen.”[\[5\]](#_ftn5) (D.A. Carson)
>
> “‘Hardening’… represents divine surrender of human beings to their rebellion.”[\[6\]](#_ftn6) (Mark A. Seifrid)
After such heavy thoughts, **Jesus pivots to a blessing**:
> 16 ‘But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.’”
Did the disciples really see? Did they really hear with understanding? In the next chapters there are multiple times where we read that the disciples did not understand what Jesus said (Matt. 15:15-20; 16:5-12; 17:9-13). But we also read that they sought and received explanations from Jesus until they did understand, and that God the Father revealed to Peter the understanding that Jesus was the Christ (Matt. 16:17).
This refines our image of our two kinds of hearers: (1) There are those who refuse to believe and are denied understanding; and (2) there are those who are willing to believe and are _gradually granted increasing understanding_.
But here Jesus is saying the disciples are not just more blessed than the unbelieving crowds. They are even more blessed than the faithful saints of old!
This gives us another glimpse into how God grants or withholds understanding: God sovereignly withholds understanding at times not only in response to the hardness of people’s hearts, but also because of his divine timetables of salvation history. Even good hearts are sometimes not given as full an understanding as they desire. But the disciples are incredibly blessed, possessing the double gift of soft hearts and of being alive at the time of the revelation of the Messiah!
(And we, too, are similarly blessed!)
* * *
**_Your responses are welcome in the comments below!_**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” _Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 46-47, comment on OT context of Matthew 13:14-15.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) Oswalt, John N.. Isaiah (The NIV Application Commentary) (Kindle Locations 2562-2563). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Oswalt, John N.. Isaiah (The NIV Application Commentary) (Kindle Locations 2612-2622). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) Osborne, Grant R.. Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament series Book 1) (Kindle Locations 9523-9526). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) D.A. Carson, _The Gospel according to John_, Pillar NT Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 448-49, comment on John 12:39-41.
[\[6\]](#_ftnref6) Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” _Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 670, comment on Romans 11:8.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (2 of 4)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-07-23
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (2 of 4) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The disciples ask Jesus why he speaks in parables. He responds by identifying two kinds of hearers and emphasizing both divine sovereignty and human responsibility in the task of understanding.
Tags: Grant | Osborne, sovereignty, understanding, -Mark 3:21, -Mark 4:11, -Matthew 10:40, -Matthew 11:18-19, -Matthew 11:20-24, -Matthew 11:25, -Matthew 11:27, -Matthew 12:14, -Matthew 12:24, -Matthew 12:39-41, -Matthew 12:46-50, -Matthew 13:10-17, -Matthew 13:18, -Matthew 13:53-58, -Matthew 13:9, -Matthew 21:43, -Matthew 21:45, -Matthew 7:6, discipleship, divine passive, human responsibility, insiders and outsiders, parables, Schuyler | Signor, secrets of the kingdom, third person imperatives
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-2
_**This is the second part of the sermon I shared yesterday at Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta.** Here is my outline for the blog version of the sermon:_
[Part 1: What Is “Fruit”?](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-1/)
Part 2: Two Kinds of Hearers
[Part 3: Isaiah 6 and Hardness of Heart](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-3/)
[Part 4: Four Kinds of Hearers and One Goal](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-4/)
* * *
**TWO KINDS OF HEARERS**
Now let’s read our entire text. (Read Matthew 13:1-23.)
I found only **two commands** in this entire passage. Both are commands to “hear”:
> “He who has ears, let him hear… Hear then the parable of the sower.” (Matt. 13:9, 18) —Jesus to the crowds; Jesus to his disciples
The first command (v. 9) is presented in third person: “He who has ears, let him hear,” not “You have ears, so listen up!” The effect of this third person construction is to add emphasis, requiring each listener to ask, “Is he talking to me? Am I ‘he who has ears’? Am I hearing what Jesus wants me to hear?”[\[1\]](#_ftn1)
This construction also implies that some listeners might not “have ears.” Jesus, therefore, is dividing his audience into two groups: Those who prove they have ears by using them, and those who might as well not have ears, because they aren’t hearing what he is saying.
The second command (v. 18) is in second person: “\[You\] hear then the parable…” Here there is only one audience: Jesus’ close disciples.
The verses between these two commands are about the same topic: The two kinds of hearers in Jesus’ audience. **Let’s examine verses 10-17 more closely**.
> 10 “Then the disciples came and said to him, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’
This chapter is the first time the word “parable” appears in Matthew. Jesus had already used short word pictures that could be classed as parables. This chapter, however, is full of parables, some of them extended. Something new is happening in Jesus’ teaching. The disciples are curious. So they come to him, perhaps over “lunch break” or at some other pause in his teaching, for a private explanation.
> 11 And he answered them, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
Here are the two kinds of hearers: “You” and “them”—the disciples and the crowds. In Mark Jesus says “you” and “those outside” (Mark 4:11)—insiders and outsiders.
The first difference Jesus notes between the two groups is that one group has been given something that the other has not. “It has been given” is what Bible scholars call a “divine passive”; it is a statement written in the passive voice rather than the active voice (“it has been given” rather than “\[so-and-so\] gave it”). The implication is that God is the “someone” who did the giving. This statement, then, emphasizes God’s sovereignty.
What God gave to one group and not the other was the opportunity or ability “to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” Here we see our theme of “understanding” (hearts that understand and bear fruit). Jesus is saying that God gave his disciples the ability to understand his teachings about the kingdom, but God had not given the crowds that same ability. Why would he do this?
> 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
This verse explains why God gave something to the disciples but not to the crowds.[\[2\]](#_ftn2) The disciples have something that the crowds don’t have. Because the disciples already have this something, they will be given more by God. Because the crowds don’t have this something, they will lose even what they do have. What was this “something”?
If we scan chapters 8 through 12 (between the Sermon on the Mount and our text), we see that one thing the disciples had was simply a willingness to be Jesus’ disciples, giving up home and braving opposition to follow him. In Matthew 11:25 Jesus prays, “I thank you, Father… that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.” The disciples, at this point, had only very basic understanding of the kingdom of heaven. But they understood that Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom were _worth hearing_. They were willing to be Jesus’ “little children” and learn from him.
The crowds, in contrast, and especially their leaders, were refusing to receive Jesus and thus were refusing God himself (Matt. 10:40). They said John the Baptist had a demon and that Jesus was a glutton and a drunkard (Matt. 11:18-19). Their refusal to repent led Jesus to compare them to Tyre and Sidon, to Sodom, and to Nineveh (Matt. 11:20-24; 12:39-41). Their leaders were already conspiring to kill Jesus (Matt. 12:14) and were accusing him of being in league with Satan (Matt. 12:24). And, in passages that form bookends to chapter 13, we see that even Jesus’ own family was failing to do the will of Jesus’ Father in heaven (Matt. 12:46-50; cf. Mark 3:21, where they say Jesus is “out of his mind”) and even his hometown of Nazareth took offense at him rather than believing him (Matt. 13:53-58).
What the disciples already have, then, seems to be the willingness to receive Jesus for whoever he may prove to be, unlike the majority of the crowds who have rejected him. Because the disciples already have welcoming hearts toward Jesus and his kingdom message, God will grant them deeper knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. “The Jewish people,” in contrast, “have rejected knowledge of Jesus, so ‘even what they have,’” including their identity as “being God’s kingdom people, will be ‘taken away’ by God” (Matt. 21:43).[\[3\]](#_ftn3)
> 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Now Jesus answers the disciples’ question, and now he places responsibility fully upon the crowds who have rejected him. Commentator Grant Osborne explains:
> “The obduracy \[hardness, stubborn resistance\] that the people of Israel have shown in chs. 11-12 is the reason Jesus is speaking to the crowds in parables… Jesus responds to Israel’s rejection by using parables to confirm and anchor that rejection… The parables are ‘stones of stumbling deliberately placed in Israel’s path, much like what Isaiah was instructed to do in Isaiah 6.’”[\[4\]](#_ftn4)
The Jewish crowds have persistently shown that they are not willing to listen to Jesus, so God will not give them the understanding that would lead to repentance and good fruit. The parables, then, are specially designed to convey truth to those who are receptive and hide it from those who are not. “All things have been handed over to me by my Father,” Jesus had already declared, “and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and _anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him_” (Matt. 11:27). Jesus refuses to “give dogs what is holy” or “throw \[his\] pearls before pigs” (Matt. 7:6). Instead, he decides to hide his teaching in metaphorical language that forces his listeners to puzzle over what he meant (and, incidentally, makes it harder for his opponents to incriminate him for what he said).[\[5\]](#_ftn5)
This brings us to **Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 6,** which we will examine in the next post.
* * *
**_Your responses are welcome in the comments below!_**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) Schuyler Signor, “The Third Person Imperative in the Greek New Testament,” M.A. Thesis presented to the faculty of Abilene Christian University, April 1999. [http://kingstonnychurchofchrist.org/yahoo\_site\_admin/assets/docs/THE\_THIRD\_PERSON\_IMPERATIVE\_IN\_THE\_GREEK\_NEW\_TESTAMENT.31201317.pdf](http://kingstonnychurchofchrist.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/THE_THIRD_PERSON_IMPERATIVE_IN_THE_GREEK_NEW_TESTAMENT.31201317.pdf) Accessed June 28, 2018. (pp. 2, 22, 23)
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2) “The “for” () that introduces the verse makes it the reason for God’s grace-gift (divine passive “will be given” \[\]) only to the insiders.” Osborne, Grant R.. Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament series Book 1) (Kindle Locations 9457-9458). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3) Osborne, Grant R.. Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament series Book 1) (Kindle Locations 9467-9468). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
[\[4\]](#_ftnref4) Osborne, Grant R.. Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament series Book 1) (Kindle Locations 9473-9474, 9484-9485, 9490-9491). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Osborne quotes Witherington (_Matthew_, 264) in the final line.
[\[5\]](#_ftnref5) Sometimes even Jesus’ enemies understood the basic thrust of his parables, however: “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them” (Matt. 21:45).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (1 of 4)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-07-22
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: A Heart that Bears Fruit for God (1 of 4) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Today I want to talk to you about a heart that bears fruit for God. Our key verse Matthew 13:23. In this verse there is one term Jesus does not explain. What is it?
Tags: fruit, -Matthew 21:43, -Matthew 12:32-35, -Matthew 13:23, -Matthew 21:19, -Matthew 21:34, -Matthew 21:41, -Matthew 3:8-10, -Matthew 7:15-23, God's will, parable
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-1
_**Today it was my turn to preach here at Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta.** For a text, I chose the passage that I was reading this week as I work my way through Matthew’s Gospel in Greek. As a bonus, it is a passage that includes a quotation from the OT. I often try to include an OT reading and a NT reading in our gatherings, and I often like to chose passages where the NT quotes the OT. Regular exposure to such passages is one good way to improve our own ability to interpret Scripture._
_For something different, I decided to write out my sermon in full in advance. I didn’t end up simply reading it through, but it did work well both as preparation and as notes while I preached. Plus, now I can share it here! Here is our outline:_
Part 1: What Is “Fruit”?
[Part 2: Two Kinds of Hearers](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-2/)
[Part 3: Isaiah 6 and Hardness of Heart](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-3/)
[Part 4: Four Kinds of Hearers and One Goal](http://dwightgingrich.com/heart-that-bears-fruit-for-god-4/)
* * *
**Today I want to talk to you about a heart that bears fruit for God**. Our text is **Matthew 13:1-23**. You may turn there now. This is the famous Parable of the Sower, perhaps better titled the Parable of the Soils. Our key verse today is the last verse of our passage, verse 23. I’ll read it now:
> “As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”
This verse is the conclusion of Jesus’ explanation of his parable. In this explanation Jesus clarifies that the “seed” is “the word of the kingdom” and the various soils are different kinds of people who respond differently to the gospel message. _But in this last verse there is one term from his farming imagery that Jesus does not explain. What is it?_
**WHAT IS “FRUIT”?**
The term is “fruit,” and we will begin our study today with this term. What do you think it means? I remember, when I was a young adult, looking at passages like this and the one in John 15 and thinking that Jesus was talking about evangelism, as if bearing fruit referred to spiritual reproduction. Now I think this is possibly included, but much too narrow of a focus.
This likely reason why Jesus never interpreted this term here because this fruit imagery was well known to his Jewish audience. Fruit imagery appears multiple times even just within Matthew’s Gospel, and the meaning soon becomes clear:
> “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance… Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matt. 3:8, 10) —John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees
* Good fruit is the result of repentance
* Good fruit is essential to avoid judgment
> “Beware of false prophets… 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. 21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matt. 7:15-23)
* Fruit can be good or bad, depending on the “tree”
* Good fruit = doing “the will of my Father who is in heaven” (not merely doing mighty works or being a prophet)
> “…Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 33 Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.” (Matt. 12:32-35) —Jesus to Pharisees, who had just said he cast out demons by power of Satan
* Fruit comes from the heart; fruit change requires heart change
* Fruit includes our speech
> “And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once.” (Matt. 21:19) —Jesus cursing fig tree in his final week
* The Jewish nation failed to produce good fruit, so would be judged
> “’When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit…’ \[But they killed his son.\] They said to him, ‘He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.’… Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” (Matt. 21:34, 41, 43) —Jesus telling the parable of the tenants who refused to give their master fruit from his vineyard
* Failing to produce fruit is connected to rejecting (killing) God’s Son
* The Jewish leadership failed to give God the fruit he required, so they would lose leadership of God’s kingdom
**_Fruit, then, is our whole outward way of life_, including our actions and our speech.** Fruit can be good or evil, for it springs from good or evil hearts. _Good fruit comes from a good heart that has experienced repentance and welcomed Jesus as God’s Son and as King_. Only truly doing God’s will counts as good fruit—hypocritical mighty works in his name don’t count. Those who produce bad fruit will ultimately be removed from God’s kingdom and destroyed.
_A heart that bears fruit for God, then, is a heart that does the will of God_, a heart that gives God what is rightfully his and what pleases him in every aspect of life.
Who bears such fruit? Who has such a heart? Back to our key verse: “This is the one who hears the word and understands it.” _Only the heart that understands the word of the kingdom can do the will of God._
For the rest of our time, then, we will consider what it means to have a heart that understands. We will consider two kinds of hearers, four kinds of hearers, and one goal.
* * *
**_Your responses are welcome in the comments below!_**
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why Did Jesus Command His Disciples to Buy Swords? – Intro Draft
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-05-29
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Why Did Jesus Command His Disciples to Buy Swords? - Intro Draft • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I have been working on an essay about Luke 22:36, where Jesus commands his disciples to buy swords. Here is a draft of my essay introduction. What do you think?
Tags: -Isaiah 53:12, -Luke 22:36, essay, non-violence, Preston | Sprinkle, swords, transgressors
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-jesus-command-disciples-buy-swords-intro-draft
**I have been working on an essay.** Here is a draft of the introduction.
What do you think? Shall I finish the essay? Do you have any suggestions about how it should unfold that won’t entirely derail me? Any encouragement for a slow writer? 🙂
**You may [share your feedback in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-jesus-command-disciples-buy-swords-intro-draft/#respond). Thank you!**
**Here is a PDF of the entire introduction draft:** [Why did Jesus Command his Disciples to Buy Swords – Intro Draft](https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Why-did-Jesus-Command-his-Disciples-to-Buy-Swords-Intro-Draft.pdf)
**Here is a link to download it: [Why did Jesus Command his Disciples to Buy Swords – Intro Draft](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Why-did-Jesus-Command-his-Disciples-to-Buy-Swords-Intro-Draft.pdf)**
And here is a part of what you can read in the PDFs above:
* * *
**Why did Jesus Command his Disciples to Buy Swords?**
On the night when he was betrayed, our Lord in his kindness said many things that troubled and confused his unprepared disciples. Of all his words from that night, few still confuse his disciples today more than this statement: “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36 ESV).[\[1\]](#_ftn1) An online survey using Google reveals how much this statement still cuts Christians into opposing interpretive camps today. Among current scholarly commentators there is less diversity of opinion, but still not a clear consensus interpretation of what Jesus meant.
This essay will consider two primary interpretive questions: (1) Was Jesus teaching his disciples to use swords in human combat? (2) What is the relationship between Jesus’ sword command and his subsequent quotation of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 that he would be “numbered with the transgressors” (Luke 22:37)? These two questions are not the only important questions raised by Jesus’ sword command. When combined as variables on a two-dimensional graph, however, they offer four interpretive quadrants or positions (see Table 1), and these four positions represent the most important interpretive options held today by both popular readers and biblical scholars:
1. **Self-defense:** Jesus told his disciples to buy swords so they would use them, to defend themselves from enemies.
2. **Among transgressors:** Jesus told his disciples to buy swords so they would use them, so the prophecy would be fulfilled that he would be “numbered with the transgressors.”
3. **Appearance of transgressors:** Jesus told his disciples to buy swords so the prophecy would be fulfilled that he would be “numbered with the transgressors,” but he didn’t want them to actually use them.
4. **Metaphor for dangerous times:** Jesus told his disciples to buy swords but didn’t want them to actually buy or use them; he was speaking figuratively about dangerous times to come.
What interpretation will this essay defend? Before I gave this verse much thought, my assumptions were probably most in line with interpretive option…
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1) The English Standard Version (ESV) will be used in this essay unless otherwise noted. Note: The Greek syntax behind this statement is somewhat difficult to parse, as technical commentaries usually discuss. But no matter how the syntax is understood, the resulting instruction is the same: The disciples are urged to buy swords.
* * *
_If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:_
[Support](https://dwightgingrich.com/support)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Notes While Reading the Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-04-07
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Notes While Reading the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I set a goal this year to read through the Bible in the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) translation. Here are some observations about how it talks about Adam, sex, and cubits.
Tags: Bible translations, sex, knowledge, -Exodus 25:10, -Genesis 1:26, -Genesis 2:19, -Genesis 2:20, -Genesis 3:20, -Genesis 4:1, -Genesis 4:25, -Genesis 5:3, -Revelation 21:16-17, Adam, Christian Standard Bible, cubits, intimate
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/notes-while-reading-christian-standard-bible-csb
**I set a goal this year to read through the Bible in the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) translation.** I’m far behind schedule but don’t regret my choice.
The CSB, you may recall, is the new version of the now-retired Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). There are many differences between the two, though both aim(ed) to provide a translation that falls somewhere between the formal equivalence (NASB, KJV, ESV) and functional equivalence (NIV, NET, NLT) ends of the translation spectrum.
You can easily find more information online about all such things, including [my own advice about Bible translations.](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/advice-bible-translations/) Here I’ll simply share a few translation choices that have stood out to me so far in the CSB. Let’s talk about Adam, sex, and cubits.
**“ADAM” or “THE MAN”?**
**The Hebrew word for the name of the first man, “Adam,” simply means “the man” or, in a generic sense, “human beings.”** Translators need to use context when deciding how _‘adam_ should be translated.
This creates special challenges in the early chapters of Genesis. The first occurrence of _‘adam_ is in Genesis 1:26, where God says, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule…” (I’ll use CSB in this post unless otherwise stated). Here both the theological emphasis on all humanity being created in God’s image and the plural “they” make it clear that a translation such as “man” or “human beings” (CSB footnote) is necessary. “Let us make Adam” would not work.
By the time we get to Genesis 5:3, it is very clear that _‘adam_ references not merely “human beings” in general nor even a generic “man,” but a specific individual: “Adam was 130 years old when he fathered a son in his likeness… and named him Seth.”
But the Genesis creation narrative flows quite seamlessly from a general description of the creation of humanity in general to a more specific discussion of Adam and Eve as individuals. When should we start thinking of _‘adam_ as a specific man?
**It is always interesting to see when translations make this transition.**
The KJV first mentions “Adam” at Genesis 2:19:
> And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto **Adam** to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The ESV makes the transition one verse later, at Genesis 2:20:
> **The man** gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for **Adam** there was not found a helper fit for him.
The NASB and the NIV do the same as the ESV, but the NIV tips the reader off as early as Genesis 2:4 by providing a heading that reads “Adam and Eve.”
The NLT waits until Genesis 3:20 to make the transition, translating a single Hebrew word twice to help the reader along:
> Then **the man**—**Adam**—named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live.
But the CSB waits even longer. “Adam” doesn’t appear until Genesis 4:25:
> **Adam** was intimate with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth…
**Which option is best?** I give NLT top points for clarity. And it is ingenious to provide Adam’s name in the same verse where Eve is first named! But its double translation implies that two terms are present in Hebrew where there is only one.
Overall, I like the choice of the NASB, NIV, and ESV best. Including both “the man” and “Adam” in the same verse somewhat eases the transition, helping the reader know both terms refer to the same person.
**And I like the CSB the least of the options shown above.** When “Adam” first appears in Genesis 4:25, the man named “Adam” has not been discussed since Genesis 4:1—twenty-four verses earlier—where we read, “The man was intimate with his wife Eve…” The intervening verses have been about other characters named Cain, Abel, Lamech, and more. Advanced readers will notice that “Adam” who is “intimate with his wife” in 4:25 is “the man” who was “intimate with his wife” in 4:1. But many beginning Bible readers (and there are increasing numbers in North America) will be left wondering who this “Adam” is that they are hearing about the first time, and why he is mentioned “again” if he has not been named before.
**“KNEW,” “MADE LOVE TO,”
or “WAS INTIMATE WITH”?**
But if the CSB strikes out with “Adam,” it hits a home run with its translation for the act of sexual intercourse, also mentioned in the verses above.
**Translating sexual language brings many potential pitfalls.** First, there are our modern preoccupations with sex, ranging from undue sexual embarrassment (especially when reading the Bible aloud in church!) to the anything-goes flaunting of sexual provocation in North American media and fashion.
The ancient biblical conceptions of sexuality also bring translation challenges. When the Old Testament talks about sexual intercourse, it often uses the word _yada_, often translated “know”/”knowledge.” Here is how [Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology](http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/) begins its discussion of this word:
> Yada… appears almost 950 times in the Hebrew Bible. It has a wider sweep than our English word “know, ” including perceiving,learning, understanding, willing, performing, and experiencing. To know is not to be intellectually informed about some abstract principle, but to apprehend and experience reality.
This word _yada_ is used of all sorts of situations, including humanity’s knowledge of God, God’s knowledge of humanity, personal skills, moral awareness, and treaty relationships.
And sex.
Formal modern language about sexual union rarely expresses this concept of _knowing_ another person. “Sexual intercourse” and “coitus” sound too scientific. “Had sex” is too dryly factual and sounds like we are talking about consumer goods. “Consummation” and “sexual relations” come closer, but still do not emphasize _knowing_ above other possible connotations. Informal language such as “make love with” and “go to bed with” also often misses the boat.
**Given these ancient and modern challenges, what is a translator to do?**
The KJV famously simply opts for “knew.” Formally, this is a perfect translation choice, retaining links to other places where _yada_ is found. And functionally, it points the reader directly to a primary significance that the ancient Hebrews saw in the sexual act. That said, it leaves some modern readers clueless as to what Adam actually did. (Did he take Eve on a date? Exchange family histories with her? Ask her about her favorite flavor of ice cream?) Now, this has its advantages in church Bible readings, when children are present, right? But nobody today uses “knew” in this way unless they are deliberately parroting the KJV.
That is what the NKJV does, and so do others like the NRSV and the ESV. It works, but it needs some explanation from time to time.
The NASB uses “had relations with.” That’s closer to modern usage, though usually today one would specify that it is _sexual_ relations under discussion. And again, the modern idiom “relations” does not quite emphasize the idea of _knowing_ in a way that matches the Hebrew _yada_.
The NIV lets modern usage lead the way, so it says Adam “made love to” his wife. This translation mercifully lets readers know what actually happened. But it totally misses the boat with its connotation of _loving_ another person rather than _knowing_ them. It carries too much baggage from medieval notions of romance and modern chick flicks.
**The CSB, it seems to me, gets it about as good as modern English can: “Adam was intimate with his wife.”** First, this clearly conveys what actually happened between Adam and his wife. Dictionaries define this phrase as [“to have sexual relations with”](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate%20with) or have [“sex”](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/be-intimate-with-someone) or [“sexual intercourse”](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/intimate+with) with someone. Second, the word “intimate” very accurately expresses the sort of experiential knowledge conveyed by the Hebrew _yada_. And third, the phrase is an idiom, which appears to be how the term _yada_ functioned when used to refer to sexual activity.
Well, done, CSB!
**“CUBITS” or “INCHES”?**
Today while reading through Exodus in the CSB, I was surprised to read this:
> They are to make an ark of acacia wood, forty-five inches long, twenty-seven inches wide, and twenty-seven inches high. (Exodus 25:10)
What surprised me was the appearance of “inches,” along with other modern units such as “feet,” “yards,” and “pounds.”
Metric units would be so much better, right? Actually, what I was expecting was “cubits,” as I grew up reading about in the KJV:
> And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.
A cubit was the length from a man’s elbow to his fingertips—about 18 inches. So, when you do the conversions, the CSB lengths remain accurate.
But every other translation I’ve commonly used retains the ancient Hebrew units. This includes the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, and—surprisingly—even the NIV. I say surprisingly because usually the NIV is seen as more quick than the CSB to prioritize modern language over the formal patterns of the original text. (We saw a hint of this above with the NIV’s “made love to” vs. the CSB’s still-modern-but-less-widely-used “was intimate with.”) Generally, if no significant meaning will be lost by using modern terminology, the NIV will use it. So why didn’t they here?
Roughly twenty of the approximately fifty English translations on [www.Biblegateway.com](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Exodus%2025:10) use modern units. I am somewhat surprised that so many do. Most recent translations opt for English units. But there are some exceptions: for example, the Lexham English Bible, International Standard Version, and even the Amplified Bible still retain Hebrew units. (None offer metric units. And the ESVUK retains biblical units in sensible British fashion.)
**I don’t know what I think about this choice.** I have been familiar long enough with cubits to have little trouble picturing the size of objects measured with this unit. But other ancient units (shekel, hin, etc.) still leave me searching for footnotes. So I appreciate the assistance that using modern units gives to readers.
On the other hand, an ark that is “twenty-seven inches wide” (not 24″ or 36″) sounds less natural than one that is “one and a half cubits wide.” The same is true of:
* an altar that is “7 ½ feet” long and wide (not 8 feet) versus one that is “five cubits” long and wide (Ex. 27:1), or
* hangings that are “22 ½ feet” long (not 20 feet or 25 feet) versus “15 cubits” long (Ex. 27:14).
It is clear that God used measurements that were ordinary sizes in the culture of ancient Israel, but using modern unit conversions doesn’t convey this.
A second potential concern is that some biblical measurements have symbolic meaning that can be lost in conversion. That said, I am not aware of any such symbolism in the measurements of the tabernacle, apart from ratios of length which are not lost in conversion. The dimensions of the Most Holy Place form a cube in feet just as well as in cubits, thus preserving the link to the cube-shaped New Jerusalem in Revelation. And in Revelation, where the units measuring the New Jerusalem do indeed have symbolic significance (being multiples of 12), the CSB does use the biblical units, excluding modern units to footnotes:
> He measured the city with the rod at 12,000 _stadia_. Its length, width, and height are equal. Then he measured its wall, 144 cubits according to human measurement, which the angel used. (Rev. 21:16-17)
I would need to examine this further to see how well the CSB handles this balance. But _**what I see so far suggests that in their handling of units of measurement the CSB translators have achieved the “optimal equivalence” they aimed for**_ between faithfulness to the original text and readability for the modern ear.
* * *
Every translation philosophy has trade-offs. I enjoy reading multiple translations to help me better ponder and understand God’s words.
**Have you read from the CSB? Do you have any most- or least-favorite translation choices from the CSB? [Share them in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/notes-while-reading-christian-standard-bible-csb/#respond) And keep reading…**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## How Do We Know Jesus Rose from the Dead?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-04-01
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: How Do We Know Jesus Rose from the Dead? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: How do we know that Jesus rose from the dead? Simply treat the New Testament as ordinary, valid evidence to be considered in your personal court of law. When the Bible receives this fair but ordinary reception, it can be used by the Holy Spirit to lead a person to saving faith in the reality of Jesus' resurrection.
Tags: resurrection, epistemology, faith, -1 Corinthians 15:17-19, -1 Corinthians 15:20, reason
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/how-do-we-know-jesus-rose-from-dead
**How do we know Jesus rose from the dead?** We discussed this question today at Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta as part of our Easter celebration. How would you answer it?
Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta, backyard Easter service, 2018.
**The resurrection is the basis for our Christian hope.** Paul said that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then we won’t, either, and that if we have no hope of being raised at Christ’s return, then our “faith is futile” and “we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:17-19).
I believe Jesus’ resurrection is also the foundational reason for trusting that the Bible is what it claims to be—words from God. If Jesus rose from the dead, then he is who he claimed to be—the Christ sent from God. And if that is indeed who he is, then what he believed about the Scriptures must be true.
But this raises a bit of a logical problem, right? **If we are not careful, we end up with a circular argument:**
1. **We know that Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so.**
2. **We know that the Bible is true because Jesus rose from the dead.**
If this were indeed the basis for Christian faith, then we should rightly be scoffed by any reasonable thinker.
**But that is not the true nature of Christian faith.** While faith reaches _beyond_ the evidence, it is always, if you dig deep enough, _rooted in_ and _in line with_ historically and empirically verifiable evidence. The apostles didn’t go around saying “just believe that Jesus rose from the dead.” They didn’t even simply say “believe that Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible (the Jewish Scriptures) said he would,” though that was true and they did indeed say so. But they did more: they said “we are are _eyewitnesses_ of Jesus’ resurrection, and _here is what we saw, heard, and touched_.”
**So that is a good place for anyone with doubts to begin with Scripture: simply treat it as ordinary, valid evidence to be considered in your personal court of law.** That is where I begin with my list below. When the Bible receives this fair but ordinary reception, it can be used by the Holy Spirit to lead a person to saving faith in the reality of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
**All that is prelude to the following nine points that we discussed this morning.** This is not a scholarly defense of Jesus’ resurrection. It is simply a series of points that I wrote to summarize some key facts that can bolster our faith that Jesus really did rise from the dead. There are no footnotes. You can find these same points and many more in much greater detail in books by authors such as Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Jonathan Morrow, William Lane Craig, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, and many more.
**HOW CAN WE KNOW
****JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD?**
1. **The New Testament writings, which claim that Jesus rose, are basically trustworthy historical documents.** Historical evidence shows that it takes more than two generations for legends to develop and wipe out the truth about historical figures, and that matches when the later fake “gospels” about Jesus began to be written. But the New Testament was written down within the lifetime of the events it describes. We have more ancient hand-written copies of the New Testament than of any other ancient writing, and these copies are dated closer to the time of their authors than with other ancient writings. There are also references to Jesus in ancient writings outside the Bible and no ancient claims that he never existed. If you believe the historical accounts about people such as the Roman emperor Augustus or events such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, as all historians do, then you have every reason to also believe that ****the New Testament writings, which claim that Jesus rose, are basically trustworthy historical documents.****
2. **The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection have the ring of eye-witness testimony.** Each of the Gospels tell the same story of the resurrection, with the same core events and characters. But they each tell the story differently, with different details mentioned in ways that make it look at first as if there is some conflict between their accounts. This shows that the writers were not merely reciting some agreed-upon fake story. Rather, they were each telling about the same historical event in their own way. The core story in each Gospel matches, and the apparently conflicting details have been harmonized by careful Bible students. ****The Gospel accounts of the resurrection have the ring of eye-witness testimony.****
3. **Jesus did actually die.** First he suffered a brutal lashing using a whip of braided leather with metal balls woven into it. According to the third-century historian Eusebius, “The sufferer’s veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure.” Many people died during such Roman lashings. Then Jesus was nailed to a cross. Crucifixion caused its victims to die of asphyxiation (loss of oxygen) as the victim lost strength to push themselves into a vertical position to breath. Loss of oxygen then led to an irregular heartbeat and death. If a Roman soldier let a prisoner escape, the responsible soldier would be put to death themselves, so they made sure every victim was dead before they were removed from a cross. ****Jesus did actually die.****
4. **Jesus’ body was actually placed in a tomb.** All four Gospels say a Jewish leader named Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in his own tomb. Joseph was a member of the council that had voted to kill Jesus. If Jesus’ followers wanted to invent a burial story, why would they invent such a specific story, which people could then check out and prove false? The very earliest Christian creeds, like in 1 Corinthians 15, mention that Jesus was buried. In ancient writings there are no other competing traditions about Jesus’ burial besides the ones found in the Gospels. ****Jesus’ body was actually placed in a tomb.****
5. **The tomb was actually empty several days after Jesus’ burial.** According to the Gospels, the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. But women’s testimony was regarded as so worthless in the ancient world that they weren’t allowed to serve as legal witnesses under Jewish law. In that case, why would the early Christians invent such an embarrassing story about women witnesses if it wasn’t actually true? Besides, the site of Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb was known to Jesus’ enemies, so if the body was still there, they could have shown so. But neither Roman authorities nor the Jewish leaders ever claimed that the body was still in the tomb. Instead, they invented stories to try to hide the fact that ****the tomb was actually empty several days after Jesus’ burial.****
6. **Nobody stole Jesus’ body.** This is what the Jewish leaders feared Jesus’ followers would do, so they arranged with the Roman governor to have the stone covering of the tomb sealed and for a group of soldiers to guard the tomb. After Jesus’ body disappeared, the Jews spread the story that the guards had fallen asleep and that Jesus’ followers had stolen the body. But Jesus’ followers were terrified; they had just watched Jesus die. They had no motive to steal his body and then die themselves for this lie. And Jesus’ enemies certainly didn’t steal his body. If they had, they would have displayed his body publicly in Jerusalem to prove that he was still dead. ****Nobody stole Jesus’ body.****
7. **Jesus’ followers didn’t expect him to come back to life.** In the New Testament accounts, everyone is surprised when they learn that Jesus is alive again. The women, who were first to witness the empty tomb, were there because they planned to anoint Jesus’ dead body, not because they expected a resurrection. When they saw the empty tomb, their first thought was that someone had stolen the body. At first the men didn’t believe the women’s claims that the tomb was empty. It was embarrassing for the Gospel writers to admit that the leaders of the church were so slow to believe Jesus’ prophecies about his own resurrection. But ancient people were even more familiar with death than most of us are, and they knew as well as we do that people don’t normally come back to life after they die—certainly not without dying again later. ****Jesus’ followers didn’t expect him to come back to life.****
8. **Jesus was seen alive after his death.** The Gospels, the book of Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15 all record multiple witnesses who saw Jesus after his resurrection. Within weeks of Jesus’ death his followers were publicly claiming that they had seen him alive, and these claims were written down during the lifetime of the witnesses so readers could investigate their claims. These witnesses were not hallucinating, because hallucinations don’t happen to groups, and there are records of groups ranging from 11 to 500 who saw Jesus at the same time. Within weeks of the crucifixion, thousands of Jews believed the witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. They started abandoning Jewish laws that they formerly believed they had to obey to avoid damnation. These appearances of Jesus were powerful enough to change Jesus’ half-brother James from a sceptic into one of the main leaders of the early church, and to change Paul from a violent persecutor of the church into one of its most courageous preachers. Those who knew best whether Jesus had actually risen or not went to their deaths claiming it was true. Not one of the inner circle of apostles ever recanted his claims of having seen the risen Jesus, even though most of them were martyred for their testimony. ****Jesus was seen alive after his death.****
9. **Jesus continues to change lives today.** The first followers of Jesus were changed from selfish, fearful followers or even enemies of Jesus into courageous, loving preachers of the resurrection. In the same way, throughout history to this day, millions of followers of Jesus testify that he has changed their lives. This matches what the first followers of Jesus claimed. They said that all who join Jesus receive the witness of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and that this Spirit of God tells them that they are now God’s children. God’s Spirit within makes us feel the reality that Jesus is indeed alive and will return again. We **_show_** others Jesus rose by pointing to the historical evidence, and we _**know**_ for ourselves that he rose not only because of that historical evidence but also because of the witness of the Spirit of Jesus within our hearts. **Jesus continues to change lives today.**
After examining the evidence, it still takes faith to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. But in the face of such evidence, it would also take faith to believe that he didn’t. Coming up with viable alternative explanations for the evidence is not as easy as it might look at first. Many have tried and failed.
**I am convinced that the best explanation for the evidence is the one that is also the best news you could imagine—“in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep”** (1 Cor. 15:20). When I don’t _feel_ the truth of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus is a factual foundation that I come back to, a sure place to rest until I regain spiritual sight.
Again, this is not a scholarly defense of Jesus’ resurrection. So, if you are a skeptic, I invite you to look closer before you scoff.
But if you are a believer, **I invite your response: How do you know Jesus rose from the dead? [Share your favorite evidence in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/how-do-we-know-jesus-rose-from-dead/#respond)** Then live as if it really happened, because it did!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On Which Day of the Week Did Jesus Die?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-03-31
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: On Which Day of the Week Did Jesus Die? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: On which day of the week did Jesus die? The first thing that must be said is that this is not a question of first or even second importance. It is much more important to know why Jesus died than when. Nevertheless, this question becomes important if it threatens to erode our trust in the Scriptures.
Tags: -Genesis 22:4, biblical interpretation, -Matthew 16:21, -1 Corinthians 15:4, -1 Samuel 30:12-13, -Acts 10:40, -Esther 4:16, -Esther 5:1, -Genesis 42:17-18, -John 2:19-20, -Jonah 1:17, -Luke 18:33, -Luke 24:46, -Luke 24:7, -Luke 9:22, -Mark 10:34, -Mark 14:58, -Mark 8:31, -Mark 9:31, -Matthew 12:40, -Matthew 17:23, -Matthew 20:19, -Matthew 26:61, -Matthew 27:63, after three days, Bible's trustworthiness, chronology, crucifixion, Harold W. | Hoehner, in three days, Midrash, on the third day, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Talmud, three days and three nights
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/which-day-of-week-did-jesus-die
**On which day of the week did Jesus die?**
The first thing that must be said about this question is that it is not a question of first importance, nor even of second importance. It is much more important to understand _why_ Jesus died than to pinpoint _when_. So if today’s question doesn’t interest you, that’s fine.
Nevertheless, the question of when Jesus died has often been debated. And it becomes an important one if it threatens to either divide Christians or erode our trust in the Scriptures.
**Three answers have been commonly given to my question: Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.** According to Harold W. Hoehner, “the Friday crucifixion view has had the overwhelming support of scholars throughout the history of the church.”[1](#fn-2678-1) But the Thursday view and the Wednesday view (though to a lesser extent) have also been defended by some scholars. (Note: I will be relying heavily on Hoehner in this post, using his book [_Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ_](https://amzn.to/2E9vbAY), available on Kindle right now for only $2.99.)
**According to Hoehner, “the primary support” for both the Wednesday and Thursday crucifixion views “is the literal interpretation of Matthew 12:40 where Jesus states: ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.'”**[2](#fn-2678-2) But Hoehner believes that this piece of evidence for a Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion is not as strong as it first appears.
In this post I will build on Hoehner’s thoughts on this one specific argument. I acknowledge that there are other factors that should also be weighed to better answer my original question. But hopefully addressing this one factor will help strengthen our trust in the Scriptures.
**The place to begin is to compare all the ways that Jesus spoke about how long after his death he would rise.** There are at least five phrases that he and others used:
1. **“On the third day”** (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). This is the most frequently used phrase, occurring nine times (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46; Acts 10:40; 1Corinthians 15:4).
2. **“After three days”** (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας). There are four times this phrase is used (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).
3. **“Three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”** (ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας). This phrase is used once, as cited above (Matthew 12:40).
4. **“In three days”** (ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις). This occurs twice, where Jesus says “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” and the Jews discuss his saying. John clarifies that Jesus was speaking about his own body (John 2:19-20)).
5. **“In three days”** (διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν). This similar phrase occurs twice, where Jesus’ accusers report his saying about rebuilding the temple (Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58).
**The first thing to note is that a very literalistic interpretation of all five phrases leads to direct contradictions.** Phrase (3) “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” seems the most specific, so it is tempting to try to reconcile all the others to this one. Phrase (2) “after three days” could indeed be reconciled quite nicely with (3); the presence or absence of “nights” makes little difference. But there is no way to make a hyper-literal reading of phrase (1) “on the third day” mean the same as phrase (2) “after three days.” If I tell you to come to my house “on” Sunday, that is not the same as if I tell you to come “after” Sunday. So there is no way that phrases (1), (2), and (3) can all be synthesized if they are interpreted in a hyper-literalistic fashion.
**Thankfully, parallel passages in the synoptic Gospels point to a solution.** In three of the four occurrences of “after three days” (2), there are parallel passages where the phrase “on the third day” (1) is used instead (Mark 8:31 = Matthew 16:21 / Luke 9:22; Mark 9:31 = Matthew 17:23; Mark 10:34 = Matthew 20:19 / Luke 18:33). This shows that _**the Gospel writers understood the two expressions “on the third day” and “after three days” to mean the same thing**_. They did not have a hyper-literalistic understanding of time references as we often do.
The fourth occurrence of “after three days” (2) also points toward this understanding, for the response of the Jewish leaders to Jesus’ statement about rising “after three days” was to ask for a guard “until the third day” (ἕως τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας), not “until after the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64). So the Jewish leaders, too, understood phrases (1) and (2) to be equivalent.
To my amateur mind, phrases (4) and (5) could naturally match either (1) or (2), especially since (1) and (2) are actually equivalent. If so, we have now found a biblical way to synthesize four of the five phrases. (Hoehner does not discuss the last two phrases on my list.)
**This leaves phrase (3)—the Matthew 12:40 statement—as the only “three-day saying” that seems to point toward a Wednesday crucifixion.** But an examination of OT and rabbinic Jewish ways of discussing the passage of time shows that this passage, too, should not be ready in a hyper-literalistic fashion. For example, in Esther 4:16 Esther tells the Jews, “Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day… Then I will go to the king.” But in Esther 5:1 we read that she went to the king “on the third day,” not “after three days and three nights.” (See also 1 Samuel 30:12-13; Hoehner mentions more passages.)
Similarly, several passages in the rabbinic literature reportedly “combine” the Jonah time-table (“three days and three nights,” Jonah 1:17) with various “on the third day” passages such as Genesis 22:4 and Genesis 42:17-18. (I am not sure what Hoehner means by “combine.”) More clearly, Hoehner reports that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (c. A.D. 100) stated, “A day and night are an Onah \[‘a portion of time’\] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it”[3](#fn-2678-3)
There are other factors to discuss when determining which day of the week Jesus died, but this is how Hoehner summarizes this primary factor:
> “When one examines all the evidence, it seems that the New Testament, the Old Testament, and Rabbinic literature all agree that a part of a day is counted as a whole day-and-night. Thus, **the expressions: ‘the three days and three nights,’ ‘after three days,’ and ‘on the third day’ are all one and the same time span.**“[4](#fn-2678-4)
Even when using an ancient Jewish approach to when a new day starts (at sundown), **the above data could fit with either a Thursday or a Friday crucifixion—though it seems to me that by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s method Friday works somewhat better**:
Thursday crucifixion:
1st day—Thursday afternoon
2nd day—Friday
3rd day—Saturday
(don’t count Sunday morning)
Friday crucifixion:
1st day—Friday afternoon
2nd day—Saturday
3rd day—Sunday morning
If the analysis in this post is correct, then there is little reason to argue for a Wednesday crucifixion and one of the primary reasons to argue for a Thursday crucifixion has been removed. Other factors would need to be discussed to explain why some scholars still prefer a Thursday crucifixion but most conclude that the traditional view, Friday, makes most sense of the biblical and historical data.
**My goal in this post was not primarily to convince you about which day of the week Jesus died.** Rather, it was an exercise in reading the Scriptures carefully. I admit I enjoy that sort of investigation for its own sake! But hopefully this post will also increase your confidence, as it did mine, that _**the Scriptures can be trusted to make sense when we read them on their own terms**_.
**What do you think? I can’t promise to answer your further questions, but do [ask or instruct as you wish in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/which-day-of-week-did-jesus-die/#respond).**
1. Harold W. Hoehner, _Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1977), p. 74. [↩](#fnref-2678-1)
2. Ibid., p. 65, cf. p. 68. [↩](#fnref-2678-2)
3. Ibid., p. 74. Hoehner cites three passages in Midrash Rabbah and Midrash on the Psalms regarding the Jonah passage, and the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbath ix. 3) and the Babylonian Talmud (Pesahim 4a) regarding Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s statement. [↩](#fnref-2678-3)
4. Ibid., p. 74, emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-2678-4)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Who Is Lording Over Whom? (Matthew 20:25)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-03-27
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Who Is Lording Over Whom? (Matthew 20:25) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Who is lording over whom in Matthew 20:25? Is Jesus not only prohibiting individual persons from forcibly ruling over others in his kingdom, but also condemning a hierarchy of such rulers?
Tags: Rodney | Decker, church leadership, Greek, -Matthew 20:25, lording over, pronoun referents
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/who-is-lording-over-whom-matthew20-25
**Today while studying Greek I encountered an exegetical puzzle. Who is lording over whom in this verse?**
> “25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you.” –Matthew 20:25-26 (ESV)
Here is a more specific question: **To whom does the final “them” in verse 25 refer?**
1. To “the _Gentiles_” (like the other “them” in the sentence)?
2. Or to “the _rulers_ of the Gentiles”?
(Another detail as you ponder: the “their” at the beginning of the second clause translates οἱ, a plural article that could just as rightly be translated “the.”)
**Until today, I have always assumed (1) is the correct answer.** That is how the ESV and [a host of other English translations](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2020:25) read most naturally to my ears. In other words, the translations I scanned seem to generally present the two clauses of of verse 25 as parallel to each other:
(a) “the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them”
(b) “their great ones exercise authority over them”
**By this understanding, both “them”s refer to “the _Gentiles_.” They are the ones being lorded over in both clauses.**
Some translations suggest that either the nouns (rulers/great ones) or verbs (lord it over/exercise authority over) of one or the other phrases may be stronger, but the phrases are still usually presented as parallel.
**But today I read another translation that suggests something I had never even considered before:**
> “But Jesus said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles are lording it over them, and the great ones are lording it over them \[i.e., over the rulers\].”
That is how Rodney J. Decker translates the verse in his [Reading Koine Greek](https://amzn.to/2I91WRm) textbook. (Decker, [now deceased](https://www.garbc.org/garbcnews/remembering-rod-decker/), was [no slouch](http://ntresources.com/blog/?page_id=8) with Greek.) The bracketed explanation is his, not mine.
**According to this interpretation, not only are the _Gentiles_ lorded over, but even their _rulers_ are lorded over by those greater than them.**
Now that I have read Decker’s interpretation, I see that the there is no grammatical reason why ESV could not also be read the same way (although the “their” rather than “the” at the beginning of the second clause, though a legitimate translation option, distracts from Decker’s interpretation).
I don’t know whether Decker is right.
**If Decker is correct, then Jesus was not only prohibiting individual persons from forcibly ruling over others in his kingdom, but he was also condemning a hierarchy of such rulers.** **And both have been a problem in the church, right?**
To test Decker’s interpretation, I’d want to do several things I don’t have time now to do:
* Compare this passage more closely with its parallels in Mark and Luke.
* Investigate whether the word usage of “great ones” suggests a higher position than “rulers.”
* Investigate whether “exercise authority over” suggests a higher position than “lord it over.” (These do come from two different words, despite Decker’s identical translation.)
* Learn more about how pronoun references tend to work in Greek.
Either way, the essential message of Jesus is clear: If you are my disciples, don’t lord it over others! That’s not how my kingdom works!
**What do you think? Which way have you read this verse? Do you find Decker’s interpretation convincing? Why or why not? [Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/who-is-lording-over-whom-matthew20.25/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What Does a True Follower of Jesus Look Like?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-03-10
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: What Does a True Follower of Jesus Look Like? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: How can you identify a real Christian? What are the marks of a genuine Christian? In this post I’ll frame it this way: What does a true follower of Jesus look like?
Tags: service, suffering, Christology, love, Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta, church unity, -John 17:20-23, -Matthew 22:37-39, -Matthew 28:18-20, Christian, followers of Jesus, Holy Spirit, obedience, witness
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-does-true-follower-jesus-look-like
**How can you identify a real Christian? What are the marks of a genuine Christian?**
Mark Dever is famous for his list of “[Nine Marks of a Healthy Church](http://amzn.to/2GeI2Vn).” Others, including the Protestant reformers, produced lists of [marks of the “true church.”](http://dwightgingrich.com/more-on-calvin-marks-of-church-fighting-nicely/) (A church can be unhealthy but still true, so the latter lists are shorter.)
But I am asking primarily about the individual, not the group: How can you identify who truly belongs to Jesus?
There are many good, biblical ways to ask and answer this question. What does _Christian_ mean, anyway? The term was first used in the ancient Syrian city of Antioch, and it appears that unbelievers were the ones who coined it. According to [commentator Ben Witherington III](http://amzn.to/2GeEa6J), the term _Christians_ (Χριστιανοι) in its original historical context meant “those belonging to, identified with, or adherents or followers of Christ.” (Pardon his poor grammar!) **So in this post I’ll frame it this way: What does a true follower of Jesus look like?**
I was motivated to ask this question because our little church gathering here in West Lake, Atlanta goes by the name of Followers of Jesus Church Atlanta (FJCA). Since we chose to bear that name, I decided I should examine the New Testament more closely to see whom we are supposed to be!
I shared my findings with our church and we discussed them together. Now I’ll share them with you.
**First, some clarifications.**
What follows is not a summary of the gospel. If it was, I’d need to be clearer on the work of Jesus.
Nor is it a description of the church. If it was, I’d need to discuss things like leadership and decision-making.
Some might fault this list because it focuses strongly on behavior. But this is a natural result of simply reading how the Bible, Jesus in particular, describes followers of Jesus. They are certainly people who believe certain things—and my list begins with belief, even if it doesn’t use the traditional language of _faith_. But they are also people who act, or at least ought to act, in certain ways. Again, this focus on behavior is because I am aiming to describe not the gospel itself, but a primary fruit of the gospel—people who are changed to follow Jesus.
This list is not intended to be comprehensive. It began with a simple concordance search for “follow.” Immediately several central themes (suffering for Jesus, selfless love, etc.) became clear. Though I expanded my search, there are too many related concepts to have found all the relevant biblical data. I did try to throw a wide net—sometimes perhaps too wide—but I realize now that even some basic concepts like repentance and faith could be strengthened. I expect I’ll update this list from time to time.
Lastly, perhaps this list would be better titled “marks of _healthy_ followers of Jesus,” since no one follower exhibits all these qualities perfectly.
Read my summary paragraphs after each heading. Compare my summary statements with the Scriptures that follow. Perhaps you’ll find Jesus’ call to follow as challenging as I did!
* * *
**Marks of True Followers of Jesus**
**Suffering witness****:** Jesus’s followers bear confident witness to his true identity as fully God and fully man—the Son of God, the promised Messiah-Christ-King, the Lamb of God who saves us from our sin, and the risen, ruling Son of Man. These followers are so devoted to Jesus that they willingly suffer for his sake, leaving all—possessions, family, and honor—for the sake of Jesus and the eternal rewards of his kingdom.
They bear witness of Jesus and his kingdom to each other, to the watching world, and to all of creation. They bear witness by word and action, by their gathered worship and their daily lives, and ultimately by their deaths.
In this way Jesus’ followers honor **his greatest commandment**—to love God with all our being.
Matt. 4:19; 16:15-17; 28:18-20; John 1:35-49; 6:66-69; 10:4-5, 27; 15:26-27; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; Col. 3:16-17; Rev 14:1-5; Matt 4:18-22; 8:19-22; 9:9; 10:37-39; 16:24-26; 19:21-23; Mark 8:34-37; 10:28-30; Luke 5:11, 28; 9:23-24, 57-62; John 12:23-26.
**Loving service****:** Jesus’ followers imitate his way of loving others. They gladly suffer injustices without retaliating. They offer generous forgiveness to all who offend them, without holding grudges. They pray for their enemies and look for ways to creatively bless them, refusing to take up the sword. They are faithful in their marriages and all other relationship commitments.
Their whole lives are characterized by selfless service, for they imitate the One who came not to be served but to serve—who gave up his divine rights, washed his disciples’ feet, and laid down his life for the world.
In this way Jesus’ followers honor **his second great commandment**—to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Mark 15:41; John 12:26; Matt. 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 6:27-36; 22:25-27; 1 Pet. 2:20-24; 3:9-18; 5:1-3; Eph. 4:32; 5:1-2, 25; Col 3:13; John 13:14-16; Phil 2:4-7; Rom 15:1-3, 7.
**Christian unity****:** Jesus’ followers know there is one Flock and one Shepherd. They affirm that all who belong to Christ, the Head, also belong to the Church, his Body. They rejoice that people of every culture, color, and class find oneness in Christ alone. They know Jesus has promised to build his own Church which he purchased with his own blood.
They don’t divide over human leaders, but they do honor the teaching and imitate the example of Jesus’ apostles, whom he appointed as a foundation for his true Church. They welcome all whom Christ has welcomed while disciplining those who falsely claim to belong to him.
In this way Jesus’ followers honor **his final recorded prayer** for them—that we may all be one in him.
Matt. 12:30; 16:18-19; 18:15-20; Mark 9:38-41; Luke 9:49-50; John 10:16; 17:20-23; Acts 2:42-47; 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3-9; 11:1; 12:12-13; Eph. 4:4-6; Rom. 15:5-7; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14-17; Rev. 7:9-10, 17.
**Spirit-powered obedience****:** Jesus’ followers honor his words by doing them. They do this by the Holy Spirit, their Helper sent by Jesus. They know they—like Jesus during his earthly life—will bear good fruit only by the power of the Spirit within them.
They expect the Spirit will bear witness to Jesus by miraculous signs and special graces given as he wishes. They also expect the Spirit will empower them to live clearly counter-cultural lives of moral purity, relational integrity, and neighbor- and enemy-love—lives of humility, contentment, and trust in their heavenly Father.
In this way Jesus’ followers honor **the great commission** he gave them—to make disciples who are taught to do all that he commanded.
Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 6:46-49; John 14:15, 21-24; 1 John 2:4-6; Matt. 5-7; 22:37-40; Acts 10:38; Luke 3:21-22; 4:1-2, 14-15, 18; Luke 3:16; 11:13; 12:11-12; 24:49; John 14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:4-5, 8; 2:1-4, 32-33, 38-39; Gal. 5:16-25.
* * *
**Here is a PDF version of the same list:**
**[Download Here](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Marks-of-True-Followers-of-Jesus-1.pdf)**
[Marks of True Followers of Jesus](https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Marks-of-True-Followers-of-Jesus-1.pdf)
* * *
Where are North American Christians most falling short of these marks? How would you summarize the biblical picture of a true Christian? [**Share your insights in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/what-does-true-follower-jesus-look-like/#respond)
* * *
_Endnote: As I did my research, I ended up with about seven main points. I wanted to be more concise, in case we end up using some version of this list as a church values statement someday. So I combined points until I had only four somewhat memorable headings. Many other combinations could have been equally possible, however. For example, combining “suffering” with “love” rather than with “witness” would also have expressed something that is clearly biblical: “Suffering love.” “Spirit-powered unity” also sounds good! The richness of Scripture cannot be summarized in any four, seven, or nine marks._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Story in Greek
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-02-17
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: A Story in Greek • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In December I had the opportunity to take a two-week Greek immersion class in Pennsylvania. We had lots of fun, with over 4 hours a day of stories, role playing, and dialogue in New Testament Greek! Here is me reading a story we discussed in class.
Tags: Greek, Biblical Greek Program, Joseph | Neill, Randall | Buth
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/a-story-in-greek
**In December I had the opportunity to take a two-week Greek immersion class in Pennsylvania.** There were about seventeen students and five teachers, depending on how you count. We had lots of fun, with over 4 hours a day of stories, role playing, and dialogue in New Testament Greek!
Joseph Neill telling a story about a man who made a great feast. Here he is inviting the class to identify (in Greek) the food that was served at the feast.
Since New Years we have been continuing studies with weekly three-hour video conference classes. The main teacher of the course is Joseph Neill. He exhibits considerable knowledge and patience and enhances our learning through good use of technology (Google classroom, Google docs assignments, video recordings of our classes on Zoom, audio excerpts, etc.). I’m really enjoying this opportunity to dig into NT Greek, especially since this program uses some of the same materials that I had selected for self-study several years ago.
For more information about the Biblical Greek Program, including a chance to sign up for the next class, go here: [https://biblicalgreekprogram.org/](https://biblicalgreekprogram.org/)
And to learn more about the “living languages” approach taken by this program, go here: [https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/why-works/](https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/why-works/)
**One of our homework assignments this week is to record ourselves reading part of a story in Greek.** We discussed the beginning of the story together in class, then we were each asked to write our own endings.
Here is a video of me reading the entire short story—the first half written by Joseph Neill, and the second half written by me. I must credit the Gospel writers for a couple lines I adapted!
You may notice that the pronunciation sounds different than you expect. The first reason is that, unlike most seminaries, we are following a pronunciation scheme developed by Randall Buth. This scheme is designed to more closely mirror the actual pronunciation of Koine Greek that was used in the time of Jesus. The second reason why my pronunciation may sound different is that my pronunciation, even by this scheme, is still amateur.
Here is the text of the story:
ὁ παῖς ὁ πτωχὸς ἐπείνασεν σφόδρα.
ᾔτησεν οὖν τὸν πλούσιον ἄνθρωπον ἄρτον.
ἐγέλασεν ὁ πλούσιος καὶ προβὰς ὀλίγον ἐξέβαλεν τὸν ἄρτον.
ἰδοῦσα τὸν παῖδα λυπούμενον ἀπέστειλεν γυνὴ δοῦλον αὐτῷ.
Πῶς ἔχεις; εἶπεν ὁ δοῦλος τῷ παιδί.
Κακῶς ἔχω, εἶπεν ὁ παῖς. ἐγώ πεινῶ. θέλω ἰχθύας. ἰχθύας ἔχεις;
Οὐ, ἀλλἀ ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν, εἶπεν ὁ δοῦλος. Ἀκολούθει μοι καἰ ποιήσω σὲ ἀλιεῦς.
Here’s a rough translation:
A poor child was very hungry.
So he asked a rich man for bread.
The rich man laughed and, going on a little farther, threw away the bread.
Seeing the sad child, a woman sent her servant to him.
“How are you?” \[Literally, “How do you have?”\] said the servant to the child.
“Not good” \[Literally, “I have bad”\], said the child. “I am hungry. I want fish. Do you have fish?”
“No, but I am going fishing,” said the servant. “Follow me and I will make you a fisherman.”
Thanks for listening! **If you have any questions about the Biblical Greek Program, or any stories about learning biblical languages, [share them in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/a-story-in-greek/#comments).** Blessings!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: 2017 Year-End Report
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2018-01-06
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding: 2017 Year-End Report • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here is a 2017 financial and ministry update about "the house that God bought," with the latest figures on our "churchfunding" house loans.
Tags: annual report, churchfunding, microloans
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2017-year-end-report
**Since our “churchfunding” house loan was a public adventure, I want to give public updates from time to time.** How is it working for us by now? Very well, thank God! We remain deeply grateful for our house and are making monthly repayments as planned.
([Here is the post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) that officially launched this churchfunding adventure. We purchased our Atlanta house on March 25, 2016, paying the seller in full immediately, thanks to loans and gifts from nearly 90 individuals or families.)
**At the beginning of 2017, we owed $55,112.50 in house loans. By the end of 2017, we owed only $48,037.50. Here is the story of that $7,075 difference.**
We repaid $6000 in loans in 2016 at the planned rate of $500 per month. All our “older lenders” have now been fully repaid and we have started selecting lenders of all ages for repayment, using prayer and a random number generator.
Another $1,075 in loans was forgiven this year. Two lenders turned loans into gifts, and a third clarified she didn’t want any interest after all. What a blessing!
**When can the remaining lenders expect repayment?**
**At $500 per month, we should have all remaining lenders repaid within 8 years—before the end of 2025.**
(Note: Careful readers may notice that the figures here don’t match [what I reported a year ago](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2016-year-end-report/). My figures last year were too high. When we first invited loan pledges, we received more offers than we needed, so we declined several of the last offers. A simple glitch in our spreadsheet, however, made it record these offers as if we had actually received them. It was a pleasant discovery midway through 2017 to find we owed over $5000 less than I thought! If any lenders have questions about this, please contact me directly for more details from our records.)
**Cash Flow and House Happenings**
**Our cash flow has stabilized a lot over the past year.** It helps when you don’t have to install a $10,000 AC and heating unit like last year! I continue to work three days a week for Choice Books, and piano teaching is growing. I had about eight students a year ago but I finished 2017 with about eighteen. I have another half dozen ready to begin this month. Unlike a year ago, income is pretty much equivalent to expenses, thank God.
Some of our largest expenses in the past year included braces for our oldest daughter, a new washing machine, and our biggest 2017 house project—finally installing a kitchen sink! Mark and Marj Otto and their family generously volunteered several days to help us with this project.
Here is a “before” picture:
Zonya patiently endured the above for 15 months. Can you understand why she looked like this when things improved?
Here is a photo of the kitchen sink area today:
We hope to replace or add a couple more cabinet sections over coming years, but the most urgent kitchen renovation is definitely now done.
For 2018 I expect to turn sights elsewhere, probably first to unfinished closets and hopefully to several dead trees looming dangerously in the backyard. Other projects such as a leaky shower and an unusable basement entrance will await their turn.
**“The house that God bought” has seen many ministry opportunities over the past year, such as:**
* Many house church gatherings
* Overnight guests, including Irma evacuees
* Lending a listening ear to senior piano students
* Sharing our yard, bike pump, and cups of water with neighbor children
* A couple video discussion evenings with neighbors and friends
* A “living room recital” with piano student families
* Sheltering neighbor children during a domestic dispute
* Hosting international students
* Homeschooling our children
We remain deeply grateful for all our churchfunding supporters, and we welcome prayers that we will faithfully steward this house for Jesus in 2018.
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight & Zonya Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Higher Calling: The Church, Jesus’ Rival Nation, God’s Kingdom (Guest Post from Sattler College)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-12-07
Category: Guest Post
Meta Title: The Higher Calling: The Church, Jesus' Rival Nation, God's Kingdom (Guest Post from Sattler College) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is a guest post from Zack Johnson of Sattler College. I commend his vision for keeping Christ's church central to our vision statements!
Tags: Finny | Kuruvilla, kingdom of God, church leadership, Michael | Sattler, -1 Thessalonians 2:9, -Acts 20:28, -Matthew 5:13-16, -Titus 2:12, church priority of, Origen, salvation, Sattler College, two-kingdom theology, vision statements, Zack | Johnson
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/higher-calling-church-jesus-rival-nation-gods-kingdom-sattler-college
_This spring I had the opportunity to enjoy lunch with Finny Kuruvilla, who is, among other things, a medical doctor, an investment officer, a church planter, and author of_ [King Jesus Claims His Church](http://amzn.to/2iEGby4)_. He was visiting Atlanta from Boston, here at a homeschool expo to tell people about Sattler College, which he is helping to found. I was impressed by his vision for Sattler, which includes training students both as Bible students and as disciples of Jesus._
_I’ve since had several conversations with Sattler personnel and remain impressed, so I offered them a guest post on my blog. I hope you enjoy this post by Zack Johnson (whom I’d love to meet) and help spread the word about Sattler College!_
_—Dwight Gingrich_
* * *
**I was recently exploring how different institutions use vision statements to appeal to their audience.** One statement stood out to me from a college that professes Christianity in New York: “We exist to graduate students who will go on to positions of leadership in our strategic national institutions: government, business, media, law, education, and the church.” **It is shocking how these words present the church as an equal and mutually exclusive choice among institutions for Christians.** We must not capitulate to the notion that being guardians and shepherds of Jesus’ nation which he obtained with his own blood (Acts 20:28) is an optional or secondary calling.
For those who believe the doctrine of two kingdoms it is easy to see flaws in a Christian vision statement that mixes the nations of this world with the Kingdom of God. Despite the prevalent proclamation of Jesus’ kingdom throughout the New Testament, many Christians accept that followers of Jesus can serve in places that require some level of biblical compromise.
**[My story](http://www.sattlercollege.org/blogs/2017/11/6/color-vision-of-a-conscientious-objector) is a showcase of this biblical neglect.** Thirteen months ago, I was under oath to the U.S. Constitution in the military when biblical truths fell on me like a ton of bricks. By God’s grace I have since submitted to Jesus’ kingdom and have been in training to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions (Titus 2:12). But the question still looms for me as a humble 25-year old: what now? I remember listening to David Bercot’s teaching on the doctrine of kingdoms and coming across Origen’s words:
> We recognize in each state \[that is in each country\] the existence of another national organization that was founded by the Word of God. And we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over churches… It is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices. Rather it is so they may reserve themselves for a more divine and necessary service in the church of God—for the salvation of men.
**Origen lays out a vision statement for Christians that elevates service in the church of God to its divine level for the salvation of men.** In my case it is easy to see that my vision was off, but could it be that there are more subtle places where Christians can still get distracted? Does the salvation of men keep us up at night? Is the church our passion?
There are shiny objects all around us. Government can be a distraction for those who seek power, business for those who chase wealth, media for those who crave attention, law for those who demand justice, and education for those who want status. Just because I have accepted the doctrine of two kingdoms, does not mean I am not susceptible to go down other rabbit trails. The enemy gains victories when man chases the world and leaves behind the church. Jesus’ nation is closer to triumph when man submits to the church and confronts the earth with its saltiness and captivates it with its light (Matthew 5:13-16). Amid all the distractions, we dare not put the church as an option at the end of our own vision statements, but rather learn from the cloud of witnesses before us and raise the church to its rightful position.
**In the last year, I have had the honor of learning about the persecuted churches of history, and one name that is inescapable for me today is Michael Sattler.** He stood as a guardian and shepherd of Jesus’ nation, was mighty in word, and bled and died for the church beside his wife. You can read more about Sattler [here](http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Sattler,_Michael_\(d._1527\)) or watch a short video summary about him [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqteWzJ9RM). In Sattler, we see a man who refused biblical compromise while diligently leveraging his life for the sake of the Messiah and his flock: for the salvation of men. Can we say the same?
We do not have to make the church a mutually exclusive choice, but rather everything we do should be for the sake of this rival nation Jesus founded. There is no room for biblical compromise in things like government oaths, taking people to court, and conforming to the world. But there is no need to present a false choice between the church and careers, trades, or education like the college in New York’s vision statement. We exist as bondservants of Christ and should labor and toil night and day to proclaim Jesus’ kingship to others as Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy did for the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 2:9). May we reserve ourselves for the higher calling in all we do with Scripture as our guide and Christ as our foundation.
**The reason I was interested in college vision statements is because I now seek to serve Christ through being a part of Sattler College.** This new college aims to help raise an army to bring forth Christ’s kingdom to all nations. Sattler College’s vision is to “train graduates to be a city on a hill: a shining light in greater Boston and the nations.” **Sattler is now accepting applications from potential students and the deadline for application is January 15, 2018. If interested, visit [www.sattlercollege.org](http://www.sattlercollege.org/) for more information.**
* * *
_**[Share your response to Zack’s thoughts in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/higher-calling-church-jesus-rival-nation-gods-kingdom-sattler-college/#comments)**_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “All Things Work Together for…” What?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-12-03
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "All Things Work Together for..." What? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In Romans 8:28 Paul famously assures us that "all things work together for good." But what is the "good" that will come to those who love God?
Tags: suffering, hope, firstborn, prosperity gospel, -1 Corinthians 15:19, -1 Peter 1:13, -2 Corinthians 4:11, -Colossians 1:15, -Colossians 1:18, -Galatians 5:22-24, -Hebrews 1:6, -Hebrews 12:2, -Hebrews 12:23, -Luke 2:7, -Matthew 13:21, -Revelation 1:5, -Romans 8:16-18, -Romans 8:21, -Romans 8:28-30, character, cross, glory, good, Rich | Mullins
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/all-things-work-together-for-what
**In Romans 8:28 Paul famously assures us that “all things work together for good.”** This is a much-quoted and much-misunderstood verse. Here it is in full:
> And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
One way this verse is misunderstood is to turn it into an indefinite assurance that “everything that happens has a purpose”; things will work out well for everyone, eventually. But this promise is given only to “those who love God.” Those who do not love God have no such assurance.
But this still leaves a question: **What is the “good” that will come to those who love God?** Expanding on what I shared in my sermon opening today, I’d like to share three answers.
#### All Things Work Together for What?
**First, there is the “prosperity gospel good.”** Many professing Christians—perhaps even _most_ in places as diverse as America and Africa—believe that if a Christian has enough faith God will eventually shower them with material blessings. For example, consider this:
> God takes pleasure in blessing you, and it’s His will for you to be prosperous… It’s His plan for your life to have enough to take care of all your needs and be a blessing to others, too! To be able to take your family out for a nice meal, to live in a good home, to drive a great car, to go on a nice vacation, and to be able to bless others as you have been blessed… Believe God for a little extra to give, and a little extra to enjoy, and speak His promises of abundance over your life. As time passes, your faith will increase as well as your ability to receive abundance in your finances… Declare that He supplies all of your needs according to his riches in glory, expect His prosperity in your life, and thank Him before you see any change because you know it’s coming!
There is a lot of truth in those words, but also enough serious error that my employer, which sells Christian books, does not plan to order any more of this title for our shelves. I won’t unpack here all the problems with prosperity gospel thinking. Anyone who reads the New Testament carefully should see that for many of Jesus’ most faithful servants, faith in God meant “always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:11), not nice vacations!
Seeing the errors of the prosperity “gospel,” many Christians look closer at the context of Romans 8 to see what “good” Paul had in mind. They note verse 29, which comes next:
> For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
**This leads to a second option: the “character-development good.”** What good does God want us to enjoy? He wants us to “be conformed to the image of his Son.” What does that look like? Quite naturally, many readers think of moral qualities. What is Jesus like (WIJL)? What would Jesus do (WWJD)?
In this reading, God uses every circumstance of our lives to deepen our character. Suffering is his special way of filling us with more of his Spirit-fruit–love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Suffering teaches “those who belong to Christ Jesus” to “crucif\[y\] the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:22-24). The end result is that, as we go through all the joys and especially all the sorrows of life, we look more and more like Jesus.
What earnest Christian would not rejoice at this news? This is indeed good! And, unlike the prosperity “gospel” interpretation above, it is also true, as many Bible passages prove.
But is this the “good” that Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 8:28?
I don’t think so. **A closer look at context suggests a third option, something we might call the “glorification good.”** And I think it’s important to hear what Paul is saying.
Notice the final clause in verse 29. Why does God want to conform us to the image of his son? “In order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Elsewhere in the New Testament when “firstborn” language is used about Jesus, it consistently refers his exalted position–over angels, over creation, and especially over death (Col. 1:15, 18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5 and Luke 2:7 uses it to refer to Jesus’ natural birth order). That speaks of glory.
Similarly, in the one place where the same term is used to refer to Christians, we read of “the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). That, too, suggests glory.
Back to Romans 8. Does our linguistic clue fit with Paul’s flow of thought? Consider verse 29, which comes next:
> And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
This verse brings Paul’s thoughts to a climax. In many modern translations it is the end of a paragraph, with the next paragraph transitioning to wide-angle reflection on all that has been said before (“What then shall we say to these things?”). The “punch-line,” then, of Paul’s thought in this entire pericope (“puh-RICK-uh-pea,” fancy biblical studies language for “literary unit” or “section”) is the word “glorified.”
The ESV translation provides the heading “Future Glory” for verses 18 through 30. This is fitting, for the word “glory” is important in the entire pericope. Working backwards, this is what we find:
> The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the **glory** of the children of God. (Rom. 8:21)
Notice here that the glory spoken of belongs to “the children of God.” Talk of “children” foreshadows the language of Jesus being “the firstborn among many brothers” that we found in verse 29.
The first sentence of this pericope also mentions our glory:
> For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the **glory** that is to be revealed to us. (Rom. 8:18)
And, in the verses that lead into this entire pericope, we find this:
> The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be **glorified** with him. (Rom. 8:16-17)
Notice here the focus on our position—like Jesus—as “children of God.” Again, this closely matches the language of Jesus being “the firstborn among many brothers” that we found in verse 29.
In fact, _**the whole pericope from verses 18 through 30 function as an elaboration and proof of the claims in verses 16 and 17, and glory is at the heart of it all**_:
* Verses 16 and 17: Paul claims that we who have the Spirit are Jesus’ brothers and will someday inherit the glory that he has inherited, provided we are willing to first suffer with Jesus.
* Verses 18 to 30: Paul moves from “groaning” to “glory,” detailing the suffering we experience, assuring us of the Spirit’s help, and promising that our glorification is as good as done (“glorified”—past tense).
_**In this context, there can be little doubt: When Paul told his amanuensis to write “all things work together for good,” the “good” he had in mind was the future glorification of God’s children.**_
#### Why does this matter?
First, if you believe the “prosperity gospel good” interpretation of Romans 8:28, you will be sadly disappointed. Your faith is likely to be crushed beneath the persistent sufferings of this life. “When tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word,” you may “fall away” (Matt. 13:21). Or, equally bad, if you actually do enjoy prosperity here and now and pin your hopes on it, you will lose your life when you inevitably die. Make no mistake; the prosperity “gospel” is deadly.
But second, if you believe the “character-development good” interpretation of this passage, you are also in danger. As “all things” that bring suffering into your life “work together” and unrelentingly bear down upon your soul, you may grow weary of God’s refining fire. Being good may pale in comparison to being comfortable. I know it does for me sometimes.
Paul claimed that “if in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19). Taking up your cross and denying yourself is no fun. That’s why Paul said what he did. I don’t care how much you end up sharing Christ’s character, cross-bearing is a really, really bad deal for you unless you believe the incentive of eternal reward. In fact, it is such a bad deal that you probably won’t be able to psych yourself into keeping it for long.
Not even Jesus could bear his cross without focusing on “the joy that was set before him” (Heb. 12:2). Thus Peter urges you, too, to “set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:13).
_**In short, you need to set your hope on being “glorified,” not merely on being “good.”**_
When you read Romans 8, never stop at verse 28. But never stop at verse 29, either. It sounds super spiritual to focus on suffering to become like Jesus. And _you will indeed need to suffer_ if you are going to become like Jesus. But don’t try to be more spiritual than Jesus. Just aim to be with him and like him—good, yes, but also _glorified_!
For, one day, the two will be perfectly one, with suffering no more.
I don’t know about you, but I’m about ready for some glory. And yes, in another “moment” or two (2 Cor. 4:17), it will come. There is indeed “Such a Thing as Glory”!
May you catch a glimpse of glory to come as you walk through the “all things” of this week. **And [share your thoughts, glorious or otherwise, in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/all-things-work-together-for-what/#respond).** Thanks for reading.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Red Letter Reductionism” Expanded
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-09-22
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: "Red Letter Reductionism" Expanded • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: My "Red Letter Reductionism" essay is being considered for publication. I was asked to shorten it. I did--but first I lengthened it, and here's the result.
Tags: prophet, Craig S. | Keener, Anabaptist history, biblical interpretation, nonresistance, Paul, Sermon on the Mount, Swiss Brethren, Augustine of Hippo, biblical authority, Jesus' words, Preston | Sprinkle, -Matthew 28:18-20, -1 Peter 1:1, -1 Peter 5:12, -Deuteronomy 12:32, -Deuteronomy 29:19-20, -Deuteronomy 4:1-2, -Luke 11:28, -Matthew 10, -Matthew 13, -Matthew 18, -Matthew 24-25, -Matthew 3:15, -Matthew 4:1-11, -Matthew 5-7, -Matthew 5:18, -Revelation 1:19, -Revelation 1:3, -Revelation 12:17, -Revelation 14:12, -Revelation 22:18-19, -Revelation 22:7, -Revelation 22:9, -Revelation 3:8-10, -Romans 12:17-21, -Romans 13:1-7, apostle, biblical theology, Christopher | Rowland, Cicero, David | Starling, Golden Rule, just war theory, Magisterial Reformation, messenger formula, N.T. | Wright, red letters, Reformed theology, Thomas | Aquinas, Wayne | Grudem
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/red-letter-reductionism-expanded
##### **Recently I received word that someone might be interested in publishing my “Red Letter Reductionism” essay that I first shared in 2013—if only I could _reduce_ it a little.**
So I _expanded_ it from 23 pages to 31 pages. Then, with great effort and the judicious advice of a friend, I cut it down to 14 pages. Now I have two red letter reductionism essays:
* “Red Letter Reductionism” (expanded version, 31 pages)
* “Red Letter Reductionism and Apostolic Authority” (reduced version, 14 pages)
This is all rather expansive for an essay about reductionism, but I am thankful for the results.
I’m not sure I want to post my abbreviated essay until it has been published in print (trusting it will be). But **here is the expanded version of the original essay:**
[**Red Letter Reductionism**](http://dwightgingrich.com/red-letter-reductionism/)
##### **What is this essay about?**
Red letter Christians are any Christians who in some way prioritize the words of Jesus over the rest of Bible, including over the rest of the New Testament. While the words of Jesus are indeed important, I think that elevating the Bible’s red letters over its black letters is a bad practice that can lead to bad results.
In this essay I explain why, focusing especially on the authority Jesus gave to his apostles, including his promise to speak through them.
From the essay introduction:
> This essay is about red letter theology and red letter Christians. It is about the authority of the New Testament and the nature of the gospel. First, we need an introduction to red letter Christianity. Then we will ask whether it is harmless. To answer our question, we will consider the promise of the Spirit, the limits of pre-Pentecostal revelation, and the nature of apostolic authority. We will take a close look at Paul, examining his gospel and his apostolic claims. We will examine John 3:16 as a test case for red letter theology and then ask whether this theology paints a shrunken, two-dimensional Jesus. We will consider the relationship between the Sermon on the Mount and the gospel and ask whether Anabaptists are truly excited about the gospel. Finally, we will consult Matthew’s opinion on red and black letters, then conclude with two clarifications and five suggestions for readers of this essay.
##### **What is new in this edition?**
First, I combed the entire essay, trying to improve clarity and weed out overstatements. Then I added significant new content.
I invite you to read the entire essay, even (perhaps especially) if you’ve read it before. Most paragraphs were tweaked at least a little.
But I don’t want you to miss some of the new material I’ve included, so I’ll share four excerpts here (minus footnotes).
###### 1\. On the term “the authority of Scripture”:
> We must pause to examine what we mean by “the authority of Scripture.” First, following N.T. Wright, I believe that “the phrase ‘the authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only if it is shorthand for ‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow _through_ scripture.’”\[1\] On the one hand, this definition prevents us from directing worship to a book rather than to its Author; on the other hand, it reminds us that reverence for Scripture _as the word of God_ is not idolatry but essential fear of God. Second, the term _authority_ is used variously to refer to both (a) the divine origin of Scripture and (b) the weight or influence that any portion of Scripture carries to shape our interpretations and behaviors. In this essay I am primarily addressing the question of the divine origin of Scripture, arguing that red and black letters alike are words from God and, in that sense, equally authoritative. But one question leads to another; those who question whether all black letters truly come from God will also not allow them to shape their interpretations and behaviors as strongly. So near the end of this essay I will briefly address the question of which passages of Scripture should rightly shape our interpretation of Scripture most directly and strongly.
###### 2\. On the self-awareness of the New Testament authors about the authority they exercised as they wrote:
> At least some New Testament authors seem to have been aware of the authority entrusted to them as they wrote. Peter addresses his readers as “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:1), declaring that what he had “written” was “the true grace of God” in which his readers must “stand firm” (1 Pet. 5:12). This self-identification as “apostle” is found at the beginning of many New Testament letters, and should not be missed. When an Old Testament prophet said “Thus says the LORD,” he was using a standard messenger formula—the same formula that was used by the herald of a king, who would preface his message by saying “Thus says king so-and-so.” This formula indicated that the prophet was on assignment, speaking God’s words.\[1\] A similar thing seems to be happening in the New Testament whenever an author claims to be an apostle. He is using this title to assert that he is God’s messenger—“the special envoy of Christ Jesus commissioned by the will of God.”\[2\]
>
> …John… prefaces his prophetic visions with a blessing best reserved for the word of God (cf. Jesus’ statement in Luke 11:28): “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it” (Rev. 1:3a). At the end of Revelation, Jesus repeats this blessing on those who “keep” what John has written (Rev. 22:7; cf. 22:9), just as faithful saints elsewhere in the book are said to “keep” the commandments of God (12:17; 14:12) and the word of Jesus (3:8, 10).
>
> John’s prophecy ends with a most solemn warning (that may come from the lips of Jesus himself):
>
> I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19)
>
> This warning adapts similar warnings found in the Law of Moses (Deut. 4:1-2; 12:32; 29:19-20), leading Oxford theologian Christopher Rowland to this observation:
>
> In utilizing this prohibition from Deuteronomy John appears to regard his own revelations as being of equal importance with earlier communications from God given to Moses. There is no question here of this book being regarded by its author either as a series of inspired guesses or intelligent surmise. John believes that what he has seen and heard actually conveys the divine truth to his readers… John sees himself as the one who has been commissioned to write down the divine counsels for the benefits of the churches (Rev. 1:19).\[3\] [](#_ftnref1)
###### 3\. On whether Paul undermines nonresistance:
> Another reason some people are uneasy about Paul’s influence is because they fear he is not sufficiently clear on nonresistance. After all, a majority of Protestants historically have been all too quick to take up the sword and repay evil with evil. Does this endorsement of violence flow naturally from the Pauline Reformed theology that many of them embrace? More explicitly still, Romans 13 certainly has been and still is used by many Protestants to defend the Christian use of the sword. Isn’t it safest—even essential—to subjugate Paul’s ambivalent teachings on the sword to Jesus’ clear command that we must not resist evil?
>
> Four brief responses can be given. First, Reformed or even Protestant theology simply does not explain most of the Christian use of the sword throughout history. Roman Catholics, too, have historically affirmed the Christian use of the sword, despite not being shaped by the Pauline theology of Luther which set the trajectory for Protestant doctrines. During the Reformation, Protestants and Catholics alike waged war and persecuted Anabaptists. And Christian just war theory is much older than the Reformation. It stretches back at least to Augustine (A.D. 354-430), was developed most significantly by the great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225-1274), and remains the official doctrine of the Catholic church to this day.
>
> Second, Paul is not to blame for Augustine’s formulation of just war theory. Augustine believed that Jesus’ command to love our neighbor meant that Christians must normally not kill in self-defense. Yet, drawing explicitly upon Greco-Roman pagan thinkers—especially Cicero\[1\]—he made an exception for “just wars.” Romans 13 was not his “starting point,” despite the chapter’s later close association with just war theory by thinkers such as Aquinas and Luther.\[2\] Augustine concluded, as one scholar summarizes, that “‘times change’… pacifism was appropriate… in the time of the apostles \[but\] not… in a day and age when kings and nations have succumbed to the gospel” in fulfillment of prophecy.\[3\] Augustine was well aware of what both Jesus and the apostles taught, but concluded that new circumstances called for new behaviors. Augustine’s theology was too pagan, not too Pauline.
>
> This leads to a third point: the influence of politics on theology. Catholics and Protestants alike developed their theology within the context of a Christendom that extended back to Constantine, the first Roman emperor to bear the sword in the name of Jesus. Political allegiances shaped the magisterial theology of Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin, with each relying on the sword-bearing support of city councils or German princes. The Swiss Brethren Anabaptists, in contrast, counted the cost of losing political legitimacy at the time they chose believers’ baptism. Living as a persecuted minority, they were free of political entanglements that might have hindered them from following Jesus’ teachings on nonviolent enemy-love. Yet they developed their nonresistant theology, it must be noted, while also wrestling meaningfully with Paul’s teachings in Romans 13.\[4\] This influence of political power over our theology of the sword continues to this day, as Reformed theologian Preston Sprinkle has observed:
>
> It’s fascinating (one might say disturbing) to see how each person’s political context or position shapes his or her understanding of Romans 13. Christians living in North Korea or Burma tend to read Romans 13 differently than Americans do… Not more than a generation ago, Romans 13 was hailed as the charter for apartheid in South Africa. American Christian leaders did the same during the years of slavery and segregation.\[5\]
>
> “Most now would see such a view of Romans 13 as going a bit too far,” Sprinkle continues. “But only a bit.” He notes how Wayne Grudem has applied this chapter to America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming that America is the good government and that Iraq and Afghanistan are the bad governments. “Were it flipped around and Romans 13 was used to validate Afghanistan’s invasion of America as punishment for horrific drone strikes on civilians,” Sprinkle suggests, “most Americans would see this as a misreading of Romans 13.”\[6\]
>
> Which brings us to our final point: Paul is far clearer on nonresistance than many Christians, red letter or not, tend to acknowledge. In fact, Paul’s writings are in line with the entire New Testament, which “highlights Jesus’s nonviolent response to violence as a pattern to follow _more often than any other aspect of his ministry_.”\[7\] Paul “has the Sermon on the Mount ingrained in his soul,” Sprinkle observes, and most of “Paul’s litany of commands… in Romans 12… has the scent of Jesus’s Sermon.”\[8\] “Repay no one evil for evil… never avenge yourselves… if your enemy is hungry, feed him… overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:17-21). The clarity of Romans 12 and other Pauline passages should remove all doubt that when Romans 13 puts the sword into the hand of the third-person government (“he,” not “you”), Paul cannot be affirming Christian vengeance. After all, “Paul explicitly forbids the church in Romans 12 from doing what the government does in Romans 13.”\[9\][](#_ftnref9)[](#_ftnref1)
###### 4\. On whether Matthew—the favorite gospel of many red letter Christians—promotes red letter theology:
> David Starling addresses such questions in his recent book _Hermeneutics as Apprenticeship_.\[1\] First, Starling notes that both the Great Commission at the end of Matthew’s Gospel and the six “antitheses” of Matthew 5 give Jesus’ own words a prominence that matches and perhaps even exceeds the law of Moses. Similarly, at the center of Matthew’s Gospel we find the mount of transfiguration, where God the Father exalts Jesus with an assertion (“this is my Son”) and a command (“listen to him!”). Starling suggests that “the assertion and command… (echoed by Jesus’s own assertion and command in Matt. 28:18-20a) are the twin foci around which Matthew arranges the material of his Gospel.” Thus, there are “five big blocks of red-letter content (chs. 5-7; 10; 13:1-52; 18; 24-25) in Matthew,” each underscoring “the identity and authority of Jesus as the Son of God.” Starling summarizes what this reveals about Matthew’s purposes as a Gospel writer:
>
> The bulk and the prominence of these five blocks of teaching suggest that Matthew intended not only to narrate Jesus’ story but also to preserve and propagate his teachings, so that his disciples might learn and obey them. Evidently, according to the shape and content of Matthew’s testimony, the redness of the red letters in his Gospel is of no small significance to Jesus, to Matthew, and to God himself, and ought to be of no small significance to the Gospel’s readers.\[2\]
>
> So far, so good for red letter theology. But Starling continues:
>
> But what exactly is the nature of that significance? How does Matthew want us to understand the relationship between Jesus’s words and the words of the Old Testament Scriptures (and, for that matter, Matthew’s own words as the writer of the Gospel)?\[3\]
>
> Starling answers by examining both Jesus’ words and Matthew’s words. The first words of Jesus recorded in Matthew (at his baptism) implicitly appeal to Scripture (Matt. 3:15). The next recorded words (at his temptation) directly appeal to Scripture (Matt. 4:1-11). The Beatitudes “are soaked in recollections of the Scriptures,” and “it is harder to imagine a stronger claim for the enduring importance of the Law than the language Jesus uses” in Matthew 5:18: “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”\[4\] As we continue reading Matthew’s record of Jesus’ words, the pattern of quoting and honoring the Scriptures continues. So Starling concludes:
>
> The red letters of Matthew’s Gospel can hardly be interpreted as an attempt to wrest authority away from the black. Any notion we might have that Jesus’s words could replace or supersede the words of Old Testament Scripture is dispelled as soon as Jesus starts speaking.\[5\]
>
> Matthew’s own words have a similar effect. Starling suggests that Matthew is teaching a way of reading the Scriptures. He does this by using a “constant interleaving of biographical narrative \[about Jesus’ life\], typological allusions \[from the Old Testament\], and scriptural citations \[also from the Old Testament\].”\[6\] Craig Keener explains:
>
> Matthew has constructed almost every paragraph following the genealogy and until the Sermon on the Mount around at least one text of Scripture. He thus invites his ideal audience to read Jesus in light of Scripture and Scripture in light of Jesus.\[7\]
>
> The references to the Old Testament continue throughout Matthew’s narrative, “so that we might learn to read Scripture, and to understand Christ, accordingly.”\[8\]
>
> Starling ends his chapter with insightful and mature reflections, worth quoting at length:
>
> The red letters of Jesus’s teachings do indeed… fulfill a particular function in the economy of Scripture. Christians who… attempt to read the Scriptures as a timeless, undifferentiated compendium of divine commands, may revere Scripture but can hardly be said to have understood its message: those who faithfully trace the lines of Scripture’s black letters must inevitably be led to the place where they become hearers (and doers) of the red.
>
> But the relationship between the black letters and the red is not a one-way street; it is a recursive, reciprocal relationship. The black letters of the Old Testament prophecy and apostolic testimony lead us to Jesus and urge us to listen to him; the red letters of Jesus’s teaching, in turn, commission and authorize his apostles as heralds of the gospel and send us back to the Old Testament to learn its meaning and its implications afresh in light of his coming. The red letters of Matthew’s Gospel are joined to the black in an indispensable, mutually authorizing, and mutually interpretive relationship; what God has joined together no interpreter should attempt to separate.
>
> For evangelicals in our own time, confronted with the claim that we must choose between two different kinds of Christianity—one defined by the red letters of Scripture and the other defined by the black—the Gospel of Matthew provides a timely warning against false dichotomies and needless schisms. It reminds “red letter Christians” of the indispensability of the black letters and reminds “black letter Christians of the centrality of the red (or, more precisely, of the one who speaks them).\[9\]
>
> To this exhortation I say “amen”—adding only a little more precision by reminding us that it is actually the risen Jesus himself who is speaking in the black letters of the apostolic writings, as we noted above. In summary, Christians who try to use Matthew’s Gospel to create a more perfect red letter version of Christianity do dishonor to Matthew and to Jesus himself.[](#_ftnref1)
##### May God help us all read and honor his written word and his risen Christ more faithfully!
The original version of this essay was much improved by the feedback of some readers—including some very rigorous ones on the crashed-and-rebranded former [Mennodiscuss.com](http://Mennodiscuss.com). (Thankfully, I downloaded and saved much of that feedback!) **[I welcome your feedback here, too, in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/red-letter-reductionism-expanded/#respond) Thank you!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Naked and Exposed Before the Living God (Sermon)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-07-24
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Naked and Exposed Before the Living God (Sermon) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The word of God reveals our hearts, leaving us naked and exposed before God. Secret sin in our hearts and our churches will be exposed. Repent today!
Tags: sin, faith, warning, heart, repentance, judgment, -1 Corinthians 5, -Deuteronomy 13, -Deuteronomy 29:18, -Deuteronomy 31:20-21, -Deuteronomy 8:2, -Exodus 17:1-7, -Hebrews 10:26-31, -Hebrews 12:15, -Hebrews 12:17, -Hebrews 3-4, -Hebrews 3:12-13, -Hebrews 4:12-13, -Hebrews 6:4-8, -Hebrews 6:9-12, -Luke 8:17, -Numbers 13-14, -Psalm 95, Bryce | Klabunde, secret sin, sermon, Tim | Challies, word of God
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/naked-exposed-before-living-god-sermon
**The word of God reveals our hearts, leaving us naked and exposed before God.** When God’s word comes to us, we are forced to respond, and how we respond reveals what is in our hearts.
First, we respond by our actions, which reveal either faith or unbelief in God’s word. Second, on the Last Day we will be called to give a word of response to God’s word, a word about the condition of our own hearts. On that day—as already now—it will be pointless to make our word deviate from God’s word, for the thoughts and intentions of our hearts are open before God.
Thus God’s word exposes us, leaving us defenseless. It demands faith, and it demands a word in response—a word that matches God’s word.
**These sobering thoughts come from Hebrews 4:12-13:**
> For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (ESV)
**This passage was the central text in a sermon I recently preached on the danger of secret sin.** I am generally more of a teacher than a preacher, but this was preaching. It was definitely more of a message of warning than I have ever shared before. I felt God’s grace as I shared. **You can [download the sermon](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/01-Track-1.mp3) or listen to it here:**
[http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/01-Track-1.mp3](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/01-Track-1.mp3)
**Here is a summary of what I shared:**
* God tested Israel in the wilderness, between Egypt and the Promised Land of rest, revealing what was in their hearts. (Ex. 17:1-7; Num. 13-14; Deut. 8:2; 31:20-21; etc.)
* God spoke to Israel “today” in the Promised Land, testing whether they would believe and enter eternal rest. (Ps. 95)
* God is also speaking to us “today” in the wilderness, between our initial salvation and our eternal rest, testing our hearts. (Heb. 3:5–4:13; etc.)
* God’s knows every secret of our hearts. (Many Scriptures, including Lk 8:17.)
* [“Are You in the Dangerous Time In Between?”](https://www.challies.com/articles/are-you-in-the-time-in-between/) —Tim Challies.
* What should you do if you have hidden sin? Confess it, own it, repent of it, forsake it, replace evil desires with good desires, rely on divine help, seek human help. (Plead for the gift of repentance, which will not always be possible: Heb 6:4-8; 12:17. [“Six Signs of Genuine Repentance”](https://markwgaither.com/2009/06/02/ill-change-i-promise-six-signs-of-genuine-repentance/)—Bryce Klabunde.)
* Faithful response to God’s word is a community effort. We must exhort each other and sometimes even act urgently to “remove the evil from our midst.” (Heb. 3:12-13; 12:15; Deut. 29:18; 13:1-18; 1 Cor. 5; etc.)
* [“The Damning Devastation of a Single Coddled Sin”](https://www.challies.com/articles/the-damning-devastation-of-a-single-coddled-sin/)—Tim Challies.
* Final warning from Hebrews—from the passage that is set in literary parallel to the sermon’s main text (Heb. 4:11-13):
> For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:26-31 ESV)
* Comfort: Your love for God is also “naked and exposed” before him, and he will not overlook it. (Heb. 6:9-12)
**Here was the final exhortation we heard, summarizing God’s word to us:**
> Brothers and sisters! God has rescued you from Egypt! He is leading you to the Promised Land of eternal rest! But you are in danger of missing that rest! Today God is speaking to you! Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts!
>
> God is speaking to you, and his word will reveal the secret thoughts and intentions of your heart! There is no hiding from God! You lie naked and helplessly exposed before him! “Nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”
>
> Confess your sin to God! Own it! Repent of it! Forsake it! Replace your evil desires with good desires! Rely on divine help to live a holy life! Seek the help of your brothers and sisters!
>
> Do not let your brothers and sisters coddle secret sins! Urge them to repentance! Don’t play around with fire that could burn the whole community! Don’t ignore any bitter root that will spring up and defile many! Purge the evil from your midst!
>
> Determine today that you will no longer coddle a single persistent, deliberate, knowing sin! It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!
May the God who knows our hearts turn our hearts anew to him in faith and obedience each day.
**And may we help each other, for faithfulness is a community effort!** What do you have to share that will help the rest of us live with pure hearts before God? [**Share your thoughts in the comments below. Thank you!**](http://dwightgingrich.com/naked-exposed-before-living-god-sermon/#respond)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Into the World, But Not of the World”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-06-26
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "Into the World, But Not of the World" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: "In the world, but not of the world." This slogan is one way we Christians describe our ambivalent position in this world. But it's missing the word "into."
Tags: holiness, separation, two-kingdom theology, -John 17:11, -John 17:14, -John 17:15, -John 17:16-19, -John 8:23, mission, world
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/into-world-but-not-of-world
**“In the world, but not of the world.”** Perhaps you’ve heard this slogan. It’s one way we Christians describe our ambivalent position in this world.
This slogan has biblical roots, which can be unearthed in John 17, in the prayer Jesus prays for his disciples just before he returns to his Father. Here are the relevant lines:
> I am no longer in the world, but they are **in the world**… the world has hated them because they are **not of the world**, just as I am not of the world. (John 17:11, 14, emphasis added)
There you have it: “In the world” but “not of the world.”
This slogan has proved useful, for it holds two truths in tension: First–in emphasis, though not order–we _belong_ to a kingdom that is not of this world, the kingdom of Christ. Our true identity is found here, not in any earthly ties we possess. Second–though first in the slogan–we nevertheless still _inhabit_ this world, and should not pretend otherwise by imagining we are already in heaven.
**A closer look at Jesus’ prayer, however, might cause us to pause before we use this slogan again.** For me, the closer look came this morning as I listened to my brother Steve Smucker expound from John in our sermon time.
I might have looked right past what I am about to show you, had I not been primed by some recent thinking I’ve been doing as I prepare for a presentation about “two-kingdom theology.” Christians belong to God’s kingdom, yet live within the kingdom of Satan. I had been planning to frame some of my presentation of this reality by using the slogan above: “In the world… not of the world.”
Now I think I’ll need to adapt that frame a little. **Here’s why–the lines from Jesus’ prayer that I noticed this morning:
**
> They are **not of the world**, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. (John 17:16-19, emphasis added)
**First, Jesus repeats his assertion that his followers are not of the world.** Within the context of John’s Gospel, this is an amazing claim, one that deserves a few comments before we get to what excited me this morning.
As John records it, one of Jesus’ central claims regarding his authority was that, unlike the Jewish religious leaders who were too often his opponents, he was not of this world:
> “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (John 8:23)
When Jesus said “I am not of this world,” this was a negative way of saying what he really meant: He was actually of _another_ world. And now in John 17, Jesus says the same thing of his disciples: They, too, belong to another world. They, too, are part of a kingdom that is higher and bears greater authority than anything their opponents can claim. What an amazing honor!
But that is not all. Notice the first half of what Jesus told his opponents: “You are from below; I am from above.” Notice the little word “from.” When Jesus said “I am not of this world,” he was not merely (merely!) saying “I _belong to_ another world.” He was also saying “I _come from_ another world.”
And now, in John 17, Jesus uses the same language about his disciples! What can this mean? Are his disciples–are we Christians today–not only _of_, but also _from_ another world?
Back to the verses I noticed this morning:
> They are **not of the world**, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so **I have sent them into the world**. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. (John 17:16-19, emphasis added)
**Now notice the second line I have emphasized.** Here Jesus makes an amazing pronouncement. Just as the Father sent him into the world, so he _has sent his disciples into the world_!
So, it is not merely that we find ourselves “in” the world, though that is true. And it is not merely that Jesus didn’t ask that we be taken out of this world, though that, too, is true (John 17:15). Rather, we have been intentionally _sent into_ the world by Jesus.
Now we can return to our unanswered question: Yes, Jesus does indeed indicate that his disciples are _from_ another world. We have been “sent into” this world, which suggests that we did not come from here, but from somewhere else.
No, I am not suggesting that Christians have experienced an eternal “pre-existence” like the Second Person of the Trinity did before he inhabited flesh as the earthly Jesus. Rather, I am saying that Christians are on mission in this world just as Jesus was. Just as Jesus was sent from beyond this world (from God) with a mission from God to fulfill, so we are sent from beyond this world (from God) with a mission from Jesus to fulfill.
**So now I plan to rephrase the slogan for my presentation. It will be “_Into_ the world, but not of the world.”**
**But is this safe? Is it safe for Christians to imagine they have a mission to intentionally go _into_ the world?** I can hear the all-to-understandable concern: “Your faith won’t survive if you go into the world. The world will change you more than you will change the world.” And I can see the common solution: An attempt to retreat into Christian enclaves. No, we are not in heaven—we mournfully acknowledge that we are still “in the world,” after all— but we attempt to create our own little self-made heavens until we can be lifted away to the real thing. (Now I’m convicting myself as I write.)
What is Jesus solution for our concern? It is right there, in the words we have already read twice. Here it is again, with fresh emphasis and some footnotes I’ll explain in a minute:
> They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. **Sanctify them\[[b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17&version=ESV#fen-ESV-26765b "See footnote b")\] in the truth; your word is truth.** As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. **And for their sake I consecrate myself,\[[c](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17&version=ESV#fen-ESV-26767c "See footnote c")\] that they also may be sanctified\[[d](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17&version=ESV#fen-ESV-26767d "See footnote d")\] in truth.** (John 17:16-19, emphasis added)
**Notice how Jesus intersperses his statements about _mission_ with statements about _sanctification_.** How will we be sanctified? By the truth, by God’s word. God’s word—especially his message to us spoken through the work and words of Jesus—will purify us as we are sent out into the world. His word will keep us from defilement as we are on mission in the world.
But to be “sanctified” is more than just to be made holy. Here the ESV footnotes help. They all communicate the same thing: to be sanctified is to be _set apart for holy service to God_. This is priestly language, and it is mission language. Just as the priests were consecrated _for the purpose of holy service to God_, so we are cleansed by God _for the purpose of being sent out into the world on holy mission_.
**So God puts together what we so often see as in conflict: Our need to be holy and our interaction with the world.** We say, “How dare I go into the world if I am to remain holy?” Meanwhile, God just might be saying this: “What use is it that my children are seeking to be holy if they are so slow to go into the world on the mission for which I consecrated them?”
So yes, we are certainly “not of the world.” Let us never forget this! **We _belong to_ another kingdom, and this must be clearly evident.** Our slogan is definitely not “Into the world, and of the world,” and we must never act as if it is.
**But we have also been _sent from_ another kingdom, sent on mission, and this, too, must be clearly evident.** So I think I’ll hang up the old slogan “In the world, but not of the world.” **My new slogan is this: “_Into_ the world, but not of the world.”**
* * *
**Do you have some out-of-this-world insights to share? [Send them our way in the comments section below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/into-world-but-not-of-world/#respond) And thanks for reading!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Should the Church Bear Witness to the State?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-06-22
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Should the Church Bear Witness to the State? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Some people believe that the church and state should be so entirely separate that the church has nothing to say to the state. Paul disagreed, and so do I.
Tags: Paul, Ben | Witherington III, gospel, witness, -Acts 24:24-25, -Acts 27:22, -Acts 9:15, church and state, David | Peterson, Felix, politics
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/should-church-bear-witness-to-state
**There is a certain strand of Anabaptist two-kingdom theology that says church and state should be so entirely separate that the church has nothing to say to the state.** The church, according to this view, has no call to “bear witness” to the state. While I don’t think a church that nags the state is helpful, neither do I think Christ’s call is for his followers to have nothing at all to say to those in government.
One confusing factor, it seems to me, is that when we hear “the government,” we tend to forget that this mysterious “other” is made up of persons. And the gospel of Christ has something to say to every person under heaven, if they will only listen–and if we will only speak.
This way of seeing “the government” as a faceless institution is oddly akin, it seems to me, to Luther’s version of two-kingdom theology, whereby a Christian who serves in government suddenly is no longer subject to Christ’s commands to his individual followers, but may do things that Christian “persons” must never do. Neither Luther nor “the quiet in the land” have quite the right version of two-kingdom theology, I suggest.
**At any rate, New Testament believers have clear precedent for speaking truth to power**, even if we may rightly be uncomfortable with some connotations of that phrase. When Jesus called Paul as his messenger, he said, “He is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings…” (Acts 9:15). How did Paul respond? “I was not disobedient… I stand here testifying both to small and great…” (Acts 27:22). There may be only a few who are “great” in the world’s eyes, and perhaps only a few Christians are called as Paul was to speak to them. But speak the church must, for the gospel speaks to all.
**So, the church must speak to the state–or, to say the same thing another way, to state officials. But what must we say?** Our witness must be, as Paul’s was, a declaration of the gospel of Christ. And make no mistake: the gospel is a message which affects all of life. It calls state officials to personal faith, and it also calls them to account for the public policies they have promoted.
**Again, we have Paul for an example.** Perhaps his witness before the Roman governor Felix is most revealing. We read that Felix “sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus” (Acts 24:24). More specifically, we are told that what convicted Felix was when Paul “reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” (v. 25).
How might these topics have impacted governor Felix’s life, both public and private? In reverse order: “The coming judgment” would have been a reminder to a governor that he, one used to dishing out judgment, would someday face his own judgment–an after-death judgment that “was probably not a significant part of his belief system,”[1](#fn-2566-1). “Self-control” may have reminded Felix of the immorality of his personal life, including how “he had lusted after \[his wife Drusilla\] while she was still the teenage bride of Azizus the king of Emesa.”[2](#fn-2566-2) Talk of “righteousness,” which could equally rightly be translated “justice,” would have stung Felix, who was seeking a bribe from Paul (Acts 24:26) and about to unjustly leave him in prison as a favor to the Jews (v. 27).
**Notice how Paul’s witness did not shy away from how the gospel impacted Felix’s public life as a state official.** Indeed, “‘justice’ and ‘self-control’ may be mentioned to indicate qualities particularly required of Felix and other rulers when they are measured in judgment.”[3](#fn-2566-3)
More from commentator David G. Peterson:
> Genuine faith in Christ involves a change of allegiance and therefore a change in behavior and priorities. Paul presented this challenge in terms that were particularly applicable to Felix and Drusilla… The gospel presentation to Felix and Drusilla involved… a rather vigorous appeal to their consciences to recognize their guilt before God, and their consequent need to respond with _faith in Christ Jesus_. With a few brief phrases, Luke has illustrated how the gospel was presented and applied to the specific situation of a Gentile ruler…[4](#fn-2566-4)
Do I hear echoes of a pastor today in, say, the Oval Office? Reminding a president that he, too, will face judgment, that his adultery is a stain before God, and that he will be held accountable for the injustices he has promoted through his public office?
No, let us not nag the government officials whom God has “placed in order” (Rom. 13) over us. (That sentence deserves its own blog post, I am sure.) But neither let us imagine that the church has nothing to say to the state. For the church has the gospel and–if we will only _live_ the gospel first to make it credible–it must witness of this gospel to every person under heaven.
**So if God gives you the ear of some state official, high or low, pluck up your courage like Paul, and _speak_!**
This post is only a glance at a big topic. Other biblical examples besides Paul before Felix deserve consideration, and many practical questions face us from our own experience. **Do you have thoughts that can help the church bear a more gospel-shaped witness to those in power? [Share them below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/should-church-bear-witness-to-state/#respond)**
1. Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 715 [↩](#fnref-2566-1)
2. Ibid. [↩](#fnref-2566-2)
3. David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar Commentary), 641. [↩](#fnref-2566-3)
4. Ibid. [↩](#fnref-2566-4)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Easter Graces in Atlanta
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-04-17
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Easter Graces in Atlanta • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Today, Easter Sunday, was a day when grace was heaped onto our plates, impossible to miss, sweet to the taste. Let me recount a few of the sweetest morsels.
Tags: music, grace, Easter, friends, neighbors
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/easter-graces-in-atlanta
**Today was a busy, grace-filled day.** Tonight, as darkness settles onto our neighborhood, I feel tired but satisfied. This was truly the Lord’s Day.
This past week was not all easy. We had some difficult conversations with our dear church teammates. Yes, it is possible to hurt people you deeply love. I have done so; have you? I am thankful that, as recipients of God’s grace, we can each give the grace that we each so desperately need. Then yesterday was a difficult day for me. Emotionally drained, I found my mind did not want to focus on the writing assignments before me. Let’s just say it was not my most productive day (though I did enjoy some good times at the piano).
_But today._
Today was a day that was better than I deserve. (Aren’t all?) Tomorrow will be another battle. I will need fresh grace. But **today was a day where the grace was heaped onto our plates, impossible to miss, sweet to the taste. Let me recount a few of the sweetest morsels.**
Today was our turn to host church. The spring Georgia weather has been amazing lately, so we swept the freshly-fallen tree blossoms off the concrete pad just over the stream, and gathered for church in our backyard.
I would love to share a picture of the group that gathered with us today. But it is important to me to honor people’s privacy. So you’ll have to look at me and trust me that this was not just a solo piano session.
**The gathering spot was delightful**, with birds and stream blending with our voices and sunlight dappling the sanctuary. **The blend of friends who gathered was also delightful**—if a little raucous at times. Our family of five was there. So was the Smucker family of five. Then about another dozen joined us. Our international student friend was here. So were several adults from a house just down our street—some for the worship time and some for the meal. And so were a whole passel of children from two different houses on our street. (That was the raucous part. The fact that our “sanctuary” was just next to the “gymnasium”—a trampoline—didn’t help. The day’s bouncing started about an hour before our stated “start time,” which didn’t ease setup. But I reminded my wife that Rich Mullins would have been delighted.) At one point during our morning worship Zonya looked around and counted 10 white, 11 black, and one Asian present. Not exactly representative of ratios in our neighborhood, but so much better than if we had each gone our separate ways today.
We sang with piano, we prayed “popcorn praises” (great for children), we read from the Gospels the stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection, we sang a cappella (revealing a lovely singing voice brought by a first-time visiting neighbor), Steve shocked the children by making the “body” of one of his sons “disappear” from a card-table “tomb,” we sang some more, and we marveled over the 1 Corinthians 15 promise of our own resurrection. **One person present expressed how glad he was to be celebrating his first Easter.** Others learned to answer “Jesus rose from the dead” rather than “we look for Easter eggs” when asked “What is Easter all about?” Some had their hearts strengthened as they identified all too well with Peter while singing “He’s Alive!” (with guitar this time) and then sharing in the Lord’s Table.
Okay, here’s one more, since the only face you can see is Steve’s. Why can’t you see anyone else’s face? Because they are looking for Jesus’ body. They can’t see that, either. That’s because “Jesus” slipped out from under the table and is hiding inside the fireplace. (Note the gymnasium in the upper left corner.)
**Lunch** was delicious (lovely ham, Dearest!), if a bit of a zoo, what with refilling several hundred cups of tea and lemonade and water—“No, I want tea and lemonade together, with ice”—for about **a thousand demanding children** who were fighting for turns on the trampoline (or ignoring turns completely) and riding bikes up and down the drive and along the street. But how lovely to include several neighbors whose children have often enjoyed our backyard, but who had not yet been inside our house!
Shortly after lunch **several unfamiliar young men appeared out on the street** (we were still in the backyard), calling something out to us and apparently looking for, or expecting, trouble. First they ran away, but the second time this happened several of us men wandered out front in their direction. We managed to calm some mutual fears, shake hands, exchange names, and send the hungry visitors off peacefully with plates of leftover lunch. More on this later.
As outdoor cleanup ended and various guests left, **my international student friend and I stole off to the piano studio** for a little, where we practiced our duet (Dvorak’s Slavonic Dance No. 8) that we are preparing for my upcoming piano recital. He also shared pictures and videos of a “piano club” concert that happened in his home country yesterday—a special event that he helped plan months ago, but then ended up missing thanks to now being in school on the other side of the globe. I find it fascinating and delightful how an English literature major and a math major born poles apart can find such common ground in their shared enjoyment of music. I am already starting to dread the day when our friend will leave Atlanta for the next destination in his educational journey.
**Then the house was quiet.** Just our family. I settled onto the sofa to relax, and my two youngest girls settled with me—one on top and the other beside, reading us “a scary story—but not too scary” about Horton hearing a Who. (Because “a person’s a person, no matter how small,” including the little ones we help parent in our backyard while trying to share in the Lord’s Table, right?)
But we had not even finished the story when our oldest bounded in with news of **an Easter egg hunt** that the neighbor children were about to head off to. Well… Easter isn’t really about egg hunts, but we _had_ already shared the real meaning of Easter with these children, so… And they had come to _our_ house, and now if they seemed to be inviting us to join them in _their_ fun…? So I took the girls to go see what was happening. Turns out our van was needed to help carry all the children (10 total) who wanted to go to a nearby park for the hunt. Time there brought more friendship-building conversation with adult neighbors while our children, like a bunch of Energizer Easter bunnies, expended yet more energy.
I’ll skip over the bit about helping my wife accomplish her project of building a birthday gift for one of our daughters to say that part way through that activity **yet another neighbor called across the yards** to invite our daughters to join her son with his bubble machine. Our oldest drove her bike through the bubbles a few times then headed in the opposite direction to spend more time with the older church-and-Easter-egg-hunt friends from earlier in the day. Our two youngest enjoyed the comparative quiet of chasing bubbles with only one young friend.
Meanwhile, Zonya and I headed a couple houses further down our street to visit **yet another house**. There was a big family party there, and one of the children from this morning’s church gathering had invited us to drop in there, since it was his house.
That was a strange moment for Zonya and me. It was only one year ago that Zonya and the girls first joined me in our new house. We had not even officially moved in yet, and we knew almost no neighbors. Now, one year later, we were leaving two of our daughters at one neighbor’s house, the other daughter was hanging out with other neighbor friends at another house, and we were walking childless to follow up on an invitation to a third house, all on our block.
**Two parts of that little visit stand out.** _Two_, our hostess neighbor insisted on loading our hands with delicious food from their party—chicken and ribs done on her backyard grill, baked beans, macaroni salad, and cake. Mmm. And _one_, several men mentioned that they had seen our interaction with the young “trouble-makers” on the street earlier that afternoon. It turns out the same young men had been called out to their party, too, prior to meeting us. I was roundly praised (“Are you a pastor?”) for not doing what one of them said he would have done if he hadn’t been wearing a cast, and for defusing the situation by sending them off with food. More on this later.
We returned to the bubble-bursting daughters and invited this neighbor and her son to accomplish the oft-mentioned goal of letting her son jump on our trampoline. This brought more neighbor conversation opportunities for my wife and a chance for me to do a little more trampoline-side Jesus-shaped child training and encouraging. Chances like this aren’t hard to find these days, for some reason.
As Zonya walked this neighbor home, they **bumped into a neighbor who lives between us**. (She grew up there and is truly a gracious person to have next door.) Turns out this neighbor, too, had witnessed the food giveaway that happened on the street in front of her house. Wow. And to think that it never once crossed my mind that anyone might be watching. What might have happened if I had blown it? God, help us to be faithful in the little opportunities to live like Jesus! (More on this later?)
By this time day was dying in the west, so we retreated into the house that God bought and enjoyed the supper provided by the grandma of one of our regular backyard bikers and jumpers.
**If I’m counting correctly, we visited in the yards and/or houses of four households on our block today.** People from two of those households showed up at our own place as we hosted church. Plus, we exchanged friendly greetings as we passed a couple more houses on our block. And gave food to several passers-by. Oh, and I forgot the lady biking past this morning who stopped in just as church was about to begin to see if I could fill her bike tire. Yet another opportunity to share names and invite a new friend to join us for church sometime.
If you’ve read this far, you may feel as tired as I do.
**I thank God for all the dear people with whom we shared this day.** We feel both welcome and useful among our neighbors. I thank God for placing us here in Atlanta, here in West Lake, and right here on this block. I thank God for a day full of opportunities to offer our voices and hands for Jesus. And I thank him for a day when his grace is as sweet as the strawberry shortcake my wife served us last week.
**Please pray for us.** Tomorrow will be another battle. I have battled discouragement from time to time and expect to face this giant again. My wife needs God’s grace in her heart and on her lips. Our whole church team needs your prayers. But Christ dealt Satan his deathblow on that first Easter weekend, right? Satan is a wounded lion, roaring in anger as he goes down. Christ has the upper hand. May his hand be strong in West Lake! And may every day be the Lord’s Day this week, in your heart and mine.
_May your kingdom come. May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Amen._
**Thank you for listening. If you are a neighbor, or if you are a friend far away, feel free to [leave a message in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/easter-graces-in-atlanta/#respond). We thank God for you.**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## There Are Better Books (Than “The Shack”)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-03-10
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: There Are Better Books (Than "The Shack") • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is (yet another) book about The Shack. But it's also a post encouraging us to read other books. What book would you recommend instead of The Shack?
Tags: suffering, heresy, love, grace, The Shack, universalism, Wm. Paul | Young
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/there-are-better-books-than-the-shack
**This is (yet another) blog post about _The Shack_, by Wm. Paul Young**. The Canadian in me wants to apologize immediately and get back to smiling, but that wouldn’t be quite honest. So I’ll just say I wish posts like this never had to be written.
(Before you scroll on: I promise to end this post on a positive and constructive note! And I will need your help to make it even more positive.)
\[Update: Actually, this post is more a review of the theology of the original author of The Shack than a review of the book itself. As I understand it, pastors Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings helped shape the manuscript of _The Shack_, so that Young’s theology was not so fully expressed there. (There have even been lawsuits about who all should be named as authors.) Please bear these facts in mind as you read the rest of my post.\]
What I’m Not Saying and Why I’m Writing
=======================================
As debates about _The Shack_ have escalated to a near frenzy online in recent weeks, I have been trying for the most part to hold my tongue about Young. I don’t like conflict, especially between Christians. I don’t like putting myself in a place where I’ll almost certainly receive some criticism. I don’t think reviewing controversial books or evaluating complex topics (such as God’s gender) are usually done best in Facebook text bites. Doing it in blogs is hard enough. And I want this blog to usually focus on more foundational matters than the latest hot topic—Bible reading skills and theological understandings that prepare us to navigate multiple topics as they come along.
But “this website exists to build up the Church of Jesus Christ by helping her listen carefully to the Scriptures,” and it seems to me that too many of my fellow Christians are following someone who is neither building up the Church nor listening carefully to the Scriptures. So, I’d like to shine the light of the Scriptures on a few corners of _The Shack._
Before I continue, though, please hear me when I say that I nearly tremble to share this post. I realize there are some readers who feel they have (and may indeed have) found great help in Young’s writings. Some of these readers, like Young, have experienced terrible abuse and great suffering of spirit. They have found solace in Young’s depiction of God’s great love. I tremble lest my words reopen wounds or sound like a callous diminution of God’s tender love. I tremble lest, in noting the imperfections of the arm upon which some are leaning, I am the occasion for someone falling without hope of any arm upon which to lean.
If, perhaps, I may be describing you, let me assure you: There are better books than this one, and God’s love is even richer than Young describes it to be, for it reaches even lower than he imagines.
I also tremble lest my words of caution drive some even more devotedly after Young.
But, imperfect as I am, and imperfect as this post will be, I will carry on.
I have some words of firm rebuke to say later, so **I want to first clearly say several things I’m _not_ saying:**
* I am most certainly not calling any fan of _The Shack_ a heretic. Enjoying an imperfect book does not make someone a heretic. Even believing untruths about God does not automatically make one a heretic.
* I am not denying that _The Shack_ contains many beautiful truths, that many find it to be an engaging story, or even that God has used it to help some people learn more about himself.
* I don’t agree with every criticism that is being leveled against _The Shack_ or its author.
* I’m not interested in attacking Young as a person, belittling the suffering he has experienced, or making statements about his standing before God.
* I am not telling you whether you should or should not either read or watch _The Shack._ Sometime after the novel came out and controversy first swirled around it, I read it. I don’t regret doing so.
What did I think of it? I enjoyed maybe 80% of it. It was a rare “light” read for me (I usually read non-fiction biblical studies books), and much about the plot and characters was engaging. But I also read it with an eye open to test what it was teaching–for it was written with the intent to teach, right? I’m glad I read it, but my copy ended up full of sticky notes where I sensed that something didn’t seem to be lining up with Scripture. Here’s my copy:
Orange means “caution.”
**What nudged me to write this post was a chance today to scan another book by Young.** As I was servicing a Choice Books rack at a Walmart this morning, I noticed Young’s book _Lies We Believe about God_ on a nearby rack. I had already heard of the book, but had never seen it.
Unlike _The Shack_, _Lies We Believe about God_ is (or at least is intended to be) non-fiction. Here Young clearly states the set of beliefs he was trying to teach us through his earlier novel. (I understand the novel was first written for Young’s children, then later published for mass readership. But, as Young shows in his new book, _The Shack_ was indeed intended to portray and teach theological truths.) This new book contains multiple short chapters, with each chapter title being a “lie” he aims to prove false.
I took time to scan parts of five or six chapters, and snapped photos of a few pages to help me share excerpts here. (A fuzzy “dumb phone” camera partially frustrated my purposes, but Amazon preview came to the rescue.) I’ll share some excerpts, then comment.
Problems with Young’s Theology:
===============================
**Near the end of the chapter entitled “Sin Separates Us from God”**—one of Young’s “lies”—we read this:
> If separation is a lie, does it mean that no one has ever been separated from God? That is exactly what it means. Nothing can separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39).
>
> Jesus did not come to build a bridge back to God or to offer the possibility of getting unseparated. One of the multifaceted purposes of the incarnation of Jesus is that we who are lost in the delusion of separation can witness a human life who knows He is not.
>
> There is “nothing” outside God. There is only God, and Creation is created “in” God; and according to John 1, Creation is specifically created “inside” Jesus, the Word who is God (see verses 3-4). (p. 232)
As I compare with Scripture, I see multiple problems with these paragraphs. Here are several:
* Young is teaching universalism. (This will become explicit later.) Normally, universalism is the belief that God will ultimately save everyone, so that no one will spend eternity estranged from God. Young’s version of universalism is even more radical: He believes that already now no one is separated from God.
* Young’s language about being “lost in the delusion of separation” sounds more like Hinduism than Christianity. And his solution sounds more like Hinduism’s enlightenment than Christianity’s salvation. \[I originally compared Young’s thought to Bhuddism rather than Hinduism, but a reader suggested, correctly I think, that Hinduism is a closer comparison.\]
* Young’s biblical foundation is very shaky.
More on this last point. First, Young twists Scripture to make his point. Romans 8 is not denying that sin separates us from God. It is written about Christians who have already been freed from the penalty (Romans 3-5) and power (Romans 6-8) of sin, and it is assuring them that _those who are already elect and justified_ cannot be separated from God’s love by any _external threat_. Romans is clear that apart from Christ every person is an “enemy” of God who needs to be “reconciled” to him (Rom. 5:10)—a reality only experienced by those who pursue righteousness by faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21-25; 9:30-32). It is the Spirit who bears witness that we are children of God, and “anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9 ESV).
Young likewise uses John 1 in a suspect manner, both building theology on a questionable translation of a Greek preposition (“inside”) and also stretching a passage about the Son’s role as divine Creator to say something unsuggested in its original context—that if everything was created “inside” Christ/God then nothing can be estranged from God. We don’t have to read much further in John 1 to know Young’s interpretation is wrong, for we soon read that Jesus own people “did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (1 John 1:11-12 ESV). The clear message here is that (a) not all are children of God and (b) those who are, _became_ such—they were not children of God prior to receiving Christ and believing in his name. This is not universalism!
Second, the excerpts above are the only scriptures that Young cites in his entire chapter on the “lie” that “sin separates us from God”! That is the only biblical evidence he provides as he attempts to overturn a standard Christian teaching. The rest of the chapter is just his own theological musings.
Here is only one of many other Bible passages that Young might have considered:
> Behold, the Lord‘s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,
> or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
> but **your iniquities have made a separation**
> **between you and your God**,
> and your sins have hidden his face from you
> so that he does not hear. (Is. 59:1-3 ESV)
**In the same chapter Young discusses the definition of “sin”:**
> The Greek word often translated into English as “sin” is _hamartia_. A moralist will tell you that the word means “missing the mark” and then go on to explain that the mark is “moral perfection” or “right behavior” and once again we are back on the performance hamster wheel. But if the essence of God’s nature is relationship, then sin must be defined and understood as missing a relational reality, a distortion of the image of God in us.
>
> _Hamartia_ is made up of two parts: _ha-_ (an aspirated alpha), which is a negation (like _un-_ or _dis-_), and _\-martia_, from the Greek word _meros_, which means “form, origin, or being.” The fundamental meaning is “negation of origin or being” or “formlessness.” Yes, it is about missing the mark, but the mark is not perfect moral behavior. The “mark” is the Truth of your being.
>
> …Sin, then, is anything that negates or diminishes or misrepresents the truth of who you are, no matter how pretty or ugly that is. Behavior becomes either an authentic way of expressing the truth of your good creation or an effort to cover up (performance behavior) the shame of what you think of yourself (worthlessness).
>
> And what does the truth of your being look like? You are made in the image of God, and the truth of your being looks like God.
>
> _You are patient.
> You are kind.
> You are good.
> You are humble.
> You are forgiving.
> You are a truth teller.
> You are… \[many more\]… pure of heart…_
>
> And so on.
>
> These are all expressions of the truth of our being.
>
> Difficult to believe, right?
>
> I think that is the point. (pp. 229-230)
I see several problems with this passage. First, there are several problems with his discussion of the definition of _hamartia_:
* He cites the definition a “moralist” might give to _hamartia_, but never cites any standard Greek dictionary. This sets up somewhat of a straw man argument, or at least misses the opportunity to check his understandings against what experienced Greek students have concluded. For example, Mounce notes that _hamartia_ “typically refers to the transgression of the law” and that “thus, _hamartia_ is used to denote our sin against God” (_Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words_). Note Mounce’s observation that sin is not merely about missing some abstract “moral perfection” or “right behavior,” but about transgressing God’s law—thus making sin a relational matter (as Young claims) but a matter of our relationship to God (not to ourselves, as Young suggests).
* Young commits what linguists call a “etymological fallacy” when he defines sin based on its word components. What does “butterfly” mean? Don’t try to define it by dividing it into “butter” and “fly”! True, many words won’t lead you quite so far astray if you divide them into parts to define them. But the dependable way to get a working definition for any word is to see how it is used in real life. Hence Mounce’s approach above, when he says that _hamartia_ “is used to denote” such and such.
* Young then makes a leap from his etymologically-derived definition to assume that “the mark is the Truth of your being.” Why not (assuming for the moment his definition) say that “the mark is the truth of God’s being”?
* Young says that “the essence of God’s nature is relationship.” I don’t deny that relationship is essential to God’s nature. But I also recall that the God of the Bible never says “I am relationship.” Nor is he ever praised as “Relationship, relationship, relationship!” But there are many places where he declares “I am holy,” and multiple places where he is praised as “Holy, holy, holy.” Surely holiness is essential to God’s nature. Why does Young not consider this in his understanding of sin?
This thought flow leads to a definition of sin that doesn’t seem anything Iike the standard concept of sin in the Bible: “Sin, then, is anything that negates or diminishes or misrepresents the truth of who you are…” **If I am reading Young correctly here, it seems that he believes sin is essentially _inauthenticity_.** And if you understand yourself correctly, you will know you are good. So **sin is to disbelieve one’s own goodness**.
**I’ll include one more extended excerpt from Young’s recent book, from a chapter about the “lie” that “You Need to Get Saved.” I’ll add bold font to some clauses and mostly let Young speak for himself:**
> So what is the Good News? What is the Gospel?
>
> The Good News is _not_ that Jesus has opened up the possibility of salvation and you have been invited to receive Jesus into your life. The Gospel is that Jesus has **already** included you into His life, into His relationship with God the Father, and into His anointing in the Holy Spirit. The Good News is that Jesus did this without your vote, and **whether you believe it or not won’t make it any less or more true**.
>
> What or who saves me? Either God did in Jesus, or I save myself. If, in any way, I participate in the completed act of salvation accomplished in Jesus, then my part is what actually saves me. **Saving faith is not our faith, but the faith of Jesus.**
>
> God does not wait for my choice and then “save me.” **God has acted decisively and universally for all humankind.** Now our daily choice is to either grow and participate in _that_ reality or continue to live in the blindness of our own independence.
>
> **Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe in universal salvation?**
>
> **That is exactly what I am saying!**
>
> This is real good news! It has been blowing people’s minds for centuries now. So much so that we often overcomplicate it and get it wrong. **Here’s the truth: every person who has ever been conceived was included in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.** When Jesus was lifted up, God “dragged” all human beings to Himself (John 12: 32). Jesus is the Savior of all humankind, especially believers (1 Timothy 4: 10). Further, every single human being is in Christ (John 1: 3), and Christ is in them, and Christ is in the Father (John 14: 20). When Christ—the Creator in whom the cosmos was created—died, we all died. When Christ rose, we rose (2 Corinthians 5)…
>
> We don’t offer anyone what has already been given; we simply celebrate the Good News with each one: _we have all been included. (pp. 117-120, emphasis added)_
Young is clear enough that his words need little explanation here: He believes in universalism—that all people are already saved, apart from anything (including even faith) on their part.
Young says that this truth “has been blowing people’s minds for centuries now.” **What he does not mention is that universalism has also been considered a heresy for centuries now.**
Here, for example, is [the assessment of Roger Olson](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/07/how-serious-a-heresy-is-universalism/)—someone who is actually probably more open to the possibility of universalism than I would be:
> Strictly historically speaking, any universalism is heresy–according to all major branches of Christianity.
Olson suggests that not all forms of universalism are as dangerous as others. Which kinds are most dangerous?
> I think universalism is a minor heresy SO LONG AS it does not interfere with evangelism… I also evaluate the seriousness of universalism by its context–viz., why does the person affirm it? If universalism is evidence of a denial of God’s wrath and/or human sinfulness, then it is much more serious.
Given Young’s redefinition of sin (and of God’s wrath in other parts of this book), I suggest that his version of universalism is no small heresy.
I do not know Young. I do not know his intentions. I do not aim to make a judgment call on his salvation. I sincerely hope he is my brother in Christ. Again, listen to Olson:
> \[Universalism\] is unbiblical and illogical. However, that does not mean a person who holds it is not a Christian. I have never met a Christian who was one hundred percent theologically correct. Scratch hard enough and you’ll always find some heresy beneath the surface (if not on the surface). That’s true for me as much as for anyone else.
**However, the unfortunate truth remains: Young’s books promote the heresy of universalism—a heresy that reaches near to the core of our understanding of the gospel.** Many of us sensed such problems in _The Shack_; they are now evident to all with eyes to see in _Lies We Believe About God_.
In addition, our brief discussion of only a few pages of his recent book revealed the following problems:
* Young radically redefines sin in unbiblical ways.
* He does not follow standard lexical methods for defining biblical words.
* He uses relatively little Scripture, takes it out of context when he does use it, and overlooks passages that contradiction his assertions.
**Sadly, what Young does not seem to realize is that his attempts to emphasize God’s love (by promoting universalism and its supporting doctrines) actually produce an anemic vision of God’s love.** By downplaying the horror of sin’s afront to God’s holiness, God’s offer of love to sinful humanity is also diminished.
I understand that people such as Young who have suffered terribly often struggle to feel God’s love. I do not want to belittle this struggle in any way. I, too, have tasted of it, though I will not compare myself with others. I do suggest, however, that the answer to our desperate sense of distance from God is not to deny that distance via a universalism that strips the cross of its awesome incongruity, but to acknowledge the immensity of the gulf that God has spanned at immeasurable cost on our behalf. In denying that gulf, Young unwittingly diminishes our vision of God’s love.
Better Books
============
**As I left Walmart and reflected on Young’s writings, one thought grew uppermost in my mind: “There are better books!”**
With all the great Christian literature out there, why should _The Shack_ float to the top?
I freely affirm that there are valid concerns that lead people to books such as _The Shack_. Many of us have experienced terrible injustices and abuses. Many of us have been hurt by our churches. Most of us have stood in urgent need of a fresh vision of God’s love and grace!
But why turn to _The Shack_ as the best answer to these needs? Yes, Young writes with great authenticity (a virtue which is opposite of his definition of sin, after all). But many other writers have also written with authenticity. And authenticity is not the same thing as truth. Why do some of us seem to value authenticity more than truth? Without truth, there is no real life—no eternal life. Why not seek and promote books that speak healing and grace and love—_and truth_!
**This is where I need your help.** If you share any of my concerns about our need for fresh, healing visions of God’s love and grace, if you share any of my experience of being hurt (once or repeatedly) by the church, and if you also share any of my concerns about the false teachings found in Young’s writings, then please do us all a favor:
**Share in the comments below the name of a book or two that you would suggest instead of _The Shack_.**
Pointing out false teaching is unfortunately essential work at times. But merely pointing out the false does not bring life to anyone. Help us out! **What books would you suggest to someone who is wrestling with suffering, abuse, pain, distance from God, hurt by the church, or other major heart tragedies? Which books have helped you?**
Let me begin by listing several:
* [_Pilgrim’s Progress_](http://amzn.to/2nkXft8), by John Bunyan. Eugene Peterson suggested that _The Shack_ could do for our generation what _Pilgrim’s Progress_ did for Bunyan’s. Actually, Pilgrim’s Progress served many generations well. Why not read an updated version today?
* _[Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church](http://amzn.to/2mH08Yn)_, by Philip Yancey. This one was helpful to me in my early twenties. Yancey recounts his “horror story” about his church experience, then mini bios of many saints past and present whose lives renews his own faith.
* Speaking of Yancey, he has written many good books on suffering and wrestling with God, as well as an influential book on grace: _[What’s So Amazing About Grace?](http://amzn.to/2mGXp0O)_ \[Note: I originally called this a “great” book, but I amended my endorsement after someone emailed me with a concern about the book. I confess I have not read this book, but shared it based on earlier positive feedback I’ve heard and my experience with Yancey’s other books.\]
* [_When God Weeps: Why Our Sufferings Matter to the Almighty_](http://amzn.to/2mrJR8Q), by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes. (This one was recommended as an exceptional read to me several years ago by Clifford Schrock of Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute. Tada has [a new one](http://amzn.to/2lJvkH9) that may be even better.)
* [_The Gospel According to Job: An Honest Look at Pain and Doubt from the Life of One Who Lost Everything_](http://amzn.to/2mpxWqy), by Mike Mason. Mason’s book on marriage is the only marriage book that my wife and I have both deeply enjoyed. I gave this book on Job to my friend Lowell Herschberger, and I think I’ve seen him reference it multiple times since.
Those are a few. My list is tilted toward nonfiction. Try _Les Miserable_ or some Dostoyevsky for some tested fiction that wrestles deeply with tragedy and grace.
**What can you add to this list? [Please suggest a helpful book in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/there-are-better-books-than-the-shack/#respond)** And again… if you think I’ve been overly critical of Young and _The Shack_, I sincerely hope we can still be friends. God’s love can cover a multitude of sins, including my own.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Sonship and Suffering–Slides from My Sermon
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-01-16
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Sonship and Suffering--Slides from My Sermon • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Yesterday I preached a sermon called "Sonship and Suffering" at Followers of Jesus Church of Thomaston, Georgia. Here is my slide presentation.
Tags: suffering, Son of God, followers of Jesus, -Hebrews 12:4-13, -Hebrews 2:5-18, sonship
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/sonship-suffering-slides-from-sermon
**Yesterday I preached a sermon called “Sonship and Suffering”** at Followers of Jesus Church of Thomaston, Georgia, as part of our pulpit exchange. The sermon texts came from Hebrews 2 and 12.
My sermon notes this time were in the form of slides, so I will share them here. Most of the key sermon points will be self-evident from the slides. (The sermon was not recorded.)
**I began the Scripture exposition by reviewing the importance of the title “Son” for the author of Hebrews.** It is this title that he uses to emphasize that Jesus is greater than both the angels and Moses.
Yet this exalted Son—“the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb. 1:3)—“had to” suffer (Heb. 2:17, 10). He had to suffer in order to become like us and complete his mission of “bringing many sons to glory” (Heb. 2:10).
Did you catch that? “Sons!” Yes, the very word used to exalt the exalted Jesus is also used by God of all who belong to Jesus.
Later the preacher of Hebrews asks us this: “Have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?” (Heb. 12:5). Yes, as _sons_. **When you suffer, “God is treating you as sons” (Heb. 12:7). Now _that_ gives us a life-changing new lens through which to view all our suffering!**
If you want to ponder sonship and suffering more, _**check out the slides in the link below**_. Bonus: You will also find a very simple outline of Hebrews that shows its remarkable mirrored structure—which explains why yesterday’s sermon had two texts.
[Hebrews – Sonship and Suffering](https://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Hebrews-Sonship-and-Suffering.pdf)
**[Download Slides/View Large](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Hebrews-Sonship-and-Suffering.pdf)**
**What do you know about sonship and suffering? [Share your thoughts in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/sonship-suffering-slides-from-sermon/#respond)**
_**Postscript:** We decided to name our house church here in Atlanta “Followers of Jesus Atlanta Church.” In doing so, we were influenced by our former church, “Followers of Jesus Mennonite Church” in Brooklyn, NY. We actually cleared our name with the lead pastor there, my good friend and former co-pastor Richard Schwartz. Then we learned that the little church in Thomaston, Georgia—whose pastor Gary Kauffman has agreed to be a counselor for us and Smuckers here in Atlanta—has also chosen the name “Followers of Jesus.” No, none of us are formally affiliated with each other (besides our relationship with Gary and our agreement to share pulpits every few months). But I think I sense a common theme, and I like it! Now may we live up to our names._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Let Him” Or “If He”? Translating Divorce in Deuteronomy
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2017-01-09
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "Let Him" Or "If He"? Translating Divorce in Deuteronomy • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I learned today that the King James Version has a misleading translation of an important OT passage about divorce--Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Tags: divorce, divorce and remarriage, King James Version, Bible translations, Cornes | Andrew
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/let-him-if-he-translating-divorce-deuteronomy
**I learned today that the King James Version has a misleading translation of an important OT passage about divorce.** The translation is not only misleading, but misleading in a direction that will concern you if you are concerned about today’s easy divorce culture.
The poor translation is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, in a law addressing a sticky question about a particular kind of remarriage. Here is the relevant passage, as translated in the KJV, with a few key terms in **BOLD ALL CAPS**:
> 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then **LET HIM** write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she **MAY** go and be another man’s wife. 3 And IF the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, **MAY NOT** take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord…” (KJV, emphasis added)
First, notice that the KJV divides this passage into three sentences. Second, notice that the first sentence reads as if it is a command all by itself: if a husband finds certain conditions in his wife, then “let him write her a bill of divorcement.” “Let him” could be understood as either a “must” or a “may,” but either way, the syntax turns the clause into a command. According to the KJV, it would, at minimum, be wrong to discourage a man in this situation from divorcing his wife. And depending on how you read “let him,” you might even be responsible to _insist_ that he follows through with divorce.
The English Standard Version, in contrast, clarifies (1) that the passage is one single flow of thought, and (2) that **_there is only one command, which comes at the end_**:
> 1 When a man takes a wife and marries her, **IF** then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and s her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and **IF** she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, **MAY NOT** take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord.” (ESV, emphasis added)
Both translations correctly convey that divorce was permitted. And both correctly convey the prohibition against remarrying a spouse whom you had formerly divorced, if they had been married to someone else meantime.
But _**you have to read a translation besides the KJV to realize that divorce was never commanded, or even directly affirmed, by this passage.**_ (The NKJV gets it right, and even the NIV has a long run-on sentence to guide readers to the solitary command at the end.)
**[](http://amzn.to/2i8MkD9)**
**[
](http://amzn.to/2i8MkD9)**
**I learned of this translation problem from Andrew Cornes, since I am currently reading his helpful book [_Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice_](http://amzn.to/2i8DncX).** He says “the Authorized Translation \[KJV\] is seriously misleading here” (p. 131). \[Edit: It appears we can thank Jerome in AD 383 for this translation error. [See here.](http://dwightgingrich.com/let-him-if-he-translating-divorce-deuteronomy/#comment-162438)\]
And when we clear up this mistranslation, what can we observe? Cornes again:
> **Nowhere, in all the legal material, is there any law which directly makes provision for divorce.** Nowhere in the first five books, or indeed the whole Old Testament, do we find anything approaching the formula: ‘If a woman does… then a man may send her away.’ Divorce law as such simply does not exist… This is not to say that no laws deal with divorce. But significantly all the laws which touch on this area (and there are not very many) are formulated either to restrict divorce or to restrict remarriage. (p. 130, bold added)
\[**Important edit: Cornes is not accurate here.** In two other passages, Exodus 21:7-11 and Deuteronomy 21:10-14, a Jewish man who has an unwanted wife he had taken either in slavery or war is commanded to release her. That is, rather than abuse or sell her, he was to grant her the freedom of an honorable divorce. Later Jewish rabbis concluded that if a slave or captive wife was due this honor, then certainly all wives in such conditions were due the same.\]
Divorce and remarriage are not easy topics to handle, whether as translators, Bible interpreters, or counselors. This brief post is certainly not intended to provide a final word on the topic, especially for those for whom divorce is no theoretical matter. I invite your prayers as I read this book, and hopefully others on the same topic, this year.
**Do you have a response that will help us learn together? [Share it in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/let-him-if-he-translating-divorce-deuteronomy/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding: 2016 Year-End Report
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-12-22
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding: 2016 Year-End Report • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is a year-end report on our house loan repayments. In March we owed $66,162.50. We now owe $61,162.50. Here is the story of the $5000 difference.
Tags: annual report, churchfunding, microloans
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2016-year-end-report
**I thought it would be fitting to give a brief year-end report on our house loan repayments.** “Fitting” not because this is the sort of thing that is usually published publicly, but because our churchfunding activities were also unusually public. What an adventure this has been! We want to honor God again for providing for all our needs through the kindness of so many people!
([Here is the post](http://thesynergists.co/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) that officially launched this churchfunding adventure.)
Renovating a room and adding a new entrance for a piano studio was one of the big house projects we tackled this summer.
**Since I am an English literature major and not an accountant, I will give my report in prose instead of a spreadsheet.** But rest assured, we do indeed have spreadsheets to keep track of the data. 🙂
We purchased our house on March 25, paying the seller in full immediately, thanks to loans and gifts from nearly 90 individuals or families. About 70 of those were loans.
**At the time we purchased the house, we owed a total of $66,162.50. As of the end of 2016, we now owe $61,162.50. Here is the story of the $5000 difference.**
We began repaying loans in April, at the rate of $500 per month. We created a pool of our older lenders to repay first, as planned. Prayer and a random number generator in Google Docs selected a person to repay each month. In some months the person selected was owned less than $500, so a second lender was chosen so we could repay the full $500 for that month.
In three months (April, June, September), when we contacted our lender to initiate repayment, they declined repayment, turning the amount due that month into a gift. In addition, another lender, without being selected, contacted us to turn a $500 loan into a gift. _**In all, $1,475 worth of loans was forgiven in 2016!**_
**The total we actually repaid in 2016 was $3,525.** Add that to the $1,475 forgiven, and **our total loans due have been reduced by $5000 in 2016—$500 more than expected.**
**When can the remaining lenders expect repayment?**
We still have $4875 due to our pool of older lenders. At $500 per month, that is nearly 10 months. So, unless you are reasonably senior :-), the end of 2017 is the soonest you might expect a repayment.
**God willing, however, all lenders should be repaid within 10 years and 3 months—by March of 2027.** (That’s $61,162.50 repaid at $500 per month.) And we have not forgotten our plans to ensure we repay a few of you well before that time.
**I’ll add a brief cash flow report, too.**
Our income is still less than our expenses, so our bank account is declining. But we expected this as we transition to Atlanta income. I am gradually gathering more piano students. (I just signed up another this week, making a total of eight, representing $584 of piano income most months. I hope to eventually have about thirty students.) Choice Books has provided a steady part-time income as expected, and I am continuing Open Hands writing work as I find the time. **The decline in our bank account is slowing, and I am hopeful the tide will reverse sometime in the new year.** Meanwhile, we do have a little short-term savings that could cover normal needs for a couple months even if income stopped entirely.
**House repairs have come a long way!** There are still several big projects left that will make life more pleasant, but I think most of the repairs that were urgent for the structural health of the house (sewer leak, termite treatment, pest protection, heat pump, etc.) are now done.
We had some unexpected expenses this summer due to a ministry opportunity. But this opportunity also stirred a few people to share unexpected gifts with us. _**I am reminded of Paul’s words:**_
> God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work… He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. (2 Cor. 9:8, 10-11 ESV)
**May God make each of us channels of blessing in 2017!**
Gratefully,
Dwight & Zonya Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Library Online–Or At Least Onshelves
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-12-22
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: A Library Online--Or At Least Onshelves • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: How grateful I am to finally have my Bible commentaries out of boxes and onto shelves! Here are some favorite shelves in my new library.
Tags: commentaries, library, reading
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/library-online-at-least-onshelves
**A pastor friend just sent me email with a wonderful problem:**
> I’m currently near the beginning of a 6 month Sabbatical, enjoying it and looking forward to more. My church is graciously offering to help pay for some pastor education, and I may use some of this to buy commentaries. Not sure yet what the commentary budget is, but maybe 1,000-1,400… So, do you have any input for me?
How wonderful it would be if more pastors had this problem!
For guidance, I pointed this pastor both to [my own recommended commentary lists](https://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/intro/) and to the more current advice from Denver Seminary ([OT list](http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/annotated-old-testament-bibliography-2016/) and [NT list](http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/new-testament-exegesis-bibliography-2016/)), which is updated each January. (Which means new lists are near!)
**This pastor’s email also reminded me how grateful I am to finally have my own commentaries out of boxes and onto shelves.** Now with only a little climbing I can find all my favorite books!
Okay, reportedly that’s actually the Cincinnati Library at about 1899. My own library is perhaps a little more modest:
But now that I have the shelves loaded with books, I’m a happy little scholar. On the left is mostly Bible commentaries and theological works, with a special focus on the topic of the church:
On the right is a mixture, including Christian living, apologetics, missions, literature, history, Bibles, and reference books:
My library plans are still not quite done. I’d like to add a mirror on the back wall. I’d also like to cut out the top panel of the door, replacing it with a decorative screen that lets light and air through. But it’s come a long way since the early hours of demolition and construction:
**More important than the shelves are the books resting on them. Here are some of my favorite shelves, with some of my favorite books.**
OT (1): Introduction, theology, and commentaries. A favorite: [Gordon Wenham on Leviticus](http://amzn.to/2hZp4YZ).
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OT-1.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OT-1.jpg)
OT (2): Commentaries. A favorite: [Robert Chisholm on 1 & 2 Samuel](http://amzn.to/2ik6uap) is ideal for Sunday School teachers (and [his Judges/Ruth volume](http://amzn.to/2hXaAXd) looks ideal for preachers).
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OT-2.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OT-2.jpg)
OT (3): Commentaries. Favorites: [Bruce Waltke and James Houston on the Psalms](http://amzn.to/2hgUwCE) are superb (but don’t address every psalm) and I’ve used [Tremper Longman on Proverbs](http://amzn.to/2hZmWAy) a lot.
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OT-3.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OT-3.jpg)
OT (4): Commentaries. Favorites: [Andrew Steinmann on Daniel](http://amzn.to/2ik7GKV) and G. K Beale and D.A. Carson’s [_Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament_](http://amzn.to/2hXmujU).
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OT-4.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OT-4.jpg)
NT (1): Commentaries. Favorites: [R.T. France on Matthew](http://amzn.to/2hZlGgU) and [Robert Stein on Mark](http://amzn.to/2hXhNXd).
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NT-1.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NT-1.jpg)
NT (2): Commentaries. A favorite: [David Garland on 1 Corinthians](http://amzn.to/2hh5x6K).
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NT-2.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NT-2.jpg)
NT (3): Commentaries. A favorite: [Douglas Moo on Galatians](http://amzn.to/2hZvR4S).
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NT-3.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NT-3.jpg)
NT (4): Commentaries. Favorites: [William Mounce on the Pastoral Epistles](http://amzn.to/2hLUyRO), and [Gareth L. Cockerill](http://amzn.to/2hLQb9r) and [Peter T. O’Brien](http://amzn.to/2ig7GzQ) on Hebrews.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NT-4.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NT-4.jpg)
NT theology, Jesus, parables, Paul. Favorites: I have found both [I. Howard Marshall’s](http://amzn.to/2ig9jgO) and [George Eldon Ladd’s](http://amzn.to/2i62laN) NT theologies helpful.
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-1.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-1.jpg)
NT theology, NT use of OT, biblical interpretation. Favorites: Grant Osborne’s [_Hermeneutical Spiral_](http://amzn.to/2hM3dnc) and R.T. France’s [_Jesus and the Old Testament_](http://amzn.to/2ikcC2B) were both influential for me.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-2.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-2.jpg)
Biblical interpretation, early church historical nd. A favorite: O.M. Bakke’s _[When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity](http://amzn.to/2ik1TVQ)._
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-3.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-3.jpg)
Church history, history of Bible, systematic theology. Favorites: [_The Story of Christianity_](http://amzn.to/2ikdapb) by Justo Gonzàlez and [_The Story Behind the Versions_](http://amzn.to/2hZt1gt) by Rodney Yoder.
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-4.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-4.jpg)
Theology random (covenant, salvation, missions, etc), ecclesiology. A favorite: [_The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission_](http://amzn.to/2hZrEOG) by John Dickson.
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-5.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-5.jpg)
Ecclesiology, baptism, membership, discipline, eldership. Favorites: [John S. Hammett](http://amzn.to/2ik5QtM) (baptism and Lord’s supper), [Everett Ferguson](http://amzn.to/2iggbL7) (history of baptism), and [Alexander Strauch](http://amzn.to/2hZt5N3) (eldership) are all worth consulting.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-6.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-6.jpg)
Gender roles, divorce/remarriage, sexual purity, eschatology, money. Favorites: [_Kingdom Come_](http://amzn.to/2hdQV6t) by Sam Storms and [_Neither Poverty Nor Riches_](http://amzn.to/2igebCF) by Craig Blomberg.
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-7.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-7.jpg)
Hearing God, decision making, spiritual disciplines, pain. A favorite: [_The Power of the Powerless_](http://amzn.to/2ikh8y1) by Christopher de Vinck is a beautifully-written story that touched me deeply.
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-8.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Theology-8.jpg)
And my shelf of Chesterton, Lewis, and Muggeridge–most of which I read to good benefit during my years in college. My wife and oldest daughter have helped batter a few of these books since, which makes me even happier.
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Lewis.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Lewis.jpg)
**Some of you have much more impressive libraries.** That’s wonderful! We need people who have read far more than I do, and more widely.
**Others of you likely wonder how I’ve read so many books.** Well, I haven’t. Most of the books in these photos I’ve never read. Quite a few I’ve just opened as needed, for reference. Some I’ve never really opened. Many I dream of reading through—some for personal enjoyment and some because I think I really need to in order to be equipped to serve in the church as well as I should. I think the Lewis shelf is the only shelf pictured that I’ve read fully. Oops, I haven’t read _The Quoteable Lewis_ through, so that’s that.
This past year has been especially bad for reading, what with moving and all. My main serious reading has been Cockerill’s Hebrews commentary, which I’ve been reading with a Bible open beside, devotionally and for sermon prep. Only about a dozen pages to go! It’s been a good companion.
**May God guide all our reading in the coming year, for his glory and for the growth of his people.**
> When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. (2 Timothy 4:13 ESV)
**Do you have a library?** What books (or parchments) do you especially value? Do you have reading goals for the coming year? [**Share your thoughts in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/library-online-at-least-onshelves/#respond)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why Do I Believe the Bible? A Short Answer
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-10-14
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Why Do I Believe the Bible? A Short Answer • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Today a friend sent a random question: "What would you say are your top 3 reasons for why you believe the Bible?" Here's my one-minute answer. What's yours?
Tags: biblical authority, faith, Bible's trustworthiness
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-i-believe-bible-short-answer
**Today a friend sent me this message:**
> Hi Dwight, got a random question… What would you say are your top 3 reasons for why you believe the Bible?
Since I had little time, and since I am not an expert on philosophical apologetics or epistemology, I gave the following response (edited slightly here for clarity):
> Well… I’ll answer quickly, so this might be 3 random answers to your question rather than my top 3!
>
> 
>
> 1) Jesus’ resurrection. The disciples proved by martyrdom that they believed Jesus rose from the dead, and they were in a position to know whether he had in fact done so. And if he indeed did rise, then we’d better listen to what was…
>
> 2) Jesus’ belief about the Bible. As I read Jesus’ words as recorded by his apostles and their close associates, it is clear to me that Jesus believed the OT scriptures were the words of God, the voice of the Holy Spirit. Then he also promised that his apostles—who later wrote the bulk of the NT—would be led into all truth by the same Holy Spirit, and appointed them to be his witnesses.
>
> 3) The witness of the Bible itself as I read it—literary grandeur, diverse breadth of themes that matches the diversity of human experience, and–getting to more important factors–its unique explanatory power for why the world and ourselves are as we find them to be, its unified coherent story line from beginning to end of the text and the universe, and its compelling vision of a God that is both more holy and more loving than any other image of divinity ever dreamed up by humanity.
>
> Thanks for making me think about this! I could add other sociologically important factors, like the fact that I was taught to believe it from little on up. But when I have moments of doubt, while I do return to the fact that the best people I’ve ever known believe the Bible (this is an important fact!), I ultimately am only settled when I ponder objective facts like the above.
>
> Finally, I must also say that I believe the Bible because God has granted me faith to believe, and because his Holy Spirit continues to open my heart to its words and its message about Christ.
There are many good answers to my friend’s question. No one answer may feel sufficient on its own (just as it is equally possible for you to dispute whether I actually exist). But the many answers, taken together, add up to a compelling case for the Bible’s trustworthiness.
**What about you? What 1-minute answer would you give if someone sprang the same question on you?** [**Share, if you wish, in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-i-believe-bible-short-answer/#respond)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Poll: Which Is the Best Hymnal for Mennonites?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-08-30
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: Poll: Which Is the Best Hymnal for Mennonites? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Someone gave our church a generous gift for buying hymnals. We are very thankful! Now we need your help choosing the best hymnal to buy. Time to vote!
Tags: Mennonites, music, Anabaptists, hymnals
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/poll-which-is-best-hymnal-for-mennonites
**Someone gave our little Followers of Jesus Atlanta Church a generous gift for buying hymnals.** We are very thankful! Now we have the delightful pleasure of selecting the best hymnal(s) to buy. And [you can help us by voting](#vote).
So far, **the following three-part approach seems wise**, enabling us to move forward without forgetting our past:
1. Choose one book that helps us connect with people in our neighborhood, which is about 95% African American.
2. Choose another book that reflects our Anabaptist roots.
3. Use [CCLI](http://us.ccli.com/) (a church copyright license service) to legally copy additional songs.
Goal number three requires little discussion. And we have found a hymnal that achieves goal number one superbly: [The African American Heritage Hymnal](http://amzn.to/2bRTM1W)—which, incidentally, includes many classic hymns familiar to most American evangelicals. We are gradually collecting some very affordable used copies.
[](http://amzn.to/2c0ZO05)
[
](http://amzn.to/2c0ZO05)
**But finding a solution for an Anabaptist hymnal is proving more tricky.** Of the four or so hymn books that we and our teammates the Smuckers grew up using most, only one is something that any of us really likes. And it ([Great Hymns of the Faith](http://amzn.to/2c61KDG), compiled by John W. Peterson) is not even an Anabaptist hymnal!
(I’m trying to be kind and avoid getting too specific about which hymnals we are less satisfied with, though I can say a couple things. First, we’d rather not have an editor changing too many original lyrics. We’d rather learn classic hymns in their classic versions, leaving editorial discussions as needed for the time of singing, as teachable moments. And second, we find some hymnals have more compelling musical arrangements than others.)
We are not absolutely set on finding a hymnal that is specifically Anabaptist. But there would be some advantages to choosing a hymnal that, for example, teaches our children the best of the hymns that their parents grew up singing. And I would consider it a good thing if this hymnal would intentionally include some of the best of our (admittedly comparatively sparse) Anabaptist hymnody.
Perhaps there is an Anabaptist hymnal that we did _not_ grow up with that would achieve this goal well? Or a non-Anabaptist hymnal that is so strong we should consider it?
**Thus, this poll. What do you think is the best hymnal for Mennonites?** (Or Anabaptists, if you prefer.) I’ll pre-load this poll widget with some options. Then **you can help in four ways:**
1. Vote. (You can vote for more than one if you think two are tie.)
2. Add more options to the poll.
3. [Defend your preferences in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/poll-which-is-best-hymnal-for-mennonites/#respond)
4. Forward this post to your most musical and insightful friends.
Sorry, I won’t promise that we will go with the winner of this poll. And there are no prizes if we select your suggestion—besides getting to sing from your favorite hymnal when you come visit!
_**So come on, all ye Mennonites. This is no time to eschew voting. Ya’ll cast your ballots for best hymnal now!**_
\[yop\_poll id=”3″\]
**Note:** Since I can’t embed links in the poll widget, **here are Amazon links** for each of the hymnals I’ve pre-loaded:
[The Mennonite Hymnal](http://amzn.to/2bNxSgY)
[Hymnal: A Worship Book](http://amzn.to/2bNxpvr)
[Church Hymnal](http://amzn.to/2c62MPX)
[Hymns of the Church](http://amzn.to/2c63uwC)
[Zion’s Praises](http://amzn.to/2c63GMo)
[Christian Hymnal](http://amzn.to/2c63o85)
[The Christian Hymnary](http://amzn.to/2bx7gR2)
[Church and Sunday School Hymnal](http://amzn.to/2bRXlVK)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Help Us to Not Be Afraid; Winter Birch [Poems by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-08-12
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Help Us to Not Be Afraid; Winter Birch [Poems by Mom] • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: An autumn/winter poem in the middle of summer? Exactly. That is the question we ask of life right now... "Help us to not be afraid of Your will."
Tags: death, faith, God's will, crucifixion, -Genesis 18:22-33, -Psalm 90, afraid, anger, autumn, birch, cancer, fear not, how long, lifespan, peace, prayer, waiting, why, winter
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/help-us-to-not-be-afraid-winter-birch
_**Life has been too busy of late for me to blog.** Worse, I’m afraid I let my busyness keep me from even reading, until today, this post that Mom prepared a month ago._
_**A month is a long time when your father is battling cancer.** It is also a long time when your mother’s neglected post is about the questions she is asking in the shadow of death._
_Mom’s post is now slightly dated. Dad has already begun chemotherapy. Thankfully, he has not had any unexpected reactions to any of his treatments. But we expect he will be tired and weak for the next six months, and the possibility of too-soon death remains very real. The heartbeat of Mom’s post is not dated at all.
_
_I will let Mom take over from here, except to ask you to please pray for my parents (and Mom’s friend mentioned below) as autumn, and perhaps winter, nears._
* * *
An autumn/winter poem in the middle of summer? Exactly. That is the question we ask of life right now…
Photo Credit: [White Rabbit Studio](https://www.flickr.com/photos/133037723@N05/27427936846/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
**When Autumn Comes Too Soon**
I have a dear friend in the bloom of life, serving God in the summer season of family and church and witness. But autumn has suddenly grabbed her by the ankles and abducted her away from the perfect life-cycle that ends with a gentle winter waiting for release. Her remaining allotted number of years are now counted out as weeks instead, and time has turned traitor on us all.
My husband was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma a little over four years ago. Though a bit of a roller-coaster ride, the journey has not been too arduous up till now: three radiation sessions that were well-tolerated, and continued energy and good health otherwise. Now the lumps are multiplying and growing, some threatening to obstruct his airways, and so the oncologists are advising chemotherapy. That was the bad word we hoped to push off for many years and hopefully forever. Ken will be seventy in December and feels he has reached the biblically-allotted lifespan. But seventy in our day is not old, and Ken is a youngish seventy, still working hard much of the time. We are ready for autumn, perhaps, but winter?
I have been reading Psalm 90 the past months. I call it the Angry Psalm. Is God really so angry with us as the psalmist says? I have always loved this psalm, the security of having a timeless, eternal God as our dwelling place, the unfailing love that satisfies us every morning, and yes, the poetry of the piteous, poignant images about our numbered days, our little tale acted out during our directed time on earth.
Moses is credited with writing this Psalm: “A prayer of Moses the man of God.” That made _me_ a little angry. Moses says we are consumed by God’s anger, and troubled by His wrath. But what does he know of threescore years and ten, living as he did to one hundred and twenty, and climbing his last mountain to meet God with mind alert, limbs still rippling with powerful muscles, and eyes as clear-sighted as a hawk’s? What does he know of wits stolen while the heart still beats strong, of eyes once love-filled glazing in confusion, of aging bodies lingering endlessly in uselessness and pain, or of believers in the prime of life struck down by rampaging warring cells in their beautiful bodies?
Then I calm myself down and acknowledge all the death and suffering and pouring out of judgement that Moses witnessed during the wilderness wanderings. He knew painfully well the “labour and sorrow” that can attend the longest lifespan. There is deep pathos and empathy in this psalm, and it is a prayer, so Moses dares to be as honest as we only dare be when we are speaking to God, pouring out our hearts before Him, when we are not presuming to speak for Him to others.
“How long?” Moses asks, and humanity has been asking this, the most frequently recorded question in the Bible, since time began. We ask it when time drags too long in the agony of an endless minute of unbearable pain. Our days too can be as a thousand years. We ask it when time flies away in a heartbeat, stealing our joyful hours when they have barely begun. How long will I have to treasure this moment? And we ask it when we bow before God and ache with the puzzle of life and time, and of God’s will in His measuring and meting out of time and what it brings. Why must life be so short and our troubles so long? So often our hopes spring up new and fresh in the morning, and by evening are withered and dry.
“So teach us to number our days.” Like Abraham I bombard God with numbers in my prayers. “If 1000 years are with you as one day, would it be such a hardship to give my friend fifty more? Thirty? Twenty? Please just ten?!” Can God understand how much we can long for time—more time—to watch time unfold with our loved ones, our children? But then, do I understand how unworthy I am of even one breath of life, one moment of time?
Photo Credit: [londonlass16](https://www.flickr.com/photos/130448328@N07/27397468512/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
_Oh Ageless, Ancient One, You hold us in Your hands. How calmly You carry us. How angrily You consume us, mind and body, sweat and sin, turning us back to dust again. And oh, how quickly You awaken from somewhere in the back of our little wave-battered craft, to speak your transforming “Peace, be still!” into our anxiety of waiting and despair. In the twinkling of an eye, behold you come quickly._
_I remember how Your Son counted out time in unbearable blistering seconds on the cross, measuring pain in the torturous traverse of the sun’s shadow on the dial, in its creeping rays across the turning earth, and in the trickle of blood and sweat down His disfigured face. He too finished his years like a tale told, a sigh, a moan. But He also finished it with a cry of victory! He had accomplished what You had assigned Him to do in His time on earth. I praise You that because of His finished work, we too can live lives that accomplish Your plan for us, whether our lifespan be long or short. Because Your Son provided forgiveness for our sin, we can be saved from wrath and live under Your favour. We can manifest Your beauty in our lives, Your glory to our children. We can safely abide in the eternal._
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
The following poems were written many years ago. The first one, _Help Us To Not Be Afraid Of Your Will,_ was written in 1979 after my mother went for a biopsy of a breast lump, which thankfully turned out to be benign. The poem was written on my knees, a prayer for my mother, which I shared with her before she went to the doctor for the results. The poem meant a lot to her and so holds some nostalgia for me, despite its simplicity and lack of imagery.
In 2000–2001 I wrote a new version which I feel is better poetry: _Winter Birch_. However my husband says he prefers the original, that it is easier to follow. There is something about the repeated refrain, “Help us to not be afraid of Your will” that echoes the cry of the struggling soul. The most repeated command in scripture is “Fear not,” “Be not afraid.” How can we face an unexpected autumn, the chill of winter? God invites us to turn from fear to faith, from doubt to praise, and meets us with unexpected gifts in His hands. As we wait for Ken’s chemotherapy consultation we are asking God for grace to do that, and to move beyond fear and questioning to faith and hope.
—Elaine Gingrich, July 12, 2016
* * *
_Dwight again: I want to underscore a pair of observations Mom shared. What is “the most frequently recorded question in the Bible”? And what is “the most repeated command in scripture”? Did you catch them? Here they are again, a painful, promising, perfectly-matched pair: “How long?” and “Fear not!”_
_Now on to Mom’s poems._
* * *
**HELP US TO NOT BE AFRAID**
When we must lay down the work in our hand
And all our projects and prospects stand still,
When our life’s pattern is not as we planned,
Help us to not be afraid of Your will.
When we stand waiting in doubt’s desert land,
Wondering if yet our life’s dreams we’ll fulfil,
When we pray, lifting our heart in our hand,
Help us to not be afraid of Your will.
When all the questions within us demand
That we find answers our deep needs to fill,
And there are reasons we don’t understand,
Help us to not be afraid of Your will.
When all alone and all trembling we stand,
Help us to feel what Your love is, until
Finally we see the good gifts in Your Hand.
Then we will not be afraid of Your will.
—Elaine Gingrich, November 1979
UPDATE: A friend of Mom named Kelsie Troyer put this poem to music and recorded herself singing it. Her musical setting is unpretentious and sincere, fitting for a prayer. Feel free to sing along:
* * *
Photo Credit: [Maria Duynisveld](https://www.flickr.com/photos/144738560@N03/27837221440/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
* * *
**WINTER BIRCH**
Oh God, these winter birch that lift their limbs
Empty of obvious purpose to the skies,
Have known the autumn chill, yet raise their hymns
Of pearly praise to You. They ask no whys.
Their leaves fell too. They know of letting go.
They trembled in the blast of death’s alarms,
But do not seem afraid through wind and snow.
They wait for spring. And still they raise their arms.
And should the changing seasons strip us too
And leave us purposeless, yet, when we pray
Lifting our hearts in trembling hands to you,
We would not fear your will nor doubt your way.
Help us to praise, though scattered on the ground
Beneath us lie dear dreams and withered plans,
That like these birch that quietly astound,
We look up fearless with faith-lifted hands.
—Elaine Gingrich, June 1, 2000/January 2001
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed these poems, or want to show your support for Mom and Dad in this difficult season, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/help-us-to-not-be-afraid-winter-birch/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353440914-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Like Spring [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-05-30
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Like Spring [Poem by Mom] • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Georgia vines cover our backyard like love covers a multitude of sins. At least that is the natural order of things---with the vines, as well as with love.
Tags: forgiveness, hate, love, spring, -1 Peter 4:8, -1 Thessalonians 5:17, -Ephesians 4:32, -Romans 12:21, Gospel Echoes, prison ministry
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/like-spring
_**Georgia vines cover our backyard like love covers a multitude of sins.** At least that is the natural order of things—with the vines, as well as with true love._
_We are slowly learning about southern biology. My wife’s daily devotional times are suffering thanks to the babbling birds boldly blaring their boom boxes behind our brick abode. I’m noticing—I think, I hope—that Georgia grass grows just a bit more gradually than Iowa varieties._
_I might be wrong. Either way, I know that my love should look more like Iowa grass and Georgia vines, and that forgiveness should grow more quickly in wounds of my heart._
_**Mom talks about these things in the poem she shares this month.** If you are struggling to forgive, or surprised by your own capacity to hate, then may her words give you fresh courage._
_Mom’s poem is old—first written when I was only eight. (I recall the geological events she describes from the time, but was blissfully unaware as a boy of the concurrent ecclesiological disruptions motivating her poem.) Mom has written a new introduction to her old poem. But first, here is the poem. Enjoy!
_
* * *
Photo Credit: [Dainis Matisons](https://www.flickr.com/photos/35489169@N05/27156824546/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
* * *
**LIKE SPRING**
How persistent Spring is,
Untiring in her zeal
To carpet all that’s barren,
To beautify and heal.
Even into gashes
That man has blasted out,
Peninsulas are greening
And tiny islands sprout.
How forgiving Spring is
Of winter’s wasting shocks;
Ferns trail her every footstep
And moss adorns the rocks.
Oh, if man would mellow,
Forgive as joyously,
And seek to heal old wound scars
As conscientiously.
—Elaine Gingrich, January 1982/1985. Published in _Ontario Informer_, 1985.
* * *
**Ken and I have been marking Bible courses for prison inmates for over twenty years.** The very first lesson in the first Gospel Echoes Team course asks the student to name the most forgiving person that he knows other than God. Another question I marked last night: “What have you observed in Jesus’ relationships that could help you get along better with others?” The inmate responded with “Forgiveness is key.”
Forgiveness! This theme appears again and again in the inmates’ responses and comments and prayer requests. “Pray that my family, my wife, my children will forgive me.” “ Pray that I can forgive myself.” “I am finding it easier to forgive those who have hurt me.” “Studying these courses is helping me to forgive others.”
One student had wanted his life to end but reading the Bible showed him that he could turn his life around. He asked forgiveness of God and his loved ones and was finally able to forgive his girlfriend who left him while he was in jail. Forgiveness is transformative.
We all know forgiveness is not essential only for prison inmates. The scars that I write about in this poem have nothing to do with crime or incarceration. Sadly many Christians live imprisoned far too long in the grips of unforgiveness and bitterness. No wonder the epistles command us over and over to be tenderhearted, to forgive as Christ forgave us, and to return good for evil.
**“Like Spring” was written after a discouraging season in church life.** Differing opinions on church affiliation had caused our beloved pastor to move on. A few members moved away. Ken wondered why he was building our new home. The images for the poem grew out of the road construction occurring that summer past our property. The cottage trail winding between the northern lakes was redirected, blasted through the rocky hill between our circle drive. Several times rock-drilling and blasting sent us out of our trailer home to safety, and the dust and rumble of huge dump trucks and power shovels entertained my three young sons who had a front rock seat to all the action.
It was the next spring, as I walked and prayed, that I was amazed to see how soon the barren disturbed patches of earth and crevices in the rocks were again sprouting with new growth and green beauty. But then, of course, Christ is the giver of life, of new life, in nature and in human hearts. And God is love and has called us to love and forgive as He does, to join Him in the ministry of reconciliation. I think of a simple poem I wrote in my teens: “Hating Those Who Hate.”
HATING THOSE WHO HATE
The times when I most see the need
To love mankind,
I feel like driving this great truth
Into man’s mind.
The passion of this growing lack
Of love grips me.
I see it is our foremost great
Necessity.
And yet the times my being throbs
With pain at hate
Is when my heart most tends to hate
Those men who hate.
You cannot hope to help someone
You do not love—
The only answer to this need
Comes from above.
Yes, God’s way and nature’s way is better.
—Elaine Gingrich, May 26, 2016
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/like-spring/#respond), or send her an email at[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721385409805-compressed.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721385409805-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## 12 Ways to Provoke Your Children to Anger (Lou Priolo)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-05-01
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: 12 Ways to Provoke Your Children to Anger (Lou Priolo) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: How might I provoke my children to anger? Last spring I attended a homeschool convention talk by Lou Priolo where he answered this question.
Tags: anger, -Ephesians 6:4, -James 3:17, fathers, Lou | Priolo, parents
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/12-ways-provoke-children-anger-lou-priolo
**Where your children angry today?** If so**,** did you stop to ask why? In your search for a solution, did you consider that you may be part of the problem?
Unfortunately, parents and children often make life much harder for each other than it would need be otherwise. I know what it is like. All too easily our homes degenerate into mutual-maddening societies, where the words exchanged sound little better than the trash talk of opposing sports teams or presidential candidates.
**Dads, the responsibility for our homes begins with us.** Paul gave first-century fathers advice that we can’t afford to ignore today:
> Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph. 6:4)
**How might I provoke my children to anger?** Last spring I attended a homeschool convention talk by [Lou Priolo](http://loupriolo.com/) where he answered this question. Today I found my notes from that talk. Parenting isn’t typical content for this blog, but I thought I’d adapt his thoughts here so I can toss my paper notes.
Here are twelve ways we dads (and moms) can provoke our children to anger:
1. **Lack marital harmony with your spouse.** (Priolo noted that only marriage partners, not children, are described as being “one flesh”—literally, “one person.” Our children are not “one flesh” with us, and our relationship with them is not designed to be as permanent or intimate as our relationship with our spouse. This leads to the next point.)
2. **Establish and maintain a child-centered home.** Allow your children to interrupt, manipulate, dictate the schedule, take precedence over your spouse, demand time and attention, speak to you as to a peer, and require coddling to come out of a bad mood.
3. **Model sinful anger.** Show your children what real anger looks like. When life feels out of control, regain control by bitter cuts or dramatic explosions.
4. **Discipline in anger**. Discipline to meet your own needs, not your child’s needs.
5. **Discipline inconsistently.** Discipline (or don’t) for different reasons on different days—or differently than your spouse.
6. **Have double standards.** Expect your children to do as you say, not as you do.
7. **Be legalistic.** Raise man’s commands to the level of God’s commands. Fail to distinguish between God’s law (biblically _directed_ rules such as honesty and love) and parental law (biblically _derived_ rules such as curfews or table manners). Don’t allow your children to ever appeal your parental rules—after all, they can’t appeal God’s rules, right?
8. **Never admit you are wrong.** Don’t be open to reason (James 3:17). Stick to your guns and never change course.
9. **Have unrealistic expectations.** Expect children to _want_ to do what is right all the time, not just do right even when they don’t want to. Expect unregenerate teenagers to act as Christians. Emphasize achievement over character, and perfection over confession.
10. **Abuse your children physically.** Be like Balaam: Don’t worry about collecting all the data first. Just strike out of embarrassment, and don’t worry if you lose control.
11. **Scold them.** You want to break their spirits, crush their pride.
12. **Train them with worldly methodologies that are inconsistent with God’s word.** Talk lots about “the Lord,” but parent based on the “discipline and instruction” of people who don’t know or care about the Lord.
Come to think of it, _**many of these points are also relevant for others, such as church leaders**_. May God help us to bring peace to those who depend on our care, not provoke them to anger.
**Thanks for reading! [Add your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/12-ways-provoke-children-anger-lou-priolo/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Spring Leaves in Rain [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-04-30
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Spring Leaves in Rain [Poem by Mom] • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The poem grows from the image of "spring leaves in rain." So I'll surround it with photos of life outside our Iowa windows on this rainy spring day.
Tags: creation, death, hope, spring, growth, -Acts 17:27, -Proverbs 11:28, comfort, godliness, green, leaves, life, nourishment, provision, rain, sap, trust
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/spring-leaves-in-rain
**Mom’s poem this month is too good to miss, even if I’ve left it for the last day of the month.** The poem grows from the image of “spring leaves in rain.” So I’ll surround it with photos of life outside our Iowa windows on this rainy spring day.
> “If haply…
>
> 
>
> they might feel after him,…
>
> 
>
> and find him,…
>
> 
>
> though he be not far from every one of us.”
> —Acts 17:27 (KJV)
* * *
**SPRING LEAVES IN RAIN**
(Acts 17:27 KJV, Prov. 11:28 NLT)
Spring leaves in rain nourish me—
More skin than paper
They hang in soft folds
Of translucent baby green—
The colour of hope,
Draped like a lady’s delicate fan
From the old maple’s branches
Waiting to catch the breeze.
Pulsing with the potential
Of butterfly wings emerging
Flawless and limp
The doeskin softness fits with ease,
An almost transparent glove
Over my hand.
I trace the flow of life:
Liquid-sunshine slips
Through yellow-green veins
From stiff stem to tender leaf tips,
Through sturdy midrib lanes
To fragile feathering netted threads,
To waiting capillaries in weathered skin
To the deep veins feeding my hungry heart,
Blending with my warm blood life-red
To visit every cell that craves a reason to live.
Spring leaves in rain comfort me—
The softness is something I can grow into—
The feel of hope,
A kid-leather glove
Hiding my scarred skin
With a layer as vulnerable as love.
I would hold life as a pale young leaf,
As tender and unguarded,
As knowing as they are, as free of grief—
Fearing neither tear nor fall,
Knowing next year’s leaf already waits—
Winter bud of determination,
The Creator’s caring provision
For life’s scars and seasons.
I too can survive and reappear
Soft as a baby’s cheek,
Demanding no reasons;
Feeling after Him,
And finding Him, not far away, but near;
Tracing the abiding flow of life-sap—
The Sonshine in my veins—
From source to need,
As godly as a growing leaf.
—Elaine Gingrich, June 10, 2013/ February 2015
* * *
> “The godly flourish…
>
> 
>
> like leaves in spring.”
> —Proverbs 11:28 (NLT)
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/spring-leaves-in-rain/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353435206-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## God’s Word and the Pastor’s Authority (Hebrews 1:1-4)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-04-28
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: God's Word and the Pastor's Authority (Hebrews 1:1-4) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Pastor, why should anyone listen to your words? The answer is both simple and demanding: your words must proclaim God's word.
Tags: biblical interpretation, biblical authority, Gareth L. | Cockerill, word of God, -Hebrews 1:1-4, authority, monotheism, people of God, preaching, revelation
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/gods-word-pastors-authority
**Pastor, why should anyone listen to your words?** What is the basis of your authority? The answer is both simple and demanding: people should listen to your words to the extent that your words express the word of God.
I have been too busy to blog for a month now, which doesn’t sit well with me at all! But (a) this too shall pass, God willing, after we are settled properly into our Atlanta house, and (b) I can’t help sharing a little nugget this morning.
First, a happy random note: I’m sitting here in our new kitchen as I blog. In the past five minutes, right here in our own backyard, I have seen both a great blue heron and a hawk! Much nicer than the baby snake (harmless variety) I found in our basement yesterday morning. The wrens nesting in our basement will need to be removed after this season, too, despite the cheer they bring. Truly we are moving to an urban jungle!
**Back to God’s word and ours.** I have just begun reading [Gareth Lee Cockerill’s recent Hebrews commentary](http://amzn.to/1SMnZhb) as part of my morning Bible time. I’m really liking his insights and assessments so far.
[](http://amzn.to/1SMnZhb)
[
](http://amzn.to/1SMnZhb)
**Here is the passage from his commentary introduction that provoked this little post today.** Enjoy!
> The pastor’s authority rests on the gospel message (2:1-4) that he holds in common with his hearers and on the persuasive quality of his exegesis.
I’ll interrupt briefly to say “Read that again!” When Cockerill says “pastor,” he is describing the author of Hebrews. But his words are equally valid for pastors today! Back to the quote:
> Heb 1:1-4 enunciates the fundamental principles that underlie his interpretation of the OT. First, the God who “spoke” through the OT has now “spoken” in one who is Son. The inclusion of the OT under the rubric of “the prophets” (1:1) indicates that it anticipated God’s ultimate self-revelation. Thus this final word in the Son is both continuous with, and the fulfillment of, all that God said before the Son assumed humanity. Second, to the continuity of the divine Speaker one must add the continuity of the human recipients. Those to whom God spoke through the prophets were the “fathers” of those he addresses in his Son (1:1-2). God’s people have always consisted of those who hear, embrace, and persevere in the word of God. Both those who live before and after Christ have received the same call, the same promise, the same “gospel,” and are on pilgrimage to the same heavenly “city,” which all the faithful will obtain through Christ. There is one God and one people of God.
>
> This firm confidence in the continuity of the divine speaker and of the human addressees underlies the pastor’s sense of the immediacy of God’s word. Thus it is no surprise that he prefers OT passages that are in the form of direct address and that he introduces them with verbs denoting speech rather than with “it is written.” What God has said in the past is of more than antiquarian interest. God “speaks” to his people in the present both by the words that he spoke to his people of old (Heb 3:7–4:11; 10:36-39) and by his conversations with his Son concerning the Son’s incarnation and exaltation (1:1-14; 2:11-13; 7:1-28); 10:5-10). God’s final revelation embraces more than what the Son has said. God’s final revelation is found in the fully adequate Savior he has become through his incarnation, obedience, self-offering, and session. The work of the Son enables God’s people to grasp his previous revelation more clearly and obey it more diligently. (Pp. 43-45)
Nearly every sentence there deserves meditation, helping us think more clearly about topics as varied as preaching, biblical interpretation, monotheism, and the identity of the people of God. God bless you as you listen to, obey, and proclaim the word of God today!
**[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/gods-word-pastors-authority/#respond) Thanks!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 11: We Bought a House!
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-03-25
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 11: We Bought a House! • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Thanks to God, and thanks to the kind help of God's people---and that's not mere pious, flowery verbiage---we are now owners of a house in Atlanta, Georgia.
Tags: churchfunding, answered prayer, house
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-11-we-bought-a-house
**Thanks to God, and thanks to the kind help of God’s people—and that is not mere pious, flowery verbiage—we are now owners of a house in Atlanta, Georgia!** This weekend our realtor gets the keys for us, and we can begin work on the house as soon as we’re ready.
God willing, there will be many house church gatherings hosted in this space.
Life is now too busy for a long post, but I do want to share the good news. For all the prayers we have lifted, we had better now lift some praises! Do I hear an Amen?
**Here is a skeleton record of our last two dizzying weeks:**
* Friday, March 11 (only two weeks ago today!): We receive verbal confirmation that our offer on a house in Atlanta has been accepted. At last!
* Saturday, March 12: I start driving to Pennsylvania to pick up my wife Zonya and our girls (who were there to visit Zonya’s grandmother, whose health has been declining). I stayed overnight in Ohio, with Rodney and Faith Troyer—Rodney being the CPA who provided crucial vision and guidance for [our churchfunding project](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/).
* Monday, March 14: We drive all day from Pennsylvania to Georgia.
* Tuesday, March 15: We receive word that our offer has indeed been accepted, and we see inside the house for the first time. It is really nasty! We pivot and immediately visit another house, one I had seen back in January. It is much nicer. I cancel the inspection that we had scheduled for the first house.
* Wednesday, March 16: We place an offer on the second house.
* Thursday, March 17: Our offer is accepted!
* Friday, March 18: I call early in the morning to schedule an inspection of the second house ASAP. My call wakes up the scheduler, who is a grandmother and works from home and thanks me heartily for waking her up so she can get her grandchild off to school! Later in the day I drop off some earnest money at the realtor’s office. We also cancel our offer on the first house.
* Sunday, March 20: Inspection completed, that evening we head to South Carolina to visit friends for several days. Zonya and the children have a great time. I car shop, without success—but also enjoy some gracious southern hospitality.
* Wednesday, March 23: I call my Iowa banker, just to be sure we’re ready to initiate a wire transfer the next day. My banker tells me I need to be in Iowa to do this! A mad scramble begins, changing our plans to have all parties present Friday morning for closing.
* Thursday, March 24: We leave South Carolina and return to Atlanta—about a 3 hour drive. At 1:00 p.m. we go to the attorney’s office and sign for the house purchase. Then we drive all night home to Iowa—spending another 17-1/2 hours on the road.
* Friday, March 25: At 9:00 a.m. I am standing outside our Iowa bank—actually, they see me outside and let me in early! We send off the wire transfer for the house purchase. Later the same morning the seller signs the papers at the attorney’s office in Atlanta. We receive confirmation mid-day that the wire transfer was successful and the transaction is now complete!
Since this is a public blog, I don’t want to share too many details about the house here. If you want to know and see more, contact me privately.
**But here (visit [GINGRICH HOUSE ATLANTA](http://store.csmuckerphotography.com/gingrichhouseatlanta/)) are some photos of the house God is allowing us to steward**. (Photo credits to [Christy Smucker](http://www.csmuckerphotography.com/).) A few notes:
* All the outdoor photos are of the first, rejected house.
* The inside ones begin in the master bedroom, progress through the other bedrooms and the main bath, survey the main hosting area, and end up (with a few extra bedroom shots) in the room I expect to use for teaching piano.
* You also get a bonus shot showing how pleased my wife is with the kitchen! I’ll put it here so you don’t miss it. 🙂
“Can you believe it? It’s big! It’s bright! It’s almost too good to be true!” Yes, the kitchen still needs a lot of work, but I expect that a lot of great cooking will happen here. I thank God for remembering my wife when he gave us this house.
**Here are some extra photos I took of the kitchen**, from the dining room doorway (looking left, center, and right):
And, finally, **here are two shots of the yard immediately behind the house**. The house is on the left of the first shot (and plenty of backyard parking space). The second shot pans to the right, with more greenery and an outdoor hosting space across a little bridge.
Well, I better stop. I need to live life and not merely report it!
But **please do take time to join us in thanking God for his goodness!** And we covet your prayers for the weeks ahead, which will include many decisions, much travel, and lots of time apart as a couple and a family.
Our prayer is not only that these busy days will help free us to be more useful in years ahead, but also that we will honor Christ in each moment, right here and now.
Oh, and one more thing: Next month is April, and we have not forgotten: We indeed plan to begin repaying our lenders, in random order (giving preference to seniors), in $500 monthly increments.
**[Share your celebrations or advice in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-11-we-bought-a-house/#respond) Thank you!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Thirty-Three Years: A Life [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-03-25
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Thirty-Three Years: A Life [Poem by Mom] • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The puzzle: Did Jesus come to live or to die for us? "He came to die, but first He came to live... / ...He lives! But first He came to die."
Tags: kingdom of God, resurrection, faith, G.K. | Chesterton, gospel, reason, cross, N.T. | Wright, -Hebrews 11:3, -Romans 11:33, -Romans 4:25, -Romans 5:1, atonement, incarnation, logic, poetry, Tim | Chester
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/thirty-three-years-life-poem-mom
_**Have you been impatiently waiting for the monthly poem from my mom?** No, we have not forgotten. Here it is, just in time to help you remember the death and life of Christ._
_God bless you as you read Mom’s poem and meditate on Christ._
* * *
**I remember as a young girl,** lying on the grass, gazing at the immense blue summer sky above me, and trying to grasp in the “grain of sand” that was my mind, the concept of eternity. As the clouds moved lazily overhead I pondered the puzzle of eternity past and eternity future, tried to envision the vast expanses of “time” implied, and wondered which would be more irrational, that God should have never begun—how could that be!—or that He should have a beginning—but then how and why could He have begun? I would try to stretch my mind across the eons of eternity from past to future until I felt my brain would explode.
G. K. Chesterton said that “poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea… the result is mental exhaustion. To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet desires… a world to stretch himself in… asks only to get his head into the heavens… the logician… seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head which splits.”
The Scriptures tell us it is “_by faith we understand_ that the worlds were framed by the word of God…not…of things which are visible” (Heb. 11:3, NKJV, italics added).
**I was nearing fifty years of age** when I wrote the following poem about Christ’s time on earth, and my brain felt no more adequate then of grasping the puzzle of Christ’s work of salvation than it was earlier with the concept of eternity.
_**The puzzle: Did Jesus come to live or to die for us?**_ His death was only efficacious because of His Resurrection and because of His perfect life. His life alone could not have saved us. He needed a body for the very purpose of dying for us. Remission of sin demands blood shed, a death, a sacrifice.
Romans 5:1 says we are “justified _by faith_” in Him “who was delivered up \[to death\] because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:25, NKJV, italics added).
> Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! (Rom. 11: 33, NASB)
In humble _faith_ I celebrate and trust in the life and death and resurrection of my Risen Lord and Saviour as all-sufficient for my **eternal salvation**!
—Elaine Gingrich, March 1, 2016
* * *
**THIRTY-THREE YEARS: A LIFE**
He came to die, but first He came to live.
Not as some faceless, flat protagonist
Who dies in a pale story, never missed
By readers. No, our captured minds would give
The world to know this Man. The finest sieve
Can catch no fault in Him. Go down the list
From “healed a leper” to “by traitor kissed,”
Then watch Him die unjustly, yet forgive.
Here was a man to tower above men,
With strength to calm the stormy Galilee,
With touch more tender than a baby’s sigh.
Here was a man _deserves_ to live again,
A man to love! We turn the page to see
The script. He lives! But first He came to die.
—Elaine Gingrich, May 2, 2000
* * *
_While this was not her intent, **Mom’s insight about the need to connect the life and the death of Christ has been the subject of some recent discussion in scholarly circles.**_
_N.T. Wright, for example, wrote a book called_ [How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels](http://amzn.to/1RyczA0). _Wright argues that evangelicals and other confessional Christians, influenced by the pattern of the ancient creeds, have tended to emphasize the virgin birth and the cross of atonement while skipping over the life of Christ with his radical kingdom teachings. Liberal theologians, however, influenced by post-Enlightenment critical scholarship and embarrassed by the miraculous elements of Jesus’ birth and death, have emphasized the exemplary power of his human life._
_But true Christianity needs both—the kingdom teachings and life of Jesus on the one hand, and also his miraculous, saving death and resurrection. In Wright’s words, we need both kingdom and cross. (While I have not read this book, I have listened about three times to [this lecture Wright gave](http://www.calvin.edu/january/2012/NTWright.htm) on the same topic. Highly recommended.)_
_Wright is a scholar of the first rank, but his book above is written for a general audience. Pastors have also written on this subject, such as Tim Chester in his 2015 book_ [Crown of Thorns: Connecting Kingdom and Cross.](http://amzn.to/1Zqga33) _(I have not read this book, but am familiar enough with Chester to feel confident it will be a useful read.)_
_**I am excited to see scholars and pastors grasp this insight.** But understanding exactly_ how _Jesus’ life and death relate together to save us and shape our lives is secondary to simply trusting and following him. So it’s okay if you identify with what Mom said after I shared some of the above with her:_
> You can develop the deep debates and I will stick to the simpler faith foundation. 🙂
_I am deeply grateful to my mother for helping to keep my faith foundation firm, both in my youth and to this day._
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/thirty-three-years-life-poem-mom/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353222085-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 10: We Might Have a House!
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-03-21
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 10: We Might Have a House! | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We are under contract to purchase a house in Atlanta. Please pray as we make final decisions and head toward closing. (And contact us if you want to help.)
Tags: churchfunding
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-10-might-have-house
**I’ve been too busy house hunting lately to blog!** But it’s high time for a brief update.
_**In short, we placed an offer on a house, the offer has been accepted, and closing could come as soon as this Friday.**_ The sudden action has left us dizzy and grateful and relying more than ever on God!
This house is not the same house that I mentioned in [my last post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-9-answer-special-prayer/). That house turned out to have multiple problems that we couldn’t see until we looked inside–especially water damage in both the basement and the attic, with a slope to the property that promised more flooding problems in the future.
Most of the run-off from two properties drains here, then—unless the sump pump is fully dependable—right into the basement.
The moment we stepped out of that house I asked our realtor what he had scheduled next. Did he have time to immediately look at another house?
Regrouping outside the house we rejected. L to R: Me, our realtor, Steve, Zonya, our middle daughter.
He did. So we all drove right over to a house that our realtor and I had looked at back in January. At that point it appealed to me in a lot of ways, but seemed beyond our budget.
Since then it dropped in price. We are currently under contract for buying it for $65,000. More price negotiation may yet happen based on an inspection we had done this past weekend, and we can still back out if we wish.
_**This “new” house (definitely a well-used dwelling) has a lot going for it.**_ Most importantly, it has lots of room inside and out for hosting church gatherings and piano students, there is plenty of parking space, and the street is quieter than some in the neighborhood. While we might not often walk from there to Steve and Christy’s, the park, or the library, we can drive there in about five minutes or less.
The main hosting area: Living room on left, dining room on right, kitchen through archway. The door down the hall leads into the “piano teaching room,” a bathroom, and a laundry.
Two Smucker boys marching over the stream into the back of the backyard. Under all that brush is a lot of stone landscaping, including an outdoor fireplace.
(I’ll likely share some better pictures of the house after/if we actually buy it. For now I’m exercising caution for privacy and purchase negotiation reasons.)
The churchfunding effort that many of you have joined on our behalf is making this house purchase possible! And since we can make a cash purchase offer, it is giving us a leg up on price negotiations, too.
**If any of you want to help out more**—and make your money go further, and see our house!—**then here are some ways you could help:**
* _**Offer to stay in our new house—starting almost ASAP—to help keep it secure**_ while we wrap up things in Iowa and prepare the house. Sign up to stay for a few days, a week, or a month. Free Atlanta lodging! Not luxury at this point, but hopefully with water and electricity. 🙂
* _**If you have already offered to possibly help prep the house, confirm if you still think you might be able.**_ An experienced (and hired) contractor to oversee the repairs would be a blessing. Steve can offer part-time oversight, which is great and may be enough, though he does have a day job. Work tasks will include HVAC installation, wiring, drywall, painting, doors, flooring, replacing window panes and at least one window, and other similar things. House cleaning and yard cleanup will also need to be done.
* _**Pray!**_ As first-time home buyers, we are on a steep learning curve. Pray we can make wise decisions that will free us long-term to serve God and others.
I think that’s all for now. **Send me an email or Facebook message if you want to discuss any of this further. ([Or comment below with more general responses.](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-10-might-have-house/#respond))**
One more thing: It was a great blessing to have the Gingrich and Smucker families all together again this past week for the first time since last summer! Children and adults all enjoyed it. Sharing a Lord’s Day together—including celebrating the Lord’s Supper for the first time as a fledgling church fellowship—was especially special.
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 9: An Answer to Special Prayer?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-03-08
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 9: An Answer to Special Prayer? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: On February 16 I gave an "invitation to special prayer" for our Atlanta house hunt. Today I give an update on the results of those prayers--and invite more!
Tags: churchfunding, prayer
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-9-answer-special-prayer
**On the morning of February 16 I sent out an [“invitation to special prayer”](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-8-invitation-special-prayer/) regarding our Atlanta house hunt.** On my lunch break that day I spotted a house _that had just been listed for sale that same morning_. Unlike any house I had spotted for several months, this one seemed to be a good match for our ideal criteria. Given the timing, I couldn’t help wondering: Is this the answer to our prayers?
The days since have been full of nothing. Full of waiting, that is. We were waiting on responses from the seller’s agent… and he was apparently waiting on a house key from the owner… who reportedly was waiting on the renter to provide a copy of the key… since the owner had lost hers. Some of you have been following my blow-by-blow commentary on Facebook. Finally, yesterday, the log jam started truly moving.
**Today we finally placed an offer on that house. However, our offer was not accepted.**
**What does this mean?** Several things could happen:
* We could receive a counter-offer from the seller tonight or tomorrow.
* The seller might not respond to us at all, especially if they have received another offer they prefer.
* We may try again with a bigger offer.
* Regardless, our realtor will be contacting the seller’s agent in the morning to see what we can learn.
If we do come to an agreement with the seller over a purchase price, then we will have some busy days ahead! There will be a “due diligence” period of about a week. During that time, the house will need to be inspected, with an assessment of the cost of any needed repairs. We will need to decide if it is indeed a good match for us. Then, if it is a good match, we will need to process the paperwork to close on the house.
Thankfully, closing should be less complicated than sometimes, since we plan to make a cash purchase—thanks to many of you! If we can secure this house, our realtor says closing could come yet before the end of this month—maybe even within two weeks. We actually might own a home before we start making our promised “mortgages payments” in April!
**Is our Atlanta house hunt nearing an end?** (And will Steve and Christy Smucker finally see our promising words translate into actions?) _**We don’t know.** **But we do know that our God is strong, and wise, and good.**_ He will answer our prayers in the best possible way.
And we also know that your prayers and words (and emails and “likes” on Facebook) have been strengthening our hearts as we wait on God’s perfect timing. So, once again, we say Thank You!
_**Please continue to pray with us as we continue our attempt to purchase this house!**_ This house seems like it could be a very good fit—even better than the one we wanted last fall. We would dearly love for this to be the one… May God’s will be done. (Please pray also for the renter, who has lived there for over 5 years and may soon be looking for another home.)
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight and the Gingrich tribe
PS: Once we indeed close on a house, then I will joyfully share some pictures and links with you all. Until then, please be patient as we try to avoid leaving the illusion that several hundred people are all interested in “our” house! If the seller sees that much “demand,” we might all be reaching deeper into our pockets…
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Christians and Satire: What Does the Bible Say?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-03-07
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Christians and Satire: What Does the Bible Say? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Is satire a suitable genre for Christian writers? Is satire found in the Bible? Yes, it most definitely is, and biblical examples can guide our words today.
Tags: -1 Corinthians 4;14, -1 Corinthians 4:8, -1 Kings 18:27, -1 Kings 22:19-23, -1 Kings 23:13-17, -1 Samuel 16:2, -2 Corinthians 12:11-13, -2 Kings 6:19, -2 Thessalonians 2:11, -Amos 4:1-6, -Amos 5:18-19, -Exodus 1:15-21, -Ezekiel 14:9, -James 2:25, -John 7:8-10, -Joshua 2:5, -Judges 4:18-22, -Judges 5:24, -Mark 4:10-12, -Matthew 23:24, -Matthew 23:27, -Matthew 23:29-32, -Proverbs 12:18, -Proverbs 27:6, communication, Elijah, exaggeration, humor, irony, Jonah, Micaiah, sarcasm, satire
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/christians-satire-what-does-bible-say
**[My last post](http://dwightgingrich.com/rat-rural-anabaptist-bible-translation/) was my first attempt at using satire here on this blog.** I received quite a bit of positive feedback, but also a few expressions of concern. Is satire a suitable genre for a Christian writer? In particular, is it fitting to rewrite the words of Scripture as I did?
_**Satire can be defined as**_ “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues” (The New Oxford American Dictionary). My use of satire was not intended to involve “ridicule,” and it was aimed at unbiblical thinking more than at “stupidity or vices.” But the rest of the definition generally matches my post. I definitely was intending to employ “humor,” “irony,” and “exaggeration,” and I did mean for my words to “expose” and “criticize” (in the sense of indicating weaknesses, not in the sense of sentencing someone to punishment).
While I have written satire before (in a university context), I do not have a well-developed theology of satire. I think this is one of those gray areas where it is unlikely all Christians will agree. Our varied backgrounds shape the way we read, so we each tend to hear the same words differently. Where one person feels a brotherly elbow to the ribs—good-natured, timely, and instructive—another may feel he is stumbling over an ill-placed rock in the path.
_**This calls for graciousness and discernment**_—on the part of both writer and reader. As I write, I want to honor you by writing in a way that will tend to produce good fruit. Your feedback will help me do so. Thank you!
Meanwhile, a few thoughts about satire in the Bible.
Elijah, wielding sword and scatological satire for God. Photo Credit: [Christyn](https://www.flickr.com/photos/9303139@N05/5262734544/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)
**Is satire found in the Bible? Yes, it most definitely is.**
_**Many students of biblical literature see much satire in the prophets, for example.**_ Jonah is a humorous example of exactly how _not_ to be a prophet. Children to this day naturally smile over his story. Who wouldn’t— with his naive attempt to run from God, his surprising fish ride that ends in a spit, and his all-out-of-measure suicidal whining over a withered plant?
Amos is another book where satire is often noted. For example, there is certainly humor, irony, exaggeration, and even ridicule behind these biting words:
> “Hear this word, **you cows** of Bashan,
> who are on the mountain of Samaria…
> “**Come to Bethel, and transgress;**
> **to Gilgal, and multiply transgression**;
> bring your sacrifices every morning,
> your tithes every three days…
> “I gave you **cleanness of teeth** in all your cities,
> and lack of bread in all your places,
> yet you did not return to me,”
> declares the Lord. (Amos 4:1, 4, 6)
>
> Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord!
> Why would you have the day of the Lord?
> It is darkness, and not light,
> **as if a man fled from a lion,**
> **and a bear met him,**
> **or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall,**
> **and a serpent bit him**. (Amos 5:18-19)
Or consider Elijah’s words on Mount Carmel, _descending even to bathroom humor_ as he ridicules Baal:
> And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. **Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened**.” (1 Kings 18:27)
_**Biblical satire is not limited to the Old Testament.**_ Paul used satire when addressing his opponents at Corinth:
> Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us **you have become kings**! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! (1 Cor. 4:8; cf. 2 Cor. 12:11-13)
Why did he use such language?
> I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. (1 Cor. 4:14)
**Jesus, too, used satire.** (He also used a lot of more general hyperbole—exaggeration—a fact that provides interpretive challenges for us who believe, with Dean Taylor, that Jesus “meant every word he said.”) Ask yourself: Can you really imagine no one snickering at least a little when Jesus spoke the following words?
> You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!… You are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matt. 23:24, 27)
And the mixture of humor, exaggeration, and biting attack in the following words is brilliant!
> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. (Matt. 23:29-32)
There is no way those words would pass the inspection of Logic 101. But they function absolutely perfectly on the level of emotionally-moving rhetoric. And they are certainly satire.
More biblical examples could easily be given. The topic deserves at least a full essay!
_**I get the sense that the ancient Jewish world (much like the modern Jewish world) was much more used to this kind of powerful and confrontational use of language than what we are**_, especially in our Anabaptist subculture. I do notice that the strongest use of satire in the Bible seems to be reserved for those who are furthest from God. Rebukes of fellow believers tend to be more gentle—yet even there Paul used some satire, as noted above.
**What about rewriting God’s words? Do we find any positive examples of that sort of thing in Scripture? Yes, I think we do.**
In Kings we read about wicked King Ahab convincing his friend King Jehoshaphat to join him in a military campaign. Jehoshaphat wants to have some prophets inquire of the Lord before they head into battle. So Ahab gathers 400 false prophets together. They all predict success. Jehoshaphat, however, isn’t satisfied. So Ahab begrudgingly invites Micaiah, a true prophet of God, to add his word. What sort of word does Micaiah bring? Let’s listen:
> And the messenger who went to summon Micaiah said to him, “Behold, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king. Let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably.” But Micaiah said, **“As the Lord lives, what the Lord says to me, that I will speak.”** (1 Kings 23:13-14)
That sounds clear enough, doesn’t it? But continue listening:
> And when he had come to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?” **And he answered him, “Go up and triumph; the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.”** But the king said to him, “How many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?” And he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.’” (1 Kings 22:15-17)
_**Notice Micaiah’s prophetic strategy****:** **The first time he spoke, he intentionally misrepresented the words of God.**_ Only when pressed to clarify did he present God’s words accurately.
Why did Micaiah do this? _What did Micaiah achieve through satire that he would not have achieved if he had spoken God’s word accurately and directly the first time?_
I can think of at least two good answers. First, _**Micaiah’s satirical approach forced Ahab to work harder to learn the truth.**_ This is consistent with the pattern of God’s dealings with humanity; he often withholds truth from those who seek it only casually. Sometimes he does this to leave rebellious souls in the dark. Other times he withholds light in order to make sincere seekers seek it more earnestly. Effective communication—including some forms of satire—can make the listener or reader work harder. If they work harder, they can learn more. The same is true of biblical proverbs and parables; just enough light is given to make the earnest seeker scratch his head, asking questions that uncover much more truth—and lodge it deeper in his heart–than if facts were handed to him without any effort on his part.
Second, **_Micaiah’s satirical approach effectively exposed Ahab’s heart._** His words uncovered Ahab’s ruse; Ahab had no real desire to hear God’s word, despite his pious religious pretending. Sarcasm pricked his pretensions in a powerful way. It triggered what was virtually a confession: “I know that God doesn’t have good things to say about me.”
_**So, as surprising as it may sound, we have positive precedent for intentionally misrepresenting God’s word!**_ Notice, of course, that Micaiah didn’t leave anyone deceived longterm about God’s word. His misrepresentation was limited and brief. And it was followed up by a true proclamation of God’s word. (Similarly, my RAT “translation” was accompanied by links directing the reader to an accurate translation of Scripture. I hope at least a few readers took time to ponder the differences.)
**Believe it or not, there are also plenty of biblical examples of God himself deliberately deceiving people!** In this same passage, for example, we read the following:
> And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ Now therefore behold, **the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets**; the Lord has declared disaster for you.” (1 Kings 22:19-23)
There are more passages about God deceiving humans—telling Samuel how to save his life by practicing deception (1 Sam. 16:2), deceiving prophets who are consulted by those with idolatrous hearts (Ez. 14:9), and sending a strong delusion on those who take pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thess. 2:11). In addition, there are various passages where God’s people practice deceit and are rewarded. Consider the Hebrew midwives (Ex. 1:15-21), Rahab (Josh. 2:5; James 2:25), Jael (Judg. 4:18-22; 5:24), and Elijah (2 Kings 6:19). Jesus deliberately left some people in the dark about his teachings (Mark 4:10-12), and even apparently intentionally mislead others about his intentions (John 7:8-10; while many commentators suggest ways to understand that Jesus was not directly _lying_ here, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he deliberately led his brothers to believe something that was not true).
These passages are beyond the scope of this post, but they are nevertheless worthy of our consideration.
**So, what tentative conclusions can we draw about Christians and satire from the biblical texts I have shared?** Here are a number:
* Satire is an important, though secondary, form of Christian proclamation.
* Satire can be an effective way to get attention, so that people actually hear (and remember) your words.
* Satire can stir sincere seekers to a more diligent search for truth.
* Satire can effectively expose people’s hearts—their false motives and bad thinking.
* The strongest satire (sarcasm) is usually best reserved for false teachers who need to be publicly exposed in order to protect others from their influence.
* Gentle satire is sometimes an expression of familial love and care.
* The humor in satire should invite us to laugh at human folly or at surprising imagery, but not at God himself.
* Satirical misrepresentation of God’s words must be purposeful, limited, and temporary—never letting people walk away with confusion about what God has said.
_**In addition to these tentative conclusions, we should also remember the repeated call of Scripture to be gentle and loving in our speech.**_ Our words should never be hurtful merely for our own pleasure. Yes, “faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Prov. 27:6). On the other hand: “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Prov. 12:18).
Don’t worry—I don’t plan to start an Anabaptist version of the Onion, despite several readers encouraging me to do so! As a Christian communicator, I want my words to be nutritious. Flavorful, yes, but not overwhelmed with the spice of satire.
* * *
**What do you think? Have you pondered the place of satire in the Bible?** When is it right for Christians to imitate the satirical words of Elijah, Amos, Paul, and Jesus? Is satire more fitting for some cultures than for others? And what do we make of Micaiah’s satirical misrepresentation of God’s word? Can you help me think of any similar biblical examples? **[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/christians-satire-what-does-bible-say/#respond) And thank you!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The RAT: A New Bible Translation for Anabaptists
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-03-06
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: The RAT: A New Bible Translation for Anabaptists
Meta Description: Anabaptists have not yet come to a consensus on the thorny problem of Bible translations. Now there is a new option: the Rural Anabaptist Translation (RAT).
Tags: Bible translations, satire, Anabaptist culture, cities, culture, farming, RAT, rural, Rural Anabaptist Translation, urban
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/rat-rural-anabaptist-bible-translation
**Anabaptists have not yet come to a consensus on the thorny problem of Bible translations.** Now there is another option they will need to consider. A new translation is underway that may be of special interest to some readers of this blog. In this post I am sharing excerpts from translation efforts so far.
The translation team would appreciate your feedback. You don’t have to know Hebrew or Greek to help. As you read over these excerpts, simply compare them with your favorite translation. (Links to the ESV translation have also been provided–just hover over the references at the end of each passage and the ESV text will appear.)
Two kinds of feedback are most welcome: (1) Improvements on the passages shared here. (2) Suggestions for translating your other favorite Bible passages.
**Without further ado, here are some excerpts from the new RAT:**
> Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the city that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not buy from any store in the country’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may buy the produce of the bulk food stores in the country, but God said, ‘You shall not buy the products of the store that is in the midst of the city (lo, Macy’s in Manhattan), neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you buy of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw in the window display that the products were good quality, and that they were a delight to the eyes, and that the store was to be desired to make one cool, she took of its products and bought, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he bought. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed Spandex together and made themselves loincloths. (See Gen. 3:1-7)
>
> And when they were in the subway, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. (See Gen. 4:8)
>
> And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the city of Sodom was prosperous, like New York City, the banking capital of America… So Lot chose for himself all the city of Sodom, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other. (See Genesis 13:10-11)
>
> And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you cross the Jordan into Waterloo County, then you shall select farms to be farms of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person without intent may flee there. (See Num. 35:9-11)
>
> “Hear, O Israel: you are to cross over the Jordan today, to go in to dispossess farmers greater and mightier than you, croplands great and growing up to heaven.” (See Deut. 9:1)
>
> “Cursed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field.” (See Deut. 28:3)
>
> And no portion was given to the Levites in the cities, but only farms to dwell in, with their pasturelands for their livestock and their substance. (See Joshua 14:4)
>
> The people of Israel gave an inheritance among them to Joshua the son of Nun. By command of the Lord they gave him the farm that he asked, in Elkhart County. And he rebuilt the farm and settled in it. (See Josh. 19:49-50)
>
> And David lived in the Shenandoah valley and called it the farm of David. And David plowed the farm all around from Harrisonburg northward. And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him. (See 2 Sam. 5:9-10)
>
> “To his son I will give one tribe, that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Holmes County, the farmland where I have chosen to put my name.” (See 1 Kings 11:36)
>
> “I will deliver you and this farm out of the hand of the urban developers, and I will defend this farm for my own sake and for my servant David’s sake.” (See 2 Kings 20:6)
>
> Jehoshaphat lived near Gap. And he went out again among the people… and brought them back to the LORD, the God of their fathers. He appointed judges in the land in all the farming communities of Pennsylvania, farm by farm. (See 2 Chron. 19:4-5)
>
> I said to the king, “Let the king live forever! Why should not my face be sad, when the farm, the place of my fathers’ graves, lies in ruins, and its fences have been destroyed by fire?” Then the king said to me, “What are you requesting?” So I prayed to the God of heaven. And I said to the king, “If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, that you send me to Intercourse, to the farm of my fathers’ graves, that I may rebuild it.” (See Neh. 2:3-6)
>
> There is a river whose streams make glad the woodland of God, the holy habitation of the Most High. (See Ps. 46:4)
>
> Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised
> in the farmland of our God!
> His holy plain, beautiful in flatness,
> is the joy of all the earth,
> Kansas, in the west,
> the farmland of the great King.
> Upon her grasslands God
> has made himself known as a farmer. (See Ps. 48:1-3)
>
> Some wandered in urban alleys,
> finding no way to a farm to dwell in;
> hungry and thirsty,
> their soul fainted within them.
> Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
> and he delivered them from their distress.
> He led them by a straight way
> till they reached a farm to dwell in.
> Let them thank the Lord for his steadfast love,
> for his wondrous works to the children of man! (See Ps. 107:4-8)
>
> But seek the judgment of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord against it, for in its judgment you will find your welfare. (See Jer. 29:7)
>
> Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the city to be tempted by the devil. (See Matt. 4:1)
>
> “You are the light of the world. A farm set in a valley cannot be hidden.” (See Matt. 5:14)
>
> Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his row house apartment, another to his college class. (See Matt. 22:4-5)
>
> “For unto you is born this day on the farm of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (See Luke 2:11)
>
> “And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten getaway cabins.’” (See Luke 19:17)
>
> “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the countryside until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:49)
>
> Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and convinced them to join him in leaving the city for a safer rural environment. (See Acts 17:16-17)
>
> “I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this wilderness who are my people.” (See Acts 18:10)
>
> And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Chicago... And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him to rural places like Chambersburg, Lansing, Elnora, Hartwell, Guys Mills, Carbon Hill, and Mountain View, reasoning daily in the halls of the Bible schools. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of America heard the word of the Lord, both Anabaptists and everyone else. (See Acts 19:1, 8-10)
>
> But I say, walk on a nature trail, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. (See Gal. 5:16)
>
> Put on the whole hunter’s outfit, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. (See Eph. 6:11)
>
> And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the city? (See Heb. 3:17)
>
> And let us consider how to stir up one another to love our farming lifestyle, not neglecting to meet together to discuss pesticides and soil run-off, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another to increase our yield per acre, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (See Heb. 10:24-25)
>
> He was looking forward to the farm that has drainage tiles, whose designer and builder is God. (See Heb. 11:10)
>
> For here we have no lasting farm, but we seek the farm that is to come. (See Heb. 13:14)
>
> Clothe yourselves, all of you, with Carhartts, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (See 1 Pet. 5:5)
>
> And I saw the holy farmland, new Lancaster County, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (See Rev. 21:2)
I could share more excerpts from this fine new translation, but hopefully that is enough for you to get a feel for how it sounds. As you can tell, it tends toward the functional equivalence end of the translation philosophy spectrum, rather than being strictly word-for-word.
In the traditional Anabaptist spirit of the brotherhood principle, the translation committee welcomes your help with their work. Feel free to **[critique the above excerpts, or suggest more in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/rat-rural-anabaptist-bible-translation/#respond)**
And oh! I almost forgot to tell you: **“RAT” stands for “Rural Anabaptist Translation.” _Proving that rats live in grain bins, too, and not only subway tunnels._**
Reverend Rat reading from his new favorite translation. Photo Credit: [janjaromirhorak](https://www.flickr.com/photos/129578573@N08/16528117928/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/)
* * *
_Disclaimer__: Perhaps it would be the part of wisdom for me to clarify that the above post is a work of satire. **\[Update: See my post [“Christians and Satire: What Does the Bible Say?”](http://dwightgingrich.com/christians-satire-what-does-bible-say/) if you have questions about this style of writing.\]** As with all good pieces of satire, it is intended to be both entertaining and educational. (If you find it neither—or even if you do—please feel free to write a parallel post proposing a CAT–a “City Anabaptist Translation.” I will enjoy the entertainment.)_
_The educational bit in this piece is simple: It is an attempt to remind us that **rural does not always equal good** and **city does not always equal bad** in the text of the sacred writings—despite our cultural tendency to conveniently miss much of the evidence challenging our rural values._
_It is possible that this satire transgresses one or two rules of good exegesis or logic. I hope, God willing, to sometime write a post that gives better evidence. It would answer this question: “Can (Anabaptist) Faith Survive in the City?” That is a serious question that deserves serious answers. Meanwhile, you may wish to read my three posts answering the following question: “Why Should You Care about the City?” Each post discusses one answer:_
1. _[Because God cares about cities.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-1/)_
2. _[The city needs you.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-2/)_
3. _[You need the city.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-3/)_
_Well, it’s time to sign off. Gotta go feed them calves. Wonder where they’re at?_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Did Satan Give Super Tuesday to Trump and Clinton? (Luke 4:6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-03-02
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Did Satan Give Super Tuesday to Trump and Clinton? (Luke 4:6) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: As I write this post, Trump and Clinton are racking up victories in the race to the White House. Who gets the credit? Satan? Or God?
Tags: politics, -1 Chronicles 21:1, -1 John 5:19, -2 Corinthians 4:4, -2 Samuel 24:1, -Acts 12:23, -Daniel 4:17, -Daniel 4:28-37, -Ephesians 2:1-2, -Exodus 9:16, -Genesis 11:7-8, -Isaiah 45:1-7, -Job 1-2, -John 12:31, -John 14:30, -John 16:11, -Luke 4:5-8, -Revelation 13:5-8, -Romans 13:1-2, -Romans 8:19-22, Darrell L. | Bock, deception, earthly kingdoms, First Cause, government, Satan, secondary causation, temptation
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/did-satan-give-super-tuesday-trump-clinton
**As I write this post, Trump and Clinton are racking up victories in the race to the White House.** As you read this post, you may be celebrating or bemoaning the results of last night. You may also be wondering who is to blame for the results. Apart from human voters and strategists, who gets the credit? Satan? Or God?
If you like what happened, you might be tempted to give God credit. And if you don’t like the results, we all know whom to blame, right?
Actually, it’s not that simple. **The Bible presents a complex picture of how heavenly beings affect the affairs of earthly kingdoms.**
Satan, on the other hand, paints a simple picture. At least that is the picture he painted as he tempted Jesus. Listen to Satan’s claim:
> And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for **it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will**. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” (Luke 4:5-7)
**What should we make of Satan’s claim?** What did Jesus make of it?
Interestingly, Jesus didn’t dispute Satan’s claim. Ignoring Satan’s claim of authority, Jesus’ response zeroed in on the actual moral crux of Satan’s temptation:
> “It is written,
>
> “‘You shall worship the Lord your God,
> and him only shall you serve.’” (Luke 4:8)
Jesus didn’t dispute Satan’s claim of authority. Does this mean that Jesus agreed with Satan? Did Jesus believe that all the authority and glory of all the kingdoms of the world belonged to Satan, and that he could give it to whomever he wished? Is this true of Satan today?
**Some readers think Satan was speaking the truth.** The kingdoms of this world are clearly full of evil, and the Bible clearly states that Satan wields great power over unbelievers. Consider these texts:
> “Now is the judgment of this world; now will **the ruler of this world** be cast out.” (John 12:31; cf. John 14:30; 16:11)
>
> …**The god of this world** \[or _age_\] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ… (2 Cor. 4:4)
>
> …You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, **the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience** (Eph. 2:1-2)
Consider Paul’s words about how all creation was “subjected to futility” and is in “bondage to corruption” (Rom. 8:19-22). Worse, John the Revelator saw a time when a terrible beast “was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months”; indeed, “authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation” (Rev. 13:5-8). Some interpreters think this depicts future events, but others argue convincingly that what John saw is real already today.
And perhaps most clearly of all, who can dispute this confident assertion of John?
> We know that… **the whole world lies in the power of the evil one**. (1 John 5:19)
**If we stop here, considering only this evidence, two conclusions seem undisputable to me:**
1. Satan’s claim to Jesus was true: he does indeed possess the authority and glory of all earthly kingdoms and gives them to whoever he wishes.
2. Satan is the one who gave the Super Tuesday victories to Trump and Clinton.
But I think this analysis is too simple. _Good theology deals with all the evidence, not just the evidence in favor of Satan._
For example, **what about Paul’s words to the Romans?**
> …There is no authority except from God, and those that exist **have been instituted by God**. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists **what God has appointed**… (Rom. 13:1-2)
With the vast majority of interpreters, I understand Paul is referring to civil government leaders. Paul says these leaders have been “instituted” and “appointed” by God.
**How can we reconcile this statement with Satan’s claim to Jesus?** Or with John’s assertion that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one”?
**One solution is the idea of secondary causation**. What do I mean? First, an imprecise informal example. Let’s say I leave a sharp knife on the table and my three-year-old picks it up and cuts herself. Who caused the cut? Ultimately, I am the primary cause of the cut. But my daughter is also a secondary cause. Thus, we both can rightly be said to have caused the cut.
More precisely, here is the [Wikipedia definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_causation) of secondary causation:
> The philosophical proposition that all material and corporeal objects, having been created by God with their own intrinsic potentialities, are subsequently empowered to evolve independently in accordance with natural law.
This is the idea that God sets up the universe to run in certain ways, then steps back and (at least normally) lets the universe run without direct intervention.
Similarly, we can observe that Satan, as a being created by God, has been permitted a sphere of authority, particularly after successfully tempting Adam and Eve. Thus Satan operates as a “secondary cause” in the affairs of earth. Meanwhile God, who first permitted Satan to gain authority, remains sovereign over all, as the ultimate “First Cause.” (As a personal being he is also much more than that!)
Thus both God and Satan can be said to be, in different senses, the C/cause of the same events, the A/authority over the same sphere of influence.
A strict application of the philosophical idea of secondary causation would mean that God no longer directly interferes in the affairs of earthly kingdoms, having given that authority over to Satan.
So, back to Satan’s claim to Jesus. _**Has God has sovereignly delegated all authority over earthly kingdoms to Satan, so that Satan is now free to do whatever he wishes with these kingdoms?**_ Is secondary causation the secret for reconciling Romans 13 (God the distant, primary cause) and Luke 4 (Satan the immediate, secondary cause)?
No, I don’t think so. At least not fully. Again, I think this is too simple to explain all the biblical evidence.
_**Consider the two biblical accounts of David’s sin of calling for a census of Israel.**_ In Samuel we read that “the LORD… incited David” to number Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 24:1). In Chronicles we read that “Satan stood up against Israel and incited David” (1 Chron. 21:1).
One solution for this apparent contradiction may be to see God as the ultimate cause, but Satan as the secondary cause. I do think this distinction is helpful. But I don’t think it’s enough.
It seems that God was more directly involved than that. It hardly seems that God simply _allowed_ Satan to tempt David. The verb “incited” in Samuel suggests that God was an active agent.
Perhaps we could say that God incited David by _nudging_ Satan to tempt him, or by _permitting_ Satan to carry out his evil intent against David. This solution would mirror what happened with Job, where God intentionally brings Job to Satan’s attention, _knowing that doing so would trigger Satan’s intent to test Job_.
_**In summary, while I do think the philosophical concept of secondary causation has some validity, I don’t think it recognizes God’s direct agency sufficiently.**_ Yes, there is a sense in which God has turned this fallen earth over to Satan so that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). But I think God still directly and regularly intervenes, controlling events not only through his sovereign “set-up” of how the universe runs, but also through directly permitting and limiting and even overriding Satan’s authority.
**Consider some more biblical evidence.** In the following accounts, God is pictured as shaping the course of earthly kingdoms. While some of these situations may possibly permit Satan’s involvement as a secondary cause, others seem indisputably to be direct interventions by God. **All of these, it seems to me, challenge Satan’s claim that he freely gives the authority and glory of earthly kingdoms to whoever he wishes:**
* _**At the tower of Babel**_ God frustrated the language and purposes of earthly leaders. “Come, let us go down and there confuse their language,” he said. Then “the Lord dispersed them” (Gen. 11:7-8).
* _**In the Exodus**_ God directly sent plagues on Egypt, countering Pharaoh’s aims and ultimately drowning him in the Red Sea. “For this purpose I have raised you up,” the Lord told Pharaoh, “to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth” (Ex. 9:16).
* _**In the conquest of Canaan**_ God waged holy war against idolatrous nations, giving the land over to his people in fulfillment of his ancient promises. Similarly, many accounts describe God actively defeating enemy nations and removing kings during the time of Israel’s monarchy.
* _**In Daniel**_ God is repeatedly described as sovereign over earthly kingdoms. In particular, consider how God, in fulfillment of his own prophetic word, took the Babylonian kingdom away from proud Nebuchadnezzar. Then—in an act that leaves even less room for Satan’s authority and agency—God restored Nebuchadezzar’s reason and kingdom, bringing him to humble repentance (Dan. 4:28-37). Why did God do this? So that “the living may know that **the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will** and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Dan. 4:17).
* _**God chose Cyru****s**_ before he was born to be the one who would oversee the return of exiled Israel and the rebuilding of the temple. Listen to God’s words of direct agency: He “anointed” Cyrus; he “grasped” Cyrus’s right hand to make him a military victor; he said “I will go before you… I call you by your name.” Why did God do all this? “That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other… I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things” (Is. 45:1-7).
* _**When Herod allowed the people to praise him as a god**_, “immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down” (Acts 12:23).
**As I consider accounts such as these, I have to call Satan’s bluff.** Yes, there is a sense in which the kingdoms of the world have been “delivered” to him. But he does not “give \[them\] to whom \[he\] will.” Only God can rightly make that claim.
Satan is a liar. And his temptations usually include lies. Often he takes the truth, then subtly twists it, or tells only half of it. This is what he did when he tempted Jesus.
Darrell Bock, in [his commentary on Luke](http://amzn.to/1QqgFV5), comes to the same conclusion:
> **It is probably best to say that the devil’s offer is a mixture of truth and error.** He is pictured as wielding great authority on the earth, so much so that some interpreters regard the offer as totally genuine… He certainly claims such authority in saying he can give these things to whomever he wishes. **It is possible that Satan believes the claim**, so that the offer should be seen as involving diabolical self-delusion.
>
> But there is evidence in the Gospel that suggests the offer is exaggerated. Jesus’ expulsion of demons is against such a view of Satan’s absolute authority. Later in Luke, Jesus’ authority triumphs over the demons, and the demons respond to his rebuke… Their fear shows that the demons are aware of a limitation on their power. That Satan can be dismissed, as he is in Matt. 4:10, may also suggest this limitation. From the text’s perspective, **Satan’s offer is at best characterized as an oversell** (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), **and at worst it is a lie** (John 8:44).[1](#fn-2276-1) (bold added)
**So, back to our opening question: Did Satan give Trump and Clinton their Super Tuesday victories?** My short answer is “I don’t know.” I suspect both God and Satan were actively involved, though with God firmly overseeing Satan’s activity–prodding it and limiting it for his purposes.
I think that in most situations like this we are much like Job. He had no idea why he was experiencing what he experienced. He didn’t know Satan was behind the raiding bands, the whirlwind, and the boils. Neither did he know that God had “set him up,” intentionally inviting Satan’s attention.
We know more about heavenly involvement in the affairs of man than Job did—thanks in part to reading Job’s story. But we, like him, still don’t usually know _in the moment_ the ways of God with Satan and man.
**So, do we credit Satan or God for the results last night?** I can’t give a full answer. But this much I do know: **“T****he Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will**.”
May we trust and honor him, no matter where he bestows his gifts.
* * *
**What do you make of Satan’s claim?** Do you agree with the understanding I’ve presented here? How do you trace the hand of God in the affairs of earthly kingdoms? **I’m not interested in hosting a political debate, but [I do welcome your reflections in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/did-satan-give-super-tuesday-trump-clinton/#respond).** Thank you!
1. Darrell L. Bock, _Luke 1:1-9:50_, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 376. [↩](#fnref-2276-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What Jesus Wished He Could Say before He Died (John 16:12)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-27
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: What Jesus Wished He Could Say before He Died (John 16:12) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Jesus didn't say everything he wanted to say before he died. The red letters of Scripture are not enough. Jesus' Spirit has more to say.
Tags: biblical interpretation, biblical authority, Jesus' words, gospel, spiritual gifts, red letters, -1 Corinthians 12:28, -1 Corinthians 12:29-30, -1 John 4:1-3, -Acts 13:1, -John 16:12-14, apostolic authority, Gary | Burge, prophecy, testing the spirits
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-jesus-wished-could-say-before-died
**If you died today, what might you regret you’d left unsaid?** Such death-bed regrets are common. Many dying people regret that they didn’t say “I love you” more often. Others conclude they should have spoken their mind more, expressing their feelings courageously instead of holding back and resenting things. (For some common death-bed regrets, see [here](http://thedailypositive.com/top-10-regrets-dying/) and [here](http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/01/top-five-regrets-of-the-dying).)
Though Jesus had no such regrets at his death, he did have things that he wanted to say, but couldn’t, before he died. Rightly understood, we could even say that _Jesus didn’t say everything he wanted to say before he died._
**In Sunday school right now we are studying John 14-16**, which record Jesus’ final teachings to his disciples before he died. Jesus shared profound things in these final hours. We are deeply grateful for these last words. They are a deep reservoir of truth and hope.
But Jesus had still deeper things in his heart, things he simply could not share prior to his death:
> “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12)
This cryptic statement invites questions:
* What was it that Jesus left unsaid?
* What did he mean that the hearers would need to “bear” them?
* Why were the disciples unable to bear them at that moment?
* What did they need first, in order to be able to bear them?
To begin answering these questions, I direct you to Jesus’ next words:
> When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13-14)
**Whatever else Jesus means by these words, this much is clear: The red letters of Scripture are not enough.** Our Sunday school quarterlies[1](#fn-2266-1) state this well:
> The teachings Jesus left for us include more than just His words in the four Gospels. This refutes those who say that they go by only what Jesus taught but not what Paul or the other New Testament writers taught. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. He does it through the New Testament especially, but also through the Old Testament…
>
> The disciples could not understand or bear all that Jesus would teach, and so He would teach more through the inspired writings of the New Testament.
Notice, that sentence at the end of the first paragraph does not say “though the _red letters_ especially,” but “through the _New Testament_ especially.” That is correct. If the Holy Spirit indeed took what was Jesus’ and declared it to the apostles (John 16:14), then the apostolic writings—the black letters of the NT—are Jesus’ words, too.
**I wrote about this in my essay “Red Letter Reductionism.”** Here is part of what I wrote:
> The “raw data” of Jesus’ perfect revelation of the Father is most clearly and fully understood when we interpret it through the lens of the Old Testament passages that he most often cited and through the writings of the apostles he commissioned. Many of the Bible’s most prominent landmark mountains are found outside the red letters…
>
> Apart from the events of Passion Week through Pentecost and on to the final return of Christ, the teachings and example of Jesus’ earthly ministry are an insufficient gospel and cannot save.
>
> Please don’t preach a red letter reductionism, and please don’t be a prepentacostal disciple… There are “many things” from Jesus that you will miss if you value only what is found in red letters. How do we know? Jesus himself told us—in red letters, no less.
If you want to wrestle with this topic more deeply, I invite you to read my whole essay. **\[Edit 8/20/2017: [Here is an updated version of the same essay.](http://dwightgingrich.com/red-letter-reductionism/)\]** It’s not perfect, but it’s better than when I first wrote it, thanks to feedback.
_**Here are other things I discuss in the essay:**_
* What is red letter Christianity?
* Is red letter Christianity harmless?
* Did Jesus say John 3:16, and does it matter?
* Are the words of the apostles authoritative?
* Did Jesus and Paul preach the same gospel?
* Is the Sermon on the Mount the gospel?
* Are Anabaptists truly excited about the gospel?
**We should also recognize that Jesus still speaks by his Spirit today.** This is a contended topic, but consider [this commentary](http://amzn.to/1VLU7Sj) by Gary Burge[2](#fn-2266-2):
> \[In John 14:26\] Jesus describes a different function of the Paraclete, namely, recalling and preserving the historic words of Jesus. Here in 16:12–13 Jesus speaks of a future time when new things will be disclosed. Both of these passages work together. The historical Jesus and his ministry stand alongside the ongoing living Jesus-in-Spirit, who is continuously experienced in the church…
>
> “What is yet to come” in 16:13b… likely refers to a genuine prophetic gift that will disclose the future—a gift like that exercised in the book of Revelation and described in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30. **The Spirit’s “making known” is not of Jesus’ previous historic teachings nor is it confined to the eyewitnesses of the apostolic era, whose prophetic work will close with the canon.** (pp. 406-407, bold added).
Notice that _**Burge is pushing beyond the interpretation I emphasized above**_. He is saying that John 16:12-14 foretells not only the inspiration of the New Testament writings (as I stated), but also the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the church yet today. _**I think he is right. But not everyone agrees:**_
> Evangelicals have traditionally preferred to see this work of the Spirit \[described in John 16:12-13\] as closely tied to the development of Scripture and its use. This is in part an exegetical decision that believes that the promises of this section belong not to the church universal but to the apostles only. “I have much more to say _to you_” (16:12, italics added) points to Jesus’ immediate audience. Hendriksen’s well-known commentary on John thus sees this ongoing revelation in 16:12 as fulfilled in the writing of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters.
>
> But if the Spirit’s work goes beyond the production of the Scriptures—that is, if we have here a genuine prophetic gift that provides ongoing revelation—we then have to discern the guidelines and limitations for such revelation. Is this promise (like so many biblical promises) extended to every Christian? I would argue that it is…
>
> **Interpreters who refuse to apply this promise of the Spirit to the postapostolic church must then justify how they can apply other spiritual promises to the church.** Who owns the promise, “I will come again and take you to myself” (14:3) when it was addressed to the Twelve? These promises, just like the command to “love one another,” belong both to the circle of apostles and to the later church. (pp. 413 and 423, bold added)
Later Burge suggests some _**biblical guidelines for identifying this ongoing work of the Spirit:**_
> Jesus says that the Spirit will unveil things they have _not_ heard. Such an understanding, of course, has led to countless abuses over the centuries as self-appointed teachers and new-age prophets have laid claim to the Spirit’s authority as they unveiled new, unbiblical teachings. These abuses have made modern exegetes understandably cautious about such ongoing revelation…
>
> **The best evidence for the view that John’s followers understood the Spirit to have ongoing revelatory power can be seen in the abuses John had to combat in his first letter.** Since many false prophets have gone out into the world, John’s followers need to start testing the spirits to see if they belong to God (1 John 4:1). John does not disqualify the spiritual endowment in his argument with these teachers; he calls for the testing of the gift… **Here John gives strict guidelines:** “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God” (1 John 4:2–3). **This is the same test Jesus outlines in John 16:14–15.** The Spirit will glorify Jesus and not depart from what he has revealed already. To refuse to glorify Jesus is to invalidate one’s prophetic voice.
>
> Therefore, as we look at the work of the Spirit today, we see that not only does the Spirit recall, authenticate, and enliven the teaching of Jesus for each generation, but also the Spirit works creatively in the church, bringing a new prophetic word. **This word never contradicts the historic word of Jesus and never deflects glory away from Jesus, but it may faithfully bring the church to see its message and mission in a new way…**
>
> To restrict the Spirit’s voice to the work of historic recitation, that is, to the application of the biblical text, is to restrict the Spirit’s effort to speak to contemporary issues. It is interesting that in Paul’s writing, he lists prophets and teachers in the second and third places of authority after apostles (1 Cor. 13:28) \[sic: 1 Cor. 12:28\]. In Acts 13:1 prophets and teachers led the church at Antioch where there were no apostles. The Spirit both equips those who guide the church into the deeper meaning of Scripture (teachers) and those who have a contemporary word, a dynamic word for the church in its world today (prophets). (pp. 418-419, bold added)
Again, this second way of interpreting John 16:12-14—as foretelling not only the inspiration of the NT but also the ongoing work of the Spirit in the church today—is debated among Christians. This is a debate that goes beyond the “red letter reductionism” debate above, although it is related. In both cases, it is a question of how Jesus continued or continues to speak after his own death.
_**I think Burge is right. I think I need to listen to his explanation in the same way that I think “red letter Christians” need to listen to the sort of explanation that I make in my essay.**_
Whatever you make of these matters, may we each purpose to honor Christ by listening to the words given through his Spirit.
**If you have feedback on this post or on my essay, send me an email or [leave a comment below](http://dwightgingrich.com/what-jesus-wished-could-say-before-died/#respond).** Thank you, and God bless your church gatherings this week as you discuss his word—_both the red and the black letters!_
1. Roger L. Berry and Shawn Schmidt, _The Word Dwelt Among Us_, Christian Light Publications adult Sunday school pupil book, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Dec. 2015, Jan./Feb. 2016), 53-54. [↩](#fnref-2266-1)
2. Gary M. Burge, [_John_](http://amzn.to/1VLU7Sj)[, NIV Application Commentary](http://amzn.to/1VLU7Sj), Kindle edition, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009). [↩](#fnref-2266-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why Should You Care about Cities? (3/3)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-25
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Why Should You Care about Cities? (3/3) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Why should you care about cities? Here is a third reason: You need the city! For example, the cultural diversity of the city can help you grow.
Tags: humility, gospel, wealth, discipleship, Anabaptist culture, cities, -Ephesians 2-3, -Romans 1:16-17, biblicism, Christena | Cleveland, church tradition, cross-cultural, cultural differences, cultural elites, diversity, evangelism, learners, lifestyle evangelism, Lowell | Herschberger, missions, multicultural, poverty, professions, relationships, Toronto, university, world religions
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-3
**Who you _are_ depends largely on who you _have been with_. And most of what you know you have learned from other people.** If these statements are true, then it must be vitally important to be intentional about our relationships.
A Christian’s most vital relationship is with Christ. If your relationship with him is all it should be, then he can help you survive even the worst set of human companions. The normal way that Christ strengthens and trains us, however, is through human relationships.
_**What kinds of relationships will help you grow?**_ Diversity helps. Let me suggest a sample:
* People who have known you well for a long time.
* People who are wiser than you—mentors.
* People who are eager to learn from you—disciples.
* People who are like you, who help you feel at home.
* People who are different from you, who make you feel not-at-home.
* People who don’t know you well.
The last couple categories might be less obvious, or at least less comfortable. If you are surrounded only by people who don’t know you well, it can be hard to develop a secure or accurate self-identity. (See [my poetic musings](http://dwightgingrich.com/how-do-you-know-me-words-self-identity/) on that possibility.)
On the other hand, _**if you are surrounded only by people like youself, then your picture of yourself might be rather two-dimensional**_, lacking depth and perspective. Spending all your time with people just like you won’t teach you much about the rest of life, either. This is why youth need adults, men need women, and _you need the city_.
**Why should you care about cities?** I’m sharing three reasons in this blog series:
1. [God cares about cities.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-1/)
2. [The city needs you.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-2/)
3. You need the city.
This post will discuss the third reason. Why should you care about cities?
**You Need the City!**
**This might be the least expected reason why you should care about cities, but it might also be the most important.** If you would be a wise and effective Christian, then you must first be a learner. And Christians, including rural Anabaptists, have much to learn from the city.
**Cities can help you learn about yourself.** When I was in Thunder Bay, I was one of a team of five Mennonite adults surrounded by First Nations youth. When went to college, I was the only Mennonite in my city. When I taught school in the Bronx, I lived in a neighborhood that was about 80% Hispanic. When we lived in Queens, there were at least seven ethnic groups on our immediate block—Chinese, Puerto Rican, Guyanese, Sri Lankan, African American, and, including us, two white households.
Each of those contexts taught me things about myself. Now we plan to move to a neighborhood in Atlanta that is over 95% African American, also within reach of multi-ethnic college populations. I anticipate many new learning opportunities.
I think it would do most people good to live for at least a year as an ethnic or cultural minority. When you live as a minority, you learn that _you are not normal_—most people are not like you. You learn that your heritage has some unique strengths. You also learn that your culture has some besetting sins (perhaps selfishness with time and possessions, thanklessness, or impatience). And you probably even learn that you have some unexpected racist tendencies (I did).
**Cities can remind us that we really don’t understand “the lost” as well as we think we do.** Here I begin with a point I made in my last post—that too often conservative Anabaptists think of missions in terms of caring for the poor, tending to overlook other kinds of people. But a happily married (gay or otherwise) university professor or plastic surgeon with a six-figure income needs the gospel just as much as the whino on the curb.
A friend and I were recently discussing the idea of Anabaptists doing missions in Toronto. This friend has lived in Toronto for eight years and continues to work there. Here is some of what she had to say:
> It irks me to no end to hear about “mission trips” to Toronto that consist simply of people standing on street corners handing out tracts—likely to tourists because that’s who hangs out around the Eaton’s Centre. How exactly is that addressing the needs of the hipster in Liberty Village, the professor in the Annex, the young family in Riverdale, the public servant at High Park, the gay couple on Church, the young graduates in the Beaches, the writer in the Junction. Those are my friends and colleagues. And they have spiritual lives and needs too…
>
> I am puzzled by the notion that our life in in city is different than life in Elmira or Parry Sound or Newton or Harrisonburg or Shipshewana or Walnut Creek. Urban people do the same things—go grocery shopping, volunteer at school, walk their dog, visit the library, help out with neighbourhood events, go out to eat, see plays and hear concerts, enroll their kids in swimming lessons. If we as Anabaptists believe in lifestyle evangelists—just go. But check out the demographics of more than the poor and needy. If God is truly no respecter of person, then the urbane, literate, middle class professionals are in as much need of Christ’s love as anyone. But if you are going to live in their neighbourhoods (because let’s face it—the best way to get to know someone is through their kid or dog), you need to be able to afford it. This means having a profession that is transferable to a urban centre and being socially fluid.
>
> We like to talk about how Jesus hung out to the poor and marginalized. But Matthew was a tax collector and Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy. Imagine being friends with the policy wonks, decision-makers, financial investors and cultural creators of our times!
Then, in a final reply to the idea that the poor are often more open to the gospel (which I would argue is almost certainly true, on average), she added this:
> …People who are not in desperate socio-economic straits are not open to the gospel? Using that logic, most of Mennonite-land should be impervious.
Ouch. And probably truer than we like to think.
Street-corner evangelism certainly has its place. _Many_ have come to Christ through such efforts. But I would suggest that _most_ are unlikely to respond to Christ unless they experience a meaningful, ongoing sharing of life with Christian friends. Why should we limit our city mission efforts to “hit-and-run” approaches?
And _**most of us are somewhat poorly prepared to win people to Christ.**_ We may understand the gospel well enough (see my next point, however). But to be an effective “gospel-er” we also need to understand our audience. Consider how Paul adjusted his message to his audiences.
I still do not consider myself an effective evangelist. But I do know that I have a better grasp today than I did in my youth of how a secular, post-Christian mind can tend to think. How did I grow in understanding? By spending time around secular minds. When I was in university (or college, as they say here in the U.S.), it took me about three years before I felt that I understood my classmates and professors well enough to start writing a Christian opinion column in the student paper.
Some are faster learners than me. And even after three years I’m not sure how effective I was. But my basic point remains: _**Growth in my understanding took time—long, daily time spent with unbelievers.**_ (Ask any cross-cultural missionary.) And if I had never moved _to the city_ for school, I would never have debated Freud, traced Islamic history, analyzed Milton, read Genesis, tiptoed through feminist assumptions, debated homosexuality, and laughed in the hall with my new postmodern friends.
Such educational cross-cultural relationships can be formed almost anywhere, if you try hard enough. But they are almost unavoidable in most cities. What an opportunity!
**Cities can help you understand the gospel better and experience it more fully.** Nothing makes you appreciate a homegrown tomato like eating the cardboard imitation found in your local supermarket! Similarly, _**meeting people from other world religions can help you see the unique vitality of the Christian gospel**_. Wrestling with heresy helped the early church identify orthodox belief more precisely. Engaging thoughtful non-Christians today can help us do the same.
Being surrounded by _**undeniable, unavoidable needs can help you focus on the core message of the gospel**_, with its power to save. Well-manicured hands are nice, but when a patient arrives with a heart attack, you aren’t going to reach for your nail clippers. And when you are helping youth escape the sensual tentacles of mass youth media, you might not worry too much about whether they become skilled at singing four-part choral music.
Both _**Christians and unbelievers from other cultures can push us to do a better job of distinguishing between our cultural traditions and gospel traditions**_. (“I don’t see that in the Bible!”) Diversity within the church can give us a sense of proportion about the little things that sometimes divide us. (Fact: Most Christians have never given a moment’s thought to questions about how big your beard should be or whether you should wear covering strings.) As we ponder together how we can best meet the needs of our communities, the differences that otherwise might divide are sometimes revealed to be assets, turning the local church into a veritable Swiss Army knife of multifaceted strengths.
_**Diversity in the church gives all sorts of opportunity for growth in character.**_ For example, some Caribbean cultures might think Germanic Mennonites are too quiet. Why don’t we show more zeal in worship? How can they tell what we are really thinking about them and their ideas when we hide our disagreement behind so much polite silence? And they might find us disrespectful. Why don’t we wear ties to their funerals? Why do we walk right past our elders at church without greeting them (even if they are in the middle of a conversation)?
So, who is right—Germanic Mennonites or Dominican Christians? Both! Or neither! But seeing ourselves through someone else’s eyes is informative, and learning to love each other is a challenge that can cause us to lean harder on the gospel. And if you lean hard enough, **_your shame of the gospel will evaporate when you discover, like Paul, that the gospel has the power to bring people of all cultures together as one in Christ_** (Rom. 1:16-17; Eph. 2-3).
**_Consider the counsel of Christena Cleveland, from her book_ [Disunity in Christ](http://amzn.to/1oytwgF):**
> Culturally homogenous churches \[churches where everyone shares the same culture\] are adept at targeting and attracting a certain type of person and creating a strong group identity. However, **attendees at such churches are at a higher risk for creating the overly simplistic and divisive Right Christian and Wrong Christian labels that dangerously lead to inaccurate perceptions of other Christians as well as hostility and conflict.** What often begins as an effective and culturally specific way to reach people for Christ ends up stifling their growth as disciples. Perhaps this is because we often fail to make a distinction between evangelism and discipleship. People can _meet_ God within their cultural context but in order to _follow_ God, they must cross into other cultures because that’s what Jesus did in the incarnation and on the cross. Discipleship is crosscultural. **When we meet Jesus around people who are just like us and then continue to follow Jesus with people who are just like us, we stifle our growth in Christ and open ourselves up to a world of division.** However, when we’re rubbing elbows in Christian fellowship with people who are different from us, we can learn from each other and grow more like Christ. Like iron sharpens iron.
>
> For this reason, I believe that churches and Christian organizations should strive for cultural diversity. Regardless of ethnic demographics, every community is multicultural when one considers the various cultures of age, gender, economic status, education level, political orientation and so on. Further, **every church should fully utilize the multifaceted cultural diversity within itself, express the diversity of its local community, expertly welcome the other, embrace all who are members of the body of Christ and intentionally collaborate with different churches or organizations in order to impact the kingdom**. And churches situated in multiethnic communities… should absolutely be ethnically diverse. (pp. 21-22, bold added)
_**Let me share an hypothesis:**_ I suggest that conservative Anabaptists risk becoming increasingly ingrown, divisive, and ineffective in missions unless more of us experience the sort of cross-cultural challenges that urban living offers.
**In closing, let me repeat some advice to myself:** When you do move to an urban setting, bear the gospel, yes, but **_go as a listener and a humble learner._**
Let’s face it: All this rightfully-urgent talk about urban missions can be perverted by our pride. Among some of us, urban ministry has given us not only a sense of urgency but also a sense of superiority. For many who have cut their rural umbilical cords, urban ministry is cool (substitute the latest relevant slang). We may forget that rural and small-town living are also honorable.
We may also overestimate our preparedness for urban living and ministry. _**For some hard-hitting warnings to white wanna-be urban missionaries, read Christena Cleveland’s article “Urban Church Planting Plantations.”**_ Here is the burden of her words:
> So much of the urban church planting I’ve seen simply replicates and extends the power inequities between whites and people of color that were cemented years ago on plantations… I’m amazed at how quickly majority-culture pastors with no urban ministry experience acquire a passion for urban ministry and then automatically assume that they are qualified for the job… This privileged perspective on urban church planting undermines the unity of the body of Christ. If each part of the body has a unique perspective, gift and role to play, then we need to recognize that we’re not equipped to do every type of ministry and humbly collaborate with the parts that are better equipped.
Ouch. Read her whole article. Be humbled. But don’t give up on the city. Just go with a renewed determination to be a learner—a disciple-maker who is first a disciple.
I know I will have a lot to learn when we move to Atlanta. One thing I hope to learn is how Anabaptists can better participate in Christ-centered racial reconciliation. Though our heritage has unique gifts to bring to this work, most of us are either pretty ignorant or pretty ineffective. Too many of us are still happily colorblind, which is a problem, as [my friend Lowell Herschberger explains](http://meaningmaze.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-is-colorblindness-not-enough.html). We have much to learn.
**I need the city, so do other conservative Anabaptists, and so do you.**
* * *
**This is the end of my series called “Why Should You Care about Cities?”** Much more could—and should—be said. And I’m aware that some of what I said could be misunderstood. I have spoken strongly, and I have made some generalizations. But what will it take to engage God’s people to respond to one of the greatest challenges of our time—the rise of global cities with their multi-ethnic, multi-need populations?
_**Rest assured:** **If you don’t go to the city, the city will come to you.** **It is already coming.**_ It is coming in the form of your news media, the designs of your consumer products, your college-trained bankers and doctors, the teachers and curricula in your local public school, your construction products, your farm commodity prices, government regulations, the election of your next president, your Amazon orders, your cell phone apps, your Internet signal, and, hopefully soon, Dwight Gingrich Online.
Will we run to meet this Goliath? Or will we merely try to dodge his spear? Better, will we see the city as not only a giant to be slaughtered, but also a fertile field? Will we take a proactive approach to global urbanization? Or will we retreat behind ever-less-effective geographical and cultural walls?
_**It was in [the world’s third-largest city](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch#Hellenistic_age) (population c. 500,000) that Christ’s followers were first called Christians**_ (Acts 11:26). And it was to [the largest city in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome#Demographics) (population c. 1,000,000) that Christ specifically sent his apostle to the Gentiles: “Take courage… you must testify also in Rome” (Acts 23:11). The big city just might be the most ideal habitat one could possibly imagine for a Christian.
_**Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations in your nearest city!**_
* * *
**Do you agree that more Anabaptists could benefit from urban living?** What do you think we need to learn from the city? What should we learn about ourselves, our neighbors, and the gospel itself? **[Share your observations in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-3/#respond)** **And thanks for reading!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why Should You Care about Cities? (2/3)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-24
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Why Should You Care about Cities? (2/3) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Why should you care about cities? Here is a second reason: The city needs you! For example, consider urban immigrants.
Tags: Timothy | Keller, cities, rural, cultural elites, missions, poverty, Toronto, university, -Acts 1:8, -Acts 2:5, Al | Mohler, Allen | Roth, Chinese students, Christian Aid Ministries, church planting, college, Collier | Berkshire, Des Moines, Great Commission, international students, persecution, Quebec, strategy, unreached people groups, urbanization, youth
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-2
**Where can you serve God most strategically?** This is not always an easy question to answer. There are needs everywhere, and diligent laborers are in short supply all over.
One answer is to simply say that I am most needed _right here_, right wherever I am. This is certainly true on one level. If I’m not useful “here,” I’m unlikely to be useful “there.” Discipleship begins here and now, not there and later.
This is one popular application of Jesus’ final words to his apostles. He told them “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Therefore, we often hear, we should imitate the apostles by starting at home, in our “Jerusalem” hometown, then expanding outward to Samaria (nearby regions) and eventually to the end of the earth.
But Collier Berkshire of IGo ([Institute for Global Opportunities](http://www.igo-asia.com/)) once corrected my thinking on this. He pointed out that Jerusalem was not the apostles’ hometown! Most of them were from Galilee, after all. Then why did Jesus instruct them to begin witnessing for him at Jerusalem? The answer is a strategic one—Pentecost was coming. Jesus wanted his apostles to be in Jerusalem during Pentecost, because he knew that this annual Jewish feast would attract “devout men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). New disciples from among this pool of feast-goers would then return to “every nation under heaven” (slight biblical hyperbole there, but we’ll skip that valuable exegetical lesson), carrying the gospel with them.
So I ask you again: Where can you serve God most strategically? For some of you, I suggest, the answer will be “in a city.”
**Why should you care about cities?** I’m sharing three reasons in this blog series:
1. [God cares about cities.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-1/)
2. The city needs you.
3. [You need the city.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-3/)
This post will discuss the second reason. Why should you care about cities?
**The City Needs You!**
**Two facts: Cities are growing, and globally they are growing faster than their Christian populations.** An [article by Al Mohler](http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/04/22/from-megacity-to-metacity-the-shape-of-the-future/) summarizes the first fact well:
> In 1800, only 3 percent of the human population lived in cities. By 1900, cities held 14 percent of the population. By 2000, fully half of all human beings lived in urban areas. We are fast becoming an urban species…
>
> As Stewart Brand argues, we are becoming a “city planet.”… “At the current rate,” Brand writes, “**humanity may well be 80 percent urban by mid-century**. Every week there are 1.3 million new people in cities. That’s 70 million a year, decade after decade.” (bold added)
Are Christians keeping up? Timothy Keller (see his book [_Center Church_](http://amzn.to/1TBSd8X)) doesn’t think so:
> The people of the world are now moving into the great cities of the world many times faster than the church is… **The Christian church is not responding fast enough to keep up with the rapid population growth in cities.**
>
> There are five million new people moving into the cities of the developing world every month—roughly the size of the metropolitan areas of Philadelphia or San Francisco. Think of that—how many churches ought there to be in a city the size of Philadelphia? Even if there were one church for every five thousand people—which is five times fewer than the United States average—this means **we should be planting a thousand urban churches in the world every month**. (p. 158, bold added)
**Let’s add some Anabaptist context here.** Not only are Anabaptists moving into cities at a rate far below Christians of many other denominations. More importantly, we also have a long heritage that values and often prioritizes rural living. But the data above shouts what should already have been evident from the pages of Scripture: **_The idea that people should leave the city so that they can experience optimal spiritual growth in rural environments is simply unreasonable._** There simply isn’t enough farm land available for all urban converts to come join rural Mennonites. Mennonites are even running out of farm land for their own children!
Unless Anabaptists learn how to be faithful disciples of Christ within cities, several trends will become increasingly true:
* Children of Anabaptists who find their needed living space in towns and cities will tend to join other denominations.
* Anabaptism will remain a primarily rural phenomenon, with little direct impact on most of humanity.
I think there are theological repercussions, too, but we’ll stick with those sociological ones for the moment.
So, the city needs you, because you have the gospel that the city needs. **What kinds of people in the city need you and the gospel?**
_**Keller identifies “four important groups of people who must be reached to fulfill the mission of the church”:**_
> **1\. The younger generation**… In the United States and Europe, the young disproportionately want to live in cities… If the church in the West remains, for the most part, in the suburbs of Middle America and neglects the great cities, it risks losing an entire generation of American society’s leaders…
>
> **2\. The “cultural elites.”** The second group is made up of those who have a disproportionate influence on how human life is lived in a society because they exert power in business, publishing, the media, the academy, and the arts… Since cities now influence the culture and values of the world more than ever, the single most effective way for Christians to influence the culture of a nation is to have large numbers of them stay in cities and simply “be the church” there…
>
> **3\. Accessible “unreached” people groups**… The currents of history are now sweeping many of these formerly unreachable people into cities as rural economies fail to sustain old ways of life. Millions of these newcomers in the burgeoning cities of the world are more open to the Christian faith than they were in their original context…
>
> **4\. The poor**… Some have estimated that one-third of the people representing the new growth in cities in the developing world will live in shantytowns… An urban church does not choose between ministry to the poor and ministry to the professional classes. We need the economic and cultural resources of the elites to help the poor, and our commitment to the poor is a testimony to the cultural elites, supporting the validity of our message. (p. 160-62)
_**Of these four groups, which have American Anabaptists been most comfortable and successful in reaching?**_ I think most of us would point to the fourth group—the poor. Organizations like Christian Aid Ministries have helped Anabaptists provide [rapid response services](https://christianaidministries.org/programs/41) after natural disasters, including in urban centers. Additionally, my unscientific observation would be that many of our few long-term urban efforts have focused on poor neighborhoods.
There are good reasons for this (we have a heritage of skilled manual service and material generosity). I suspect there are also sometimes bad reasons (scorn of the professional class, fear of education, inability to meet non-material kinds of needs). Consider the pointed questions raised by Allen Roth, in an article[1](#fn-2240-1) urging mission efforts in the materially-wealthy Canadian province of Quebec:
> Might our neglect be due to a defect in us as a people… **a lack of clarity about the Gospel itself** and the need of all people for salvation, yes, even the prosperous ones who consider themselves superior to us? **Are we unable and unwilling to share the Gospel unless we can hand some material benefits downward to those who “need us” and toward whom we feel superior?** If… if indeed this might be the case, then God have mercy on us! (bold added)
I think we should continue our efforts to the poor, learning not only to hand out relief but also to live among the poor in long-term relationships. And I think we Anabaptists should also expand our vision to include the other three groups of urban dwellers that Keller identified.
**One way to reach all three of these groups (youth, cultural leaders, unreached peoples) is to share the gospel with international college students.** For example, consider a Foreign Policy article published earlier this month: [“Leave China, Study in America, Find Jesus.”](http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/11/leave-china-study-in-america-find-jesus-chinese-christian-converts-at-american-universities/) The article is part of a special series called China U. The description of China U. underscores the significance of Christian engagement with international students:
> China U. is an FB series devoted to higher education’s role as a major and growing node of connection between the world’s two powers. How will a new generation, fluent in China and in America, shape the future of bilateral ties?
Indeed, how might a new generation, fluent in China and in America _and newly won to Christ’s kingdom_, shape the future of both China and America?
According to the article, the number of Chinese college and university students in America has multiplied more than four-fold in just the past 10 years. The article is full of fascinating personal stories of converts. Here are some excerpts with other data:
> While firm statistics do not exist on the number of Chinese converts in the United States, it’s clear that **a rapidly increasing number of Chinese students**, including Cai, **have come Stateside to pursue higher education; more than 304,000 Chinese [studied](http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/04/the-most-chinese-schools-in-america-rankings-data-education-china-u/) in American colleges and universities in 2015 alone**, many hailing from [large cities](http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/geography-of-foreign-students#/M10420) like Beijing and Shanghai. China is the largest secular country in the world; young Chinese people often identify as atheists, although many may have visited a Buddhist temple to pray for good luck before an exam, or celebrated traditional festivals with roots in Chinese folklore. Public preaching is forbidden there, and the Communist Party-state oversees all religious matters, often with a heavy hand. Meanwhile, the state-controlled educational curriculum emphasizes patriotism and socialism, promoting a purely materialistic and scientific worldview…
>
> As a result, **U.S. universities are the first places that hundreds of thousands of educated young Chinese are exposed to different religious ideas, and invited to consider them freely…**
>
> Some predict that the future of Christianity lies in China. After all, they [argue](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html), the popularity of the faith is [declining](http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/) in the United States, the largest Christian country in the world. Meanwhile, in China, even government figures acknowledge a growing number of followers, from [14 million](http://www.scio.gov.cn/zfbps/ndhf/1997/Document/307974/307974.htm) in 1997 to [23 million](http://minzu.people.com.cn/GB/166717/12529764.html) in 2010. (This number is generally [considered](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2015/0111/In-China-a-church-state-showdown-of-biblical-proportions) a low estimate.) (bold added)
**Such reports are a reminder that we don’t always have to leave our nation to reach the world.** Often “the world” can be found right here in the cities of North America. For example, consider this sample of statistics about where immigrant populations live:[2](#fn-2240-2)
* Los Angeles: 80,000 Thai
* Minneapolis–Saint Paul: 25,000 Somalis
* Chicago: 100,000 Indians and Pakistanis
* Detroit: 130,000 Arabs
* Indianapolis: 14,000 Burmese
* Philadelphia: 60,000 Chinese
* New York City: 100,000 Bangladeshis
**You might be surprised at who lives in your nearest city.** Iowa is reportedly [the sixth-least diverse state in America](https://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/least-diverse-states-america/page/6). (In contrast, Georgia, where we plan to move, is [the fourth least white](http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/white-population-percentage#chart).) Yet even here in Iowa you will find immigrants. For example, _**here is some [data on my nearest city](http://www.city-data.com/races/races-Des-Moines-Iowa.html), Des Moines:**_
Total Population: 207,510
Foreign-born residents: 15,713 (7.9% of Des Moines’ total pop.)
Nations of birth: 71 different countries!
Here are the top fifteen nations of birth for Des Moines’ foreign-born population. To help you see some significance in this list, I will color-code nations based on the [persecution index](https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/) provided by Open Doors (red = extreme; orange = severe; green = moderate):
Mexico: 8,164
Vietnam: 1,865
Laos: 1,480
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 1,023
El Salvador: 934
Sudan: 934
Liberia: 735
Thailand: 711
Burma (Myanmar): 622
Guatemala: 527
Iraq: 462
India: 427
Korea: 313
Canada: 293
Germany: 281
(Yes, you could reach nearly 300 Canadians right here in Des Moines, without needing to head north to the border and the nearest dog sled!)
It’s hard for me to imagine, but _apparently 32,658 Des Moines residents speak a language other than English at home_. And 17,225 of those speak English “less than very well.” All that is right here in Des Moines, Iowa—in one of the least diverse states in the nation!
_**I say it’s time to make Des Moines a little more diverse.**_ Maybe it’s time some Anabaptists move there and help love the world for Christ.
**And what about Toronto?** Here I’d like to challenge my Ontario Anabaptist friends. What would it look like for the conservative Anabaptists of Ontario to put aside some of their differences and band together with a vision for the Toronto harvest field?
The opportunities in Toronto are immense! Here’s the big picture, from a good little article called [“Understanding Toronto”](http://dashhouse.com/dashhouse/2016/2/1/understanding-toronto):
> Toronto is Canada’s largest city, and North America’s fourth largest city, with a population of 2.8 million people (5.5 million in the Greater Toronto Area, commonly called the GTA). It’s a center for business, finance, and education. **It’s one of the most multicultural cities in the world…** It’s one of the largest cities in North America, **and it’s one of the least churched.** (bold added)
_**Just how multicultural is Toronto?**_ Well, [47.9% of its population is foreign-born](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=2&LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=105411&PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2013&THEME=95&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=)! Nearly half! And growing! In hard numbers, that’s about 2,642,910 immigrants in the GTA.
(By comparison, [over 37% of New York City residents are foreign-born](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/new-york-city-immigrants_n_4475197.html)—totaling 3.07 million immigrants, more than any other city in the world. [On a national level](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm#a2), 20.6% of the Canadian population is foreign-born—the highest percentage among all G8 countries—as are 12.9% of those living in the United States.)
_**Here is an interactive map where you can learn more:**_
[](http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/gta_immigration_history.html)
_**Where do these Toronto immigrants come from—and visit on return trips, carrying the ideas they’ve found in Canada?**_ Here are the top birth nations (data from [Statistics Canada](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=0&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=105411&PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2013&THEME=95&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=)). Again, I will color-code nations based on the persecution index provided by Open Doors (red = extreme; orange = severe; green = moderate):
India: 279,425
China: 237,025
Philippines: 185,085
United Kingdom: 116,655
Italy: 116,240
Sri Lanka: 105,565
Pakistan: 99,295
Hong Kong: 99,285
Jamaica: 97,660
Portugal: 73,740
Guyana: 72,090
Poland: 64,095
Iran: 60,785
Vietnam: 60,555
United States: 55,630
South Korea: 48,785
Trinidad and Tobago: 46,915
Russian Federation: 35,200
Ukraine: 31,795
Greece: 31,185
Germany: 27,635
Bangladesh: 25,560
Romania: 24,515
Iraq: 22,145
Afghanistan: 21,185
_**All told, there are over half a million people living in Toronto who come from countries where you may have to risk extreme or severe persecution to reach their families overseas!**_ And [the religious needs are immense](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm#a6). For example, Toronto has Canada’s largest population of Muslims, at just over 424,900. Equally significantly, more than 1,165,000 Torontonians claim no religious affiliation at all. _**Ontario Anabaptists, will you rise to the challenge?**_
**What about your own city?** To find immigrant data for your nearest city, visit [City-Data.com](http://www.city-data.com/races/) or [Statistics Canada](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=0&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=105411&PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2013&THEME=95&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=). And remember, behind every data point is a person who needs Christ.
**The city needs you, so you should care about the city.** And, who knows? Perhaps you will conclude that the city is the most strategic place for you to serve God!
* * *
**Come back here soon for one more reason** why you should care about the city. And, as always, **[I welcome your responses in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-2/#respond).** Thank you!
1. Allen Roth, “What About Neighbors Who Aren’t ‘Needy’?” The Alliance Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 6), Nov./Dec. 2013, p. 1. [↩](#fnref-2240-1)
2. Compiled by [Destinations International](http://www.destinationsint.com/), shared with me by Ian Miller. [↩](#fnref-2240-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Why Should You Care about Cities? (1/3)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-23
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Why Should You Care about Cities? (1/3) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Why should you care about cities? Here is a first reason: God does! "Since God loves people much more than plants, he loves the city more than the country."
Tags: Paul, Timothy | Keller, cities, missions, -Genesis 4:17, -Genesis 9:6, -James 3:9, -Jonah 4:10-11, -Psalm 145:9, animals, image of God, Nineveh, plants, Radi-Call, Seth | Lehman
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-1
**Thanks to God’s unpredictable providence, cities have found a special place in my heart.** While I can live happily in many places, at midlife I find myself drawn to live in a city.
No one would have guessed this 30 or 40 years ago. I grew up near a town of 6,500 people—Parry Sound, Ontario. As I boy I was aware of two options for where to live: the northern “bush” (good!) and “down south” in Ontario’s farmland (bad!). At nineteen I moved to northwestern Ontario, just outside a town of 7,600 people—Dryden. Here I was mostly conscious of two options: the “bush” and northern fly-in First Nations reserves.
Then I was invited to move to Thunder Bay, Ontario as a “personal worker,” befriending First Nations youth. In this small city (109,000 people) I first glimpsed urban needs—in particular, the needs of city youth. So after my 2-year term ended, I ended up moving to North Bay (54,000 people) to train as a high school teacher. There I first closely interacted with both secular worldviews and other Christian denominations. I saw the needs of college students first-hand and helped lead the Christian club on campus.
Then I moved to New York City. Woah. Eight million people in a metropolitan area of 23 million. Culturally, it was like moving to another country. Actually, it _was_ moving to another country for me, but what I mean is that I soon saw NYC is radically different even from the other parts of the United States that I had visited. I became convinced that it would be good for every urban resident to spend at least a year in fly-over America, and every rural resident to spend at least a year in the big city. This might be the only hope for Americans to start understanding each other enough to get along in a semi-peaceful manner.
Public school teaching, subway riding, and church leadership duties all provided great urban learning opportunities. I’ll skip those stories to mention that I also visited Dhaka, Bangladesh during this time. Talk about people! NYC felt half empty when I returned.
And then we moved near Leon, Iowa, a town of about 2000 mostly-farmers. Whiplash.
**These experiences have taught me a lot about myself:**
* I can live happily in lots of different places.
* I still think the northern lake and bush country is exceptionally beautiful. A month there each summer would be great…
* I feel drawn to multicultural areas and, at least for this stage of our family, want to live in a city. It’s not just that I feel a duty to be a “missionary” to a city. I actually _like_ the city—as long as I can escape to quiet, green spaces now and then.
So, I care deeply about cities. What about you?
**Why should you care about cities?** I’d like to share three reasons:
1. God cares about cities.
2. [The city needs you.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-2/)
3. [You need the city.](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-3/)
This post will discuss the first reason. I’ll plan to address the other two in upcoming posts. So, why should you care about cities?
**God Cares about Cities!
**
There are many cities mentioned in the Bible—think, for example, of Enoch (Cain’s city; Gen. 4:17), Babel, Sodom, the Israelite cities of refuge, Jerusalem, Babylon, Antioch, Rome, and the New Jerusalem. Some were bad, some good, but God cared deeply about each of them.
_**We see this clearly in the story of Jonah and Nineveh.**_ Listen to God’s words to Jonah. These final verses of Jonah are the punchline of the whole book:
> “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” (Jon. 4:10-11)
In his masterful book _[Center Church](http://amzn.to/1RizLir)_, Tim Keller explains the significance of God’s argument:
> Here God makes a case for the importance of the city from the sheer number of the human beings in residence. He is saying, “How can you look at _so many_ lost people and not find compassion in your heart?” This is a critical reason that the city is so important today. We might call it the _visceral_ argument for the city. God “has compassion on all he has made” (Ps 145:9). But of all the things he has made, human beings have pride of place in his heart, because they were made in his image (Gen 9:6; James 3:9). **Cities, quite literally, have more of the image of God per square inch than any other place on earth. How can we not be drawn to such masses of humanity if we care about the same things that God cares about?** (p. 141, bold added)
Notice also how this passage divides God’s creation into three levels: plants, animals, and humans. To care about plants is proper and good. To care about animals is even more natural and good. And to care about humans is the most reasonable and good of all.
Jonah didn’t work to care for his plant. Traditionally, most Anabaptists _have_ worked to care for plants, as well as animals. This is good! But, according to God’s divine economy, there is something that is _much more important_ for us to care _about_ and care _for_: our fellow human beings, including those gathered in each “great city.”
_**To put it bluntly: If I care more about plants and animals than about humans, my thinking is messed up.** **I am not thinking and living in a godly, God-like way.**_ (Thus, if I am a farmer, which might indeed be God’s call for me, I better be farming for God’s sake, which will include farming in ways that intentionally prioritize love of neighbor over preoccupation with plants and animals.)
More from Keller:
> My colleague at Westminster, Harvie Conn, told me about a man who said to him, “God made the country, and man built the suburbs, but the devil made the city.” The theology behind this statement is dubious to say the least. And **theologically, it is not a good idea to think of the countryside as intrinsically more pleasing to God**. An urban missionary, Bill Krispin, explains why. Bill once said to me, “The country is where there are more plants than people; the city is where there are more people than plants. And **since God loves people much more than plants, he loves the city more than the country**.” I think this is solid theological logic… Cities, which are filled with people, are absolutely crammed full of what God considers the most beautiful sight in his creation. (pp. 169-70, bold added)
I might want to tweak Keller’s “solid theological logic” to note that it is _people_, not cities themselves, which God cares so deeply about. And people are not always a “beautiful sight” in God’s eyes. As Keller says elsewhere, “a city is simply a magnifying glass for the human heart. It brings out whatever is already inside”—both good and bad (p. 169). But his central point remains: God cares about people; most people are found in cities; so God cares deeply about these urban communities.
_**We also see this in the book of Acts.**_ From the [_Dictionary of Biblical Imagery_](http://amzn.to/24mpFnz) (hat tip to Keller):
> There is a sense in which the city is vindicated in the history of the early church—not in the sense that the city is mainly good or cordial to the gospel but in the sense that the city is where most people now live and where the influential power structures exist… **It is no exaggeration to say that in Acts the church is almost exclusively associated with the city.** (p. 153, bold added)
Keller again:
> In Acts 17, Paul travels to Athens, the _intellectual_ center of the Greco-Roman world. In Acts 18, he goes to Corinth, one of the _commercial_ centers of the empire. In Acts 19, he arrives in Ephesus, perhaps the Roman world’s _religious_ center… By the end of Acts, Paul has made it to Rome itself, the empire’s capital of _military and political power_. John Stott concludes, **“It seems to have been Paul’s deliberate policy to move purposefully from one strategic city-centre to the next.”**[1](#fn-2237-1) (p. 148, bold added)
_**If we still have any doubt that God cares about cities, then Revelation should put those doubts to rest.**_ Here all of humanity is summarized in two great cities: Babylon the harlot, and New Jerusalem the bride. In the imagery of Revelation, _you will live in a city_. The only question is which one. And, until then, part of the Christian commission is to enter strategic earthly cities (Jerusalem, Samaria, and more), calling people there to join the Jerusalem above.
**If God cares about cities, so should you!** And, who knows? You just might discover that, like me, you _enjoy_ the city, too!
* * *
**I encourage you to visit the new blog Radi-Call**, the project of some thoughtful and creative young Anabaptists who, as I understand it, became friends at [Elnora Bible Institute](http://www.elnorabi.org/). By happy providence (not human planning), their last post is called **[“Loving the City.”](http://radi-call.com/2016/02/22/loving-the-city/)** Author Seth Lehman covers some of the same ground I am plowing in these posts, and speaks eloquently.
**Come back here soon for two more reasons** why you should care about the city. Meanwhile, as always, **[share your responses in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/why-care-about-cities-1/#respond).** Thank you!
1. John R. W. Stott, _The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church, and the World,_ Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1990), 293. [↩](#fnref-2237-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 8: An Invitation to Special Prayer
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-19
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 8: An Invitation to Special Prayer • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We invite friends near and far to join us in special prayer over the next week, asking God to lead us to a house in Atlanta.
Tags: churchfunding, prayer, waiting
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-8-invitation-special-prayer
**We invite friends near and far to join us in special prayer over the next week, asking God to lead us to a house in Atlanta.** Our hunt for a house to buy is taking longer than we had hoped. The wait will soon become more expensive, unless we can move into a house before April (more below).
Unless the Lord provides the house, they labor in vain that look for one! We know that we can’t force God’s hand (and we don’t want to). But we also know that our Father invites us to “pester” him boldly with our needs (Luke 18:1-8), confident in his wisdom and goodness. We invite you to help us do this.
**What has been happening with our house hunt?** The winter months have been really faith-stretching. We missed our first-choice house in the late fall, partly because we didn’t find funding in time. Few new houses came on the market in December. [Steve and Christy Smucker](https://movinginfaith.wordpress.com/) (our future teammates) discovered they had a bad mold problem in their house, so we thought they might also need a new house. In addition, I had some really unnerving health problems that led to a colonoscopy early this month. (I sincerely thank God that my health has been returning!)
So we did little house hunting for a month or two.
I did, however, make a solo trip to Atlanta in late January. I met our new realtor for the first time, and he seems to be a good fit. We toured several houses and drove by more. One house was really nice, but a bit pricey for its location. Another (a fixer-upper) was in a superb location—but we discovered it about 5 days too late. My emotions took a roller-coaster ride. But I got a better sense of neighborhoods and streets. I met with Choice Books managers and confirmed that I have a part-time job offer. And Steve and Christy Smucker seem to be conquering the mold problem in their house, so we have some clarity again that our preference is to find a house in their neighborhood.
If we were just looking for a place for our family to live, we could probably settle for one of the houses currently on the market. But we are looking for a place where I can also teach piano (not-too-scary neighborhood, a suitable room, enough parking so neighbors aren’t disturbed), since we expect that to be an important source of our income. And we’d also like enough space to effectively host small church gatherings.
Not many new houses have come on the market since my last Atlanta visit, and it seems to be a seller’s market right now. So, we are torn between waiting for something more ideal or significantly adapting our expectations and simply buying something that will get us to Atlanta. _Zonya and I are ready to move, and Steve and Christy are ready for us to come!_
**Waiting is disorienting.** We still feel a peace about moving to Atlanta, but things haven’t been falling into place. Why not? God knows. (Strange thoughts come to mind, like: “God sees we aren’t that preoccupied with specific ideas for serving him in Atlanta, so he’s not feeling urgent about getting us there, but Satan sees our presence in Atlanta would encourage Steves, so he’s hindering our move; thus we are doubly doomed.”) Last night at Bible study we were reminded to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt. 6:33). What does this look like in our situation? (What does it look like while many are homeless this very moment?) I’m not fully sure.
Another factor that increases our sense of urgency is our promise to our lenders that we will begin monthly repayments in April, house or no house. This is only fair, and we do not expect this commitment will bring us any immediate financial difficulty. But it does mean that, unless we are in a new house by April, we will be making $500 loan repayments on top of $450 Iowa rent payments each month. I keep telling God that it would be wise financial stewardship for him to provide a house before then!
**In summary, I have started asking God to please lead us to a house before the end of this month.** I don’t know much about prayer, and I realize God’s plans for our family might be very different from my hopes and expectations. But I continue to ask, and we invite you to do the same.
**So as you remember us over this next week, I invite your prayers.
**
Please share this post with anyone else who may want to pray.
**And _thank you!_** The support of God’s people has greatly encouraged us many times in this house-hunt saga! **[If you have any counsel, prophetic word, or other encouragement, please comment below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-8-invitation-special-prayer/#respond)**
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight and Zonya and the three little ladies
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## God Bless This Ark; As Arrows from the Hand [Poems by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-15
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: God Bless This Ark; As Arrows from the Hand [Poems by Mom] • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: trust, -Exodus 2:1-10, children, Chris | Christian, family, Family Day, Jochebed, letting go, Miriam, Moses, parenthood
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/god-bless-ark-arrows-from-hand
_**Today is [Family Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Day#Canada) in several Canadian provinces, including my home province of Ontario.** On this day I’m sharing two poems from Mom, both expressions of a mother’s love for her family._
_Mom initially planned to share one poem this month. Then her prose introduction evolved into a free verse poem in its own right! So I’ll post both poems, in the order in which they were written._
_**Both poems are written in a parent’s voice, a reflective voice that longs to trust God as children grow up and leave home.** Letting go of children often isn’t easy, perhaps especially for mothers. Our oldest is only seven, so we don’t expect our children to leave our nest any time soon. But already we have moments of letting go._
_Last spring my wife had one of those moments. While wading at a nearby park, our daughters suddenly decided that they wanted to walk—by themselves—out to the end of the dock. Zonya’s heart skipped a beat; our daughters don’t know how to swim. But Zonya knew what she must do. She told the two oldest to hold hands and walk carefully. Then she let them walk—by themselves—all the way out to the end of the dock…_
_turn around…_
_and return safely to shore. Mission accomplished!
_
Look at those smiles!
_Then our littlest, only two and a half years old, wanted to copy her big sisters! My wife compromised: She walked_ with _her out to the end of the dock—or almost to the end. Just before the end, their hands released. Our littlest took a few steps further on her own, turned, and walked back to her mother. She was so pleased! And as Zonya told me the story, I was proud of my wife!_
Marching fearlessly to shore.
_Here are Mom’s poems. Enjoy!_
* * *
**GOD BLESS THIS ARK**
I watch the van pull slowly out the drive,
All my life’s labour safely stored inside,
And think of baby Moses kept alive—
So soon our children are too old to hide.
So soon I stand alone like Jochebed,
All that I treasure moving out of sight,
And pray with mingled confidence and dread,
“Lord, have I daubed and pitched the ark just right?”
So often I have waved good-bye before,
All that I love torn from me for awhile,
And later found them safely at my door.
Could Moses’ mother hide her secret smile?
That first school day, a visit overnight,
A full time job, long trips away from home.
I wait like Miriam, prudent, out of sight,
And watch the ark bob gently on its own.
Is my ark built securely? Will it float?
Only by testing waters will we know.
Show me the time, Lord. I trust to You this boat.
For parenthood is learning to let go.
—Elaine Gingrich, October 1991
* * *
**AS ARROWS FROM THE HAND**
What tender arrows these
From our poor quiver sent
On such a long trajectory
Across the dizzying plains of miles and years
From the aching bow of empty arms.
How can we know they went
The course intended?
Forces beyond the archer’s goals and dreams
Propel the flight, divert the path—
Currents of time and winds of ideology.
Lost in the past the days we spent
When we squinted hard on distant noble goal,
Cradled the bow, steadied the shaking hand and heart,
Pulled taut the string
And shot our treasured shafts,
Such tender shoots,
And watched them take their wing.
What of our roots?
And were our bow and aim both true enough?
Strange weapons these to face a deadly world,
A modern world with weapons once unknown.
Strange archers too, so young, untried, untrained.
And yet we fired them forth—
Our messengers of hope
To find their way
As meteor’s flash, as flaming spears,
To fight the realms of darkness;
Bearers of light,
Resisting the false, the foe.
We trust the Target’s pull,
A magnet for the homing arrowhead.
They may forget the bow
That sprung their flight, but oh!
For archer and for arrow to remember this:
The final Target that we dare not miss.
—Elaine Gingrich, February 9, 2016
* * *
_**For a companion and foil to Mom’s two poems, listen to this song by Chris Christian, [“Love Them While You Can,”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH0-nsgsnNY)** which reminds children to love their parents—before they, too, leave their earthly home. (I own this Chris Christian LP album and listened to it just the other night, while playing Monopoly with my daughters!)_
_**May God bless each of your families, today and always.** And remember, as I often remind my daughters, “God put you in the same family so you could learn to love each other!”_
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/god-bless-ark-arrows-from-hand/#respond), or send her an email at[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721385456777-compressed.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721385456777-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Church of Christ — Ferguson (4): Salvation and Church Membership
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-14
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: The Church of Christ -- Ferguson (4): Salvation and Church Membership • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: What is church membership? "Soteriology determines ecclesiology... To be saved is to be in Christ, and to be a Christian is to be a member of the church."
Tags: fall, sin, Augustine of Hippo, church universal, faith, gospel, repentance, Holy Spirit, salvation, preaching, atonement, children, -1 Corinthians 12:12-13, -1 Corinthians 7:14, -1 Peter 3:21, -1 Peter 4:17-18, -1 Samuel 16:14, -Acts 18:8, -Acts 2:38, -Acts 2:47, -Acts 20:21, -Acts 22:16, -Ephesians 4:3-4, -Ephesians 6:1-4, -Exodus 7:3, -Exodus 8:32, -Genesis 3, -John 3:3-5, -John 6:28-29, -Mark 1:15, -Matthew 19:13-15, -Matthew 26:28, -Revelation 5:9, -Romans 5:12, -Romans 6:3-4, -Titus 3:5, assurance of salvation, baptism, bar mitzvah, church local, church membership, confession of faith, conversion, Everett | Ferguson, faith and works, federal headship, human nature, images, immersion, infant baptism, justification, merit, original sin, ransom theory, Robert | Stein, sacraments, Savior, sinful nature, soteriology, symbol
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-4-salvation-church-membership
**The third chapter of Everett Ferguson’s book _[The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today](http://amzn.to/1SYrmk6)_ is perhaps my favorite chapter yet.** This chapter is entitled “The Church and Her Savior: Salvation and Church Membership.” It is a rich read!
_See also my series [Introduction](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-1-introduction/) and my discussions of [Chapter 1 (“Covenant, Kingdom, Christ”)](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-2-covenant-kingdom-christ/) and [Chapter 2 (“What Is the Church?”)](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-3-what-is-church/)._
Do you wonder what salvation and church membership have to do with each other? Hopefully this post will help you see that the two are very closely linked. Indeed, if you really grasp what salvation means, then you will think about church membership in a whole new way! Or, here is how Ferguson says the same thing, using theological categories: “Soteriology determines ecclesiology” (p. 136).
**One thing I’m really enjoying about this book is that Ferguson does an exceptional job at letting the Bible shape the way he talks and thinks about the church.** Some books on the church leave you feeling like the author had a predetermined concept of church—perhaps Baptist or Anabaptist—and then came to the Scripture to find evidence to support his ideas. Even if the author (say, a Baptist) lets the Scriptures challenge some parts of his ecclesiology (theology of church), it might feel that, despite some tweaking, it is still a predictable Baptist ecclesiology that he ends up with.
Perhaps this is because Baptists have the perfect ecclesiology! Or perhaps it is because our preconceptions always shape the questions we bring to the Bible. For example, a Roman Catholic might ask this question of the Bible: “In what spirit should a pope exercise his authority?” The question itself assumes something not found in Scripture: the office of the pope. Similarly, a Baptist might this question of Scripture: “How should the pastor administer the ordinances?” This question also assumes several ideas not taught in Scripture: that a church normally has only one pastor, and that there is a category of actions called “ordinances.”
Ferguson, though he is shaped by his Church of Christ heritage, does a better job than most theologians at hearing what Scripture actually says—letting the Bible shape the questions he asks and the truths he teaches. This means some of his ideas challenge our inherited theological categories. Wonderful! Disorientation enables learning.
**Ferguson arranges most of this chapter under three headings:
**
1. **[Human Need](#need)** (human nature, sin)
2. [**God’s Action**](#action) (atonement, preaching)
3. [**Human Response**](#response) (faith, repentance, baptism)
Church membership might seem to be missing, but you will find it woven throughout, especially at the beginning and also near the end (such as [here](#member1) and [here](#member2)). Also included are fascinating discussions about baptism and about the spiritual condition of children. Dig in, and chew carefully!
**Ferguson’s chapter introduction is worth quoting at length, and worth reading slowly:**
> **The question of the membership or composition of the church is answered by the study of the nature of the church** in the preceding chapter… One becomes a part of the church by being in the people of God, being incorporated into the body of Christ, and receiving the Holy Spirit… If, as studied in the preceding chapter, the nature of the church is that of Christ, then **becoming a part of Christ, identification with his people, incorporation into him, answers the question of church membership**…
>
> Another way of describing the nature of the church… is to say that **the church is those persons who are saved from their sins**. The church, therefore, may be defined as the community of the saved. In other words, soteriology determines ecclesiology…
>
> Those who are saved from their sins are added by God to the number of his people (Acts 2:47)…
>
> A negative way of saying the same thing about the church is suggested by 1 Peter 4:17-18. There the church is contrasted with those who are lost…
>
> Such passages suggest the right way to describe the relationship between the church and salvation. The church does not save (Christ is the Savior), but neither does it have no connection with salvation. The church is the people who are saved. **Some depend on the church to save them. Others make only the most minimal connection between salvation and church membership**, saying that one is saved by one means and becomes a church member in another way. **Both positions misunderstand the biblical teaching. God places the saved in the church, which is his people. The church is the community of the saved.** (pp. 135-37, bold added)
**This is a most unusual way to begin a discussion of church membership!** Most discussions begin with the questionable assumption that we all already know what church membership is. If a definition is deemed necessary, usually the assumed or argued definition is something about entering into a covenantal relationship with a local congregation. Sometimes (and rightly so) there is a focus on the few NT passages that explicitly use the language of “member” (though these passages are often pasted onto preconceived modern concepts of membership).
_**Ferguson, in contrast**_, (a) doesn’t assume we know what church membership is, (b) shows that the concept is first rooted in the nature of the universal church, not the local congregation, and (c) defines church membership as “part of a broad doctrinal perspective” rather than based on existing church polity (government structures) or a narrow examination of NT passages about “members.”
**1\. Human Need (human nature, sin):**
Ferguson begins this section by discussing “the paradox of human nature: greatness and wretchedness, majesty and misery” (p. 137).
> Of all the competing worldviews, only the biblical doctrines of creation and fall account for the dual nature of humanity: aspirations, ideals, and moments of greatness; yet falling short, filled with frustrations and failures. (p. 138)
Ferguson discusses “four great realities of human nature” that he finds in Genesis 3: temptation, sin, punishment, and redemption. Under “redemption”:
> Jesus Christ is the real, true man—what a human being was meant to be. He is the typical, representative person, the leader of the new humanity conformed to the Creator’s plan. (p. 143).
**Ferguson adds some “further theological reflections on sin,”** of which the following especially caught my eye:
> Two opposing views have been maintained about the relation of humanity to sin: depraved in all his being versus inherently good. In spite of isolated texts that might be cited, neither view presents the overall biblical teaching. An alternative theological position will be set forth in the following sections… (p. 143)
“How is sin possible?” Ferguson asks:
> God is good; he is not evil. He is not the author of evil… He does not want sin in the world, and he does not directly product it. Nevertheless, **God maintains the conditions which make sin possible, and he has a purpose which appears to make it inevitable**. In biblical language, when God sends or allows the influences that result in sin, he can be said to cause it (cf. Exod. 7:3 and 8:32; 1Sam. 16:14). (p. 144, bold added)
And “why is sin universal?”:
> Christian theology has related this universality of sin to the doctrine of **original sin**. Although often reinterpreted, it refers historically to the teaching popularized by Augustine (5th century) that **humanity shares the guilt of Adam’s transgression**. This results from everyone inheriting a nature that is polluted. The transmission of sin occurs in the same way as the transmission of human nature, sexual generation. An alternative explanation current in Puritan theology is that **Adam was the “federal head” of the human race**; in that capacity he involved all his descendants in his transgression. **Both of these views are theological explanations; neither has a direct biblical base, even if derived from selected texts. As far as express biblical texts go,****the fall altered the human condition; it did not alter human nature**. Human beings no longer live in Paradise and now struggle in surroundings where the influence of sin is great. Their nature is weakened by the generations who have sinned. On the other hand, the universality of sin cannot be simply blamed on human finiteness, ignorance, and environment.
>
> The story of the first parents is also the story of everyone’s temptations and fall. **Why everyone chooses to love self rather than God is left unexplained in scripture. It remains a fact…** The effects of a weakened human nature inclining us to sin are intensified by the examples of sin about us. (p. 145, bold added)
I am heartened by Ferguson’s boldness in questioning, based on Scripture, a couple theological ideas that have become nearly sacrosanct. I have written before on the question of whether the idea of a sinful nature is truly biblical (see [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/whats-bit-sinful-nature/), [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/in-adams-sin-we-imperialism-inclusion-romans-5/), and [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/which-came-first-original-sin-infant-baptism/)). Biblical or not, I am convinced that it has become so dominant in our thinking that we tend to miss other ways that the Bible talks about sin.
On the other hand, I am not ready yet to definitely assert with Ferguson that the fall “did not alter human nature.” So much depends on how we define terms. Even Ferguson, I note, is not entirely clear in how he talks about “human nature.” In the excerpt above, for example, he also says that our “nature is weakened by the generations who have sinned”; thus we have “a weakened human nature inclining us to sin.” I think I agree with Ferguson here, and I would want to add one more thing to the picture he paints: Paul says that when Adam sinned, “sin came into the world” (Rom. 5:12), thereafter ruling over us. I think this image of “King Sin” ruling from without pairs well with (and helps explain) the concept of a “weakened” human nature, such as Ferguson describes.
Ferguson ends his discussion of sin with an unattributed quote: “My pessimism about man is exceeded only by my optimism about God” (p. 148). Amen!
**2\. God’s Action (atonement, preaching)**
Here, again, Ferguson’s effort to be biblical and not merely parrot denominational orthodoxies is clearly evident. **I really enjoyed his approach to theories of the atonement:**
> Through Christian history thinkers have advanced various theories of the atonement—the ransom, satisfaction, and moral-exemplary having been the most prominent. **The Bible, however, does not present a “theory of the atonement.”** In many of its teachings, the Bible reveals a fact or declares a truth, but does not offer an explanation of why or how this is so. The saving significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus is one of these subjects. The Bible does not offer a systematic explanation of how the atonement works or why God accepts the death of Jesus as providing forgiveness of sins. **The writers of the New Testament do describe the meaning of what God has done in terms familiar to the people of the time.** They employ various images drawn from familiar experiences to convey a truth. **These images describe a reality, but they do not actually explain how the reality works.** (p. 149, bold added)
Ferguson discusses five such images:
> Sacrifice—The Language of Worship…
> Reconciliation—The Language of Personal Relations…
> Redemption—The Language of the Marketplace…
> Justification—The Language of the Law Court…
> Victory—The Language of Warfare (pp. 150-59)
It seems to me that this approach of discussing varied biblical images is more faithful and fruitful than trying to defend one theory of the atonement as primary or even singularly sufficient. _**Jesus didn’t hand his apostles an outlined systematic theology, but he did present an example of using multiple images from common life to depict eternal truths about the kingdom of God.**_
Here are a few highlights from this section. First, **regarding redemption and ransom**: Ferguson notes that the Bible speaks of “the blood of Christ as the price of the purchase (Rev. 5:9)” (p. 154). But he argues regarding “the ‘ransom’ family of words” that “the emphasis in the Greek Old Testament and the New Testament is more on the resultant deliverance and freedom than on the price paid” (p. 155). Thus Ferguson notes “the difficulty with some expressions of the ‘ransom theory’ of the atonement”:
> One must be careful not to extend the analogy beyond what the New Testament does. **The biblical authors declare the fact or truth of the atonement under the imagery of a ransom. They do not go further to explain how this worked. That is what the ransom theory in some of its expressions sought to do.** If God paid a price for human redemption, it was asked, to whom did he make the payment? It must have been the devil. If so, what is the claim of the devil over human life, and is it a just claim? And so the speculation goes. **One finds it hard to give biblical answers to unbiblical questions.** It is better to leave this description where the other imagery is, as a use of language familiar to people of the time to reveal the significance of what God did in Christ. **To make any of these descriptions into a theory, or to extend them beyond the biblical usage, is, at best, to say more than can be confirmed, and, at worst, to say something the Bible does not say.** (p. 155, bold added)
Influenced by E. P. Sanders and James D. G. Dunn, Ferguson affirms some “new perspective” thinking on **justification in Paul**. (If that sentence was gobbledygook to you, just breath deeply and move on.) Here I would like to agree with what Ferguson affirms, but perhaps qualify what he denies:
> Paul’s emphasis on justification by faith occurs primarily in Romans and Galatians, that is, in a context of defending the reception of the Gentiles into the church without requiring them to submit to circumcision and other requirements of the law of Moses. Justification… is contrasted with the law as a system or principle of justification. Justification by faith, in the sense of human faith, is not absolutized in the way it often has been in Protestant theology. Rather it is a way of universalizing the gospel, for the response of faith is open to all, Gentiles as well as Jews. (p. 157)
I could quote much more, but will end this section with Ferguson’s last paragraph on atonement:
> Military victory overcomes the evil powers, justification overcomes law and guilt, redemption overcomes slavery to sin, reconciliation overcomes hostility and chaos, and sacrifice overcomes the need for appeasement… **Each image of the atonement emphasizes what God did**: he makes the atoning sacrifice, he reconciles, he redeems, he justifies, he wins the victory. In all aspects God is triumphant. (p. 159, bold added)
After “further theological reflections on the atonement,” **Ferguson ends this section by discussing “the preaching of the cross”:**
> The preaching of the gospel provide the connection between the once for all action of God at the cross \[and empty tomb\] and the continuing human appropriation of salvation.. **Calvary had to be followed by Pentecost. The victory in the Christ-event must be communicated…**
>
> The word “gospel” means “good news”… Preaching the good news about Jesus is preaching what accomplishes the atonement…
>
> The preaching of the gospel calls forth the human response, but even this human side of salvation is God-initiated. God instituted not only the salvation but also the proclamation of the salvation… So, **preaching is a part of God’s plan of salvation…**
>
> Both medieval sacramentalism and modern revivalism’s doctrine of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit tend to blur the distinctive place of preaching in God’s plan. (pp. 161-63, bold added)
**3\. Human Response (faith, repentance, baptism)**
This section contains many rich theological discussions, but I’ll only share highlights.
**First, Ferguson discusses faith.** After stressing the importance of faith, _**he asks how a person comes to believe:**_
> One explanation, derived from the church father Augustine and passed on to Protestants by Martin Luther and John Calvin, is that **God predestines** those who will be saved and gives to them faith. The direct opposite of this teaching is the secular view that **faith is an arbitrary attitude** arising from a person’s own irrational, perhaps superstitious, decision. **The biblical explanation falls between these extremes**. (p. 163, bold added)
Ferguson’s explanation is based on his theology of preaching: “Saving faith comes by hearing the word about Christ” (p. 163). While this answer begs more questions (Why doesn’t everyone hear? Why doesn’t everyone who hears develop faith?), it remains true:
> The consistent order of conversion is summarized in Acts 18:8, “Many of the Corinthians who **heard** Paul became **believers** and were **baptized**.”
>
> Since faith comes from hearing the word, **there is a sense in which one may say that faith is given by God**… Faith is not human generated… Only the word that sets forth the mighty, loving, salvific action of God can do this… Since God supplies the content of faith and the means by which it is created, he is the one who gives faith… **On the other hand, God does not directly create the response. He does not give faith to some and withhold it from others**… The preached word produces faith. (p. 164, bold added)
Ferguson helpfully discusses of _**“the elements of faith”**_—intellectual assent, trust, and obedience. He also explains that faith is not “meritorious,” but simply a “grateful acceptance” of God’s gift of salvation, which is received “in the only way any gift is received” (p.167).
He then turns to _**the “relation of faith to its expressions,” beginning with baptism.**_ Here we will slow down again, and I recommend slow reading:
> Faith saves, but when? At the point of believing, or when the divine condition attached to the promise is met?
>
> **Baptism is act of faith, not a work** in the sense of Romans 4… As a condition attached to God’s promise of salvation it is not opposed to faith… _Faith_ is the _reason why_ a person is a child of God; _baptism_ is the _time at which_ one is incorporated into Christ and so becomes a child of God…
>
> **One cannot define work in such a way as to include baptism and exclude faith.** There is a sense in which faith itself is a work… “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:28-29)… So, if “work” is taken to mean something done by human beings, then faith no less than baptism is a “work”…
>
> The teaching of baptism for the remission of sins… is not a contradiction to justification by faith. Indeed, **baptism for the remission of sins is an expression of justification by faith**. Baptism is an act of faith, dependent on the promise of God and a submission to him as the appointed way of claiming the promise. The death and resurrection of Christ are the basis of salvation on the divine side. Faith is the basis of salvation on the human side. **Baptism represents the “when,” not the “how” (God’s action), nor the “why” (faith) of salvation.** It is the appointed time at which that salvation offered to faith is applied and becomes effective in the person’s life. (p. 169-70, bold added)
This is difficult teaching for most of us, and we will be tempted to react, indeed, overreact, since we have likely been warned of the fallacy of “baptismal regeneration.” But _**before we react, let’s listen and try to understand.**_
First, we must note that Ferguson specifies that baptism is _not_ the “basis” of salvation, just the “appointed time” when it becomes effective. Second, consider what we often hear regarding baptism—that it is “only” a sign or symbol of some prior spiritual reality. Is that _really_ how Scripture talks about baptism? Can you find any verse that expressly talks about baptism in that way?
I think we should listen to Ferguson here. At minimum, we should let him push us closer to Scripture, which ties baptism and saving faith much more closely together than we often acknowledge.
If you would find it easier to read a Baptist’s take on this topic, I urge you to read an essay by Robert H. Stein: [“Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament.”](http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1998spring2.pdf) Here is Stein’s thesis:
> In the New Testament, conversion involves five integrally related components or aspects, all of which took place at the same time, usually on the same day. These five components are repentance, faith, and confession by the individual, regeneration, or the giving of the Holy Spirit by God, and baptism by representatives of the Christian community.
Stein argues that when Scripture mentions any one of these five, it normally assumes the presence of the other four. Thus “all five components described in my thesis (repentance, faith, confession, regeneration, baptism) are mentioned in the New Testament as bringing about salvation.” This includes baptism, which Peter famously asserts “saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21). Stein admits his own Baptist tradition is weak on this point:
> Baptist theology also deviates from the New Testament pattern. Although repentance, faith, confession, and regeneration are associated with baptism, baptism is separated in time from these four components. Thus baptism is an act which witnesses to a prior experience of repentance, faith, confession, and regeneration. As a result such passages as Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, John 3:3ff., and others, which associate baptism with the experience of conversion, are embarrassing to many Baptists and often receive a strained exegesis at their hands.
Again, I urge us to be sure we understand Ferguson and have compared him carefully with Scripture before we judge his perspective. Perhaps he isn’t perfectly right; but I’m certain that the popular Mennonite understanding isn’t, either.
Ferguson next discusses the relationship of faith and works (synthesizing the apparent contradiction between Romans and James). _**He ends this subsection with some mature observations:**_
> **Faith is no more meritorious than works.** It is the acceptance of a gracious gift. **The importance of accepting a great gift does not detract from the significance of the gift**, unless one glories in the acceptance… Some forms of the doctrine of salvation by “faith only” end in the very thing the doctrine was meant to oppose, namely trusting in what one does (in this case in one’s faith), which is the same as trusting in oneself…
>
> **A person can be assured of salvation.** There is nothing more certain than the promises of God… “Do I have the right kind of faith?” “Do I have enough faith?”… God has given an objective assurance in the condition of water baptism… the outward, objective expression of faith in Christ… If one has enough faith to be baptized, one has enough faith to be saved. If one’s faith is in Christ as Savior, one will follow him in baptism. It is trusting God and his word to be baptized. (p. 173, bold added)
There is much more to faith and assurance than baptism, and we all know of those who were baptized without possessing saving faith. But it is interesting to note that Paul, like Ferguson, was not above pointing people back to their baptism to remind them of their salvation (Romans 6:3-4, etc.).
_**The confession of faith**_, Ferguson notes, “will involve the whole self”:
> There may be many occasions when one is called upon to confess faith in Jesus in addition to the initial acknowledgment of him. (p. 175)
But since the focus of this chapter is “how one is brought into this relationship” with Christ and his church (p. 135), Ferguson focuses on a convert’s initial confession of faith. So _**he soon pivots again to baptism, providing another definition:**_
> The confession that “Jesus is Lord and Christ” is made by act as well as by word. **The action of baptism is a confession of faith in the resurrection…** One submits to immersion only if he or she has faith in the resurrection… Baptism acknowledges Jesus as Lord of one’s life and king of the universe… Baptism is a confession that Jesus is Lord, Christ, and Son of God. **Submitting to baptism is identical to the faith that is confessed.** (pp. 174-75, bold added)
Ferguson’s last paragraph on faith ends by showing its _**relationship to church membership:**_
> Faith in the God who raises the dead, specifically Jesus Christ, is the heart of the Christian faith… **This is the faith by which one becomes identified with Christ and so a part of his spiritual body**, his people, who wear his name. (p. 175, bold added)
**Ferguson next discusses repentance.** He is brief here, so I will be too! Repentance, he suggests, broadly involves three elements: (1) godly grief, (2) change of will, and (3) reformation of life. Repentance also has a narrower meaning, focusing on the second element:
> The inward change that results from godly grief and issues in a reformation of life is what constitutes repentance in the strict sense. (p. 177)
What is the relationship of repentance to conversion?
> If a distinction is to be observed, “repent” refers more to the inward turning and “convert” to the outward acts of turning.
>
> **The literal meaning of turning suggests an illustration of the place of repentance in conversion.** A person is walking in one direction, stops (the conviction of sin; godly sorrow), decides to turn around (repentance), turns around (conversion), and walks in the opposite direction (reformation of life). (p. 178, bold added)
And which comes first, faith or repentance?
> In the two passages where faith and repentance are mentioned together, repentance precedes faith… (Mark 1:15… Acts 20:21)… Some would argue theologically and insist on the priority of faith as the root of all human response to God… **Probably we should not think in terms of sequence at all but in terms of describing a total response to God…** (pp. 178-79, bold added)
With that, **Ferguson turns to systematically discuss one of his favorite topics, baptism.** After discussing the historical background of Christian baptism, he considers _**the meaning of baptism**_.
“Baptism is associated with many key ideas involved in conversion” (p. 180). Ferguson’s discussion here reminds me of Stein’s article, though his list of related components is not identical: _**confession of faith, act of repentance, forgiveness of sins, gift of the Holy Spirit, new birth, death and resurrection, and membership in the church**_.
Here are some highlights:
> Baptism is a “calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16)… **After baptism into Christ one wears the name of Christ.** One now lives a Christian life because of becoming a Christian at baptism. (pp. 180-81, bold added)
>
> **Baptism is involved in the turning associated with repentance…** According to the illustration offered \[in the discussion of repentance and conversion\] above, repentance is the decision to turn, and baptism is the turning around. Repentance is the inward turning, and **baptism is the outward turning, which is followed by the new life of walking in the opposite direction.** (pp. 182-83, bold added)
>
> **Baptism is the appointed time at which God pronounces forgiveness.** Faith takes away the love of sin, repentance takes away the practice of sin, and baptism takes away the guilt of sin. (p. 183, bold added)
_**Here Ferguson notes the parallel construction between Acts 2:38 (“Repent, and be baptized… so that your sins may be forgiven”) and Matthew 26:28 (“This is my blood…, which is poured out… for the forgiveness of sins”).**_ “Exactly the same construction and wording occurs” in Greek in the two passages, Ferguson asserts.
> No one would suggest that Jesus’ blood was poured out “because of the forgiveness of sins.” He did not die because sins were already forgiven, nor was his blood poured out as a symbol of the forgiveness of sins. **There was no doubt that the blood was shed “in order to effect the forgiveness of sins.” The same translation must be given to Acts 2:38…** The blood provides forgiveness by the divine action; baptism appropriates that forgiveness for the penitent believer. (p. 183, bold added)
>
> There is no magical power in the water nor merit in the act itself, for the value comes not from the water but from the intention with which the act is performed. **The statement is not to be absolutized, but when placed in the total context of the gospel, it remains true: “Baptism saves.”** \[Citing 1 Peter 3:21.\]… There must be an objective necessity about baptism, nor the New Testament writers could not speak of baptism in the way they do. (pp. 184-85, bold added)
Again, comments like this might make some of us uncomfortable, and they raise all sorts of questions. (What about the thief on the cross?) But I urge us to ask: _**Compared to Ferguson, is the way we often talk about baptism closer to the language of the Bible, or further?**_ As we add nuance, let us be humble learners.
I find _**Ferguson’s reflections on the historical theology of baptism**_ helpful, too:
> The perspective outlined here makes problematic the designation of baptism as a sacrament… **Roman Catholics have traditionally emphasized the inward grace**, so much so that the benefits are applied in the rite if no resistance is offered (hence, an infant receives forgiveness of original sin in baptism)… **Protestants, on the other hand, have emphasized the sign aspect**, so baptism is a sign of God’s forgiveness that is given to a faith that has already happened (in the case of adult baptism) or will happen (in the case of infant baptism) and does not require the sign for it to happen (hence, the baptism is actually unnecessary). **Against these ideas, the New Testament teaches that baptism** has real value but draws that value only from the command of God and from an active faith. **It is both necessary to the accomplishment of forgiveness under ordinary circumstances and the symbol of what is accomplished.** (pp. 185-86, bold added)
I got excited when I read the next paragraph, for it confirmed something I concluded in my essay [“125 Years of Seven Ordinances”](http://dwightgingrich.com/125-years-7-ordinances-rough-draft/):
> This book has consciously avoided a separate category of **“sacraments”** in its organization of the material. **Such a category is a later theological construct for which there is no explicit New Testament authorization.** Moreover, it seems preferable to treat the actions sometimes called sacraments in the living context of their place in the church rather than to pull them out of that context and put them in a separate category. (p. 186, bold added)
Discussing John 3:3-5 and similar passages, Ferguson quips that “there are two elements of the new birth \[water and Spirit\], despite the efforts of some to dehydrate the new birth” (p. 188).
_**Is baptism a symbol?**_ Ferguson addresses this while discussing death and resurrection:
> The convert participates in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. There is a sharing in his experience. That makes baptism a richly meaningful act. **More is involved than an imitation or repetition of what Christ did; what he did becomes operative in the life of the believer…**
>
> **Baptism may be described as an act of dynamic symbolism, a symbol that partakes of the reality symbolized…** Baptism began with John as an eschatological sign of cleansing; it was given deeper symbolism in Christianity by the death and resurrection of Christ. **Anything but immersion destroys the symbolism of the act.** (p. 191, bold added)
Ferguson’s language of “dynamic symbolism” reminds me of Bobby Jamieson’s term “effective sign” (see [my review of his book _Going Public_](http://dwightgingrich.com/going-public-why-baptism-is-required-for-church-membership-jamieson-review/)):
> The thesis of this book, then, is that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are **effective signs** of church membership: they create the social, ecclesial realities to which they point. (p. 2, bold added)
_**How does baptism relate to church membership?**_ I find Ferguson’s discussion refreshing for its biblical integrity:
> **Baptism places one in the church.** “For in \[_or_ by\] the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body… and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13)… The Spirit places the person in the one body. **Having the one Spirit is the means of sharing in the one body.** (pp. 191-92, bold added)
>
> **The New Testament places no significance on the person who performs the baptism.** The emphasis is always on the person’s response of faith and the divine action… The person doing the baptizing was not the important matter; what was important was the fact that it was done and the purpose that motivated it. (p. 194, bold added)
>
> **Since Christ is the body (1 Cor. 12:12), to be baptized into Christ is to be baptized into the body,** that is, into the church as the people of God… Baptism serves as the act of initiation into the church. Any group or organization has to have some act which marks off its members from others, however informal this may be… Not only does the church need something to identify its members, but people need something they can look back on and say, **“At that time I became a Christian, a member of the church.”** God has designated something as the decisive act that only the truly converted will do. **Baptism is the line between the church and the world.** (p. 194, bold added)
Ferguson is certainly an idealist when he says baptism is something “that only the truly converted will do.” We all know this is not always true, and it would be wise for Ferguson to discuss what should happen when exceptions are discovered. (Perhaps he does later.) Nevertheless, I want to say here that _**it is important to properly recognize biblical ideals and use them as the foundation of our understanding of practices like church membership**_. Exceptions must be handled, but we must not use them as excuses to develop ideals and norms that are not biblical.
In my estimation it is not helpful, for example, to say that since not all who are baptized are Christians, therefore we will divorce baptism from either conversion, church membership, or both. Scripture ties all three together; it would be better to revise our membership paradigms to match Scripture more closely than to separate the three in order to preserve extra-biblical membership practices designed to ensure our members are truly Christians. _**Let’s hold to (or return to) the biblical ideal of a united conversion/baptism/membership experience and then invest the effort to actively disciple and discipline the “exceptions.”**_
Some final quotes on the meaning of baptism:
> Membership in the church is more a result than the purpose of baptism. One is baptized not so much in order to join the church as to accept Christ and receive his salvation… **God adds the person to the church**, the community of the saved. The church is created by God. (pp. 194-95, bold added)
There can be a “subtle temptation to trust in baptism for salvation,” Ferguson notes. However, “there are \[also\] other things that can become misplaced objects of trust,” such as faith, experience, or doctrinal correctness. Thus this temptation is no reason to water down (pardon the pun) the Bible’s teaching on baptism. After all, “truly to trust in God includes responding to him in the appointed way,” which includes baptism (p. 195).
_**Who should be baptized?**_ Baptism “is not a work by those already saved,” Ferguson notes. “Hence, the proper persons to receive baptism are penitent believers, or believing penitents.”
Ferguson lists three arguments against infant baptism:
> (1) There is not mention of the baptism of infants in the New Testament. (2) Every account of baptism in the New Testament shows it to be a response by believers… (3) The evidence of church history places the beginning of infant baptism at the end of the second century. (pp. 195-96)
He then devotes three pages to refute four arguments often presented in favor of infant baptism:
> The examples of household baptism…
> \[Giving\] baptism the place of circumcision…
> Jewish proselyte baptism…
> The doctrine of original sin… (pp. 196-98)
I was impressed with the evidence Ferguson mounted to show that the accounts of household baptism do not reasonably describe infants. Regarding original sin, he argues that “infant baptism arose first on other grounds, and the idea that infants needed purification developed (at least in part) as a consequence of the practice.” Thus “original sin was not the basis of the practice \[of infant baptism\], but the practice was the basis of the doctrine” (p. 198). This historical sequence, if true, considerably weakens a key theological argument for infant baptism. (Some church traditions use other theological arguments, usually also redefining the purpose of baptism from forgiveness of sins to something less crucial.)
I really enjoyed Ferguson’s thoughts about _**the “condition of the child”**_:
> The theology of the child is little developed in churches that practice believers’ baptism. Yet **the status of the child is urgently in need of clarification** as a foundation for religious education and **as an explanation of the relation of the young person to the Christian community**.
>
> Sometimes there has been a tendency to come out where the old revivalism did: one must be lost in order to be saved, so the child is painted as a little sinner. Perhaps related is the tendency to baptize at a younger and younger age. (p. 199, bold added)
What, then, is a better theology and practice? Ferguson looks to creation and to the positive New Testament assessment of children, both by Jesus and by Paul.
> **The doctrine of inherited guilt from Adam was rejected** above as lacking biblical support…
>
> According to Matthew 19:13-15 the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as the little children…
>
> Paul argues against a believer divorcing an unbelieving mate on the grounds that the believer sanctifies the unbeliever, a conclusion justified by this consideration: “Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14)… Salvation is not under consideration… The question is the legitimacy of the marriage relationship so that it is proper to remain in the marriage. **A corollary is the condition of the children; are they in a state of purity as it relates to the Christian community? Paul indicates that the answer is “Yes.”** Nothing is said here about baptism; the state of holiness comes from the believing parent not from baptism and no impurity requires the cleansing of baptism. **If all children are born innocent, then the child of a Christian parent has an added advantage**, for that child grows up… under Christian influence and in some contact with the Christian community… **The child of Christian parents sustains a special relationship to the Lord that the child of non-Christians would not.** \[Citing Ephesians 6:1-4.\] (pp. 199-200, bold added)
How might our practice reflect this theology?
> There must be some way in which the religious experience of the child is not denied and treated as non-Christian but the real meaning of believer’s baptism maintained… It is proper to teach the child to pray, to study the Bible, and to practice Christian morality…
>
> **What then does baptism mean for the child who has grown up in a Christian home?** It must still retain the positive significance that it has for the adult convert from the world, but it would not have the same sense of a radical break with the past… **The baptism of a child of Christian parents should be seen in continuity with the childhood religious experience…** At this time, one makes a profession of faith as his or her own… \[Footnote: “One may compare the Jewish _bar mitzvah_, when the child becomes a ‘son of the commandment’ with responsibility to assume the duties of the law.\] **Baptism is the person’s acceptance of Christ and of responsibility for public involvement in the life of the church.** (p. 200, bold added)
Ferguson resists the call to be more prescriptive:
> **At what time does baptism become appropriate?** When can a decision for a life of faith be responsibly made? How long is a child in a state of “holiness”?… The Bible does not give an age. **The person must face the consciousness of sin (which to some degree may come quite early) and the necessity of assuming responsibility for actions (that may be very much later).** (p. 201, bold added)
As a parent of young children, I appreciate Ferguson’s biblical assurance that I need not call them quickly to a crisis faith decision. I want them to be conscious of the presence of the Lord from an early age, but do not feel an urgency to overwhelm them with a sense of responsibility for their own sins before they are developmentally equipped to handle it well.
Ferguson presents five lines of evidence for _**“immersion” or “dipping” as the proper mode of baptism:**_
> The etymology of the word _baptizó_…
> Jewish practice in New Testament times for ritual washing…
> The New Testament descriptions of baptism…
> The symbolism of burial and resurrection…
> The evidence of early church history… (pp. 201-203)
I already agreed with Ferguson that immersion is the biblical norm, and that other practices are post-biblical “exceptions.”
Ferguson winds down this chapter by discussing “three tenses of salvation” (p. 203). He notes that “if one loses faith and a penitent attitude, baptism loses its saving significance” (p. 204).
_**I get excited when I read the following sentences from the end of this chapter.**_ Ferguson’s understanding of church membership is very different from the way we have been trained to think about church membership in our recent conservative Anabaptist tradition. But it matches so well what I have been concluding in my own reading of the New Testament! **_What would it look like if our churches understood membership in the following way?_**
> **Properly understood, “to be in the church is to be in Christ, and to be in Christ is to be in the church.”**[1](#fn-2200-1) One is not “in Christ” because of being “in the church,” but one is “in the church” because of being “in Christ.” **Membership in the church is not a matter of separate choice** by the one joined to Christ (as if one could belong to Christ and not belong to his people). To be saved is to be in Christ, and **to be a Christian is to be a member of the church**. God by the same action that saves places the person in the redeemed community. (p. 205, bold added)
Ah, but Ferguson must be talking about the universal church, right? This would be quite impractical for a local church!
Not so fast. Here are the very next sentences, part of the same paragraph:
> **Nor is the church in the Bible an invisible body.** It is always treated in the New Testament as a visible community of people, **identifiable and distinct** from the surrounding world… Not only is **a visible fellowship** part of God’s saving action, but it is also the context in which the salvation is **lived out** and the new life **actualized**. (p. 205, bold added)
* * *
And thus we return to where we began: **soteriology determines ecclesiology.**
If we are honest, I think we will admit what history shows only too clearly: _**we have some problems with our ecclesiology. Does this suggest that we also have problems with our soteriology?**_ Might we not have a clear enough understanding of salvation? If we knew more clearly what it really means to belong to Christ, could we better recognize who actually belongs to him? And would we feel more deeply our spiritual bond with all who do, so that we would not dare to deny that bond by defining church membership in other ways (Eph. 4:3-4)?
Let us think on these things.
* * *
**If you want to read more of Ferguson’s thoughts about baptism,** check out his massive volume _[Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries](http://amzn.to/1O92ykM)_. **Meanwhile,** **it’s your turn: [Share your responses in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-4-salvation-church-membership/#respond)**
* * *
**Ferguson’s fourth chapter (our post 5) is about worship and assembly.** Subtopics will include things like attitudes toward worship, the day of assembly, and activities such as the Lord’s Supper and giving. I see in advance that I’ll disagree with Ferguson’s position on instrumental music, but I’ll do my best to learn as I disagree!
* * *
_Note: I participate in an Amazon affiliates program, so if you buy a book using the link above, I will earn pennies. Thanks!_
1. Claude Welch, _The Reality of the Church_ (New York: Scribner’s, 1958), p. 165. [↩](#fnref-2200-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Commentary on 1 and 2 Chronicles — Merrill (Review)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-07
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: A Commentary on 1 and 2 Chronicles -- Merrill (Review) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Merrill has written a solid commentary on Chronicles, full of historical and theological insights. Poor editing reduces it to 4 out of 5 stars.
Tags: covenant, Bible contradictions, Messiah, Bible's trustworthiness, -1 Chronicles 21, Allen P. | Ross, Davidic dynasty, Eugene H. | Merrill, historiography, inerrancy, Robert B. | Chisholm Jr., temple
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/commentary-1-2-chronicles-merrill-review
Merrill, Eugene H. _A Commentary on 1 & 2 Chronicles_. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015). 637pp. _[Publisher’s description](http://www.kregel.com/bible-commentaries/a-commentary-on-1-2-chronicles/)_. [_Review by Phillip Long_](http://readingacts.com/2016/01/14/book-review-eugene-h-merrill-a-commentary-on-1-2-chronicles/). (Amazon new price: $39.99, unavailable on Kindle , cheaper used.) \[amazon template=add to cart1&asin=082542559X\]
**Over the past month or so, much of my daily Bible reading has been in 1 and 2 Chronicles.** My companion for these books has been Eugene Merrill’s new commentary. I am now several chapters into the second volume of Chronicles and have read all of Merrill’s comments on the text so far. I am enjoying the experience.
This is my first time reading through a Chronicles commentary. I came to Merrill’s book hoping for at least two things: (1) A clearer grasp of the special theological thrust of these often-overlooked books. (2) Some help to reconcile the apparent contradictions between factual details in Chronicles and the books of Samuel and Kings. Merrill has satisfied me quite well on the first point, but less so on the second.
[](http://amzn.to/1Q0cPRm)
[
](http://amzn.to/1Q0cPRm)
**Summary of Book**
**Merrill’s book is part of a new series of OT commentaries from the Kregel Exegetical Library.** Like other volumes in this series, it targets a wide range of readers. Much of the commentary text is very readable and will be useful for most readers. The Scripture text is presented in the NIV (old, 1984 edition). On the other hand, sometimes Hebrew words are left untranslated, and detailed “text-critical notations” are presented after the NIV text—something I am unlikely to ever find useful.
This series appears to be aimed most directly at pastors, though it is a bit uneven in execution and format. For example, [the volume on Judges and Ruth](http://amzn.to/1TLzJSB) (by Robert B. Chisholm, Jr.) includes a long annotated outline of a 10-part sermon series for Judges, along with more “homiletical trajectories” described throughout the commentary. [The 3-volume set on Psalms](http://amzn.to/1UUxXgb) (by Allen P. Ross) includes extended guidance for writing an exegetical outline, an exegetical summary, an expository outline, and a single expository idea for a psalm, along with a “message and application” section at the end of each psalm. Merrill, in contrast, does not provide either sermon outlines or guidance on taking a text from exegesis to exposition, though he does include brief “application of the theology of…” sections throughout. Readers who like one volume may be disappointed to find another is structured differently.
**Merrill’s introduction includes helpful discussions of all the expected topics**, including the historical and cultural setting, authorship (“the Chronicler”), the author’s sources, the book’s placement in the OT canon, literary forms and genres, and theology.
> The major objective of the Chronicler was to provide a theological interpretation of Israel’s past interlaced with great hope for an eschatological renewal of the Davidic house, one bound to Yahweh its God by an indissoluble covenant. It may not be too bold to suggest that the compilers of the canon shared this same conviction and thus placed the book where they did \[at the end of the Hebrew OT\]. (p. 46)
This quote mentions two of the main themes Merrill identifies in Chronicles (the house of David and the renewed covenant), to which he adds a third: the restored temple.
**The body of Merrill’s commentary discusses the text section by section** (usually not verse by verse). Sections range in length from several verses to an entire chapter, and they are grouped in nine commentary chapters, such as “The Genealogies” or “The Rise of David.” Also included are:
* 13 Charts and Tables (e.g.: “Holy War Technical Terms”)
* 12 Excursuses (e.g.: “The Angel of YHWH”)
* 9 Theological Discourses (one for each commentary chapter, thus covering all of Chronicles)
_**To show how this works, I’ll zero in on one of Chronicles’ most famous chapters–1 Chronicles 21.**_ Merrill entitles this “David’s Census and Its Aftermath.” This is the final section in a chapter called “The Exploits of David” (1 Chron. 15:1-21:30). Here you will find:
* The text of 1 Chronicles 21 in the NIV translation
* Text-critical notations (comparing word usage with Samuel)
* 7 pages of commentary on 1 Chronicles 21 (2 to 4 footnotes per page)
In addition, since this is the end of a commentary chapter, you will find these:
* “The Theology of the Exploits of David” (1 page discussing the theology of chapters 15 through 21, especially the David’s portrayal as an ideal, messiah-like king)
* “Application of the Theology of the Exploits of David” (1 page discussing three timeless theological truths)
* “Excursus 4: The Angel of YHWH” (1 page)
* “Excursus 5: David and Royal Sonship (2 pages)
* “Excursus 6: The Theological Ethics of Holy War” (3 pages)
* “Chart 5: The Seven Nations of Canaan” (1 page)
* “Chart 6: Holy War Technical Terms” (1 page)
**Assessment of Book**
**Strengths:** Merrill is an expert on OT history, so this commentary is surefooted on issues like historical dates and making relevant connections to other OT passages. He has also written on OT theology, so he does well at tracing the main theological themes of Chronicles, making connections to the rest of the OT and even to the NT. Judging by the footnotes, though Merrill is now an elderly man, he has remained up-to-date on recent secondary scholarship. His pastoral heart also shines through, producing occasional little gems like this: “Man at his best falls far short of God at his ‘worst'” (comment on David’s dilemma of choosing a punishment in 1 Chron. 21:13).
Most pastors or Bible teachers should find this commentary useful. I haven’t compared it carefully with others ([see this list](http://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/ot-detailed-lists/#chr)), but can imagine there are much worse choices (older, dryer, more critical, etc.). In particular, if you want to trace the main theological themes of Chronicles, Merrill will serve you very well.
**Weaknesses:** This commentary disappointed me primarily in two ways. _**First, for a technical work of this stature, there is an astounding number of editorial or proofreading errors.**_ I counted about 28 in the introduction and the chapters covering 1 Chronicles, and spotted more scanning the second half. For example:
* The outline used for the commentary chapters (pp. 8-11) differs unpredictably from the outline presented in the introduction (pp. 70-71).
* Two of the 12 excursuses are actually identical (p. 256 and 313), except for their titles and the sequence of their paragraphs!
* Pagination problems: Multiple charts, outlines, and footnotes are on different pages than indicated in the text. (“The following chart lists the nations…”; p. 314, but the chart is on p. 258.)
* The chart on page 258 has formatting problems, hiding some headings.
* A mistake in either math or grammar wrongly suggests that Chronicles mentions Jerusalem “more than Ezra-Nehemiah” (p. 106).
* There are multiple problems with typeface, punctuation, missing words, or wrong word substitutions (“David \[should be _the Chronicler_\] was clearly aware of the Samuel source…”; p. 238).
I have not found errors of this number in commentaries by other major publishers such as Eerdmanns, Zondervan, or Baker Academic. Perhaps Kregel is rushing their new commentary series to press, trying to catch up to the other publishers? (Note to Kregel Publications: If you want a list of all the errors I found, please contact me. In fact, I may also be open to a job as a copy editor!)
_**The second way in which Merrill’s commentary left me hungry was his handling of the apparent factual contradictions that Chronicles presents.**_ He does a very good job of noting that there is nothing automatically deceitful about the Chronicler’s intent of presenting David in a positive light, as a messianic figure, thus overlooking most of the darker episodes in his life. Every historian is selective, and the Chronicler is simply presenting the aspects of David’s life that will be most beneficial for his post-exilic readers to consider, based on their own needs.
> To omit historical information is not a matter of deceitfulness, evasiveness, or intellectual dishonesty. It shows bias, indeed, but that does not and should not be a criterion for either truthfulness or, in the case of Scripture, inerrancy. (p. 239)
All this I heartily affirm. But I am still hungry for better explanations of the apparent contradictions in Chronicles. (By “apparent” I do not mean “certain” but “visible.”) For example, consider this commentary on 1 Chronicles 3:1-24, which notes that the Chronicler does not always provide the same list of David’s sons:
> The differences between Samuel and Chronicles \[in this chapter\] may be easily explained, perhaps, but the differences within Chronicles are not. The best suggestion is to suppose, as many scholars do, that the book is more a compilation of texts than one authored by a single author at one time. In any case, the overall message conveyed by the genealogies, despite their similarities and differences, is little affected. (p.107)
Maybe it is okay that the Chronicler does not always present the same list of David’s sons? But what about when Samuel says Joab counted 800,000 men from Israel and 500,000 from Judah (2 Sam. 24:4-9), while the Chronicler says he reported 1,100,000 men from Israel and 470,000 men from Judah (1 Chron. 21:4-7)? Is it enough to say that the difference “can be explained by Chronicles’ use of a tradition different from Samuel’s” (p. 246)? This solution, of course, suggests that Samuel and Chronicles _never_ matched. (There are other proposed resolutions for this passage, though I have not seen any that seems obviously right to my finite mind. I invite solutions.)
Later in the same chapter (1 Chron. 21:25-26) we read that David paid Araunah 600 shekels of gold for his land; Samuel records only 50 shekels (2 Sam. 24:24). Merrill’s solution for this problem is even more puzzling to me:
> Neither text finds help through other versions and manuscripts so the answer must lie in an ancient misreading, no doubt in or by the source used by the Chronicler. (p. 250)
Perhaps Merrill is right; perhaps the books of Samuel and Chronicles never matched each other on all such factual details, not even in their original manuscripts. And perhaps the mismatch involves prior “misreading” which would not be explainable as anything other than factual errors even if we possessed all the data. Perhaps not all apparent contradictions can be rightly chalked up to copyists’ errors in subsequent centuries. If so, however, our theology of the trustworthiness of Scripture (something Jesus clearly affirms) must account for such realities.
_**Perhaps Rodney Yoder’s comments** **about Bible texts and translations**_ (in [_The Story Behind the Versions_](http://amzn.to/1Xbg0eI)) _**can point us in the right direction:**_
> Sometimes the people copying or translating the Word of God simply made mistakes.
>
> So, if people made mistakes in preparing the Bible version I am reading, am I still actually reading the very inspired Word of God? Yes, because God chose to give us that infallible Word in a way that it is not lost amid a few human blunders… The kind of faults or errors that creep into a text through normal human copying and translating will never destroy God’s message.
>
> If acknowledging that our copy of the Scriptures is not perfect makes us uneasy, maybe our faith is resting on a faulty foundation. Our faith must not rest on whether or not we have access to a flawless copy of God’s Word. Rather, our faith must rest on God Himself. We know God has revealed Himself to mankind… We do not need to worry that God will fail to reward those who diligently seek Him, or that He will fail to lead us into all truth. (pp. 7-8)
>
> For whatever reason, God has not given us… a completely flawless copy of the Book that He inspired. But He has assured us that His Word \[the message the Bible proclaims\] is forever settled in Heaven… It seems that He intended the Bible to be a treasure in an earthen vessel, so that all could see the power is from Him and not of us. (p. 70)
So I applaud Merrill for his honesty in noting apparent contradictions, but I long for a better explanation of how the text of Chronicles can be integrated into a coherent theology of the trustworthiness of Scripture.
**Conclusion**
**Merrill has written a solid commentary on Chronicles.** It is packed full of historical and theological insights. It has helpfully spurred my thinking on topics such as the OT priesthood and holy war. I look forward to reading the rest of Merrill’s work as I complete my devotional reading of Chronicles!
This book shows good scholarship but poor editing.
**I give it 4 out of 5 stars.**
* * *
**Do you have a favorite Chronicles commentary?** Do you have insights on how to integrate the apparent contradictions of Chronicles into a theology of the trustworthiness of Scripture? (Do you agree with Rodney Troyer’s perspective on the text of Scripture?) [**Share your thoughts in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/commentary-1-2-chronicles-merrill-review/#respond)
* * *
_Disclosures: I received this book free from the publisher in exchange for a review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/16cfr255\_03.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html)\> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
_
_I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## In Which I Am Surprised to Agree With John Nelson Darby
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-02-03
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: In Which I Am Surprised to Agree With John Nelson Darby • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Darby's ecclesiology shaped his eschatology. Yet, while I disagree with much of his eschatology, I discovered I agree with some of his ecclesiology.
Tags: Daniel | Kauffman, Anabaptist history, church history, church unity, Holy Spirit, Magisterial Reformation, prophecy, -Acts 2:47, -1 Corinthians 10:17, -1 Corinthians 11:26, -2 Thessalonians 1:10, -Ephesians 1:23, -Ephesians 1:9-11, -John 11:50-52, -John 12:32, -John 17:21-23, -Mark 9:38, -Matthew 12:30, -Matthew 18:20, -Philippians 3:20, amillennialism, Christ's death, church and Israel, church denominations, curse of Ham, Cyrus Ingerson | Scofield, dispensationalism, Erastianism, eschatology, Geneva Bible, Isaac | Watts, James | Ussher, John Nelson | Darby, Lord's Supper, Mark S. | Sweetnam, Plymouth Brethren, postmillennialism, premillennialism, R. Todd | Mangum, replacement theology, Scofield Bible, Southern Presbyterianism, state church, Thomas | Erastus
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/surprised-to-agree-with-darby
**I just finished a book called _[The Scofield Bible: Its History and Impact on the Evangelical Church](http://amzn.to/1UHyeTO)_**, by R. Todd Mangum and Mark S. Sweetham. I recommend the book. It is slightly repetitive at points, perhaps because of the joint authorship, and it might be more engaging if it offered more specific examples and fewer general observations. But it is a very informative and apparently fair discussion of both the Scofield Bible (1909) and the man who created it, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921).
Readers are sure to learn something new about one of the most powerful influences that have shaped the modern American evangelical landscape. I also noted parallels between Scofield’s project and the theological and publishing efforts of Mennonite fundamentalists of the same era, such as Daniel Kauffman. In both cases, I believe, the church was almost certainly better off thanks to the efforts of such leaders. Yet their best intentions and most helpful efforts were unintentionally marred by significant weaknesses only clearly visible after subsequent generations used their writings. This is both encouraging and sobering for writers today.
**Scofield was a skilled Bible teacher, but rarely original.** His many influences include the Geneva Bible (the first annotated English Bible, millenial in nature rather than ammillenial as Catholics of the time), James Ussher’s historical dating system (adopted by Scofield though modified by the “gap theory” in Genesis 1), European evangelicalism (perhaps including Isaac Watt’s musings on dispensations, which nearly match Scofield’s), John Nelson Darby (dispensational promoter of a two-stage return of Christ and a secret rapture), Southern Presbyterianism (turning from postmillenialism to the more pessimistic premillenialism after losses in the Civil War and advocating the curse of Ham—the idea that black people are destined to be servants), and the American fundamentalist-evangelical movement of which he was a part (which included prophecy conferences).
These are some of his most prominent influences, but I’m only providing a sample of examples of how these influences shaped Scofield.
**For the rest of this post I want to focus on one of Scofield’s influences, J. N. Darby** (1800-1882, a leader among the Plymouth Brethren in Ireland), **and on only one of his themes, the nature of the church**—since this theme directly relates to a main theme of my blog.
In short, Darby’s beliefs about the church shaped his beliefs about prophecy. And _**what surprised me is that, while I disagree with many of Darby’s beliefs about prophecy, I identify with some of his thinking about church.**_
First, some excerpts from the book by Mangum and Sweetam:
> One of the most interesting things about the way in which Darby’s interpretation of prophetic Scripture emerged is that **his development of dispensationalism was a result of his disaffection with the ecclesiastical status quo**. Especially in light of his later complaints that those he spoke to during his visits to the United States enthusiastically absorbed his prophetic teaching while ignoring almost entirely his views on church order, it is important to not that **with Darby eschatology followed from (and was an implication of) ecclesiology**. (pp. 65-66, bold added)
>
> In the years following his conversion, Darby became increasingly disenchanted with the Church of Ireland… The primary cause is clear. While studying Scripture, **Darby became increasingly dismayed with the Erastian nature of the Church of Ireland—its status as the established church of the state**. (pp. 64-65, bold added)
_Erastian_: “of, characterized by, or advocating the doctrine of state supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs” ([Merriam-Webster dictionary](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Erastian)). (The term is named after Thomas Erastus, a Zwinglian theologian who died in 1583.)
**As I read this, I’m thinking: Darby sounds like a budding Anabaptist!** The Anabaptists also rejected the church-state union promoted by magisterial reformers such as Zwingli.
More from Mangum and Sweetnam:
> The Church of Ireland during this period enjoyed a unique position. Like the Church of England, it was the church established by law enjoying a special relationship with the apparatus of the British rule in Ireland. (p. 65)
This special relationship between the Protestant Church of Ireland and the British government led to oppression of the Catholic majority in Ireland, causing growing unrest.
> Darby’s disgust and anger grew when his archbishop directed that oaths of allegiance to the British Commonwealth be imposed on anyone joining the church. Catholic conversions \[which had been plentiful under Darby’s gospel preaching\] completely dried up as **religious faith became conflated and confused with political allegiance**. (p. 65, bold added)
>
> **It was ecclesiological concern that led to Darby’s rethinking of prophecy.** Up to this point, he seems to have held to \[a\] sort of postmillennial scheme… His own evangelistic efforts were a key part of the global spread of the gospel, which would eventually bring about the millennial bliss and the conditions for Christ’s return. His archbishop’s action and its consequences were probably not the only thing that changed this. But they did prove to be the legendary straw that broke the camel’s back. In the aftermath of these events, **Darby became deeply pessimistic about the future of the world and disillusioned about the prospects of global evangelization and the growing success of the gospel…**
>
> _Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ_ (1828) was Darby’s first tract, and it outlined his emerging understanding of the nature of the church. **Christ’s church, Darby argued, was spiritual in nature.** Its unity was not, could not, be the product of human effort—it was a work of the Spirit alone. **The Church of Ireland was following a path well worn by the churches through the centuries, a path that led to involvement in human power and civil government and away from the pristine simplicity of dependence on the Holy Spirit.** These churches had fallen from their original position because they had lost sight of their heavenly calling and had become mired in human mechanism…
>
> Darby gave practical expression to these views by resigning his curacy… He was discovering an alternative ecclesiology shaped by insights similar to his own, which were emerging in the small gatherings of believers that were eventually to develop into the Brethren movement.
>
> **By the time Darby’s first writing on prophecy was published** in 1829—_Reflections upon “The Prophetic Inquiry” and the Views Advanced in It_—**he had, in line with his pessimistic view of the health of the church, adopted a clearly premillennial position.** (pp. 66-67, bold added)
Up to this point, Darby still sounds like he could be one of the early Anabaptists. They, too, insisted on separation of church and state, and at least some of them held premillennial understandings. (I am not informed enough to be more specific than this on Anabaptist prophetic understandings.)
But as Darby further developed his prophetic understanding, he developed views very different from the early Anabaptists—views which some Anabaptists today promote, however, thanks in part to the mediating influence of the Scofield Bible.
> **One of the most important features of the dispensationalism that developed from Darby and that would be embodied in Scofield’s notes is the recognition of a distiction between Israel and the church**… The longer tradition of Reformed exegesis had postulated a supersessionist, or replacement theology, mode of exegesis. Broadly speaking, this suggested that Israel had been replaced by the church as the people of God, its promises and position handed over wholesale because of their failure of obedience. This understanding of the relationship between God’s people in the Old Testament and in the New Testament was a standard feature of most biblical interpretation from the medieval period, through the magisterial reformers, and down to the present day. (pp. 69-70)
While the Anabaptists agreed that it was now the church, not ethnic Israel, who were the people of God, they differed from the magisterial reformers in their understanding of the Christian’s relationship to the OT. The magisterial reformers looked to the OT to support practices such as military participation and infant baptism, but the Anabaptists insisted more strongly that Christ’s teachings superseded the Law of Moses.
Both the Anabaptists and Darby were concerned that the “flat Bible” approach of the magisterial reformers was a problem, and that it supported a state-church union, which was also a problem. The church did _not_ hold exactly the same position as Israel had. But Darby’s theological solution to this misunderstanding was different from the Anabaptist solution.
> In his view this conflation of two distinct groups \[Israel and the church\] whom God had dealt with in different ways was little sort of disastrous. It was this mistake that underwrote the Erastianism \[state-church union\] that had so concerned him in earlier years; it was this mistake that obscured the church’s heavenly calling and nature. **Israel had been, continued to be, and eternally would be God’s earthly people**—his purposes for them would be worked out on earth. **The church was a heavenly entity, entirely separate from Israel**, and with a prospect that was purely heavenly…
>
> This distinction between the peoples of God and his deep pessimism about the prospects of the contemporary church led Darby to the dispensations that gave their name to dispensationalism. (p. 70, bold added)
**In summary: For the Anabaptists**, there was both continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church. The continuity was rooted in the church’s identity as the children of Abraham, trusting in Christ just as Abraham trusted in God’s promise, thus becoming heirs of the promises given to Abraham. The discontinuity was found in how Christ and the apostles interpreted these OT promises, with the kingdom of God (spiritual Israel) being now not an earthly kingdom but a heavenly one. Like the magisterial reformers, the Anabaptists did not seem to see any special role for ethnic Israel after the coming of Christ. Unlike them, they did not believe that the church inherited the political and military role that national Israel had carried. (I am making generalizations here, and writing from memory as an amateur, so I invite your help if you want to add nuance to this historical summary.)
**Darby’s solution to the church-state problem was different from either the Anabaptists or the magisterial reformers.** Rather than positing an end to God’s special purposes for ethnic Israel, he separated the church and Israel entirely. God had contrasting but ongoing plans for both, so that the church and Israel run on separate but parallel tracks until the end of the age, each with different duties and hopes.
Thus Darby and the Anabaptists came to theological understandings that were very different. Yet _**both understandings accomplished one same result: the division of the church-state union.**_
I was familiar with Darby’s prophetic conclusions, but did not know about his concept of church. **To complete this post, I’d like to share some excerpts I particularly enjoy from Darby’s first tract, _[Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ](http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/ECCLESIA/01002E.html)_** (bold added)**:
**
> It is not a formal union of the outward professing bodies \[church denominations\] that is desirable; indeed it is surprising that reflecting Protestants should desire it: far from doing good, I conceive it would be impossible that such a body could be at all recognised as the church of God. It would be a counterpart to Romish unity; we should have the life of the church and the power of the word lost, and the unity of spiritual life utterly excluded. Whatever plans may be in the order of Providence, we can only act upon the principles of grace; and **true unity is the unity of the Spirit, and it must be wrought by the operation of the Spirit**… The Reformation consisted not, as has been commonly said, in the institution of a pure form of church, but in setting up the word, and the great Christian foundation and corner stone of “Justification by faith,” in which believers might find life… **He is an enemy to the work of the Spirit of God who seeks the interests of any particular denomination**; and that those who believe in “the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ” ought carefully to keep from such a spirit; for it is drawing back the church to a state occasioned by ignorance and non-subjection to the word, and making a duty of its worst and antichristian results. **This is a most subtle and prevailing mental disease, “_he followeth not us \[Mark 9:38\]_,” even when men are really Christians.** Let the people of God see if they be not hindering the manifestation of the church by this spirit. I believe there is scarcely a public act of Christian men (at any rate of the higher orders, or of those who are active in the nominal churches), which is not infected with this; but its tendency is manifestly hostile to the spiritual interests of the people of God, and the manifestation of the glory of Christ. Christians are little aware how this prevails in their minds; how they seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ; and how it dries up the springs of grace and spiritual communion; how it precludes that order to which blessing is attached-the gathering together in the Lord’s name. **No meeting, which is not framed to embrace all the children of God in the full basis of the kingdom of the Son, can find the fulness of blessing**, because it does not contemplate it—because its faith does not embrace it.
>
> **Where two or three are gathered together in His name, His name is recorded there for blessing \[Matt. 18:20\]**; because they are met in the fulness of the power of the unchangeable interests of that everlasting kingdom in which it has pleased the glorious Jehovah to glorify Himself, and to make His name and saving health known in the Person of the Son, by the power of the Spirit. **In the name of Christ, therefore, they** enter (in whatever measure of faith) into the full counsels of God, and **are “fellow-workers under God.”**… The Lord has made known His purposes in Him, and how those purposes are effected. “He hath made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he should gather together in one all things in Christ, whether they be things in heaven, or things on earth, even in him, in whom we also have received an inheritance” \[Eph. 1:9-11\]—in one and in Christ. **In _Him_ alone therefore can we find this unity**; but the blessed word (who can be thankful enough for it? will inform us further. It is as to its earthly members “gathering together in one, the children of God who are scattered abroad.” And how is this? “That one man should die for them.” \[John 11:50-52\] As our Lord in the vision of the fruit of the travail of His soul declares, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will drawn all men unto me: this he said signifying what death he should die.” \[John 12:32\] **It is then Christ who will draw – will draw to _Himself_ (and nothing short of or less than this can produce unity, “He that gathereth not with _him_, scattereth” \[Matt. 12:30\]); and draw to Himself _by being lifted up from the earth_. In a word, we find _His_ death is the centre of communion till His coming again**, and in this rests the whole power of truth. **Accordingly, the outward symbol and instrument of unity is the partaking of the Lord’s supper** – for we being many are one “bread, one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.” \[1 Cor. 10:17\] And what does Paul declare to be the true intent and testimony of that rite? That whensoever “ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” \[1 Cor. 11:26\] **Here then are found the character and life of the church**, that into which it is called, that in which the truth of its existence subsists, and **in which alone is true unity. It is showing forth the Lord’s death, by the efficiency of which they were gathered**, and which is the fruitful seed of the Lord’s own glory; which is indeed the gathering of His body, “the fulness of him that filleth all in all” \[Eph. 1:23\]; and shewing it forth in the assurance of His coming, “when he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe.” \[2 Thess. 1:10\] **Accordingly the essence and substance of unity**, which will appear in glory at His coming, **is conformity to His death**, by which that glory was all wrought…
>
> **Unity, the unity of the church, to which “the Lord added daily such as should be saved”** \[Acts 2:47\]…, **was when none said anything was his own, and “their conversation was in heaven”** \[Phil. 3:20\]; **for they could not be divided in the common hope of that.** It knit men’s hearts together by necessity. The Spirit of God has left it upon record, that division began about the goods of the church, even in their best use, on the part of those interested in them; for _there_ could be division, _there_ could be selfish interests. **Am I desiring believers to correct the churches? I am beseeching them to correct themselves**, by living up, in some measure, to the hope of their calling. I beseech them to shew their faith in the death of the Lord Jesus, and their boast in the glorious assurance which they have obtained by it, by conformity to it – to shew their faith in His coming, and practically to look for it by a life suitable to desires fixed upon it. Let them testify against the secularity and blindness of the church; but let them be consistent in their own conduct.
>
> **While the spirit of the world prevails (and how much it prevails, I am persuaded few believers are at all aware) spiritual union cannot subsist… For, let us ask, is the church of God as believers would have it?** Do we not believe that it was, as a body, utterly departed from Him? Is it restored so that He would be glorified in it at His appearing? **Is the union of believers such as He marks to be their peculiar characteristic?** Are there not unremoved hindrances? Is there not a practical spirit of worldliness _in essential variance with the true termini of the gospel – the death and coming again of the Lord Jesus as Saviour?…_
>
> **Unity is the glory of the church; but unity to secure and promote _our own interests_ is not the unity of the church**, but _confederacy_ and denial of the nature and hope of the church. **Unity, that is of the church, is the unity of the Spirit, and can only be in the things of the Spirit, and therefore can only be perfected in spiritual persons.** It is indeed the essential character of the church, and this strongly testifies to the believer its present state. But, I ask, if the professing church seeks worldly interests, and if the Spirit of God be amongst us, will it then be the minister of unity in such pursuits as these? If the various professing churches seek it, each for itself, no answer need be given. But if they unite in seeking a common interest, let us not be deceived; it is no better, if it be not the work of the Lord. **There are two things which we have to consider. First, Are our objects in our work exclusively the Lord’s objects, and no other?** If they have not been such in bodies separate from each other, they will not be in any union of them together. Let the Lord’s people weigh this. **Secondly, let our conduct be the witness of our objects.** If we are not living in the power of the Lord’s kingdom, we certainly shall not be consistent in seeking its ends. Let it enter our minds, while we are all thinking what good thing we may do to inherit eternal life, to sell all that we have, take up our cross, and follow Christ…
>
> **So far as men pride themselves on being Established, Presbyterian, Baptist, Independent, or anything else, they are antichristian. How then are we to be united? I answer, it must be the work of the Spirit of God.** Do _you_ follow the testimony of that Spirit in the word as is practically applicable to your consciences, lest that day take you unawares?… **Professed churches (especially those established) have sinned greatly in insisting on things indifferent and hindering the union of believers**, and this charge rests heavily on the hierarchies of the several churches. Certainly order is necessary; but where they said, ‘the things are indifferent and nothing in themselves: therefore you must use them for our pleasure’s sake,’ the word of the Spirit of Christ says, ‘they are indifferent: therefore we will yield to your weakness, and not offend a brother for whom Christ died.’ Paul would have eaten no meat while the world endured, if it had hurt the conscience of a weak brother, though the weak brother was in the wrong. And why insisted on? Because they gave distinction and place in the world. **If the pride of authority and the pride of separation were dissolved (neither of which are of the Spirit of Christ), and the word of the Lord taken as the sole practical guide, and sought to be acted up to by believers, we shall be spared much judgment**, though we shall not perhaps find altogether the glory of the Lord, and many a poor believer, on whom the eye of the Lord is set for blessing, would find comfort and rest… **Let believers remove the hindrances to the Lord’s glory, which their own inconsistencies present**, and by which they are joined to the world, and their judgments perverted. Let them commune one with another, seeking His will from the word, and see if a blessing do not attend it; at any rate it will attend themselves; they will meet the Lord as those that have waited for Him, and can rejoice unfeignedly in His salvation…
>
> **Let me ask the professing churches, in all love, one question. They have often professed to the Roman Catholics, and truly too, their unity in doctrinal faith, why then is there not an actual unity?** If they see error in each other, ought they not to be humbled for each other? Why not, as far as was attained, mind the same rule, speak the same thing; and if in anything there was diversity of mind (instead of disputing on the footing of ignorance), wait in prayer, that God might reveal this also unto them. Ought not those who love the Lord amongst them, to see if they could not discern a cause? Y**et I well know that, till the spirit of the world be purged from amongst them, unity cannot be, nor believers find safe rest…**
>
> **I would solemnly repeat what I said before – the unity of the church cannot possibly be found till the common object of those who are members of it is the glory of the Lord**, who is the Author and finisher of its faith: a glory which is to be made known in its brightness at His appearing, when the fashion of this world shall pass away, and therefore acted up to and entered upon in spirit when we are planted together in **the likeness of His death.** Because **unity can, in the nature of things, be there only**; unless the Spirit of God who brings His people together, gather them for purposes not of God, and the counsels of God in Christ come to nought. **The Lord Himself says, “That they all may be one**; as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” \[John 17:21-23\]
>
> **Oh that the church would weigh this word**, and see if their present state do not preclude necessarily their shining in the glory of the Lord, or of fulfilling that purpose for which they were called. And I ask them, **do they at all look for or desire this? or are they content to sit down and say, that His promise is come utterly to an end for evermore?**…
>
> Yet will He surely gather His people and they shall be ashamed.
>
> I have gone beyond my original intention in this paper; if I have in anything gone beyond the measure of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, I shall thankfully accept reproof, and pray God to make it forgotten.
* * *
While I admit that I wish some of Darby’s prophetic teachings would disappear (including from among Anabaptists), I am thankful that this tract of Darby’s was not forgotten. I might nuance a few things differently. But what a powerful call to examine our own hearts! Are we conformed to Christ’s death in a manner that will make true Christian unity possible?
**I invite your response.** Did you learn anything that surprised you about Darby or Scofield? Do you resonate with Darby’s words about the unity of the church? **[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/surprised-to-agree-with-darby/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Do Non-Christian Jews and Christians Worship the Same God?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-01-25
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Do Non-Christian Jews and Christians Worship the Same God? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We are used to speaking of "Judeo-Christian values." But would Jesus say that non-Christian Jews and Christians worship the same God?
Tags: worship, Christology, Son of God, -John 5:23, -John 8:42-47, Allah, Father, God, Jews, Judeo-Christian, Muslims
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/do-non-christian-jews-and-christians-worship-same-god
Last night I was listening to some US history lectures from The Teaching Company as I drove home through the night. Here is one thing I learned: **Apparently the concept of “Judeo-Christian values/morals” is a relatively recent concept, birthed right here in America.**
([Here is more information from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian) that supports this assertion.)
Prior to the time when this term was birthed, a greater separation was usually assumed and promoted between Judaism and Christianity. And apparently ([Wikipedia again](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian#Jewish_responses)), some Jews even today find the term “Judeo-Christian” offensive. I’m missing a lot of details, but I’ll let you pursue that history further if you wish.
**This discovery relates to all sorts of knotty questions. For example, consider the recent convoluted debate about whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God.** There is legitimate debate about whether that is a helpfully-phrased question. (See, for example, [this insightful post](http://www.kevinbywater.com/muslims-mormons-christians-worship-the-same-god/).) But, setting that aside for a bit, I’ve noticed that _**the strongest negative answer that Christians give to this question is to rightly note that Jesus insists that the only way to the Father is through the Son, and that “whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him”**_ (John 5:23). Thus a person who does not worship Jesus does not really worship God/the Father, either.
I agree with that observation (despite lots of undeniable overlap between Mulsim and Christian concepts of Allah/God on other points). However, _**this rebuttal just as surely suggests that non-Christian Jews and Christians don’t worship the same God**_. That sounds like a radical suggestion to our modern (“post Judeo-Christian”) ears. (In fact, I’ve seen someone make the same observation, then use it as proof that Muslims and Christians must indeed worship the same God—for Jews and Christians surely do, right?)
Yet, as radical as it sounds to suggest that non-Christian Jews and Christians don’t worship the same God (and, again, there may be a more helpful way to frame the issue), somehow it also sounds pretty much like what Jesus might have said. After all, it was _to Jews_ that he insisted on the above-noted relationship between the Father and the Son. And he also said this, which is even more offensive to our ears:
> “**If God were your Father, you would love me**, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. **You are of your father the devil**, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that **you are not of God**.” (John 8:42-47, bold added)
There is much to ponder here, and much need to define terms clearly and speak to each other with grace.
**But one thing is already very clear: If you want to know and honor God, Jesus is non-negotiable.**
* * *
**What do you think?** I’m not sure I have time to host a big discussion about the current events issues I’ve raised. But perhaps you have an observation about how Christ is at the center of true worship of God, or an observation about how we can discuss these matters helpfully in the context of missions and witness. If so, **[share your thoughts in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/do-non-christian-jews-and-christians-worship-same-god/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Partly Free [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-01-15
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Partly Free [Poem by Mom] • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: How I would miss the glimpses of His face / Were this kept from me, / Though I suspect, in any time and place, / I would feel partly penned in, partly free.
Tags: hope, nature, thankfulness, waiting, winter, -Romans 8:15-16, -Romans 8:23-25
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/partly-free
_**Winter is a time of waiting.** True, activity abounds in places as varied as ski hills and bird feeders. But the grand cycle of life is largely on pause, or at least pursuing quieter goals, waiting for spring’s exuberance._
Photo Credit: [Greying\_Geezer](https://www.flickr.com/photos/10496438@N05/12579946534/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/)
_**Waiting isn’t always easy.** It creates unresolved tension between the present and the future. Waiting draws our eye incessantly to the future with its promise of fulfilled hope, yet the very distance of the future means that we return our gaze to the present to find sights that reinforce our hope._
_Thankfully, when we wait on God, he provides both a promise worth waiting for and daily mercies to renew our spirits while we wait._
_**Mom explores thoughts such as these in “Partly Free,” the poem she’s sharing this month.** Her words remind me of winters at my childhood home, which is where she wrote this poem years ago. Here is an aerial view of that home, surrounded by lakes and the northern bush (Canadian for “woods”). We lived on the little peninsula right in the middle of the photo:_
_Mom’s poem also reminds me of some words of Paul, which I’ll share as a final prelude to Mom’s poem:_
> …**You have received the Spirit of adoption as sons**, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.
>
> …We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as **we wait eagerly for adoption as sons**, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:15-16, 23-25)
_Have we been adopted, or have we not? Truly, we are “partly penned in, partly free.”
_
* * *
**PARTLY FREE**
Thanks be to God for peaceful northern woods,
That this home is mine,
That all my cares of life and earthly goods
Can be cathedralled in white birch and pine.
For placid lakes that beckon in the morn
With loon’s wailing words,
Still as a waiting church while day is born,
Prayerfully listening to the waking birds.
For winter walks when morning holds its breath,
At God’s extravagance,
Snowfalls cocoon in a world as still as death,
Woodpeckers telegraph my hushed advance.
For skies that lift me from my close-walled house,
From a world too small,
For ancient pines that move me with their boughs,
Bent but unconquered by the wintry squall.
Thanks be to God for His hand-print all around,
In a world that waits;
Nature, as well as my body, still is bound,
Saved by the hope of redemption by His grace.
How I would miss the glimpses of His face
Were this kept from me,
Though I suspect, in any time and place,
I would feel partly penned in, partly free.
—Elaine Gingrich, May-June 1994
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/partly-free/#respond), or send her an email at[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721385412562-compressed.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721385412562-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Church of Christ — Ferguson (3): What Is the Church?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-01-11
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: The Church of Christ -- Ferguson (3): What Is the Church? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: What is the church? Ekklēsia means "assembly," referring to what what done and not where it was done--the act of assembly, not separation from others.
Tags: mercy, church leadership, firstborn, church universal, individualism, body of Christ, church unity, spiritual gifts, Israel, Christian, Holy Spirit, -Colossians 1:18, -Hebrews 12:23, -Romans 8:28-30, people of God, testing the spirits, church local, church membership, Everett | Ferguson, temple, -Matthew 18:20, -1 Corinthians 1:13, -1 Corinthians 10:18, -1 Corinthians 11:18, -1 Corinthians 12, -1 Corinthians 12:13, -1 Corinthians 12:4-11, -1 Corinthians 14:20, -1 Corinthians 3:1, -1 Corinthians 3:10, -1 Corinthians 3:11, -1 Corinthians 3:16-17, -1 Corinthians 4:14-17, -1 Corinthians 4:15, -1 Corinthians 4:21, -1 Corinthians 5:4, -1 John 2:27, -1 John 4:1, -1 John 4:6, -1 Peter 2:25, -1 Peter 2:5, -1 Peter 2:9-10, -1 Peter 4:16, -1 Peter 4:17, -1 Peter 5:3, -1 Peter 5:4, -1 Thessalonians 2:11, -1 Thessalonians 2:11-12, -1 Timothy 1:2, -1 Timothy 3:4, -1 Timothy 3:5, -1 Timothy 3:6, -1 Timothy 5:1-2, -2 Corinthians 12:14, -2 Corinthians 6:13, -2 Corinthians 6:17-7:1, -Acts 11:26, -Acts 13:48, -Acts 15, -Acts 20:28-30, -Acts 26:18, -Acts 26:28, -Acts 3:14, -Acts 3:25-26, -Acts 9:32-40, -Colossians 1:12, -Deuteronomy 26:17-18, -Deuteronomy 29:12-13, -Deuteronomy 32:21, -Deuteronomy 7:9, -Ephesians 1:22, -Ephesians 1:4, -Ephesians 2:19, -Ephesians 2:20, -Ephesians 4:14, -Ephesians 4:16, -Exodus 4:22, -Galatians 3:27, -Galatians 3:6-29, -Galatians 4:19, -Galatians 6:10, -Galatians 6:16, -Hosea 1:10, -Hosea 2:23, -James 2:2, -James 5:14, -Jeremiah 11:4, -Jeremiah 24:7, -Jeremiah 31:33, -Jeremiah 7:23, -John 15:1-11, -John 16:13-15, -John 21:15-17, -Luke 1:54-55, -Luke 1:72-73, -Matthew 16:18, -Matthew 18:17-20, -Matthew 23:10, -Matthew 23:8-9, -Matthew 24:31, -Matthew 3:9-10, -Philippians 3:3, -Psalm 89:27, -Revelation 1:6, -Revelation 21:14, -Revelation 7:17, -Romans 11:1-5, -Romans 12, -Romans 12:4-5, -Romans 4:13-16, -Romans 6:3, -Romans 9:23-26, -Romans 9:27-28, -Romans 9:6-8, -Titus 1:4, -Titus 1:7, church decision-making, clergy, collectivism, community, covenant formula, ekklesia, election, family of God, Good Shepherd, grace gifts, household of God, Israel of God, laity, vineyards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-3-what-is-church
**Close your eyes. I will say a word, and you tell me what you see. Ready?**
“Church.”
Hey! You didn’t close your eyes!
Okay, that game doesn’t work well in print. But the question remains: What do you see when you hear the word _church_?
The answer to your question will shape your answer to a lot of other questions. For example: Who belongs to the church? Who runs it? What should it be doing? How should it relate to unbelievers, relate to one another, grow, make decisions, and spend its time and resources?
**In the second chapter of his book _[The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today](http://amzn.to/1SYrmk6)_, Everett Ferguson focuses on the identity of the church. This chapter is entitled “The Church and Her Lord: The Nature of the Church.”** (See also my series [Introduction](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-1-introduction/) and my discussion of [Chapter 1](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-2-covenant-kingdom-christ/).)
Ferguson begins this chapter by re-emphasizing the centrality of Christ:
> The characterizations of the church in the scriptures bring it into relation to the deity: some to God the Father…, some to Jesus Christ…, some to the Holy Spirit… Furthermore, **all the principle descriptions of the nature of the church give prominence to Jesus as Lord over the church…** If the church is the people of God, it is the people of God _in Christ_. If the church is the community of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the gift of the resurrected Christ… The church is the assembly of God’s people gathered in Christ’s name. (pp. 71-72, bold added)
**He then discusses the nature of the church under seven headings**—which I’ll list here as hyperlinks, so you can read this long post in several installments, if you wish:
1. **[The People of God](#people)**
2. **[The Body of Christ](#body)**
3. **[The Community of the Holy Spirit](#spirit)**
4. **[The Family of God](#family)**
5. **[Agricultural Images](#agriculture)**
6. **[An Architectural Image](#architect)**
7. **[The Meaning of _Ekklēsia_](#ekklesia)**
(Again, each of these headings has enough meaty content that you may wish to read this in installments. I could have broken this into multiple blog posts, but decided to share only one post per chapter.)
**1\. Ferguson first discuss “the people of God”:**
> The combined expression “I am your God” and “you are my people” (Deut. 26:17-18; 29:12-13; Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 31:33; Hos. 2:23) served as something of **a covenant formula** to describe the intimate relationship between God and his chosen people… To be the people of God carried the promise that he would live among them. (pp. 73-74, bold added)
This language is applied in the NT to the church, both Jew and Gentile, in passages such as 1 Peter 2:9-10:
> The idea of “people” permeates the passage. In English, the word “people” is used for an aggregate of individuals: “How many people are here?” Or, it applies to human beings as such: “People will be people.” **In the Bible, “people” customarily means a single corporate whole, a nation or a race viewed as a collective entity…** We approximate this meaning when we speak of “the American people”… (p. 74, bold added)
Ferguson recognizes the importance of church leaders. But here he notes a more basic reality:
> The word in Greek for “people” is _laos_, from which English derives the word “laity.” **The word “laity” has been debased in modern speech from the noble conception of _laos_ in the Bible.** In modern usage we contrast the laity with the professionals (as in law or medicine) and particularly in religious language with the clergy or priesthood. Not so the Bible. **In the Bible the _laos_ is the whole people, not a part** (not even the largest part)… The people is a priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9), not contrasted with it. **Indeed, the people (all Christians) is also the clergy** (Acts 26:18; Col. 1:12). The English word “clergy” derives from the Greek _klēros_, meaning a lot, a portion, a possession, or something assigned. According to 1 Peter 5:3, the spiritual shepherds are not to lord it over “their charges” (_klēron_), that is, the people allotted or assigned to their care. By a curious (in view of modern usage) but not unusual semantic development, those who had a “charge” or “assignment,” a _klēros_, became themselves the _klēros_ or “clergy.” (pp. 74-75, bold added; forgive the bold _ē_ inserted by my blockquote feature)
After noting Paul’s use of Hosea 2:23 and Hosea 1:10 in Romans 9:23-26, Ferguson adds some pregnant observations:
> What is involved in being “not a people” is indicated in Deuteronomy 32:21, “So I will make them \[Israel\] jealous with what is no people, provoke them with a foolish nation.” **A pagan nation is not truly a “people” in the full biblical sense, because it is not chosen by God, follows the ways of idolatry and immorality (“foolish”), and so has a false center of unity**… To return to 1 Peter 1:10 \[actually 1 Peter 2:10: “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”\], which also quotes Hosea 2:23, the parallelism of Hebrew poetry indicates that **to be made a people is to obtain mercy**. To feel a sense of oneness and community requires God’s mercy. **The reverse is also true—to obtain mercy is to be made a people**. Only by God’s calling and grace can individuals form a true community… **We find our identity as persons only in community**… God’s work, his “mercy,” is to gather a people, not just to save individuals but to create a community. Indeed, on an adequate understanding of human nature, **“saving individuals” requires the “social wholeness” of a reconciled community**. (p. 76, bold added)
(For some of my own musings about finding identity in community, our need for mercy, and our reliance on being chosen by God, see my recent poem, [“How Do You Know Me?”](http://dwightgingrich.com/how-do-you-know-me-words-self-identity/))
Since in the NT the people of God is now the church, **other OT language originally used of Israel is also now used of the church**. Ferguson discusses some examples:
> (1) _Israel of God_… \[Ferguson cites Rom. 9:6-8; Matt. 3:9-10; 1Cor. 10:18; Phil. 3:3; and, possibly, Gal. 6:16.\]
>
> (2) _Royal priesthood_… \[1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6\]
>
> (3) _Holy nation…_ \[1 Pet. 2:9\]
>
> (4) _Righteous remant_… **In the progressive narrowing down of God’s people, the remnant was reduced to one man—Jesus, _the righteous One_ (Acts 3:14). Even his disciples fled at the end. In his death and resurrection, the people of God died and rose again, and so there was laid the foundation of a new people of God.** \[Also Rom. 9:27-28; 11:1-5\]
>
> (5) _Covenant people_… \[Gal. 3:6-29; Rom. 4:13-16; Luke 1:54-55, 72-73; Acts 3:25-26\] (pp. 77-78, bold added)
Ferguson next has an extended (13-page) **discussion of election**. I do not feel equipped to adequately evaluate his understandings, and he does not often directly wrestle with alternative interpretations, such as Calvinistic ones. Yet I will say that I think he is correct to root concepts in their OT backgrounds, and I do find his emphasis on corporate election helpful. Here are a few excerpts to tantalize you (minus the exegetical support Ferguson provides):
> **Most of the references in the Bible to God’s election have to do with the choice of a group, corporate election**… In these cases—Abraham, Jacob, Levi, David—the choice of an individual was the choice of a group, the descendants of the person chosen. (pp. 79, 81, bold added)
>
> The choice of a group in the Old Testament did not guarantee the inclusion of all individuals in that group in the blessings for which they were chosen. There was a progressive narrowing down of God’s choice… **God’s choice within Israel finally focused on the One Person…** Jesus Christ is God’s Chosen One. He is the fulfillment of God’s choice of Abraham, Jacob, and David. (pp. 81-82, bold added)
>
> **All who are in Christ are included in his election… God continues to choose a category, a group—believers in Christ.** Christians are in Christ as Jews are in Abraham and humanity is in Adam. (p. 82, bold added)
>
> It is not said in scripture that God has chosen Christians individually. **He has chosen those in Christ; he has not chosen who will be in Christ.** God elects a community, and the community he chooses now are those in Christ. A person may reject Christ and refuse the election. (pp. 84-85, bold added)
(Here is where I wish he would wrestle with verses such as Act 13:48: “…as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”)
> **God in special circumstances chose individuals for a specific task…** These were chosen for ministry, a service, not for salvation. Individuals chosen for a task could refuse… Election to salvation, in contrast to election of individuals for a ministry, is “in Christ” (Eph. 1:4). (p. 85, bold added)
Ferguson discusses **Romans 8:28-30**:
> **The plurals in this passage should be given their full force.** **The corporate body of believers is being talked about…** “Those who love God”… echoes Deuteronomy 7:9… and is an expression for the corporate people of God… Although there is an apparent temporal sequence in the order of items, that is not the main idea. All the verbs are aorists; the presence of “glorified” indicates that all should be seen as timeless aorists. (pp. 87-88, bold added)
Ferguson ends this section by noting **some implications of being the people of God** (each worthy of meditation):
> (1) The church must be separated from the conduct characteristic of the world…
>
> (2) To be the people of God gives an sense of importance and purpose to life.. \[yet also\] removes any basis for pride…
>
> (3) The church can never be merely a free association of like-minded religious individuals…
>
> (4) There are false (and potentially sinful) principles of unity around which people organize themselves… (pp. 90-91)
**2\. Ferguson’s second topic is “the body of Christ”:**
> There was a “people of God’ from the call of Abraham; there is a “body of Christ” only after the resurrection. (p. 91)
>
> **The “body of Christ” is more than simply a figure of speech or image, but expresses a real relationship…** The body finds its wholeness in Christ, and Christ has his fullness in his people… The church, according to Paul’s language, must never be separated from Christ; nor must it ever be confused with Christ. (p. 94, bold added)
Ferguson notes that in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 “Christ is… compared to the whole body, not to a part of it” (p. 95). But Colossians and Ephesians “call Christ ‘head’ of the body” (p. 96). However:
> In Jewish corporate personality, the head stood for the whole. That provides the link between the language of 1 Corinthians and that of Colossians. (p. 96)
Yet “head” also implies additional concepts:
> Christ is the principle of authority for the church (Ephesians) because he is its creative source (its beginning point and origin—Colossians). (p. 98)
Significantly, in all four letters Paul uses “body of Christ” language to underscore the unity-of-diversity that the church possesses (and must promote) in Christ.
Ferguson notes **three “titles shared by Christ and his body”:** chosen, holy, and beloved. He notes that for all three there is a “pattern of using the singular for Christ and the plural for his people” (p. 99). This helps lead him to several deductions:
> To summarize the significance of these terms for understanding the nature of the church: **(1) they emphasize the collective concept of the church**—these things are true of the people, not as individuals but as part of the group; **(2) they emphasize the relation to Christ**—they are true only in union with him as the source of the status; and, **(3)** following from this fact, **they show the derivative nature of the church’s status**—it is the result of God’s grace in Christ. (p. 101, bold added)
Ferguson briefly discusses **the term “Christian”**:
> “Christians”… occurs only three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1Pet. 4:16)… \[It\] occurs primarily in contexts having to do with legal relations with outsiders… The means by which the name “Christian” came into use in Acts 11:26… is disputed, but **Luke’s use of the verb often used for a divine oracle… may indicate that he wanted to suggest that… its use carried divine approval or authorization**. (pp. 101-102, bold added)
Ferguson ends this section by listing ten **“implications of being the body of Christ,”** from which I’ll share a few quotes:
> **The church is where Christ is**, where he is preached and confessed, where he is working and obeyed… There is only one body (Rom. 12:4-5; 1Cor. 12). This means that within the body there is to be unity and no discord… **Nearly all the references to the church as a body have the theme of unity…** Even as one cannot understand the human body by starting with the individual parts, so **one cannot understand the church by starting with the individual Christians**. (pp. 102-103, bold added)
**In his discussion of the body of Christ, Ferguson doesn’t focus on some of the church polity questions that tend to preoccupy us.** For instance, he doesn’t directly answer the question of whether we should talk about a “local _body_” or “local church _membership,_” let alone how we should define such. However, given his strong emphasis thus far on the church being those who belong to Christ, it seems to me that he is assuming throughout that there is only one body of Christ—what we often term the “universal church.” Perhaps this is so axiomatic to him that he did not think to clarify the point. Nevertheless, here are a few excerpts that provide hints of his understandings:
> In some passages “in Christ” becomes virtually the same as “in the church.” (p. 92)
>
> The act of “baptism into Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) provides a basis for the identification of those baptized with the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), so much so that the church can be identified with Christ (1 Cor. 1:13). (p. 93)
>
> The church is where Christ is… Christ is greater than the church… He is not necessarily where a “church” is. Christ is the only indispensable “part”; indeed, he is the whole… The church is made up of those who take their life from him… There is only one body (Rom. 12:4-5; 1Cor. 12)… Each member has a contribution to make to the growth of the whole (Eph. 4:16). (pp. 102-103)
While discussing Christ’s role as head of his body, Ferguson writes, “Wherever God acts for salvation of human beings, there is the church” (pg. 97). _**These excerpts suggest that Ferguson understands the NT’s language of the “body of Christ” and its “members” to refer to the universal church—an understanding I affirm.**_ (Of course this also has implications for local congregations, but we will wait for Ferguson to develop those questions later.)
**(3) Ferguson’s third topic is “the community of the Holy Spirit”:**
> **Common participation in the Holy Spirit brings people together in community…** Various experiences or common interests or shared principles may create human communities… The church, however, is a community, a fellowship, through the divine spirit. **Hence, in its very essence it is a divine creation, not a human product.** (pp. 103-104, bold added)
“At the risk of being overly precise,” Ferguson writes, **“we may make two distinctions” between the Holy Spirit’s work in the Old and New Testaments:**
> First, in the Old Testament, there were Spirit-filled leaders but no Spirit-filled community… \[Secondly,\] when the Spirit came to individuals under the old covenant, the visitation was temporary. (p. 105)
After discussing the Spirit in the life of Christ and the relationship between these two members of the Godhead, Ferguson draws an implication for the church today:
> From the beginning, **the church has had trouble from those claiming to act and speak from the Holy Spirit and so has had need to “test the spirits”** (1 John 4:1). That passage proceeds to offer an important criterion for testing the spirits: **they are to be evaluated by conformity to the apostolic message…** (1 John 4:6)… The description of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in John 16:13-15 provides a foundational test… If a spirit is indeed the Spirit of Christ, it will always work in harmony with the ministry of Christ. We know the life and teachings of Jesus fully from the Gospels and the writings of his apostles. This may not answer all problems that arise, but Christ himself does given an objective criterion for testing the spirits. (pp. 106-107, bold added)
“The Spirit is the life of the church,” as Ferguson explains:
> **Possession of the Spirit indicates membership in the people of God…** The church… was not first a body into which God poured the Spirit as the living content. No, it was the coming of the Spirit that created the church… **As Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, so was the church.** (p. 107, bold added)
Ferguson again emphasizes the corporate nature of the Christian life:
> **This indwelling of the Holy Spirit is both individual and corporate…** The Holy Spirit is in the community because he is in the individual members, but it is also true that the Spirit is in the church and one receives the Spirit through connection with the Spirit-filled community. (p. 108, bold added)
Here I am reminded of Jesus’ promise to be present wherever “two or three are gathered in my name” (Matt. 18:20), or Paul’s command to the church at Corinth: “When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus…” (1 Cor. 5:4). It is easy for me, adopting the individualistic mindset of our age, to forget that God’s Spirit is uniquely present when his people gather.
**“The Spirit is present in and energizes many activities in the church,” Ferguson writes.** Citing Scriptural evidence, he lists baptism, sanctification, Christian growth, love, joy, morality, serving God, worship, prayer, preaching, leadership and ministry, guarding the truth, enduring suffering, creating unity, and spiritual power (pp. 109-110).
Ferguson is no Pentecostal, however. He rightly notes that “only in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 are the _charismata_ \[“grace gifts”\] brought into relation with the Spirit”; usually the term is used for other things such as deliverance from spiritual or physical death or even the power to live a celibate life (pp. 110-11). And the Holy Spirit is most often mentioned in connection with other topics:
> **When Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit apart from problems associated with claims to possess the Spirit, he gives prominence to the ethical role of the Spirit.** Human attention, however, tends to focus on the more spectacular ecstatic and miraculous manifestations of the presence of the Spirit. (p. 111, bold added)
I track with Ferguson to this point, but think he later leans a little too close to cessationism (the doctrine that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing ceased at the end of the apostolic age).
Ferguson ends this section by drawing **eight “implications of being the community of the Holy Spirit.”** Here are a few highlights—with the second paragraph being one of my favorites in this entire chapter:
> Legal, political, or institutional unions are ineffective without the unity of the Spirit…
>
> **The church as the community of the Spirit preserves individuality while denying both individualism and collectivism.** Individualism that has its roots in selfishness is destroyed; individualism rooted in possession of particular gifts and graces (1 Cor. 12) is developed as long as these are used for the common good. **Much of modern individualism does not distinguish self-consciousness from the Holy Spirit, and collectivism absolutizes the group at the expense of both the individual and the Holy Spirit.** Under the guidance of the Spirit, the individual develops for the service of the whole…
>
> The church as the community of the Spirit has but One Teacher (Matt. 23:10)… All human “teachers” must appeal for verification of their message to the same Spirit who resides in those taught (1 John 2:27). (p. 113, bold added)
Perhaps more than any part of this chapter so far, this section on the Holy Spirit makes me aware that the church is a miraculous creation. I am left hungry to know more of being part of a Spirit-filled community.
**(4) Ferguson next examines the church as the “family of God”:**
Since the church is a family, we must correctly identify the various members of the family and their respective roles. **Ferguson notes several Scriptural patterns:**
> **“Household”** appears to be the primary imagery for the church in Hebrews. \[Ferguson also cites 1 Peter 4:17, Ephesians 2:19, and Galatians 6:10.\]… According to this family imagery, **God is the Father** over his house… In the description of the church as a household, **the overseers of the church function as stewards** (Titus 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:5…), administering its affairs on behalf of the Father, who is head of the household. (pp. 114-15, bold added)
>
> Another use of family imagery is to describe the relationship of God with his people as that of husband and wife… **Christ as the bridegroom and the church as his bride**. (p. 115, bold added)
Ferguson notes that this imagery expresses Christ’s loving lordship, our submissive desire to please him, the purity of the church, and our expectation of consummating our relationship with Christ when he returns.
> A different use of the family imagery is **Paul’s reference to himself as a “father” to his converts** (1 Cor. 4:15), whom he cared for like a father (1 Thess. 2:11…) and whom he described as his children (1 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4). This is descriptive language. Jesus forbade the use of “Father” as an official designation or honorary title for human beings (…Matt. 23:8-9). (p. 115, bold added)
**This, to my knowledge, is the closest that the NT comes to the idea that church leaders function as parents over other Christians.** In these texts the idea is used of Paul in his role as evangelist and apostolic steward of the gospel. It emphasizes (a) the gentle way he exercised his authority, (b) the bond of love he enjoyed with his converts, (c) his diligence in training them, and (c) the reasonableness of his desire that they imitate him. This imagery is associated with admonition, exhortation, encouragement, urging, charging, and the thread of “a rod” (1 Cor. 4:21; cf. 1 Cor. 4:14-17; 1 Thess. 2:11-12. See also 2 Cor. 6:13; 12:14; Gal. 4:19.).
John uses similar imagery when he calls his readers “little children,” an address that conveys affection, and also perhaps John’s senior age and his expectation that his readers will obey him.[1](#fn-2069-1)
In contrast, Paul urges Timothy, a younger leader, to treat those in his care as fathers, brothers, mothers, and sisters—with no mention of treating others as “children” (1 Tim. 5:1-2). In fact, Timothy is to consider older men as _his_ fathers. This suggests that merely possessing an office does not make one a “parent” in the church.
In 1 Timothy and Titus an elder must “manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive” (1 Tim. 3:4), a clause which may suggest that elders also serve as fathers over their congregations. But, as Ferguson noted above, these passages actually cast elders in the role of stewards, not fathers. Note the contrast Paul emphasizes in his parallel phrases:
> For if someone does not know how to manage **his own** household, how will he care for **God’s** church? (1 Tim. 3:6, bold added)
_**Before we use the imagery of parents to describe the role of local church leaders, we should ask several questions:**_ To what extent do elders today carry a similar authority over their converts that Paul and John carried as apostles specially entrusted with the initial proclamation of the gospel? If I as a father appoint a steward over my household, how does his authority differ from mine? To the extent that a fatherly aura may surround a leader, is it a natural result of his senior age and past spiritual care, or is it something “pasted on” merely through receiving an office?
We should also consider the NT balance between (a) acknowledging that too many Christians act as spiritual children and (b) urging them to become spiritual adults. (See 1 Cor. 3:1; 14:20; Eph. 4:14.) What approach to church leadership will best help believers become and act as spiritual adults? It seems clear that the dominant NT pattern is the language of brotherhood, not parentage, so in most cases it will be wiser to think in terms of brother-sibling relationships, not father-child relationships.
Ferguson next takes a closer look at **Christ as Son and Christians as both children and brothers and sisters of Christ:**
> Christ is the Son over his Father’s house… **“Son of God”… is one of the important titles that Jesus shared with his people.** (1) Sometimes the imagery used is that of adoption… (2) Sometimes the imagery is that of becoming children of God by a spiritual birth… (3) Or again, to follow the imagery of the body of Christ explored above, through incorporation into Christ his people become what he is. (p. 116, bold added)
Whether by adoption or birth, “Jesus’ people become children of God by the Holy Spirit” (p. 118). Interestingly, unlike Paul, John reserves “Son” for Jesus, calling Christians “children.” (p. 116-17).
> **“The brothers”** (the plural includes “sisters”) became a common designation for the Christian community… \[This was\] Luke’s favorite designation for the church \[in Acts\]… The religious use of “brothers” in the plural for the new spiritual family of God surfaces in all the remaining books of the New Testament except Titus, 1 Peter (which has “brotherhood”…), and 2 John. (p. 119, bold added)
>
> **“Firstborn”** was a designation of Israel as the people of God (Exod. 4:22…) and of the Davidic king (Ps. 89:27). God’s predestinating activity in Christ was so that “he might be the firstborn among many brothers”… (Rom. 8:29). Thus his people are called the “firstborn ones” (Heb. 12:23). (p. 120, bold added)
(For more on the church as the family of God, see my review of Hellerman’s book _[When the Church Was a Family](http://dwightgingrich.com/when-church-was-family-hellerman-review/)_.)
**(5) Ferguson next briefly addresses two “agricultural images”:**
First **“the vine and the vineyard,”** an image rooted in OT descriptions of Israel:
> The thoughts of solidarity and union between Christ and his people… which Paul expresses under the image of the body, the Gospel of John expresses under the image of the vine (John 15:1-11)… **“Branches” perhaps says too much; we might better translate “twigs.” Jesus is the whole; his disciples are part of him.** (p. 121, bold added)
Then **“the sheep and the sheepfold”**—another image led out of the OT:
> As God owns the vineyard in which Jesus is the vine (John 15:1), so **God owns the sheep for whom Jesus is the shepherd…** The description of people as sheep is not at all complementary, but the point is not to describe human nature but to affirm something about God. As a shepherd cares for his sheep, so God cares for his people. (p. 123, bold added)
I am not entirely convinced that “the point is not to describe human nature,” for Jesus mentions how prone sheep are to being scattered (John 10:5, 12) and other NT passages build on that point, connecting it to our need of a leader who can truly save us (cf. 1 Pet. 2:25). As OT history clearly showed, human leaders alone do not suffice. Therefore:
> According to the Johannine paradox, the Lamb will shepherd the redeemed (Rev. 7:17)… The theme of unity is also connected with the imagery, for there is to be “one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16-18)… **By following Jesus the sheep are gathered into one flock.** (p. 123, bold added)
Other NT passages present human leaders as shepherds serving under the “chief Shepherd” (1 Pet. 5:4; cf. John 21:15-17; Acts 20:28-30), but Ferguson does not develop that point here.
**(6) Next up for Ferguson is “an architectural image”:**
> Unlike modern English usage, the word “church” in the Bible does not refer to a building but to a people. The church, however, is compared to a building. (p. 124)
Jesus promised to “build” his church (Matt. 16:18), and Paul likewise calls himself a “skilled master builder” (1 Cor. 3:10). The church’s foundation is also variously identified:
> That the imagery of the foundation can be applied to Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11), the apostles (Rev. 21:14), and the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) is a reminder that **illustrations can be used in different contexts to teach different lessons without being contradictory**. (p. 125, bold added)
**“The building to which the church is most often compared is the temple,”** Ferguson writes. This is developed in several ways:
> Christians are not only a building but a body of functioning priests within the temple \[1 Pet. 2:5\]…
>
> The significance of temples was that they were the house of the deity…
>
> The Gospel of John presents Jesus as the new temple…
>
> First Corinthians 3:16-17 refers to **the local church** as the temple of God… The church is now the dwelling place of God \[2 Cor. 6:17-7:1\]. The holiness resulting from this relationship requires separation from idolatry and all defilement…
>
> The climactic statement on the church as the temple of God is Ephesians 22:19-22… Now the church is viewed as **universal, not local**…
>
> **The passages on the church as a temple emphasize that it is God’s.** (pp. 126-29, bold added)
**(7) Ferguson’s last topic in this chapter is “the meaning of _ekklēsia_“:**
After briefly explaining how the Greek word _kyriakos_ (“the Lord’s”) morphed into _Kirche_ (German), “Kirk” (Scottish) and “church” (English), Ferguson contrasts this with the Bible’s word for “church”:
> The use of the word “church” for a building is proper in English, but this is not true for the Greek word it translates. (pp. 129-30)
_**Ferguson challenges a popular definition:**_
> The Greek word translated “church” is _ekklēsia_. Its basic meaning was “assembly,” referring to what was done and not where it was done. **The popular etymology deriving the word from “called out” (_ek + kaleō_) is not supported by the actual usage of the word.** The emphasis was on the concrete act of assembly, not a separation from others. (p. 130, bold added)
Next he discusses Greek and Jewish usage of the word:
> **Its primary use in classical Greek was for the assemblies of the citizens of a Greek city.** In the direct democracy of the Greek city-states, **many decisions… were made in meetings of all the citizens**… In Acts 19… the mob gathered in the theatre is called an _ekklēsia_ (Acts 19:32, 40). The city clerk contrasted that irregular gathering with the “regular assembly,” the lawful, duly called meeting of the citizens (Acts 19:39).
>
> **The Jews adopted this Greek word to describe the assemblies of Israel** \[as seen in the Greek translation of the OT\]… _Ekklēsia_ was used exclusively to translate the etymologically equivalent Hebrew word _qahal_, but was not the only word used to render that Hebrew root. Another word used to translate _qahal_ was _synagogē_… **In the separate development of Judaism and Christianity _synagogē_ became the Jewish word and _ekklēsia_ the Christian word for the gathered people, but in an early Jewish Christian context both words could be used without difference of meaning** (James 2:2; 5:14)… It would seem that the word \[_ekklēsia_\] did not have a technical sense for the “people of God”… Nevertheless, _ekklēsia_ was a noble word from its political use in Greek civic life. (pp. 130-31, bold added)
Ferguson suggests that Paul uses _ekklēsia_ in a range of ways, referring to (a) an actual _assembly_ of Christians, (b) the _people_ who assemble, and (c) the people, _whether assembled or not_—the latter usage showing that the word had become a technical term for Christians.
> The great majority of instances of the word are in reference to a local church… Less frequently, _ekklēsia_ is used ina universal sense for all believers (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18)… **Whether the local or universal sense came first is in some respects a false alternative.** Although Paul’s usage for the local assemblies occurs first in our surviving literature, the Jerusalem church presumably referred to itself as _ekklēsia_, so **from the beginning the first local church was itself the universal church**. (pp. 131-32, bold added)
Even the universal church includes the idea of an assembly, Ferguson suggests, given the promise of our being “gathered together” to Christ at his coming (2 Thess. 2:1; Matt. 24:31).
_**Ferguson suggests that “the word ‘assembly’ in itself says nothing about the nature of the assembly”**_ (thus often “descriptive phrases are added,” referring to geographical areas, the nature of the people who make up the assembly, or God and Christ). _**This point is disputed by theologians.**_ Some argue, for example, that the Greek use of _ekklēsia_ to refer to regularly-summoned political gatherings provides a pattern for Christian churches: every person should have the right to speak and propose matters for discussion, and decisions should be made by consensus. On the other hand, the Jewish use of the term for gatherings of other sorts challenges this interpretation, affirming instead Ferguson’s argument that the word simply implies an assembly of people.
Without studying the matter further, I would suggest both sides should be cautious here. It is probably illegitimate to draw too many conclusions about church decision-making directly from the Greek city-state _ekklēsia_ model. However, even the basic definition of “assembly” suggests that _**important decisions, however they are made, should ideally be made when as much of the church as possible is gathered together**_, rather than by a smaller group intentionally secluded from the full body. This fits with Jesus’ use of the word _ekklēsia_ as well; he could have used the more Jewish word _synagogē_ to describe his followers, but instead he used _ekklēsia_ and then described this _ekklēsia_ as a decision-making, verdict-rendering body (Matt. 18:17-20).[2](#fn-2069-2) I think we see this pattern in some other places as well, such as with the church gathering described in Acts 15.
This conclusion also fits with some of Ferguson’s final words in this chapter:
> **The designation _ekklēsia_ calls attention to the importance of meeting together for the nature of the church…** The church, by definition, is an assembly. It is the people who meet together on a regular basis… When it comes together, the church exemplifies that it is indeed the church, an assembly (1 Cor. 11:18). (p. 133, bold added)
* * *
**This has been another long chapter!** Which of Ferguson’s observations especially interested you? Would you like to challenge him (or me) on some point? Where do you especially agree? **[Assemble your thoughts and share them in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-3-what-is-church/#respond)**
* * *
**Ferguson’s third chapter (our post 4) is about salvation and church membership.** We’ll also discuss some related topics like baptism. One quote to whet your appetite: “To be a Christian is to be a member of the church.” See you there!
* * *
_Note: I participate in an Amazon affiliates program, so if you buy a book using the link above, I will earn pennies. Thanks!_
1. Yarbrough, Robert W. _1-3 John._ BECNT. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 71-72. [↩](#fnref-2069-1)
2. I am borrowing some here from Steve Atkerson, who adds that “it is important to note that the church, in its decision making role, should be judicial rather than legislative,” this being a difference from the _ekklēsia_ of the Greek city-states. Steve Atkerson, ed. _House Church: Simple, Strategic, Scriptural_ (Atlanta, GA: House Church Reformation Fellowship, 2008), 75. [↩](#fnref-2069-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Peacemaking: The Quiet in the Land Speak Up
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2016-01-04
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: Peacemaking: The Quiet in the Land Speak Up • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Recent events have reminded me that peacemaking involves more than just being "the quiet in the land." It also involves speaking up.
Tags: Jr., John | Piper, nonresistance, Menno | Simons, -Luke 22:36, non-violence, Preston | Sprinkle, Reformed theology, Tim | Challies, Anabaptists, peace, -2 Corinthians 10:4, -Acts 10, -Luke 10:3, -Luke 3:14, -Romans 13:1-5, Conrad | Hertzler, Jerry | Falwell, Miriam | Iwashige, peacemaker, quiet in the land, social engagement, sociopolitical activism, training
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/peacemaking-quiet-in-land-speak-up
_\[This post was [published](http://mennoworld.org/2016/01/06/the-world-together/peacemaking-the-quiet-in-the-land-speak-up/) by the Mennonite World Review on “The World Together Blog.”\]_
**Recent events have reminded me that being a peacemaker involves more than just being “the quiet in the land.” It also involves speaking up.**
In summary, here is the three-part story I’m telling in this post:
(1) Conservative Reformed Christians in American are currently having a debate about Christians and the use of deadly force. Some of us Anabaptists spoke up and got a bit of public notice, and now I am praying that this will help more of our Reformed brothers and sisters embrace the way of suffering love more fully.
(2) What is the proper way for “the quiet in the land” to speak up?
(3) How can we do a better job of maintaining our nonresistant heritage right in our own Anabaptist churches?
**Perhaps you’ve heard about it:** Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. ([reportedly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University#cite_ref-80) the largest Evangelical Christian university in the world), has been **[in the news](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/05/liberty-university-president-if-more-good-people-had-concealed-guns-we-could-end-those-muslims/)** for his statement to students at a school convocation. With a chuckle and an insinuation that he was carrying a gun in his back pocket at that very moment, Falwell said the following to much applause:
> I’ve always thought that if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in…
Facing media backlash, Falwell later [**clarified his comments**](http://www.liberty.edu/news/index.cfm?MID=179047). But the substance of his position remained the same, and he provided a very questionable interpretation for the only biblical reference he provided in his explanation:
> It just boggles my mind that anybody would be against what Jesus told His disciples in Luke 22:36: He told them if they had to sell their coat to buy a sword to do it because He knew danger was coming, and He wanted them to defend themselves.
**John Piper**, author, chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary, and former pastor at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis, Mn., **was troubled by Falwell’s words,** so he dialogued with Falwell in private and then wrote **[an article in response](http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves)**:
> This article is about the people whom the Bible calls “refugees and exiles” on earth; namely, Christians. It’s about the fact that our weapons are not material, but spiritual (2 Corinthians 10:4). It is an argument that the overwhelming focus and thrust of the New Testament is that Christians are sent into the world — religious and non-religious — “as lambs in the midst of wolves” (Luke 10:3). And that exhorting the lambs to carry concealed weapons with which to shoot the wolves does not advance the counter-cultural, self-sacrificing, soul-saving cause of Christ.
To be clear, Piper was not arguing for a nonresistant or even pacifist position. He still thinks soldiers and police officers may use guns, and that Christians may serve in those positions. He just doesn’t think Christians who are private citizens should be encouraged to pack guns for self-defense, and he advocates a very different tone than what Falwell used in his initial comments.
**Amazingly, among his Reformed peers and many other evangelicals, Piper’s response has apparently been as controversial as Falwell’s original statements.** Just now I did a Google search for “Piper” and “Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves” (the title of Piper’s article). The first link listed is Piper’s original article. Here’s what I found in the rest of the top ten (Google order in brackets):
* 5 blog posts disagreeing with Piper. (2, 3, 4, 8, 10)
* 3 discussion forums debating Falwell, Piper, and guns. (5, 6, 7)
* 1 blog news post summarizing Piper’s article then tentatively affirming some rebuttals from other bloggers. (9)
Those 5 bloggers who disagree with Piper use language like this (again in Google order):
* “I honestly don’t know much about the ministry or beliefs of John Piper… But going on this particular article he has written, he comes across as an anti-gun liberal to me… Lol, every liberal is a pacifist until the day their loved ones are threatened, then they want blood. John Piper is no different. If the evil he so carelessly tells us to “not worry about” and just “trust God” with ever came to land at _his_ doorstep you can best believe his tune would change. Quickly.”
* “Piper’s position as outlined is about as close as one can come to individual pacifism without saying so. His response unfortunately ignores much of the context of the New Testament passages it cites, and ignores the Old Testament entirely. As such, I not only view it as unbiblical and disagree with it strongly, I think it would be dangerous and unloving for Christians to accept in society.”
* “Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.”
* “I think that Piper has missed the mark on this one, and I encourage wise men to carry a weapon and to do so carefully, Christologically, and only use it when needed…”
* “I realize John Piper’s problem with Jerry Falwell is that Falwell was _encouraging_ other Christians to arm themselves as American citizens. However, Piper does precisely what Falwell did; he’s encouraging Christians in America _**not**_ to arm themselves. I’m doing what neither man has done. I’m telling you to follow the Spirit and do as He leads.”
The three discussion forums contain a wild mix of perspectives and generally a lot of confusion.
**The one blog news post is much calmer, and it is the cause for my post here today.** This post was written by the widely-followed Reformed blogger Tim Challies.
I subscribe to Challies’ emails and find the majority of them very edifying, both informative and convicting. However, when **[this one](http://www.challies.com/articles/how-should-christians-use-guns)** landed in my inbox, I was troubled. But **I also saw an opportunity** as I read these words near the end of Challies’ post:
> I have put little thought into the ownership and use of guns and found this discussion quite helpful in forming my thoughts. To tip my cards just a little, I find myself appreciating Piper’s efforts, especially related to demeanor and heart-attitude, but leaning more toward the points made by Wedgeworth and Thune \[who both presented rebuttals to Piper\].
**_Here is one of the most influential conservative Reformed voices,_ I thought, _and he is just now forming his understandings regarding Christians and the use of deadly force. Perhaps we can help shape his thinking?_**
So I posted this on Facebook:
> Suggestion: If you are a nonresistant Christian, please write a respectful “letter to the editor” to Tim Challies regarding his coverage of John Piper’s article about Christians and arms. This seems to be an opportune moment to invite our Reformed brothers and sisters to more fully embrace the way of suffering love.
> Here is Challies’ coverage: [http://www.challies.com/arti…/how-should-christians-use-guns](http://www.challies.com/articles/how-should-christians-use-guns)
> And here you can write him a letter: [http://www.challies.com/letters-to-the-editor](http://www.challies.com/letters-to-the-editor)
> I suggest you include two things in your letter:
> (1) A brief response to something in Challies’ post (perhaps challenging one of the rebuttals against Piper’s article) or an affirmation of something you liked in Piper’s article.
> (2) A suggestion that Challies read and review Preston Sprinkle’s book Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence. ([http://amzn.to/1YN9aAP](http://amzn.to/1YN9aAP)) If he receives a minor flood of letters recommending this book, perhaps we can convince him to read it. Imagine if he would actually start promoting it!
Then I pasted the letter that I had just written to Challies. After reading my post, several of my friends joined me, sending their own letters.
**Yesterday morning I discovered that Challies had indeed published the letter that I sent**—posted it on his blog and sent it to his thousands of email subscribers. I was delighted! Here is the letter, as Challies published it:
> Thank you for giving John Piper’s article on Christians and arms respectful press. I found his words a refreshing breath of Christ-centered love. In response to your summary of responses, I have two thoughts:
>
> (1) While Piper’s article is not perfect, I am disappointed that he has been charged with being “biblicistic and dependent upon a specific understanding of the relationship between the New Testament and the Old” (Wedgeworth’s words). How can it be wrong to see the new covenant as our lens for interpreting and applying the old, as Piper is trying to do? As an Anabaptist, I come from a long theological heritage of doing just this, and our people have suffered for centuries for refusing to bear the sword. I don’t think it is true that Piper “assumes that we need a direct biblical teaching on a matter in order to know whether it is morally permissible or not” (Wedgeworth’s explanation for his “biblicistic” charge). Rather, Piper is drawing biblical theological deductions from the pattern of God’s unfolding revelation, which climaxes in Christ’s defenseless self-sacrifice and his call for us to follow in his steps. This is no mere simplistic “biblicism.”
>
> (2) Since you have expressed interest in this question of Christians and the use of force, I strongly encourage (exhort, implore, urge, beg!) you to read and review Preston Sprinkle’s book _[Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence](http://amzn.to/1Uvk6ww)_. A complex topic like this cannot be properly addressed in a handful of short articles. Sprinkle deals with the biblical evidence from both testaments in detail, historical evidence from the early church, and the toughest practical questions from today. He says he is from your own Christian neighborhood: “The Christian subculture in which I was raised and still worship is nondenominational conservative Reformed. I’ve been influenced over the years by John Piper, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, and many others who swim in that pond” (from Chapter 1). So you will identify with his way of handling Scripture. And he’s thought about this for a long time, making what he calls a “reluctant journey toward nonviolence.” Piper needs to read this book (I think he’s stranded somewhat inconsistently halfway on the journey). And I think you would find it very helpful as well. Tolle lege!
> —Dwight G, Leon, IA
\[PS: I _did_ change the Amazon affiliate link from Challies’ to mine. I trust that’s acceptable! 🙂 \]
A letter from one of my friends, Conrad Hertzler, was also published:
> I appreciate the overall respectful tone with which you responded to John Piper’s piece “Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves”. However, I am disappointed in the narrowness of the arguments used by cited authors in support of Christians using deadly force against attackers. It seems to be basically assumed by people holding your position that the only recourse left to a man whose wife and/or family is being attacked is to stand idly and helplessly by if he does not have a gun handy. As well, the situations which are created by proponents of deadly force are extremely hypothetical and no attempt is made to sort through all the nuances of such hypothetical situations. For a very well stated stance on the non-violent position, I would strongly encourage you to read Preston Sprinkle’s book _Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence_. Mr. Sprinkle has arrived at his position “reluctantly” and as such has though through it well. Blessings.
> —Conrad H, Mozambique, Africa
All told, three of the five letters Challies published on this topic were in support of non-violence!
**Now, listen closely to Challies’ reply to Conrad:**
> The narrowness of the articles I quoted was a reflection of the narrowness of the responses. I did not find any articles from people who agreed with Piper and extended his argument.
Read that last sentence again:
> I did not find any articles from people who agreed with Piper and extended his argument.
Challies is a voracious reader, both of books and blogs. (He shares about eight recommended links nearly daily on his own blog.) Yet he did not find any articles from people who agreed with Piper!
**Where are the voices in support of Christian non-violence?**
To be sure, there _are_ such voices, and they are available online. (See below.) But if Challies was not hearing voices supporting even Piper’s _very incomplete_ embrace of non-violence, you can be sure that _there are many other American Christians who have never heard a solid biblical defense of this teaching._
**I believe we Anabaptists, given our unique history, are specially equipped and entrusted to carry the message of Christian non-violence, of suffering love.** We have a responsibility and opportunity not only to live this message (the “quiet in the land”), but also to share it with fellow Christians.
**How do we do this?** My online friend Miriam Iwashige, who also wrote a letter to Challies (you can [read her reflections here](http://miriamiwashige.blogspot.com/2015/12/in-over-my-head-under-gun-and-other.html)), acknowledged this challenge:
> It’s often difficult (perhaps especially for Anabaptists?) to get exactly the right balance of truth-telling and respectful dialog.
Anabaptists have varied in their approach to public debate and influence. Many of the first Anabaptists did not hesitate to speak up:
> The first generation of Anabaptists dared to challenge the policies of contemporary rulers. Menno Simons did not hesitate to argue against capital punishment and to call persons in authority to obey the will of God for their office. With his forthright, almost defiant, exhortations to magistrates, Menno stands as a prototype of prophetic witness to the state[1](#fn-2129-1)
But prolonged persecution in the 1500s and 1600s left the Anabaptists a different people:
> After this period of persecution, Mennonites kept to themselves and sought to be the “quiet in the land.” They wanted to practice their religious beliefs and social customs with as little interference as possible, but were not very active in the communities around them.[2](#fn-2129-2)
This affected the Anabaptist approach to church planting and cultural identity:
> Within the mainstream of Swiss, German, and Dutch Anabaptism, the impulse to “go forth … and establish a church” by forming new congregations in every village and town was subverted when intense persecution and other factors transformed large segments of the Anabaptist community into “the quiet in the land.” It was in the lengthening experience as relatively isolated quiet people in the country that a distinct ethnic, subcultural identity became an increasingly pervasive element in their self-consciousness as church.[3](#fn-2129-3)
It affected evangelism and other forms of social engagement:
> The period of Mennonite exclusiveness had arrived. Although severe persecution ceased, irritating discriminations by the authorities continued, and the typical Mennonite became the “Quiet in the Land,” emphasizing the virtues of simplicity, honesty, and adherence to the faith of the fathers, but without imagination or judgment as to opportunities or responsibilities of the higher faith in Christ. The 16th-century Anabaptists had been “in the world but not of the world”; the 18th-century Mennonite was neither “in the world” nor “of the world.” This explained the continuing lack of evangelistic zeal for a long period after persecution and discrimination had passed.[4](#fn-2129-4)
Anabaptist social influence became mostly limited to prayer—with most of that, perhaps ironically, also silent:
> Although Mennonites became known as the “quiet in the land” when they sought ways to avoid the sword of the state, their prayers continued to be an expression of their concern to remain faithful to God as they continued to be accountable to one another in covenant community. In their search for a faithful life-style, Mennonites rejected elaborate liturgy and dogmatic theology in favor of practices that were more simple and quiet. Initially Mennonites (Dutch) prayed silently during worship… In time they prayed silently twice during each service, a practice some maintained until the end of the 18th century. At home also their prayers were in silence before and after meals\[ 5. Smucker, Marcus G. “Prayer.” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1989. Web. 3 Jan 2016. [http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Prayer&oldid=102612](http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Prayer&oldid=102612)\]
**What should we do with this heritage of silence?** This is a complex question, and we are not likely to all agree on the answers. For my part, I am not sure I am ready to fully imitate Menno Simons’ aggressive approach, although I have done a few things like signing some government petitions. Nor have I felt called to participate in all modern forms of [Mennonite sociopolitical activism](http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Sociopolitical_Activism).
However, disagreements aside, _**I think we should be able to all affirm one form of active engagement—urging fellow Christians to follow more closely in Christ’s steps.**_ We can’t expect unregenerate government officials to govern according to all the principles of Christ’s kingdom, but we _can_ expect fellow believers to want to follow Christ more fully.
This is why I wanted to write that letter to Challies, and why I was glad when several of my friends joined me in the effort. _**Please join me now in praying**_ (silently or otherwise!) that Challies and many of his readers will read the Preston Sprinkle book that Conrad and I recommended to him. If Challies is convinced by Sprinkle’s exposition of Scripture, the ripples could impact many.
**Far too many of us, rather than speaking up effectively for the way of peace, are gradually drifting away from our own nonresistant heritage.** One piece of evidence: I have been surprised and troubled to see how many Anabaptists (or ex-Anabaptists) post statements in support of the military come Veterans Day (or Memorial Day in Canada). In my mind, if I thank a soldier for fighting so I can enjoy a free country, then I have no business claiming conscientious objector status when the military comes looking for recruits.
Yes, I know:
* No Bible verse explicitly says “Christians must not serve in the military” or “Christians must not use force to defend their families.”
* Genuine Christians come to a range of conclusions on this subject.
* And I have some questions I’m still wrestling with, such as this: If I believe it is wrong for me to use deadly force, is it ever right for me to call 911 when I or my loved ones are threatened, thus inviting another to do the deed that I cannot do for myself?
But, even while acknowledging some ambiguity regarding specific life situations or specific Bible texts, it is certainly possible to come to a coherent, convincing biblical understanding of Christian non-violence.
**The days are past (if they were ever here) when we Anabaptists can take a casual approach to passing our nonresistant heritage on to our children.** Many of our youth are now listening to a wide range of non-Anabaptist voices. Much good is coming from that; I would be very unhappy if we restricted our input to only Anabaptist sources. However, when rigorous non-Anabaptist teaching is paired with rather casual Anabaptist teaching in the home church, then doctrines such as nonresistance are likely to erode. This is especially true when so many of us are listening to the very same Reformed voices that Challies hears and promotes—the ones who have offered so little in support of Piper’s rebuttal to Falwell.
I believe most of us grow up assuming rather unquestioningly that nonresistance is right; I know I did. I also heard some good teaching to support it. However, some of our teaching is not as rigorous as I think it needs to be. One example: A while back (within the past 3-4 years, as I recall) the Christian Light Publications Sunday School curriculum included a series of lessons on nonresistance. This series helpfully covered a range of texts that support nonresistance, but _no biblical texts used to challenge nonresistance were included in any lesson text_. I wish the series had included one or two lessons wrestling directly with these “problem texts”—texts such as Romans 13:1-5, Acts 10 (Cornelius the centurion), or Luke 3:14 (John the Baptist failing to call soldiers to lay down their arms).
If this is our usual approach to teaching nonresistance, then we will lose it as soon as we hear more convincing teaching from other sources.
**So where do we look for solid teaching on Christian non-violence?** I will end this post by again affirming the work of a Reformed author who wrestles with this subject better than anyone else I have read in my admittedly limited reading.
If you want a book that wrestles meaningfully with essentially all the relevant biblical data, both pro and con, then **read Preston Sprinkle’s book [_Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence_](http://amzn.to/1kE4xWM).**
[](http://amzn.to/1kEagvN)
[
](http://amzn.to/1kEagvN)
The best thing about this book is its engagement with Scripture. But it is also helpful in at least two other ways: for its survey of what the early church believed about Christians and violence, and for its honest engagement with the most difficult practical scenarios you might face in real life.
This book would work well for small group discussion. Why not read it together with a Sunday School class, or with a mid-week Bible study group? If you want to build conviction for nonresistance in your church, I can’t think of a better resource.
If you want more book suggestions on this topic, let me know. I have more good ones in mind.
**And if you want to begin with some free reading, see these two articles by Sprinkle:**
* **[“A Case for Christocentric Nonviolence”](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/11/a-case-for-christocentric-nonviolence/)** — A paper Sprinkle presented at the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meeting in November.
* [**“Romans 13 Doesn’t Tell Christians to Kill Their Enemy”**](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/12/romans-13-doesnt-tell-christians-to-kill-their-enemy/) — A blog post where Sprinkle expands his interpretation of this one text.
* * *
**What are your thoughts?** How well are conservative Anabaptists doing at passing on our heritage of non-violence and suffering love to the next generation? How can we best share this heritage with Christians beyond our Anabaptist world? **[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/peacemaking-quiet-in-land-speak-up/#respond)**
* * *
_PS: In an ironic turn of events, my writing of this post was temporarily interrupted when I finally gave in to my daughter’s demands that I teach her how to play Risk. I don’t know if you approve of that or not, but I did somehow manage to retain my nonresistant convictions despite many hours playing Risk as a youth._
1. Burkholder, John R. “Sociopolitical Activism.” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1989. Web. 3 Jan 2016. [http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Sociopolitical\_Activism&oldid=101450](http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Sociopolitical_Activism&oldid=101450) [↩](#fnref-2129-1)
2. Suderman, Derek. “Peace Perspectives.” Mennonite Historical Society of Canada. 1998. Web. 3 Jan 2016. http://www.mhsc.ca/index.php?content=http://www.mhsc.ca/mennos/tpeace.html [↩](#fnref-2129-2)
3. Yoder, Lawrence M. “Church Planting.” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1989. Web. 3 Jan 2016. [http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Church\_Planting&oldid=91447](http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Church_Planting&oldid=91447) [↩](#fnref-2129-3)
4. Pannabecker, S. F., Harold S. Bender and Wilbert R. Shenk. “Mission (Missiology).” _Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online_. 1987. Web. 3 Jan 2016. [http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Mission\_(Missiology)&oldid=132556](http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Mission_%28Missiology%29&oldid=132556) [↩](#fnref-2129-4)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “How Do You Know Me?” — Words and Self-Identity
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-12-31
Category: DGO website
Meta Title: "How Do You Know Me?" -- Words and Self-Identity • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We are not competent to weigh our own hearts. But One is. He will weight both our hearts and our words. In him we rest, and for his sake we speak.
Tags: character, relationships, community, -John 1:47-49, -John 2:24-25, -John 21:17, -Romans 12:3-8, accountability, assessment, final judgement, omniscience, self reflection, self-identity, speaking, words, writing
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/how-do-you-know-me-words-self-identity
**I dedicate this poem to all who have gathered courage to climb a mountain, look out over the world, and _speak_—and then, startled by strange echoes, wondered who the speaker really was.**
* * *
**“HOW DO YOU KNOW ME?”**
John 1:47-49; 2:24-25; 21:17
The more I post my words abroad
For hearers near and far,
In true attempt to share with other souls,
Athirst or not,
The meager growth in understanding I have felt
And feel we want still more;
The more my words, as arrows blown beyond my sight,
Are heard by those who know me not
And cannot weigh with knowing minds
The heart and mind from whence those words took flight.
From distant minds more words return,
Words launched in echo to my own,
Each bearing freight of praise unmerited
Or censure crisply drawn.
My words are weighed on varied scales.
And not my words alone:
Hearts that I cannot measure well, or fairly,
Do not wait to weigh my own,
Assigning mental skill,
Fidelity,
Or motive liberally.
How shall I weigh these words?
They rightly rouse me to appraise my heart, and yet
Unequal weights abominations are,
And mock the truest scales.
For even love paints me with double tongue:
Its words of thanks and warning fall
In overlapping strokes upon my ear
Until a muddled portrait now appears.
Unless I am two men at once, or more,
I cannot be the man of whom all speak.
By Judge, not jury, we’ll at last be tried
(Though judged as mutual jurors, side by side)
And so:
One word alone I long to hear,
The word of Him who spoke this spinning sphere in space—
Whose words I must proclaim, no more, no less—
Who needs no witness, knowing what’s in man
(And knowing all, you know I love you, too),
Who underneath the fig tree saw my soul
Before I knew his name—
May He, the King, proclaim:
“An Israelite indeed, in whom there’s no deceit!”
—Dwight Gingrich, December 2015
* * *
**For most people, self-identity is largely rooted in community.** When our community offers a coherent and consistent reading of our souls, our confidence is bolstered. We know who we are, and we speak who we are. (This is a very biblical reality. For only one example, see Romans 12:3-8.)
But when our community expands, multiplies, or otherwise changes, divergent readings of our soul may be offered, and our self-identity can be shaken. At worst, such inconsistent echoes threaten to unhinge us mentally, destroying all confidence in our own ability to hear, to assess, to know anything at all for sure. _Who am I,_ _really_? And dare I continue to speak, when speaking only increases the echoes that lay claim to my ears?
We are not competent to weigh our own hearts. But One is. He will weigh both our hearts and our words. In him we rest, and for his sake we speak—and will continue to speak, God willing, in 2016.
* * *
**Writers, speakers, teachers—anyone: Have you ever experienced what I express in this poem?** How do you process the diverse feedback that your words awaken? How do you discern when and how to let this feedback change your future words? How do you write and speak for an Audience of One without disregarding the needs and perspectives of your audience of many? And how do you learn from your audience of many without letting your Audience of One lose command of your words? **[Send me more echoes in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/how-do-you-know-me-words-self-identity/#respond)**
* * *
_PS: It was a lot of fun for both Mom and I to exchange normal roles and have her give me feedback as I made final decisions about this poem. I thank her for her help, yet any remaining flaws are entirely my own. One line in particular gave me no end of grief. My wife couldn’t make sense of it, Mom wasn’t sure about it, and I tried well over a dozen variants before I finally settled half contentedly on one, only since it was time to publish. So I’ll leave you with the explanation I gave my wife: Sometimes it’s good to have a line or two that leaves the reader completely stymied, with no sure way of knowing exactly what the author intended. This forces the reader to consider multiple possible readings, each with its own moral implications. Thus the reader enjoys multiple opportunities for moral improvement._ 🙂 _So puzzle and reflect—and let me know if you think you know which line robbed so much of my time._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Picture Smart Bible and Other Bible Resources for 2016
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-12-29
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: The Picture Smart Bible & Other Bible Resources for 2016 | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here are some Bible reading resources for 2016, including the Beginners' Bible Reading Plan and one we plan to use as a family: The Picture Smart Bible.
Tags: Bible reading plan, biblical literacy, family devotions, Picture Smart Bible, Shannon | Leibold
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/picture-smart-bible-other-bible-resources-2016
**I just read some news that makes me happy!** My cousin Shannon Leibold shared on Facebook that her son has completed the [Beginners’ Bible Reading Plan](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/beginners-bible-reading-plan/) that I first created for my daughter. (Shannon, by the way, shares helpful devotional and Bible study insights on her blog [Sitting At His Feet](http://www.sittingathisfeet.ca/).)
Here’s Shannon’s post:
> So proud of this boy! He finished his Bible Reading Plan for 2015! It was a Bible survey of both the Old and New Testaments with 25 readings per month, from January to December. Love that he’s gotten into the habit of getting into God’s Word! Now tonight we have a celebration: his favourite dinner (spaghetti and apple crisp), a little gift, and a sleepover with his best friend.
>
> He used this Bible reading plan developed by my cousin, [Dwight Gingrich](https://www.facebook.com/dwight.gingrich). [http://dwightgingrich.com/my-…/beginners-bible-reading-plan/](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/beginners-bible-reading-plan/)
I wish I could share the photo of Shannon’s son, too, but out of respect for Shannon’s privacy settings, I won’t. Just imagine a very satisfied-looking young boy displaying a big smile and an open Bible. 🙂
It pleases me greatly that this Bible reading plan is my seventh-most-clicked page on my entire blog, with over 1200 hits. I know God’s word changes lives, so I suspect that this little reading plan may be doing more than many of my other more “flashy” efforts here online. Praise God!
If anyone else has completed this Bible reading plan and has a story to tell, I’d love to hear from you.
**Shannon’s post confirmed to me that I should remind you of other Bible reading helps I’ve shared here in the past.** So here’s a simple list. Everything here I’ve shared before, except for the last one, which is a resource that our family hopes to use for our Bible times this year.
* **[Beginners’ Bible Reading Plan](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/beginners-bible-reading-plan/)** — Survey highlights of the entire Bible in one year, reading only 15 verses a day! Suitable for both children and adults.
* **[Read the New Testament in 90 Days](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/new-testament-in-90-days/)** –My wife Zonya created this plan for her own use. The schedule allows for at least one catch-up day each month. There are two versions included in this plan: (1) The main version that follows the standard NT order of books. (2) An alternate version that includes at least one Gospel per month.
* [**Advice about Bible Translations**](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/advice-bible-translations/) — A chart of Bible translations and my thoughts about how to choose and use some of the best translations.
* **[Why I Use Commentaries](http://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/intro/why-i-use/)** — If you are convinced and want to find a good commentary to help you dig deeply into some Bible book this year, see [my lists of recommended commentaries](http://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/intro/), too.
* **[Chronological Bibles — A Buying Guide](http://dwightgingrich.com/chronological-bibles-buying-guide/)** — Read the Bible in historical order this year!
* **[Two of the Best Study Bibles](http://dwightgingrich.com/niv-zondervan-study-bible-review-comparison-esv-study-bible/)** — My review of the NIV Zondervan Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible. (The former is [on sale for only $3.99](http://amzn.to/1JFHqln) on Kindle right now!)
* [**Bible Memory Resources**](http://dwightgingrich.com/other-resources/bible-memory/) — The resources that I’ve found most helpful at those times when I’ve memorized long passages of Scripture.
* **[5 Ways to Understand the Bible Better in 2015](http://dwightgingrich.com/5-ways-understand-bible-better-2015/)** — Most of this still applies today, though one or two blogs I recommended are not so active anymore, and my list of upcoming events for Bible students is sadly empty.
* **[Surprises about 2014’s Most Popular Verses](http://dwightgingrich.com/final-surprises-2014s-popular-verses-3/)** — “Hopefully this little series reminds us that even the most familiar Bible verses contain surprises worth pondering. Blessed is the reader who never loses the joy of puckered-brow pondering: “Now I wonder what _that_ might really mean?”
**And here’s a resource that our family hopes to use for family Bible times this year: _[The Picture Smart Bible](http://www.picturesmartbible.com/idev/idevaffiliate.php?id=1066)_.**
We first saw _[**The Picture Smart Bible**](http://www.picturesmartbible.com/idev/idevaffiliate.php?id=1066)_ at a home school convention. It intrigued us the first time we saw it, and when we saw it again this past year we were hooked.
[](http://www.picturesmartbible.com/idev/idevaffiliate.php?id=1066)
[
](http://www.picturesmartbible.com/idev/idevaffiliate.php?id=1066)
_The Picture Smart Bible_ is a very visual product, so it’s hard to describe it with justice using words. Here’s part of the publisher’s blurb:
“The _Picture Smart Bible_ is a comprehensive overview of Biblical history, geography, important verses, and major themes of each Bible book…
“In this innovative Bible study program, an overview of an entire book is illustrated on a single page. For every book of the Bible you study, you will have a script to follow, a Master Drawing, and a Student Sheet.”
When all pages have been completed, each student will have a complete book covering the whole Bible, hence the title: _The Picture Smart Bible_.
**The Picture Smart Bible** _**comes in a K-3 version and in a Gr. 4 – Adult version.**_ We bought both and plan to use the K-3 version this year. The “senior” version adds a lot more detail, so it would be very useful to do that one later.
Here’s a sample of Exodus in the K-3 version, colored and with optional craft attachments:
([Click here for the teacher’s guide](http://www.picturesmartbible.com/script/TPSB%20K3%20OT%20Exodus%20Lesson%20-%20Download.pdf) for this page.)
And here are samples of Daniel in the Gr. 4-Adult version. First a blank page:
Then the same page filled in (but not yet colored):
(And [click here for the teacher’s guide](http://www.picturesmartbible.com/script/Daniel%20Lesson.pdf) for this page.)
_**The K-3 version looks easy to implement**_—just copy as many Student Sheets as needed, gather pencil crayons, read over the script beforehand (which tells you where to begin drawing and how to explain the biblical content), and you’re ready to go. Most pages (one per Bible book) should take about 30 to 60 minutes. We expect to spread that over about 4 nights a week. If we can maintain this pace, we can complete both Old and New Testaments within about a year.
The Gr. 4-Adult version will take more prep time, since it includes a lot more detail of biblical content. It will also take a lot more “class time” to complete.
Speaking of class time, _**The Picture Smart Bible would also work very well for Sunday school**_. (In fact, we’ve thought that it might work well in Atlanta, either in a house church setting for our children or as an outreach tool.) A very generous copyright allows you to “copy sections of TPSB for non-commercial purposes, such as teaching or promoting your ministry, within your church or organization.” _**So you can make as many copies of Student Sheets as you want for your family, church, or ministry!**_
The people who created this product worked hard to avoid denominational biases. Their goal was biblical literacy, giving users freedom to tweak the theological presentation as they wish. I think they did a reasonably good job of this, though there will be minor things I’ll likely adapt on the fly.
* * *
**It’s much easier to talk about Bible reading and Bible study than to actually do either.** We’ve had good and bad seasons as a family. Hopefully some of these resources will prove helpful to some of you in the coming year!
**What do you plan to do for Bible reading and study in the coming year?** (I still need to make concrete plans.) What do you do for family Bible times? Let’s encourage each other. **[Share your ideas in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/picture-smart-bible-other-bible-resources-2016/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclaimer: We signed up for an affiliate program with The Picture Smart Bible, so if you make a purchase using the links above, we’ll earn a commission. As always, I aim to only sell resources that I think you will find helpful._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Arminians, Calvinists, and Two Theological Terms Worth Chucking
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-12-26
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Arminians, Calvinists, and Two Theological Terms Worth Chucking • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: There are real theological differences, and there are ways we just talk past each other. Arminians, Calvinists--here are two of my pet peeves about you.
Tags: John | Piper, Timothy | George, John | Calvin, Ben | Witherington III, grace, assurance of salvation, soteriology, -2 Corinthians 9:5, -John 10:28, -Philippians 2:12-13, -Romans 1, -Romans 15:27, -Romans 4, -Romans 6:14, Arminianism, Bill | Mounce, Calvinism, gifts, indefectibility of faith, indefectibility of grace, Jacob | Arminius, John | Barclay, John | MacArthur, once saved always saved, perseverance of the saints, pet peeves, predestination, Westminster Confession of Faith
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/arminians-calvinists-two-theological-terms-worth-chucking
**There are real theological differences, and then there are ways we just talk past each other.** In this post I’d like to share two of my pet peeves with how Arminians and Calvinists sometimes define the terms of their debates. The differences are certainly real, and I don’t pretend to understand them in depth. But I’ve heard enough by now to be quite sure that the way we are using some terms probably isn’t helping anyone.
So, in the interests of pugnacity and peace (or at least the latter), let’s get started!
Since I’m more of an Arminian than a Calvinist—though I’ve benefited from listening to both and though I wish I had time to also explore molinism (such as in [this book](http://amzn.to/1PpHoEH))—I’ll start closer to home and take Arminians to task first.
**(1) Arminians, stop saying Calvinists believe in “once saved, always saved”!**
If you ask any well-trained Calvinist whether they believe this, they will certainly say “no.” As Craig Keener (an Arminian NT scholar) says, “[‘Once-saved-always-saved’ as it is commonly taught in many churches is neither Calvinism nor Arminianism.](http://www.craigkeener.com/once-saved-always-saved-maybe-not/)” Similarly, I recall hearing Bill Mounce, a self-proclaimed 4-point Calvinist (I recall he doubts “irresistible grace”), strongly deny that he believes in “once saved, always saved.” He speaks passionately against the kind of gospel invitation that he heard as a boy—the kind where you are invited to come down the “sawdust trail” to the “altar” and “believe” and—in Mounce’s words—“have a moment of positive volition.” No repentance needed, and not even any clear specificity about what you are supposed to believe. And, if you respond, you are assured that you are eternally saved—no matter how grossly or freely you sin thereafter.
_That_, my friends, is “once saved, always saved.” And unfortunately, it _is_ what some people promote ([both some self-professed Calvinists as well as all true Free Grace advocates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints), etc.). And some who use the term _do_ seem to use it to promote apparently orthodox Calvinist positions that do not match the scenario above. (For example, [this is the first link](http://www.allaboutgod.com/once-saved-always-saved.htm) that pops up on a Google search for the term.)
_**So what is the problem with using the term?**_ The term “once saved, always saved” normally implies that there is no need for a Christian to live a holy life in order to be assured of salvation. But John Calvin didn’t believe this. Listen to Timothy George’s analysis:
> In his commentary on John 10:28, Calvin declared:
>
> …This is a remarkable passage, teaching us that the salvation of all the elect is as certain as God’s power is invincible… He who keeps what we have committed unto him is _greater_ and more powerful _than all_; and so we have nothing to be afraid of, as if our life were in danger.
>
> **This is a rich and nuanced doctrine and cannot be reduced to the shorthand formula “once saved, always saved.”** Calvin did not minimize the sin of apostasy, that is, a complete falling away and utter renunciation of the gospel. However, this sin could be committed only by one who had not received the “incorruptible seed” of the Spirit in the new birth. Such unbelievers might show evidence of the Christian life, and might even possess what Calvin called “temporary faith,” but in the end they would prove to be false saints… On the other hand, true believers might fall into sin, even gross sin, but, sustained by the Spirit, they would not totally or finally be lost. **Those who took this teaching as an occasion for laxity were presuming on the grace of God and stood in jeopardy of divine judgment.** (_Theology of the Reformers_, Kindle location 4941, bold added)
I am not convinced Calvin is right in every point (as summarized here by George), but clearly we are not doing him justice to claim he believed “once saved, always saved.”
_**So, what should we say Calvinists believe?**_ Timothy George uses the term “indefectibility of faith” and the \[amazon text=_Dictionary of the Christian Church_&asin=1598562509\] uses the term “indefectibility of grace” (pg. 268)—both implying that Christians will not defect (turn away from) from faith or grace. A more common term was made popular through the “Five Points of Calvinism” (TULIP) that [attempt to summarize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism) the conclusions of the [Synod of Dort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort) half a century after Calvin’s death (these are a summary of disagreements with Arminianism, not a summary of Calvin’s whole theology). _**This term is “perseverance of the saints,” and it is probably the best term to use if you want to describe what Calvinists actually believe.**_
A classic explanation of this term is found in [the seventeenth chapter of the Westminster Confession of faith](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Confession_of_Faith_of_the_Assembly_of_Divines_at_Westminster#Chapter_17):
> They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, **can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved…** Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein… (bold added)
This conundrum naturally raises the question of assurance of salvation—how can one really know whether they are saved or not? The Westminster Confession addresses this topic in [the next chapter](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Confession_of_Faith_of_the_Assembly_of_Divines_at_Westminster#Chapter_18):
> …Such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, **endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him**, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed… Therefore **it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure**, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness **in the duties of obedience**, the proper fruits of this assurance; **so far is it from inclining men to looseness**. (bold added)
This is not Arminianism, to be sure. But neither is it a flippant “once saved, always saved.” This more nuanced theological understanding explains why I have repeatedly heard multiple Calvinist pastors, theologians, and seminary teachers insist that a Christian has no right to be sure of their salvation unless there is evident fruit of holiness in their lives. Not perfection, certainly, and maybe not even the level of holiness expected in some Arminian or many Anabaptist churches. But definite evidence of the fruit of regeneration, nonetheless. Otherwise there is no assurance of salvation.
In summary, _**only bad Calvinists believe in “once saved, always saved,” just as only bad Arminians believe that they earn their salvation by their good works rather than relying on grace**_. If you don’t want to be accused of the latter, don’t accuse Calvinists of the former!
Which brings me to my pet peeve for Calvinists…
**(2) Calvinists, stop implying that Arminians don’t believe in “Doctrines of Grace”!**
“The Doctrines of Grace” is a term Calvinists often use to summarize their classic five points (see above). A [quick survey on Amazon](http://amzn.to/1PpOkS9) shows that this term is currently a favorite phrase among Calvinists choosing titles for their books. A [Google search of the term](https://www.google.com/search?q=once+saved+always+saved&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=doctrines+of+grace) leads to a host of more Calvinist resources, headed by a link to the website of John MacArthur, a staunch Calvinist publicist if ever there was one.
The problem with this term—I am speaking with some authority now as a non-Calvinist listener—is that _**it implies (to at least some listeners) that those who disagree with the “Five Points of Calvinism” do not believe in, rely on, or teach the grace of God**_. Arminians deny such a charge wholeheartedly!
To be certain, I don’t think most Calvinist intend to imply quite that, despite their belief that Arminians misunderstand how grace works. But, intentional or not, their ownership of the term “doctrines of grace” can tend to leave that impression. (I see some others agree with me that the term feels offensive and misleading. See, for example, [here](http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/Charge_Grace.html) and [here](http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-biblical-doctrine-of-grace-for-everybody-else/). Note: I do not intend to affirm all other aspects of these links.)
The problem here is that _**grace is a much more slippery subject than is often imagined—by most people, not just Calvinists.**_ What exactly is grace? Who gets to define it? Can grace come with any conditions and still be grace? Can it be resisted and still be grace? Can it be potentially withdrawn and still be grace? How is God’s grace different from the grace that humans show? How is it the same? And is our modern conception of grace the same as how ancient Jews—including the apostles–thought of it?
Some of my thoughts here are triggered by an interview with the author of an important new book on grace. **I am referring to John Barclay and his 2015 book [_Paul and the Gift_](http://amzn.to/1JAXrJt), which has been described as “must reading for all interested in Paul, and in particular in his concept of grace.”** [That endorsement](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2015/10/18/john-barclays-paul-and-the-gift-part-one/) comes from Ben Witherington—a prominent Arminian NT scholar—and he has interviewed Barclay at length on his blog.
Here are some extended interview excerpts that underscore (a) the complexity of defining grace and (b) the fact that Calvinists most certainly aren’t alone in affirming grace:
> JOHN: …Paul is not just a covenantal theologian with an eschatological or a radical social twist. He has a radical, even dangerous, view of God’s grace, but I was struggling to see how to articulate that. **I realized that to understand what Paul means by ‘grace’ I had to understand how gifts worked in the ancient world**, and the deeper I got into that (which is a fascinating subject in itself) the more I began to see that **there are different kinds of ‘grace’ in the ancient world, including the ancient Jewish world…**
>
> I have tried to trace… how we have acquired the modern notion of a ‘pure gift’ with **‘no strings attached’**, but I think it is increasingly recognized now that **this is a very modern (indeed, modern Western) notion** and not one that is shared in antiquity (or in most non-Western cultures)…
>
> Paul radicalizes the incongruity of grace (grace given without regard to worth), and his understanding of the Christ-gift as an incongruous gift lies at the heart of his Gentile mission (and his own self-understanding). But **this does not mean that God gives expecting nothing in return** (what I call non-circular or unilateral grace): in fact Romans 6-8 expressly refutes that notion (of ‘cheap grace’) by saying that believers are ‘under grace’ (Rom 6.14). And on a human level, Paul does not think that gifts carry no obligations: see Romans 15.27 (on the Jerusalem collection as an obliged return gift), for example!…
>
> I discuss Luther and Calvin at some length (after discussion of Augustine, on whom they both draw). I think **Luther and Calvin were both absolutely right in emphasizing the incongruity of divine grace (given without regard for our merit or worth), but they also radicalized other aspects of Paul’s theology of gift (in Luther’s case, a clear move towards the gift as a unilateral, one-way movement) that go significantly beyond Paul**. I also think that their (in their context necessary) emphasis on grace as the cure for sin, guilt and anxiety, left out another and very important social dimension of Paul’s theology of grace. Since God’s grace has no regard for human criteria of worth, it enables the construction of innovative, counter-cultural communities that sit loose to dominant cultural values… ([Source for above quotes](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2015/10/18/john-barclays-paul-and-the-gift-part-one/), bold added)
>
> JOHN: I think are two questions here: i) should the gift be given without regard to the worth of the recipient and ii) should a gift elicit a return of some sort? The two can run together (a worthy recipient might be one more likely to express gratitude), but they are also seperable \[sic\]…. **We have created notions of ‘altruism’ and ‘disinterest’ that are distinctly modern** (making disinterest and interest mutually exclusive). It feels like that is Christian, and there are certainly Christian reasons for risky forms of giving that may not elicit a response, but **the core Christian tradition is that even God’s giving wants a response from humans**, even if it does not and cannot require it. Does God give to us ‘with no thought of return’? Does not God give to us, without regard to our worth, but lovingly wanting the return that fulfils our human potential, that is the return of thanksgiving (see Romans 1) and faith (see Romans 4)?
>
> …**Gift \[grace\] is a phenomenon that has at least these three facets. The six I have identified are:** superabundance (the size of character of the gift); singularity (God’s character as giver and nothing-but-giver); priority (the timing of the gift before any initiative from the other side); incongruity (the mismatch between the gift and the worth of the recipient; efficacy (the ability of the gift to achieve the giver’s intentions); and non-circularity (gifts that escape any system of exchange or reciprocity)… The point of this analysis will become clear as the book proceeds. It helps to clarify the differences in the highly influential history of reception of Paul (e.g. the differences between Augustine and Pelagius, or between Luther and Calvin: **they all believed in grace, but in significantly different ways**)… ([Source for above quotes](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2015/10/19/john-barclays-paul-and-the-gift-part-two/), bold added)
>
> BEN: On p. 575 **you define ‘gift’ as follows:** “Gift denotes the sphere of voluntary, personal relations, characterized by goodwill in the giving of benefit or favor, and eliciting some form of reciprocal return that is both voluntary and necessary for the continuation of the relationship.” I like this definition a lot, and **I notice that the word ‘voluntary’ shows up twice in the definition. I would imagine however, that a uber-Calvinistic theologian (e.g. John Piper) would not be happy about that word in a definition of grace**, if by voluntary you mean ‘the recipient of the gift could have done otherwise than respond positively’. In other words, a certain kind of theology of predestination, would say that the ‘gift’ and the relationship were predetermined from before the foundation of the universe…
>
> JOHN: First, note that my definition is a definition of gift (the domain of human relations as analysed by anthropology and traced in human history) not a definition of grace, if by the latter we mean ‘the divine gift of grace, given ultimately and definitively in Christ’. However, **it would be problematic for Paul, as for us, if our response to grace could not be considered in any sense ‘voluntary’** (i.e. truly willed). Note how much he emphasises in 2 Corinthians 8-9 that the Corinthians’ gift (‘charis’) to Jerusalem should be voluntary and not an extraction (2 Corinthians 9.5); otherwise in his eyes it would not be a gift. Now, ‘voluntary’ in Paul’s eyes does not mean ‘free of any external influence’ (see how much effort he puts into persuading them to make this voluntary gift!): he does not labour under our illusion that we can and should act as completely autonomous individuals. But he does expect that **God’s work in us generates our own willing (Phil 2.12-13), as freed agents who could do otherwise (it is possible, in Paul’s eyes, to fall out of grace)**.
>
> **What you are touching on here is the tendency, in a line of interpretation from Augustine, through Calvin, to Jonathan Edwards, to ‘perfect’ (radicalise or absolutise) the efficacy of grace**, to the point where it causes, constrains, or compels our own wills. This is to turn God’s agency/will and our agency/will into a zero sum game: the more of one, the less of the other. But God’s will is not on the same level as ours, working in the same causal nexus… **To perfect the efficacy of grace in the way you describe is certainly not necessary**, even if it is understandably attractive to some. ([Source for above quotes](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2015/10/21/john-barclays-paul-and-the-gift-part-three/), bold added)
Back to the “uber-Calvinistic theologian” John Piper. (Please understand I am using him only because he is a prominent Calvinist proponent, and I hasten to add that I have been greatly blessed by much of his teaching.) **Here is Piper’s explanation of the term “doctrines of grace”:**
> Probably the most crucial kind of knowledge is the knowledge of what God is like in salvation. That is what the five points of Calvinism are about. Not the power and sovereignty of God in general, but his power and sovereignty in the way he saves people. **That is why these points are sometimes called _the doctrines of grace_.** To experience God fully, we need to know not just how he acts in general, but specifically how he saves _us_ — how did he save me? (“[What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism](http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism)“, bold added)
Given this explanation, we can see that **the “doctrines of grace” are really** the “doctrines of how God saves people.” More accurately, they are **the “Calvinist doctrines of how God saves people.”**
That phrase is not nearly as snappy for book titles, I know, but it is much more accurate! After all, when we probe the finer points of exactly how God saves people, there are many complexities and mysteries, and there have been many different balances of understanding throughout church history. **_All_ orthodox Christian understandings, however, have centered on the reality that we are saved _by grace through faith in Christ_.** This is an understanding shared by Arminians as much as by Calvinists.
To deny our need for grace is to deny our need for Christ! Thus withholding the term “doctrines of grace” from Arminians is tantamount to denying that they are Christians at all.
To call one theological system but not the other “the doctrines of grace” is begging the question—assuming the answer before the discussion has begun. Instead, we should be debating this: What are the differences between the Arminian and Calvinist doctrines of grace? And which matches Scripture best?
In sum, it would be helpful if Calvinists would stop insinuating that Arminians are denying our dependence upon grace. _**Denial of grace is not a classic Arminian stance, just as universal human salvation by grace apart from any human response—at the other end of the spectrum—is not a classic Calvinist belief.**_
* * *
So there you have it: two pet peeves from me, one for Arminians and one for Calvinists. As my dad used to tell me and my brothers, let’s fight nice!
**[Please add your peaceable thoughts in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/arminians-calvinists-two-theological-terms-worth-chucking/#respond) Thank you!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Between Comings (A Poem for Christmas)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-12-25
Category: Poetry by Dwight Gingrich
Meta Title: Between Comings (A Poem for Christmas) • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In Micah's account, the Christ was promised to a people facing great distress. And those in distress today still await Christ's coming.
Tags: faith, peace, waiting, -John 20:11-13, -Luke 2:1-5, -Luke 2:10, -Luke 2:12, -Micah 4:9-10, -Micah 5:1-5, Christ's return, distress, fear
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/between-comings-poem-for-christmas
**This morning when we read the Christmas story we began with the prophet Micah.** In Micah’s account, Christ’s coming was promised to a people facing great distress:
> 4:9 Now why do you cry aloud?
> Is there no king in you?
> Has your counselor perished,
> that pain seized you like a woman in labor?
> 10 Writhe and groan, O daughter of Zion,
> like a woman in labor,
> for now you shall go out from the city
> and dwell in the open country;
> you shall go to Babylon.
> There you shall be rescued;
> there the Lord will redeem you
> from the hand of your enemies...
>
> 5:1 Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops;
> siege is laid against us;
> with a rod they strike the judge of Israel
> on the cheek.
> 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
> who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
> from you shall come forth for me
> one who is to be ruler in Israel,
> whose coming forth is from of old,
> from ancient days.
> 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time
> when she who is in labor has given birth;
> then the rest of his brothers shall return
> to the people of Israel.
> 4 And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord,
> in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
> And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great
> to the ends of the earth.
> 5 And he shall be their peace. (Micah 4:9-10; 5:1-5)
**In the fullness of time, when the Christ finally came**—in Bethlehem, just as Micah foretold—**the people he came to were also in distress.** Though back in the land of Israel, they still felt themselves to be in exile, withering under Rome’s heavy hand:
> 2 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed who was with child. (Luke 2:1-5)
**And those in distress today still await Christ’s coming.** We still await the full fulfillment of Micah’s words: “He shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace.”
Photo Credit: [Dave Wilson Cumbria](https://www.flickr.com/photos/7424779@N05/13154543714/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)
Long centuries passed before the Lord’s words to Micah first began to be fulfilled. Even more centuries have passed since Christ first came, while we await the fullness of Christ’s kingdom.
To all who, like me, live in an imperfect world, to all who battle fear and rest in faith, to all who live between Christ’s first and second comings, between his resurrection and his final appearing, I dedicate this little poem. Our King will come.
* * *
> 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people… 12 And this will be a sign for you: **you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger**.” (Luke 2:10, 12)
>
> 11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. 12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and **I do not know where they have laid him**.” (John 20:11-13)
* * *
**BETWEEN COMINGS
**
“Fear not,” to us the angel said,
“Fear not, for you will find.
“Fear not, this is the sign:
A baby in a manger laid.”
But now the child, our Lord, is dead.
But now we cannot find.
But now we see no sign
To show us where he has been laid.
Disease and death, the wars of words—
They’ve taken him away.
We cannot find the way;
Our world is ruled by other lords.
At such a time our Lord first came,
At such a time as this;
At such a time the mist
Of fear was rent by heaven’s flame.
Why are we weeping here today?
Why are we seeking blind?
Why have we fearful minds?
He’ll come, sure as he’s gone away.
—Dwight Gingrich, December 15, 2015
* * *
Photo Credit: [p medved](https://www.flickr.com/photos/46271629@N00/15569076408/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/)
* * *
**I wish you the comfort of Christ’s Spirit this Christmas, and [invite your response in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/between-comings-poem-for-christmas/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Chronological Bibles — A Buying Guide
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-12-21
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: Chronological Bibles -- A Buying Guide • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here is my advice for choosing a chronological Bible. What is a chronological Bible? How do you choose one? What are some of the best ones available?
Tags: chronological Bible
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/chronological-bibles-buying-guide
Recently a friend invited my advice in selecting a chronological Bible, so I thought I’d share my thoughts here as well. Perhaps you will buy one for a friend for Christmas (last minute shoppers, anyone?). Or perhaps you will buy one for your own reading in the new year. (But wait till after Christmas… you never know. 🙂 )
**What is a chronological Bible?**
The basic idea is to rearrange the entire Bible in time sequence, rather than according to literary or topical categories, as in traditional Jewish or Christian practice. Some chronological Bibles sequence things according to when historical events happened. (For example, Psalm 8, which describes creation, might be right up front with Genesis 1.) Others sequence things according to when Bible books were written. (This would place Psalm 8 somewhere in 2 Samuel, during the time of David.) Since there is uncertainty about when many books were written, and since many books cover large swaths of time (think of Chronicles, which covers the entire OT period!), a lot of chronological Bibles use a mixture of both sequencing methods.
All chronological Bibles end up slicing and dicing Bible books so that you are no longer reading books as literary wholes. This is not ideal for discovering authorial intent. Yet chronological Bibles can be very helpful for understanding the sequence of how God and his people have acted throughout history. So I recommend chronological reading as an alternative (but not your main life-long) way of reading Scripture.
**How do you choose a chronological Bible?**
Here are two factors to consider as you select a chronological Bible:
**(1) Choose an ideal translation.** This will vary from person to person. My thoughts? I would probably choose either (a) my primary-use translation, in order to reinforce the wording of Scripture in my memory, or (b) a very readable translation, since I’d envision using the chronological Bible for Bible survey purposes, rather than for detailed exegetical study. In my case this means I would choose either the ESV (my primary translation for reading and study) or something more easy to read, such as the NIV, the HCSB, or the NLT. My personal choice would _not_ be the KJV, the NKJV, or the NASB. Even though they are all fine translations, they would not achieve either of my goals for how I would want to use a chronological Bible. If I had to choose one goal to prioritize, I think it would be (b); I would likely choose a very readable translation, something that makes the Bible come alive in a fresh but faithful manner. And in fact… I don’t think I can even find a printed ESV chronological Bible!
**(2) Decide if you want a reading Bible or a study Bible.** A reading Bible contains the text of Scripture and not much else. A study Bible also includes lots of study notes and helps. In a chronological study Bible, the notes will feature historical data—such as questions about dating books, historical customs, comparisons with other ancient literature, historical events and persons that coincide with biblical events, and timelines. A simple reading Bible is best for simply reading, especially since these chronological reading Bibles are usually arranged in a one-year reading plan. However, you can find chronological reading plans online (or in apps) for free ([see here](http://keithferrin.com/4-terrific-chronological-bible-plans)), so you will need to decide if you really need to pay for a book that has nothing more than the Bible re-sequenced. I can see advantages to both reading Bibles and study Bibles, but in this case I would probably choose to spend my money on a study Bible, so that I can use it not only for survey reading, but also as a longterm study resource.
**What are some good chronological Bibles?**
First, study Bibles:
* _**[The Chronological Study Bible (NKJV).](http://amzn.to/1YrMNAT)**_ This one was very well-received, and seems to have provoked a growth industry in chronological study Bibles.
* _**[The Chronological Study Bible (NIV).](http://amzn.to/1OGAciu)**_ I think this is basically the same as the NKJV one above. (Given my criteria above, I would probably choose this one before the NKJV.)
* _**[The Chronological Life Application Study Bible (NLT).](http://amzn.to/1YrNIky)**_ I am not familiar with the Life Application Study Bible upon which this is built, and admit some skepticism. But this chronological version receives very high reviews and looks excellent (it was a 2013 ECPA Christian Book Award winner). It would be my choice if I selected the NLT translation. (This one is also available in **[a KJV version](http://amzn.to/1OGAOVp)**.)
* _**[NIV Integrated Study Bible: A New Chronological Approach for Studying Scripture.](http://amzn.to/1MrIKIg)**_ This is unique among all the examples I’ve found in that it is also a harmony of Scripture: “Parallel passages (or passages that are related) are arranged side-by-side in columns.” I own a harmony of the Gospels and have found it very useful. A harmony not only shows chronology, but also helps you compare and contrast the theological emphasis of biblical authors, based on which stories they tell, and how.
Some reading Bibles:
* **[_Reading God’s Story: A Chronological Daily Bible (HCSB)_.](http://amzn.to/1YrOy0H)** This one is George H. Guthrie, whose book **_[Read the Bible for Life](http://amzn.to/1YrOLkD)_** I also highly recommend. Also, you can buy a [_**Reader’s Guide to the Bible**_](http://amzn.to/1OGBTMZ) which is designed to accompany this Bible, with commentary and small-group discussion questions. It would be very rewarding to go through this with a group, whether Christian friends or seekers.
* [_**The One-Year Chronological Bible (NIV).**_](http://amzn.to/1YrQ0jH) A basic reading Bible. “The entire Bible text―books, chapters, and even verses―is arranged in the order the events actually happened. Prophetic books are interwoven with the historical accounts they accompanied. Psalms follow the events about which they were written. Proverbs are placed in the time they were compiled. The life of Christ is woven into one moving story. And Paul’s letters to the young churches in the first century are integrated into the book of Acts. Transition statements help you understand why some Scripture portions appear where they do.” (Publisher’s description.) This is also available in [**the NKJV**](http://amzn.to/1OGCEFK) and [**the NLT**](http://amzn.to/1OGCIp1).
So, there is a variety for you to peruse. Which one would I most like? Perhaps the NIV Integrated Study Bible. But several of the others are close runners-up.
**Do you have a favorite chronological Bible that I have missed?** Have you used a chronological Bible? Was it a good experience? **[Share your thoughts in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/chronological-bibles-buying-guide/)**
* * *
_Disclaimer: I participate in the Amazon affiliate program, so I will make pennies if you buy something using the links above. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Church of Christ — Ferguson (2): Covenant, Kingdom, Christ
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-12-20
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: The Church of Christ -- Ferguson (2): Covenant, Kingdom, Christ • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: kingdom of God, new covenant, covenant, -Daniel 7, Messiah, Son of Man, Suffering Servant, -Hebrews 12:23, -Matthew 5-7, -Romans 11:33, -Matthew 26:28, Everett | Ferguson, eschatology, -Revelation 1:6, -Revelation 7:17, community, Israel of God, -1 Corinthians 10:11, -1 Corinthians 15:23-24, -1 Corinthians 15:27-28, -2 Corinthians 3:11, -2 Thessalonians 2:1, -Acts 10:43, -Acts 11:15, -Acts 11:18, -Acts 2, -Acts 2:37-40, -Ephesians 1:20-22, -Hebrews 10:25, -Hebrews 10:26-27, -Hebrews 12:28, -Hebrews 13:20, -Hebrews 8:13, -Hebrews 9:16-17, -Hebrews 9:22, -Isaiah 40-55, -Isaiah 56:8, -Isaiah 60:3-4, -Jeremiah 31:31-34, -John 7:38-39, -Luke 1-2, -Luke 6:13, -Mark 3:14, -Matthew 10:2-4, -Matthew 10:5-6, -Matthew 15:24, -Matthew 16:13-23, -Matthew 18:18, -Matthew 19:28, -Revelation 1:4, -Revelation 1:9, -Revelation 11:15, -Romans 11:17-24, -Romans 11:18, Christ, Christmas, gather, last days, NT use of OT, olive tree, Pentecost, Servant of the Lord
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-2-covenant-kingdom-christ
**Christmas is a very Old Testament sort of thing, and so is the church.** When you read the Christmas story in Luke’s Gospel, the theological climaxes are found in the speeches of the main characters—the angels (Luke 1:13-17, 30-33, 35; 2:10-14), Elizabeth (Luke 1:41-45), Mary (Luke 1:46-55), Zechariah (Luke 1:67-79), and Simeon (Luke 2:28-35). These speeches are knotted with strange lines like “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever” (Luke 1:33), “a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David” (Luke 1:69) and “this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34).
We like to think of Christmas in much simpler, more self-centered terms: Jesus was born to _save me from my sins_. We feel good if we remember to connect Christmas forward with Cross and Resurrection. We rarely even think about tracing it back to Israel. When was the last time you praised God that Jesus was born that Israel might be saved from her enemies (Luke 1:71)?
**The same is true of how we usually picture the church.** **But in the first chapter of Everett Ferguson’s book _[The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today](http://amzn.to/1SYrmk6)_, he spends 67 pages rooting the church in the Old Testament. This chapter is entitled “The People and the Messiah: History and Eschatology.”** (See also the [Introduction](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-1-introduction/) to my series on this book.)
I must confess: I found much of this chapter a little dry, at least at first. I also tend to find Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1 a little dry, too. To my shame, I am a child of my time and place who too often forgets my debt to God’s people in the past. I am a Gentile, after all. I stand in need of the warning Paul issued to his Roman Gentile readers: “Do not be arrogant… remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you” (Rom. 11:18). But if I push past the dryness, brush the dust off the past, and feel the family of Abraham like a granite foundation under my feet, boredom turns to worship. What a merciful God! I can only exclaim with Paul, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” (Rom. 11:33).
**Just as you really won’t understand very well who Christ is without reading the Old Testament, so you won’t understand the church as you ought if you only read the New Testament.** The very first time that the word “church” appears in most English translations of the Bible is in Matthew 16:18: “I will build my church.” But even more important than the word _church_ in this passage is the word _Christ_. Christ—or _Messiah_. It is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament who still today builds his church. “Your” church. The church you belong to today is the fulfillment of promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
**Ferguson discusses these matters under four main headings in this chapter: Covenant, Kingdom, Christ (Messiah), and Community.**
> This first chapter offers an exploration of some topics from the Old Testament and Jewish background which are important for understanding the Christian church and then a discussion of the New Testament development of these themes. **The concepts of _covenant_, _kingdom_, and _messiah_ provide the framework for the New Testament understandings of history and eschatology and so of the place of the _community_ of the Christ in God’s purpose and plan…**
>
> These topics emphasize something of the theological perspective important for understanding the biblical doctrine of the church. God initiates the covenant relationship in calling a people \[**covenant**\]; God rules the affairs of human beings for the redemptive purpose of saving a people \[**kingdom**\]; God anoints (selects and empowers) his chosen representatives to lead his people \[**messiah**\]; and God’s goal is to build a community of people who acknowledge him as their God \[**community**\]. In the New Testament, these items are related to Jesus Christ. The new covenant is in Christ; the authority of kingship is now given to Christ; he is the anointed king \[messiah\]; and the church is the community of Christ. (pp. 1-2, bold added)
**Under “Covenant”** Ferguson first traces the meaning of that concept, God’s sequence of covenants found in the Old Testament, and the promise of a new covenant. “The essence of the promise of a new covenant is the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit” (p. 8).
Ferguson then addresses the topic of covenant in the New Testament. Here are some highlights:
> Paul connects the Christians’ relationship to God with the Abrahamic covenant, in contrast to the Mosaic covenant…
>
> Unlike the note of continuity sounded by the New Testament about the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, the Sinai \[Mosaic\] covenant is placed in contrast to the “new covenant” in Christ Jesus…
>
> For the Christian, the Old Testament remains the “word of God”…, but the basis of the relationship with God now is different—what God has done in Jesus and the new covenant of forgiveness in him. The Old Testament as a system of religion does not regulate the activities of the church, that is, the people of Christ…
>
> One way of expressing the relationship of the two parts of the Christian Bible is to say that the Old Testament is still authoritative for God’s people in its theology but not in its institutions. (pp. 9, 11, 14, 16).
Ferguson ends his discussion of covenant by emphasizing that “inherent in the idea of a covenant is a community” (p. 17). Just as God brought Israel out of Egypt and formed a covenant with them, so “in the death and resurrection of Christ God did for humanity what we could not do for ourselves… Based on this mighty and gracious act of God, a covenant is offered and a people gathered” (p. 17).
**Under “Kingdom”** Ferguson discusses the meaning of _kingdom_, then relates it to Israel, Christ, the church, and the future. First, the meaning of kingdom:
> In Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the primary meaning of “kingdom” is “kingship,” that is, royal power or kingly rule. The words more often refer to the “reign” than to the “realm” in which the rule is exercised…
>
> Of course, kingship does not operate in a void, so the word “kingdom” is often used in close connection with the people or territory living under a given reign. That usage gives the secondary meaning of “realm”…
>
> The kingdom of God refers to his majesty and activity, more often than to his people… But God’s rule does involve a people. **The rule of God presupposes a people of God in whom it can be established**… (p. 19-20, bold added)
Since God had already manifested his kingdom through Israel (p. 21), “Jesus… was clearly not introducing a new concept” (p. 22) when he proclaimed the “kingdom of God.”
The newest or most puzzling thought for me in this section was Ferguson’s assertion about the end of Christ’s kingdom:
> The kingdom of Christ that began at his resurrection will come to an end at the general resurrection… When Jesus comes again it will not be to set up a kingdom but to “deliver up” or “hand over” an already existing kingdom (his kingship). Jesus reigns until death is destroyed. That occurs at the general resurrection. Then his rule is returned to God, the one who subjected all things to him (1 Cor. 15:27-28). The passage not only does not refer to a millennial or interim kingdom of any duration between the return of Jesus and the final consummation, but the sequence of thought positively precludes it… **The reign of Christ is concluded at his second coming.** “The end” and the handing over of the kingdom to God the Father follow the resurrection at his coming (1 Cor. 15:23-24). That resurrection marks the subjection of the last enemy and so the end of his reign, not its beginning. (pp. 27-28, bold added)
There are mysteries here! On the one hand, Paul clearly states that “then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him” (1 Cor. 15:28). On the other hand, John sees “the Lamb in the midst of the throne” (Rev. 7:17) and records that “the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever” (Rev. 11:15). Perhaps Ferguson is overstating things a little when he says “the reign of Christ is concluded at his second coming”? (If he defined “kingdom” in this passage as “realm” rather than “reign,” then the Son could “deliver the kingdom to God the Father” without losing all function of reigning.) Perhaps the subjected Son can still share the Father’s reign?
What is the relationship between the kingdom and the church? Ferguson explains:
> The relation of the kingdom and the church has been expressed all the way from a complete identification of the two, so that the church is the kingdom, to a complete separation of the two, as expressed in the quip of the French scholar Loisy, “Jesus preached the kingdom, and the church came.” If the kingdom is defined primarily according to the word study above as the “rule of God,” and the church is defined as “the people of God”…, then a basis is laid for explaining the difference yet the interrelationship of the church and the kingdom. **The church may be defined as the people who come under the reign of God…** **That makes the church one manifestation… of the kingdom of God, the kingdom in the secondary sense of realm, the sphere in which kingship is exercised.** The church is not the kingdom but is closely related to it. (pp. 28-29, bold added)
Ferguson notes that “three passages bring the kingdom and the church into proximity with each other”:
* Matthew 16:18-19 — “I will build my church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom.”
* Hebrews 12:23, 28 — “The assembly \[church\] of the firstborn” receive “a kingdom that cannot be shaken.”
* Revelation 1:4, 6, 9 — John, who “shares… the kingdom” with his readers, writes “to the seven churches,” whom Christ “made… to be a kingdom.”
Further, Ferguson notes that terms such as salvation, grace, redemption, righteousness, and life–realities which are all fulfilled in the church—are also associated in Scripture with the kingdom of God. Further, the central new covenant ideas of forgiveness of sins and indwelling of the Holy Spirit are also associated with the kingdom. _To experience God’s saving grace is to enter both Christ’s church and his kingdom. To be in the church is to be under Christ’s rule._
This leads us to Ferguson’s next theme.
**Under “Christ (Messiah)”** Ferguson first discusses the meaning of _messiah_:
> In the Old Testament prophets, there are many passages about God bringing deliverance and blessings to his people in the future. Frequently there is a human leader involved as the agent or representative of God in accomplishing his purposes. Several different designations of this deliverer or leader are given…, but it is notable that **there is no clear case where Messiah is the term chosen**. (p. 37, bold)
Yet as Christians called Jesus the Messiah (Christ), the term become loaded with new layers of meaning far beyond the basic meaning of “anointed one.” Thus, “the whole Old Testament expectation of ‘a good time coming’ has been called the messianic hope” (p. 38):
> **All these figures have come to be subsumed under the category of the messianic hope**, because Christians accepted Jesus as the fulfillment of them all: Son of David, king, priest, prophet, Son of Man, and God acting directly…
>
> **In the Jewish expectation, the center of attention was the blessings of the coming age.** The emphasis was on the “age to come” itself, what has come to be called the “messianic age.” The Messiah, when he was mentioned, was to be part of the “furniture” of this new age. **For the Christians, on the other hand, the important feature was the Messiah himself.** (pp. 38-39, bold added)
Ferguson gives special attention to two Old Testament figures from Isaiah 40-55 and Daniel 7:
> The New Testament usage of the images of the Servant of the Lord and Son of Man for Jesus is problematic from the standpoint of the Old Testament texts, for a good case can be made that in each instance these figures have a collective sense in their original context, being simply ideal figures that personify the people.
Ferguson takes a “both-and” approach and solves this dilemma by noting that both the Servant and the Son of Man represent and personify the people of Israel:
> The New Testament affirmation is that Jesus as an individual gives concrete expression to these Old Testament representations of the people. He was the embodiment of the true Israelite, so that what was said of the nation of Israel was applied by Christians to him (cf. the use of Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15). **Jesus was seen as synthesizing three figures out of the Old Testament heritage:** Messiah (Son of David), Son of Man, and Servant of the Lord. **All three carry with them an association with a people.** The Messiah rules over a people; the Son of Man embodies the saints of the Most High who are given the kingship; and the Servant of the Lord suffers for the people and embodies their role of serving the Lord. **Hence, we are prepared for the New Testament’s presentation of Jesus as promising to found a new community.** (p. 46, bold added)
This brings us to **Ferguson’s discussion of Matthew 16:13-23**. He argues more convincingly than I expected that “the rock is the faith confessed by Peter, not Peter confessing the faith” (p. 49). I would have said it was Peter, but now am agnostic. However:
> Whatever interpretation of the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is found persuasive, whether Peter or the Messiahship, the decision on this question should not obscure the most important declarations made in the verse, namely that **Jesus is the builder and the church is his. The church belongs to him, whatever functions others may have in it.** The church is Messiah’s people, not Peter’s people. (p. 51, bold added)
Regarding the keys of the kingdom promised to Peter, Ferguson argues thus:
> Peter was to declare the terms of admission to the kingdom of heaven, that is, give access to the rule of God over people’s lives, which meant the forgiveness of sins. Such an understanding corresponds to the function Peter performed in the beginning of the church. He preached what people must do to obtain forgiveness of sins or to be saved, both Jews (Acts 2:37-40) and Gentiles (Acts 10:43; 11:18).
An aside: While I have heard this passage and the similar verse in Matthew 18:18 used as evidence that church leaders have authority to make final decisions in the local church, in neither passage are any church leaders besides Peter mentioned. Rather, in Matthew 18:18 it is the whole church (or perhaps even any two or three gathered in Christ’s name) who are entrusted with binding and loosing. Of course, we _are_ given instructions elsewhere about the importance of leaders in the church; my point here is simply that the Scriptures never speak of the “keys of the kingdom” as having been given specially or uniquely to local church leaders. In fact, if we take Ferguson’s understanding of the definition of the keys, then each of us can participate in using the keys by proclaiming to others the terms of salvation.
Ferguson concludes his discussion of Matthew 16 and Messiahship:
> **The central points of Matthew 16:13-23 are clear:** (1) Jesus is the Messiah, that is, the Anointed One, with a royal position over a covenant community. (2) Immediately upon the confession of his Messiahship is the promise of the church. We may say that the existence of the church is implied in the confession that he was the Messiah. (3) The church is the Messiah’s. (4) The authority of the apostles (in this case Peter) is delegated. (5) Messiahship means suffering.
>
> The death and resurrection of the Messiah prepares for the next unit of this study, the community of the Messiah… **The very concept of a Messiah makes sense only in the context of a people.** (p. 56, bold added)
**Under “Community”** Ferguson begins with precedents from the Old Testament:
> \[It was\] **the church’s appropriation of the concept of being God’s people, of being truly the Israel of God**, \[that gave\] it a sense of historical identity, a strong sense of solidarity, and a sense of ethical responsibility.
>
> It is significant for the understanding of the church that **God’s purpose was to call a people** and that **he dealt with individuals in relation to a people** and individuals came to him as members of the chosen people…
>
> An important part of the prophetic hope, in keeping with God’s goal of unity, was the reuniting of God’s people…
>
> \[Yet\] God’s concern was not limited to Israel and Judah. The prophets anticipated a time when the non-Israelites would worship the Lord…
>
> The second half of Isaiah is full of such predictions. “And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD… Thus says the Lord GOD, who **gathers** the outcasts of Israel, I will **gather** others to them besides those already **gathered**” (Isa. 56:6, 8). “Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. Lift up your eyes and look around; they all **gather** together, they come to you…” (Isa. 60:3-4). **These passages in the Greek translation \[the Septuagint\] use for “gather” the same word that is used for the assembling of the church** (on earth—Heb. 10:25; eschatologically–2 Thess. 2:1)…
>
> According to Paul’s analogy of the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24, the Gentiles are branches from a wild olive tree grafted contrary to normal practice into the cultivated olive tree (Israel). **This is the basis for the application of the language of the people of God… to the church.** (pp. 57-59, bold added)
Next Ferguson identifies some **prerequisites for the church**. He begins again with the image of the church as a new Israel:
> Jesus’ calling of twelve disciples (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13) as a symbolic prophetic action made clear allusion to his mission to all Israel (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24) and **implied the founding of a new Israel** when the former Israel rejected him (Matt. 19:28). Indeed, there was implicit in many of Jesus’ teachings and actions, such as the giving of an authoritative interpretation of the law (Matt. 5-7), the formation of a community. **However, before the promise of Matthew 16:18 could be fulfilled, certain things had to happen…**
>
> **(1) The crucifixion was necessary for Jesus to be the foundation of the church…** The prophets voiced the hope of a fully forgiven people (Jer. 31:31-34). The new covenant of forgiveness of sins required the shedding of Jesus’ blood (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:16-17, 22)…
>
> **(2) The resurrection was necessary for Jesus to be head over the church…** At the resurrection and ascension, Jesus was exalted above all other authority and dominion and made “head over all things for the church” (Eph. 1:20-22)…
>
> **(3) The Holy Spirit had to be given as the life of the new community…** Important for our purposes here… is John’s observation \[John 7:38-39\] that the fullness of the presence of the Spirit as a living reality within believers had to await the glorification of Jesus…
>
> **(4) There had to be a commission to give the church a mission.** There had to be a message for the church to proclaim… The proclamation of Jesus as Messiah and of his forgiveness and blessings called a church into existence… (pp. 60-63, bold added)
According to Ferguson, despite all the Old Testament gestation discerned by exegetical sonogram above, **the actual birth of the church of Christ occurred at Pentecost:**
> According to Acts 11:15, the events of Acts 2 marked “the beginning.” The beginning of what? **Several items occur for the first time in Acts 2. These together mark the occasion as** the beginning of a new age, the gathering of a new community, **the beginning of the church**.
>
> (1) The beginning of the age of the Holy Spirit…
>
> (2) The beginning of the public proclamation of Jesus as Christ…
>
> (3) The beginning of the preaching of the gospel…
>
> (4) The beginning of the offer of forgiveness in Jesus’ name…
>
> (5) The beginning of the new covenant…
>
> (6) The beginning of the gathering of a church…
>
> (7) The beginning of corporate life and worship. (pp. 63-67, bold added)
The birth of the church was the beginning of a new age, an age that is known as the “last days”:
> **Early Christians expressed the conviction that they were living in the “last days,”** and therefore the church was the eschatological \[end times\] community… Those who are Christ’s people are those “on whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11).
>
> The phrase “last days” does not necessarily indicate the nearness of the end… The emphasis is not on the word “days,” which simply indicates an indefinite period of time, but on the word “last.” **The reference is to God’s final act on behalf of humanity** (Heb. 10:26-27)… The phrase describes the last dispensation…
>
> The covenant brought by Christ is permanent (2 Cor. 3:11) It has made all previous dealings of God with people obsolete (Heb. 8:13) and is the “eternal covenant” (Heb. 13:20)… This covenant is the covenant of the “last days”…
>
> **The church is the eschatological community**, the remnant gathered by God to be saved in the overthrow of the world, the people of the End time. They are enjoying the eschatological blessings of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit in the present, but they await the coming again of the Son of God and entrance into the final completion of God’s purposes. **This dual dimension of present and future, already and not yet, influences other aspects of the church** to be considered in subsequent chapters… (pp. 67-69, bold added)
**The phrase “last days” also, of course, is meaningless unless there were also “former days.” And so we come full circle:** The church—and Christmas, which brought to earth the church’s Christ—cannot be fully understood apart from the promises and patterns of the Old Testament.
**The physical and national nature of the promises given to Abraham and David remind us that the salvation that Jesus offers is no mere “spiritual” matter, and the church is not merely an invisible reality.** Although the New Testament fulfilments telescope the Old Testament promises far beyond what their first hearers could ever have imagined, the fulfillments are always more, not less. And so even today we, as the church of Christ, eagerly await with Zechariah the day when we will “be saved from all our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us” (Luke 1:71).
And, as Ferguson reminds us, “those who share the kingdom now will be those to participate in it in the future” (p. 35).
* * *
**What did you learn from Ferguson’s discussion in this chapter? Do you see how the Old Testament helps us see the centrality of Christ for his church? **[Share your questions or insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-2-covenant-kingdom-christ/#respond)****
* * *
**Ferguson’s second chapter (our post 3) is about the nature of the church.** We’ll discuss election, some powerful images of the church such as “the body of Christ” and “the family of God,” and zero in on the meaning of _ekklesia_. See you there!
* * *
_Note: I participate in an Amazon affiliates program, so if you buy a book using the link above, I will earn pennies. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Church of Christ — Ferguson (1): Introduction
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-12-15
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: The Church of Christ -- Ferguson (1): Introduction • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I've started reading a book that's been calling my name for several years: The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today, by Everett Ferguson.
Tags: Christology, biblical authority, gospel, word of God, biblicism, Everett | Ferguson, soteriology, canon, proof-texts, systematic theology
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-1-introduction
**One of my primary goals on this blog is to help us think biblically about church.** As I seek to grow in my own understanding, I find it helpful to read authors who wrestle directly with Scripture, form conclusions, and send me back to Scripture myself to weigh their conclusions.
**Recently I’ve finally begun one such book, one that has been calling my name for several years: [The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today](http://amzn.to/1m1PWWp), by Everett Ferguson.**
[](http://amzn.to/1SYrmk6)
[
](http://amzn.to/1SYrmk6)
Ferguson is best known as an historian of the early church, having written books such as the seminary standard [Backgrounds of Early Christianity](http://amzn.to/1m1OvXZ) and, more recently, a massive book on [Baptism in the Early Church](http://amzn.to/1Nt1LMr). I recommend both.
But in this book Ferguson aims to speak as a biblical student, not as an historian. Here is how he explains things in his Preface:
> Recent scholarship has emphasized the diversity of theologies within the New Testament… I have chosen to pay more attention in this study to the melody than to the individual instruments.
>
> Although the synthetic approach adopted in this book may be out of fashion, the recognition of the authority of a canon of scripture… justifies the effort to bring together the teaching of the various New Testament documents… This kind of reading does not serve the purposes of historians well, but it is a necessary task for theologians.
>
> The book is written by one whose academic training is primarily that of a historian, but a historian interested in theology who has used history as a way of understanding theological questions. I have set my hand in this work to a book that is completely theological and systematic…
>
> The “Today” in the subtitle does not mean a tailoring of biblical ecclesiology to the interests of the present but is meant to emphasize that biblical ecclesiology is viable today… (pp. xiv-xv)
So far I am only about 136 pages into Ferguson’s 443-page book. But I’m starting to like it enough that I’ve decided **I’d like to share a series of posts quoting and interacting with this book.**
Ferguson arranges his book in a way that is unexpected but exactly right: around Jesus. After the Preface and Introduction, the book consists of six long chapters, each building on some aspect of Jesus’ identity and work:
1. **The People and the Messiah: History and Eschatology**
2. **The Church and Her Lord: The Nature of the Church**
3. **The Church and Her Savior: Salvation and Church Membership**
4. **The Church and Her High Priest: Worship and Assembly**
5. **The Church and Her Bishop: The Continuing Ministry**
6. **The Church and Her Teacher: The New Way of Life**
Don’t let these titles overwhelm you. They repay close reading. For example, note that Jesus is identified by six titles: Messiah, Lord, Savior, High Priest, Bishop, and Teacher. Ferguson uses these titles of Jesus to understand the church. Thus (in chapter three), if Jesus is “Savior,” how should this shape our understanding of church membership? Or (in chapter five), if Jesus is “Bishop,” how should this shape our understanding of human leaders and servants within the church?
This means that all the “practical” topics you may be curious about are probably found in one of those chapters. For example, subheadings address things such as this:
* The Body of Christ
* The Family of God
* The Meaning of _Ekklesia_
* Attitudes toward Worship
* Activities in the Assembly
* Shepherds, Preachers, and Servants
* Discipline
* Unity
I’m thinking I’ll share about seven posts on this book—this one plus one for each chapter. If I am bursting with extra thoughts and time, one more concluding post may appear.
To wrap up this first post, **here are some highlights I enjoyed from the book’s Introduction:**
> **God gave a _person_, then a _proclamation_, and then a _people_. This is the historical and theological order.**
>
> God gave first a _person_, Jesus Christ…
>
> The _proclamation_ centers in the person…
>
> The proclaimed word calls and gathers a _people_… This book studies the people, the church. As such it is concerned with what is derivative and in third position… **I seek to relate every aspect of the doctrine about the church to Christ…**
>
> The oral message about Jesus Christ gathered a people and so created a church. That word was put in written form… In a historical sense, one may say that “the church gave us the Bible.”… **Although the church was historically prior to the Bible as a given collection of books, the word contained in the Bible was theologically prior to the church.** The recognition of a canon of scripture was an acknowledgment by the church that it was not its own authority and was an act of submission to the authority of apostolic preaching inscripturated in the apostolic writings…
>
> **The witness of the first generations of Christians about what was authoritative for them is an irreversible decision and remains determinative of what the essence of Christianity is…** The historical circumstances of the first century are not normative for Christians in later centuries, but the apostolic teaching given in those historical circumstances is normative…
>
> The effort to find an authoritative word in scriptures on the matters discussed does not mean adopting the kind of “proof-text” approach that often takes verses out of context. The effort has been made to show the interconnectedness of themes…
>
> There is such an interconnectedness of themes that **this book could almost be considered a New Testament theology organized with reference to ecclesiology. It is not that**; there are too many aspects of New Testament theology that are not included…
>
> The person of Jesus is more attractive than those who claim to follow him are. But… one cannot have Jesus without the church. **We hope to show that Christ _or_ the church is a false alternative… To emphasize Christ is to make his church important.**
>
> Sometimes people, finding the heart of the gospel, want to treat the rest of biblical teaching as irrelevant. It may be secondary, but it is not irrelevant. The proper procedure is to work out from the center of the gospel to other things and apply the gospel to other aspects of doctrine. On our topic, that means working from Christ to the nature of the church and its activities…
>
> **Perhaps the problem for many has been in taking the church too much in an institutional sense and not sufficiently in terms of a people, a redeemed community…** The church may often have been presented in such a way as to obscure Christ…
>
> **The first three chapters** of this book develop the theological axiom that Christology and soteriology determine ecclesiology. **The last three chapters** then apply this insight to the ministry, worship, and life of the church. We want to take seriously that this study concerns the church _of Christ_. He gives existence, meaning, and purpose to the church. Christology is the norm for ecclesiology, and that is what justifies the title of the book. (pp. xvii-xx, bold added)
I won’t add much to that except to say that typing those excerpts renews my excitement about Ferguson’s focus as he examines ecclesiology. Whatever points of disagreement we may discover with him along the way, he has certainly started his study very well indeed!
* * *
**What stands out to you from these introductory thoughts from Ferguson?** What do you want to say Amen to? Is there anything you’d balance differently? What do you hope he addresses (and I review) in his book? **[Share your insights below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/church-of-christ-ferguson-1-introduction/#respond)**
* * *
_Note: I participate in an Amazon affiliates program, so if you buy a book using the links above, I will earn pennies. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Downsview Station Jazz Rap [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-12-14
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Downsview Station Jazz Rap [Poem by Mom] • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Downsview Station Jazz Rap: "We met in Downsview station / When you visited our nation / From New York City on the overnight bus."
Tags: family ties, music, Christmas, birth, bus, destination, determination, Downsview Station, farewell, goodbye, granddaughter, grandmother, meeting, subway, travel
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/downsview-station-jazz-rap
_**The wonderful thing about having a blog devoted to biblical studies is that you can legitimately include almost any topic under the sun, since the Bible itself includes just about every sort of topic imaginable.** So if this month’s poem from Mom doesn’t sound sufficiently biblical or spiritual, go read something like a Gospel account of Jesus interacting with children or the story of Hannah and Samuel or even the Song of Songs, then read Mom’s poem again. I think you’ll see it fits in very well indeed._
_This poem was written in honor of our firstborn daughter, who just turned seven. When she was still very new, we took her on an overnight bus ride from our home in Queens, New York, to Toronto, Ontario, to introduce her to my family for the first time.
_
The Manhattan skyline at dusk. Photo Credit: [Ana Paula Hirama](https://www.flickr.com/photos/33704098@N00/6199460868/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)
_I clearly remember little Priya on that overnight ride, eyes wide open, taking in all the sights—the curbside Manhattan bus stop, the fellow passengers, the bright lights outside the bus window, and, when whenever we pointed her in the wrong direction, the long-forgotten movie flashing on the bus monitors._
Photo Credit: [Stewart](https://www.flickr.com/photos/12037949632@N01/168753875/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
_I think she squeaked only about once on that whole roughly-10-hour ride. She spent much of her time sleeping, and the rest of it looking wide-eyed at the wide world. We’d had fearful visions of keeping fellow passengers awake all night with a crying baby. But the trip turned out to be, as I recall, a magical experience for all of us._
The CN Tower rising behind Union Station, much as we glimpsed it before dawn that morning. Photo Credit: [wyliepoon](https://www.flickr.com/photos/9911655@N08/3982228709/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)
_We arrived in Canada’s largest city, at downtown Union Station, early in the morning. After strolling around mostly underground a while, past closed shops, we found the subway line heading to the north edge of Toronto._
_After years of subway riding in NYC, it was fun to ride a subway in Toronto, for perhaps only the second time in my life. Perhaps my Canadian memory is just biased, but I’m recalling that the TO subway was quieter and cleaner than those in NYC._
Photo credit: Nathan Ng (See his [Downsview Station photo collection](https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPVDoyud1t3qSZ3BTYf4qRTbPBHx7t0lcB3EG-5GPAqORZo71URLN1Y0Y9qxQmmAg?key=NEJKMmVMbktWclpkY1hwcEFTUDkyLU45WGIyWGlB).)
_Soon we reached Downsview Station, the end of the line. There we worked our way above ground and found the passenger pickup waiting area._
The inside of the passenger pickup area where we waited for Mom and Dad. Photo credit: Nathan Ng.
_Bright-eyed little Priya was a charm the whole way, and as we waited at Downsview for my parents to arrive to drive us to home in Parry Sound, all her innocent baby charm was poised to capture their hearts, too._
Photo of Priya during our Parry Sound visit.
_I’ll let Mom continue from here. But first, perhaps this is a good time to remind you that “travelled,” “traveller” and “centre” are perfectly proper spelling for a Canadian poet!_
* * *
**Ken and I met Priya Simone, our fourth grandchild, on January 22, 2009.** She was six weeks old when she and her parents visited us, and I wrote this poem after her return to her home in New York City.
I’m not sure what the genesis was for the style of this poem. I know little about jazz, and less about rap. Perhaps the rhythm was born of the turning of wheels, the tension and excitement from memories of subway rides in New York City, the relentless forward advance from the gritty determination to survive the wrenching separation from our newest grandchild after such a brief time together.
This was northern bush country grandmother meeting city granddaughter. Was I wondering if we could speak the same language, make the same music? But it was love at first sight.
I can still visualize the indoor park bench at Downsview Subway Station in Toronto, with tiny baby, wrapped against the winter cold, lying there so innocent and vulnerable, so out of place in an urban transit center filled with strangers, aloof and transient. She seemed to have been just dropped there out of nowhere, a gift to our world. With father and mother hovering nearby the image becomes in my mind a modern nativity, a babe in an unlikely place, of immense import to the two of us who had come to welcome her. With awe we peeked inside the blankets to gaze on our new little granddaughter, Priya. Then we all travelled north to celebrate a belated Christmas.
Christmas: to us a child is born. Christmas: the arrival of a child. Christmas: the journey to welcome, to worship, to open our hearts. Christmas: each baby born is a reminder, every journey an opportunity for pilgrimage, and every Christmas season another opportunity to worship.
—Elaine Gingrich, December 12, 2015
* * *
The outside of the passenger pickup area where Mom and Dad first saw Priya–on a much colder morning. Photo credit: Nathan Ng.
* * *
**DOWNSVIEW STATION JAZZ RAP
**To Priya (“Beloved”)
We met in Downsview station
When you visited our nation
From New York City on the overnight bus.
Parry Sound your destination
But Toronto the location
Where streets were gray and gritty when you first met us.
You slept like a pro on the overnight bus
Like a seasoned traveller who makes no fuss.
Child of the city, an urban daughter,
We met you at last, our third granddaughter.
Cradled on a bench in a subway shelter
You smiled contentedly in the chilly weather.
Downsview station
Parry Sound your destination
On the overnight bus
When you first met us.
In the chaos of commute, an island of repose,
I fell in love with you, from dark eyes to tiny toes,
The centre of our universe as travellers passed us by,
Unbelievably diminutive to hold our hopes so high.
Petite determination, tiny but so strong—
I ached to get acquainted and it didn’t take long.
You opened up your heart to us—so full of ready smiles
To grow a bond connecting us across the years and miles
With all the stunning impact of a little grandchild’s powers.
And all my mothering instincts rose to claim you—you are ours!
Downsview station
Petite determination
Making no fuss
When you first met us.
We headed up the highway to your family from away
To make the most of loving you, to count each precious day.
Child of New York City, but the north is in your veins.
Born south of the border, but the ancestry remains—
Looking like your daddy with your mommy’s eyes
Old baby photos demonstrate our family ties.
Through wonders of development and genealogy,
Genetics, procreation—God designed who you would be.
Jazz Loop: Downsview Downsview station
Overnight bus.
_Overnight bus_
Where you first met us.
_First met us_
From the overnight bus
At Downsview station
Where you first met us.
Downsview station is where we said goodbye
Only one week later–I thought my heart would die—
A visceral tug as your parents rushed away
Among their bags and luggage toting you—you could not stay.
Downsview Downsview station
And you make no fuss
Heading via subway
To the overnight bus.
Back to New York City
Where the streets are gray and gritty.
Petite determination
With no choice of destination.
It was Downsview station where we met,
It is Downsview station when I close my eyes.
I see it in twilight—an empty park bench set
In the vacant station where I heard your gurgled cries.
Downsview station
Where you left our nation
On an overnight bus
But I will not fuss.
—Elaine Gingrich, February 6, 2009
* * *
Mom and Dad saying bye to Priya before she begins her homeward journey by subway, overnight bus, and subway again, back to her home in NYC.
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/downsview-station-jazz-rap/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_. Thanks!_
* * *
**_I can’t resist adding a few more pictures_** _from Priya’s first visit to her northern grandparents._ _Here are some highlights._
Our Parry Sound destination–Mom and Dad’s house under a deep blanket of snow, with clouds above promising still more.
Mom holding Priya while receiving the news that another granddaughter had just been born–Priya’s cousin Megan. Big sisters Emily and Natalia share the wonder.
Mothers and babies: Chris with Megan (left) and Zonya with Priya (right).
And the dads: Me with my big brother Tim.
Taking Priya skating for the first time, in Parry Sound’s Bobby Orr Community Centre. Dad is pleased but needs to work on his posture.
Priya was a real natural on the ice.
Time for a chat with the coach. Pretty good game, eh?
Four generations: Priya, me, Mom, and Mom’s parents. We owe more than we can fathom to those who have gone before us.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Study Resources for John
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-11-29
Category: Study Resources for Bible Books
Meta Title: Study Resources for John • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here are some study resources for the Gospel according to John: an outline, commentaries, a theology of John's writings, and more.
Tags: D.A. | Carson, Gary | Burge, Andreas | Köstenberger, J. Ramsey | Michaels, John, Murray J. | Harris, Sunday School
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-john
**For those using the CLP Sunday School materials, our next quarter will be devoted to the study of the Gospel according to John.** This is a theologically-rich Gospel! If you take time to dig into some study resources, your time in John may be even more rewarding.
Our first task in understanding Scripture well, of course, is to “simply” prayerfully read and re-read the sacred text. I say “simply” because good reading is hard work! We could mangle metaphors and say that you read what you sow. For some generally-applicable reading tips, see my post on “[Study Resources for Hebrews](http://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-hebrews/).”
One way to get more out of your reading is to try to outline the text. This can be as easy as writing a headline for each chapter, or as detailed as you wish. **Here is the outline that I started creating for John** one of the last times we studied from it in Sunday School: [John – Outline of Gospel](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/John-Outline-of-Gospel.doc). It is incomplete, but covers most of the material we’ll be studying this time around. Perhaps it will help you see more of how John has organized his thoughts, and perhaps you can finish it. Notice how I am attempting to use key verses and key themes to help me see John’s purposes and patterns in writing.
**Two book resources that are accessible for all:**
* [Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Context](http://amzn.to/1RcxPt1), by Andreas Köstenberger. Don’t let the long title scare you. This is a very readable book! My wife pulled it from my shelf recently for use during her devotional reading, and commented how she liked it. It is written by an expert on John (I’ll be recommending several more books by Köstenberger), but it is very accessible, and full of charts, lists, and pictures. Perhaps my favorite feature of the book is its concordance of John’s Gospel, which records its key theological and literary terms (light, love, believe, etc.). The great thing about this concordance, besides the fact that it only covers John and thus is super-readable, is that it organizes related terms together. So, for example, all the various words dealing with light and darkness are grouped together thematically, so you can quickly scan for John’s key themes. And Greek words are even distinguished for those of us who want to trace John’s thought on that level.
* [John (NIV Application Commentary)](http://amzn.to/1RcyN8B), by Gary Burge. Köstenberger‘s book won’t answer your detailed verse-by-verse questions, as my wife also found during her devotional reading. So you may want a true commentary, such as this one by Burge. This one does not expect you to know any Greek, and it emphasizes both understanding and applying the text, so it is ideal for most Sunday School teachers.
**Moderately technical commentaries:**
* [John (Pillar NT Commentary)](http://amzn.to/1kYONyU), by D. A. Carson. This is the classic evangelical commentary on John. In fact, it is the highest-rated commentary on [bestcommentaries.com](http://bestcommentaries.com/john/) out of all commentaries on all books of the Bible! It is indeed good. That said, I can’t honestly say it is my favorite Bible commentary. Besides its undeniable high quality, several other factors help explain its high ranking: (a) It filled a gap in evangelical scholarship at the time, claiming unoccupied space by taking the best from Leon Morris’ earlier classic commentary and adding updated scholarship, (b) bestcommentaries.com has wonderfully comprehensive listings, but their rankings are quite dated, (c) the author Carson has become a super-star scholar within some Calvinistic circles.
* [John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT)](http://amzn.to/1QMxX37), by Andreas Köstenberger. I do not own this one, but reviews I’ve read suggest it is similar to Carson’s. Some prefer it over Carson because it summarizes scholarship that has come out since his volume (including Carson); others think Carson is still superior, just as some still prefer the old Morris! My thoughts? If you are looking to buy just one well-rounded volume to summarize recent scholarship, I’d choose this one.
* [John (New International Commentary on the NT)](http://amzn.to/1NBfWo0), by J. Ramsey Michaels. I do not own this one, either, but list it here because (a) it is even newer than Köstenberger, (b) Carson gives it “pride of place” in his most recent commentary survey, and (c) it is reported to be a contrasting work to those above, drawing on a different balance of historical commentaries and including the author’s own insights. I hear it is weak on historical background and strong on the literary study of the text itself. (If you want a commentary with lots of historical background and ancient literary parallels, see [Craig Keener’s two-volume work](http://amzn.to/1TeMS3L), which has enough Greco-Roman citations to assemble your own Roman legion. It has lots of information you won’t need, although I’ve found you can scan until you get to the relevant data. This shouldn’t be a first choice for most readers, however.)
**Additional helps:**
* [A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God (Biblical Theology of the New Testament)](http://amzn.to/1OnTE7Z), by Andreas Köstenberger. I do not own this, but it would be my first choice on the topic, given the expertise of the author. That said, if someone has a good non-Calvinist theology of John to recommend, I would like to hear it.
* [John (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament)](http://amzn.to/1OnTRrP), by Murray J. Harris. I don’t own this one, either, but I have found other works by Murray helpful. This brand-new volume would be my first choice for those who wish to wrestle with the Greek text.
**What other resources would you suggest for studying John? [Share them in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-john/#respond) May God bless your study of the Scriptures!**
* * *
Disclaimer: I am part of the Amazon affiliate program, so if you buy anything using the links above, I will earn pennies. Thank you!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Traitor Comes to the Table [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-11-18
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: A Traitor Comes to the Table | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: A Traitor Comes to the Table. It is my own betrayal of Christ that I acknowledge, and my own gratitude for His forgiving sacrifice that I celebrate.
Tags: forgiveness, sin, body of Christ, church unity, cross, life, Lord's Supper, -1 John 1:9, -Revelation 19:6-8, betrayal, gratitude, Judas
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/a-traitor-comes-to-the-table
_**Someday, we will feast in radiance at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6-8)!** Until then we often come to the table in clothes that are torn or stained. But we come hungry, nonetheless, needing the nourishment that is offered at the Lord’s Supper._
_When we come to the table with stained clothes, and surrounded by others who do not yet shine as they ought, our participation must be an act of repentance and faith. It brings sorrow as well as humble gratitude. These emotions are shared yet deeply personal. My mother expresses some of these emotions in the following poem._
_God bless you as you read—and as you eat of Christ’s flesh and drink of his blood. He can wash your garments anew as you partake of his feast (1 John 1:9)._
* * *
Before Jesus died, He prayed that we who believe in Him might all be one. He left us a memorial service with emblems that typify unity and oneness. But sadly his followers have experienced disunity and division for centuries. How do we approach His table when our local body is not experiencing the communion of heart that we long for or when members have been torn away from fellowship?
I have felt betrayed at times as part of the body of Christ. I have come to the Communion table with a broken heart. But it is good for me to remember the first Lord’s Supper and what happened that night. That was the night that Jesus was betrayed into the hands of sinners—betrayed all the way to the cross. It is His body that is broken again and again when His church on earth does not experience peace. And most personally—it is crucial for me to focus on the humbling truth that it was my sins that sent Jesus to the cross. Even if there had been no other sinners to be saved, my sins were great enough to demand a Calvary, and Jesus’ love was great enough that He would have died for love of me alone.
It is my own heart I examine as I approach the table. It is my own betrayal of Christ that I acknowledge, and my own gratitude for His forgiving sacrifice that I celebrate.
–Elaine Gingrich, November 13, 2015
* * *
**A TRAITOR COMES TO THE TABLE**
The very night He was betrayed
Our Lord took bread and wine–
These earthy emblems, common food,
Embodied the divine.
A perfect body, perfect life
Was given to be broken.
With longing He embraced the cross
Where His love would be spoken.
_The hand of him who will betray
Is with me on the table.
_He hands the bread to me to eat!
“Oh Lord, I am not able!”
_My_ sins betrayed the Holy One
To sacrificial death.
Forgiveness flowed from wounds and words
Until His dying breath.
A living bread, a bleeding bread.
_My flesh gives life to you.
_I, the betrayer, take and eat
And find His offer true.
—Elaine Gingrich, November 18, 2007, Communion Sunday
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/a-traitor-comes-to-the-table/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353320278-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## NIV Zondervan Study Bible (Review and Comparison with ESV Study Bible)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-11-16
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: NIV Zondervan Study Bible (Compared with ESV Study Bible) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The NIV Zondervan Study Bible is solidly evangelical and among the very best in its class. I am very happy to recommend it for your judicious use.
Tags: creation, D.A. | Carson, divorce and remarriage, -Genesis 2:18, nonresistance, -Matthew 5:31-32, Bible translations, sin, Douglas J. | Moo, homosexuality, grace, spiritual gifts, -1 Peter 1:1, -Romans 13:1-7, biblical theology, Wayne | Grudem, government, church and Israel, -1 Corinthians 12, -Galatians 6:16, election, Bill | Mounce, predestination, -1 Corinthians 11:2-16, -1 Corinthians 14:34-35, -1 Corinthians 16:2, -1 Corinthians 7:10-16, -1 John 2:19, -1 John 2:2, -1 Thessalonians 5:15, -1 Timothy 2:11-15, -1 Timothy 2:4, -1 Timothy 3:11, -2 Peter 3:9, -Acts 2:4, -Colossians 2:16-17, -Ephesians 1:3-5, -Ephesians 5:21-33, -Exodus 14, -Exodus 20:8-11, -Galatians 3:28, -Galatians 4:10, -Genesis 1-2, -Genesis 1:27, -Genesis 2:15-16, -Genesis 3:16, -Genesis 3:6, -Genesis 3:9, -Genesis 6-8, -Genesis 6:15, -Hebrews 3:14, -Hebrews 6:4-6, -Hebrews 7:25, -Matthew 19:1-12, -Matthew 24:29-51, -Matthew 24:4-28, -Matthew 5:38-48, -Revelation 1:10, -Romans 1:26-27, -Romans 11:26, -Romans 12:14-21, -Romans 14:5, -Romans 16:1, -Romans 3:24, -Romans 6:19, -Romans 7:13-25, -Romans 7:7-12, -Romans 8:29-30, -Romans 9:6-29, -Titus 2:11, Andrew David | Naselli, Covenant Theological Seminary, Denver Seminary, ESV Study Bible, eternal security, flood, foreknowledge, gender roles, Lord's Day, millennium, miracles, NIV Zondervan Study Bible, Richard S. | Hess, Sabbath, Sam | Storms, sanctification, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, study Bibles, T. Desmond | Alexander, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Wheaton College
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/niv-zondervan-study-bible-review-comparison-esv-study-bible
_NIV Zondervan Study Bible_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015). 2,880 p. [Publication announcement](http://andynaselli.com/announcing-the-niv-zondervan-study-bible) from ESV-loving Assistant Editor Andrew David Naselli. [Official website](http://nivzondervanstudybible.com/) with video and free sampler. (Amazon new price: $29.45 hardcover, $14.99 Kindle.)
**As someone who rarely uses study Bibles, I may not be the best person to review one.** But, since I got a free copy of the new NIV Zondervan Study Bible, here goes! Perhaps you will learn as much as I am learning as I write.
My approach in this review will be to compare the NIVZSB ([NIV Zondervan Study Bible](http://amzn.to/1OaX8Zw)) with the ESVSB ([ESV Study Bible](http://amzn.to/1HNRsp5)). I do this for three reasons:
* The ESVSB is probably the most highly-praised and widely-used scholarly study Bible among evangelicals today.
* The ESVSB probably holds similar prominence among my readers (though some prefer various KJV study Bibles).
* The ESVSB is the only other top-tier study Bible I own. (I own it on on Kindle; the NIVZSB I own in hardcover.)
These reasons make the ESVSB a good standard against which to measure the NIVZSB. If the latter reaches the stature of the former, it is certainly a general success.
**I’ll divide the rest of this review into three parts:**
* [Similarities with the ESV Study Bible](#similarities)
* [Differences from the ESV Study Bible](#differences)
* [Comparison of how they handle some controversial Scriptures](#controversial)
(You may also jump ahead to my [concluding observations](#concluding).)
[](http://amzn.to/1HNRe1a)
[
](http://amzn.to/1HNRe1a)
**Similarities with the ESV Study Bible**
**In short, the NIV now has a study Bible that is essentially equivalent in quality to the highly-praised ESV Study Bible.** Both are massive works—2752 pp. for the ESVSB and 2880 pp. for the NIVZSB, placing them first and second in length among major evangelical study Bibles. (If you think this review is long…) Both stand firmly within the conservative evangelical tradition. Both are scholarly works with general editors bearing PhDs from the University of Cambridge—Wayne Grudem for the ESVSB and D. A. Carson for the NIVZSB. My incomplete manual comparison of the contributors to the two study Bibles revealed at least 9 people who contributed to both, including major scholars such as John N. Oswalt, Andreas Köstenberger, Robert W. Yarbrough, and T. Desmond Alexander—who wrote the Genesis notes for the ESVSB and then served as an Associate Editor for Old Testament and Biblical Theology for the NIVZSB, writing multiple introductions and articles. (I think I found only one female contributor in my non-exhaustive survey—Karen H. Jobes, a well-known commentary author, writing in the NIVZSB.)
Given their shared evangelical roots, both study Bibles affirm traditional authorship for contested books such as the Pentateuch (Moses with minor editorial shaping), Isaiah (Isaiah), Daniel (Daniel), Matthew (the apostle Matthew), Ephesians (Paul), the Pastoral Epistles (Paul), 2 Peter (the apostle Peter), and 1-3 John (the apostle John). Similarly, Job was probably an historical person (though the speeches reflect literary composition) and Jonah really did ride in a great fish (though his story is told for didactic purposes).
There are even typographical similarities: both volumes print the sacred text in a single column on each page, with cross references along the outside margins, and with commentary in double columns beneath. (The NIVZSB shades the commentary notes to more clearly distinguish them from the biblical text.)
Indeed, _**these two study Bibles are similar enough that the main factor that should influence your choice between the two is your preference in translations.**_
I won’t get into the translation debate here, except to say that I use the ESV as my “home” translation and the NIV as one of my favorite comparison translations. A good understanding of the differing goals of each will help you put both to good and appropriate use. And yes, both are suitable for a study Bible.
(For more on translations: [See here for my advice](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/advice-bible-translations/) about Bible translations and [here for more comments](http://dwightgingrich.com/niv-turns-50-interview-douglas-moo/) about the NIV from me and from the chair of the NIV translation team. [See here for a brief explanation](http://thenicenenerd.com/2014/01/why-does-the-niv-leave-out-verses/) of why newer translations such as the NIV and ESV “omit” some verses and [see here for a defense](http://9marks.org/article/debunking-stupid-statements-about-the-bible/) of why you can still trust your Bible. By the way, Bill Mounce, who was the New Testament chair of the ESV translation, [also works on the NIV translation team](http://zondervanacademic.com/blog/a-personal-note-on-the-niv-2011-by-bill-mounce/), and [does not consider the NIV to be “liberal.”](https://billmounce.com/blog/niv-liberal) Here is [one example of where a strength of the NIV helped me](http://dwightgingrich.com/anyone-not-provide-for-his-relatives/) understand God’s word better. [Here is one passage](http://dwightgingrich.com/translation-choices-pastoral-concerns/) where I am less convinced they chose well.)
That said, there are some differences between these two study Bibles, and I’d like to focus on those differences next in this review.
[](http://amzn.to/1HNRsp5)
[
](http://amzn.to/1HNRsp5)
**Differences from the ESV Study Bible**
It is a bit difficult to compare a Kindle study Bible with a hardcover study Bible (though I’ve been also using Amazon preview for the ESVSB), but **it appears to me that the ESVSB is somewhat stronger than the NIVZSB in these areas:**
* Charts
* Maps
* Illustrations
* Historical information
* General apologetic or bibliological articles
The ESVSB, for example, has separate articles devoted to archeological topics, biblical languages, biblical doctrine, biblical ethics, and the perspectives that various denominations, religions, and cults bring to Scripture. [This infographic from Tim Challies](http://www.challies.com/visual-theology/7-great-study-bibles-infographic) affirms that the ESVSB has more charts and maps (although I think it is somewhat misleading when comparing the number of articles).
A comparison of the introductions to Exodus shows that the one in the ESVSB is slightly longer (six pages to the NIVZSB’s five), with more attention given to the historical reliability of the book and to its literary features. But both cover title, author, date, a content survey, theological themes, and connections to the NT (called “salvation history” in the ESVSB and “biblical-theological trajectories” in the NIVZSB). And both include extensive and exegetically-valid book outlines.
Similarly, the NIVZSB introduction for Galatians is three pages long, while the ESVSB’s covers four pages, providing a little more historical data, a superior map, and more space devoted to charts rather than photographs.
The differences, I stress, are differences of degree; the NIVZSB also includes excellent timelines, maps such as “Assyrian Campaigns Against Israel and Judah,” charts such as “The Eight Signs of John’s Gospel,” and lots of full-color illustrations. Its Exodus introduction includes a helpful chart comparing arguments for early and late dates for the exodus from Egypt. The similarities outweigh the differences, but I give the ESVSB the blue ribbon for visual helps and breadth of topics addressed in articles.
**The NIVZSB is stronger in at least one way: its emphasis on biblical theology.** This makes sense, given the editors of the two volumes: Wayne Grudem’s most significant authorial effort is his massive and massively popular _Systematic Theology_, while D. A. Carson is better known for both his commentaries and his editorial work in books such as the _Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament_ and the series _New Studies in Biblical Theology_.
I haven’t read enough of the book introductions and running commentary in either study Bible to get a complete sense on how these differences appear throughout. A partial comparison of the 1 John notes suggests the ESVSB makes a few more systematic theology deductions (for example, on 1 John 2:19 which speaks of those who “went out from us” it says, “this implies that those who are truly saved will never abandon Christ”), while the NIVZSB sticks more closely throughout with what the text may have meant to its first readers (for example, if often refers to the “secessionists” who threatened John’s readers).
In its discussion of doctrinally-controversial passages (see below), the ESVSB is likewise slightly quicker to focus on systematic theology or ethical deductions for readers today. This is not a bad thing, of course (unless you disagree with the deductions!), just a difference in emphasis.
_**The NIVZSB’s focus on biblical theology is most evident in the twenty-eight articles found before the concordance.**_ Most articles are two or three pages long; together they cover sixty-six pages. Since _these articles are the most unique part of this study Bible_, I will list them here, with their authors:
The Story of the Bible: How the Good News About Jesus Is Central _– Timothy Keller
_The Bible and Theology – _D. A. Carson
_A Biblical-Theological Overview of the Bible – _D. A. Carson
_The Glory of God – _James M. Hamilton Jr.
_Creation – _Henri A. G. Blocher
_Sin – _Kevin DeYoung
_Covenant _– Paul R. Williamson_Law _– T. D. Alexander_Temple _– T. D. Alexander_Priest _– Dana M. Harris_Sacrifice _– Jay A. Sklar_Exile and Exodus _– Thomas Richard Wood_The Kingdom of God _– T. D. Alexander_Sonship _– D. A. Carson_The City of God _– T. D. Alexander_Prophets and Prophecy _– Sam Storms_Death and Resurrection _– Philip S. Johnston_People of God _– Mois__és Silva
_Wisdom _– Daniel J. Estes_Holiness _– Andrew David Naselli_Justice _– Brian S. Rosner_Wrath _– Christopher W. Morgan_Love and Grace _– Graham A. Cole_The Gospel _– Greg D. Gilbert_Worship _– David G. Peterson_Mission _– Andreas J. Köstenberger_Shalom _– Timothy Keller_The Consummation _– Douglas J. Moo_
Carson describes the goal of these articles in the Editor’s Preface:
> We have tried to highlight the way various themes develop within the Bible across time… taking us to their climax in the book of Revelation… In this way we hope to encourage readers of the Bible to spot these themes for themselves as they read their Bibles, becoming adept at tracing them throughout the Scriptures. Such biblical theology enables readers to follow the Bible’s themes in the terms and categories that the Bible itself uses. (p. xxiii)
Some of these categories (see the article titles above) mirror categories common to systematic theology, such as harmartiology (study of sin) or eschatology (study of the end times). Others cover similar ground but focus more on how themes unfold across time and different covenants, such as “People of God” versus ecclesiology (study of the church). Still others are unlikely to receive any meaningful treatment in traditional systematic theologies, such as “Exile and Exodus.” (And of course, some traditional systematic theology topics such as angelology are missing here.)
_**While I disagree with minor points in some of these articles, I find myself agreeing with a much higher percentage of what is said here than with what is said in most systematic theologies.**_ That is the benefit of staying closer to the language of Scripture itself. Most of these articles are very useful and some (such as Keller’s opening one) are even moving. I have a niggling question about the place of such essays in a study Bible (how many readers will really find and benefit from this content in their specific moments of exegetical need?), but reading them can certainly make one a better reader of Scripture.
**In sum**, though the ESVSB and the NIVZSB have similar depth and quality of study notes throughout, the ESVSB has the edge regarding visual helps and breadth of topics in its extra articles, and the NIVZSB has the edge if you wish to think in the patterns of biblical theology.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/bible-battle-eatliver.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/bible-battle-eatliver.jpg)
**Handling of Controversial Scriptures**
The most important factor in a study Bible is how it interprets the sacred text. A study Bible, like a preacher, can draw out the truth and beauty of God’s word with humility and boldness, or else it can hide the text behind an arrogant cloud of human opinions and qualifications. So, how well does the NIVZSB do? And how does it stack up against the ESVSB?
The subtitle of the NIVZSB is _Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message_. I think it lives up to this title. **On the central matters of the gospel, this study Bible is solid.** For example, read the following excerpts from Douglas Moo’s study notes on Romans. (Moo is, significantly, both the head of the NIV translation team and Associate Editor of New Testament and Biblical Theology for the NIVSB.) First, from a study note on Romans 3:24:
> “Grace” is a thread that runs throughout Romans. The display of God’s grace in the gospel is rooted in the character of God himself. As 4:4-5 makes clear, no human can ever make a claim on God because of anything they have done (11:5-6). A holy God can never be indebted to his creatures. Whatever he gives us, therefore, he gives “freely” and without compulsion (4:16). Not only is grace needed at the beginning of the Christian life, but believers “stand” in grace (5:2): we live in the realm in which grace “reign\[s\]” (5:21; see 5:15, 17, 20). (p. 2297)
If Moo stopped right there, I would fault him for teaching a wonderful half-truth. But this is the very next sentence:
> That reign of grace, Paul hastens to clarify, does not absolve us of the need to live righteously before God; rather, it gives us the power to do so (6:1, 14-15, 17). (p. 2297)
Later, commenting on Romans 6:19, Moo speaks even more forcefully:
> God himself sanctifies all those who believe in Jesus: they become “holy,” or “saints,” members of God’s own people (e.g., 1:7). But sanctification is also a process of becoming increasingly obedient to the will of God (1 Thess 4:3); believers need to engage in this lifelong pursuit of holiness if they expect to enjoy eternal life (v. 22; see Heb 12:14: “without holiness no one will see the Lord”). (p. 2303)
So the NIVZSB promotes the core gospel message well, along with the necessary human response to God’s grace. And, though it is generally Calvinistic throughout, it does not emphasize this interpretive lens in a way that overshadows the biblical message itself. Well done.
**But how does the NIVZSB handle more controversial passages—texts which theologically conservative Christians sometimes disagree about?** And how does it compare to the ESVSB in its handling of these texts?
Here are some examples for your review, arranged topically:
* **[Creation](#creation)**
* **[The Flood and Miracles](#flood)**
* **[Divorce and Remarriage](#divorce)**
* [**Homosexuality**](#homo)
* [**Gender Roles**](#gender)
* **[Nonresistance and Relationship to Government](#non)**
* **[Spiritual Gifts](#spiritual)**
* **[Foreknowledge, Predestination, Election](#fore)**
* **[Eternal Security](#eternal)**
* [**The Christian’s Struggle with Sin**](#sin)
* **[Sabbath and Lord’s Day](#sabbath)**
* **[Israel and the Church](#israel)**
* **[The Olivet Discourse](#olivet)**
**Creation:** These study Bibles hold similar positions on **Genesis 1-2**: (1) The ESVSB presents five readings that “faithful interpreters” offer regarding the days of creation (“calendar day,” “day-age,” “analogical days,” “literary framework,” and “gap theory”) but refrains from assessing them. The NIVZSB says the mention of “days” “emphasizes the logical development of God’s creation more than it pinpoints the chronological development” (p. 20). (2) The ESVSB says the word “kinds” does not correspond to our modern term “species” but could refer to a “more general taxonomic group.” The NIVZSB suggests (based on Ezek. 47:10) that “kinds” “does not emphasize limitation of each life form to its specific species but emphasizes the diversity of each general life form” (p. 20). (3) Both affirm that Adam and Eve were historical persons. There are no surprises here for either study Bible; both are taking currently-accepted “conservative” positions on creation, like it or not.
**The Flood and Miracles:** Both agree that the flood (**Genesis 6-8**) was “a real event” (ESVSB). The NIVZSB says that “a natural reading suggests a global flood, and some find this in 2 Pet 2:5; 3:6. The reference \[‘all the high mountains… were covered’\] may also imply a regional flood (nevertheless possessing tremendous severity) with impact affecting the whole human race, who may have remained in one area (Gen 11:1-9). In 41:57, ‘all the world’ refers to the eastern Mediterranean lands, so in chs. 6-8 the flood may have covered only the part of the earth where people lived.” At 6:15 we read, “estimates suggest that all the land animals could be accommodated in the ark with more than half of it remaining for other uses” (p. 37). The ESVSB makes no mention of the ark’s size, but likewise posits that “it is possible that the flood, while universal from \[the\] viewpoint \[of ancient people\], did not cover the entire globe.”
It is important to note, given this uncertainty about the extent of the flood, that the editors of the NIVZSB (and ESVSB) are not motivated by an anti-supernatural, anti-miraculous bias. For example, the NIVZSB says this of the Red (or “Reed”) Sea: “Whatever its exact location, it was a significant body of water—large (and deep) enough to drown the Egyptian army” (p. 136). It speaks even more clearly at **Exodus 14**: “As with the series of wonders in Egypt, naturalistic explanations of this event inevitably undermine its theological significance. Whatever ‘natural’ elements the Lord may have employed (as ‘a strong east wind’ blowing all night might imply), the timing of this phenomenon, as well as its depiction both here and elsewhere…, suggests that it was a supernatural display of the Lord’s ‘mighty hand’ (14:31). As such, this was not a purely natural event, however unusual. Rather, God’s ability to control this large body of water, like later similar events (e.g., Josh 3:14-17; 2Kgs 2:8,14), demonstrates his lordship over creation. Such lordship is likewise reflected when Jesus calmed the storm and demonstrated that ‘even the winds and the water… obey him’ (Luke 8:25)” (pp. 143-44).
**Divorce and Remarriage:** Both study Bibles hold similar positions on **Matthew 5:31-32** and **Matthew 19:1-12**, underscoring that “Jesus is reaffirming God’s original intention that marriage be permanent and lifelong” (NIVZSB, p. 1970). They teach that both divorce and remarriage are “possible but never ideal” (NIVZSB, p. 1969) in cases where one marriage partner engages in “sexual immorality” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9, both NIV and ESV). It seems that the NIVZSB may interpret “sexual immorality” slightly more broadly, saying that the Greek term “_porneia_ \[is\] the broadest term for sexual sin. It refers to sexual relations with any other person besides one’s monogamous heterosexual spouse” (p. 1939). The ESVSB, rather than speaking of “sexual _relations_,” specifies “sexual _intercourse_,” possibly a narrower term, giving as examples adultery, prostitution, incest, fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality.
On the other hand, the NIVZSB takes a more rigid stance on **1 Corinthians 7:10-16**. On verse 11 it notes, “There are only two options for a divorced woman: (1) remain unmarried or (2) reconcile with her husband.” It acknowledges regarding verse 15 (“but if the unbeliever leaves… the brother or sister is not bound in such circumstances”) that “it is often suggested that this allows a deserted Christian spouse to remarry” but states that “this interpretation is not plausible,” listing four reasons. The ESVSB, while acknowledging this interpretation as possible, says that “the majority of interpreters now think that the phrase also implies the freedom to obtain a legal divorce (if that has not already happened) and the freedom to marry someone else.”
An additional difference between these two Bibles on this topic is that the ESVSB contains a lengthy discussion about divorce and remarriage in an essay called “Biblical Ethics: An Overview.” Here it attempts to synthesize the full biblical evidence—something the NIVZSB never does.
**Homosexuality:** Both study Bibles state clearly that homosexual relations are sinful. An NIVZSB comment on **Romans 1:26-27** succinctly states that “in making humans \[sic!\] beings male and female…, God manifests his intention for human sexual relations” (p. 2293). (See also the specification about “heterosexual spouse” in the note on Matthew 5 above, as well as [this article which shows that the updated NIV aims to speak even more clearly against homosexuality](http://www.christianpost.com/news/latest-niv-bible-translation-clearer-on-homosexual-sins-says-theologian-66393/) than the 1984 edition did.)
**Gender Roles:** It will surprise some readers to learn that the NIVZSB takes nearly the same stance on gender roles as the ESVSB does. If the NIV has a liberal agenda of actively undermining gender difference, as some claim (including some ESV promoters), then the editors of this study Bible missed the memo. _I will trace the evidence in some detail, since this topic is of special concern to those uncertain about the NIV._
In **1 Corinthians 11:2-16** both study Bibles agree that the passage is discussing husbands and wives, not men and women generally; both assume Paul is advocating a veil, not merely hair; both assert that “a wife’s respect for her husband… is expressed in different ways in different cultures” (NIVZSB, p. 2346); and both agree that “creational differences between men and women, husbands and wives… continue to have validity since they come from God” (NIVZSB, ibid.). The study Bibles do differ in presentation: The ESVSB lists other interpretive possibilities besides a veil for what was to cover a woman’s head; it suggest modern cultural equivalents for a veil; and it uses the language of “headship” and “authority” to describe leadership role of husbands. The NIVZSB, in contrast, uses the equivalent but less embattled language of “preeminent status.”
In **Ephesians 5:21-33**, both study Bibles agree that “submitting to one another” (v. 21) does not advocate an egalitarian mutual submission but rather introduces the wife’s responsibility to submit to her husband (the NIVZSB calls this interpretation “more likely,” p. 2408). While the NIVZSB notes that “submit” is “frequently synonymous with ‘obey,'” it clarifies that “submission to another human is conditioned on the submission that one ultimately owes to God (p. 2408); the ESVSB that clarifies that “the submission of wives is not like the obedience children owe parents.” The NIVZSB says that “submission recognizes a divinely ordered set of relationships” (p. 2408) and the ESVSB says that “just as Christ’s position as **head of the church** and **its Savior** does not vary from culture to culture, neither does the headship of a husband in relation to his wife and her duty to submit to her husband” (bold in original). Both affirm that the Greek word translated “head” here and in 1 Corinthians “generally implies authority” (NIVZSB, p. 2401), though the ESVSB presents this assertion more strongly and with more evidence.
Both study Bibles agree that in **1 Corinthians 14:34-35** “Paul is not issuing a general command for women to be silent” (NIVZSB, p. 2353, citing 1 Cor. 11). Rather, “Paul is likely forbidding women to speak up and judge prophecies… since such an activity would subvert male headship” (ESVSB). The NIVZSB does seem to read the prohibition a little more narrowly, as directed to wives rather than women in general, but cites valid textual evidence for this interpretation: “Paul is addressing married women (v. 35) who might want to be involved in the evaluation of their husband’s prophecy or who disrupt the service by speaking with their husbands” (p. 2353). (Incidentally, I’ve wondered why the ESV translates γυνὴ as “wife” in 1 Corinthians 11 but as “woman” here. The NET Bible notes suggest that there should be consistency, and that “in passages governing conduct in church meetings like this \[cf. 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1Tim 2:9-15\] the general meaning ‘women’ is more likely”—thus agreeing with the NIV text but not the NIVZSB notes!)
Similarly, both study Bibles interpret **1 Timothy 2:11-15** to be giving instruction only for the gathered church setting. The NIVZSB presents “three general approaches” to these verses: (1) Paul is patriarchal and wrong; (2) Our understandings or circumstances are different from Paul’s, so his once-valid teaching no longer applies; (3) “Most Christians through almost all of church history, have understood Paul’s teaching to be that in general men are called to certain leadership responsibilities in the church that women under most circumstances are not.” It then specifies that “the following study notes are most consistent with view 3” (p. 2462). Later it clarifies that women were allowed to pray and prophesy (1 Cor. 11:5), that “quiet” applies to men as well as women in some circumstances (1 Tim. 2:2), that “it seems reasonable to assume women sang (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; Jas 5:13),” but that “there are no clear examples in the NT of women serving as overseers (3:1) in apostolic churches,” a fact consistent with “the universal policy in early Christian generations and beyond” (ibid.). The ESVSB agrees, arguing even more strongly. The ESVSB argues that “teach” and “exercise authority” are “two different activities” (meaning that _all_ teaching is prohibited, not just “authoritative teaching”). The NIVZSB, in contrast, says “Paul is not thinking of two separate, unrelated activities.” Thus they both agree that Paul is referring to the role of overseers, who exercise authority as they teach, while the ESVSB leaves the prohibition broader, excluding women from _any_ act of teaching “Scripture and/or Christian doctrine to men in church.” Thus both study Bibles reserve the overseer (or elder/pastor) role for men.
And both Bibles are uncertain regarding the role of deacon. In **1 Timothy 3:11** the ESVSB leans toward women as either “deacons or assistants” (contra the ESV text which sees them as deacon’s _wives_), while the NIVZSB suggests “it is less likely that v. 11 refers to a separate order of women deacons” (p. 2464). In Romans 16:1, however, the study Bibles exchange stances: the ESVSB says “scholars debate” whether Phoebe is a “servant” or a “deacon,” while the NIVZSB concludes that since she is called “a _diakonos_ ‘of the church,'” this “suggests that she holds some kind of official position” (p. 2321).
_In all the gender texts I’ve surveyed thus far, the NIVZSB and ESVSB adopt nearly the same position_—gender role difference in marriage and church are timeless principles, men are called to authoritative and loving leadership in home and church while women are called to submit, and women may not be overseers but may perhaps be (non-teaching) deacons. The NIVZSB does apparently leave the door open for women to teach men in non-authoritative positions in the church, but otherwise the differences between the study Bibles are differences of tone more than position, with the ESVSB giving a more rigorous defense of the position shared by both.
The differences between how the ESVSB and the NIVZSB approach gender roles may perhaps be seen most strongly in the study notes on **Genesis 1-3**. Here the ESVSB notes that while the image of God applies to both males and females (Gen. 1:27), the fact that the command to care for the garden (Gen. 2:15-16) was given to Adam “implies that God gave ‘the man’ a leadership role… a role that is also related to the leadership responsibility of Adam for Eve as his wife.” It specifies that God’s words “**I will make him** can also be translated ‘I will make _for_ him'” (Gen. 2:18, bold in original), thus explaining Paul’s statement that God made woman for the man, and not the other way around (1 Cor. 11:9). It clarifies that “‘fit for him’… is not the same as ‘like him’: a wife is not her husband’s clone but complements him.” It says Adam’s taking of the fruit (Gen. 3:6) was “a failure to carry out his divinely ordered responsibility” to guard and keep the woman. It notes that God confronts Adam first (Gen. 3:9), thus “holding him primarily responsible for what happened, as the one who is the representative (or ‘head’) of the husband-and-wife relationship.” It describes how “the leadership role of the husband and the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall… \[were\] deeply damaged and distorted by sin” (Gen. 3:16). In other words, the ESVSB reads Genesis 1-3 with an eye open for every detail that supports traditional gender roles.
The NIVZSB does not disagree with any of these ESVSB comments. (For example, it certainly does not suggest that gender role difference is a result of the fall.) But the only one it actually states (by implication) is the first one: that “the whole human race” bear God’s image, not merely males (p. 27). It does note that “the man is addressed first” by God, but does not draw any theological deductions from that bare observation. When it describes the results of the fall on husband-wife relationships, it simply frames it as “a breakdown in the original harmonious relationship between the man and the woman,” without any word of the gender roles that initially helped frame that harmony (p. 31). Its notes are focused primarily on other matters.
Similarly, at Galatians 3:28 only the ESVSB clarifies that “**there is no male or female** does not imply that there are no distinctions in how these groups should act” (bold in original); the NIVZSB simply vaguely states that “distinctions based on… gender characterize life in the old age” (p. 2389).
**_In summary, on gender roles these two study Bibles take nearly the same positions._** Those who want a somewhat more rigorous defense of traditional gender role difference will probably prefer the ESVSB, but find little to fault in the NIVZSB.
**Nonresistance and Relationship to Government:** On **Matthew 5:38-48** the NIVZSB says that “Jesus is prohibiting retaliation for wrongs experienced.” It explains that a slap on the cheek is “a common Jewish insult by a superior to a subordinate, not an aggressor’s blow.” (p. 1939). This brief interpretation leaves the door open for Christians to use force, even deadly force, in other circumstances, though it may be significant that the NIVZSB does not explicitly state this. The ESVSB, on the other hand, presents this interpretive position much more clearly: “Jesus is not prohibiting the use of force by governments, police, or soldiers when combating evil… One should not return an insulting slap, which would lead to escalating violence. In the case of a more serious assault, Jesus’ words should not be taken to prohibit self-defense…, for often a failure to resist a violent attack leads to even more serious abuse.”
At **1 Thessalonians 5:15** the NIVZSB makes a brief mention of “the principle of non-retaliation” (p. 2446) and at **Romans 12:14-21** it rather softly says that “believers should feel no compulsion to right all wrongs themselves” (p. 2316). On the latter passage the ESVSB, in contrast, claims that “overcoming **evil with good**… may sometimes also include the ‘good’ (13:4) of the civil government stopping evil through the use of superior force (military or police), as Paul explains in 13:3-4″ (bold in original). (This is an unsubstantiated interpretation on two counts: it blurs the “you” of chapter 12 with the “they” of chapter 13, which doesn’t command Christians to engage in government activity, and it leaps from the police action described in chapter 13 to also affirm military action.) Thus, while neither study Bible affirms anything near an Anabaptist understanding of non-resistance, the ESVSB more strongly and repeatedly disagrees with it.
At **Romans 13:1-7** the NIVZSB says that “believers must recognize the place of government in God’s providential ordering of the world.” It correctly makes no mention of military action, saying that “government has the right to use force to punish wrongdoing.” Somewhat surprisingly, given the context, it adds this: “whether this force includes capital punishment is debated” (p. 2316). The ESVSB speaks of the “responsibility” rather than “right” of the government to punish evil—a stronger word. Similarly, it says “the reference to the sword most likely refers to the penalty of capital punishment.” And, consistent with its comments on Matthew, it says that “even though Christians must not take personal revenge…, it is right for them to turn punishment over to the civil authorities.”
**Spiritual Gifts:** I haven’t found any clear statement where the NIVZSB strongly affirms whether or not the “miraculous” spiritual gifts continue to this day. This is remarkable, given that Sam Storms, [a strong continuationist](http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-am-a-continuationist), was chosen to author an essay on “Prophets and Prophecy.” In this article he gives reasons why some say “yeah” and some “nay,” but only vaguely hints at his own position by some present-tense references to prophecy in the remainder of his essay. A note at Acts 2:4 says that “the Spirit comes in a variety of ways, sometimes accompanied by speaking in tongues… and sometimes not” (p. 2218). The notes on 1 Corinthians 12 seem designed to studiously avoid any controversial questions of present-day application, sticking with general statements like “Christians have different gifts, no one has all gifts, and no gift has been given to all” (p. 2349). The ESVSB is more forthright but adopts a similar stance in its comments on this chapter: “Bible-believing Christians disagree as to whether the gift of tongues ceased after the apostolic age of the early church, or whether tongues is a spiritual gift that should continue to be practiced today. In either case, there is no indication that speaking in tongues is a normative requirement that all Christians must experience.” Clearly, both Bibles are aiming to avoid a fight over this volatile topic.
**Foreknowledge, Predestination, Election:** At **Romans 8:29-30** the NIVZSB gives two possible explanations for God’s foreknowledge: “Perhaps ‘knew ahead of time’…: God ‘foreknew’ who would believe in him and so predestined them. But ‘know’ probably has the biblical sense of ‘enter into relationship with’…: God chose to initiate a relationship with people ‘before the creation of the world’… and on that basis ‘predestined’ them” (p. 2307). The ESVSB only presents the second option, and emphasizes that “predestined” means “predetermined” and that God’s calling is “effective,” not merely an invitation.
The NIVZSB says **Romans 9:6-29** could refer to national election, but “more likely” refers to “personal election.” While “Paul does not intend to deny human responsibility… God’s sovereignty over all things, including salvation and eternal judgment, is a foundational theme of the Bible” (p. 2309-10). The ESVSB is less equivocal: “Christians can be assured, therefore, that God’s promise will be fulfilled because it depends solely upon his will”; and God “remains just in not choosing everyone” for salvation.
At **Ephesians 1:3-5** the NIVZSB speaks strongly: “Since this divine election of believers occurred ‘before the creation of the world’ (v. 4), it is based solely on God’s gracious decision and not on any human merit.” A list of over a dozen references follows, along with a clarification that “predestined” means “predetermined” (pp. 2399-2400). The ESVSB strongly agrees, adding the idea that God’s will is “inexorable” (unstoppable).
There are too many verses related to this topic to survey them properly, but here are a few more: The NIVZSB makes no mention of the “all” in **Titus 2:11**, while the ESVSB says “it means… that salvation has been offered to all people (including all ethnic groups), not just to some.” The NIVZSB says that the “anyone” in **2 Peter 3:9** means “either (1) all humans without exception or (2) Peter’s readers, Christians… whom the false teachers influenced. If the first, then some view this as an example of what God desires as distinct from what God decrees” (p. 2556). Here a ESVSB note directs us to **1 Timothy 2:4**, where it has a lengthy note that describes both Arminian and Calvinist interpretations without taking sides (surprise!), ending thus: “However one understands the extent of the atonement, this passage clearly teaches the free and universal offer of salvation to every single human being; ‘desires’ shows that this offer is a bona fide expression of God’s good will.” On this Timothy verse the NIVZSB suggests that “all people” “may mean ‘all kinds of people'” and that “what God ‘wants’ may be hindered by lack of human faith.” This last statement opens the door to non-Calvinistic interpretations (but does not demand them), as does the NIVZSB note on **1 John 2:2**. This note suggests that “perhaps we may say Jesus’ death was sufficient to deal with the sins of the whole world, but it becomes effective only when people believe.” Similarly, the ESVSB here says that “Jesus’ sacrifice is offered and made available to everyone in ‘the whole world.'”
This extremely limited survey suggests that the NIVZSB and the ESVSB are both similarly Calvinistic regarding God’s choice and offer of salvation, but with occasional surprising flexibility.
**Eternal Security:** At **Hebrews 6:4-6** the NIVZSB notes the “great difficulties for interpretation,” describes several common interpretations, and finally concludes that “those who do not hold on to faith in Christ show that their experience was superficial rather than genuine” (p. 2503). The ESVSB directs us to a note at **Hebrews 3:14**, which says “Scripture is clear… that true believers cannot lose their salvation.” On this verse the NIVZSB similarly asserts that “holding firmly to faith in God… despite day-by-day struggles does not _qualify_ us for this status \[of sharing in Christ\] now or in the future; it _reflects_ a status already gained. So this verse is not so much exhorting or admonishing (i.e., ‘we must endure in faith or we will not share in Christ’) as it is defining (i.e., ‘those who have come to share in Christ are the ones who will endure in faith’)” (p. 2499). Again, at **Hebrews 7:25** the NIVZSB argues that the fact that Jesus “always lives to intercede for” believers “precludes their turning back” (p. 2507).
But such statements are relatively rare in the NIVZSB. At **1 John 2:19** the NIVZSB makes no clear theological deductions, while the ESVSB states that “this implies that those who are truly saved will never abandon Christ.” The ESVSB makes similar statements at **John 6:40**, **John 10:28**, **2Peter 1:10**, and **Jude 1:2**—all places where the NIVZSB makes no clear assertions about whether believers can ever lose their salvation.
**The Christian’s Struggle with Sin:** At **Romans 7:7-12** the NIVZSB suggests that Paul is describing his pre-Christian state, but also viewing “his solidarity” with both Adam and Israel. At **Romans 7:13-25**, it notes two common interpretations: Paul may be describing (1) his current experience as a Christian, or (2) his past experience as a Jew (again, in solidarity with Adam and Israel). No preference is given. The ESVSB presents two similar interpretations: “(1) unregenerate people who try to keep the law, or (2) believers who, despite being regenerated, find themselves still beset by sinful desires.” It discusses these options at some length, stating that “although good arguments are given by both sides, the most widely held view—beginning especially with Augustine and reaffirmed in the Reformation—is that Paul’s primary reference is to _believers_.” (For what it’s worth, I disagree quite strongly with the Augustinian/Reformational/ESVSB reading of this passage.)
**Sabbath and Lord’s Day:** These study Bibles take a similar stance on this topic. At **Exodus 20:8-11** the ESVSB makes no Christian application, while the NIVZSB mentions that the Sabbath “anticipates the experience of rest through faith in Christ” (p. 155). At **Colossians 2:16-17** the ESVSB says “it is debated whether the Sabbaths in question included the regular seventh-day rest of the fourth commandment, or were only the special Sabbaths of the Jewish festal calendar” while the NIVZSB does not discuss Sabbaths. At **Galatians 4:10** the ESVSB repeats its uncertainty with the addition that some “believe that the weekly Sabbath command is not temporary but goes back to God’s pattern in creation.” The NIVZSB whispers (with dramatically different tone than Paul!) that “treating certain times as more sacred than others… is not an essential feature of Christian faith” (p. 2390). At **Romans 14:5** the ESVSB declares that “unlike the other nine commandments in Ex. 20:1-17, the Sabbath commandment seems to have been part of the ‘ceremonial laws’ of the Mosaic covenant…, all of which are no longer binding on new covenant believers.” The NIVZSB simply affirms that the Sabbath is “probably” among the days Paul is describing as optional (p. 2318).
Regarding the Lord’s Day, at **1 Corinthians 16:2** the ESVSB describes that Christians gathered for worship on Sunday, not Saturday, while the NIVZSB adds that the Lord’s Day also refers to the first day of the week and that “Christian teachers at the end of the first century confirm the practice of Christians meeting on Sundays” (p. 2256). At **Revelation 1:10** the ESVSB confirms the Lord’s Day/Sunday equation and the NIVZSB again looks to history, saying that “the majority of Christ’s followers see this passage as evidence that already in the first century this day was set aside for worship and fellowship” (p. 2589).
Thus, unlike the ESVSB, the NIVZSB apparently never suggests the Sabbath command may still apply. However, it seems a little more open to seeing Sunday worship as being normative. (For my understanding of this topic—which is a good test case for how Christians read the OT—[see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-flat-bibles-and-sabbath/).)
**Israel and the Church:** The NIVZSB is inconsistent on this topic. The “Exile and Exodus” article presents one perspective strongly: “As the only perfectly obedient Israelite (Heb 4:15; 5:8)—a faithful remnant of one—Jesus (not the unbelieving nation) is the sole heir of all of the covenantal promises made to Abraham, Israel, and David (Heb 1:2; cf. Matt 21:38; 28:18; Acts 2:29-33). Life everlasting, a land flowing with milk and honey, a posterity as numerous as the stars, a perpetual reign over all creation, and uninhibited access to the Father’s presence all belong exclusively to him. Others could join this new exodus and become joint heirs with Abraham’s ‘seed’ (Gal 3:16-20, 29), but not without embracing him as their Savior and Messiah (Acts 3:22-26; Rom 8:17; Gal 3:26-4:7; Eph 2:11-13; 3:6)” (p. 2661). (Here I say a hearty Amen!) Similarly, the article “People of God” says that “by choosing 12 apostles (Luke 6:13), Jesus reconstitutes the people of God. But this newly formed nation is no longer identified with a political entity or an ethnic group… Abraham’s true descendants, to whom God made the promise, consist of those who follow in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith” (p. 2673).
Again, a note at **1 Peter 1:1** says that Peter “implicitly claims that the church of Jesus Christ is the new Israel, made up of both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ” (p. 2539). (For other affirmations of this position, see also **Jer. 30:3**, p. 1524; **Jer. 33:22**, p. 1534; **Ez. 40-48**, p. 1598; **James 1:1**, p. 2524.)
On the other hand, the article “Mission” says that Paul “taught that a future remains for ethnic Israel in God’s redemptive purposes (Rom 9-11)” (p. 2692). In the introduction to Revelation, one of the multiple interpretive approaches that is described (without criticism) asserts that “after the tribulation, God will fulfill his promises to bless Israel during a one-thousand-year period that does not directly pertain to the church” (p. 2584). (For other passages that present this kind of interpretation as at least one legitimate possibility, see also **Jer. 31:3**3, p. 1530; **Ez. 40:1**, p. 1672; **Amos 9:11**, p. 1783; **Rev. 11:1**, p. 2604; **Rev. 20:9**, p. 2622.)
The ESVSB shows similar diversity. On **1 Peter 1:1** it is even stronger than the NIVZSB: “Peter explicitly \[rather than ‘implicitly’\] teaches that the church of Jesus Christ is the new Israel.” (For a similar strong statement see **James 1:1**. ) However, at other places the ESVSB presents a future role for an ethnic Israel as a legitimate interpretative approach. For example, under “Millennial Views” in the introduction to Revelation, it says “many premillennialists, …believe that OT prophecies of Israel’s restoration to fidelity and to political and material blessedness will be fulfilled in this millennial kingdom.” (See also **Jer. 31:31-34**; **Amos 9:15**; **Ez. 40:1-48:35**; **Rev. 11:1-2**.)
Both study Bibles refrain from taking a position at **Galatians 6:16** as to whether “Israel of God” refers to the whole church or to Jews only. But at **Romans 11:26** they differ slightly, in a way that reflects where they each most often land on this topic. The NIVZSB simply lists interpretive options: “all Israel” could refer to (1) the church, both Jew and Gentile, (2) elect Jews throughout history, or (3) a significant number of Jews at the end of history. The ESVSB describes the same three options, but then concludes that the third view “seems most likely.” (For what it is worth, I am convinced the second view fits the evidence best.)
**The Olivet Discourse:** The NIVZSB sees **Matthew 24:4-28** as describing “what must happen in the generation in which \[Jesus\] and his disciples are living” (p. 1982). Thus evidence is given for how all the prophecies in this section (including the gospel being preached in the whole world and the great tribulation) were fulfilled prior to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. **Matthew 24:29-51**, we are told, “describe\[s\] the return of Christ” (p. 1983). The ESVSB, in contrast, says that “the near event (the destruction of Jerusalem) serves as a symbol and foreshadowing of the more distant event (the second coming).” While both prophetic horizons are mentioned in the ongoing notes, verses 4 to 31 are primarily interpreted as providing “a generally chronological description of events preceding Christ’s return,” and some prophecies (including the great tribulation!) are specifically stated as _not_ having been fulfilled prior to AD 70.
This difference, perhaps coincidentally, is consistent with how the NIVZSB is usually a little more focused on what the text _meant_ to its original audience while the ESVSB spends a little more time elaborating what the text might _mean_ for Christians today. (For what it is worth, I think the NIVZSB is definitely right to focus on an AD 70 fulfilment in the early part of the chapter, while the ESVSB may also be right to read that event as a foreshadowing of Christ’s final return.)
**I think most conservative Anabaptists will find the NIVZSB slightly more agreeable on the topics of nonresistance and eternal security, while slightly preferring the ESVSB on gender roles.** Most won’t be particularly happy with either study Bible on the topics of creation, divorce and remarriage, or predestination, and they will be as divided among themselves as both study Bibles are internally on the topic of Israel and the church. (Please note that I am not weighing doctrinal accuracy here, just drawing observations about doctrinal allegiances.)
(Bibliographic note: I have not provided ESVSB page citations in this review because I am focusing on the NIVZSB, I have only a Kindle ESVSB, and I wanted to reduce clutter. But most quotes can easily be traced by looking at the relevant Bible references or—in just a few cases—book introductions.)
**Concluding Observations**
**My general sense is that the NIVZSB is slightly more careful than the ESVSB to avoid offending its readers—or, to state things more positively, that it is aiming to please a slightly larger readership.**
On the one hand it is equally careful to adhere to the basic evangelical commitments (things such as traditional authorship and the historical reliability of Scripture), while also feeling equally free to adopt recent approaches to synthesizing the Bible and science (no firm stance on the days of Genesis or the question of evolution).
On the other hand, it seems slower to affirm some of the more fundamentalist ideas of evangelicalism (things such as capital punishment or a special plan for the future of ethnic Israel), it feels slightly more cautious as it affirms some points of evangelical doctrinal dispute (inability of true believers to fall from the faith, distinct gender roles in the church), and it is sometimes slower to pick sides at all regarding what the text means for today (the Christian and the military).
These tentative observations also seem to fit with the institutional affiliations of the study Bible contributors. For example, the ESVSB has more contributors affiliated with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Covenant Theological Seminary—both Reformed schools. But the NIVZSB has more contributors affiliated with Wheaton College, Denver Seminary, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School—schools that are more broadly evangelical in their affirmations and allegiances. (Many more schools are represented in both Bibles, including many that I am poorly equipped to place theologically.)
[This infographic from Tim Challies](http://www.challies.com/visual-theology/7-great-study-bibles-infographic) describes the ESVSB as “Reformed” and the NIZVSB as “conservative evangelical.” While there is much overlap between those labels, I think they are generally correct. Of course, these labels also match the theological commitments of the publishers of each Bible: Crossway for the ESVSB and Zondervan for the NIVZSB. That said, D. A. Carson, general editor of the NIVZSB, is firmly and famously Reformed, and the two study Bibles are quite similar on this point.
The aim of the NIVZSB to please a large readership fits well with the NIV’s goals and market niche as a translation, since it is [the fastest-selling](http://thomrainer.com/2014/12/top-ten-bible-translations-2014/)—though not [most widely-read](http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html)—translation in America. (This despite the fact that a relative minority have loudly protested the NIV!)
There may be some irony in the fact that the translation which leaves a few more of the rough edges of Scripture uninterpreted (ESV) has a study Bible which is slightly more interpretative and firm in its theological positions, while the translation which tends to do a little more thought-for-thought interpreting (NIV) has a study Bible which sticks a little closer to the biblical text, making slightly fewer strong theological affirmations.
**But such differences are comparatively minor** when set within the widely diverse translations and study Bibles currently on the market. **Both the NIVZSB and the ESVSB are solidly conservative evangelical and among the very best in their class. I am very happy to recommend both for your judicious use.**
The NIVZSB is about as good as a study Bible gets.**
I give it 4-1/2 out of 5 stars.**
* * *
**If you’ve read this far, congratulations!**
Hopefully this review has given you a better sense of the strengths and theological perspectives of two of the most important study Bibles available today. If you own either one and think I’ve misrepresented something, please let me know.
Will I use a study Bible more often now that I’ve examined a couple more closely? I don’t know. On the one hand, there are still benefits to a simple, clutter-free reading Bible. And when I want to do serious study, I have much more detailed commentaries on my shelves and on my Kindle. That said, a good study Bible is certainly one way to carry a mini library of scholarly study helps. Yet the NIVZSB is a bit too bulky for me to want to carry it to church regularly. (I tried it yesterday!) Since it is my only print NIV2011, I will probably use it from time to time at home. At minimum, I do plan to finish reading the remaining biblical theology essays. They are good!
**Now it’s your turn.** Do you use a study Bible? Which one? Why? Have you examined its theological commitments closely? **Based on this review, would you rather own an ESVSB or an NIVZSB? Why? [Share your perspectives in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/niv-zondervan-study-bible-review-comparison-esv-study-bible/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclosures: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookLook Bloggers <[http://booklookbloggers.com](http://booklookbloggers.com)\> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/16cfr255\_03.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html)\> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
_
_I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Is “Love One Another” A New Commandment for You?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-11-08
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Is "Love One Another" A New Commandment for You? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: the command to love my brother a new commandment for me? Or is it just an old, powerless, forgettable and forgotten one? Has the Light changed how I love?
Tags: love, -Matthew 22:37-39, incarnation, -1 John 1:1-4, -1 John 1:5, -1 John 2:24, -1 John 2:7-11, -1 John 3:11, -1 John 3:16, -1 John 5:2-4, -2 John 1:5, -Deuteronomy 6:5, -John 1:1-9, -John 1:12-13, -John 12:35-36, -John 13:34, -John 15:12-13, -John 15:12-17, -John 3:19-21, -John 3:7, -John 8:12, -John 9:39-41, -Leviticus 19:17-18, -Romans 5:7-8, abide, born again, commandment, contradiction, darkness, light, Light of the world, new, new commandment, old, old commandment
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/is-love-one-another-new-commandment-for-you
**The coming of the light changes everything.** Did you see the sunrise this morning? Even if you didn’t, it changed your life. The coming of the light transforms the whole world, including you and me. As the sun rises each day, we are infused (barring sickness or early alarm clocks) with new vision and energy, stirred to move with purpose and life.
The same is true of the spiritual dimensions of our beings. The coming of the Light changes everything.
The apostle and author John (assuming, with reason, that the two are the same person) liked to talk about light and darkness. He is the one, for instance, that noticed that Nicodemus visited Jesus in the dark while the Samaritan woman visited him in the light of the noonday sun. Guess who possessed spiritual sight?
**One place where light makes all the difference is 1 John 2:7-11:**
> 7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8 At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. 9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. 11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
This passage is full of short, simple words. Even the Greek is among the simplest in the NT. But, as is typical with John, easy words bear weighty thoughts.
I see at least three basic themes in these verses:
* A commandment to love one’s brother
* A contrast between light and darkness
* An apparent contradiction between “old” and “new”
Let’s start with the apparent contradiction first.
**How can the command to love our brother be both old and new?**
Some try to solve this dilemma in part by noting that the Greek word for “new” in verse 8 is καινὴν, not νέος. The latter often means _new in time_ (i.e., _recent_), while the former can sometimes mean _new in quality_ (i.e., unusual or superior). Thus we could perhaps theoretically translate verse 8 like this: “At the same time, it is a _fresh_ commandment that I am writing to you.” This would remove the tension between “old” and “new,” for an “old” commandment could still be a “fresh,” or perhaps even “better” one. One commentator suggests it is like a familiar symphony being performed anew by skilled musicians, or a familiar dish of food prepared by a culinary wizard.[1](#fn-1939-1)
But, however true such images are, this solution doesn’t work on a linguistic basis. Why? Because the same word καινὴν is also found, negatively, in verse 7: “I am writing you _no new commandment_.” Unless John changes the meaning of καινὴν from one verse to the next (which is entirely possible but which then overturns the distinction between καινὴν and νέος), he is still apparently contradicting himself.
The simple English word “new” is a good translation. And the word clearly includes a chronological dimension, for “old” is amplified by the phrase “from the beginning.” So we must not try to hide the appearance of contradiction: John is saying that the commandment to love is both old (known from the beginning) and, in some other _and more recent sense_, new.
(John, with his black-and-white language, is full of such apparent contradictions, prompting us to puzzle profitably over his words as over cunning proverbs.)
**So, how is the love commandment _old_?**
One possible answer is to note that the command to love our brother has existed since the oldest parts of Scripture. Jesus summarized the OT law with two great commandments:
> “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt. 22:37-39)
In doing so, Jesus cited two OT texts:
> You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deut. 6:5)
>
> You shall not hate your brother in your heart, …but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. (Lev. 19:17-18)
So the love commandment is as old because it is older than the Bible itself.
But John likely had something else in mind when he called the love commandment “old.” The commandment was old to John’s readers because they “had \[it\] from the beginning” (2:7). “From the beginning” is a phrase that John uses in multiple ways, but here it seems to refer to time when his readers first heard the gospel message:
> Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. (1 John 2:24)
>
> For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. (1 John 3:11)
>
> And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. (2 John 1:5)
Isn’t this true with us, too? I can’t recall a time when I didn’t know I was supposed to love my brother. Can you? “Love one another” is very old command—_so old, in fact that we sometimes forget that it is also new._
**So, how is the love commandment _new_?**
Here we are reminded of the words of Jesus—as recorded by John:
> A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. (John 13:34)
What did Jesus mean when he called this commandment “new”? I think the answer lies in the phrase “just as I have loved you.” Jesus provided us a **new example** of love, an example that renews the old commandment by giving us a picture of what our love should look like.
John says much the same thing in his first letter:
> By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. (1 John 3:16)
Jesus’ example demonstrates a **new magnitude** of love:
> This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:12-13)
In fact, Jesus’ love extended not only to his friends, but to his enemies—an almost unheard of thing, as Paul notes:
> For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:7-8)
Jesus’ coming also provides a **new power** for us to love. John is the apostle of new birth. He is the one who records Jesus’ words, “You must be born again” (John 3:7). He said that all who received Jesus were given the right to become children of God, born of God (John 1:12-13). And in his first letter he says that being born of God gives us power to keep God’s commandments, including the command to love one another:
> By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments... And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world… (1 John 5:2-4)
Being born of God gives us power to love. So does abiding in Christ, another theme emphasized by John. At the end of the famous passage about bearing fruit by abiding in the Vine, John records these words from Jesus:
> This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends... You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (from John 15:12-17)
Abiding in Christ, therefore, empowers us to bear the fruit of mutual love.
**I have suggested three ways** (there are surely more) **in which the love commandment can properly be called new:**
* Jesus provided a new example of love.
* Jesus’ example demonstrated a new magnitude of love.
* Jesus’ coming gives us new power to love.
**John pictures all this newness by talking about _light_.**
Listen again to the verse where John first calls the love commandment “new”:
> At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. (1 John 2:8)
There are grammatical challenges in interpreting this verse. (In the Greek, “which” is a neuter pronoun while “commandment” is female, so the relationship between clauses is debated.)
But the basic ideas seem clear: The love commandment is “true”—realized or actualized—in both Jesus and in those who belong to him. And it is realized because “the darkness is dissipating and the true light already shines.”[2](#fn-1939-2) **_The coming of the light actualizes the commandment, thus making it new._**
**This language of light links back to the foundational theological thesis statement for whole letter:**
> This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)
How did John know that God is light? Because Jesus, God in the flesh, had come into the world. John is a first-person witness to the word/Word of life (1 John 1:1). The incarnation of the Word is the theme of the opening verses of John’s letter (1 John 1:1-4), and also of the prologue of his Gospel:
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
>
> There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
>
> The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:1-9)
As John’s poetic prologue continues, the identity of the “true light” becomes clear: It is Jesus.
“The true light.” This is the same phrase that John uses in our original passage: “The darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining” (1 John 2:8). Jesus, God in the flesh, is “already shining”!
**Putting it all together, here is what John is saying: The coming of Jesus, the light of the world** (cf. John 8:12)**, makes the commandment _true_ and thus _new_.**
There is much more to see about the nature of light and darkness in John’s writings. Light suggests divine revelation, human exposure, honesty, spiritual sight, and holiness. Light exposes our hearts (John 3:19-21; John 9:39-41) and will transform us into “sons of light” if we believe in it (John 12:35-36).
**We have enough light to ask ourselves some questions:**
Am I loving my brother in a way that demonstrates that the Light has come into the world? Or am I still living as if the world is abandoned in darkness?
Can others see, by the way I love, that I have been transformed by the Light?
Am I imitating Jesus’ _new example_ of love? Does my love mirror his _new magnitude_ of love, or is it no bigger than the love of non-Christians around me? Am I experiencing _new power_ to love? (Or is there little evidence that I am abiding in Christ or even born again?)
**In sum, is the command to love my brother a new commandment for me? Or is it just an old, powerless, forgettable and forgotten one?**
* * *
**I’ve tried in this post to express the love command in something of its end-of-the-age freshness. I have also tried to demonstrate some techniques of good exegesis:**
* Identifying and focusing on key words and themes.
* Tracing these key words and themes beyond the immediate text, giving priority to (a) the rest of the same book of the Bible and then (b) to other books by the same author, without importing meanings from more distant contexts.
* Teasing out apparent contradictions, without denying anything Scripture affirms.
* Looking for how Christ, the ultimate subject of Scripture, is key to the meaning of the text.
**Now it is your turn.** What insights do you think John intended to communicate? How has the coming of the Light changed the way you love your brother? [**Share your thoughts in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/is-love-one-another-new-commandment-for-you/#respond)
1. David L. Allen, _1-3 John: Fellowship in God’s Family_, Preaching the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), Kindle Location 1251. [↩](#fnref-1939-1)
2. Translation by Robert W. Yarborough in his _1-3 John_, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Exegetical, 2008), 101. [↩](#fnref-1939-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “The Great Missing Link in Much of Anabaptist Missions” — David Robertson
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-31
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: "The Great Missing Link in Much of Anabaptist Missions" -- David Robertson | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: "The great missing link in much of Anabaptist missions today is this purposeful preparation, mobilization, and support of laborers." -- David Robertson
Tags: church unity, discipleship, Anabaptists, missions, Great Commission, training, church budgets, church giving, David | Robertson, John D. | Martin, Marvin | Kauffman, missionary support, missions funding, money, pastor, Protestants
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/great-missing-link-in-anabaptist-missions-david-robertson
**It is sometimes useful to read books written by those who don’t fit neatly into any of your existing boxes.** Such is the case, for me, with David Robertson’s book _\[amazon text=A Vision of Kingdom Christianity: Finding the Big Picture of God’s Design for His People&asin=0994050100\]_ (published in 2015 by Kingdom Vision Books, Niverville, Manitoba, Canada).
My [employer](http://www.kauffmanstructures.com/) and friend Marvin Kauffman recently gave me this book to read and review, since he enjoyed it. I’ve found it an interesting read. Robertson is a prophetic voice and a lifelong kingdom pilgrim who is still eager to learn how to better follow Christ.
[](http://amzn.to/1P3x9WT)
[
](http://amzn.to/1P3x9WT)
**I’m not quite done this book, but here is a brief overview.**
The book is divided into two parts. _**Part One is called “Something Is Missing: In Search of the Kingdom.”**_ Robertson discusses four “cloud layers,” as indicated by his chapter titles:
* The Big Picture Is Being Replaced by Little Pieces
* Anabaptism Is Being Blended with Popular Protestantism
* Spirituality Is Being Separated from Practice
* The Authority of the Bible and of the Church Is Being Replaced by the Authority of the Individual.
_**Part Two is called “Putting the Big Picture Together: Essential Pillars of the Faith.”**_ In this part, which forms the bulk of the book, Robertson discusses twelve core realities, rehearsing them in a manner designed for use in training disciples. Again, chapter titles:
* God Exists
* God Has Spoken
* Peoplehood
* The Kingdom of God
* Discipleship
* The New Birth
* Faith
* Humility
* Ecclesia
* Missions
* Watchfulness
* You Will Give Account
**Robertson says “I come from a background of _evangelical Protestant Christianity_ and am moving towards the _kingdom Christianity_ that characterized much of the early Anabaptist movement” (p. xiv).** Given that self-description, it is no surprise to see that John D. Martin wrote the foreward to the book. (Brother John D. is known for, among other things, [his hymnal](http://www.hymnsofthechurch.com/) and his involvement with both the Anabaptist Identity Conference and Charity Christian Fellowship.)
Given the endorsement by John D. Martin, it is also no surprise to see Robertson critique Protestants for having “in general, like the original Reformers of the 1500s, … missed the essential Gospel core” (p. 17). (That’s probably not a nice thing to say on [Reformation Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Day).) And it is no surprise to hear Robertson critique modern Anabaptists for looking more and more like evangelicals. Nor is it surprising to hear him emphasize that “the church as a new people group has the right to establish general standards in practical and cultural areas and to pass them on to other churches” (p. 144). (I’m not entirely convinced by his exegetical argument on this point.)
**But other things that Robertson says are perhaps less expected.** As a sincere and original disciple, he does not fit neatly into our expected boxes.
For example, listen to these extended excerpts which first inspired me to share this post. Do you think our brother is saying something here that we need to hear?
> **One thing that puzzled me when I first came into contact with Anabaptist people and their writings was their use of the word _discipleship_.** They talked much of discipleship and even claimed that one big difference between themselves and the Protestant evangelical churches was their emphasis on discipleship.
>
> Coming from my Protestant background, I reached the opposite conclusion. It seemed the Anabaptists had no time to disciple because they were so busy working to make a living. And if they did have time, they had no actual program to do so, except maybe a pre-baptism class.
>
> **The Protestants, on the other hand**, had whole libraries of books describing one-on-one discipleship, group discipling, multiplying disciples, and sharing the faith. They had an incredible stock of resources that could be used to give direction and guidance to the disciple. **So what was the difference? Who really emphasized discipleship? I think the answer is both.** Eventually, I came to learn that for the Anabaptist, _discipleship meant obedience in all of life_. Without growth in obedience to the teachings of Christ, they believed there was no discipleship. They rightly saw that discipleship involved all of life and not just class time.
>
> The problem, however, is that there are still men and women, young and old, who need to be systematically taught the basics of the Christian faith, practice, and witness. All too often we Anabaptists have no sound resources to do so, and no people who have been trained to take on this joyful task. Here the Protestants can teach us, for they have men freed up to develop resources, to train laborers, and to do the actual work of discipling.
>
> To my dying day, I’m sure I will remember the different men who after experiencing great revival in their lives and joining the church, shared their desire and even expectation that they would be meeting with me at least once a week. Oh, the agony to know I could not meet their expectation and that there was no one else prepared to do so…
>
> We must not just talk of discipleship. We must train and free men up to do it. **We desperately need both the Anabaptist and Protestant understandings of discipleship.** (pp. 84-85, bold added)
(I am very happy to endorse that statement on this Reformation Day.)
And this:
> Jesus’ pattern of preparing disciples who will themselves make disciples seems to be more of an apprenticeship, rather than seven years of seminary. This apprenticeship, \[sic\] involves **both study and practical work** right from the start.
>
> It is easy to criticize those who spend years in academic study preparing for future ministry, but have we fallen into the same trap of preparing now and obeying later? **Perhaps we have adopted the philosophy that we must first build a strong, united church with no problems or needs and then reach out to others. But consider with me, would you apply that idea in your business?** No, if you drank coffee and built unity every day you would soon go broke and get on each other’s nerves. In the workplace, team building, training, problem solving, and work go hand in hand, and so it should be in the church…
>
> This command \[the Great Commission command to “go”\] violently interrupts the plans we have for our lives and businesses. The call to missions shakes us up; it is not comfortable…
>
> **The great missing link in much of Anabaptist missions today is this purposeful preparation, mobilization, and support of laborers.** We Anabaptist-type groups have been good at doing relief work, cleaning up after hurricanes, re-building barns, and helping with medical expenses. Our labor (time) and money are poured into these projects and into schools to educate our children. We have excelled at these social ministries, but why has not even more time and money been expended proclaiming the Gospel of the kingdom in every place, beginning in our own countries? **We claim to have the foundational pillars of the faith that all must hear, but we leave the job of proclaiming the faith to the Protestants (who we say, have largely missed the critical kingdom message). That makes no sense.**
>
> We have prided ourselves in having no salaried ministers in our churches as if somehow not having paid workers will earn us a special “Well done” from the Lord. I know this is a sensitive subject with no easy answers, but maybe it needs to be examined. **The final issue is not: “Are workers paid?” but rather: “Is the job God gave us being done?” To get the job done will take an army of trained, Spirit-filled volunteers as well as men who are released to give large portions of their time to equipping laborers and advancing the message and ministry of the kingdom.** Why have we left this job to zealous individuals and to the rich among us? It is not the independent individual who has been commissioned with this great job, but the whole church. The church must get a vision of the work to which she is called, and then discern how her labor force can be equipped and supported to get the job done. To get the job done is going to take both _sacrifice_ and _support_…
>
> Frankly, we are better at supporting intensive missions when they are overseas than we are close to home, but missions begins at home. The church is a missionary community in which we all together seek to sacrifice and support so that the kingdom is advanced, beginning right here close to home. **As long as missions is mainly something that happens far away it will never be a vital part of the life of the church…**
>
> As kingdom Christians we believe the church has been given a job. To do this job, we need **a continual stream of prepared laborers**.
>
> The blessed heritage of the Anabaptists places the responsibility to accomplish this job onto the whole church, not just the professional clergy… There is great potential as a while community of faith takes responsibility for the work. There is incredible potential, but **all too often we have failed to embrace a specific purpose to which to give ourselves, and though we raise up laborers from within, we have failed to train them and to raise up enough to get the job done**. No business would prosper and expand if it were run this way…
>
> Who in our churches has been given the responsibility to oversee the advance of the kingdom beyond the local church? Who has God set apart and gifted for this? **How can they be supported to free them to do the job?** We ordain pastors and deacons, but what about evangelists, traveling teachers, apostolic church planters, and men with prophetic ministries to the whole church or society? Why have we focused so much on those ministers that serve in the local church and neglected to equally recognize God’s call for ministers who serve beyond the local body?…
>
> In the book of Acts we see that there are apostles such as Peter, Paul, and Barnabas who are given to missionary outreach, and there are helpers such as Timothy and Titus. Then there is another group, the elders of the local church. These two groups of leaders work together but have two distinct areas of gifting and responsibility…
>
> We must **prepare** and **release** laborers both inside the church and outside, so that the whole job of both missions and pastoring is faithfully carried out…
>
> This pillar \[missions\] is not for later when we are mature or have resolved all the problems and needs in our Jerusalem. No, this pillar is for now. It must be there from the beginning. It is why we are still here. (pp. 160-65, bold added)
“We never did join the Mennonite church,” Robertson writes, “but our interaction with them caused me to go back to the Scriptures again and again to see what they really said” (p. 5). Robertson clearly throws his lot in with what he calls the “Radical Believer’s Churches” (p. 5), yet he aims to learn from the broader church, and his allegiance is ultimately to Christ alone.
I don’t agree with all of Robertson’s conclusions, but I expect I would be encouraged and deeply challenged if I met this brother over a cup of coffee or—more likely—in his prayer cabin or on the streets of some Canadian town, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom.
* * *
**What do you think?** Do you agree with Robertson’s diagnosis of how poorly many Anabaptist local churches handle missions? Do you agree we should learn from the Protestants in how they train intentionally for both missions and discipleship? What can we do to better recognize (both _see_ and _authorize_) those among us who are gifted in evangelism and church planting? How should the money flow change to get the job done? **[Share your passion in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/great-missing-link-in-anabaptist-missions-david-robertson/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclosure: I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 7: Funds Ready, Waiting on House ($69,635)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-30
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 7: Funds Ready, Waiting on House ($69,635) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here's an update on our churchfunding experiment. We've now received over $50,000 of your loans and gifts, and are within about $10,000 of our pledge goal.
Tags: churchfunding
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-7-funds-ready-waiting-on-house-69635
**I deposited a stack of your checks yesterday morning!** We have now received over $50,000 of your pledged loans and gifts—a fact that is amazing to write and even more amazing to experience.
Last night I opened a dozen more envelopes with checks. One (from a couple who encouraged me during my college days) contained a thank-you card with the words, “Thanks for giving us the opportunity of blessing you.” Another (from a bishop) included a note saying, “This is a swell idea.” Yet another had a note that said, “The girls need some mail, too, so the stickers are for them.” All three notes were surprising and delightful in their own way. 🙂
(For you who are wondering if we received your check, know that I plan to start sending official email confirmations today—and likely a few snail mail ones, too.)
**Thanks to your generosity and the good hand of God, we are now poised to move forward with an offer on a house!** So today I contacted our realtor to tell her that funds are in place.
Our first-choice house is still pending sale to someone else, so we plan to wait a while to see if that transaction goes through. If history repeats itself, the house will be back on the market within a week from now. Our realtor contacted the seller’s agent today, looking for more information on the house while we wait to see if it sells.
If this house does sell, it is back to house hunting for us. This means that…
* * *
**We Still Need Your Help**
* Please pray that God will provide the right house for us. We don’t have a clear second-choice in place right now. But God has full knowledge and power and love to care for us. We expect him to work.
* Pray for the pledger who lost his job. (See “One Story” [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-3-halfway-to-offer-30415/)). Last night he told me that he lost his job one week earlier than expected. Pray for faith and finances!
* Spread the word to help us reach $80,000. About $10,000 more will get us there, giving the cushion that will likely be needed for repairs and minor renovations.
* If you want to join in, visit [the “Official Launch” post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) and send your pledge info to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com). Then [join our Facebook group](https://www.facebook.com/groups/DwightGingrichHouseFund/) or [subscribe to this blog](http://dwightgingrich.com/#subscribe) to stay informed. Thanks!
* * *
**Progress Report
**(As of 10:00 p.m. EST, 10/29/2015)
**_We are 87% of the way to our goal of $80,000!_**
Total pledged so far: **$69,635.05** (after tithe deducted)
Total pledgers: 88 generous friends
Largest pledge: $12,000
Smallest pledge: $75
Average pledge: $808.12
Most common pledge: $500 (38 this size)
Total loans with interest: $27,929.55
Total interest-free loans: $28,390
Total gifts: $14,795
Total tithe to share with [those driven from their homes in the Middle East](https://christianaidministries.org/programs#category-35) and the building purchase fund of the [Missions Training Center](http://www.mtcinnyc.com/) in NYC: $1,480, plus nearly $2,500 in tithes from family gifts
**Current maximum projected repayment time** (if we receive more interest-bearing loans to reach $80,000): **11 years, 9 months**
After we call a halt to this project, I hope to crunch some more detailed statistics, such as:
* A more detailed breakdown of the range of pledge sizes.
* How many pledgers we have never actually met. (Quite a lot!)
* How much was sent by each method: check, Facebook, PayPal, and Square Cash.
* Is there anything else you’d like to know?
_Note: Figures here will fluctuate just a little after we know what exchange rate Canadian contributions actually receive._
* * *
I think that’s all for now. I just wanted to be sure you know that _**this churchfunding experiment is actually working!**_ 🙂
**If you have any comments or questions, [please share them below](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-7-funds-ready-waiting-on-house-69635/#respond). (A few “Praise the Lord!”s are welcome, too!)
**
* * *
_**Subscribe to stay informed:**_
\[wysija\_form id=”1″\]
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper — Hammett (Review)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-26
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord's Supper -- Hammett (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Christians don't agree about baptism or the Lord's Supper. Hammett's book might not solve this, but it is an irenic guide for 38 questions that divide us.
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/40-questions-baptism-and-lords-supper-hammett-review
Hammett, John S. _40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper_. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015). 331pp. _[Publisher’s description](http://www.kregel.com/ministry/40-questions-about-baptism-and-the-lords-supper/)_ with Introduction and Chapter 1. (Amazon new price: $17.97, unavailable on Kindle , cheaper used.) \[amazon template=add to cart1&asin=082544277X\]
**“There is… one baptism,” Paul told the church at Ephesus (Eph. 4:4-5).** And to the Corinthians he said this: “In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). And this: “We who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17).
One baptism.
One bread.
One body, united by baptism and bread.
Yet Christ’s one body today certainly does not share one understanding about either baptism or bread (the Lord’s Supper).
_**John Hammett’s new book might not solve this problem, but it does provide admirably balanced and irenic guidance for thirty-eight of the questions that divide us.**_
[](http://amzn.to/1kIuchY)
[
](http://amzn.to/1kIuchY)
**Hammett’s book is part of a series of “40 Questions” books published by Kregel.** I’ve read one other in this series—\[amazon text=_40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible_&asin=082543498X\], by Robert L. Plummer—which is, in my estimation, a very good choice for a first book on its topic ([see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/other-resources/books/#bibint)). Hammett’s book is equally easy to like.
I’ll summarize the book by posting the questions that form the chapter titles. Then I’ll make a few observations both positive and negative.
**Summary of Book**
**Hammett’s book is well organized**, with logically sequenced topics, discussion questions at the end of each chapter, a bibliography of related books, and a Scripture index. A curious reader could easily start with any question that interests them, find the relevant chapter, and jump in. There’s just enough repeated content to ease such reading (not too much) and occasional pointers to other relevant chapters for more detail.
Here is the outline from the Table of Contents:
**Part 1: General Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper**
1\. Are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper Sacraments or Ordinances?
2\. How Many Ordinances/Sacraments Are There?
3\. Who Can Administer Baptism or the Lord’s Supper?
4\. Are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper Only for Churches?
**Part 2: Questions about Baptism**
Section A: Introductory Questions
5\. What Is the Origin of Christian Baptism?
6\. What Is the Relationship of John’s Baptism to Christian Baptism?
7\. What Is Spirit Baptism and How Does It Relate to Water Baptism?
8\. Why Was Jesus Baptized?
Section B: Denominational Views
9\. What Is the Roman Catholic View of Baptism?
10\. What Is the Lutheran View of Baptism?
11\. What Is the Reformed View of Baptism?
12\. What Is the Baptist View of Baptism?
13\. What Is the View of Baptism in Other Traditions?
Section C: Theological Issues
14\. What Is the Meaning of Christian Baptism?
15\. Does the Bible Teach Baptismal Regeneration?
16\. Should Infants Be Baptized? (Part 1)
17\. Should Infants Be Baptized? (Part 2)
18\. Is Baptism a Divine Means of Grace or a Human Act of Obedience?
19\. Is There a Proper Mode of Baptism?
Section D: Practical Aspects
20\. When Should a Child Be Baptized?
21\. Should Baptismal Beliefs Be a Cause of Division?
**Part 3: Questions about the Lord’s Supper**
Section A: Introductory Questions
22\. What Is the Correct Term for This Rite?
23\. What Is the Origin of the Lord’s Supper?
24\. Why Do We Celebrate the Lord’s Supper?
25\. What Is the Meaning of the Lord’s Supper?
Section B: Denominational Views
26\. What Is the Roman Catholic View of the Lord’s Supper?
27\. What Is the Lutheran View of the Lord’s Supper?
28\. What Is the Reformed View of the Lord’s Supper?
29\. What Is the Baptist View of the Lord’s Supper?
30\. What Is the View of the Lord’s Supper in Other Traditions?
Section C: Theological Issues
31\. In What Sense Is Christ Present in the Lord’s Supper?
32\. Who May Properly Partake of the Lord’s Supper? (Part 1)
33\. Who May Properly Partake of the Lord’s Supper? (Part 2)
34\. What Does It Mean to Partake of the Lord’s Supper in an Unworthy Manner?
35\. What Does God Do in the Lord’s Supper?
Section D: Practical Aspects
36\. How Often Should the Lord’s Supper Be Observed?
37\. What Should Be Included in a Proper Observance of the Lord’s Supper?
38\. What Can You Do to Improve Your Worship through the Lord’s Supper?
**Part 4: Concluding Questions**
39\. What Is the Importance of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper for Theology?
40\. What Is the Importance of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper for Christian Life?
**Assessment of Book**
There is much to praise in this book, but I’ll start with **a few things I that disappointed me**:
* **Some rare logical lapses.** For example, consider Hammett’s answer to the question “How Many Ordinances/Sacraments Are There?” First he rightly observes this:
> Scripture nowhere gives us a list of how many sacraments to observe, or even explicit criteria by which to discern them. (p. 25)
He continues:
> How then can we resolve the question posed above? The answer to the question of the number of the sacraments is tied to one’s understanding of the nature of the sacraments. (p. 25)
But how does one come to a certain understanding of the nature of sacraments (as a category of rites, that is, not the nature of each individual rite) if Scripture provides no “explicit criteria by which to \[even\] discern them”? Apparently you lean on a definition from John Calvin:
> “A sacrament is a seal by which God’s covenant, or promise, is sealed.” (pp. 27-28)
Then you claim “clear biblical basis” for that definition:
> The lack of a clear biblical basis (**a divine promise sealed by a sign with clear divine ordination of it as an ongoing rite for the church**) has prevented anointing of the sick from being seriously considered as a sacrament by Protestants. (p. 30, emphasis added)
Finally, you critique Catholics for lacking a “clear biblical authorization” for five of their sacraments, while claiming your own are “deeply rooted in biblical teaching”:
> A… deeper reason for Protestant rejection of five of the seven Catholic sacraments is the lack of clear biblical authorization… Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were never question \[by the church, regarding their status as sacraments\]; they were obviously deeply rooted in biblical teaching. But the others were dubious at best. (p. 32)
_**In this discussion Hammett seems to be confusing two questions: (1) Do we have biblical basis for**_ **observing these rites**_**? (2) Do we have biblical basis for**_ **calling these rites sacraments**_**? It seems to me that he critiques the Catholics based on the second question, but defends the Protestants based on the first question.**_ A better answer, I think, would be to acknowledge that (1) we have good biblical basis for observing many rites—including ones like marriage and anointing with oil that the Catholics include as sacraments, along with others such as giving a blessing before meals—but that (2) we have no clear biblical basis for designating _any_ subset of them by a term such as _sacrament_ or _ordinance_.
Lacking any biblical list of sacraments or any meaningful biblical criteria by which to discern them, Hammett ultimately rests his case on Calvin, as the final two sentences of this chapter reveal:
> Calvin repeatedly raised the question of a divine promise or a divine command authorizing a practice to be considered a sacrament. Lacking such divine ordination, they \[Protestants\] refused to recognize confirmation, penance and reconciliation, the anointing of the sick, holy orders, or matrimony as sacraments. (p. 32)
* **Focus on the “local body” at the expense of the one, universal “body of Christ.”** (This is the same problem that [I critiqued strongly](https://dwightgingrich.com/going-public-why-baptism-is-required-for-church-membership-jamieson-review/) in Bobby Jamieson’s book.) The NT never speaks of a “local body” of believers. It _does_ once address local believers as members of Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12:27). But Paul uses body imagery to depict the oneness of all who belong to Christ, not the division of Christians into local congregations. It seems to me that Hammett does not grasp this clearly, and that this misunderstanding skews his thinking as he considers who may properly partake of the Lord’s Supper:
> Should we approach the Lord’s Supper seeking to affirm, renew, and celebrate our unity with all Christians (the universal body of Christ) or with a church (a local body of believers)? I think it is significant that the term for church in the New Testament is overwhelmingly used for local churches, and that Paul’s criticism of how the Corinthians were observing the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 is due to the lack of unity in the local body. Moreover, if we want to affirm Christian unity, we have to accept that at present we simply do not have it yet in terms of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, so why not affirm our unity around the gospel, which is the proper boundary of Christian unity? (p. 271)
There are additional problems with this paragraph. For example, Hammett’s claim that “the term for church in the New Testament is overwhelmingly used for local churches” needs to be moderated by several facts. First, “church” often refers to all the Christians in one city, and each city often possessed multiple house church congregations. (This was likely the case with the “local body” at Corinth.) Second, often the term is used in the plural (“churches”) in such a way that the unity of all congregations is strongly emphasized, rather than their individual autonomy (e.g.: “This is the rule I lay down in all the churches”; 1 Cor. 7:17).
Also, Hammett’s suggestion that the universal body of Christ unite around the gospel _rather than sharing the Lord’s Supper together_ is curious given that elsewhere he emphasizes “the general agreement that the Lord’s Supper is meant to be a visual proclamation of the gospel” (p. 208).
This failure to appreciate the NT emphasis on the universal body of Christ appears several other times in Hammett’s book, such as when he offers a false dichotomy between viewing the Christian life as primarily “individual” (“personal relationship with God”) or “corporate” (“the local church”) (p. 44). Why is this a false dichotomy? Because unless we commune with the broader church, the local church, too, will become ingrown. Corporate—a body word—must include Christ’s full body.
Later Hammett rightly underscores “the importance of unity in the body, with concern and respect for all the members, for worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper.” What do you think? Would this truth point toward open communion that welcomes all Christians, or closed communion limited primarily to local church “members”? What does Hammett conclude from this?
> This would seem to fit much better with close or closed communion, in which those partaking have covenanted together as one body in Christ, than with a practice that allowed visitors and strangers to partake, with no knowledge of who they were or if they were prepared to partake worthily. (p. 275)
Why would a concern for unity lead one to restrict other Christians from sharing in the Lord’s Supper? Perhaps it would if one believes that it is the local church “covenant,” rather than (or in addition to) our shared baptism by the Spirit into Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), that joins us as “one body in Christ.” Craig Blomberg’s comment on 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 seems more on target:
> If the Lord’s table symbolizes and promotes fellowship and unity with the risen Christ, then it should be open to _all_ believers but to believers _only_.[1](#fn-1906-1)
* **Failure to sufficiently consider what the NT says about wrongfully withholding the Lord’s Supper.** To prevent someone from communing in the Lord’s Supper is, quite literally, excommunication. The NT reserves this action for false teachers, unrepentant sinners whose immoral actions disqualify them from claiming to be Christians, and (perhaps) Christians who are temporarily under discipline because they need to repent from immoral actions. (See Matt. 18:15-17; 1Cor. 5; Tit. 3:9-11; 1Tim. 1:18-20; Rom. 16:17-19; and Rev. 2:2. See also 2 Thess. 3:6-15 for the solitary possible example of the last category.)
All other examples of excommunication in the NT (such as Peter refusing to eat with Gentile believers) are strongly condemned. (See Gal. 2:11-16. See also Acts 11:2-3; 1John 1:9-10; Rom. 14:1-13; 15:7; 1Cor. 11:17-34.)
Hammett effectively draws on the positive NT evidence about the meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Supper. But, like most authors I’ve read who wrestle with the question of who may commune, he does not sufficiently consider this negative evidence regarding the use and abuse of excommunication. Both strains of evidence are crucial for a balanced theology and practice. (I hope to write an essay sometime on what the NT says about who should or should not be excommunicated.)
There are other such weaknesses in this book, but none of them are so central that they detract from the book’s general success. **Here are some things I really like about Hammett’s book:**
* **Hammett doesn’t waste your time.** Daniel L. Akin’s endorsement is right on target: “John Hammett has the wonderful gift to say more in fewer words than most any theologian I know” (back cover).
* **Hammett is admirably fair to other theological camps.** Some Baptist books critiquing Catholics quote from other Baptists describing Catholic positions; Hammett repeatedly quotes the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_. He achieves his own goal well:
> I am in the Baptist camp, both by heritage and conviction, and want to acknowledge the possibility of bias in my evaluations. Still, I will try to listen to the case made by others, critique them fairly, advocate the views that seem soundest to me, but leave the final evaluation to the reader. (p. 115)
* **Hammett includes a wide range of perspectives.** While he clearly has favorite theologicans (Calvin and Beasley-Murray among them), he includes Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Pentecostal, and Methodist views on various topics. Each of these bring something useful to consider. For example, consider this Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist):
> “The basic ecclesiological rule that goes back to the fathers… wherever the Eucharist is, there is the church. Or, the church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the church.” (p. 244)[2](#fn-1906-2)
If you wonder where Anabaptists fit in, he counts them among the Baptists and actually briefly quotes the Schleitheim Confession and Balthasar Hubmaier.
* **Hammett is able to laugh at and critique his own church tradition.** For example:
> Attempting to describe the benefits Baptists see in celebrating the Lord’s Supper is difficult for two reasons. The first is simply the diversity of Baptists. They rarely speak with one voice on anything. The second is that Baptist discussion of the Lord’s Supper has often focused on errors Baptists saw in other views they wanted to deny. (p. 201)
Or this, quoting Millard Erickson:
> In the past, in their zeal to deny the physical or bodily presence of Christ in the elements, some Baptists were accused of teaching ‘the real absence of Christ,’ the idea that ‘the one place where Jesus most assuredly is not to be found is the Lord’s Supper.’ (p. 238)
* **Hammett is irenic (peaceable) and appropriately cautious in presenting his conclusions.** Here are some typical concluding sentences, with peacemaker words emphasized:
> **I think** that those advocating a move to acceptance of multiple views on the proper mode and subjects of baptism are contributing to an undue diminution of the importance of baptism. The arguments for immersion and believer’s baptism, presented in earlier chapters, still **seem to me** strong and persuasive. **I think Baptists can learn and incorporate much from those who see baptism as a sign and recognize divine activity in baptism as well as human response, and we need to do much better in putting our theology of baptism consistently into practice.** But **I agree with those who see** other views of baptism as **open to** some troubling **tendencies**, and remain an advocate of believers baptism most of all due to its importance in maintaining a principle **I think** very important, that of regenerate church membership. For if, as is widely accepted, baptism is the rite of initiation into church membership, baptizing any but believers cannot but undermine that important principle. (pp. 178-79)
**Conclusion**
Obviously I disagree with Hammett on a variety of points. But I still really like this book. It is an excellent resource to help us listen to each other across our theological divides, and should help careful readers find common ground in Christ. Timothy George, whose book on \[amazon text=_The Theology of the Reformers_&asin=0805401954\] I found so helpful (and discussed in [an earlier blog series](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/)), summarizes my thoughts well:
> This book surveys and treats with fairness a variety of competing views on baptism and the Lord’s Supper. A good resource for all Christians. (back cover)
* * *
This book is achieves its author’s purposes very well.
**I give it 4-1/2 out of 5 stars.**
**What are your thoughts?** Which of Hammett’s questions sound most interesting to you? Do you agree more with me or with Hammett on the points where I’ve critiqued him? What ecclesiological tradition do you think conservative Anabaptists could learn most from? Do you have another favorite book on these topics? **[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/40-questions-baptism-and-lords-supper-hammett-review/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclosures: I received this book free from the publisher in exchange for a review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/16cfr255\_03.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html)\> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
_
_I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
1. Craig Blomberg, _1 Corinthians_, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 199. [↩](#fnref-1906-1)
2. This is a quote from Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, _An Introduction to Ecclesiology_ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002), p. 21—a book I have on my shelf and hope to read! [↩](#fnref-1906-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 6: Time to Send Your Pledges–Here’s How ($65,895)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-23
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 6: Time to Send Pledges--Here's How (65,895) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here is how to send us the money you have pledged in support of our churchfunding project for buying a house in Atlanta. Pledges now total $65,894.55.
Tags: churchfunding, money transfer
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-6-send-pledges-heres-how-65895
**Friends, it is with deep gratitude that I announce that we are now ready for you to send in the loans and gifts you have pledged.** God has been blessing this churchfunding experiment almost beyond what I dared to hope!
Our total fundraising goal is $80,000, and we will continue to accept microloans until we reach that amount. (Those who join now should still email a pledge first, so we can confirm your pledge is needed before you send it.)
Now that we’ve passed $60,000, we can combine your pledges with some gifts from family and proceed with an offer as soon as God clarifies which house to try for! (More on that below.)
**So, here are some options for sending the money you’ve pledged.**
Note: If you forget how much you pledged or have other questions, do not hesitate to contact us at [dghousefund.gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com). And don’t be frightened by the first two options below. I didn’t know about them until a few days ago, and even I can say they are “easy peasy, lemon squeezy,” as one of my little piano students liked to say.
* * *
**U.S. FUNDS (3 Options)**
* **Facebook Messenger (up to $10,000).** If you have a debit card, you can send money over Facebook, directly to my bank account. [Read about it here](https://www.facebook.com/help/863171203733904/), or just follow these easy steps:
1. Open a chat with [Dwight Gingrich](https://www.facebook.com/dwight.gingrich) ([see Facebook help](https://www.facebook.com/help/193822797331287) if confused)
2. Click
and enter the amount you want to send
3. Click **Next** to add your debit card and then click **Pay**
Note: If you’re using Payments in Messenger on your smart phone, first make sure that you have the latest version of the Messenger app installed. If you don’t see
, tap
to find it.
* **Square Cash (up to $2,500). NOTE: Please do not use this option until we solve a glitch that is causing transactions to fail. Thanks!** This works much like the Facebook option, by using debit cards. _**If you already use Square Cash**,_ simply send a payment to dghousefund@gmail.com.
_**If you are new to Square Cash**,_ here are two easy options_:_
1\. Just send the money. Open the following link, enter the amount and your debit card information, and you’re done! [https://cash.me/$DwightGingrich](https://cash.me/$DwightGingrich)
2\. Create a Square Cash account. If you have a smart phone, sign up at the following link, then send a payment to dghousefund@gmail.com: [cash.me/app/KNLHDNM](http://cash.me/app/KNLHDNM). (This will give both you and Rodney Troyer, the CPA helping me, a $5 bonus.) If you don’t have a smart phone, sign up here then follow option one above: [https://cash.me/](https://cash.me/)
Note from SQ: “There’s an initial [$250](https://www.facebook.com/lherschberger/posts/10203683414566070?notif_t=close_friend_activity#) weekly sending limit for personal use Cash accounts. When you send more than [$250](https://www.facebook.com/lherschberger/posts/10203683414566070?notif_t=close_friend_activity#) in one week, we’ll automatically ask you to verify your name, date of birth, and the last 4 digits of your SSN to increase the sending limit to [$2,500](https://www.facebook.com/lherschberger/posts/10203683414566070?notif_t=close_friend_activity#) (in most states). Another option is to link your Facebook account and enter the last 4 of your SSN.”
* **Check.** Mail a check to Dwight Gingrich the following address, then send an email to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com) telling us you have done so:
_Dwight Gingrich
25964 265th Ave
Leon, IA 50144_
* * *
**CANADIAN FUNDS (2 Options)**
* **Bank draft/cheque in U.S. funds.** Have your bank create a cheque in U.S. funds, mail it to the following address, then send an email to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com) telling us you have done so:
_Dwight Gingrich
25964 265th Ave
Leon, IA 50144_
Note: If you are wondering if it is safe to mail a bank draft, you may read [this assurance from TD Bank](http://www.td.com/to-our-customers/tdhelps/#psce|cid=871|lid=1|tid=001|vid=c072af454).
* **PayPal**. To use this option, contact me privately and I’ll send you the email address to send the money to. (I don’t want to post that email address here.) _**Important note:**_ If you use a debit card or credit card to send money over PayPal, there will be a transaction fee on top of the exchange fee: “2.9% + $0.30 per transaction (the sender decides who pays this fee).” To avoid this fee, use your bank account or PayPal balance.
* * *
No matter which option you choose, **we will plan to send you an email confirming we have received your money**. (We will aim to send this email within 4 days of receiving your money. Feel free to contact us if you do not hear from us that soon.)
* * *
**Progress Report
**(As of 6:00 a.m. EST, 10/23/2015)
**_We are over 3/4 way to our goal of $80,000!_**
Total pledged so far: **$65,894.55** (after tithe deducted)
Total pledgers: 81 generous friends
Largest pledge: $12,000
Smallest pledge: $75
Average pledge: $828.89
Most common pledge: $500 (36 this size)
Total loans with interest: $28, 504.55
Total interest-free loans: $26,140
Total gifts: $12,500
Total tithe to share with [those driven from their homes in the Middle East](https://christianaidministries.org/programs#category-35) and the building purchase fund of the [Missions Training Center](http://www.mtcinnyc.com/) in NYC: $1,250, plus nearly $2,500 in tithes from family gifts
**Current maximum projected repayment time** (if we receive more interest-bearing loans to reach $80,000): 12 years, 2 months
_Note: Figures here will fluctuate just a little after we know what exchange rate Canadian contributions actually receive._
* * *
**How You Can Help**
* Pray for the pledger who is about to lose his job. (See “One Story” [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-3-halfway-to-offer-30415/)). I chatted with him recently, and he said “We can feel many folks praying for us.”
* Pray that God will preserve and provide exactly the right house for us. (See “Update on ‘The House'” [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-4-school-of-faith-44240/).)
* Pray that we will trust him well, so that he can receive the glory he so richly deserves.
* Pray that God will perfectly control the timing of our move from Iowa to Atlanta, and that we will finish well the work he has for us here before we go.
* Pledgers, be sure you have emailed all your information to dghousefund@gmail.com. (Your name, pledge amount, mailing address and phone number.)
* Spread the word to help us reach $80,000.
* If you want to join in, visit [the “Offical Launch” post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) and send your pledge info to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com). Then [join our Facebook group](https://www.facebook.com/groups/DwightGingrichHouseFund/) or [subscribe to this blog](http://dwightgingrich.com/#subscribe) to stay informed. Thanks!
Let me end by repeating our warmest thanks to each of you who are praying, pledging, or otherwise encouraging us in the middle of this faith-walk! We feel God’s love through your love. Thank you.
* * *
**If you have questions or comments, [share them below](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-6-send-pledges-heres-how-65895/#respond). God bless!**
* * *
_**Subscribe to stay informed:**_
\[wysija\_form id=”1″\]
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 5: Almost Ready for Your Pledges! ($60,995)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-22
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 5: Almost Ready for Your Pledges! ($60,995) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is an update on our churchfunding effort for buying a house in Atlanta. Thanks to a recent surge in pledges, the pledge total is now $60,994.55.
Tags: churchfunding
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-5-almost-ready-for-pledges-60995
Hi friends! This is a very short announcement for you who have pledged loans and gifts to help us buying a house in Atlanta.
Thanks to a recent surge in pledges, **the pledge total is now $60,994.55**. This is enough that we should be able to make an offer on a house! **Please stay tuned for another post tonight or tomorrow on how you can send in your pledge money.**
If you have no idea what I’m talking about, please look for other “Churchfunding” posts, which will be full of details.
Please pray that Christ will be honored as we move into the next phase of this project. Thank you!
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight
* * *
**You may add your verbal two cents by [leaving a comment below](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-5-almost-ready-for-pledges-60995/#respond).**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 4: In the School of Faith ($44,240)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-20
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 4: In the School of Faith ($44,240) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here's another update on our churchfunding project, raising microloans to buy a house in Atlanta. Our pledge total is currently $44,240!
Tags: churchfunding, faith, trust
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-4-school-of-faith-44240
**Good morning, friends! It’s time for another proper update about our churchfunding experiment.** Pledges have slowed down after the first three days, but we are still honored by the pledges that friends keep offering, and encouraged to see the total climbing.
* * *
**Progress Report
**(As of 8:00 a.m. EST, 10/20/2015)
**_We are over 1/2 way to our goal of $80,000!_**
Total pledged so far: **$44,239.55** (after tithe deducted)
Total pledgers: 66 generous friends (11 more than the last update)
Largest pledge: $5000
Smallest pledge: $75
Average pledge: $683.63
Most common pledge: $500 (30 this size)
Remember, once we near $60,000 we plan to ask pledgers to send in the money you have generously pledged. We are only $15,000 short of this initial goal! **_So this means we could be asking for pledges within just a few days._** We will post that request both here and on Facebook, and ask you to notify us to confirm your pledge is on the way.
_Note: Figures here will fluctuate just a little after we know what exchange rate Canadian contributions actually receive._
* * *
**Update on “The House”**
Sunday night just before turning out the light I made the mistake of checking to see if “our” house was still on the market. It wasn’t. More precisely, it is currently listed as pending sale to another customer.
This has happened several times before with this house over the past six months. We first spotted the house in early September while making plans for our late-September house-hunting visit in Atlanta. Then its status changed to pending sale. But it came back on the market just as we arrived in Atlanta, so we were able to tour the house while there. Each time the house has come off the market it has come back on, often within about half a month.
**So here are several likely scenarios:**
* The current sale goes through and we continue looking for a different house.
* The current sale falls through, by which time we have enough funds to make an offer. Then an inspection reveals some crucial reason why other offers have been retracted, and we continue looking for a different house.
* The current sale falls through, we make an offer, and we decide it is still a good match for us. Perhaps repairs will cost ten or fifteen thousand dollars more than we had hoped, but the ideal location of the house (for our unique purposes) will convince us that it is still a wise investment.
I am hoping it is the last scenario, but we are casting this into God’s hands! Perhaps God has simply been preserving this house for us. Or perhaps he has yet to reveal better plans.
**Either way, our churchfunding effort proceeds as normal.** Whether it is this house or another, we will need funds to make a purchase, and I’m hoping we can find something in the price range of this house. **_And I would love if funds were in place before this house comes back on the market_**—if it does!
I admit that last night some dreams were plaguing me for a while, as my mind tried to imagine ways that it was actually _us_ who already had an offer on the house. I’m glad to report that we haven’t spent a lot of time with such worrying.
Yes, waiting and trusting can take a certain toll on our minds and our bodies, so I’m feeling my need for sleep these days. But _**we haven’t lost all sense of humor**_. The other night just before falling asleep—actually, I think it was Sunday night after I discovered the news, but I’m not sure—the other night Zonya started laughing. You must realize that this is unusual behavior for her for that time of day. My wife is decidedly a morning person, not a night owl. Why was she laughing? “We’ve chosen to use midwives rather than hospitals for the births of our children, and we didn’t use a funeral home at all for Dad’s funeral, so is it any surprise that we are finding a way to avoid the bank when raising a loan for a house?”
Yes, from birth to death and lots in between, it seems we have a way of finding unconventional solutions to life’s challenges. This time we’re relying on some unconventional friends to help us do so. 🙂
* * *
**How You Can Help**
* Pray for the pledger who is about to lose his job (see “One Story” [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-3-halfway-to-offer-30415/)).
* Pray that God will preserve and provide exactly the right house for us.
* Pray that we will trust him well, so that he can receive the glory he so richly deserves.
* Pray that God will perfectly control the timing of our move from Iowa to Atlanta, and that we will finish well the work he has for us here before we go.
* Pledgers, be sure you have emailed all your information to dghousefund@gmail.com. (Your name, pledge amount, mailing address and phone number.)
* Spread the word! Your pledge will help us buy a house only if we find enough funds to move forward.
* If you want to join in, visit [Monday’s blog post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) and send your pledge info to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com). Then [join our Facebook group](https://www.facebook.com/groups/DwightGingrichHouseFund/) or [subscribe to this blog](http://dwightgingrich.com/#subscribe) to stay informed. Thanks!
Let me end by repeating our warmest thanks to each of you who are praying, pledging, or otherwise encouraging us in the middle of this faith-walk! One great side benefit of this churchfunding experiment—indeed, it may be God’s prime benefit for us—is to have so many people surrounding us with encouragement as we work towards moving to Atlanta. We feel God’s love through your love. Thank you.
* * *
**If you have questions or comments, [share them below](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-4-school-of-faith-44240/#respond). God bless!**
* * *
_**Subscribe to stay informed:**_
\[wysija\_form id=”1″\]
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Happy Birthday, DGO!
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-19
Category: DGO website
Meta Title: Happy Birthday, DGO! | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: One year ago yesterday I launched DGO to share the biblical and ecclesiological concerns stirring in my 40-year-young heart. Here is a one-year review.
Tags: DGO website
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/happy-birthday-dgo
**A lot can happen in one year.** By God’s grace, one year ago yesterday [I launched Dwight Gingrich Online](https://dwightgingrich.com/launch-day/) as a vehicle for sharing the biblical and ecclesiological concerns stirring in my 40-year-young heart. While I can’t say my feeble blogging efforts have turned the world upside down, my own world, and the world of my family, has been radically changed.
This post shares some of my reflections on my first (and hopefully not last) year of hosting a website and blog.
**Posting Statistics**
**Total non-blog web pages****: 31
Total blog posts: 94** (plus 52 historical posts copied from Facebook)**
Busiest month: November, 2014 and January, 2015—12 posts each
Slowest month: February and June, 2015—4 posts each**
**Average blogging time per post****: 4.936 hours** (based entirely on unverified personal perception, authorial weariness, and keyboard wear)
**General Traffic Statistics**
**Total views****: 51,970** (This includes maybe 1000 prior to launch.)**
Total visitors: 20,884
Busiest month: May, 2015 or October, 2015** (In May 3,278 visitors made 7,937 views, attracted mostly by a series of posts on Anabaptists and tradition. This month has already seen 3,518 visitors, and may also break records for views.)
**Busiest single day: October 8, 2015** (1,116 visitors made 1,404 views on the day I posted “[In Which a Strange Plan is Hatched on Facebook](https://dwightgingrich.com/strange-plan-hatched-on-facebook/).”)
**Busiest day of the week****: Monday** (25% of all views)**Busiest time of the day: 7:00 a.m.** (CST, I think!)
**Total comments****: 732** (Minus 302 by Yours Truly. Award for busiest commentator goes to Wayne Horst.)
**Blog subscribers****: 149** (plus various Facebook, Feedly, and other followers)
**Most-Read Blog Posts**
1. [Prayers for Conservative Anabaptist Churches](http://dwightgingrich.com/prayers-for-conservative-anabaptist-churches/) (2,002 views)
2. [In Which a Strange Plan is Hatched on Facebook](http://dwightgingrich.com/strange-plan-hatched-on-facebook/) (1,842 views)
3. [“The Holy Scriptures Must Be Our Written Standard”](http://dwightgingrich.com/holy-scriptures-must-be-our-ruling-standard/) (1,774 views)
4. [Churchfunding a House in Atlanta: Official Launch](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) (1,728 views)
5. [“Christian Atheists” — Guest Post by Frank Reed](http://dwightgingrich.com/christian-atheists-frank-reed/) (1,230 views)
6. [Anabaptists, Flat Bibles, and the Sabbath](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-flat-bibles-and-sabbath/) (1,061 views)
7. [A Is for Atlanta](http://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta/) (1,046 views)
8. [Thinking Intentionally about Tradition and Change](http://dwightgingrich.com/thinking-intentionally-about-tradition-change/) (838 views)
9. [What I Learned at AIC 2015 about How to Use the Bible](http://dwightgingrich.com/what-i-learned-at-aic-2015-about-how-to-use-the-bible/) (796 views)
10. [Is a “Radical Lifestyle” a Hurdle for Seekers?](http://dwightgingrich.com/is-radical-lifestyle-hurdle-for-seekers/) (770 views)
**Most-Visited Website Pages**
1. [About Me](http://dwightgingrich.com/about-me/) (1,310 views)
2. [A Beginners’ Bible Reading Plan](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/beginners-bible-reading-plan/) (1,139 views–I’m thrilled with this stat!)
3. [Essays](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/essays/) (749 views)
4. [Recommended Commentaries — Introduction](http://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/intro/) (681 views)
5. [Music](http://dwightgingrich.com/music/) (557 views)
**Worth Special Mention**
* I shared several series of posts, including a 6-part series called **“Giving to and through the Church”** ([see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-6/)), a 7-part series called **“Ecclesiology of the Reformers,”** based on a book by Timothy George ([see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/)), and an informal “series” of posts on **Anabaptists and tradition**, beginning roughly with [this late-April quote from David Bercot](http://dwightgingrich.com/is-radical-lifestyle-hurdle-for-seekers/) and ending with twin posts entitled [“Tradition in the NT: Bad Examples”](http://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-1-bad-examples/) and [“Tradition in the NT: Good Examples.”](http://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-2-good-examples/) (By the way, I have been secretly disappointed that my “bad examples” post has been viewed more often than the “good examples” post, since it is in the latter that I gave my best shot at explaining what the NT actually _does_ teach about tradition!)
* One of Mom’s poems, [“Jesus in the Room”](http://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-in-the-room/)—about sexual sin and/or abuse, surprised us both with the positive response it rapidly received. It has been a great honour (Canadian spelling for the moment!) to share **one of Mom’s poem’s each month** ([see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)). To the extent that I have some writing ability, you now know I’ve come by it honestly.
* It was also a special honor to share **a post about my father-in-law** [Albert Mast’s memorial service](http://dwightgingrich.com/does-the-resurrection-matter-albert-mast-memorial-service/), complete with obituary and the sermon I was invited to give. This was a great opportunity to share on one of my favorite, world-framing truths—resurrection!
* I still invite more feedback on **[my essay draft about Mennonites and ordinances](http://dwightgingrich.com/125-years-7-ordinances-rough-draft/)**, and I still hope to rework that essay within the next year or so.
**Things I’ve Learned (or Re-learned) while Blogging**
* **Good writing is hard work** and takes a lot of time.
* **Posting a good piece of writing takes even more time**–adding links and tags and categories, preparing the post for search engines, making it easy for people to comment, etc. Since my goal is to have a website that is [searchable and indexed](http://dwightgingrich.com/blog-index/) as an ever-growing resource and not merely some here-today-gone-tomorrow musings, these things take time.
* **Falling short of your goals is better than not attempting any goals at all.** I’ve written fewer book reports than I’d hoped, I haven’t kept the “Events for Bible Students” calendar up to date, I’ve failed to post Linford Berry’s videos on sermon prep, I haven’t started that series of guest posts about the value of training in Bible interpretation, my family photo is now 2 years old, and I’ve never had the time to launch a “Q and A” feature as some have wished. But what God _has_ accomplished through DGO has encouraged me!
* **It is really, really hard to “speak the truth in love”** (Eph. 4:15). The post where I was perhaps most specific in my “prophetic assessments” was the one about the Anabaptist Identity Conference (actually, there were a few). The response to this post was mostly positive—based, at least, on what was said to me! I even had a church leader I’ve never met call me up to thank me for the post. But I also discovered in personal conversation with one of the AIC organizers (a dear brother in Christ) that my post was painful for him, and that we don’t see eye-to-eye on some significant secondary matters about church life. I love this dear brother and deeply respect his testimony for Christ. And I love all my brothers and sisters with whom I disagree. Family disagreements are no fun at all. I made one or two minor edits to the post and left it standing. Maybe in the future one or both of us will make further edits to our understandings? My deepest desire is to help build up the church of Christ (Eph. 4:16), yet I wrestle with how best to do that.
* **We conservative Anabaptists, unlike the scholarly academic guild, have no widely-accepted protocols for how to disagree with each other in print.** We are not used to the public assessment of each other that happens in, say, the book review section of a peer-reviewed journal. How do those ways of assessing each other’s ideas fit with an Anabaptist focus on brotherly love and one-on-one Matthew 18 confrontation? And especially when your primary interaction with the brother at hand is via publicly-shared books or recorded sermons? And when the disagreement is about secondary doctrinal differences and not moral failings unlike in Matthew 18)? Again, I want to learn more about “speaking the truth in love.”
* **Both truth and our response to truth are important.** That’s one reason I’ve been excited to include Mom’s poems here—she brings an element of reflection and worship that my posts don’t always directly include, but which is important to me.
* **Lots of people are really hungry for solid biblical answers.** Blogging is connecting me with people all over whom I’ve never met. Some of them have sent private messages with theological and practical questions. There continues to be a need for careful Bible study and clearly-articulated answers.
* **The church is bigger than I know.** Blogging has connected me with Anabaptists of many kinds from all over, and also with others beyond (such as Anabaptist-watcher [Arthur Sido](http://thesidos.blogspot.com/) and Baptist author/missionary [Dave Black](http://www.daveblackonline.com/blog.htm)).
* **I enjoy tracking blog stats**, am capable of spending too much time doing so, and have a daily need to surrender the popularity of my blog to God.
* **You never know who is reading what you share online.** (I’ve been surprised when an author commented on a review I wrote of his book!)
* **You often can’t tell beforehand which posts will gain the biggest response.** So, in faith, you keep throwing your words to the wind…
* **Only about half of your subscribers will actually read each post.** So, in faith, you keep throwing your words to the wind…
* **There is a lot of noise online.** Fewer quality posts are often better than many shallow ones. And addressing current events and controversies isn’t always the most important thing to do.
* **Blogging can change your life…**
**How Blogging Has Changed My Life**
This could be a long essay, but I’ll keep it short: _**Who would have every guessed a year ago that this blog would lead us to pick up roots and plan a move to Atlanta, GA?**_ God alone knows what this move will bring. (Or even if it will actually happen—oh the joys of house-hunting and waiting on God’s timing! No, we have _not_ given up.) But I’m amazed and blessed that God can use a series of ordinary “coincidental’ events to guide his people! You can read about this [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta/).
_I wonder how blogging might change our lives in the next year…_
**Thank You**
I give my hearty thanks to each of you who have supported me in my blogging efforts! You have greatly encouraged me.
As I look ahead to the next year of blogging, I want to give this website again to God. May he bless it for as many days as it brings glory to his name!
Finally, despite an unusually large number of recent posts that are personal in nature, the purpose of this website remains the same: _This website exists to build up the Church of Jesus Christ by helping her listen carefully to the Scriptures._
I repeat my invitation to help hold me accountable to this end.
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight
* * *
**I welcome you to join me in reflecting on the past year of DGO.** Was there a specific post I didn’t mention there that especially helped you? Do you have any advice to give me for the next year? How do you think a website with the goals I’ve identified can best help build the church, Anabaptist and beyond? **[Share your insights in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/happy-birthday-dgo/#respond).**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Only God’s World [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-18
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Only God's World | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: sorrow, faith, God, -1 John 1:5, -1 John 4:8, -Hebrews 11:6, -Psalm 9:10, -Romans 4:17, -Romans 4:20-21, C.S. | Lewis, chance, loss, pain, sonnet, theology, tragedy
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/only-gods-world
_**Some months ago a friend asked if I would write about why I am interested in theology.** There are a lot of answers to that question. The most important answer is one that leads into this month’s poem from Mom: I am interested in theology because theology is ultimately the study of God, and_ the better we know God, the better we can trust him_._
_Yes, I realize this doesn’t always seem true. Sometimes in our walk with God we discover, to use C.S. Lewis’s famous words, that “he isn’t safe.” And it may take longer to learn the rest of the couplet: “But he’s good.”_
_But listen to these words of Scripture. Isn’t it ultimately true that the better we learn to know God, the better we can trust him? Listen to the testimony of David:_
> And those who know your name put their trust in you,
> for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you. (Ps. 9:10)
_…And the insights into God’s nature that Abraham, the friend of God, possessed:_
> …The God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist… No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. (Rom. 4:17, 20-21)
_And consider the two-fold confidence of true faith:_
> And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe **that he exists** and **that he rewards** those who seek him. (Heb. 11:6, emphasis added)
_Only with a firm grasp on the existence and goodness of God can we survive the apparently meaningless suffering of this world. Only when we are confident that_ God grasps us _can we rest in his care. Theology—the rational study of God’s character and actions, past, present and future—can thus be a springboard for a faith that carries us far beyond what our rational minds can understand._
_I’ll let Mom continue from here. May God strengthen your faith as you read her words._
* * *
**God has created us as rational beings, but because we are limited in knowledge and bounded by time and space, the key to peace of mind in this sin-cursed universe is not reason, but faith.** Totally senseless accidents occur and tragedy stalks our days on earth. But “God is love” and “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” I John 4:8;1:5 That is the only safe foundation for security and sanity.
This poem was written in 1999 after an accident that was not only tragic but full of painful ironies. _Parents of 3 die during safety stop_ read one newspaper headline. Why should two loving parents die while attempting to secure their children’s seat belts, leaving three very young children behind as orphans? Why should God allow the foot of a conscientious father to slip at an intersection with a dangerous incline?
Though we were not closely acquainted with the family, we, like many others in our broader church family and beyond, were deeply moved by the incident. How do we interpret our world and our God at such a time? Only by holding fast to faith in our unchanging God and in His love for us can we find comfort. Only by believing His good intent for His children can we find hope and meaning in an unpredictable and often painful world.
Some of my poems expressing grief are free-verse, apparently as spontaneous and uncontrolled as the tears and confused outpourings of a broken heart. This poem is a sonnet, very structured in form, perhaps an attempt on my part to impose form and pattern and some reason on an unpredictable world. But my ultimate hope rests on God’s promises of a new heaven and new earth where perfection will finally be realized and our anguished questions will be a dim memory.
* * *
**ONLY GOD’S WORLD**
Why trust this God Who labelled His world good,
With perfect seasons carefully designed,
If senseless accidents can still intrude
And rend the closest ties of humankind?
What world _but_ God’s endures loss and survives,
Can bear and beautify, can make grief seem
The awful tragedy it is, in that our lives
Require divine involvement to redeem?
For in a world that claims no God but chance,
There chaos is the norm and trust deceived.
All grief’s a joke where all is happenstance,
All love a waste where none can be believed.
If you would have your sorrow honoured, keep
Your faith in God Who sits with you to weep.
—Elaine Gingrich, December 1999
Note: This poem was printed in The Midwest Focus and later anthologized in [_Reflections of God’s Grace in Grief_](http://amzn.to/1QFKH8t) (c. 2009) which was written and compiled by Faythelma Bechtel, a dear lady who is closely acquainted with grief.
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/only-gods-world/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353321075-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 3: Halfway to Making an Offer ($30,415)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-15
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 3: Halfway to Making an Offer ($30,415) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here is an update on our churchfunding project for buying a house in Atlanta. We've now reached $30,414.55 in pledges--with more coming!
Tags: churchfunding
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-3-halfway-to-offer-30415
**Hi friends! This update will be brief, since I need to head off to work.
**
* * *
**Progress Report
**(As of 8:00 a.m. EST, 10/15/2015)
**_We are well over 1/3 of the way to our goal of $80,000!_**
Total pledged so far: **$30,414.55** (after tithe deducted)
Total pledgers: 55 generous friends (5 more than the last update)
Largest pledge: $3000
Smallest pledge: $75
Average pledge: $561.26
Remember, once we near $60,000 we plan to move ahead with an offer. **_So this means we are now half way to making an offer!_** I checked right now and “the house” is still listed for sale.
_**And more good news: I just received an offer for our largest pledge yet!**_ I haven’t included it in these figures because I need to confirm that the loan is being offered on the terms of this churchfunding project.
_Note: Figures here will fluctuate just a little after we know what exchange rate Canadian contributions actually receive._
**How You Can Help**
* Pray for a pledger who is about to lose his job (see below).
* Pray that God will perfectly control the timing of our move from Iowa to Atlanta, and that we will finish well the work he has for us here before we go.
* Pledgers, be sure you have emailed all your information to dghousefund@gmail.com. (Your name, pledge amount, mailing address and phone number.)
* Spread the word! Your pledge will help us buy a house only if we find enough funds to move forward.
* If you want to join in, visit [Monday’s blog post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) and send your pledge info to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com). Then [join our Facebook group](https://www.facebook.com/groups/DwightGingrichHouseFund/) or [subscribe to this blog](http://dwightgingrich.com/#subscribe) to stay informed. Thanks!
* * *
**One Story**
Yesterday we received this note along with one of our pledges (edited to ensure anonymity):
> I don’t know you very well and I don’t think you know me, but I’ve been challenged and blessed with your blog writings. I’ve also watched this church funding project with a lot of interest… Currently, I’m working for a company that is not succeeding. It’s been a difficult road with an uncertain future.
>
> Recently, I’ve been fighting a lot of fear as I’ve been told I will be laid off of my job by the end of this month. As of now, I don’t have anything lined up to go to. This a new “financial low” for me that I’ve never experienced before.
>
> This morning God asked me to give [$500](https://www.facebook.com/#) towards your church funding project and I confess I argued with God about it. You probably have a good idea of how that argument went. Out of a desire to be obedient to God, I’m pledging [$500](https://www.facebook.com/#) towards your house project. I want this to be gift and I don’t want to be paid back.
Please pray for this dear brother! I believe he is a husband and father with several children, so pray for his family as well.
* * *
**If you have questions or comments, [share them below](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-3-halfway-to-offer-30415/#respond). God bless!**
* * *
_**Subscribe to stay informed:
**_
\[wysija\_form id=”1″\]
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 2: Our New Accountant ($26,965)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-14
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 2: Our New Accountant ($26,965) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here's an update about our project of churchfunding a house in Atlanta. We now have about $27,000 in pledged microloans and gifts!
Tags: churchfunding, giving
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2-new-accountant-26965
**Hi friends! Here’s an update about our project to churchfund a house in Atlanta.** Thanks for your interest in our move to Atlanta and our house hunt! Feel free to invite others to send a pledge if you think it would bring them joy.
(If you don’t know what I’m talking about, please go here and consider getting involved: [Churchfunding a House in Atlanta: Official Launch](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/).)
* * *
**Progress Report
**(As of 5:15 a.m. EST, 10/14/2015)
**_We are over 1/3 of the way to our goal of $80,000!_**
Total pledged so far: **$26,964.55** (after tithe deducted)
Total pledgers: 50 generous friends (12 new in the past 24 hours)
Largest pledge: $3000
Smallest pledge: $75
Average pledge: $547.39
Remember, once we near $60,000 we plan to move ahead with an offer. (Gifts from family that are budgeted for repairs and home furnishings can be temporarily used to help make an offer.) _**This means we only need 60 more pledgers giving average-sized pledges before we can move ahead.**_ I checked tonight and “the house” is still listed for sale.
_Note: Figures here will fluctuate just a little after we know what exchange rate Canadian contributions actually receive._
**How You Can Help**
* Pray!
* Pledgers, be sure you have emailed all your information to dghousefund@gmail.com. (Your name, pledge amount, mailing address and phone number.)
* Spread the word! Your pledge will help us buy a house only if we find enough funds to move forward.
* If you want to join in, visit [Monday’s blog post](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) and send your pledge info to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com). Then [join our Facebook group](https://www.facebook.com/groups/DwightGingrichHouseFund/) or [subscribe to this blog](http://dwightgingrich.com/#subscribe) to stay informed. Thanks!
* * *
**A Story and a Meditation**
We are anticipating a visit from one of our pledgers! Someone who offered a $500 gift told us he will be traveling through Iowa next week. “Do you have a pile of musty straw in your barn?” he asked. We might even let him sleep on a mattress in the basement—if he can navigate around all the boxes we’re collecting for moving!
Zonya and I are really humbled to see where some of the pledges are coming from. Those pledging loans and even gifts include full-time missionaries, poor pastors, renters, and friends who are still scraping to make payments on their own houses. Those who know what it is to actively trust God for their needs are often among those who are quickest to give. I could start naming names, but these people probably wouldn’t like it.
Speaking about giving, here is a really good new post from Christy Smucker: [How Trust Frees Us To Give](https://movinginfaith.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/how-trust-frees-us-to-give/). I still have so much to learn.
* * *
**I’ll end by posting a picture of our new accountant.** After just a bit more training on writing dollar signs she’ll be taking over record keeping for your pledges. 🙂
Priya, our new accountant. (Yesterday Zonya took the girls to the library to do homeschool.)
* * *
**If you have questions or comments, [share them below](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2-new-accountant-26965/#respond). God bless!**
* * *
_**Subscribe to stay informed:**_
\[wysija\_form id=”1″\]
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding Update 1: Info for Canadians and More ($20,625)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-13
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding Update 1: Info for Canadians and More ($20,625) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I'll be posting updates here about our experiment in churchfunding microloans for buying a house in Atlanta. We now have about $20,000 in pledges!
Tags: churchfunding
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-1-canadians-20625
**Hi friends! For the next while I’ll be posting updates here about our experiment in churchfunding microloans for buying a house in Atlanta.** Many of you are supporting this project, and I want to keep you well informed!
(For those of you who aren’t interested, please sit tight. We will return to regular programming in a bit! I promise that fundraising will not be a primary long-term focus of this blog. And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, please go here and consider getting involved: [Churchfunding a House in Atlanta: Official Launch](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/).)
* * *
**Progress Report
**(As of 6:00 a.m. EST, 10/13/2015)
**_We are over 1/4 of the way to our goal of $80,000!_**
Total pledged so far: **$20,624.55** (after tithe deducted)
Total pledgers: 38 generous friends
Largest pledge: $3000
Smallest pledge: $75
Average pledge: $551.83
Pledges so far include about $3,450 in gifts. This means we have $345 to add to the nearly $2,500 we will be tithing from gifts from family, all of which will be split between helping [those driven from their homes in the Middle East](https://christianaidministries.org/programs#category-35) and the building purchase fund of the [Missions Training Center](http://www.mtcinnyc.com/) in NYC.
So far the gifts we have received easily cover any interest we will owe. Thus it looks like we are being blessed with an interest-free loan! What an incredible gift! (But remember, we certainly have no quibbles about paying interest.)
Remember, if you want to join in, visit [yesterday’s blog post](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) and send your pledge info to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com). Then [join our Facebook group](https://www.facebook.com/groups/DwightGingrichHouseFund/) or [subscribe to this blog](#subscribe) to stay informed. Thanks!
_Note: Figures here will fluctuate just a little after we know what exchange rate Canadian contributions actually receive._
* * *
**Stories**
I think my favorite pledge today was a $500 pledge (interest-free loan) from an 81-year-old woman who I first met on Amazon, while having a good discussion about church membership in a comments thread at the end of a book review. After that discussion we became friends on Facebook. Then today this dear sister surprised me by sending a pledge! And by revealing her age! 🙂
Speaking of age, another somewhat-less-senior friend emailed me this:
> Wondering if your plans for “random” repayments factor in the age of the lenders! We would probably want to be higher on the list rather than later.
I think that’s a reasonable request. Maybe we should tweak the randomness a bit in favor of those over, say, 60? I’d hate for my friend to still be waiting for a check at 96… If you have thoughts about this, speak on.
I have another story I would love to tell but can’t share here. Let’s just say this churchfunding project is unfolding before the eyes of the unchurched, too, causing at least one person’s heart to soften toward the church. As my friend who told me this story said, “An interesting side benefit, isn’t it?” Indeed! In fact, this may be the main idea in God’s mind.
* * *
**Especially for Canadians**
If you are a Canadian considering joining this project, we both know about the horrid exchange rates right now. But if you want to persist, I did a bit of thinking today about the best options for sending funds south of the border.
I think two options may be best:
\* **Use PayPal** to send funds to my PayPal email address (which I’ll provide when the time for collecting pledges nears). _There will be no PayPal fees besides exchange rates as long as senders do not use a debit or credit card when sending the funds._ Instead, use funds already deposited in PayPal or use PayPal to send funds directly from a bank account. This will be the quickest option.
\* **Mail a bank draft in US funds** to my physical address (which I’ll provide when needed). This will be slower and cost senders a bank processing fee, but is still a good option.
If any Canadians know of better options, I’m listening.
If you do invest in this project, we will track your loan in US dollars based on what we receive after currency exchange. Then when repayment time comes, we will return that US dollar amount via whatever exchange rates are current at that time. Does that make sense? If not, again, I am ears; I want this to be not only easy to track, but also fair. (And as a fellow Canadian, I am well aware that it isn’t always fun being the mouse living next to the elephant!)
* * *
**In Closing…**
We remain very humbled and honored by the outpouring of love we are receiving! We are experiencing grace once again. It only comes to those who don’t deserve it.
**Please pray that:**
* God will be honored in everything.
* He will continue to raise up supporters, if this pleases him.
* The house we have our eyes on will remain on the market till funds are raised, and then prove to be purchasable—or that God will provide something better for his purposes.
* A special blessing would be given to Rod and his family, as he volunteers a lot of time for this project.
* We will be shaped more fully into Christ’s image.
**If you have questions or comments, [share them below](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-1-canadians-20625/#respond). God bless!**
* * *
_**Subscribe to stay informed:**_
\[wysija\_form id=”1″\]
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Churchfunding a House in Atlanta: Official Launch
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-12
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: Churchfunding a House in Atlanta | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Do you want to help our family buy a house in Atlanta? We've decided to try an experiment in "churchfunding," using microloans from the church of Christ.
Tags: churchfunding, microloans, Atlanta
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch
**Do you want to help our family buy a house in Atlanta?** Thanks to widespread enthusiasm and the support of key friends and advisers, we’ve decided to try an experiment in churchfunding—crowdfunding done by the church of Jesus Christ. ([See here](https://dwightgingrich.com/strange-plan-hatched-on-facebook/) for the story of how this idea began, and [see here](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta/) for our decision to move to Atlanta.)
**Update:** See [Update 6](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-6-send-pledges-heres-how-65895/) for how to send the money you have pledged. See also [Update 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-1-canadians-20625/), [Update 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-2-new-accountant-26965/), [Update 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-3-halfway-to-offer-30415/), [Update 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-4-school-of-faith-44240/), and [Update 7](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-7-funds-ready-waiting-on-house-69635/) to read the unfolding story. _**As of 8:00 a.m., 10/30/2015, the pledge total is $69,635.05.**_
Before I share another word, I want to declare our full dependence on our sovereign God: “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps” (Prov. 16:9). This plan is in God’s hands. If it will bring glory to Christ, may it prosper! If not, may he revise it thoroughly as he sees best.
**In This Post**
Click on these titles to navigate within this post:
* [Basic Information](#basic) (all you need to know to help)
* [Why You Might Want to Help](#why) (8-1/2 powerful reasons)
* [A Note About Gifts](#gifts) (if you give to us, we’ll give to others)
* [Questions and Answers](#q&a) (if you want more details)
* [Legal Disclaimers](#legal) (if you participate, you agree to these conditions)
**Basic Information**
**The big idea:**
* Raise $80,000 to buy a house in Atlanta, as we move there to join Steve and Christy Smucker in church planting.
* Anyone may contribute a loan of any size toward this goal. We are offering 10% interest (total, not compounded) on your loan. Some supporters are surprising us by offering interest-free loans or gifts instead.
* We will repay $500 monthly, so that everyone is repaid in random order sometime within the next 15 years or less. (If we are able, we would like to repay sooner.) _10/30/15 update:_ _Thanks to gifts and interest-free loans, we are now on target to complete repayments three years earlier than expected! **So you can now expect repayment sometime in the next 11 years and 9 months, not 15 years**. 🙂
_
**How to get involved:**
1. **_Pledge your level of support as soon as possible._** Send your name, the amount you are pledging, your mailing address, your phone number, and your email address to [dghousefund@gmail.com](mailto:dghousefund@gmail.com). (We need this data for repayment purposes). Also, if you want to send an interest-free loan or a gift instead, please clearly specify in your email.
2. _**Tell other potential lenders. Then watch the pledges grow.**_ The more widely this is shared, the more likely we will reach our goal in time to make an offer on the house we have selected. Please share widely! We will post updates on both Facebook ([Dwight Gingrich House Fund](https://www.facebook.com/groups/DwightGingrichHouseFund/)) and my blog ([subscribe here](#subscribe)), so signing up to one of these will be the easiest way to stay informed.
3. _**Send your pledge money when we request it.**_ When pledges near a total of $60,000, we will ask you to send your pledge ASAP. (Update: We have now passed that mark, but still email a pledge before you send your money.)
4. _**Pray**_ as we make an offer on a house.
5. _**Praise God**_ as we announce a house purchase.
6. _**Wait to receive a “surprise” loan repayment**_ sometime in the next 15 years.
We have already received about $10,000 in pledged loans and gifts! The pledges range in size from $75 to $2000, with most being either $250 or $500. Any amount is helpful!
That’s all some of you will need to know. You may contact us right now to offer your pledge, or read on for more details.
**Why You Might Want to Help**
**You will want to help if…**
* You know Zonya and me and want to encourage us as our family moves to Atlanta.
* You know Steve and Christy and want to bless them by helping their new teammates join them.
* You want to see an ABC (Anabaptist-accented, Bible-based, Christ-centered) church planted in Atlanta.
* You think Christians today should find ways to imitate the mutual care of the early church (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35).
* You want unbelievers to witness Christians loving each other.
* You want to join a 21st-century version of an Amish barn-raising.
* You like the church better than the bank.
* You want this experiment to be repeated by others.
* You are happy to see us leave Leon, IA. (Okay, we hope that’s a joke!)
And if you want to help but chose not to, we understand that, too. 🙂
**A Note About Gifts**
We are not asking for gifts. This is designed as a reproducible experiment in God’s people offering microloans. But God’s people also give. So if you wish to give a gift, it will be a great blessing, and we will humbly say Thank You!
**_If you decide to give, please be aware that only 90% of your gift will go toward our fundraising total._** The other 10% will be divided between two charitable needs:
1. Christian Aid Ministries’ “[Middle Eastern Crisis](https://christianaidministries.org/programs#category-35)” programs—caring for those made homeless by war.
2. The [Missions Training Center](http://www.mtcinnyc.com/) in Queens, NY. This ministry of the Biblical Mennonite Alliance has a goal of raising about $100,000 more toward their building fund yet this year. (Their projected total purchase cost is about 1.1 to 1.3 million dollars.)
**Questions and Answers**
**Questions:**
* _[What is your target date?](#date)_
* _[Why $80,000?](#80)_
* _[How is $60,000 enough for making an offer?](#60)_
* _[Why shouldn’t I send the money immediately?](#send)_
* _[When will repayments begin?](#repay)_
* _[Have you tried other loan options?](#loans)_
* [_Isn’t 10% interest high?_](#10)
* _[What are your plans for income in Atlanta?](#income)_
* _[Can you describe the house you are hoping to buy?](#house)_
* _[How will you keep track of so many loans?](#track)_
* _[How is this different from GoFundMe?](#gofundme)_
* _[Is this legal?](#attorney)_
* _[Who is responsible for this churchfunding idea?](#idea)_
**Answers:**
* _**What is your target date?**_ As soon as possible! We are ready to make an offer as soon as we have the funds.
* _**Why $80,000?**_ We are interested in a house that is listed at $75,000, and we heard a cash offer for $70,000 was recently rejected. $80,000 allows us to offer the full asking price, plus have room to either offer a bit more or do some repairs.
* _**How is $60,000 enough for making an offer?**_ Our families are giving us gifts that will provide about $24,750. While we expect to use these gifts for repairs and a little remodeling (knocking out walls to turn a bedroom into a dining room), they would allow us to make an offer once our pledges reach about $60,000. Then additional pledges would be used for repairs and remodeling.
* _**Why shouldn’t I send the money immediately?**_ Two reasons: (1) If we fall far short of our fundraising goal and need to apply for a loan to make up the difference, unusual cash flow patterns in our bank account could make it harder to qualify for a loan. (2) If we end up with too little to buy a house, there is no use you having sent your loan.
* _**When will repayments begin?**_ Repayments will begin, God willing, either (a) one month after we close on a house or (b) 6 months after we first asked the loans to be sent to us—whichever comes first. Thus (a) you can expect repayments to begin no later than 6 months after sending us your money and (b) we can have a 6-month window for finding another house, should our first selection fall through. Please note: If we need to supplement this churchfunding with a small bank loan, the bank loan will need to be repaid first. However, the churchfunding loans will still be targeted for repayment within the originally-intended 15 years.
* _**Have you tried other loan options?**_ Yes. We applied for a loan from a Georgia bank recommended by our realtor, but due to my lack of proof of past income _in Atlanta_ they required a cosigner. (Our Iowa income was sufficient, just in the “wrong” state.) Then, since my cosigner was out of state, they could only offer an FHA loan. This kind of loan comes with lots of paperwork and restrictions, such as that an FHA inspector needs to make a list of house repairs that must be done by FHA-approved licensed contractors within a 30-day window, with ongoing inspections and… So we contacted Anabaptist Financial, but they are not yet certified to provide loans for primary residences in Georgia. That’s when I posted my just-for-fun Facebook post that snowballed into what you are reading here. We think this has potential for being more Christ-honoring than a bank loan, anyway!
* _**Isn’t 10% interest high?**_ 10% sounds high for a home loan, but it’s actually very low since it’s not compounded. Structuring the loans this way will have a total cost to our family of less than 2% APR over the life of the repayment period, saving us thousands of dollars in interest compared to a traditional bank loan.
* _**What are your plans for income in Atlanta?**_ We have several income streams in mind: (1) I plan to continue writing for Open Hands, which provided about a quarter of our income in the past year. (2) I plan to teach piano from home. This was our largest source of income during our four years in Queens, NY, during which time we were paying $1,200/month in rent. (3) I am applying for part-time work with Choice Books, which is expanding in Atlanta, and already have received verbal confirmation that employment is likely. We also have some emergency savings that we expect we may draw on during our first year or two in Atlanta, while piano teaching and other options ramp up to speed.
* _**Can you describe the house you are hoping to buy?**_ We are interested in an older brick house with a little front room that would be great for piano teaching. **(Update: This house is now pending sale to someone else, but may return to market. See [Update 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-4-school-of-faith-44240/) for more details.)** The main floor is about 1500 sq./ft., with three bedrooms plus one we’d convert into a dining room. We hope to reserve one room for guests and might use another for hosting a university student. The living room is not huge, but large enough to host a small house church gathering. The upstairs is cute, with sloped ceilings and room for the girls to sleep, play, and do home school. The best thing about the house is its location: an easy walk from Steves’, a library, and a couple parks, and on a street where visitors from near and far would be comfortable finding us. Sorry, I won’t post a link to the house here, because I don’t want the seller to see hundreds of extra people scouting it out! 🙂
* _**How will you keep track of so many loans?**_ Two financially-minded friends (see “who is responsible” below) created a detailed spreadsheet specifically designed for this project.
* _**How is this different from GoFundMe?**_ Not that much different, besides the fact that no one will be taking about 8% off the top like GoFundMe does. Also, most GoFundMe campaigns are for gifts, not loans.
* _**Is this legal?**_ Just to be sure, we asked an attorney to review this plan, and he didn’t see any problems.
* _**Who is responsible for this churchfunding idea?**_ Three answers: (1) I confess I first posted the idea, though in jest. (2) As people started liking the idea, small businessman Jesse Kropf first sketched how it might actually work, and CPA Rodney Troyer added his expertise. Together they and I brainstormed for several days about how to make it work. Jesse is no longer taking any leadership role in this project, but is cheering from the sidelines. Rodney is remaining directly involved to provide crucial technical assistance and financial advice, especially during the initial stage of recruiting pledges and funds. (3) I take full and sole responsibility for all repayment responsibilities associated with this project. While I heartily thank Jesse and Rodney for their essential help, they bear no responsibility whatsoever for repaying any loans. If I fail to repay these loans, I give permission in advance for my brothers and sisters in the church of Jesus Christ to discipline me as described in Matthew 18 and related NT texts. I urge my co-church planters and my personal advisers to hold me accountable to this commitment and give them permission to help craft appropriate repayment plans if I fall short, whether through moral failure or financial difficulty.
**Legal Disclaimers**
You are lending money to us, Dwight and Zonya Gingrich, on a personal basis. This is a trust-based transaction, and there is no legal recourse if you are not paid back. We are promising to repay the loans, and we will do our utmost to keep our promise, including selling assets if necessary, but these loans are not collateralized by our home or assets. You agree not to take legal action against Dwight and Zonya (or Jesse Kropf, Rodney Troyer, or our church partners or advisers) in the event of any problems with this process. Please do not invest money that you can’t afford to lose, or money that you will need sooner than 15 years from now. All investors agree to be paid back at a random time in the next 15 years, at the specified rate. You agree that the interest you may receive will not be compounded or adjusted for time loaned. In addition, if you ask to be repaid sooner than the random schedule provides for, you agree to forfeit any interest owed to you, at our discretion. These loans are not secured or insured by the FDIC, are not bank deposits, may lose value, are not bank guaranteed, and are not insured by any federal government agency. By sending money to Dwight Gingrich via mail or electronic payment, you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions.
Addendum: If, for legal reasons, someone making a larger contribution (say, in excess of $2,500) needs a promissory note, we would be glad to provide one.
Personal note: If you are not comfortable lending under these conditions, then please do not lend. We will not be offended! We have no interest in recruiting lenders who may later turn around and try to sue us if we are unable to repay on schedule. Most of the best things in life (like marriage and church families and even a working economy) are built on trust, with no certain guarantees about the future. They involve opening ourselves up to potential hurt. In accepting your loans we, too, open ourselves up to potential hurt. If we cannot repay, many precious relationships could be damaged. But I have no guarantee of anything even as small as my next breath! So I live by faith, resting in the only One who has all in perfect control. It is for the sake of his name, and the name of his son, Jesus Christ the Lord, that we embark on this experiment!
And if I may dream just a little… it would please me greatly to see this experiment repeated many times by God’s people. I look forward to the day when I can help churchfund the needs of another Kingdom citizen!
I’ll end by quoting this from a friend and mentor, who is exactly the kind of supporter we welcome. I asked him a few days ago to either withdraw or reaffirm his support for this churchfunding plan. This was his response:
> I still think it is a really great idea and would give people like me who love you a chance to be part of your lives and move to Atlanta. Frankly, I’m not worried about things going South. If that happens and you couldn’t pay me back I would feel like I helped a really great family. If you can set up a simple tracking system and not lose track of any person who contributed, I think that would be great. It doesn’t have to be super complicated.
Thank you for your interest!
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight Gingrich
* * *
**Printable file of this post:**
**[Dwight Gingrich House Fund – Handout](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/DwightGingrichHouseFund-Handout.pdf)**
* * *
**If you have questions or responses, feel free to [contact me privately](https://dwightgingrich.com/contact/) or [write a comment below](http://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/#respond). I may update the Q&A section above based on your responses.**
* * *
**Subscribe to Dwight Gingrich Online to stay informed about this churchfunding experiment:**
\[wysija\_form id=”1″\]
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## In Which a Strange Plan Is Hatched on Facebook (News Bulletin)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-10-08
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: A Strange Plan Hatched On Facebook | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Maybe God can be honored by an idea hatched on Facebook, and maybe 21st century technology can help us imitate the mutual care of the early church.
Tags: churchfunding, microloans, body of Christ, Atlanta, crowdfunding, Facebook, interest, Japheth | Stauffer, Jesse | Kropf, Linford | Berry, Rodney | Troyer
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/strange-plan-hatched-on-facebook
**A lot can happen in three days.** Jesus rose again on the third day, you know. And over the last three days a lesser (but certainly related) drama has been unfolding before my eyes. I’m tempted to call it “the miracle on Facebook.”
**Update: This plan is now live!** Please click [HERE](https://dwightgingrich.com/churchfunding-house-in-atlanta-official-launch/) to read all about it. If it gives you joy to join in, your help will be a great blessing!
Monday evening I posted this on Facebook, just for the fun of it:
> If each of my blog subscribers would loan us $500, we could make a cash purchase right now on a home in Atlanta. Then we could pay back one creditor each month over the next 11 years, holding a draw to see who is the lucky loaner. That sounds kind of exciting, eh? Or here’s another option: If each of my Facebook friends would loan only $100, we’d be even further ahead. And we could pay back FIVE people each month!
>
> Hey, they told me to think outside the box… __🙂__
>
> #GodWillProvide #StillDiscoveringHow
(Neither Zonya nor I can recall whether she had the idea first, or me, or if we both came up with the wacky suggestion at the same time.)
Pretty soon I was seeing comments like this:
> Love it!
>
> Its a deal.
>
> Tell me where to send the money and whether I should send $100 or $500 🙂
>
> I’d be glad to help.
>
> Let’s do it!
And a bit later, comments like this one from businessman Jesse Kropf:
> I like it… got my mind whirling on how you would track everything. 😉 It’s probably not likely that 100% of your FB friends will take you up on the offer, so how about this:
>
> Crowdsource the loan on FB in increments of $250. Then you only need 310 people to join in to reach your goal. Make it more attractive by promising to repay $275 for each segment of the loan, and you will pay back 2 segments per month by random drawing. 10% might sound like a lot, but it’s actually very little with this structure. With a regular 30 year mortgage, most people pay 100% interest over the life of the loan, with an APR in the 5% range.
>
> So if one person decides to loan you $2500, they will be paid back in random segments of $250 + $25 interest, like everyone else. The money will return sometime in the next 11 years.
>
> What do you think? I just might decide to try it myself… 😉
And this from a CPA named Rodney Troyer:
> Referencing Jesse’s comment above: 310/2 = 155 months = 12 years, 11 months. The last person to get paid, after almost 13 years, would make .075% in interest, (compounded monthly). This is about what banks are paying for savings accounts right now. Everyone else would do better than that (some much better). Your interest rate would be 1.491%, something almost anyone could live with, I think.
>
> This comes down to whether your friends trust you more than they trust a bank! Haha!
>
> Seriously, though, I’m in for $250, just for the experience and the pleasant surprise sometime in the future of finding a $275 check in my mailbox at random. I’ll volunteer to track it for you, too, if you would want help with that.
And this from another businessman, Linford Berry:
> I think you ought to take Jesse and Rodney up on their ideas and offer. And then you can have some more material for you blogs regarding this experiment. I’m in.
And this from pastor Japheth Stauffer:
> We are looking at doing something like this amongst our local body for more brotherhood interaction and bonding. We were thinking more of a business sense though, but we need houses as much as we need work!
> Dwight, I’ve never met you, but count me in for $250 if you decide to go this way, but I want no interest!
And, as of 11 p.m. on October 7, here is the last comment:
> I am blessed even though I don’t know any of you. Jesus said by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if have love one for another.
And already nearly $6000 has been offered in pledged loans!
**So yes, folks, it’s actually happening: thanks to the initiative of Jesse and Rodney, it looks like we’re trying a new experiment in unconventional loans.** Some call it crowdsourcing or, more specifically, crowdfunding. In this case, I think we could call it churchfunding, since the crowd is the result of Christ’s church in action.
On Sunday just a week and a half ago, when we were in Atlanta visiting Steve Smuckers (our church planting teammates), I shared some teaching on the biblical imagery of the Body of Christ and its members. My central point was that the Body of Christ is larger than any one local congregation. Thus every local congregation must remember that it belongs to something bigger than itself. We need the Church beyond our local gatherings.
Well, I preached it, and now I’m experiencing it. We are experiencing the gifts of the Body of Christ in action, doing things that we could not do or even dream of doing on our own. Doing them in the love of Christ. And we are deeply moved by what is happening.
Perhaps this is an experiment, a prototype, an idea that can be duplicated for the benefit of many. I, for one, would much rather pay interest to my brothers and sisters in Christ than to a bank that is probably driven by godless goals. (And I don’t have a problem with charging interest, either, except when giving loans to the destitute. But that exegetical discussion is for another time.)
**So stay tuned for more details.** Jesse and Rodney and I are trying to iron out a plan that will, God willing, make it easy for anyone who wishes (at least Americans…) to participate. It should look much like the initial brainstorming above. If it doesn’t work, it will still be an expression of the love of Christ. And if it does work, it just might be God’s surprising way of providing a house for us in Atlanta, as we move there to help form a new Christ-community in that city.
This all still seems so unexpected and strange to me that I’m not quite sure how to end this post. Hopefully you don’t think we’re off our collective rockers. 🙂
If you do, please pray for us. We certainly need it.
If you don’t, pray anyway. And then feel free to join us in this experiment in churchfunding. Maybe God can be honored by an idea hatched on Facebook, and maybe 21st century technology can help us imitate the mutual care of the early church. The resurrected Christ is as alive as he ever was, moving his Body in strange and wonderful ways.
**Questions or responses? Hold tight for more details, read about [how we decided to move to Atlanta](https://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta/), or [fire away in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/strange-plan-hatched-on-facebook/#respond)**
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight for Zonya, Priya, Shani, and Ayla
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Commentary Sale — New American Commentary Series on Kindle
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-09-29
Category: Book Deals
Meta Title: Commentary Sale -- New American Commentary Series on Kindle | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Today the New American Commentary series is on sale on Kindle, with most volumes for only $2.99 each!
Tags: New American Commentary
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/sale-new-american-commentary-kindle
**Today the New American Commentary series is on sale on Kindle, with most volumes for only $2.99 each!** I already own multiple volumes in this series and hope to buy more. (I’ve marked with an asterisk\* in the list below the ones I already own.)
This series is conservative evangelical in its stance, basically Baptist. It is published by the B&H publishing group (formerly known as Broadman and Holman), who also publishes the Holman Christian Standard Bible. This series is rarely ground-breaking and sometimes too dry or prone to Dispensationalism for my taste. But sometimes a cautious theological approach is exactly what is needed, and this series does include some really excellent volumes.
Here, based on [my previous research](https://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/intro/), are some “must-buy” volumes in this series:
_Note: Please double-check prices, as they can fluctuate unpredictably!_
[Numbers](http://amzn.to/1VkQA1f)
[Judges, Ruth](http://amzn.to/1FFa9u1)
[1 and 2 Kings](http://amzn.to/1FFdF7v)
[1, 2 Peter, Jude](http://amzn.to/1NZnONL)
And here are some more that have been well received:
[Genesis](http://amzn.to/1VkRlYa)\* (I have read these 2 volumes through.)
[Exodus](http://amzn.to/1VkRsCV)\* (I have read this through.)
[Leviticus](http://amzn.to/1h6Ubgz)
[Deuteronomy](http://amzn.to/1L2192x)
[Joshua](http://amzn.to/1FFiT3i)
1 and 2 Samuel (Apparently not available on Kindle)
[1 and 2 Chronicles](http://amzn.to/1FFjamA)
[Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther](http://amzn.to/1L23Dhr)
[Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs](http://amzn.to/1L23Cde)
[Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah](http://amzn.to/1L23GcZ)
[Haggai, Malachi](http://amzn.to/1VkVrzu)
[Matthew](http://amzn.to/1VkVviJ) (By Craig Blomberg, a name I value.)
[Luke](http://amzn.to/1h71Jjf) (By Robert Stein, another name I value.)
[1 Corinthians](http://amzn.to/1L23SJa)\* (Too new for many reviews, but I’ve liked it.)
[2 Corinthians](http://amzn.to/1h71ZPq)\*
[1, 2, 3 John](http://amzn.to/1FFkeHg)
For more volumes, click through one of the links above and do an Amazon search.
_Once again, prices are fluctuating as I prepare this post, so double-check before you buy to avoid paying full price when you think you are getting a sale price._
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight
* * *
**Have you used any of these commentaries? [Share your thoughts in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/sale-new-american-commentary-kindle/#respond) Thanks!**
Disclosure: These are Amazon affiliate links. I will make pennies if you purchase a book! 🙂
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership — Jamieson (Review)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-09-22
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership -- Jamieson (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The subtitle of this book is "Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership." I agree, but not with much of Jamieson's "local church membership" lens.
Tags: John | Piper, covenant, church universal, individualism, body of Christ, baptism, church local, church membership, infant baptism, -Matthew 18:17-20, -1 Corinthians 11:17-34, -1 Corinthians 5:12-13, -2 Corinthians 8:17-18, -3 John 5-10, -Ephesians 4:4-5, -Matthew 16:18-19, 9Marks, Balthasar | Hubmaier, believer's baptism, Bobby | Jamieson, closed membership, compromise, covenant sign, credobaptism, early church, idealism, Justin Martyr, Mark | Dever, open membership, paedobaptism, realism, T4G, Together for the Gospel
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/going-public-why-baptism-is-required-for-church-membership-jamieson-review
Jamieson, Bobby. _Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership_. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015). 243 pp. _[Publisher’s description](http://bhacademic.com/books.asp?p=9781433686207)_ and [_PDF of first chapter_](http://www2.bhpublishinggroup.com/PDF/9781433686207_sampCh.pdf). _[Author interview](http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-baptism-required-church-membership) and [book quotes](http://9marks.org/article/50-quotes-from-bobby-jamiesons-new-book-going-public-why-baptism-is-required-for-church-membership/)._ (Amazon new price: $18.86 paperback, $11.99 Kindle, cheaper used.) \[amazon template=add to cart1&asin=1433686201\]
**For Anabaptists, baptism was and often remains a hot topic.** And for a rite that has been central to the entire Church since its first moments, there is a surprising diversity of thought within Christianity at large. Basically everyone besides Quakers and the Salvation Army agrees that water baptism is important, but there is disagreement on nearly every other point.
In conservative Anabaptist circles, there are at least several points of dispute: Which mode of baptism is best? How closely should baptism be tied to conversion? And how closely should it be tied to church membership?
Given our disagreements about church membership, this last question seems to be an especially active point of discussion. I’ve heard quite a few young people suggest that baptism is too closely tied to membership in our churches. Some say this feeds into the perception that “joining the church” is the essence of salvation, with true repentance and regeneration apparently being secondary. Some don’t like all the extra-biblical church rules that are thus tied to baptism. On the other hand, most church leaders I’ve heard seem to value the connection between baptism and membership. Usually this means they don’t think it is wise to practice _baptism without membership_.
**Bobby Jamieson’s new book, _Going Public_, affirms the connection between baptism and church membership.** But his main concern is one we don’t usually wrestle with in our conservative Anabaptist churches. He doesn’t think it’s wise to practice _membership without baptism_. His primary goal is to show that “baptism is in fact required for membership in a local church” (p. 2).
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/going-public-cover-1721353387549-compressed.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Going-Public-Cover.jpg)
_Going Public_ is aimed primarily at credobaptists (those who affirm believer’s baptism) who are divided over whether to include as members those who have been baptized as infants. Baptists have been debating this “for nearly 350 years” (p. 11), and John Piper helped renew the debate in 2005 when [he argued](http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-the-elders-are-proposing-amendments-to-the-constitution-and-by-laws) for what Jamieson calls “open membership”—the inclusion of those baptized as infants. ([Read](http://www.desiringgod.org/all-resources/by-topic/baptism-church-membership) and [hear](http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/can-you-update-us-on-the-baptism-and-church-membership-issue-from-2005) more from Piper and his church on this debate; his church ultimately retained “closed membership.”)
Jamieson thinks infant baptism (paedobaptism) is not baptism at all, but because he assumes “virtually everyone who will read this book is a credobaptist,” he doesn’t spend much time defending that point. Rather, his goal is more focused:
> In one sentence: in this book I argue that according to Scripture baptism is required for church membership and for participation in the Lord’s Supper, membership’s recurring effective sign. (p. 8)
Or, in more detail:
> The thesis of this book, then, is that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are effective signs of church membership: they create the social, ecclesial realities to which they point… Therefore, what this book offers is not merely an answer to the question of whether baptism should be required for church membership. Instead it offers an integrated account of how baptism and the Lord’s Supper transform a scattered group of Christians into a gathered local church… It lays theological foundations for understanding what the local church is from the ground up. (p. 2)
_Going Public_ is a product of [9Marks](http://9marks.org/), a multi-faceted ministry founded by Calvinist Baptist pastor Mark Dever that aims [“to help pastors, future pastors, and church members see what a biblical church looks like, and to take practical steps for becoming one.”](http://9marks.org/about/what-does-9marks-do/) Jamieson is a Ph.D. student in New Testament at the University of Cambridge and a former assistant editor for 9Marks.
**Summary of Book**
**Part 1 is called “Getting Our Bearings.”** After explaining and justifying his goals in Chapter 1, Jamieson critiques “six reasons open membership feels just right” (p. 21) in Chapter 2. “This chapter… is an exercise in critically analyzing aspects of the prevailing evangelical worldview, the broader culture which informs it, and the unique pressures baptists feel because of both. It’s an attempt to help the fish notice the temperature and currents of the water he lives in and therefore takes for granted” (pp. 21-22).
**Part 2 is called “Building a Case.”** Chapter 3 presents a short theology of baptism, arguing primarily that baptism is “where faith goes public,” a phrase repeated many times throughout the book. “Becoming a Christian is not a private act… The New Testament speaks of baptism as an integral part of what it normally means to become a Christian. As such, it often uses baptism as shorthand—specifically, a synecdoche—for conversion… Two implications… First, all who profess faith in Christ are obligated to be baptized. Second, infant baptism is not baptism and should not be counted as baptism” (p. 52).
Chapter 4 argues that baptism is “the initiating oath-sign of the new covenant” (p. 55)—that is, baptism is a sign (a symbolic act) that functions as an oath, an oath that initiates a person into the new covenant. “If someone believes but has not yet been baptized, he has not yet _fully_ entered the new covenant… You might say that an as-yet-unbaptized believer belongs to the new covenant privately but not yet publicly, and God intends the two to be inseparable” (p. 78).
Chapter 5 presents a similar argument using kingdom imagery rather than covenant imagery. “Jesus… has authorized local churches to serve as embassies of his kingdom… Baptism is the swearing-in ceremony for citizens of the kingdom” (p. 96). “Because baptism is the passport of the kingdom, baptism is a necessary though not sufficient criterion by which the church is to recognize someone as a Christian” (p. 99). “Baptism is an effective sign of church membership: it creates the ecclesial reality to which it points” (p. 100).
Chapter 6 turns to the related topic of the Lord’s Supper, calling it the “renewing oath-sign of the new covenant,” the event where we “repeatedly ratify the new covenant” (p. 135). “Baptism binds one to many, and the Lord’s Supper binds many into one” (p. 122). “Baptism must precede the Lord’s Supper. You must perform the initiating oath-sign of the covenant before you may participate in its renewing oath-sign” (p. 134). “The Lord’s Supper should only be celebrated by local churches as churches. It normally entails membership in a local church. And a gathering which regularly celebrates the Lord’s Supper is a church. Why? Because the Lord’s Supper, like baptism, is an effective sign of church membership” (p. 135).
Chapter 7 addresses church membership more directly. “Yes, God creates his people through the gospel. But if faith stayed invisible, there would be no church on earth, only individual Christians, or at best vague, indistinct associations of believers… Baptism and the Lord’s Supper make the church visible. They are the hinge between the ‘invisible’ universal church and the ‘visible’ local church. They draw a line around the church by drawing the church together” (p. 142). “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper give the church visible, institutional form and order… ‘Church membership’ names the relation which the ordinances create. The ordinances mold the church into a shape called ‘membership.’ …Therefore, we can’t remove baptism from membership because without baptism, membership doesn’t exist” (p. 157).
**Part 3 is called “The Case Stated, Defended, Applied.”** Chapter 8 mercifully summaries Part 2 in less than eight pages. Chapter 9 responds to seven arguments against requiring baptism for membership. Here Jamieson engages opponent-friends as prominent as John Bunyan and John Piper. “Baptism draws the line between the church and the world. We are not at liberty to draw it elsewhere… Paedobaptists are denied membership because they lack not the substance of a credible profession but its form” (p. 191). Chapter 10 presents seven final arguments in Jamieson’s favor—arguments against “open membership” (membership that is open to those not baptized). “You can’t put error regarding baptism into the structure of the church. Why? Because baptism, along with the Lord’s Supper _is_ what structures the church… If an individual’s conviction trumps the church’s confession, it’s not the church that has the authority but the individual” (p. 207). Chapter 11 gives practical advice for practicing baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and church membership, including “a transition plan” for churches who wish to newly adopt Jamieson’s position of requiring baptism for membership (pp. 210-11). Finally, an appendix is provided for “explaining why baptism is required for membership in three minutes” (pp. 227-28).
**Assessment of Book**
The subtitle of this book is “Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership.” I came to this book already convinced of this basic idea. It seems very clear to me that the New Testament portrays baptism as an initiation into both Christ and his body, and that you can’t experience one without the other.
_Jamieson added some theological richness to my prior understandings, such as in his discussion of covenant._ Modern Anabaptists usually don’t spend as much time thinking about the Bible in terms of covenants as Reformed thinkers do, which is a shame given our historic clarity about the significance of at least the new covenant. “Is the new covenant inaugurated by an oath?” (p. 65). “Is baptism an oath?” (p. 67). I’m not sure I’ve ever considered such questions before. Good questions can lead to richer understandings.
_I also liked Jamieson’s irenic (peaceful despite disagreements) tone._ While he is certainly capable of absolute statements, he also evidently loves those with whom he disagrees, even counting them as fellow Christians despite theological statements that might suggest otherwise.
Yet, despite agreeing with so much in this book, I found it a somewhat frustrating read. _The book could be shorter if trimmed of redundant repetitions._ On the one hand it is structured carefully, with a logical progression of chapters, a summary chart of “headlines” at the end of each chapter, a summary chapter and appendix, and lots of “this is where we’ve been and this is where I’m going” material. But I also felt at times as if the author thought we readers might be convinced if he simply repeated his assertions (“baptism is where faith goes public,” etc.) often enough.
I also found the end of the book a bit of a let-down. _After so many strong assertions throughout the book, when it came time for practical suggestions about church life, qualifiers and compromises appeared_. For example, Jamieson strongly asserts that “infant baptism simply isn’t baptism” (p. 53) and that “without baptism, membership doesn’t exist” (p. 157). Yet in his “transition plan” he suggests that “if you currently have unbaptized paedobaptist members, I’d suggest they should be ‘grandfathered in’—that is, remain members… I don’t think their refusal to be baptized necessarily amounts to grounds for excommunication” (p. 211). I’m not saying I disagree with Jamieson’s advice. But it feels to me like this belated retreat from idealism to realism suggests that Jamieson’s position is not as absolute as he first made it appear. Maybe it would have been more honest to have acknowledged this earlier.
Update: Here is another example of how Jamieson’s strong idealistic assertions clash with later compromises.
Jamieson asserts for about 200 pages that infant baptism is no baptism at all. He argues even more strongly that true (that is, believer’s) baptism is essential for church membership. Then he suggests that paedobaptists who are within baptist churches should go start their own churches… Do you feel the tension? Now read this explanation buried in a footnote:
> Some readers may wonder how I can recognize a paedobaptist church as a true church since, in principle, all its members could be unbaptized persons and therefore unfit ‘matter’ for a church. I would suggest that because a paedobaptist church preaches the gospel and practices the ordinances together \[HT Martin Luther\], they are in fact a church. (Remember, it’s not that paedobaptists _don’t_ baptize believers; it’s just that they ‘baptize’ infancts, too, thus preventing them from being baptized if they come to faith.) Not being baptized, did these individuals have authority to form a church? Perhaps not. But once they’re a church, they’re a church. The situation is analogous to a couple who were each unbiblically divorced before marrying each other. They lacked the authorization to marry, but once they’re married, they’re married. (p. 203)
If your head stops spinning after that, add another dance number to the mix:
> If you’re the only church in your city, and you’ve got convinced paedobaptists coming to your church, and they remain so despite your best efforts to convince them otherwise, I’d suggest that your long-term goal should be to help them start a new church… You and your other elders can help raise up church leaders from within their number or connect them to other believers who might be able to find them a pastor. When they’re ready to being meeting as a church, you can pray for them and send them off with your blessing… (p. 187)
So, to go back to the marriage analogy: If you have a couple that are each unbiblically divorced, and thus without the right to remarry (I’m assuming Jamieson’s understandings of divorce and remarriage for the moment), but who nevertheless share the conviction and desire to marry each other, what should you do? Sounds like your “long-term goal should be to help them start a new” marriage. You could even “pray for them and send them off with your blessing.”
My, theology can be confusing.
This retreat from idealism also opens the door for arguing in favor of other compromise positions. There is no direct biblical basis for Jamieson’s compromise position. Thus I’m not sure there is any clear biblical or logical line between Jamieson’s compromise (grandfather in current members baptized as infants) and Piper’s compromise (accept as members those baptized as infants). Jamieson is compromising more on the Bible’s teaching on welcoming all Christians, and Piper is compromising more on the Bible’s teaching on believer’s baptism. Both are seeking compromise in a difficult situation where not all Christians agree. Neither are managing to follow the NT example perfectly. (Nor are we.)
**But what really made this book a wrestling match for me was Jamieson’s “local church membership” lens.** It seems to me that Jamieson’s perspective on church membership (a perspective shared by 9Marks and many other evangelicals and by many Anabaptists too) is only loosely biblical. I began critiquing this aspect of the book in [a previous post](https://dwightgingrich.com/articles-of-church-membership/) and will reflect more here, but this topic really deserves more attention than can be given in a book review.
What is Jamieson missing? Briefly: The language of _church membership_ comes from the NT’s language about _members_. And _member_ language in the Scriptures is associated with _body_ language. (Today we are more likely to say a body has “parts” than to say it has “members,” but we still might say a body has been “dismembered.” The ESV mirrors this by switching randomly between “members” and “parts” in its translation of the Greek word μέλη in 1 Corinthians 12.) And—here is the crucial point—**when the Scriptures talk about the _body of Christ_ and its _members_, they are almost always emphasizing the universal church, not the local church.** (I hope to write a post or essay sometime to defend this claim.) Yet we are so used to extra-biblical phrases like “local church _membership_” and “the local church _body_” that we tend to read these NT references to _member_ and _body_ as referring to local churches. Of course the realities of the universal church must also be lived out locally. But not at the expense of the universal realities upon which the local ones rest!
Jamieson briefly acknowledges the importance of the universal church:
> What if someone were to argue that baptism initiates one into the universal church, not a local church? I agree that there is a sense in which baptism initiates one into the universal church as it is visibly, publicly expressed on earth. Just as Christians all share one faith and one Lord, so also there is one and only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). And as I said, when a Christian converted in Chicago moves to Detroit, he need not be baptized again; he brings his baptism with him. Baptism is an affirmation of kingdom citizenship. And local churches, as embassies of the kingdom, are bound to affirm all the kingdom citizens they are presented with. Thus, insofar as baptism is an affirmation of kingdom citizenship, it confers a status which transcends the local church that grants it. (p. 102)
There is much good in this paragraph! (Ponder the second-last sentence again, and wrestle both with Jamieson’s thoughts about paedobaptists and the membership requirements of many of our own churches; here is an ideal we should reach towards, whether or not we can perfectly reach it.) But there are also fascinating shortcomings. Jamieson writes “_there is a sense in which_ baptism initiates one into the universal church.” Why such hesitancy to affirm what the Bible so clearly teaches? And how did he manage to quote Ephesians 4:5 without quoting the verse right before it, which begins, “There is one body…” There is _one_ body! The index indicates that Jamieson never quotes this verse. This is a significant lapse in a such a weighty book on membership. And after this paragraph he soon retreats again to focus narrowly on “local” church membership.
The following statement about the local church is more typical of Jamieson’s thought patterns:
> It’s the body—I’d argue the _only_ body—that has the authority to declare to the world who does and does not belong to the kingdom of Christ (Matt 16:18-19; 18:17-20).
This statement not only assumes a strongly congregationalist form of church government, a perspective which may be correct but which will not be shared by many such as Presbyterians and conference Mennonites and Catholics who are beyond his ideal readership. It also stretches the evidence provided by its proof texts. In Matthew 16 and 18 Jesus was granting authority first of all to his disciples. After Pentecost these same disciples would often exercise this kingdom-defining authority _outside of_ local church contexts. They did this, for example, through writing letters, through traveling from church to church, and in the Jerusalem conference, which affirmed the inclusion of Gentiles everywhere and gave conditions for that inclusion.
**This confusion about membership expresses itself repeatedly throughout _Going Public_. A few more examples:**
> If you’re only at a church one Sunday, there’s no time to be a member, so the theological category of ‘membership’ doesn’t obtain. (p. 130)
This may be true of Jamieson’s theological categories, but surely not Paul’s.
In lots of places Jamieson moves without warning or distinction between phrases that properly describe the universal church and phrases that describe local churches. For example:
> You should not baptize anyone who is not intending to join **your** church. With only one exception (addressed below), no one should be baptized who is not intending to come under Jesus’ authority by submitting to **his** church… (p. 213, emphasis added)
In once sentence he says you shouldn’t baptize anyone who is not intending to join _your_ church. In the next sentence he says you shouldn’t baptize anyone who is not intending to submit to _his_ (Jesus’) church. Of course, on one level it is both. But our sphere of authority is much smaller (both absolutely and geographically) than Christ’s, so _the two cannot be identical_. I suggest we need to remember more clearly that the church is Christ’s, not ours. So I see no theological problem in baptizing someone who is planning to fellowship primarily with another group of believers elsewhere, whether across town or across the country or globe. Despite the need to remind all baptismal candidates of the importance of bonding with other believers, I do not think we have a biblical basis for limiting such baptisms to cases that mirror the Ethiopian eunuch, as Jamieson believes (p. 214).
Here he apparently equates the universal and local church:
> Baptism… is necessary for entry into **the new covenant community on earth**—the membership of **a local church**. (p. 79, emphasis added)
Here he uses a text that deals with universal realities and seems to see only local ones:
> The reality of membership—that some people are in the church and others are out—is everywhere present in the New Testament. For example, Paul writes, ‘For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not **those inside the church** whom you are to judge? God judges those outside’ (1 Cor. 5:12-13). Provisionally, we can define church membership as a relation between **a local church** and a Christian in which the Christian belongs and submits to the church and the church affirms and oversees the Christian’s profession of faith in Christ. (p. 145, emphasis added)
Clearly, when Paul said that “God judges those outside,” “outside” did not mean simply _outside a particular local church_. In context, those outside were ones who were to be strictly avoided as false brothers, even delivered over to Satan. This means that the phrase “those inside the church” extends beyond any local church, too. We are to judge traveling false teachers just as surely as local ones. The membership Paul was discussing included local realities, but went far beyond it.
**Jamieson’s theological categories cause him to affirm divisions (or at least withholding of communion) within Christ’s church.** Here he describes the Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference:
> One of the goals of the conference is to showcase the unity such brothers can enjoy in the gospel. Yet many have argued that such unity remains a sham as long as those men cannot sit together at the Lord’s Table. (p. 26)
Later he writes this:
> My primary response to the ‘If T4G, then church membership’ argument is that church membership isn’t the only kind of fellowship Christians can have. By definition Christians who are geographically distant can’t be members of the same church…
>
> Is it inconsistent to invite a minister to break the bread of life to us and not allow him to break bread at the Lord’s Table with us? I’d suggest not. First, we see in 2 Corinthians 8:18 and 3 John 5-6a that the earliest Christians would occasionally hear trusted preachers from other churches. This means the New Testament doesn’t require someone to be a member of a certain church in order to preach to that church. And if someone isn’t required to be a member, I can’t see why he would need to fulfill all of a church’s requirements for membership… Unity between churches is made of different stuff than unity within churches. (pp. 189-90)
When I read such paragraphs, my pencil gets busy in the margins. “Proof??” is what I wrote after that last sentence. And try telling Paul that “by definition Christians who are geographically distant can’t be members of the same church”! Whose definition, pray tell? Certainly not Paul’s. And can you really imagine that the Paul who rebuked Peter for refusing to eat with the Gentile believers would affirm Christians today refusing to share the Lord’s Supper together?
And consider the Scriptural examples cited. Can you imagine the Paul who rebuked the Corinthian church for failing to share the Lord’s Supper in a loving manner with all the believers present (1 Cor. 11:17-34) being happy if the Corinthian church failed to offer the Lord’s Supper to Titus and “the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel” when they arrived in Corinth (2 Cor. 8:16-18)? And it seems to me that the John who rebuked Diotrephes because “he refuses to welcome the brothers” would not be content if his readers failed to welcome godly traveling teachers to the Lord’s Table (3 John 5-10).
Jamieson’s narrow focus on the local church leads him to a strange conclusion that is at odds with historic church practice:
> Because the Lord’s Supper effectively signifies a church’s existence as a body, it shouldn’t be celebrated by individuals or families or any other group… **And it shouldn’t be ‘taken’ to those who are homebound or in the hospital**, despite the commendable compassion that evidences. To make the Lord’s Supper something other than a communal, ecclesial meal is to make it something other than the Lord’s Supper. (p. 131, emphasis added)
In contrast, when Justin Martyr records how the Lord’s Supper was observed around the year 150 A.D., he specifies that “to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.” (See Chapter 67 of [The First Apology of Justin Martyr](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html).)
I could provide dozens more examples from Jamieson’s book of the tension that is caused by what I feel is his imbalanced understanding of church membership, but this is long enough. Jamieson says several times that “simple proof texting won’t settle the issue either way” (p. 18; cf p. 185). This may be true. But I wish Jamieson built his theological house more directly on a more careful reading of the full biblical foundation.
**Conclusion**
Jamieson quotes the early Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier to good effect several times. I wish he had taken to heart this description that Hubmaier provides of _church membership_. Hubmaier describes baptism as being “a sacramental oath before the Christian church and all her members, assembled partly in body and completely in spirit” (p. 144, fn 13). May we regain this grand vision of belonging to Christ’s one true, universal church!
_**We often (and rightly) critique the individualism that keeps too many Christians from ever meaningfully bonding with a local gathering of believers. But**_ **_I submit that this same individualism is at work in those who focus on the local church without grasping the grandeur of the church universal_**. America is full not only with individuals who love Jesus but not the church. It is also full of people who love their local church but not the rest of Christ’s body.
If we understand church “membership” in a true NT manner–as describing a belonging to Christ and to his one universal body rather than merely to a local congregation–and if we also agree that Jamieson is right in asserting that baptism and communion are the normal markers of membership in Christ’s church, then _**we still face difficult questions**_.
To return to Jamieson’s main question: What about someone who has only been baptized as an infant? If we say that infant baptism is no baptism at all, and if we say that baptism is always essential for church membership, then we must deny such people membership. But if membership is not merely a local matter but a universal one, by denying membership we are saying not merely that those baptized as infants cannot be part of our congregation, but that we have no assurance that they belong to Christ at all!
Jamieson takes pains to clarify that he is not saying this. One way he attempts to escape this trap is by saying that withholding membership is not denying someone’s faith, only _refraining from affirming it_. More precisely, it seems that Jamieson believes that there are cases where Tom _as an individual_ can believe that Brother P (paedobaptist) is a Christian, and Dick can believe this too, and so can Harry, but that Tom, Dick and Harry together _as a church_ must not affirm this by granting Brother P membership (pp. 166-67). Brother P may indeed be a Christian, and the church is not saying he isn’t. It’s just that they can’t say his _is_. Thus Jamieson disagrees with Piper’s claim that refusing membership is “preemptive excommunication” (p. 171). I’m not so sure. And the only way Jamieson’s argument works, as I see it, is if there is a local “membership” that is different from how the Bible uses such language.
**How to move forward?** While I strongly affirm believer’s baptism as the biblical pattern, I think I might be more comfortable acknowledging that we sometimes fall short of the biblical ideal in our understanding and practice of baptism than I am with trying to clone Christ’s body into thousands of separate “bodies.” _How many bodies does Christ have?_
Or is there a middle path that can avoid compromise on both baptism and membership? I am still pondering and listening.
* * *
This book is a valiant effort with a significant flaw.
**I give it 3-1/2 out of 5 stars.**
**What are your thoughts?** Do you agree with Jamieson and me that baptism and membership are integrally connected? Do you think Jamieson is hearing the heartbeat of the NT about “membership”? Am I? Are we conservative Anabaptists? **[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/going-public-why-baptism-is-required-for-church-membership-jamieson-review/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclosures: I received this book free from the publisher in exchange for a review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/16cfr255\_03.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html)\> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
_
_I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Jesus in the Room [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-09-19
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Jesus in the Room | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Just for a moment I was at her side experiencing the physical nearness of Jesus; the power of His words... the magnetism of His readiness to... forgive.
Tags: forgiveness, sin, love, sexual sin, shame, -John 20, -Luke 7:36-50, C. Austin | Miles, presence, Robert J. | Morgan, sexual abuse, sinner
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-in-the-room
_**We all need more love than we deserve.** And it is undeserved love that transforms us into who we should be._
_It is love that frees us to acknowledge sin, both ours and others. And it is love that frees us from sin and from its shadow, shame.
_
_Here is a new poem from Mom about the transforming power of Jesus’ loving presence. I’ll let Mom explain how the poem came to be._
* * *
**Many books, blogs and posts today deal with the issues of sexual abuse and sexual sin in various forms.** Questions of blame, shame and the process to freedom abound. Two things, it seems to me, are certain. We are all sinners in need of Christ’s forgiveness and cleansing; and everyone, no matter how heinous his sin or how deep his wounds, needs the compassion of Christians and the biblical message of truth and deliverance. If only we could always respond as Jesus would!
These thoughts framed my recent devotional reading of Luke 7:36-50, the account of the “woman who was a sinner,” who dared to enter a Pharisee’s house because she heard Jesus was there. What had she heard from Jesus’ lips that propelled her into a home where she was unwelcome, that braced her to face the scorn of the guests, and gave her the courage to approach the holy God-man? How I longed to glimpse just for a moment how Christ’s deity, veiled in humanity, expressed itself.
As I read, I seemed to slip in beside her, to see Jesus’ form lying there, to hear His quiet voice. The woman knew, without seeing His face, that He knew she was there. Just for a moment I was at her side experiencing the physical nearness of Jesus; the power of His words of clarity and compassion, able to convict and to protect; the magnetism of His readiness to deliver and forgive. His presence was like a fortress in a room full of enemies.
Just for a moment… and then I was only seeing my open Bible, but moved deeply and longing to express what I had felt when I was in the room with Jesus. Robert J. Morgan says that “the art of meditating on Scripture involves using one’s imagination.” He records how the beloved hymn “In the Garden” was written by C. Austin Miles from a vision he experienced while reading John 20. My sensation was far too brief to be labelled a vision and the poem I have written is not a hymn. But I pray this poem will bring you for a moment into the presence of Jesus, to a place of listening and hearing, so that His Word and Spirit can live through you to a needy world.
—Elaine Gingrich, September 14, 2015
* * *
**JESUS IN THE ROOM
** Luke 7:36-50
I slip into the dining hall,
An uninvited guest.
I heard he is reclining here—
The object of my quest.
The host disdains me—only loves
Those who return in kind.
His righteousness gives me no hope,
Blind leader of the blind.
How dare I touch this holy man
With my sin-scalding hands?
But oh, his voice is like a bell
Across interior lands.
It tolls each conscience in the room.
My tears are hot with pain.
His feet accept my ministry.
He shares in my disdain.
This man looks deep into my eyes
As father would to child,
While others only see my form,
Voluptuous but defiled.
His eyes burn as he names my sin,
Names but does not condemn.
My sin was great, but so my love!
And now he points at them.
I’m not the only sinner here.
His voice a sheltering arm
Around the shoulders of my guilt
Addresses those who harm.
He speaks forgiveness to my shame.
His voice is like a breeze
That blows the perfume of my love
To others on their knees.
_Oh Jesus, are You in this room?
I bring my oil and tears.
By faith I hear forgiveness speak
Across two thousand years._
_Your voice pours ointment on our wounds,
Commands our fears to flee.
Oh speak your hope into this room
Oh speak and set us free._
—Elaine Gingrich, September 5, 2015
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem (and want to encourage Mom to keep writing new ones!), [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/jesus-in-the-room/#respond), or send her an email at[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353279839-compressed.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353279839-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Arts, Biblical Theology, and Proof I’m Not a Complete Philistine
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-09-14
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: The Arts, Biblical Theology, and Proof I'm Not a Complete Philistine | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We must discuss the arts within a larger biblical theological framework. Artistic delight now is, for soldiers, a reminder of Eden and a foretaste of Glory.
Tags: creation, marriage, -Genesis 2:18, biblical interpretation, hermeneutics, fall, Phil | Keaggy, Rich | Mullins, biblical theology, N.T. | Wright, Reformed theology, proof-texts, -1 Corinthians 7:29-38, -1 Corinthians 7:7-8, -1 Corinthians 7:9, -2 Timothy 2:4, -Acts 3:21, -Ephesians 5:22-33, -Matthew 19:10-12, -Matthew 22:30, -Revelation 19:9, arts, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Mozart, redemption, restoration, Schumann, story
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/arts-biblical-theology-and-proof-im-not-philistine
**My last post generated some helpful feedback about the place of the arts in the Christian life.** [In that post](https://dwightgingrich.com/arts-and-absence-of-jesus/) I took an exegetical approach to the topic, examining one Scripture passage and challenging how it is sometimes used in defense of extravagant artistic investments. But most questions about Christian living are not decided by a solitary Scripture passage—and especially by a passage that isn’t directly about the topic at all, as I argued is the case with the story of the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet.
**So in this post I’d like to begin to set the topic of the arts within a larger biblical framework—thus doing what is often called _biblical theology_.** (And if you persevere to the end, I even have a cute picture to share.)
First, here are some lines from the feedback I received:
> Why do we have to have verses to justify everything that we do...
>
> I don’t have a proof text for the arts…
>
> I’m not sure that I can supply a Biblical basis in support of the arts…
These comments are quite natural, given the relative silence in the New Testament about the kinds of activities we classify as “the arts.” So I agree: It’s pretty hard to point to one Bible verse, especially any verse written expressly as a directive to Christians, and say that we’ve found “a proof text for the arts.”
I suggest, however, that _this lack of a proof text does not leave us entirely free to develop our own philosophical or emotional apology for our personal artistic preferences. Rather, our double task is to trace the big story that God tells us in Scripture and then to accurately understand our time and place within that story._ (This is one of the tasks of the discipline of biblical theology—to consider theological themes as unfolding trajectories within the larger biblical narrative, rather than as the isolated observations of textual exegesis or the timeless conclusions of systematic theology.)
Some of the feedback I received hinted in this direction:
> I’ve recently been wondering if a negative view of arts is a result of a “leave the earth, God’s going to destroy it anyway” mentality, instead of becoming part of God’s redemptive project on the earth, in which man’s signature counts…that is, he is by virtue of his very nature, his likeness to his Creator, creative…
Here we see hints of some key plot developments in the story of our world: _restoration_ (the return of Christ at the end of the age), _redemption_ (God’s plan to rescue from sin), and _creation_ (mankind created in the image of the Creator). And of course redemption reminds us also of _the fall_. This gives us all four of the plot movements commonly identified by Reformed theologians: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.
([See here](http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2012/november/big-story-of-scripture-creation-fall-redemption.html) for verbal and visual explanations of each. And I have suggested that naming the final movement _glorification_ might better reflect the fact that Christ’s return will usher in not merely Eden restored, but a new world where we will realize an eternal consummation of God’s vision beyond anything ever experienced in Eden.)
Another response also pointed to creation:
> I would offer a defense based on the nature of man. Artistic expression is a part of every known culture, even cultures that make efforts to eliminate them. I suspect its just a part of who we are, like language. In fact, art IS a language. Attacking artistic expression seems dehumanizing...
Another response complicated these four plot movements a bit by mentioning Israel (as well as restoration):
> As I read about the intricacy of the artwork that went into Solomon’s Temple, I have to think that this too was intended to honor and glorify God.
> What about some of the scenes involving the musical art in Revelation, what was its prime purpose?
N.T. Wright’s biblical theological scheme might help us here. He suggests that the Bible carries God’s authority by telling the story of the world in five acts. He identifies them as follows:
> (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Israel; (4) Jesus. The New Testament would then form the first scene in the fifth act, giving hints as well (Rom 8; 1 Cor 15; parts of the Apocalypse) of how the play is supposed to end.
As Wright points out, understanding the Bible as a five-act play (or as a four-movement plot, if you prefer the Reformed system) has implications for our hermeneutics (paradigms for how we interpret Scripture and what it says to us today):
> The church would then live under the ‘authority’ of the extant story, being required to offer something between an improvisation and an actual performance of the final act. Appeal could always be made to the inconsistency of what was being offered with a major theme or characterization in the earlier material. Such an appeal—and such an offering!—would of course require sensitivity of a high order to the whole nature of the story and to the ways in which it would be (of course) inappropriate simply to repeat verbatim passages from earlier sections…
>
> The New Testament is written to be the charter for the people of the creator God in the time between the first and second comings of Jesus; the Old Testament forms the story of the earlier acts, which are (to be sure) vital for understanding why Act 4, and hence Act 5, are what they are, but not at all appropriate to be picked up and hurled forward into Act 5 without more ado. The Old Testament has the authority that an earlier act of the play would have, no more, no less…
>
> The story has to be told as the new covenant story. This is where my five-act model comes to our help again. The earlier parts of the story are to be told precisely as the earlier parts of the story. We do not read Genesis 1 and 2 as though the world were still like that; we do not read Genesis 3 as though ignorant of Genesis 12, of Exodus, or indeed of the gospels. Nor do we read the gospels us though we were ignorant of the fact that they are written precisely in order to make the transition from Act 4 to Act 5, the Act in which we are now living and in which we are to make our own unique, unscripted and yet obedient, improvisation.
([See here](http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm) for the source of these quotes and for fascinating suggestions about how God mediates his authority through the story told by the Scriptures.)
**So, where are we in the story of biblical theology?**
Using the traditional Reformed scheme, we are in the third movement: redemption. God is still busy redeeming this world from sin. We are living after the cross, but before “the time of restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (Acts 3:21).
Using Wright’s scheme, we are in the final act, Act Five. We are no longer living in Acts One through Four. But we are also not yet living in the final scene within Act Five.
So, in either scheme, we are living in some tension, in a partially-redeemed state within a world that is not yet restored. We must not forget God’s creation purposes, yet we cannot simply live as if we are still in Eden. We must lay hold of God’s vision of restoration, yet we cannot live as if we are already on the new earth. This is still the time of spiritual warfare and of Great Commission living.
**What does this mean for the place of the arts in the Christian life?**
At minimum, this:
* It means that pointing to our nature as creations who create is crucial, but insufficient.
* It means that the artistic intricacies of Solomon’s temple are illuminating, but not determinative.
* It means that the heavenly artistic grandeur described in Revelation awakens our hope, but does not define our current experience.
Artistic delight now is a reminder of Eden and a foretaste of Glory. It is a concert performed for soldiers who are on temporary leave from the front lines, healing their wounds before they return to battle. It is recess between classes at school. It is love-making between the duties of tilling the soil and raising the children.
Consider that last analogy further in light of Scripture. _**Let’s use the four Reformed movements to examine marriage through the ages:**_
Creation: God makes humans male and female. He declares “it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). The one-flesh union is blessed by God and humans are told to be fruitful and multiply.
Fall: Marriage is deformed in many ways post-fall, with polygamy and divorce permitted thanks to the hardness of man’s heart. Marriage is still the normal state, but normal marriage is not particularly normal. God does strange things like apparently blessing his kings with multiple wives and using a pagan beauty contest (that’s far too mild of a term for what actually happened) to save his people from genocide.
Redemption: God both uses marriage and operates beyond marriage to bring his Son into the world. His Son never marries. He blesses marriage, calling people back to God’s creation purposes. Yet he also blesses celibates—those are “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”—and says “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (See Matt. 19:10-12.)
Paul, likewise, paints a double picture. On the one hand, he paints a glorious picture of marriage as a type of Christ and the church. (See Eph. 5:22-33.) On the other hand, filled with passion “to secure… undivided devotion to the Lord,” Paul says that he wishes all were single as he is. Notice his appeal to our place within the big story that Scripture tells: “This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none… For the present form of this world is passing away.” (See 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, 29-38.)
And significantly, both Jesus and Paul suggest that both marriage and celibacy are gifts, given differently to different persons.
Restoration: In words that probably shaped Paul’s vision, Jesus noted that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Matt. 22:30). Instead, we have the consummation of the eternal reality toward which earthly marriage points: the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9; 21:2, 9-11).
_**I think we can see parallels with the arts through the ages. Here are some tentative suggestions—I am certainly moving beyond exegesis into theological deduction:**_
Creation: I do think that the Bible blesses the image of humans as creations who create. We see hints of this in Adam’s naming of the animals and care of the Garden, or even in his poetic praise of his new bride. Some Anabaptists need to ponder this more. I’m thinking of those who bless quilting bees, agricultural arts, and a cappella four-part harmony but leave little room for photography, literature, or the performing arts.
Fall: The arts certainly go to seed post-fall. Consider idolatrous images, pagan hymns, or even the heavy taxation and slavery used to build Solomon’s temple. The latter example reminds me of how the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages siphoned off the wealth of Europe to build cathedrals and glorify the Vatican. Or consider the star-centered and commercialized nature of so much Christian art today. But should we also consider economic inequalities and indulgences closer to home?
Redemption: Little is said in Scripture about the arts in this movement; hence the need for discussions like this. Based on the marriage analogy, I offer a few suggestions.
Jesus was a carpenter, he told astounding stories, and he did sing hymns. To call him an “artist” might be stretching the evidence, however. There is no suggestion that he spent hours practicing on the harp or even that he led his disciples in multi-part choral works. He didn’t own a home and didn’t seem impressed by the grandeur of the temple, so architecture wasn’t high on his list of active priorities. I don’t think we read anything about him engaging in any visual arts besides writing in the sand. His mud pies were decidedly utilitarian, designed for healing eyes. Even his parables, magnificent as they are, were not staged performances as our artistic endeavors usually are, but rather woven into the fabric of everyday life.
And Paul? While he built tents, there is no indication he saw this as anything besides laborious commercial work. I certainly cannot imagine him investing the proverbial 10,000 hours to become an expert on an instrument such as the flute. He was too bent on the Great Commission to commission any works of art besides offerings for the poor saints in Jerusalem.
Yet the paradigm of “gifts” is also a clue. “Each has his own gift from God,” Paul wrote of marriage and singleness, “one of one kind and one of another” (1 Cor. 7:7). For over 10 years now, singleness has not been my gift. My prayer before I met my future wife was that God would lead me to someone with whom I could serve him better than how I could serve him alone. I believe God answered that prayer for me, at least for this season of my life.
Similarly, my artistic engagement has varied through seasons of my life. For several years while in college, I often achieved from 3/4 hour to 1-1/2 hours at the piano daily. Now I often play less than that in one week. I confess that, just as I am weak and have felt a “burning” need for marriage (1 Cor. 7:9), so I often feel a great need for the refreshment that is offered by the arts. Accompanying fellow musicians and performing for others has brought moments of ecstasy. Other times the only prayer I have been able to offer is to let my fingers wander over the piano keyboard, searching alone for the groans of the Spirit.
And often this refreshment comes through the artistic gifts God has given to others. When I was a youth, listening to Beethoven taught me on a deep heart level that joy is often found only after great struggle. Mozart’s Requiem and Brahms’ Symphony No. 1 have been played at high volume to soothe my youthful (and sometimes not so youthful) angst. The poetry and song of Rich Mullins has stirred me to my depths. And Phil Keaggy’s song [“Play Through Me”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiQpzluB0pY) has been my prayer, too:
> Up late again tonight,
> I feel a song coming on…
>
> Maker of all melody fill my heart with song,
> Play how You feel, oh play thru me.
> Healing can come through the song
> Your own hands upon,
> This is for real, no fantasy.
(And since I am “up late again tonight,” too, I better soon wind down the crafting of this post.)
Restoration: Given the symbolic language of much of Revelation, I think we can say little concretely about arts in the world to come. If we take the function of metaphor seriously, however, we must conclude that there is something similar-but-grander in the heavenlies to the very best of earthly art. While I admit the song “The Music of Heaven” is not among my personal favorites, I do anticipate that Jesus’ presence will bring a passion and fulfillment beyond anything I have experienced in the best moments of musical ecstasy here on earth.
**So what is the conclusion of the matter?** I think in this age of redemption, in these middle scenes of Act 5, we will rightly see traces of God’s good creation purposes among his people. Just as we rightly celebrate Christian marriages, so we can rightly celebrate Christian artists. (I’m not insisting here on a specifically “Christian art”; that is another discussion.) We will see and bless a diversity of both gifts and callings. There must be room for poets and painters and potters in our churches. Even banjo players. Artistic excellence does indeed show something of the glory of God.
But we will also recognize that here we have no abiding symphony. In this world we will have trouble staying on key. More than that, we will weigh our artistic desires, examining our hearts: are we getting “entangled in civilian pursuits” or pleasing “the one who enlisted” us (2 Tim. 2:4). We will remember the Great Commission mission of the church. We will ask ourselves hard questions: Am I worshiping the creature or the Creator? Am I serving God and my neighbor with my approach to art, or am I merely serving myself? (Sometimes our neighbors can best help us answer this question. And who is my neighbor?)
**I think my previous post left a few readers worried that I was anti-art.** I’m not sure if this post will help or not. In a last-ditch effort to redeem myself, let me sign off with a picture. Hopefully this proves I’m not a total Philistine. Tonight I put my middle daughter to sleep to the sounds of Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, and Schumann. Hopefully she heard a faint echo of her Savior singing over her:
Please forgive the exposed umbilical cord socket.
* * *
**What do you think? How should we navigate the “already but not yet” tension surrounding the arts? [Share your thoughts (preferably in sonnet form) in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/arts-biblical-theology-and-proof-im-not-philistine/)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Arts and the Absence of Jesus
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-09-12
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: The Arts and the Absence of Jesus | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Mary's anointing of Jesus was a non-repeatable act. No artist today has Jesus in the flesh before him. The arts should point to the cross and Jesus' return.
Tags: R.T. | France, cross, poverty, arts, -John 12:1-8, -Mark 14:3-9, -Matthew 26:6-13, -Matthew 9:15, Anabaptist Orchestra Camp, beauty, Calvin | Seerveld, extravagance, generosity, Mary of Bethany, Steve | Scott
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/arts-and-absence-of-jesus
**I am a house church guy who likes cathedrals.** My spiritual forebears in the Reformation include some who smashed statues and images and others who banned organs. My spiritual contemporaries include some who participate in the [Anabaptist Orchestra Camp](http://www.orchestracamp.info/) and others who are performing complex choral works tomorrow afternoon by the great Lutheran composer Bach. (If you live near Lancaster, PA, perhaps you can catch this [Singet dem Herrn concert](https://sacredchoralcelebration.yapsody.com/event/index/16486/singet-dem-herrn), which appears to include a 40-page piece for “double choir and strings with continuo, vocal ensemble and soloists,” complete with “intricate passages of fugue, which is sort of like a round in different keys that expands as it goes.” Good stuff, and definitely not the sort of thing that Conrad Grebel would have approved.)
I am an Anabaptist and, like most Anabaptists, I am somewhat ambivalent about the place of the arts in the Christian life.
When I was a young teen, I dreamed of becoming a concert pianist. My father didn’t think this was very practical. He was probably right, though he and I may not fully agree on why. While I have never lost my capacity to delight in the arts, especially the musical ones, I am afraid I would have made a bad concert pianist. I am not sure I believe in the cause strongly enough—even though there are times when I have felt that my soul would surely have shriveled up and died were it not for the beauty of musical (near-)perfection. I have worshiped while listening to Rachmaninoff piano concertos and while listening to Phil Keaggy guitar solos. But if I had attempted the life course of a career concert musician, I am afraid I would have been only an all-round poor imitation of the great [Albert Schweitzer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer), who abandoned a promising musical career to be a medical missionary.
All that for background. This week at work I was blessed to listen to the three synoptic Gospels—Matthew on Tuesday, Mark on Wednesday, and Luke on Thursday. **One story that caught my ear was the familiar account of the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet with ointment.** Here is the story as it is told by Matthew:
> 6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. 8 And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12 In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. 13 Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.” (Matt. 26:6-13)
You can also find this story in Mark 14:3-9 and in John 12:1-8 (where she is named Mary).
**Perhaps you, like me, have sometimes heard people draw implications from this story for our understanding of the arts.** I’m quite certain I’ve heard, though I can’t say where, this line of thought suggested: This woman, in a creative and symbolic act, expressed her deep devotion to Jesus. Jesus praised her for this extravagant and apparently wasteful gift. Similarly, Jesus is pleased when we give extravagant and apparently wasteful displays of devotion to him through the creative arts.
Some quick browsing now online confirms to me that something like this kind of thought is sometimes expressed by Christians writing about the arts. For example, read this from Steve Scott (otherwise unknown to me):
> Jesus placed a value on signs and sign making that had little to do with the price of the materials involved, and he seemed to show little regard for the social controversy and the lack of immediate graspability that came with the sign. **Mary, in some ways, faced the problems that many sign makers and artists face today.** They are told their work is an expensive luxury. They are told their work seems controversial, often for the sake of controversy, and they are told their work is obscure, for the sake of obscurity. When Jesus told the other celebrators to leave her alone, he upheld her dignity as a person and gave his support to the dignity of her gesture. He stated that this gesture of hers would be recalled wherever the gospel is told. **Jesus reminds his audience—then and now—that images and symbols have value. And those who work with signs, metaphors and images _are_ doing valuable work.**[1](#fn-1751-1) (emphasis added)
Or consider this footnote find:
> Calvin Seerveld makes a compelling case that **beautiful works, such as that of the sinful woman who anointed Jesus’ feet at Bethany…, should be allowed a place in the Christian life alongside activities such as evangelism and feeding the poor.** Calvin Seerveld, _Bearing Fresh Olive Leaves: Alternative Steps in Understanding Art_ (Toronto: Piquant, 2000), 1-5.[2](#fn-1751-2) (emphasis added)
And there is much of the rub for me: I often find myself identifying more with the disciples (worse, Judas, according to John’s version) than with Mary. I walk into an ornate church or indulge in live musical soundscapes, and I sense that something is profoundly right, and I even find myself drawn to worship the Creator—and then I wonder how we can spend such measureless loose change on such extravagance while God’s children elsewhere are crying for bread.
I do not have a theological resolution for this problem that I can share with you in this post. Rather, I want to share an exegetical observation that occurred to me while listening to the Gospels this week.
**One phrase stood out to me. Hear Jesus’ words: “You will not always have me”** (Matt. 26:11). Mark includes the same statement (Mk. 14:7). John highlights this thought by placing it at the very end of the story: “You do not always have me” (John 12:8).
**What this phrase means, at minimum, is that _Mary was doing something for Jesus that she and the disciples would not be able to do later._** There would be opportunity later to care for the poor. But there would be no “later” for doing whatever it was that Mary did to Jesus.
What was it that Mary did to Jesus? In Matthew, Jesus explains it like this: “In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial” (Matt. 26:12). Mark’s Jesus says, “She has anointed my body beforehand for burial.” John’s Jesus speaks parallel words.
Can you see where my thoughts are headed? Consider \[amazon text=R.T. France’s&asin=080282501X\] comments on this story:
> The woman’s extravagant loyalty offsets the shameful horror of crucifixion. That is why it must always be remembered, not simply as a model for uncalculating devotion (though it certainly is that) but as an affirmation of the value of his death from the point of view of faith.
>
> It is a matter of priorities (cf. the rather different lesson on the priority of the spiritual over the mundane, also set in Bethany, in Luke 10:38-42). A definitive moment is upon them, and even the duty of helping the poor must take second place. Once this unique drama has been played out, the claims of the poor will rightly reassert themselves. It is because this unnamed woman has seized on that sense of special occasion that her act is to be remembered. Probably without realizing it, she has provided a pointer to the theology of the cross.[3](#fn-1751-3)
**So let me sum up what I’m observing:** It seems to me that Jesus very clearly indicates that what Mary did for him was an act specially suited to a unique, non-repeatable opportunity. _No Christian artist today has Jesus in the flesh before him or her, on his way to the cross._ No one today can anoint Jesus in preparation for his burial, either literally or figuratively.
More than that, listen again to France’s suggestion: “Once this unique drama has been played out, the claims of the poor will rightly reassert themselves.” In other words, let’s say that Mary owned a second flask of ointment. What would be the right way to use it after Jesus’ death and resurrection had passed? According to Jesus’ words, the right thing for Mary to do with another such flask of ointment, would _not_ be to use it to anoint Jesus. Rather, it would be fitting to use it to care for the poor.
So… my ambivalence about the arts continues. I conclude that we should exercise more care not to take this biblical account out of context as support for our artistic endeavors, especially our expensive ones. I suggest that we will need to look elsewhere if we want to find strong biblical basis for extravagant expense in art or worship.
(Help me out. Do you see a biblical basis somewhere? To be clear, I am not claiming or aiming in this post to deny any such biblical basis for investment in the arts. Rather, my main concern is that we keep our theology tethered to Scripture through careful exegesis.)
**And if I were to try to draw any tentative positive lessons for our art from this passage, I might suggest the following:**
1. _Our art should be consistent with “a theology of the cross” (to borrow France’s words)._ This suggests to me that (a) what artistic expressions we do create must be consistent with all that the cross represents, and (b) sometimes the call to bear the cross will be a call to surrender our present artistic desires.
2. _Our art should point us to the day when Jesus will return in the flesh._ Yes, Christ is present by his Spirit now. But this is yet the day of the Bridegroom’s absence, when fasting and mourning are still appropriate (Matt. 9:15). Only when he returns will the full consummation of true art be realized. Any artistic perfection now must strengthen our hunger for the perfection of Beauty (Christ and his likeness) then.
**This post raises unfinished thoughts. What do you have to add to the discussion? [Share your thoughts in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/arts-and-absence-of-jesus/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclosure: I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
1. Steve Scott, _Like a House on Fire: Renewal of the Arts in a Postmodern Culture_ (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 102-103. [↩](#fnref-1751-1)
2. Jason S. Hiles, _Images in the Service of God’s Word: A Theology for the Christian Use of Visual Images,_ a dissertation presented to the faculty of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Ann Arbor, Michigan: ProQuest, 2008), 262, fn 75. [↩](#fnref-1751-2)
3. R.T. France, _The Gospel of Matthew,_ New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2007), 974. [↩](#fnref-1751-3)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Is for Atlanta
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-09-07
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: A Is for Atlanta | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: God willing, our family will soon be moving to Atlanta, Georgia. Continue reading for a rambling post full of theological and personal reflection!
Tags: -1 Corinthians 7:39, Kevin | DeYoung, sovereignty, church planting, Atlanta, -1 Corinthians 16:5-9, -Acts 13:2, -Acts 16:9, -Romans 1:9-15, -Romans 15:18-32, Arnold L. | Cook, Christy | Smucker, church life cycle, decisions, drift, Elmer | Smucker, Garry | Friesen, guidance, John | Perkins, Steve | Smucker
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta
**God willing, our family will soon be moving to Atlanta, Georgia.** In [my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/lot-big-time-mennonite-farmer/) I dropped some hints about us moving to “really bad farmland,” so I thought I should share the news here. Continue reading for a rambling post full of theological and personal reflection.
Five years ago this month we moved to Iowa from New York City, after about seven years in The Big Apple. We came here to support my wife Zonya’s parents as her father’s health declined. Since [Albert died](https://dwightgingrich.com/does-the-resurrection-matter-albert-mast-memorial-service/) in December, we have been “in transition mode,” asking God what’s next for our family. Many options and invitations came our way. Of the many, The Big Peach (aka “Atlanta”) gradually claimed center spot in our thoughts.
I’ve never felt good at making major decisions, but I have learned (slowly, repeatedly) that we can fully trust God to to care and to guide as he sees fit.
**There is much mystery in how God guides our steps.** I do not believe that it is normally the case that God has one detailed, perfect plan for our lives that he is keeping secret from us, a plan that we must beg him to supernaturally reveal lest we fall short of his perfect will. When we read about God’s will for us in Scripture, it is a much deeper matter: His will is that we be conformed to Christ in all dimensions of our character. In the specific “accidental” choices of life, he usually gives us much freedom. For example, in the choice of a marriage partner, we are to marry “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39) rather than to look for Mr. or Ms. Right. So the normal call in decision-making is a call to walk in wisdom within the moral boundaries God has provided.
But then there are also times when God speaks dramatically into our lives, giving very specific guidance: “Come over to Macedonia and help us” (Acts 16:9). Often such special guidance comes unexpectedly, both in the sense that we aren’t seeking special guidance at the time and that the content of the guidance surprises us. Yet Scripture also records multiple cases of God’s people specially seeking him during times when important decisions are made: “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for us Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'” (Acts 13:2).
To sum it up, it seems we should follow the example that Paul shares in passages such as Romans 1:9-15, Romans 15:18-32, and 1 Corinthians 16:5-9. Garry Friesen summarizes Paul’s approach in six bullet points:
* **Purposes:** Paul adopted spiritual goals that were based on divine revelation.
* **Priorities:** He arranged his goals into wise priorities determining what should be done first, second, third, and so on.
* **Plans:** Next, he devised a strategy for accomplishing his objectives.
* **Prayer:** Through prayer, he submitted himself and his plans to the sovereign will of God…
* **Perseverance:** When providentially hindered from accomplishing his plans, he assumed that the delay was God’s sovereign will. This conviction freed him from discouragement…
* **Presentation:** Paul explained his decisions on the basis of God’s moral will and his personal application of wisdom. [1](#fn-1736-1)
I—like some other people whose decisions I have respected—have found Garry Friesen’s book \[amazon text=_Decision Making and the Will of God_&asin=1590522052\] to be freeing. I might tweak Friesen’s discussion in a few spots, such as his understanding of special guidance through spiritual gifts such as prophecy. But I think his approach sets a strong biblical foundation for making decisions that please God. (For a very similar approach in a much shorter span, see Kevin DeYoung’s \[amazon text=_Just Do Something: A Liberating Approach to Finding God’s Will_&asin=0802411592\].) Turn your heart passionately after God and trust, child-like, that he will guide you.
**So how has God been guiding us toward Atlanta? I’ll give the “short” version in another series of bullet points:**
* We began intentionally praying for guidance immediately upon Albert’s passing in December, and we began asking counsel of long-time friends and advisers early this year.
* God began working much earlier. I’ll start with my shoulder problems which began about June, 2014—though I could trace God’s sovereign hand back to my birth and before. These shoulder problems drastically reduced my hours at work for over half a year—which gave me much more time to launch this website.
* A “Steve Smucker” sent me a Facebook message in mid-February that included this:
> Dwight, I’ve been following your posts for a short while now and have been thoroughly enjoying your thoughts and writings… I am curious about a statement you made a while back that seemed to insinuate the possibility of you relocating to another area… \[A friend\] and I have been in discussions for the last few months about the possibility of starting an Anabaptist church here in the city… Last week your name came to my mind for some reason. My wife and I have been wishing for several years to have another couple or two join us in ministering to the community. We have contacted two other couples in the last year but it has not worked for either. Obviously there would need to be a lot of discussion to see if we are compatible both in our spiritual understanding and vision as well as general life. As I mentioned before I have found many of your posts resonating strongly within me… I know this is abrupt and as far as I know you don’t really know myself or my wife. We do see a lot of opportunities to serve and witness throughout Atlanta and see it as an area that is needing a rebirth of genuine Scriptural teaching as well as authentic Christianity in our lifestyle. Please prayerfully consider this. I completely understand if you already have somewhere God is taking you and your family, if there is hesitation about us due to not knowing us or any other reason, so if this is something you know right away is not for you feel free to let me know.
* This message led to some written dialogue, followed by several long phone calls.
* By May, Zonya and I felt peace about reducing our many options to a short list of three, one being Atlanta. (I’m leaving out some really significant pondering and dialogue regarding other options.)
* In June we visited Atlanta. I think it was my first time in the city. It was certainly our first time meeting Steve and Christy and their family. On our way there, I told Zonya that this felt a bit like going on a first date: We might walk away from this never to return, saying “Well, _that_ was interesting!” Or it might be all fuzzy and unclear when we’re done. Or it might be instantly life-changing. Which was it? Well, all ten of us (they have three young boys, we have three young girls) hit it off famously and immediately during our four-day visit. Within minutes the children were happily playing by themselves, and we adults spent long hours comparing life stories and personal convictions and biblical understandings and visions for church and ministry. By the time we left, we knew we had at minimum gained new friends.
* The rest of June and July we communicated more with the Smuckers and also followed up on our other short list options. (One of these is part-time teaching at a Bible school. We have applied and are awaiting a response.)
* August arrived and we still felt peace and desire regarding Atlanta. So we specially gave the month of August to God, inviting him to say “no” or “not yet” regarding Atlanta if he saw fit. We told him we would say “yes” to Atlanta if he didn’t send an orange or red light before September 1. During this month Zonya and I took time each week to fast, pray, and listen. Steve and I also exchanged character references. All the references that Steve provided spoke highly of his character, and I also had a really good phone visit with his dad, Elmer (formerly a bishop in Lott, Texas).
* It was a bit hard to sleep the night of August 31, and not just because I was sleeping in a tent in the backyard with my family. When we woke up in the morning, we finally made our decision: We were moving to Atlanta!
**We’ve had some interesting conversations with our children in the past few days.** Several days ago our oldest (six) asked me, “So, what church will we be part of in Atlanta?” I told her that Steves and us will be a church together. “What, a ten-person church?!” But a smile peeked around the surprised look. I assured her our goal is to invite others to join us as a church and follow Jesus together. “Dad, are there any other churches in Atlanta?” “Oh, there’s a lot, over 100.” “Are there any Mennonite churches?” “Yes, I know of two. But I’m sad to say that in some ways they don’t obey the Bible very well.” “Maybe some of them will decide to join our church.” “That would be wonderful.”
Last evening our middle daughter (four) asked me earnestly, “Dad…? Did God say Yes?” (It took me a moment to confirm she was asking about our move to Atlanta.) Well, what is the right answer? Though I have a lot of peace about our decision, I can’t point to any undisputable special revelation from God telling us he wants us to go. So I told her that, yes, I think God will be very pleased if we move to Atlanta to learn to live in love and truth with Steve and Christy and their family and invite others to help us follow Jesus. She seemed content with this answer, and so am I. God will redirect if he so chooses.
**I’m excited to think of raising our family in a new church in Atlanta!** History shows that most Christian organizations, including churches, go through a common life cycle that has been summarized as Man –> Movement –> Machinery –> Monument. God can bring revival that rescues us from this “death cycle,” but look around and you will see a lot of churches where most participants have long lost the vision of the founding generation. Yes, God can certainly deliver us from this death cycle. And I think one of the very best ways he prefers to do this is by sending many of us out as men and women to begin new movements—new ministries and churches that express in fresh ways the Great Commission heart of God. (This sending vision can also rejuvenate the “old” church.) So it excites me to have the opportunity to raise a family in a setting that is decidedly _not_ at the “Monument” stage—to give them the chance to be part of the first (or second) generation in the life cycle of a church. Yes, new churches bring great challenges and dangers. But none greater than those facing old churches! (For more on these ideas, see \[amazon text=_Historical Drift: Must My Church Die?_&asin=0875099017\] by Arnold L. Cook.)
So, that’s a peek into some of the decisions our family has been making in recent months. Now we’re facing many more: Which Atlanta neighborhood should we move into? Which house? What about employment options? Ministry options? And what about learning to make decisions as a fledgling two-family church? At this point we expect to move as soon as we settle the housing question (perhaps already this year), and I expect to continue writing for [Open Hands](http://www.openhands.org/) and to seek new piano students. Much else remains to be discovered as we and the Smuckers learn to seek the Lord together.
**If you think of us, please pray also that God will meet the needs that we did not say “yes” to.** Pray especially for our dear friends here in Leon, Iowa. There are church needs and loved ones here that tug on our hearts. We long for God’s kingdom to come and his will to be done ever more fully!
**If you want to know more about Steve and Christy, you can visit one of Christy’s excellent websites**—which are way more attractive than mine, by the way:
* See [“Moving Out in Faith”](https://movinginfaith.wordpress.com/) for Smucker family adventures—including recent visits to urban churches in Philadelphia, Boston, and (soon) New York City.
* See [“C. Smucker Photography”](http://www.csmuckerphotography.com/) for great family photojournalism.
**And what will a move to Atlanta (God willing) mean for this website?** Here are some things I expect:
* My posts may be more sporadic during the months of moving.
* The challenges of learning to live as a new local expression of Christ’s body will affirm and sharpen my focus on ecclesiology. _What constitutes a church? What does a church do when it gathers? How are church leaders chosen? How are decisions made? Who is a church member? How do churches share the gospel? How do they make disciples? How do they serve their communities? How do they live as a community? How do they relate to other congregations in the neighborhood?_
* Sooner or later (probably sooner) I will need to gain a firmer grip on some tough issues like responding to divorce and remarriage.
* My idealism will be further tested on the anvils of real life and real life will issue new cries for ideals worth living.
* Urban living and cross-cultural relationships will reduce my exposure to traditional rural Mennonite concerns and increase my ponderings about welcoming all peoples to the gospel way.
* I will likely want to read books like _House Church and Mission_ and _The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission_ and _A Light to the Nations_ and _King Jesus Claims His Church_ and _Divided by Faith_ and _Building a Healthy Multi-ethnic Church_ and _Our God is Undocumented_ and books by John Perkins and [a host of others](http://www.heartsandmindsbooks.com/booknotes/books_on_multicultural_reconci/) I haven’t yet seen…
* My computer may overheat when The Big Peach cooks next summer, and that might be the end of Dwight Gingrich Online.
It’s a bit hard to think that my children might never learn to properly skate, let alone play hockey. Our oldest shed tears over this recently, and I nearly did, too.
But I’m excited that our family is moving into new adventures with God. He’s led the way from The Great White North to The Big Apple and The Corn State. Now it’s on to The Big Peach—and someday to the New Jerusalem on the New Earth!
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight
* * *
**If you have thoughts on decision-making, our upcoming Atlanta move, or anything else worth hearing, [share them in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/a-is-for-atlanta/#respond) Thank you!**
1. _Decision Making and the Will of God,_ rev. and updated ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2004), 230. [↩](#fnref-1736-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Lot the Big-Time Mennonite Farmer
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-08-30
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Lot the Big-Time Mennonite Farmer | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We know the story well. Lot's big mistake was that he was enticed by the sensual excitement of the big city. This is what finally ruined his family. Right?
Tags: Anabaptist history, Promised Land, cities, farming, rural, urban, -Genesis 11:2, -Genesis 13:2-11, -Genesis 15:16, -Genesis 3:24, -Genesis 4:16, Amorites, Canaanites, Gomorrah, identity, Lot, Norman | Troyer, pilgrims, Sodom, strangers
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/lot-big-time-mennonite-farmer
**You know the sermon is especially good when someone walks out crying half way through.** Okay, the pain and tears unfortunately came from cramps and not from conviction. But the sermon was good, nonetheless. Brother Norman Troyer spoke on the topic of Christians living as strangers and pilgrims.
I wish I could give you an outline of the sermon, but I confess I spent part of the sermon walking out back with the poor brother suffering from leg cramps, and part of the sermon letting my mind wander on nearby mental paths.
**I thought the sermon was especially timely.** One reason it was timely was because I had just finished updating the congregation on our tentative plans about moving away from Leon, Iowa. I sit down, Brother Marvin prays, and then Brother Norman stands up and reminds us we shouldn’t set our roots down too deeply anywhere. We are just strangers and pilgrims. We should let God relocate us if he wants to. Ka-ching! I’m thinking I just heard from God.
Another good thing about the sermon was one of those mental farm paths down which I strolled. Brother Norman was just getting nicely started on his biblical survey of S&P (not the 500 type). After hitting a few prominent NT passages (Heb. 11:13; 1Pet. 2:11), he prepped for a home run by winding his bat way back—all the way back to Abram in Genesis 12.
**Genesis 13 was where I got lost in the corn maze.** (This was before the cramps began. Are you still with me?)
Abram was a stranger and a pilgrim. Lot was not.
Why not? **_What was Lot’s first mistake?_**
As Anabaptists, we know the story well. Cities are bad. Or they are dangerous, at least. Rural life is best. True, if you are careful you can live a godly life in a small town. Maybe even in a small city. And if you are _really certain that God has called you_, a few of you might even be specially gifted to live a godly life in New York City. But rural life is still best. And farming is next to godliness.
Okay, I might be stretching it just a bit. But, though I can’t find it right now, I know I’ve read a book or essay where someone seriously questioned whether Anabaptism can survive if Anabaptists give up farming. (And that “someone” isn’t alone, as you and I both know.) Perhaps Anabaptism _as we now know it_ can’t survive off the farm for more than a generation or two. And that may indeed be a second-order kind of a loss, worthy of some grief. (Second-order, because most Christians have not and never will be Anabaptists; Christianity wouldn’t die with Anabaptism. Truth.) But I propose that it might be significant to recall that some of the very first Anabaptists were not farmers. They lived in the city of Zurich and were—wait for it—_college students_. Imagine that!
Back to Lot. So, we know the story well. Here was Lot’s mistake: He was enticed by the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. True, at first he didn’t actually move into the city. But he chose to pitch his tent nearby. He enjoyed being tempted, you know, even if he wasn’t quite ready to give in. So Lot’s first mistake was that he was enticed by the sensual excitement of the big city. This is what eventually led to the tragic loss of his family.
Right? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed the previous paragraphs do not represent the substance of Mr. Troyer’s sermon, nor the opinions of the author, editor, or publisher of this article. Opinions of readers are, as yet, unknown.)
**Let’s read that story again. Here it is, as Scripture tells it:**
> 2 Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold. 3 And he journeyed on from the Negeb as far as Bethel to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai, 4 to the place where he had made an altar at the first. And there Abram called upon the name of the Lord. 5 And Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents, 6 so that the land could not support both of them dwelling together; for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together, 7 and there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock. At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land.
>
> 8 Then Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen, for we are kinsmen. 9 Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right, or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left.” 10 And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other. (Genesis 13:2-11 ESV)
Yes, if we include one more verse, we get this: “Lot settled among the cities of the valley and moved his tent as far as Sodom.” And there does seem to be a typological significance to the fact that Lot moved _east_—a direction associated primarily with evil in Genesis ever since mankind was driven _eastward_ out of Eden (see Gen. 3:24; 4:16; 11:2).
But notice, please, that Lot didn’t seem to notice the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah at all when he “lifted up his eyes” to chose where to settle. No, it seems that the _cities weren’t on his radar at all_.
What _was_ on his radar? What did Lot see when he lifted up his eyes?
Read it again:
> Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar… So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley. (Genesis 13:10-11 ESV)
Lot saw some lush, green farmland. He saw land that reminded you of the Garden of Eden. It was like the Nile River valley in Egypt—the bread basket of the ancient Near East.
And why, pray tell, was Lot interested in some well-watered, river-bottom land? _Because Lot was a farmer!_ That’s right, Lot was a farmer.
A big-time farmer. Read it again:
> Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold… And Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents, so that the land could not support both of them dwelling together; for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together… (Genesis 13:2, 5-6 ESV)
Abram and Lot were both big-time farmers. And—notice this, too—they both lived near wicked pagans. Yes, Lot lived near wicked Sodom and Gomorrah. And yes, these cities were so exceptionally wicked that God saw fit to destroy them some 600 years before the Canaanites were destroyed. “The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete,” God told Abram (Gen. 15:16). But it had begun. And our text specifies that Abram was not settling in an empty promised land: “At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land” (Gen. 13:7).
**So, let’s summarize:** Scripture does _not_ say that Lot was enticed by the big city while Abram was wise enough to prefer a secluded rural life.
What does it say? It says that Lot chose the best _farmland_. This is what motivated his choice. As any good farmer knows, there is only so much top-quality farmland around, so if you want it, you better step quickly.
Does this sound familiar? Have Anabaptists ever done such a thing, perchance?
**So, Mr. Gingrich, what exactly is your point?** What are you saying we should learn from this passage?
Well, I’ll leave that for you to puzzle over. (And hopefully you don’t get a brain cramp.) I’ll just say two unrelated things before I quit:
First: **_Lot’s greed was what enticed him to leave the Promised Land._** Ponder that, brothers and sisters.
Second: I’m thinking I might go find me some _really bad farmland_ to pitch our family’s tent. That is, if that’s where God calls us to be strangers and pilgrims.
* * *
**Now it’s your turn.** What do you think? What might God want Anabaptists to learn (or unlearn) from this story about Lot? **[Share your insights in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/lot-big-time-mennonite-farmer/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Study Resources for Kings and Chronicles
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-08-30
Category: Study Resources for Bible Books
Meta Title: Study Resources for Kings and Chronicles | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Sunday School, Andrew | Hill, Chronicles, Dale Ralph | Davis, David | Howard, Iain W. | Provan, J. Gordon | McConville, John | Bright, Kings, Martin | Selman, Philip E. | Satterthwaite, Raymond | Dillard
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-kings-chronicles
**Those of us who are using the [Christian Light Publications Sunday School booklets](https://www.clp.org/store/browse/25_sunday_school) will be studying excerpts from the OT books of Kings and Chronicles during September and October.** (You can [purchase an e-book teachers’ guide here](http://www.upstreambooks.org/product/sunday-school-youth-and-adult-teachers-handbook-4-15-qtr/).)
How can you best prepare to be a contributing class member or teacher as you study these books?
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/elijahelisha-1721353230562-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/elijahelisha-1721353230562-compressed.jpg)
Photo Credit: [MatthewDGarrett](https://www.flickr.com/photos/78575519@N00/4837747025/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
**First, nothing beats prayerfully reading and re-reading Scripture itself.** [See here](http://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-hebrews/) for Bible reading tips that are sure to increase your understanding.
That said, _**don’t imagine the “just me and Jesus” approach to Bible interpretation is best!**_ Carefully reading what other Bible students have discovered about Scripture can bring amazing payoffs! ([See here](https://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/intro/why-i-use/) for “Why I Use Commentaries” and other study resources.)
So here are some resources I would consider for studying Kings and Chronicles. **A good commentary or two will be helpful:**
**Kings:**
* \[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=080104748X\]\[amazon text=Iain Provan’s commentary on 1 and 2 Kings&asin=080104748X\]. This is an obvious choice—many reviewers agree it is the single best commentary on Kings, it is designed for ordinary Bible students, the author believes that Kings is historically trustworthy, and it is even cheap. (I own this one but have not used it much yet.)
* You will also find Dale Ralph Davis’s expository commentaries (\[amazon text=1 Kings&asin=1845502515\], \[amazon text=2 Kings&asin=1845500962\]) both theologically insightful and entertaining. (I own five of Davis’s commentaries and have enjoyed using the ones on 1 and 2 Samuel.)
* For more Kings commentaries, see my [OT Detailed Lists](http://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/ot-detailed-lists/#kin).
**Chronicles:**
* \[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0849902142\]\[amazon text=Raymond Dillard’s commentary on 2 Chronicles&asin=0849902142\] is the classic scholarly evangelical work on that book.
* \[amazon text=Andrew Hill’s commentary&asin=0310206103\] is newer, well-researched, but less technical, designed for preachers, with both exegesis and application suggestions. (I own this one but have not used it much yet.)
* \[amazon text=Martin Selman’s commentary&asin=0830842101\] is also accessible, conservative, and based on good scholarship (but not as new as Hill’s).
* For more Chronicles commentaries, see my [OT Detailed Lists](http://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/ot-detailed-lists/#chr).
**Books on the history of the nation of Israel might also be helpful.** (Note that these span much or all of Israel’s biblical history, not just the time of Kings and Chronicles.) Here are some history books I would consider:
* McConville and Satterthwaite’s book \[amazon text=_Exploring the Old Testament, Vol. 2: A Guide to the Historical Books_&asin=0830825428\]. This is a good place to start—it’s very recent, designed for students, and not too long.
* David Howard’s book \[amazon text=_An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books_&asin=0802441556\] covers similar ground, but more deeply.
* For those who want to study Israel’s history more deeply, John Bright’s book \[amazon text=_A History of Israel_&asin=0664220681\] remains a classic conservative scholarly book on the topic.
* Denver Seminary professors have [many more suggestions](http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/annotated-old-testament-bibliography-2015/#histories).
**Many online resources are also available**, but I have not reviewed many for usefulness. (While I use online Bibles and concordances regularly, I usually stick to print or e-books for commentaries and other resources. Often these have been edited and tested more carefully.) However, here are two online resources from basically reputable sources—a tiny hint of much more you might find:
* An article on [“The Reliability of Kings and Chronicles”](https://bible.org/article/reliability-kings-and-chronicles) which focuses on chronological problems and includes a possible timeline of the kings.
* An [8 minute video on the decline of Israel](http://www.biblex.com/en/modules/history) during the time of the kings. (Click on “Decline” and scroll down to “Learn” for the video.) This is part of a free online Bible study tool that surveys the whole Bible. It is designed for both individuals and groups.
**What other resources would you suggest? [Share your favorite resources in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-kings-chronicles/#respond) Thank you!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Fresh Milling [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-08-21
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Fresh Milling | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Fresh Milling: Call us each when we are worn and dented, / For time alone with You... / Stamp upon our coin... / The express image of Your glorious face.
Tags: worship, prayer, image of God, identity, -2 Corinthians 3:18, Christlikeness, grandchildren, grandparents, renewal, solitude
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/fresh-milling
_**Do you look like Jesus today?** Listen to Paul’s testimony and promise:_
> And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. (2 Cor. 3:18)
_In these busy summer days, stop to gaze. Glance up. Turn from work to worship. Schedule an August audience in his august presence. Renew your acquaintance, and renew your resemblance._
**_Here are two writings from my mother—prose and poetry—to help you turn your eyes upon Jesus._**
* * *
**BEING GRANDMA**
Ken and I have just returned from a few days at a lakeside cottage with our oldest son and his wife and their five young daughters. I spent time with the girls splashing in the shallow beach and watching the older girls learn to swim. We played games and sang around the campfire. We studied God’s creation, the little fish in the clear water, the different bugs and birds. We fed the ducks, listened to the loons and explored the lake. The girls cast lines for elusive fish.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NorthernLake.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/northernlake-1721353323526-compressed.jpg)
Photo Credit: [Paul R Lamb](https://www.flickr.com/photos/62249931@N05/10401107633/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
Now that I am home, five unique voices calling “Grandma, look” echo in my memory. I carry fresh imprints of each granddaughter on my heart. New memories are impressed on my mind and I feel a deeper bond with their individual personalities. I watched them conquering fear, shyness and impatience. I saw what makes them excited, bored, curious, restless. I learned what they are reading, writing, singing and laughing about. They taught me a new song about a worm in a box that, every time we sang the song, (gasps of wonder) turned into a butterfly! I watched their eyes sparkle as Daddy played guitar and they sang along. I listened to a toddler delight in singing “How Great Thou Art.”
When we left them at the cottage their hugs and ongoing chorus of good-byes sent me home feeling so loved as a grandma. Though we are in the same community and church, in the busyness of daily life we can get out of touch. Some of our grandchildren live far away making it even harder to stay connected. I spend a lot of time with the elderly in hymn sing ministries and with my mother who lives with us. Sometimes the responsibilities of life can almost make me forget that I am a grandmother.
Because interacting with all five girls at once can be overwhelming I recently invited the older ones to visit me two at a time. It was so rewarding. I learned their faces, voices and smiles in a new way. I discovered a common interest with one granddaughter that immediately drew us closer together in a delightful personal connection. I gained a new vision and longing to bless our grandchildren.
Though I am always a grandmother, I need time with my grandchildren to make it real, to refresh the essence of being a grandparent into my soul.
In a similar way, although I am God’s child, in this world of distractions and distortions, of pressures that would mold me into ungodliness, I too need time alone with Him if I want to truly know Him and to have His image real and reflected in me. This poem prayer reflects that longing.
—Elaine Gingrich, August 2015
* * *
**FRESH MILLING**
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/OldCoin.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/OldCoin.jpg)
Photo Credit: [Lawrence Chard](https://www.flickr.com/photos/68432253@N04/6985896368/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
Lord, let us not like coins rubbed smooth and faceless
By constant mixing in the purse or hand,
Become, like all the world of coins around us,
Innocuously indistinct and bland.
Lord, spare us from the polishing of theory,
The shrewd abrasion of materialism,
From fads that fool the crowd and cause us, weary,
To lose our message of evangelism.
Lord, call us each when we are worn and dented,
For time alone with You in some still place
To stamp upon our coin, like freshly minted,
The express image of Your glorious face.
—Elaine Gingrich, November 1994
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/fresh-milling/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353324677-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Articles of Church Membership
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-08-12
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Articles of Church Membership | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Sometimes it is way we use little things like articles (“a” or “the”) that most powerfully shape and reveal our deepest assumptions and priorities.
Tags: church universal, baptism, church local, church membership, Bobby | Jamieson
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/articles-of-church-membership
**When you think about “church”, do you think about “a” church or “the” church?** Or both? Which most often? And does it matter which term we use when?
**Here are some quotes from a book I’m starting to read:**
> I’d argue that a general inability to articulate what distinguishes any gathering of believers from a local church is at the root of the confusion surrounding the relationship between baptism and church membership. We can’t very well articulate what makes a church a church, so we struggle to see why anyone who appears to be a Christian should ever be excluded from one. But… baptism and the Lord’s Supper are themselves the hinge between ‘Christian’ and ‘church.’ Together baptism and the Lord’s Supper mark off a church as a unified, visible, local body of believers…
>
> Baptism and the Lord’s Supper structure the church. Scripture teaches that baptism is the front door of the church, and the Lord’s Supper is the family meal… Removing baptism from membership erases the line Jesus himself has drawn between the church and the world. —Bobby Jamieson, _\[amazon text=Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership&asin=1433686201\]_ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015), pp. 2-3.
Twenty pages into this book, I’m agreeing with much that I read. \[Update: [Here is my review](https://dwightgingrich.com/going-public-why-baptism-is-required-for-church-membership-jamieson-review/) after reading the entire book.\] Baptist author Jamieson has obviously thought long and hard about his topic, and I’m learning things. But _**excerpts like the ones above are frustrating me, triggering questions like the following:**_
* Are we talking about “a” church or “the” church when we talk about “membership”? (Notice how both articles are used, and apparently interchangeably.)
* Is baptism the line between “church” and “Christian,” or between “church” and “the world”? (Both are asserted above.) If the former, does this leave some Christians in the world? If the latter, then how can some Christians be rightly excluded from church (either “a” or “the”)?
**Here is a dependent clause from later (p. 19) that is easy to read right over without noting the same sort of problem:**
> …When churches ask, ‘Who is a member of the new covenant?’ in order to extend membership to them…
My wife has been trained well. When I read that to her, she asked, “So, are there two kinds of membership?”
Exactly. Notice the two “member” words in the quote, one describing a membership that “is” and the other describing a membership that has not yet been “extended.”
So, when Jamieson is talking about “membership,” is it membership in Christ’s church (“the”), or membership in some local church (“a”)? What about when we speak of membership? Which way does the Bible use the language of membership? Or does it somewhere distinguish between two kinds of membership, so that we can talk of both? If so, where?
**Perhaps a better way to write that clause would be like this:** “…When churches ask, ‘Who is a member of the new covenant?’ in order to _publicly recognize the membership they already possess as members of Christ’s church_…”
In proposing this wording, I’m assuming what the author has made clear in context: that we are talking about someone who has been baptized, and about a local church responding to such an already-baptized person.
I’m also proposing that the church—representatives of Christ’s church, to be more precise—act as God’s agents when they baptize new believers into the new covenant Church of Christ. Notice that last phrase: “the new covenant Church of Christ.” This means that _**I’m also proposing the following**_:
* Baptism is designed to be and mark the entrance into both the new covenant and church (both “a” and “the”).
* The entrance into both (new covenant and church) happens at the same time.
* You can’t truly belong to either one without truly belonging to the other.
* Churches should do their best to reflect this reality in their membership practices.
Of course, such assertions need rigorous biblical support, which I am not providing in this brief post.
**For now, I mainly want to point out this: _Sometimes it is way we use little things like articles (“a” or “the”) and possessive pronouns (“our” or “Christ’s”) that most powerfully shape and reveal our deepest assumptions and priorities._** Therefore, pay attention to your “articles of the faith”!
As I continue reading Jamieson’s book, here is my goal: Since I already agree with his main point about the integral connection between baptism and church membership, I’m going to listen closely to what he understands about membership and its relationship to the local and/or universal church. I think both Baptists and Mennonites have things to learn here.
**Thanks for listening in to my unfinished thoughts. [Share your insights or questions in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/articles-of-church-membership/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Fellowship of Differents — McKnight (Review)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-08-06
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: A Fellowship of Differents -- McKnight (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: "A Fellowship of Differents" is NT scholar Scot McKnight's contribution to the topic of church diversity and unity. It is good, but not great.
Tags: church universal, church unity, diversity, church local, Lord's Supper, writing, -Galatians 3:28, gender roles, Justin Martyr, -1 Corinthians 11:33, -Romans 8:1, -Romans 8:31, church discipline, church purity, love of God, same-sex attraction, Scot | McKnight
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/fellowship-of-differents-mcknight-review
McKnight, Scot. _A Fellowship of Differents: Showing the World God’s Design for Life Together_. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2014). 265 pp. _[Publisher’s description.](http://www.zondervan.com/the-fellowship-of-differents)_ (Amazon new price: $15.92 hardcover, $7.99 Kindle, cheaper used.) \[amazon template=add to cart1&asin=0310277671\]
> This idea, that Paul’s mission was a mixed assembly of differents, lies at the core of my beliefs about how the whole Bible works… **Are we willing to embrace the diversity of the church as** _**the very thing God most wants?**_ (pp. 89, 91, _italics in original, bold added)_
**The need for the the Church to become more unified is, thankfully, receiving some long-overdue attention. This book is NT scholar Scot McKnight’s contribution to the topic.**
\[amazon template=image&asin=0310277671\]
McKnight is widely-known in at least three ways: As [a blogger](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/), as an author of [biblical commentaries](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=mcknight+commentary), and as an author of [popular-level books](http://www.amazon.com/Scot-McKnight/e/B001IQZDNO/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1438877166&sr=8-1) on the Christian life, the atonement, and Bible interpretation. This book falls into the third category: books written for the church rather than the academy. Prior to this book, I had only read McKnight via his other two categories: his blog and his commentaries.
**My impression of McKnight prior to this book was mixed, and so is my impression of this book.** (I have enjoyed McKnights’s emphasis on the kingdom of God, some of his challenges to Calvinist thinking, and his emphasis on the social and ethical aspects of Christian transformation. I am less than happy with things like his adoption of gender role egalitarianism or his promotion of evolutionary creationism.)
So, what do I think about _A Fellowship of Differents_?
**Some things I like:**
* _**The emphasis that church life shapes our understanding of the the Christian life.**_ Examples: Highly emotional revival meetings that call people to pray the Sinner’s Prayer might teach us to think of salvation as only a one-time event. Congregations where everyone looks the same (class, ethnicity) might lead us to overlook what the NT says about the radical social composition of Jesus’ Church. What I experience in church shapes what I think Christianity is all about.
* _**The challenge to consider who is invisible both in the Church and in our congregations.**_ McKnight mentions the [Hampton Ministers’ Conference](http://minconf.hamptonu.edu/page/History), “the longest running pastors’ conference in the USA, attended by seven thousand” (p. 18). I’d never heard of it. Neither had McKnight until recently. Why? Certainly, in part (there are also theological reasons), because McKnight and I are white while this 101-year-old conference focuses on the needs of the African-American church. Closer to home: Who might be invisible in my own congregation? Widows and widowers? Children? Races? Women? The poor? Urban? Suburban? Rural? (Win!) Those with higher education? Those with less? Those battling sexual temptation or confusion? Introverts? The abused? The depressed?
* _**The challenge to get our of our just-like-me comfort zones.**_ McKnight quotes a confession from Christena Cleveland from her recent book _Disunity in Christ_ (which is also on my wish list): “I chose to build community with people with whom I could pretty much agree on everything” (p. 32). Ouch. Or this: “Genuine friendships, which are two-way, are always transformative. One reason, then, we don’t love those unlike us in the church is because we don’t want their presence rubbing off on us” (p. 59).
* _**Helpful insights on the Lord’s Supper**_**_._** I enjoyed the extended quotation of Justin Martyr’s record of a second-century Christian gathering. First came the Word, then came the Table, and then came Offerings. Woven through the whole account are clauses displaying Christian unity: “We always keep together… All who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place… We all rise together and pray… There is a distribution to each… and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons… we all hold our common assembly” (pp. 102-103). “The Eucharist—as an action, as symbols, as an event—gospels to all those who observe and to all those who participate” (p. 101). The gospel binds us together, and the Supper is to be eaten together (1 Cor. 11:33).
* _**Some good exegesis and pastoral advice about same-sex attraction.**_ McKnight includes a whole chapter on sexual matters, much of it devoted to the sub-topic of same-sex matters. I didn’t think the chapter was perfect, but it does reflect a clear stance both that same-sex acts are sinful and that the Church must grow in loving and supporting repentant same-sex Christians. I am glad to see McKnight speak clearly on this topic.
* _**A powerful story from Greg Boyd about transformation by grace.**_ The words “there is now no condemnation for them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1) were the key that led to Boyd’s gradual freedom from pornography (pp. 152-53).
* _**A reminder that “the best way to be political is to be the church” (p. 187).**_ Both “kingdom” and “church” were political terms, after all.
* _**Some good quoteables**_**_._** Such as: “Joy… is a church-shaped disposition. Only folks in the church can experience what Paul means by joy” (p. 234).
**Some things I didn’t like:**
* **_Careless or inconsistent editing._** Examples: The first line on the back cover is an endorsement that begins, “This is \[sic\] most important book…” (Missing “the.”) On pages 40 and 72 Bible references are unhelpfully buried in endnotes, though often included elsewhere in the main text. On page 52 McKnight says, “Take Paul at his word. Love is the ‘only thing that counts.'” Paul actually said “faith working through love” is the only thing that counts (Gal. 5:6). On page 70 we read, “Some elements of our covenant love commitment of presence include spending our evenings together…” The wording suggests a list, which never comes. On page 98 a story begins in present tense but switches mid-sentence to past tense. On page 141 we are promised some italicized words in a Bible quote, but none are included. More examples of awkward syntax are found on pages 227 and 228.
* _**Exaggeration.**_ Examples: “God has designed the church—and this is the heart of Paul’s mission—to be _a fellowship of difference_ and _difference_” (p. 16). Was church diversity really the very _heart_ of Paul’s mission? Is “the diversity of the church” really “_the very thing God most wants_” (see above)? Might we be missing a deeper goal that makes diversity meaningful and necessary? And is inclusion of differents really “the church’s biggest challenge” (p. 25)? Don’t get me wrong, I am fully on board that church diversity is a crucial implication of the core gospel message. But these kinds of overstatements put me on the defensive, making me weigh more carefully everything else the author writes.
* _**A bit of self-promotion.**_ McKnight describes a book written by a friend, called _The Gospel of Yes_. “It’s the best title of a book I’ve ever seen (except for _The Blue Parakeet_).” Which happens to be McKnight’s book.
* _**Casual tone.**_ I’m probably just the wrong reader for this book (on page 38 McKnight says “maybe you’ve not read Paul’s story enough to know the details”), but I confess some of these kind of try-to-make-you-laugh comments fall flat with me. Another example: On page 148 McKnight introduces the “circumcision party,” “which ought to be self-explanatory (#ouch).” After describing the circumcision party, he includes this “(#intimidating).” McKnight seemed concerned not to be too formal, so sometimes this book feels like a series of extended blog posts.
* _**Uninformative chapter titles**__**.**_ A chapter called “Teacher with the Big Fancy Hat” turns out to be about suffering. Another called “On a Walk with Kris” turns out to be about joy. This might make you curious, but doesn’t help you trace the book’s big idea, nor review content later.
* _**Unclear statements about God’s love.**_ On page 34 McKnight quotes Romans 8:31 (“If God is for us, who can be against us?”). In context, Paul writes this to those who have been justified by faith and are walking in the Spirit. But McKnight’s application sounds more general: “God loves everyone.” On the following page he elaborates (in center-justified, bold text as follows) with words that sound more like Joel Osteen than Paul the apostle:
**No matter what you have done,
not because you go to church,
not because you read your Bible,
not because folks think you are spiritual,**
**and**
**no matter what sins you have committed,
no matter how vicious or mean or vile they were,
no matter how calloused your heart and soul have become,**
**God loves you.**
**Not because you are good,
not because you do good things,
not because you are famous or have served others,
but _because you are you_.**
**To you, God has said Yes,
God is saying Yes,
and God will eternally say Yes.**
_**God is for the You that is**_ **You.**
* _**Missing balance about church boundaries.**_ McKnight says he originally planned to include a chapter on obedience ([see here](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2015/04/26/a-fellowship-of-differents/)). I think this book would be much more balanced if it included such a chapter, along with a discussion of the role of church discipline when the diverse people who join our churches don’t faithfully follow the words and way of Jesus. I felt there were too many unqualified statements like this: “As long as one was on the journey toward sexual redemption, Paul was encouraging. At the house churches they didn’t put up a sign that said ‘For the Morally Kosher Only'” (p. 129). Or this: “What Jesus and the apostles taught was that you were welcomed _because the church welcomed all to the table_” (p. 17). In contrast, buried in a footnote are these words about the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper) from Justin Martyr: “No one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined” (p. 252). If only McKnight had included and discussed such things in his main text! To be fair, McKnight clarifies that love does not mean “toleration” (p. 130); it means helping another experience positive change. But I didn’t notice that McKnight anywhere said what to do if a person in the church resists or seems indifferent to any such growth in holiness.
* _**Lack of discussion of the universal church.**_ At one point McKnight writes, “I hope you agree with me that the hope for the world is the local church, and that the heart of God’s plan is found in creating a whole new society in a local church” (p. 188). Interestingly, Ben Witherington, a NT scholar and friend of McKnight, [pushed back](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2015/04/26/a-fellowship-of-differents/) on this point: “At one point in the book, you say that the local church is the hope of the world. For a minute I thought that was a slip up, and you meant to say Christ is. Talk to us a bit about the interface between Christ and his body, between Christology and your vision of ecclesiology. For my part I would prefer to say that the local church at its best is simply the local expression of ‘the one true church apostolic and universal’. In other words I would not want to talk about church with a little c without talking about church with a big C, though I would agree that, like politics, in one sense all churches are local.” In a [subsequent online conversation](https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thebibleandculture/a_fellowship_of_differents/#comment-1988173218) I had with Witherington, he agreed with me that part of the problem is our tendency to read the “membership” and “body of Christ” language in the NT as referring to the local church, when really such language strongly implies the universal church. There is only one Head of the Church, right? And a head can only have one body?
* _**Strong (and poorly defended) assertions about gender equality**_. McKnight seems to feel that any distinction in gender roles is a denial of gender equality in Christ—a position that, barring hermeneutical gymnastics, leaves Paul contradicting himself. The following quote even suggests that God’s creation order falls short of his plan for us in Christ (this despite the fact that Paul repeatedly cites creation as the basis for his statements about gender roles!): “In creation God ‘gendered’ us into male and female, but in the new creation, God makes us one” (p. 90). You’d be hard pressed to find those two ideas connected with a “but” in the Bible, except perhaps by implication in Christ’s discussion of life after death. “Sexual differences” have “been transcended,” writes McKnight (p. 91). But I’m left without help to know how to such statements to what McKnight writes later: “One in Christ does not mean Paul ceases being male, nor does Junia cease being a female” (95). True, identity, gender or otherwise, is not eradicated in Christ. But, for McKnight, unlike Paul, identity apparently has nothing to do with roles. As has often been pointed out, such a re-reading of Paul also means that one has little hermeneutical basis for denying that Paul’s words affirm homosexual role relationships when he says that “there is no male and female” in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). Enough on this for now.
* _**Salad-bowl feel.**_ Mcknight rightly wants us to adopt a vision of the church as a salad bowl full of diversity. Unfortunately his book felt like a bit of a salad bowl to me, as if he was pulling together a handful of semi-related topics for publication. (Is this true of McKnights earlier books? Or is this the symptom of a popular author who feels pressured to keep the books coming?) The title of the book suggests the book is about diversity and unity in the church. But the back cover suggests other themes: “McKnight shares his personal experience of church and offers to the church a thorough study of what the Apostle Paul writes about the Christian life… Ultimately, McKnight raises two significant questions: _What is the church supposed to be?_ and _If the church is what it is supposed to be, what does the Christian life look like?_” Wow. with those questions, you can include about anything you want. I think this book would be more compelling if it focused more narrowly on unity and diversity in the church. For example: More hands-on stories of churches wrestling with diversity would help. I think the survey of Paul’s writings could have been more focused on this topic, as well. And sometimes when wide-ranging topics were included (love, grace, suffering, joy–all main themes of either chapters or whole parts of the book), a stronger and clearer connection should have been made with the theme of church diversity. On page 43, I scribbled in the margin, “What does this powerful story have to do with the book’s thesis?” The book could also be improved by a concluding chapter that ties the disparate themes together.
This book has good sections, but is not great.
**I give it 3 out of 5 stars.**
**Have you read this book? Do you want to comment on the book or the ideas in this review? [Share your insights here.](http://dwightgingrich.com/fellowship-of-differents-mcknight-review/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclosures: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookLook Bloggers <[http://booklookbloggers.com](http://booklookbloggers.com)\> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/16cfr255\_03.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html)\> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
_
_I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Remember the Resurrection, to Keep it Central
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-30
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Remember the Resurrection, to Keep it Central | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: worship, resurrection, salvation, -Colossians 2:16-17, Lord's Day, Sabbath, -1 Corinthians 6:14, -Exodus 20:8, -Romans 14:5-6, freedom, Hearts and Voices
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/remember-resurrection-keep-central
**Thursday is an excellent day to remember Christ’s resurrection!**
> “The Resurrection changed everything…
>
> “If there is a power great enough to bring someone back from the dead, then anything can happen!…
>
> “Is it any wonder that the news of the Resurrection became the central message of the newly Spirit-powered Christians…? Is it any wonder that the first day of the week, the day of the Resurrection, the ‘Lord’s Day,’ soon became the usual day for the believers’ weekly outpourings of rejoicing, thanksgiving, and worship?
>
> “Is it any wonder that the early church prohibited fasting or even kneeling for prayer on the Lord’s Day? Sure there, was place for penitence, for supplication, for humiliation. But not on the Day of the Resurrection!
>
> “What does make me wonder, though is how little attention the Resurrection receives in much of Christian worship today… Over the centuries Easter celebrations have been mixed with pagan influences…Too often this has led to a serious neglect of the Resurrection in our worship.
>
> “Perhaps another reason for our neglect of the Resurrection is Reformed theology…–an unbalanced theology that makes salvation depend almost entirely on Jesus’ death, with little need for the Resurrection. (Footnote: “Interestingly, the Reformed theology that minimized the resurrection also borrowed from Old Testament Sabbath requirements to prop up the Lord’s Day observance.”) Or perhaps, as Western Christians mostly living in freedom and prosperity, we have lost something of the urgent sense of need for hope that the early Christians felt, and that many suffering Christians today feel–a hope that is found only in the Resurrection.”
Source: “The Resurrection Day,” an editorial by Leslie A Stover of Quetzaltenango, Guatemala in the Mennonite periodical “Hearts and Voices,” Summer 2015 edition, published by Lamp and Light. (Thanks to a blog reader for providing more information on the author!)
* * *
I think Leslie Stover is onto something important here in his comments about Reformed theology and Sabbath. However, I would note that **_this cross-sized, resurrection-downplaying theology began long before Reformed theology_**, as demonstrated by the crucifix-centered faith of medieval Roman Catholicism. (Please don’t hear me downplaying the cross! Both cross and empty tomb are essential.) Similarly, the practice of borrowing from OT Sabbath requirements to prop up the Lord’s Day began long before Reformed theology, as early as Constantine.
What was interesting to me about this article (besides the ever-needed reminder to remember resurrection) was the juxtaposition of these two ideas: _**A theology that downplays the place of the resurrection in our salvation has also been a theology that turns to OT Sabbath requirements to interpret and support the Lord’s Day.**_ ([See here](http://dwightgingrich.com/?s=resurrection) for more on the resurrection, and [see here](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-flat-bibles-and-sabbath/) for more on the relationship between Sabbath and Lord’s Day.)
When we turn to the OT to guide our observance of the Lord’s Day we have lost not only Christian freedom but also something of the joy and hope of participating in Christ’s resurrection. This is a tragic double loss!
_**I have no desire to mandate Lord’s Day observance, let alone any specific manner of observing the day.**_ Paul clearly taught that in the Lord all days are ultimately equal, and that those who choose to observe one day to the Lord above others must not force their choice on others (Rom. 14:5-6; Col. 2:16-17). That said, when we do meet, on the Lord’s Day and otherwise, _let us agree on this mandate: resurrection must be central!_
After all, the new covenant cry is not “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8), or even “Remember the Lord’s Day,” but “God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power” (1 Cor. 6:14). Therefore, _remember the resurrection, to keep it central!_
* * *
**Thanks for reading! [Share your resurrection-rousing reflections below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/remember-resurrection-keep-central/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Judgment and Meaning: You’ll Get Your Day in Court
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-27
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Judgement and Meaning: You'll Get Your Day in Court | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Some days, when our faith is small, we need reminders of the basics: Judgment is coming. The wicked will be punished. Those who seek God will be rewarded.
Tags: Enoch, judgment, -Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, -Genesis 5:21-24, -Hebrews 11:5-6, -Hebrews 5:12, -Hebrews 6:1-2, -James 2:23, -Jude 1:14-15, -Revelation 11:16-18, -Revelation 16:5-6, -Revelation 19:1-3, -Romans 12:19, Book of Enoch, friend of God, Hell, meaning, pleased God, purpose, Septuagint, vanity, walked with God
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/judgment-meaning-your-day-in-court
**I build sheds for people I don’t know so they can store things they probably don’t need.** Swinging a pound or more of hammer at pieces of wood is a purposeless activity on its own, but it becomes purposeful when the action contributes to a meaningful end. But when the end is just to store more junk (or more lawnmowers to trim Iowa’s ridiculously over-sized and costly yards), then the activity of hammering is doubly futile.
I was mulling this over at work last week. While doing so, I was also recalling other vain activities in my recent history—things involving feeding cats that we really don’t want anyway, killing a crippled chicken that refused to either lay eggs or die responsibly on its own, and nursing my gastrointestinal disorders. (I’ll spare you the details on that last one but, really, few things make you appreciate the vanity of life so deeply. If you’re honest, you’ll agree.)
Looking for comfort, I selected some Scripture to listen to while I persevered with those sheds. I chose Ecclesiastes. (My job is an exceptionally good place for listening, thinking, and mentally composing blog posts. It is also an exceptionally poor place for writing down said blog posts before they are hammered out of my head. This, too, is vanity.)
I found the empty-glass Preacher consoling—for two reasons, I concluded. First, it is perversely heartening to be assured that you are not the first human being to be crushed by the futility of life. Second, there is that last verse of the book—spoken, apparently, not by the Preacher himself but by the writer of the book; but we won’t get into the positively confusing questions of which voice is speaking which verses in Ecclesiastes, and of how reliable those voices are as mouthpieces for God’s perspective on life; that investigation would be meaningless to this post.
Questions aside, here are the last two verse of Ecclesiastes:
> The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. (Eccl. 12:13-14)
**At the end of the book, and at the end of the day, one thing gives meaning to life for the author of Ecclesiastes: the coming judgment.** The wicked and the righteous and the beasts all die alike; they all return to dust. But life is not meaningless, for “God will bring every deed into judgment.” It is this fact that clarifies and establishes “the whole duty of man.” It is the coming judgment that stirs us to “fear God and keep his commandments.” It is the coming judgment that keeps my hammer swinging when all else feels futile.
No, I am not merely talking about “the fear of Hell,” although this is certainly an important part of the picture. Notice that “God will bring _every_ deed into judgment,” not only the “evil” but also the “good.” More on that later.
**Yesterday I listened to another preacher.** He told us about another mysterious OT figure, a man named Enoch. I was reminded again of how future judgment gives meaning to present life.
We read about Enoch only three places in the Bible. Let’s read all three passages.
_**Here is all we hear about Enoch in the OT (besides his birth notice):**_
> When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. (Gen. 5:21-24)
This brief and intriguing bio spawned a rich tradition of Jewish reflection and speculation. What does it mean that Enoch “walked with God”? What does it mean that “he was not, for God took him”? We’ll focus here on the first question and ignore the latter.
_**The NT mentions Enoch twice. The first mention sticks pretty close to the facts of the Genesis account:**_
> By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Heb. 11:5-6)
I said that this passage sticks pretty closely to Genesis, so I better clarify something. Do you notice the second sentence? “Before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.” Where in Genesis does it say that Enoch pleased God?
A footnote in the ESV helped me answer this question. Back in Genesis 5:22, the Hebrew text says that Enoch “walked with God.” However, the Septuagint (the Greek translation commonly used in Jesus’ day) translated this to say that Enoch “pleased God.” The author of Hebrews evidently was familiar with the Septuagint, thus he could rightly claim that Enoch “was commended as having _pleased_ _God_.”
The Septuagint is using a thought-for-thought translation philosophy here, thus providing good precedent for translations such as the NIV or NLT. “Pleased God” does a good job capturing the sense of “walked with God.” The notes to the NET Bible say this:
> The rare expression “walked with” (the Hitpael form of the verb הָלָךְ, halakh, “to walk” collocated with the preposition אֶת, ’et, “with”) is used in 1 Sam 25:15 to describe how David’s men maintained a cordial and cooperative relationship with Nabal’s men as they worked and lived side by side in the fields. In Gen 5:22 the phrase suggests that Enoch and God “got along.” This may imply that Enoch lived in close fellowship with God, leading a life of devotion and piety.
This reminds me of Abraham, who “was called a friend of God” because he believed God and therefore obeyed him (James 2:23). Abraham was God’s friend because he believed God. Similarly, the author of Hebrews focuses on Enoch’s faith. He implies that Enoch believed two things—God exists, and God rewards those who seek him.
Did you catch that? There we have it again—the importance of coming judgment: God “rewards those who seek him.” What gave meaning and purpose to Enoch’s life? What motivated him to “get along with” God, to “walk with” and “please” him? It was his faith in the coming judgment, in a day to come when he would be rewarded for seeking God.
_**We see Enoch’s belief in coming judgment even more clearly in the final NT passage mentioning him.**_ In this passage Jude draws heavily on intertestamental Jewish reflection about Enoch, quoting directly from the Book of Enoch (chapter 1, verse 9), which may have been written starting about 300 B.C.:
> It was also about these \[ungodly blasphemers infiltrating God’s people\] that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 1:14-15)
If we examine [the original context where Jude found this quote](http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM), we see that Enoch is recorded as describing a future time during “a remote \[generation\] which is for to come” (1:2-3) when “the eternal God will tread upon the earth” (1:4) “and there shall be a judgment upon all” (1:7). But Enoch is not just anticipating judgment upon the wicked. He is also—as Hebrews 11 records—anticipating reward for the righteous. And so we also read these words right before those quoted by Jude:
> But with the righteous He will make peace.
> And will protect the elect,
> And mercy shall be upon them.
> And they shall all belong to God,
> And they shall be prospered,
> And they shall all be blessed.
> And He will help them all,
> And light shall appear unto them,
> And He will make peace with them. (1:8)
_**So there we have it:**_ Hebrews 11 cites Enoch’s faith in a coming _reward_ for those who seek God. Jude records Enoch’s warning of a coming _punishment_ upon the wicked. And the Book of Enoch records both.
It was this faith of Enoch in a coming judgment at the hands a just God that motivated his walk with God. It was coming judgment that gave meaning to his present life.
**The author of Hebrews tells us that “the resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment” are “elementary” things,** part of the “basic principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 6:1-2; 5:12). But these matters also provide an essential and sure “foundation” for pressing on to “maturity” (Heb. 6:1).
And some days Enoch and the Preacher and Dwight need to feel the foundation under our feet. Some days, days when our faith is small, we need reminders of the basics:
* There is a judgment to come.
* The wicked will be punished.
* Those who seek God will be rewarded.
So be sure to get along with God today. Keep walking with him. Please him. Be his friend.
And keep swinging your hammer, if that is what he asks of you right now. _**You’ll get your day in court, and the pay-off will be greater than you can imagine.**_
* * *
In a day when people prefer talk of “love” and tolerance over talk of judgment, we don’t talk about the coming judgment as much as many previous generations did. But belief in a final judgment is foundational not only for persisting through the seeming vanity of life, but also for things such as non-resistant love of our enemies (see Rom. 12:19; Rev. 11:16-18; 16:5-6; 19:1-3).
**Do you believe in a coming judgment? Do you think about it often? What difference does it make in your daily walk with God? [Share your comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/judgment-meaning-your-day-in-court/#respond), and thanks for reading!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## 125 Years of Seven Ordinances — Rough Draft
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-23
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: 125 Years of Seven Ordinances - Draft | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In this essay I sketch the origin of our Mennonite list of seven ordinances, compare our understandings with the Bible, and propose some responses.
Tags: Daniel | Kauffman, Anabaptist history, John S. | Coffman, ordinances, church history, sacraments
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/125-years-7-ordinances-rough-draft
**When a baby is born at 10 months, we don’t usually call it premature.** When a writer has been promising for that long to release an essay, however, his “baby” may still be scarcely ready for the light of day. But everyone likes babies. (Right?) And everyone handles newborns gently. (Right?) And one can definitely only handle being pregnant for so long. So I’ve decided it’s time to release this overdue, unfinished essay into your hands.
Here it is, then: “that paper on the ‘ordinances.'” **[Click here](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/125-Years-of-Seven-Ordinances-DGO-Preview-2015.pdf) to download, or find it on my [Essays page](https://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/essays/).**
_Oh, isn’t he cute! He looks just like his daddy!_
Now that I’ve given birth, **I’d like to do two more things in this post:** _**(1) Explain what I mean by “rough draft.” (2) Summarize the essay.**_
**What Do I Mean by “Rough Draft”?**
Though I’ve been working intermittently on this essay since the fall of 2011, _**I am aware of improvements that still should be made**_. For example:
* My survey of pre-Reformation history is very brief.
* I have still more Anabaptist-era primary sources I could peruse, to weigh my current survey for representative accuracy.
* I could include more discussion of how the Coffman/Kauffman era was a time of transition, institution-building, and doctrinal formulation.
* I should weigh more carefully whether the _concept_ of ordinances is found in the NT, apart from the question of whether the word _ordinance_ is used there as we use it. (In other words, is _ordinance_ biblical in the same sense that _Trinity_ is?)
* A more nuanced discussion of sacramental theology would help, assessing it and contrasting it with other options such as a strictly symbolic understanding of the “ordinances.” I really don’t want to get too deep into this heated question (of which whole books are written!), but it is unavoidably related to the central questions of this essay.
* My tone could be improved in places, better anticipating possible difficulties or challenges of readers and avoiding overstatement.
* Technical details need help: Cleaning up footnotes, adding a bibliography, perhaps another appendix or two, switching to ESV as the primary translation, including Greek NT words in my exegetical discussions, etc.
* Most importantly, I need to answer the “So what?” question. For this draft version of my essay I’ve included a list of problems possibly exacerbated by our concept of seven ordinances (see page 28). But I’m saving my discussion of these problems to share later. And should I note some benefits as well as problems?
I have been invited to share this essay at the [Forum for Doctrinal Studies](https://dwightgingrich.com/in-presence-of-older-theologians/), probably in July 2017. After that I hope to post a fuller version here.
**Your feedback is most welcome as I continue writing! Post your thoughts in the [comments thread](http://dwightgingrich.com/125-years-7-ordinances-rough-draft/#respond) here or send me a [private message](https://dwightgingrich.com/contact/).**
**Summary of the Essay**
First (pp. 1-5) I summarize the _**pre-Reformation history of ordinances**_ by noting three developments:
1. The growth of formal _ritual_ instead of simple obedience to NT commands;
2. The development of the theology and vocabulary of _sacraments_; and
3. The formation of a defined _list_ of seven Roman Catholic sacraments.
Next (pp. 5-14) I discuss the _**early Anabaptist era**_, including their rejection of ritual and sacramental theology, their failure to fully restore all NT practices related to ordinances, and their various lists of sacraments/ordinances. This section is full of primary source quotes, including this gem from the Martyr’s Mirror, from the trial of an Anabaptist named Jacob de Roore:
> Jac. If you want to imitate all the things which the apostles did, and regard them all as sacraments, why do you not also regard your aprons or handkerchiefs as sacraments, and lay them upon the sick, as Paul did? For what greater sacredness was there in the oil of which James writes, than in Paul’s aprons, by which he also healed the sick, as is written in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the apostles?
>
> Fr. Corn. If the devil does not wag your tongue, I do not understand the matter. You accursed Anabaptists may yourselves make a sacrament of your filthy handkerchiefs or aprons; for you people have no sacrament, but we Catholics have seven sacraments; is it not enough, eh?
>
> Jac. Yea, in troth; for since the term sacrament is not once mentioned in the holy Scriptures, you have only seven too many.
The third section (pp. 14-24) finally explains the _**origin of our own seven ordinances**_. I survey ordinances among early American Mennonites, then focus on J.S. Coffman and Daniel Kauffman, who appear to be primarily responsible for formulating and codifying the list we have inherited. (Thus the “125 Years” in my title, dating from 1891.) This section ends by asking what Kauffman meant by the term _ordinance_.
The fourth section (pp. 24-27) continues this linguistic focus by comparing Kauffman’s use of _ordinance_ with _**biblical vocabulary**_.
The fifth section (pp. 27-30) proposes some _**responses to the previous historical and biblical discussion**_. I ask whether we can redeem the term _ordinance_ and whether our inheritance of a theology and practice of seven ordinances is really anything to be worried about. (In other words, is this essay merely much ado about nothing?)
Finally, I’ve included **_three appendices_** (pp. 31-34) with more technical data:
1. “Words Translated ‘Ordinance” in the King James Version”
2. “Who Baptizes in the New Testament?”
3. “Who May Anoint With Oil?
* * *
**Again, I warmly welcome your help with this project!** Those of us who are conservative Anabaptists have inherited these seven ordinances as a shared legacy. _Our response to this heritage will also be a shared project._
How can we hold onto the best of the past while also making needed changes? How radical dare we be in our changes? How can we avoid overreacting? How can we let Scripture speak anew in our generation? What understanding and practice of “ordinances” do we want to leave to our children?
**Please [share your comments here](http://dwightgingrich.com/125-years-7-ordinances-rough-draft/#respond) or, if you prefer, in a [private message](https://dwightgingrich.com/contact/).**
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight Gingrich
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Infinitude [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-20
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Infinitude [Poem by Mom] • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here is infinitude: The longer we gaze at the matchless Creator, / The greater the vistas awaiting our view... / To know Him---eternity will not suffice.
Tags: knowledge, revelation, God, infinity, New Horizons, Pluto
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/infinitude
_**Have you been following the story of NASA’s mission to Pluto?** A spacecraft named [New Horizons](http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/) that left earth on January 19, 2006 just reached Pluto this month. Scientists are eagerly devouring new images and data from this ninth rock from the sun. As one writer put it, the trickle of data “[has been enough to completely overthrow our theories of what we expected to find at the icy little world and its family of moons](http://space.io9.com/a-guide-to-pluto-everything-weve-learned-from-new-hori-1718799253).” New information is leading to new questions faster than you can say “To be or not to be a planet? That is the question.”_
Pluto. Image taken 2015-07-13 20:17:35 UTC. Image credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute.
_**Something similar happens as we grow in our knowledge of God.** Please don’t misunderstand me: God is indeed the supreme “Self-Revelator,” as Mom writes in the poem below. We can indeed know him and his ways_ meaningfully_. And we are fully responsible for that knowledge. But we will never know him_ completely_. And that is good. To imagine otherwise is folly._
_Here is Mom’s poem for the month. Read and worship._
* * *
**INFINITUDE**
The farther the telescopes search through the blackness,
The vaster the universe left to explore.
Space endlessly stretches, star-studded and trackless,
As much as we fathom, there always is more.
We dissect life’s building blocks, minute, invisible,
Peer with a microscope, ponder and probe.
Still vainly we seek for the one indivisible—
Particles spinning, each atom a globe.
The longer we gaze at the matchless Creator,
The greater the vistas awaiting our view—
The incomprehensible Self-Revelator
Whose mercies and mysteries each morning are new.
We love Him, the intimate Friend of our spirit,
His rays undetected by human device,
His being unfathomed although we’re so near it:
To know Him—eternity will not suffice.
—Elaine Gingrich, April 1986
* * *
_For the rest of the poems in this monthly series, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/)._
_And if you enjoyed this poem, [**l****eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/infinitude/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353451456-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## In the Presence of Older Theologians
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-16
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: In the Presence of Older Theologians | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I had the pleasure this week of sitting for hours on end discussing theology with men older and wiser than me. Young theologians need such opportunities.
Tags: preaching, youth, theology, -Galatians 4:9, -Genesis 3:1, dogmatics, Fellowship of Concerned Mennonites, Fiddler on the Roof, Forum for Doctrinal Studies, Helmut | Thielicke, Milo | Zehr, theological puberty, theological students
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/in-presence-of-older-theologians
**On Monday and Tuesday this week I had the pleasure of sitting for hours on end discussing theology with men older and wiser than me.** It wouldn’t be right to say that I felt like the 12-year-old Jesus in the temple. But I do admit that I identify with Tevye in _Fiddler on the Roof_, singing about what he would do “[if I were a rich man](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc)“:
> If I were rich, I’d have the time that I lack
> To sit in the synagogue and pray.
> And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
> **And I’d discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.**
> **That would be the sweetest thing of all.**
**How did I achieve such sweetness? About a dozen of us were gathered for an annual event called the Forum for Doctrinal Studies.** Each year one member of this group prepares a theological paper, which we then read and discuss for about a day and a half.
[Faith Builders](http://fbep.org/) kindly hosts the event, but is unaffiliated. FDS is a basically autonomous child of the [Fellowship of Concerned Mennonites](http://www.fcminformer.org/), and there is some overlap in who is involved. At this point I’m tempted to honor the men who attended this year by naming them, but I know they are not seeking any such recognition. Instead, I’ll briefly describe them.
**What are some things about these men that blessed me?** Here are a few:
* It was refreshing to hear these men interact respectfully. There are certainly differences of understanding among these men (and I add to the diversity). But I rejoice to report that the conversations were full of humility and grace.
* It was also evident that these men have pastoral and worshipful hearts. They care about hurting people. They are aware of the glory of God. Theology is no mere academic exercise for these men.
* Yet they are also men who believe that ideas matter, and that it isn’t a waste of time to have lengthy discussion about matters like what does or doesn’t get imputed in justification or the spiritual state of children.
* What Scripture says is important to these men. To be honest, the one who quoted Scripture most often and helpfully was possibly a man who was the only non-Anabaptist in the group. (He was there by special invitation of Milo Zehr, who was presenting this year.) So we will always have room for growth. But it was good to have Steven Brubaker (that is, not me!) be the one to note aloud when Scriptural reflection hit a slump at one point. And it was especially encouraging to see how Milo has been wrestling deeply and systematically with the text of Romans for years, wrestling and writing for the sake of the church.
I could reflect more, but since it isn’t the aim of this group to make a big public splash, I’ll stop. May more such groups and discussions multiply within our Anabaptist churches. May older men and women take time to examine Scripture and discuss theology together, and may they invite those younger to join them!
**\[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=B0029PRS4U\]Speaking of those younger, my friend Kendall Myers loaned me a fine old book last week: _\[amazon text= A Little Exercise for Young Theologians&asin=0802811981\]_, by Helmut Thielicke.** Here are some quotes that resonate with me as I reflect on the experience I described above. First, some thoughts about “the study of dogmatics \[systematic theology\] with prayer”:
> The man who studies theology, and especially he who studies dogmatics, might watch carefully whether he increasingly does not think in the third rather than in the second person. You know what I mean by that. This transition from one to the other level of thought, from a personal relationship with God to a merely technical reference, usually is exactly synchronized with the moment that I can no longer read the word of Holy Scripture as a word to me, but only as the object of exegetical endeavors.
>
> …A theological thought can breathe only in the atmosphere of dialogue with God.
>
> Essentially, theological method is characterized by the fact that it takes into account that God has spoken, and that now what God has spoken is to be understood and answered. But it can only be understood when I
>
> (1) recognize that what has been said is directed to _me, and_
>
> (2) become involved in formulating a reply. Only out of this dialogue is the theological method comprehensible (Galatians 4:9). Consider that the first time someone spoke of God in the third person and therefore no longer with God but about God was that very moment when the question resounded, “Did God really say?” (cf. Genesis 3:1). This fact ought to make us think.
>
> In contrast with this, the crucified Jesus, out of the uttermost darkness of abandonment by God, does not speak to men, does not complain _about_ this God who has abandoned him. He speaks _to_ Him at this very moment—in the second person. He addresses Him as _My God_ and even expresses His complaint in a word of God, so that as it were the circuit between Him and the Father is complete. This observation, too, should make us think. (pp. 33-35)
Indeed. And here is another passage that made me think, given my youthful age (aka 40, aka too-old-to-be-trusted-by-teenagers and too-young-to-be-trusted-by-seniors):
> It is far from my purpose simply to accuse the theological student or to caricature him…
>
> We are dealing with the quite natural phenomena of growth…
>
> A twenty-year-old is taught, say, to think about the problems of the Trinity. Over these, down through the centuries, the most bitter battles have been fought with life at stake. To these problems the great leaders have bent mighty spiritual energies and behind them lie quite definite spiritual experiences. You can see that the young theologian has by no means yet grown up to these doctrines in his own spiritual development, even if he understands intellectually rather well the logic of the system—that is, its crust of what once was spiritual, and the legitimate and logical course, so to speak, of its developments in the history of doctrine.
>
> Therefore it is evident how and where, given such a state of affairs, serious crises must arise. _There is a hiatus between the arena of the young theologian’s actual spiritual growth and what he already knows intellectually about this arena._ So to speak, he has been fitted, like a country boy, with breeches that are too big, into which he must still grow up in the same way that one who is to be confirmed must also still grow into the long trousers of the Catechism. Meanwhile, they hang loosely around his body, and this ludicrous sight of course is not beautiful…
>
> In his book on Goethe, Gundolf speaks, in reference to such cases, of a merely conceptual experience. Some truth or other has not been “passed through” as a primary experience, but has been replaced by “perception” of the literary or intellectual deposit of what another’s primary experience, say Luther’s, has discovered. Thus one lives at second hand.
>
> But because this kind of perception of another’s religiosity or spirituality can be extremely lively and even passionate, it is easy to lapse into auto-suggestion, as if a person had experienced and passed through all that himself. He lapses into an illegitimate _identification_ with the other. It is possible to be thoroughly bewitched by the mighty thoughts of the young Luther and then to lapse into the illusion that what is “understood” in this way and makes such an impression is genuine faith. In reality, it is only a case of perception and of being victimized by the seduction of conceptual experience. In his own life, in his own faith, the young man is not that far along! Young theologians manifest certain trumped-up intellectual efforts which actually amount to nothing.
>
> Speaking figuratively, the study of theology often produces overgrown youths whose internal organs have not correspondingly developed. This is characteristic of adolescence. There is actually something like theological puberty…
>
> It is a mistake for anyone who is just in this stage to appear before a church as a teacher. He has outgrown the naivété with which in young people’s work he might by all means have taken this part. he has not yet come to that maturity which would permit him to absorb into his own life and reproduce out of the freshness of his own personal faith the things which he imagines intellectually and which are accessible to him through reflection. We must have patience here and be able to wait. For the reasons I have mentioned I do not tolerate sermons by first-semester young theological students swaddled in their gowns. One ought to be able to keep still. During the period when the voice is changing we do not sing, and during this formative period in the life of the theological student he does not preach. (pp. 9-12)
These observations, too, should make us think.
**And with that sobering thought I’ll make a rather untimely turn to a final announcement:** I have been invited to share my long-promised essay on ordinances to the Forum for Doctrinal Studies. This may happen in either 2016 or 2017.
But—cheers for those who have been patiently waiting—I have the blessing of the FDS men to post it here before that time. So my tentative plans are to post the majority of the essay here much as it now is. Soon. But with the understanding that further revisions are in order and—crucially—minus the difficult final section where I attempt to answer the “so what?” questions about my historical and biblical findings. That is the section where Thielicke’s warnings above are most relevant, and where maturity on the part of this writer is most needed. (And where perhaps my readers here can help shape my thoughts before that FDS meeting?)
**I invite you to join me in the study, dialogue, and experience of theology. [I also invite your comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/in-presence-of-older-theologians/) Thanks for reading!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Lord’s Prayer and the Center of the Universe
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-12
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: The Lord's Prayer and the Center of the Universe | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The Lord's Prayer is a reminder to me that God's name must be hallowed, not mine. His kingdom must come, not mine. His will must be done, not mine.
Tags: kingdom of God, humility, prayer, -Matthew 6:9-13, Lord's Prayer
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/lords-prayer-center-of-universe
**I enjoy praying the Lord’s Prayer.** Whenever I am not sure what or how to pray, it can help me approach God’s throne boldly. For example, I often pray the Lord’s Prayer during the wee hours on Saturday mornings, while I am driving the two dusty miles through the dark to my brother-in-law’s house before we head off to market. I add my own words, but the Lord’s Prayer helps my sleepy brain waken and center on God. I know I am always praying the Lord’s will when I pray the Lord’s prayer.
You may have noticed that the Lord’s Prayer has two main halves, with the turning point being the words “give us.” In the first half we pray big-picture prayers about God’s will. In the second half we pray in-the-trenches prayers about our survival. This structure helps us to remember that God is bigger and more important than we are.
Here is the prayer, ever old and ever new, as Matthew records it[1](#fn-1633-1):
> “Our Father in heaven,
> hallowed be your name.
> Your kingdom come,
> your will be done,
> on earth as it is in heaven.
> Give us this day our daily bread,
> and forgive us our debts,
> as we also have forgiven our debtors.
> And lead us not into temptation,
> but deliver us from evil. (Matt. 6:9-13)
The first word, “Our,” reinforces our smallness; we come before God as one of many of his children. This is both humbling and deeply reassuring. I am neither the center of God’s universe nor a faint, solitary voice trying to catch his attention. Rather, I come to God with you, and you come to God with me. He chooses to place us, together, at the center of his love.
While praying the Lord’s Prayer this morning I noticed that I often pray the first half of this prayer with my own needs and desires in mind. I look at the evil and trouble in the world around me—things that are burdening my heart whether or not they are directly mine—and I ache and plead for God to bring in the fullness of his kingdom on earth. I pray for him to end all sin and suffering. I think this is a good and right way to pray these lines. God’s kingdom is the answer to our deepest needs and longings, and God is honored when we recognize this and pray accordingly.
On the other hand, what impressed me this morning is that my world—no, _our_ world—will only be set straight when God is set in first place. And so the Lord’s Prayer is a reminder to me that God’s name must be hallowed, _not mine_. His kingdom must come, _not mine_. His will must be done, _not mine_.
This becomes even more startling when we contrast the requests in the two halves of the prayer. God gets his name exalted to the highest place in the universe; I get bread for my dusty body. God gets the kingdom; I get forgiveness for my many sins. God gets the complete fulfillment of his will; I get rescued from the temptations and evil that would otherwise overwhelm me.
(No, _we_, not me. There I go again.)
And yet, because this God is our Father, we share in his exaltation! Today I am thankful that Jesus gave us a prayer to set the world in order.
**How has the Lord’s Prayer helped you? [Share your reflections below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/lords-prayer-center-of-universe/#respond) This is our prayer.**
1. Some manuscripts and versions include the familiar lines “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.” While these words may have been added by a later scribe, I often pray them alongside the saints of the past centuries. [↩](#fnref-1633-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Melchizedek, Carson, and the Tar Baby
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-11
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Melchizedek, Carson, and the Tar Baby | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: It's understandable if folks get hung up in the briars with Mr. Melchizedek. He's about as sticky as Brer Fox's Tar Baby. Here's Carson to the rescue!
Tags: D.A. | Carson, incarnation, -Genesis 14:18-20, -Hebrews 7, -John 1:14, -Psalm 110, Brer Fox, Brer Rabbit, Tar Baby
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/melchizedek-carson-tar-baby
**Yeah, this next Sunday we get to study Melchizedek! (Said almost no one ever.)** Yes, it’s true: If you use the Christian Light Publications curriculum for Sunday School, this Sunday’s lesson will be from Hebrews 7, about the mysterious OT king-priest named Melchizedek (or “Melchisedec” in the KJV). And yes, some of us actually do get excited about Melchizedek.
Everyone seems to agree that Melchizedek is a confusing character. Beyond that, there often isn’t a lot of agreement! Some have suggested that the fact that he “is without father or mother or genealogy” means that he was not descended from Adam, and that he therefore did not have a sinful nature. Christ, too, was born without a sinful nature, right? Some seem to think he was a manifestation in the flesh of the pre-incarnate Christ, a rather self-contradictory idea. (If he was “in the flesh” this means he was incarnate, not pre-incarnate. And last time I checked Scripture suggests that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” only _once_–“when the fullness of time had come”–not twice, and that he _did_ have a mother. See John 1:14; Galatians 4:4.)
I think these ideas are bunny trails into the briar patch. But it is pretty understandable if folks get hung up in the briars with Mr. Mel. Like Brer Rabbit, he was “[bred and born in the briar patch](http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/07/brer_rabbit_meets_a_tar_baby.html),” and he’s about as sticky as Brer Fox’s Tar Baby.
**How can we disentangle ourselves? Thankfully, there is help.** I suggest we let the Reformed super-hero NT scholar[1](#fn-1626-1) Don Carson do “some fast thinking” for us.
Last night **my wife reminded me of a superb presentation from Carson**, one we have watched together. (Yes, ladies, this is for you, too.) This talk by Carson traces Melchizedek through Old and New Testaments, ending in Hebrews. It makes more sense out of Mr. Mel than anything else I’ve seen. And beyond that, it is an excellent example of how to read Scripture, paying attention to textual and historical details in order to reap a rich theological harvest.
So here it is. Carve out some time before next Sunday’s class to watch (or [read](http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2013_melchizedek.pdf)) this. _**This is your chance to not only “get” but also “get excited about” Melchizedek.**_
**Getting Excited About Melchizedek**
**Do you want to comment on this video? Or do you have other resources for this studying Melchizedek? [Share your insights below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/melchizedek-carson-tar-baby/#respond)**
* * *
PS: I’m actually excited enough about this presentation from Carson that this is now [the second time](https://dwightgingrich.com/getting-excited-melchizedek/) I’ve shared it here.
PPS: The fact that I began writing this post at 3:30 a.m., while monitoring a passing thunderstorm, might help explain how Tar Baby got into the mix.
1. If you aren’t into super-heroes, or if you tend to prefer non-Reformed or non-scholarly types, please don’t let the handle scare you. Can anything good come out of Samaria Reformed scholarship? Yes, it can. See for yourself. [↩](#fnref-1626-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Prayers for Conservative Anabaptist Churches
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-06
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Prayers for Conservative Anabaptist Churches | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Several discussions lately have reminded me of needs within our conservative Anabaptist churches. I'll list them here as a series of short prayers.
Tags: church leadership, discipleship, -Acts 20:28, prayer, -Matthew 16:18, -Revelation 19:6-8, church purity, -Ephesians 5:26-27
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/prayers-for-conservative-anabaptist-churches
**Several discussions lately have reminded me of deep, ongoing needs within our conservative Anabaptist churches.** (I’m sure some of these needs are also present in many other churches, but I’m speaking from within my own experience.) I don’t have time to expand on any of these needs at present, so I’ll simply list them here as a series of short prayer requests.
Please join me in prayer as you are able, and also in doing all you can to be living answers to the needs of our churches.
* * *
_Dear Lord of the Church, we implore you to remember the Church which you purchased with your own blood (Acts 20:28) and which you promised to build (Matt. 16:18)! We ask you to…_
* _Encourage our leaders who are growing weary with the weight of leading your flock, who have little strength left to feed the sheep._
* _Raise up generous financial supporters to free our over-worked leaders to spend more time in sermon preparation, personal Bible study and growth, and counseling the needy saints._
* _Show us that it is not laziness to prioritize Bible study and training over planting corn, and that sweat expended or money earned are not the ultimate measure of how much real work has been accomplished._
* _Give us a fresh vision for intentionally training the next generation of church leaders to handle Scripture faithfully and shepherd the flock with skill and tenderness._
* _Awaken a vision for intentionally discipling_ all _the saints to do the work of the ministry according to their varied giftings._
* _Give our leaders courage and wisdom to help our churches have honest and open conversations, breaking the silence about the many unanswered questions that are frustrating the saints._
* _Teach us how to talk peaceably to one another about our differences of vision and understanding, rather than carefully avoiding a long list of taboo topics or stooping to personal attacks._
* _Give us a fresh vision for Christ-centered unity without uniformity of culture, personality, or gifting._
* _Provide patience for sincere young visionaries who feel muzzled._
* _Provide new spaces for these young visionaries to live out the insights and passions you are giving to the church through them._
* _Give courage to our elders to release the young leaders whom you are calling–to entrust them with freedom to take up the mantle and lead the next generation, making the kinds of weighty decisions that some of these same elders made in their own youth._
* _Awaken a new vision for evangelism at home—but also, what is more, for becoming churches that are truly ready to incorporate new believers from the non-Anabaptist communities around us._
* _Use new converts and new attendees to shake up our apathy about how we’ve “always done things,” forcing us to shape church policies for the purpose of serving others and not merely for our own personal comfort._
* _Stir us to_ worship _and_ mission_, so that all that we are and do is defined by you and by the mission you have given to us–so that worship and mission defines our identity, our purpose for gathering, our sense of unity, our use of time and money, and all our conversations._
* _Call us to repentance for our indifference to those within our ranks who are hurting from abuse or indifference._
* _Expose hidden sins that are crippling our congregations, so that public repentance and/or church discipline becomes unavoidable._
* _Call us to repentance for all our extra-biblical additions that are hindering us from welcoming those whom you have welcomed, from incorporating new believers, and from being one with other believers as you are one._
* _Call us to repentance for ignoring in preaching or practice those parts of Scripture that make us uncomfortable._
* _Call us to a fresh vision for trusting the Word and Spirit of Christ to guide, equip, and empower us as congregations._
* _Raise up more laborers who are willing to bear the doubly-difficult and doubly-rewarding work of serving as leaders among your flock._
* _Shake up all bench-warmers from our deadly apathy._
* _Shake up all the little earthly kingdoms that are consuming our energies and excitement, until these kingdoms crumble and we are convinced to invest all our “eggs” in your kingdom._
* _Deliver us from fleshly lusts, carnal pride, nationalistic nearsightedness, Facebook folly, fickle fears, and immobilizing ingratitude._
* _Open our eyes to see everything from eternity’s perspective._
_Oh Lord of the Church, we are weak and we are foolish! Enlighten us! Shake us up! Show us how sick we really are! Heal us from our many diseases! Keep our hope from dying! Help our unbelief! Give us new faith and hope in our resurrected, living, present, and coming Lord! Stop us from playing church! Call us to pick up our swords and join you in battle! Fill us with love as never before–love for you, love for each other, and love for the world for whom you died!_
_Sanctify the church, cleanse her by washing her with your word, and present the church to yourself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish! (Eph. 5:26-27)_
_In the name of Christ we pray._
_And all God’s people said “Amen.”_
* * *
> Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:
>
> “Hallelujah!
> For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
> Let us rejoice and be glad
> and give him glory!
> For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
> and his bride has made herself ready.
> Fine linen, bright and clean,
> was given her to wear.”
>
> (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.) (Rev. 19:6-8)
* * *
**Thank you for serving Christ’s Church in prayer and in deed. Feel free to [add your own prayers or comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/prayers-for-conservative-anabaptist-churches/#respond).**
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## New Bible Reading Plan for a Mid-Year Boost
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-07-02
Category: DGO website
Meta Title: New Bible Reading Plan | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Zonya reminded me today that now---half way through the year---is a good time to share the Bible reading plan she created. Read the Bible in 90 days!
Tags: Bible reading plan, New Testament
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/new-bible-reading-plan
**Well, 2015 is half gone.** New Year’s resolutions have fizzled and summer has us all running hard. Has your Bible reading hit a slump as the mercury hits new highs?
Zonya reminded me yesterday that now—half way through the year—is a good time to share the Bible reading plan she created. So here it is: [_**A plan that takes you through the New Testament in 90 days.**_](https://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/new-testament-in-90-days/)
There are many such NT Bible reading plans available, but I think Zonya’s is more user-friendly than most. Try it and see what you think.
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/photoofnt-1721353415029-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/photoofnt-1721353415029-compressed.jpg)
Photo Credit: [Hocsinhcap3](https://www.flickr.com/photos/131677578@N06/16531640277/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
God bless you as you read his sacred writings (2 Tim. 3:15) in the second half of 2015!
For Christ and his Church,
Dwight
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul — Gathercole (Review)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-06-27
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Defending Substitution - Gathercole (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Substitution: "The default... would be ‘he died for his sins’ or ‘we died for our sins.’ The miracle of the gospel, however is that he died for our sins."
Tags: -Isaiah 53, death, sin, gospel, -Romans 4:25, atonement, Lord's Prayer, -1 Corinthians 15:3, -1 Kings 16:18-19, -Deuteronomy 24:16, -Galatians 1:4, -Galatians 2:20, -Hebrews 2:9, -Jeremiah 31:30, -Joshua 22:20, -Numbers 23:3, -Romans 5:6-8, Alcestis, apocalyptic deliverance, classical parallels, J. Louis | Martyn, liberation, Morna | Hooker, penal substitution, representation, Simon | Gathercole, sins, substitution, Tübingen, vicarious death
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/defending-substitution-gathercole-review
Gathercole, Simon. _Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015). 128pp. [_Publisher’s description._](http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/defending-substitution/348870) (Amazon new price: $14.86 paperback, $9.99 Kindle.) \[amazon text=Buy on Amazon.&asin=0801049776\]
> **There is a strong tendency in current scholarship on Paul to resist seeing Christ’s death as in our place, instead of us.** Rather, scholars prefer a view of Christ’s death _with_ us—where he identifies with us rather than dying a unique death alone for us. Indeed, the point that Christ’s death is representative and therefore not substitutionary can often be made briefly in passing, as if it were understood to be an uncontroversial thought. (Gathercole, 29. Emphasis added.)
It is this “uncontroversial thought” that Gathercole aims to challenge in this brief (128 pp.) book. I think he does so well.
**It is important to recognize what this book is not:** It is not a systematic discussion of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. It is not a survey of all the texts that may support this doctrine. Nor is it a defense of any particular version of substitutionary atonement, such as _penal_ substitutionary atonement. It is certainly not an attempt to assert substitutionary atonement as the only or even the chief theory of the atonement.
**What Gathercole does aim to do is** to provide evidence, based primarily on two Pauline passages, that substitution is one biblical and valid way of understanding Christ’s cross-work.
[](http://amzn.to/1BTRvNi)
[
](http://amzn.to/1BTRvNi)
_Defending Substitution_ is based on several lectures given by Gathercole, but it reads very well as a book. _**Here is the table of contents:**_
**Introduction**
* The Importance of Substitution
* Defining Substitution: Christ in Our Place
* Criticisms of Substitution
**1\. Exegetical Challenges to Substitution**
* The Tübingen Understanding of Representative “Place-Taking”
* Interchange in Christ
* Apocalyptic Deliverance
* The Omission or Downplaying of “Sins”
* Conclusion
**2\. “Christ Died for Our Sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3)**
* The Importance of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
* “According to the Scriptures”
* Substitution in 1 Corinthians 15:3
* Conclusion
**Excursus: An Objection—Why, Then, Do Christians Still Die?**
**3\. The Vicarious Death of Christ and Classical Parallels (Rom. 5:6-8)**
* The Translation of Romans 5:6-8
* A Sketch of the Exegesis
* Vicarious Deaths in Classical Tradition
* The Comparison in Romans 5:6-8
* Conclusion
**Conclusion
Bibliography
Index of Subjects
Index of Authors
Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources**
**In the Introduction,** Gathercole defines substitution as “Christ’s death in our place, instead of us… He did something, underwent something, so _we_ did not—and never will—have to” (pp. 15-16). He carefully emphasizes scope and aims of his study:
> The matter of what precisely it was that Christ bore in our stead will not be treated here… Substitution is logically distinguishable from related concepts such as penalty, representation, expiation, and propitiation… The investigation here is to be focused not on these other themes but quite narrowly and specifically on substitution… To repeat…, the aim here is not to say that Scripture teaches substitution rather than representation but to say that both are important parts of biblical teaching. (pp. 18-23)
_**Despite not focusing on penal substitution, Gathercole does provide three helpful responses to those who say that this doctrine makes Jesus the victim of “cosmic child abuse”:**_ “First, such theological criticisms neglect the obvious fact that the death of Christ is not that of a third party but is the ‘self-substitution of God’… Second, …Jesus offers himself as a sacrifice _in line with his own will_… Third, …a response can also be offered that is more subjective but… certainly no more subjective” than the caricatures of “certain atonement theories as cruel, violent, unjust, and the like”: “this is not how millions of Christians over the centuries have experienced such teaching.” Indeed, criticism of penal substitution seem to come more from academia than from “the world’s lay Christians” (pp. 24-25).
**In Chapter One, Gathercole responds to three atonement theories which aim to leave no room for substitution.** The “Tübingen understanding of representative ‘place-taking’” (popular in parts of Germany) draws on a particular interpretation of Levitical sacrifices to assert that “when Christ dies, all die with him” (p. 36). A second theory, promoted by Morna Hooker, “considers substitution to be not only un-Pauline but actually something criticized by Paul” (p. 38). “Paul’s understanding of the process is therefore one of participation, not substitution; it is a sharing of experience, not an exchange. Christ is identified with us in order that—in him—we might share in what he is” (Hooker as quoted by Gathercole, pp. 40-41). A third theory, popular particularly in North America, is “apocalyptic deliverance.” This view, associated with scholars such as J. Louis Martyn, asserts that it was Paul’s opponents who emphasized that Christ died to provide forgiveness. For Paul, in contrast, “the human plight consists fundamentally of enslavement to supra-human powers; and God’s redemptive act is his deed of liberation” (Martyn as quoted by Gathercole, p. 44).
Graciously, Gathercole finds much of value in all three theories. (So did I.) But **he faults each on several points, and all for downplaying the problem of _sins_** (individual acts of evil), as opposed to Sin (singular, evil personified). He presents abundant evidence to show that _sins_ were a frequent and important focus of Paul’s writings.
**Chapter Two takes a refreshingly positive turn, with its constructive exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:3.** “Dying for sins,” Gathercole notes, is not the same thing as “dying for us” (p. 55). “The aim of this chapter, then, is to examine Paul’s theology of the atonement through the lens of the words ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures’” (pp. 56-57). After demonstrating the importance of his chosen text, Gathercole assembles impressive linguistic evidence that Paul is alluding to Isaiah 53 in 1 Corinthians 15:3. This is important because “vicariousness—in the sense of exclusive substitution—is clearly present in the Hebrew text” and Greek versions of Isaiah 53 (p. 68). Multiple OT texts present a norm that forbids substitution (Num. 27:3; Deut. 24:16; Josh. 22:20; 1Kings 16:18-19; Jer. 31:30). “In this sense,” Gathercole observes, “Christ’s death is _not_ according to the Scriptures” (p. 71). But Isaiah 53 turns the OT norm on its head, describing salvation being achieved through an innocent individual bearing the sins of others. **“The default Old Testament position would be ‘_he_ died for _his_ sins’ or ‘_we_ died for _our_ sins.’ The miracle of the gospel, however, is that _he_ died for _our_ sins”** (p. 73). Paul’s allusion to Isaiah 53 suggests that he understands Christ’s work as being, like the Servant’s, substitutionary.
**In a brief excursus Gathercole explains why, if Christ died for us, believers still die.** He suggests that Paul writes about death in four ways: (1) the physical death of believers, which he often “undermines” by language like “falling asleep”; (2) “the death to sin and burial in baptism that occurs in Christian initiation”; (3) the death of unbelievers, the penalty for sin and living according to the flesh, which Paul describes without softening, using language like “perish”; (4) the death of Jesus, which Paul never softens with terms like “falling asleep,” nor finalizes with terms like “perishing.” “The main point to conclude is that believers _do_ still go on to die death #1 above but will not ‘perish’ (#3 above)… Christ has undergone a death like death #3 above to save us from death #3; therefore death #1 is not nearly so serious—it is a mere falling asleep” (pp. 80-83).
**In Chapter Three, Gathercole asks what examples Paul might have had in mind when he writes that “for a good person someone might perhaps even dare to die” (Rom. 5:6-8).** He concludes that “the most natural link in Romans 5 is with examples of vicarious death in classical texts (broadly understood). There are a number of such classical works… where this same substitutionary language is used” (p. 90). The most prominent of such classical examples is Alcestis, who was referenced by writers spanning a time from Euripides (c. 438 B.C.) to the second century A.D. and beyond. The story of Alcestis was part of common culture in Paul’s day: “An exact contemporary of Paul, the philosopher Musonius Rufus, uses Alcestis” as a positive example (p. 96). There are interesting parallels between accounts of Alcestis and Paul’s language in Romans 5 and elsewhere: classical writers said that Alcestis “dared” to die “on behalf of,” “in place of,” or “instead of” her husband, who is described as a “good” man. Other substitutionary deaths are described by classical philosopher and writers, but they are understood to be rare (cf. Paul’s “one will scarcely die… perhaps… one would even dare to die”), occurring only in the contexts of conjugal love, the institution of friendship, and family ties. “Paul sees that there is common ground between these pagan instances and the death of Christ”but “for Paul the differences are more striking than the similarities,” for Jesus dies for “the ungodly… sinners… enemies” (p. 104). Yet the core similarity remains: in these classical examples, “the death ‘for’ another is not merely a death ‘for the benefit of’ another—‘for their sake’ in a general sense. Nor is it death _with_ them. Rather, it is… a death that averts death” (pp. 106-107). Thus Paul’s apparent allusion to these classical examples supports the conclusion that he sees Christ’s death as being substitutionary.
**I find little to fault in Gathercole’s book.** A few times I wondered if there was a bit of slippage in his logic, with him (a) proving that Paul was interested in our need for forgiveness for individual sins and then (b) using that evidence as proof that Paul believed in a specifically _substitutionary_ atonement. But might not _representation_ also be—at least theoretically—a solution for the problem of sins, with us dying _with_ Christ for our sins (rather than he dying _for_ our sins)? But this tentative critique is peripheral to Gathercole’s main arguments.
**This book left me hungry for more.** Other texts should be tested for substitutionary theology (Rom. 4:25; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Heb. 2:9; etc.), and I would like to read an equally careful defense of a specifically _penal_ substitutionary atonement. _**But** **what I liked best about this book—besides the excellent exegesis of its two main texts—was Gathercole’s repeated insistence that we allow for the NT’s multiple images of the atonement.**_
Let me end as Gathercole himself ends:
> The choice between salvation as dealing with both ‘trespasses’ or ‘debts’ (plural) and with liberation from the power of (the) evil (one) was a choice apparently not faced by Jesus in his formulations of the Lord’s Prayer. Similarly, we need not be forced to opt either for Jesus’s substitutionary death, in which he deals with sins, or for a representative or liberative death, in which he deals with the power of evil. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder! (pp. 112-13)
Gathercole achieves his goals well in this book.
**I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars.**
**What did you learn from this review? Do you have other favorite resources for understanding Christ’s work of atonement? [Share your questions and insights below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/defending-substitution-gathercole-review/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclosures: I received this book free from Baker Academic through the [Baker Academic Bloggers](http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/bakeracademic/baker-academic-bloggers/) program. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 [http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/16cfr255\_03.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html)._
_I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## By Every Word [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-06-20
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: By Every Word | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: By every word your Heavenly Father spoke— By every word—your soul is made alive, And by each word alone shall it survive.
Tags: -2 Timothy 3:16, word of God, biblicism, words, proof-texts, -1 Corinthians 3:1-2, -Deuteronomy 8:1-3, -Hebrews 5:11-14, -Matthew 4:4, diet, food, manna, meat, milk
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/by-every-word
_**When Mom “submits” a poem to me for publication, a dialogue begins.** Since every word in a poem is important, we evaluate what Mom has written. What exactly does she mean by line X? How does the use of word Y shape the message of the poem? What would happen if we changed a semi-colon here, an image there, or a few punctuation marks? Does the title prepare the reader for the poem or capture something of its essence?_
_We don’t have any checklist for proofreading. Rather, I simply act as another set of eyes and ears, telling Mom my experience of reading her words and raising questions for her to consider. Sometimes she has her own questions about her writing efforts, wondering how she might best communicate her thoughts, or if her thoughts need improvement. Mom welcomes and values this interchange, because she knows that every word is important. And because every word is important, it is not uncommon for a few words to change before we publish Mom’s poem._
_Not so with God’s words. Because every word of God is important, yes, we ask tough questions about these words and, yes, we dialogue with the Author. But when all is read and done, not a word is changed._
_So here is Mom’s poem for June, with her own reflections. And [here are the rest of the poems](http://dwightgingrich.com/category/by-elaine-gingrich/) in this monthly series. Blessings as you read!_
* * *
While preparing this poem post I received a newsletter from the Canadian branch of Christian Aid Ministries. Their article on the need for Bibles in Liberia put a new face on the message of this poem. In Liberia not even all pastors have Bibles, so some preach only what they have been told, opening the door to serious error in their teaching. The humid climate causes books to tear easily so it is not unusual for Bibles to have pages or even entire books missing.
After a teaching workshop, pastors were distressed to learn that they had been living immoral lives, unknowingly disobedient to God’s Word. What a vivid illustration of the need to feed on and live out all of God’s Word! It is also a call for us to do what we can to make the whole Bible available to the whole of humanity.
* * *
BY EVERY WORD
By every word your Heavenly Father spoke—
By every word—your soul is made alive,
And by each word alone shall it survive:
The words of law that by your deeds you broke,
Those words that to a sense of guilt awoke;
The words of grace that in your heart revive
A hope of pardon; doctrine to derive
A base for faith; exhortings that provoke
To deeds of charity and righteousness.
By every word–just as by every star
The vaulted sky in darkness can be known.
Just as the varied foods God gave to bless
And nourish bodies, so all God’s words are.
Man was not meant to live by bread alone.
—Elaine Gingrich, November 2, 1999
* * *
“Man shall not live by bread alone” (Matt. 4:4). It was this line that was the poetic impulse for the poem. I am a mother with menu planning on my list. Is that why I read a double meaning into those words?
Jesus continues his quote from Deuteronomy: “but _by every word_ that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (italics added).
In Deuteronomy 8:1-3 God teaches us that we are not kept alive only by the bread we bake. The Israelites were living inside an object lesson that taught them that their very existence depended on the words God spoke to keep them alive. But they were also being reminded that we humans are more than physical beings.
Israel lived in the wilderness on manna, angels’ food, bread from heaven, uncultivated by man, something foreign to them and difficult to label. So they called it manna–“What is it? a whatness.” It was not a diet of their own choosing. By God’s word it was given and according to His commandment it was gathered.
Was God not saying to them: “By my word I have fed your bodies from heaven, and even so I will keep your spirits alive as you eat my spiritual food. And not just the food that you choose to eat. When you obey all my commandments you will learn that your souls, too, live ‘by every word of God.’”? “The whole commandment that I command you today you shall be careful to do…” (Deut. 8:1).
In 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul wrote to Timothy that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable…” We need “all Scripture” if we want to be competently equipped for serving God. Not just our favourite passages or pet topics or preferred doctrines.
God humbles us with manna, unfamilar food that is difficult for us to comprehend, in order to test us and prove our faith and our willingness to believe and obey all that God has spoken. We don’t have the luxury of being picky eaters, of being children that refuse to eat our vegetables, or never progress from milk to meat (I Cor. 3:1-2; Heb. 5:11-14). Our Heavenly Father knows what we need. Man does not live by bread and milk alone.
* * *
_Did you enjoy this sonnet? What words do you have to add to this discussion? [**_L_eave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/by-every-word/#respond), or send her an email at[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721385419848-compressed.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721385419848-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Tradition in the NT (2): Good Examples
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-06-15
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Tradition in the NT (2): Good Examples | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Ultimately, authentic NT tradition involves imitating Christ by means of imitating his apostles and their imitators. Become a disciple who makes disciples!
Tags: Biblical Mennonite Alliance, Bible translations, Christocentric, gospel, church unity, discipleship, church tradition, Allen | Roth, church planting, Lord's Supper, training, Christlikeness, -1 Corinthians 11:1-2, -1 Corinthians 11:23-26, -1 Corinthians 15:1-11, -1 Corinthians 9, -1 Corinthians 9:23, -2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, -2 Thessalonians 2:15, -2 Thessalonians 2:5, -2 Thessalonians 3:6, -Matthew 12:43-45, -Philippians 3, Alexander | Strauch, Anabaptist Financial, Bald Eagle Boys Camp, change, church boundaries, deliver, deposit, disciples, entrust, example, Followers of Jesus Mennonite Church, Haiti, imitate, imitation, intentional, mentoring, Merle | Burkholder, Open Hands, Paul | Emerson, proclaim, receive, relationship, Richard | Schwartz, Richard | Showalter, Servant Leader Apprenticeship, tradition, Walter | Beachy, word studies, work ethic
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-2-good-examples
_\[For the first post in this series, see: [“Tradition in the NT (1): Bad Examples.”](http://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-1-bad-examples/)\]_
**“What you have done for my son and my family is beyond love.”** The writer was a mother named Lisa, and she was writing to [Bald Eagle Boys Camp](http://www.baldeagleboyscamp.org/). Her letter continued:
> Perhaps you will never know how many years I prayed that Derek could find a **mentor**… I wanted and prayed for one mentor. God gave Derek all of you… All of you have separate gifts and talents that you share with the boys. You all have different insights and personal attributes to share… You very well may have saved his life, saved him from self-hatred, and saved him from not ever seeing what God’s love is. \[Emphasis added.\]
Mentoring is an important part of the therapeutic camping program at Bald Eagle, a camp for “troubled boys.” Listen to some more excerpts from their website:
> The counselors, called “chiefs”, are responsible for direct care and provide the key to meeting the emotional needs of a camper. Because **the chiefs live with the boys twenty-four hours a day and join them in all of their daily routines**, they become keenly aware of the individual needs of each camper. Their dedication and care provide a secure atmosphere where healing relationships can occur…
>
> Spiritual values are intrinsically woven into the fabric of daily Wilderness Camp living and are reinforced by our staff as **they model the teachings of Jesus Christ**. They are **displayed** in the simplest ways—the love and understanding of a counselor, the forgiveness of one boy to another, and the helpfulness of a friend….
>
> We aim to maintain groups of four to five **members who have stabilized and are able to provide accountability, cohesion, and a positive influence** to the rest of the group…. \[Emphasis added.\]
As the letter from Lisa suggests, many boys and their parents are being powerfully shaped by the influence of loving mentors at Bald Eagle Boys Camp.
* * *
**Story two: The need this time is not troubled boys but troubled communities**—communities that lack the relational and economic networks needed for people to climb out of poverty.
Several decades ago Merle Burkholder and his family lived for a year in a small rural village in Haiti. The Burkholders imitated their neighbors by adopting their simple lifestyle and, in return, they gave their neighbors something to imitate by modeling Christ to them. Deep friendships began that continue to this day. Merle has returned to Cadiac, Haiti once or twice a year ever since, speaking in church seminars and mentoring leaders.
More recently, Merle’s Haiti involvement merged with his service at Anabaptist Financial, leading to a new project called Open Hands. Here, from the [Open Hands website](http://openhands.org/), is a description of what they do:
> Open Hands operates savings and credit associations in countries where Anabaptist missions are working with people who are experiencing the effects of poverty. We hire and train national Christian individuals to form and supervise savings groups in association with local churches. Our objective is to assist the local churches by helping people grow in Christ, and by teaching them to save funds in order to operate micro-businesses. The Open Hands program will increase their income and will result in stronger, more self-sufficient churches.
The Open Hands program involves many _relationships_ and lots of _training_. These flow in multiple directions, as everyone listens and learns from each other. Open Hands has adopted some elements of a [dialogue education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_education) approach, where facilitators ask questions and help learners discover answers using their prior knowledge. This helps build the dignity and confidence needed for responsible and successful living.
But Open Hands also knows that outside training, when welcomed, is a crucial element in giving a community new tools for growth. So a long, intentional flow of relationships and training exists within Open Hands. This is especially evident with the curriculum that Open Hands is producing for savings groups:
_Board and administration has set a vision for producing family and small business training booklets._
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/green-arrow-down-1.png)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/green-arrow-down-1.png)
_Writing teams turn this vision into instructor’s guides and student workbooks._
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
_Translation teams transmit the content into other languages._
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
_Program leaders living abroad teach the new curriculum to…_
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
_National group facilitators and trainers, who train…_
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
_Savings group leaders how to teach the curriculum to…_
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/green-arrow-down-1-e1434313329480-1721385420747-compressed.png)
_Each savings group with its individual members._
Such a long chain does leave space for things to be lost in transmission. But so far this approach seems to be working well, helping to transform lives. And communication is certainly not all one-directional; everyone from administration through writers through translators has interacted directly with national leaders and group members to celebrate our partnership in the gospel.
Merle summarized this train of transmission another way recently in an email:
> When we began with the savings group model we realized that **this model follows a pattern that many Amish and Mennonite people here in the developed world have used**. The model we use relies heavily on brotherhood accountability within the savings group. It demonstrates how faithfulness in small things leads to larger responsibilities. It helps a person to start a small family business with a little capital and grow that business into a business that will provide for the needs of the family.
>
> When you think about the large number of Amish and Mennonite family businesses, you see that what we have done here is often **replicated** in the developing world through the savings group model. Often here, Amish and Mennonite families would pool their funds in order to purchase a farm or fund the start up of a small home based business. The savings group model follows the same **pattern** within a community.
>
> In the Amish and Mennonite communities we have a strong work ethic and a belief that we should provide for our own families and not depend on social assistance programs. The savings group help people in the developing world move from dependency on an aid program, or charity in some other form, to providing for their own needs. There is great dignity in being able to internally produce the resources that are needed for the support of a family rather than depending on outside resources. \[Emphasis added.\]
So Open Hands is strengthening a transmission of influence from Amish and Mennonites to developing nations worldwide. Open Hands aims to transmit our “strong work ethic” and “belief that we should provide for our own.” The curriculum also emphasizes Jesus’ kingdom teachings about stewardship, eternal values, and neighbor love, and includes a gospel invitation in each booklet. In this way North American Anabaptists are helping to shape men, women, and children in Haiti, India, Kenya, and other nations worldwide.
(Disclosure and gratitude: Merle hired me as a writer for Open Hands and was a formative influence years ago during my time with [Northern Youth Programs](http://www.northernyouthprograms.org/).)
* * *
**Story three: The need this time is for leaders.** [Followers of Jesus Mennonite Church](http://www.fjmcny.org/) (FJMC) in Brooklyn, NY, has a practice of asking its members periodically to identify men in their midst who have leadership potential. Those identified by the congregation are invited to participate in a several-year training program called Servant Leadership Apprenticeship (SLA). Trainees study books on doctrinal and practical matters (such as Alexander Strauch’s \[amazon text=_Biblical Eldership_&asin=0936083115\]), attend half the FJMC leadership team meetings (voice but no vote), and practice a wide variety of leadership activities from giving sermons to praying for church members. ([See here](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SLA-Brief-Summary.pdf) for a longer summary.)
The SLA program has helped raise up leaders for FJMC and beyond. Richard Schwartz, the current FJMC lead pastor, was an SLA participant. And so—thanks be to God—was I, training under Allen Roth and alongside his son Arlin. (More disclosure and gratitude. My wife was also grateful for the opportunity to learn from the pastors’ wives.)
Allen Roth, FJMC’s founding pastor, was the human brainchild behind the SLA program. In 2009 Allen shared a talk subtitled “If I Were Starting a Church Again…” In this talk he described fifteen things he would do differently if he planted another church in the future. One thing he said was this:
> I would start the **_Servant-Leader Apprenticeship_** earlier as a deliberate, planned approach to raise up more leaders, not only to pastor the new church but also to serve as missionaries and church planters.
Recently I asked Allen to describe what inspired him to begin the SLA program. Here is his answer:
> Dwight, I cannot really remember any “aha” moment. I’m sure prayer figures in. I had had a very rich experience with a group of 20+ Nicaraguans living with us and helping with two church plants in Nicaragua. Working with a team in NYC was also very influential in my thinking. But even earlier than all these was **the mentoring I received** by Richard Showalter, my missions teacher, when I was a\[t\] Rosedale. And of course, through the years, there have been books that imprinted me about **Jesus’ work with the Twelve, mentoring books, disciple making books**, etc. Early in the formation of BMA, Walter Beachy and I worked together on assembling **a mentoring guide for development of new ministers** in BMA. An entire Ministers’ Enrichment event in 2002 was devoted to the theme of **developing tomorrow’s leaders**. This year Paul Emerson and I worked on a document entitled “**Mentoring For Ministry”** that is scheduled to be presented to the ministers next month for their review and hopefully for implementation within BMA. Probably, though I cannot remember a specific incident, was the realization that to establish FJMC, plant new churches, and send out workers in missions **we needed to develop more leaders**. Does that help? \[Emphasis added.\]
Indeed, it does!
And hopefully by now you can see some common themes emerging in my three stories. Many similar stories could be added. But these are enough for me to make an observation: _**sometimes conservative Anabaptists, whether they realize it or not, demonstrate a very Scriptural practice of tradition.**_
**“Of tradition?” you say. Yes, of tradition.** In [my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-1-bad-examples/) I described how conservative Anabaptist often listen rather poorly to what the NT says about tradition. I also summarized the NT’s critique of tradition-gone-bad. But _**the NT also has positive things to say about tradition. And if we only exorcize the demons of bad tradition without filling the house with the Holy Spirit’s positive tradition, then the last state of our churches will be worse than the first**_ (image lifted from Matthew 12:43-45).
* * *
**Word Studies: Challenges and Procedures**
There are three times that the ESV NT uses the word _tradition_ in a positive sense. We will explore these three passages and see what we can learn.
But first, _**please bear with some technical notes for Bible students**_. With the one exception noted in my previous post, the ESV’s use of the word _tradition_ perfectly matches the Greek text’s use of the word παράδοσις (_paradosis_, a word referring to a teaching or tradition that is handed over). This means that, despite using an English translation, we are matching the results we would get if working from the Greek.
On the one hand it can actually be better to work from English for a topical study like this, for translators sometimes identify multiple Greek (or Hebrew) words that are used in a way best expressed by a single English word. (For example, ἀγαπᾷς and φιλῶ in John 21 probably both mean “love,” as in most English translations, with no distinctions intended in this passage between _agape_ and _philia_ kinds of love.) On the other hand, we should not assume that the range of meaning for _paradosis_ perfectly matches the range of meaning for our English word _tradition_. Even in this case where the ESV matches the two words nearly perfectly, I cannot assume that _paradosis_ means exactly the same thing in every NT passage, or that in _any_ passage it means what I most commonly mean when I use the English word _tradition_. The best approach for word studies is to use dictionaries to determine the range of possible meanings for a given word (Greek or English), and then study the context in which a word is used in order to select which of the possible meanings best matches the particular passage which we are examining.
In this study of _tradition_, context revealed that Jesus often used the word _paradosis_ to refer specifically to the Jewish “tradition of the elders”—the oral law that Jews believed (including some today!) that Moses received from God during his 40 days on Mount Sinai. But when Paul used the word _paradosis_ he sometimes meant something very different, as we shall soon see. And when we use the English word _tradition_, what do we mean? Scanning [dictionary entries](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tradition), I see definitions as varied as these:
* “The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication“
* “A long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting“
* “A doctrine or body of doctrines regarded as having been established by Christ or the apostles though not contained in Scripture“
* “A piece of folklore“
* “A style or method of an activity or practice, especially of artistic expression, that is recognized and sometimes imitated“
None of the above definitions fully captures what we mean when we talk about Anabaptist or Mennonite traditions, and none perfectly matches how either Jesus or Paul used the word _paradosis_. _**Bottom line: We need to listen closely to Scripture to let it shape our definitions and understandings.**_
* * *
**What the NT Says Positively about Tradition**
**Back to the positive NT use of _tradition_.** Let’s examine our three passages individually, making observations. Then we’ll summarize our observations and suggest some implications for how we should think about tradition in our churches.
**1\. 1 Corinthians 11:2. Here Paul affirms the Corinthian church: “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.”** Here we can clearly see the root concept of _paradosis_: It is something that is “delivered” from one to another. The word “delivered” suggests intentionality. Paul did not simply live quietly in the land, assuming others would learn from him if they wished.
The thing delivered was old to Paul, but new to the Corinthians. Thus, the transmission of tradition produced radical changes. On the other hand, once the Corinthian believers had received what Paul delivered to them, the proper thing to do with these traditions was to “maintain” them. Thus _paradosis_ in this passage implies both intentional change and intentional preservation.
Notice that Paul wanted the Corinthians to remember more than just the traditions he had delivered. He also wanted them to “remember \[him\] in everything.” Thus, tradition was not to be received as an impersonal body of practices or “ordinances” (the KJV’s unfortunate translation of _paradosis_ in this passage). Rather, tradition was a personal matter, rooted in intimate relationship.
If we zoom out to the wider context, we see that Paul did not merely want the Corinthians to “remember” him; he wanted them to _imitate_ him: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” This suggests that Paul believed that personal example and imitation was an important way of “delivering” tradition. In other words, mentoring.
The mention of Christ shows the ultimate source of the tradition that Paul delivered to the Corinthians. Paul is the channel of these traditions, not the source. Thus, we can see three “generations” of tradition in this passage: Christ, Paul, and the Corinthian church.
What were these traditions that Paul received from Christ and passed on to the Corinthian church? In the context of this letter to Corinth, these traditions definitely include several things:
* The account of Christ instituting the Lord’s Supper: “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,” Paul writes (1 Cor. 11:23-26).
* The gospel as a whole, including the historical facts and theological significance of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:1-11).
These traditions may have also included Paul’s teaching about headship. _**Most likely Paul uses**_ **paradosis** _**here to refers to any and all of his teachings, both doctrine about Christ and instruction about how to live in response to Christ.**_ Clearly, Christ is central—both as the source of Paul’s tradition and as the center of its content.
**2.** **2 Thessalonians 2:15. Here Paul appeals to the church at Thessalonica: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”** This passage, though similar to our Corinthian one, offers additional insights into the traditions that Paul affirmed.
Here the traditions were “taught,” a word that again suggests intentionality. But different modes of transmission are specified: “spoken word” and “letter.” Tradition, then, is something that you not only do, but also teach verbally.
The word “taught” implies that the Thessalonians did not originally know and practice Paul’s traditions. His traditions challenged and changed their former ways of thinking and living. On the other hand, having learned Paul’s traditions, they were to “hold” to them, a word that suggests preservation. Thus tradition again involves both change and continuity.
What were the traditions that Paul taught the Thessalonian believers? Context suggest at least two things:
* The phrases “stand firm and hold” and “either by our spoken word or by our letter” echo phrases from earlier in the chapter: “We ask you, brothers, not to be quickly **shaken in mind or alarmed**, either by a spirit or **a spoken word, or a letter** seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thess. 2:1-2, emphasis added). In this chapter Paul is instructing the Thessalonians “concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him” (2 Thess. 2:1). This topic, of course, was an important theme in Paul’s previous letter to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 4:13-5:11). And here Paul says, “Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?” (2 Thess. 2:5). So Paul had previously instructed the Thessalonians previously both by “spoken word” and by “letter” (2 Thess. 2:15) about these matters. _These teachings about the coming of Christ were part of the “traditions” that Paul had taught to the Thessalonian church._
* Another contextual clue is suggested by the words “so then” at the beginning of our verse. These words link back to the the previous verses (2 Thess. 2:13-14), where Paul recalls with gratitude how God first chose the Thessalonians to be saved: “To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 14). This context reveals several important truths. First, the reason why Paul thought the Thessalonians should hold to the traditions was because they were essential for salvation. Unless the Thessalonians held fast to the traditions Paul had taught them, they had no assurance they would “obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” They had begun well; now Paul wanted them to finish well. Clearly, “traditions” here does not refer to merely human customs or rules. Second, a close relationship is suggested between “gospel” and “traditions.” God had initially called the Thessalonians “through our \[Paul’s\] gospel” (2 Thess. 2:14; see also 1 Thessalonians 2, where Paul recalls how he originally “proclaimed… the gospel of God” to the Thessalonians, who had “accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”). Now they needed to hold fast to “the traditions.” _This suggests that the traditions were either the gospel itself (the message about being saved “through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth”; 2 Thess. 2:13), or other teachings integrally springing from the gospel message._
_**In summary, Paul uses**_ **paradosis** _**in 2 Thessalonians 2 to refer to the core gospel message and to all the associated truths (such as teaching about Christ’s appearing and the man of lawlessness) that the Thessalonians needed to hold in order to persevere to final salvation without being “shaken.”**_
**3\. 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Here Paul gives a command concerning tradition: “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.“** The usage of _paradosis_ here is clearly parallel to our other two passages. For example, there is again a very strong emphasis on imitation and an appeal to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. But several new emphases can be noticed.
In context, the tradition that Paul is talking about is the tradition of working quietly and earning one’s own living (2 Thess. 3:6-12). Here behavior is clearly included as part of tradition. Tradition is not merely about how we think; it is also about how we act.
Tradition here serves as a boundary for the church, or at least as a measure for good standing within the church. The Thessalonians are to “keep away from” anyone who does not follow the tradition of working diligently. They must not even share food with such people.
Notice how Paul describes this tradition in clear but general terms: The Thessalonians are to work diligently and quietly, earning their own living. They are not to be disorderly, burden others by eating food without paying for it, or be busybodies. Paul does not say how often one could eat free as a guest before one should start paying (the [Didache](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lake.html) limited traveling Christians to two or three free nights). He does not say how many hours per week one must work in order to be considered diligent. He seems to expect that his instructions are clear enough that they can be applied on a case-by-case basis without detailed universal rules.
_**In summary, Paul uses**_ **paradosis** _**in 2 Thessalonians 3 to refer to godly behaviors learned by imitation from Christian leaders—behaviors which are necessary for good standing in the church of Christ.**_
If we summarize all three passages where Paul speaks positively about tradition (_paradosis_), we find that **the content of this good NT tradition includes the gospel message about Christ and his work past, present, and future, all the associated truths that we need in order to persevere to final salvation, and all sorts of Christlike behaviors.**
* * *
**For Further Study**
A proper study of the positive use of tradition in the NT would also examine a host of other passages related to the theme of the apostles passing things on to the first churches. For example, here are a few key concepts and references to review (based on a concordance search of the ESV):
* “deliver“: Luke 1:2; Acts 15:30; 16:4; 2Cor. 3:3; 2Pet. 2:21; Jude 1:3
* “proclaim“: Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 10:7; 24:14; Acts 4:2; 8:5; 9:20; 13:5, 38; 15:36; 17:3, 13, 23; 20:25; 26:23; 28:31; Rom. 10:8; 1Cor. 2:1; 9:14; 11:26; 15:12; 2Cor. 1:19; 4:5; 11:4; Gal. 2:2; Eph. 6:19; Phil. 1:17-18; Col. 1:23, 28; 1Tim. 3:16; 2Tim. 4:17; 1Pet. 2:9; 1John 1:2-5
* “receive“: John 3:11, 32-33; 12:48; 13:20; 14:17; 17:8; Acts 2:41; 8:14; 11:1; 17:11; 1Cor. 4:7; 2Cor. 6:1; Gal. 1:9, 12; Phil. 4:9; Col. 2:6; 1Thess. 1:6; 2:13; 4:1; Heb. 4:6; 10:26; James 1:21; Rev. 3:3
* “example“: John 13:15; Phil. 3:17; 1Thess. 1:7; 1Tim. 4:12; 1Pet. 2:21; 5:3
* “imitate“: 1Cor. 4:16; Eph. 5:1; 1Thess. 2:14; Heb. 6:12; 13:7
* “entrust/deposit“: Luke 12:48; 1Cor. 9:17; 2Cor. 5:19; Gal. 2:7; 1Thess. 2:4; 1Tim. 1:11, 18; 6:20; 2Tim. 1:12, 14; 2:2; Tit. 1:3
(I have listed verses only once, not repeating them if they were discussed above or if they use multiple key terms.)
In addition to the above passages, one should examine the entire theme of discipleship in the NT!
* * *
**Conclusion: Summarizing the Evidence and Exhorting the Anabaptists**
As I end this brief study of tradition in the NT (good and bad examples), my heart is full. I feel I must speak clearly and honestly to my fellow conservative Anabaptists. Scripture is speaking, and we must listen. In short, _**I think we are in urgent need of having a radical renewal in our concept of tradition.**_
I ask you: When we talk about “tradition” in the context of church life as conservative Anabaptists, what kind of traditions usually come to mind? Man-made customs and rules that we have added to God’s word (as with the “tradition” of the Pharisees)? Or the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and basic principles of Christlike behavior (as with the “tradition” of Paul)?
I ask you another question: Do you see any suggestion in the NT that tradition in the first sense (man-made customs or rules, however good or natural) is ever emphasized as a useful means for either bringing anyone to salvation, producing holy behavior, or preserving the gospel?
(Here I must make a brief aside, prompted by a question from my wise wife. I presented the Bald Eagle Boys Camp above as a positive example of tradition. But the Bald Eagle program is full of man-made rules! Am I contradicting myself? I hope not. Remember that Bald Eagle is designed to serve boys—in fact, “troubled” boys. Man-made rules are essential for raising children, especially unregenerate ones. And the more immature the children, the more there will be a need for regulated structure. Bald Eagle uses Pauline mentoring relationships combined with good methods of child management to produce children who will be better prepared to respond to the “tradition” of the gospel. We should learn from Bald Eagle’s emphasis on intentional mentoring. But do we really want to run our churches in a highly-regulated fashion, as if they are full of unregenerate “troubled boys”? Procedural expectations will always be needed in any group setting—times for meeting, etc. And cultural norms and group habits are fine—ways of singing, etc. And some of our habits, though not commanded in the NT, are drawn from its pages—[praying before meals](http://biblicalspirituality.org/no-i-wont-bless-the-meal/), etc. But those who are filled with the Spirit surely do not need an abundance of rules to produce holy behavior.)
**Let me summarize with eight overlapping observations from our study.**
_**This is what good tradition looks like in the NT. Ask yourself: Is this what tradition looks like in my church?**_
1. **Tradition involves personal relationships.** When the NT talks about tradition positively, it usually depicts intimate relationships between an apostle or missionary and those in his care. Seeing tradition as merely involving beliefs and practices is not enough. If tradition is experienced as an impersonal force, then we have fallen short of the NT pattern.
2. **Tradition involves personal imitation.** When the NT talks about tradition positively, there is not merely conformity to a social norm. Rather, there is direct imitation of a worthy individual. This means that those of us who want to promote tradition must focus on being persons worth imitating. It is not enough to merely point to a body of beliefs or practices. Good tradition requires good people—people who consciously aspire to be Christlike role models.
3. **Tradition involves imitation of Christ.** When the NT talks about tradition positively, in passage after passage the flow of tradition is clear: The fountainhead is Christ, and all worthy tradition flows downhill from him—down through his apostles, down through faithful Christians of all time, down through those who proclaimed the gospel to us, and down through us to others. As we drink from the stream of those who have taught and modeled Christ to us, we walk up through this stream, ever closer to Christ himself, our only perfect Model.
4. **Tradition involves a group cohesion found in Christ.** When the NT talks about tradition positively, it indicates that the church finds its cohesion in Christ. Group cohesion is found not merely in each individual conforming to the group, but in each individual helping the other conform to Christ. As the gospel tradition draws us closer to Christ, we are held together in him. Tradition involves a community being transformed into the image of a p/Person (a Christ-imitator and Christ himself), and not merely a person being transformed into the image of a community.
5. **Tradition involves intentional choice.** When the NT talks about tradition positively, there is no suggestion of subconscious immersion in a religious culture or thoughtless conformity to social norms. Rather, we see people proactively proclaiming, mentoring, and following. Those of us who want to affirm and hold onto tradition should intentionally look for mentors worth imitating, not merely conform to peer pressure.
6. **Tradition involves explanation.** When the NT talks about tradition positively, we see both the _what_ and the _why_ being taught. Last fall I read the fascinating book \[amazon text=_Runaway Amish Girl_&asin=1940834031\], written by Emma Gingerich, a brave young lady who used to belong to a Swartzentruber Amish group not far from my home here in Leon, IA. I expected that by reading the book I would gain a better understanding of why Amish live the way they do. I did learn much about the Swartzentruber Amish, including some details of their ordnung (church ordinances or rules). But I was surprised to discover as I ended the book that I really hadn’t learned much about _why_ they live as they do. The reason I didn’t learn much about the _why_ is because the author, despite having grown up Amish, was never taught the _why_, either. This failure of these Amish to explain the _why_ became for me one of the most important lessons of the book. This Swartzentruber Amish group had plenty of traditions, but they had little understanding of tradition in the positive NT sense.Ordnung without explanation is empty. Teaching and training are essential elements of the apostolic approach to tradition. The apostles never merely commanded _what_ to do; they rooted the _what_ firmly in a gospel _why_—in a theological explanation of some aspect of the work of Christ_._ In fact, they often taught the why _first_, then deduced the _what_ from the why afterward. And they even sometimes flexed the _what_ from situation to situation, aiming to best promote the _why_ of the gospel in each unique context.
7. **Tradition involves change.** When the NT talks about tradition positively, it describes something that comes into our lives from the outside and turns our world upside down. The kingdom of God brings a new world, a new age, and new ways of thinking. Yes, we hold onto this tradition fiercely once we have received it. But its revolutionary work in our hearts will not be finished until Christ returns. Our thoughts and behaviors will continue to evolve as we are ever more conformed to the gospel. Not all change is life or growth. But to be alive is to grow, and to grow is to change. Thus, tradition is not merely “doing things as we’ve always done them.” It radically changes both individuals and entire communities.
8. **Tradition involves biblicism.** The word _biblicism_ has received a bad rap, for at its worst it signifies a legalistic adherence to the letter of the Bible. But in its best sense it signifies something good: a strong focus on the Bible as divine revelation that leads us to Christ and guides us as we follow him. And when the NT talks about tradition positively, it ties this tradition very tightly to Scripture—hence, tradition involves biblicism. This is surprise. One of our dictionary definitions for _tradition_ above, remember, went like this: “A doctrine or body of doctrines regarded as having been established by Christ or the apostles _though not contained in Scripture_” (emphasis added). This definition sounds a lot like the Jewish concept of the tradition of the elders or “oral law,” which they believed was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. ([Here is an Orthodox believer](http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/roadsfromemmaus/2015/06/03/do-we-preach-orthodoxy-or-christ/) struggling helpfully but imperfectly with the question of “Holy Tradition.”) But Paul’s use of _tradition_ is different. Remember that when Paul mentioned tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2, he mentioned both “spoken word” and “letter.” Paul taught tradition through both. Significantly, there is no indication here (or elsewhere in the NT) that the content of Paul’s verbal teaching was conceptually different from the content of his written communication. There is no indication, for example, that Paul taught “principles” through his letters and then gave more specific “applications” of those principles in his verbal instructions to churches. This means that we today can access Paul’s traditions by reading his letters. To study Paul’s letters is to learn his traditions; to follow tradition is to be a biblicist. If we faithfully adhere to the tradition of the apostles, we will neither add to their writings nor take away from them.
**Let me summarize our observations more concisely.**
_**Tradition, when it is described positively in the NT, is always tied to discipleship.**_ Therefore, in order for tradition to be life-giving for us today, it must always be tied to discipleship. More specifically, it must involve relationships where disciples are trained by those who are imitating others who have imitated Christ. _**Ultimately, authentic NT tradition involves imitating Christ by means of imitating his apostles and their imitators.** **Thus authentic NT tradition is a concept that pushes us back to Scripture and on to Christ himself.**_
Conversely, tradition smothers and kills to the extent that it is devoid of meaningful mentoring relationships and unhinged from the biblical witness of Christ and his apostles.
_**So here is my appeal to my fellow conservative Anabaptists: Do you think tradition is important? Then become a disciple of Christ who makes more disciples of Christ!**_
Find the most Christlike people you know! Spend time with them, imitating them as they imitate Christ. Find someone else who wants to follow Christ, and model Christ to them! Share your heart along with the doctrines and behaviors of Christ. And as you do this, submit all your human traditions (Phil. 3) and personal and cultural preferences (1 Cor. 9) to the cause of _the only tradition that really matters: the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ_ (1 Cor. 9:23).
* * *
**This has been a long post, but it has been brewing in my heart for a long time.** I sense it may be one of the most important posts I’ve shared so far, with its call for us to recapture a NT vision of tradition and disciple-making. Please pray for me that I will not only teach these things but also understand and live them more fully. (I am a disciple who is a slow learner.) May God give you grace to do the same.
**Now it’s your turn.** What did you learn in this study of tradition in the NT? How would you add to or change what I have written? Am I missing something? How can we live out this call to NT “traditionalism”? What methods or means can we use in our churches to better pass on the faith once for all delivered to the saints? **[Please share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-2-good-examples/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Tradition in the NT (1): Bad Examples
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-06-04
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Tradition in the NT (1): Bad Examples | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Conservative Anabaptists don't always listen to Scripture well when they think about tradition. "Tradition" is usually used in a negative sense in the NT.
Tags: Pharisees, Anabaptist history, Melvin | Gingerich, clothing, -Ephesians 6:4, preaching, culture, church tradition, proof-texts, tradition, -1 Corinthians 11:2-18, -1 Corinthians 9:19-23, -1 Peter 1:18-19, -Colossians 2:16-23, -Colossians 2:6, -Colossians 2:8, -Deuteronomy 6:6-9, -Galatians 1:14, -Jeremiah 15, -Mark 7, -Matthew 15, -Numbers 15, -Psalm 133:2, Anabaptist Identity Conference, applications, Arthur | Sido, beards, Benedict Option, Cory | Anderson, head covering, J. Paul | Graybill, Karen H. | Jobes, Rod | Dreher, sociology, uniformity
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-1-bad-examples
_\[For the sequel to this post, see [“Tradition in the NT (2): Good Examples.”](http://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-2-good-examples/)\]_
**“I don’t have much Scripture for this sermon.”** The speaker was a visiting minister and his topic was Beachys, culture, and tradition. As I recall, his main question for the evening was this: should Beachy-Amish churches retain their cultural traditions as a way to help pass on the faith to the next generation?
The confession came perhaps 5 minutes into sermon. Unfortunately, it was true. The speaker briefly cited only about three Scripture passages that were vaguely related to his topic. (One, if I recall correctly, was Deuteronomy 6:6-9. More on that later.)
But the confession, however true, didn’t result in any change of behavior. The speaker continued for another 30 or 45 minutes, filling the time mostly with his own rationalizations about the usefulness of retaining traditions as they were. For example, traditions help a congregation run more smoothly and efficiently, so that everyone knows exactly what is supposed to happen. I, being new to Beachys and fresh from a multicultural congregation in New York City, found my mind quickly supplying counter-rationalizations for each of the speaker’s points. For example, unexplained and entrenched traditions might make things run smoothly for those who have always been part of the group, but they can be quite confusing for newcomers. In the absence of relevant Scripture, the sermon became for me a contest of human reasoning.
When I arrived home after the service, it didn’t take me long to fill nearly a page with typed notes about New Testament passages discussing culture and tradition. ([Here](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tradition-and-Culture-in-NT-Notes-after-a-sermon.pdf) are my notes, lightly modified after the fact. I’ll discuss some of the same content in my posts here.) _**The problem, I concluded, was two-fold: On the one hand, the NT passages about tradition and culture didn’t say what the speaker wanted them to say. On the other hand, he also missed a lot of things the Bible**_ **does** _**say about passing on the faith to the next generation.**_ In my notes I wrote, “Thesis: The New Testament is not concerned with preserving cultural traditions… However, a topic that _is_ emphasized in the NT is cultural incarnation: giving up our own culture for the gospel’s sake.”
* * *
**Story two: The scene was a panel discussion at the Anabaptist Identity Conference.** Under the mysterious title “[The Turtle Wins](http://www.anabaptistslive.org/?p=640)” (given the previous talk, I expected the discussion to be about the benefits of organic farming!), the main speakers for AIC 2015 spent most of the time discussing Anabaptist traditions and culture. Many of their words circled around a knotty problem: The same church traditions that seem to help groups like the Amish retain cohesion and oncoming generations also seem to be hurdles for seekers who would wish to join. What to do about our traditions? ([Here](http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-keeps-them-in-also-keeps-them-out.html) is my friend Arthur Sido’s reflection on the problem as discussed by the panel.)
Questions, stories, and sociological observations all added to an interesting conversation. But near the end—too late for me to submit a question to the panel—_**I suddenly realized that I couldn’t remember whether any Scripture had been cited.**_ Perhaps I had missed some passing reference, but clearly Scripture wasn’t framing the evening’s discussion. Didn’t Scripture say a few things about this question? Why weren’t we turning there for answers? I hastily prepared a question based on 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, but was only able to raise it after the service with one panel member and a few fellow audience members.
* * *
**Story three: This time Scripture was clearly present.** In fact, the sermon was designed to be an expositional sermon. The text was Matthew 15, and I think it was read in full near the beginning of the sermon. So far, very good.
And there were a lot of other good things in the sermon, too. Yet half way through I started to become uncomfortable, and by the end this is what I felt: Much of the sermon (a quarter? a third?) had not been based on the text at all. In fact, a major concern of the speaker was to say what he thought the text did _not_ say: Despite Jesus’ warnings against the traditions of the elders, not all tradition was bad. In fact, tradition can be very good and important, and we should not be too quick too discard our traditions.
Now, as I have summarized my recollections here, these statements are true. _But they were not based at all on the text of the sermon._ More importantly, by the end of the sermon I did not feel that we had been made to feel the heavy weight of Jesus’ strong warning. I did not feel we had been asked to take a hard look at our religious traditions to see if any of them are keeping us from obeying the word of God. _**The speaker had not let Scripture speak clearly into our lives.**_
(For my own attempt to preach the same account, from the parallel passage in Mark 7, see [these sermon notes](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Mark-7.1-23-Sermon-notes-Web-version.pdf).)
If I had a better memory I could tell more stories. But these are enough for me to make an observation: _**conservative Anabaptists don’t always listen to Scripture very well when they think about religious traditions and culture.**_
* * *
**Alternatives to Listening Well to Scripture
**
What do we often do instead of listening well to Scripture? Here are four approaches I’ve heard:
**1\. Selectively or inaccurately cite Scripture to support our traditions.** Often this involves pulling OT passages out of their literary and covenantal contexts. For example, sometimes Deuteronomy 6:6-9 is cited. True, this passage shows the timeless importance of parents teaching their children. However, much of the content of this teaching is very different under the new covenant than under the old Mosaic covenant. Under the old, parents were to teach their children not only timeless ethics but also divinely-commanded cultural practices such as avoiding unclean foods and marrying only fellow Israelites. Under the new, parents are to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4), something that can happen within many diverse cultural traditions, even multicultural ones. Another OT passage I’ve heard used out of context in this way is Jeremiah 15. (See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/3-lessons-from-rechabites-jeremiah-35/) for more.) Even more obviously questionable is how Psalm 133:2 has been used to support the wearing of beards. And does Numbers 15 really provide any more basis for us mandating uniform attire as a means of reminding us we are God’s people (Num. 15:37-40) than it does for us mandating the death penalty for those who break the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36)?
**2\. Selectively or inaccurately cite history to support our traditions.** For example, how many of us have heard something similar to these words from a Mennonite article published in 1957:
> It has never been known that a church denomination has maintained simplicity of dress according to Bible standards for any length of time without the church prescribing what that dress shall be. **This is simply a fact of history.**[1](#fn-1523-1)
If by “church prescribing what that dress shall be” was meant a church issuing general warnings against worldly clothing practices or even prohibitions of specific clothing styles, then perhaps the statement would be true. But the article was claiming historical evidence for a more rigorous approach: “the best way to help our members to maintain Bible modesty in dress is for the church to _prescribe a form_.”[2](#fn-1523-2) In actual historical fact, however, some streams of the Mennonite church (unlike the Amish) had maintained an emphasis on simplicity of dress for about three and a half centuries without teaching uniform attire. Here is historian Melvin Gingerich’s analysis, from \[amazon text=_Mennonite Attire through Four Centuries_&asin=B000BW06WO\]:
> Centuries of persecution of their Anabaptist forefathers had convinced the Mennonites that an unfriendly society around them had different standards from their own… To be the salt of the earth required the maintenance of strict standards and high ideals in all areas of life, including the clothes they wore. The people of God were to be a separate people that could be distinguished from those conforming their lives to the standards of secularism. They therefore believed that a Christian should look different from the non-Christian. **This conviction was held deeply even by those Mennonites who did not dress uniformly.**
>
> When the language barrier \[German\] was surrendered and geographic isolation was lost \[urbanization\], a final effort was made to strengthen the third separation device, that of simple dress… This simplicity was to conservative Mennonites the final citadel which must be held at all cost. It is this image and fear which explains in a large part the series of conference regulations of the first four decades of the twentieth century. A uniform costume was pleaded for, demanded, and ruled on by conference action. Detailed descriptions of plain costume were made part of conference regulations, **in contrast to a simplicity earlier maintained largely through tradition.**[3](#fn-1523-3)
Gingerich summarizes the practice of “Mennonites in most times and places” like this:
> They wished to avoid legalism and thus were reluctant to endorse detailed regulations. By stressing the life of humility and naming the articles of clothing and decorations that they believed violated biblical principles of simplicity, **they often became a “plain” people** rather than the “gay” people. Living in communities, they came to regard certain items of clothing as conservative **without any attempt being made to prescribe by church edict the exact costume or garb that must be worn**.[4](#fn-1523-4)
It is easy to underestimate the challenges that Mennonite conference leaders faced in the early twentieth century. I do not want to hastily condemn them. The clothing culture in society around them (even among Christians) was on a rapid descent into godlessness and sensuality, creating new challenges for church leaders. However, I do want to point out the historical sleight of hand in that 1957 article: A history of simple clothing traditions and warnings against ostentation was re-read as being a history of prescribed uniform attire. But the two are not the same. _In fact, they are very different._
Perhaps a better lesson to learn from our vantage point in history is that regulations about uniform attire will not produce the same spiritual fruit as a voluntary “natural” participation in a simple clothing culture. The force of tradition is often more powerful than the force of law, and adopting the latter when the former begins to be questioned is a dubious solution, a stop-gap measure likely to raise societal pressure until a cork blows somewhere. (And are either regulated costumes _or_ cultural norms really Christian means for achieving Christian behavior? Don’t we usually question attempts to Christianize people by either legal codes or behavior modification via culturalization?)
Other examples of selective historical citation could be shared, but must wait for another time.
**3\. Cite recent Christian authors who discuss culture and tradition.** All truth is God’s truth, so we should willingly learn truth no matter where we find it. But sometimes we perceive truth when a careful biblical comparison would reveal that it isn’t actually there. And sometimes we become so preoccupied with searching for truth in extra-biblical places that we forget to mine the Scriptures for wisdom.
Mennonites looking for truth about tradition and culture read a variety of authors. For example, some who want to hang onto conservative Anabaptist church traditions listen to thinkers such as Cory Anderson, who draws on his training in sociology to discuss culture and change in conservative Anabaptist churches. ([Anderson](http://www.beachyam.org/about.htm) has “a Ph.D. in rural sociology” and his research has focused on “the social structure and social change of the plain Anabaptists, with a particular emphasis on the Amish-Mennonites.”) Thus Anderson uses sociological observations to “build… a rational case” (his words) that the head covering should do much more than what is described in 1 Corinthians 11. It should be a distinctive religious symbol (not merely a hair covering) that ties the wearer into a recognized historical religious tradition (Anabaptism), thus preserving a wide range of religious values, not merely the headship truths that Paul presented. (Listen to [these talks](http://www.anabaptistslive.org/?tag=cory-anderson) to hear more. Please tell me if my memory of Anderson’s emphases is incorrect.) Now, I agree, as best as I can understand Scripture, that the headship veiling is for today, and that it should be taught in our churches. But with Anderson’s approach I can’t help wondering: Are we becoming more exciting about sociological methods for culture-building than about obedience to Scripture and the Christ of Scripture?
Others who are less bound to preserving recent Anabaptist traditions might read elsewhere. Those with a similar separatist vision might affirm the [Benedict Option](http://theweek.com/articles/555734/benedict-option-why-religious-right-considering-allout-withdrawal-from-politics) recently popularized by Rod Dreher. In this view, Christians should withdraw from an increasingly hostile surrounding culture and transmit a robust Christian subculture across the generations within their own communities, much as monks preserved Christian intellectual and moral life in monastaries through the European Dark Ages. Other readers prefer authors such as Richard Niebuhr (_Christ and Culture_), Andy Crouch (_Culture Making_), or James Davidson Hunter (_To Change the World_).
Please don’t misunderstand me. While I have not read these particular books (just summaries and reflections from other readers), I certainly do affirm the value of reading widely. And while some of these books appear to be based significantly on sociology, philosophy, or other fields of study, some do wrestle earnestly and productively with Scripture. My concern is not that people are reading such books, but that some readers may not be investing equal energy in searching for themselves what Scripture has to say about tradition and culture. Are we as excited about tracing what the apostles thought about Christianity, tradition, and culture as we are about debating the views of thought-shapers such as Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, Bill Gothard, N.T. Wright, Albert Mohler, Shane Claiborne, Stanley Hauerwas, or Timothy Keller? Who is referenced more in your writing or preaching: Paul or your favorite Christian culture maker/analyst/prophet?
**4\. Selectively cite Scripture to reject any positive role for tradition.** This is a parallel but opposite error to the first I listed. The temptation is huge. There are many examples today of religious traditions hindering people from obeying the word of God. It is easy to spot “Pharisees” in our pulpits and pews—people who demand external conformity to religious traditions but appear unable or unwilling to address matters of the heart. And it is easy to conclude that the word “tradition” is entirely negative, even evil. But mere rejection of tradition is a dead end street. It will not build a church, let alone Christ’s Church. It is only right about what is wrong, but it fails to replace harmful ideas about tradition with a positive NT vision for tradition. It still fails to listen closely to the whole counsel of Scripture about tradition. I’ll stop right now, because I plan to discuss these ideas more in [the sequel to this post](https://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-2-good-examples/).
So those are four things we sometimes do instead of listening carefully to Scripture. I’m sure you could add more.
* * *
**What the NT Says Negatively about Tradition**
**To finish this post about “bad examples,” I’d like to do a quick U-turn and summarize what the NT says negatively about tradition.** In order to simplify a complex topic, I’m going to zero in on just those NT texts that actually use the word _tradition(s)_ in English translations. I’ll keep this survey short because many of us are already familiar with what I’d like to share. But I’ll include this survey because I’m not sure all of us have felt the full weight of these Scriptural warnings.
The words _tradition_ or _traditions_ are found fourteen times in the ESV Bible. In eleven of those fourteen occurrences, the word is used negatively:
**1\. Matthew 17 and Mark 7. Perhaps the most important NT account about tradition-gone-bad is Jesus’ debate with the Pharisees about “the tradition of the elders.”** The central critique that Jesus launches against the Pharisees in this account is that their traditions were preventing them from obeying the word of God. Loyalty to the Corban tradition, for instance, was preventing them from obeying the command for children to honor their parents.
It is important to remember that the traditions of the elders were not random rules made up out of thin air. Rather, they were originally designed to be clarifications, applications, or expansions of commands already found in the Law of Moses. But these traditions had taken on a life of their own until it was considered equally essential to obey the “oral law” as the “written law.” And any time we act as if our applications of Scripture are as important as what Scripture itself teaches, we “make void the word of God” (Mark 7:13).
Please note that we can do this without speaking a single word against God’s word. The mere act of treating man’s word as weightily as God’s word is blasphemy against God’s word, a de facto demotion of God to the status of man.
_**Here are three tests to see whether we have exalted our traditions and applications too highly:**_
**a. Does our _application_ of one of God’s commands hinder us from obeying any other of God’s direct _commands_?** Examples: Does an expectation that all church members give financial support to a church school (application of biblical commands to train our children) hinder us from obeying the command to love our neighbor as ourselves (especially the poor)? Does the practice of having self-supporting ministry (application of command that elders not serve for shameful gain) hinder us from obeying the command that those who preach the gospel must be financially supported, and the command that elders must work hard at caring for the needs of the church? Does a highly programmed service order (application of the command to do all things decently and in order) hinder us from obeying biblical teaching about allowing each person to bring “a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” (1 Cor 14:26)?
**b. Are we more grieved when others disregard our traditions than when we dishonor God’s word?** Examples: Which bothers me more—When my brother fails to bow and pray before his meal or when I grumble about the food in front of me? When my brother worships God while playing his guitar or when I daydream about my new vehicle all through the worship service? When a single mother works part-time as a nurse, leaving her children with a babysitter, or when I fail to help support her and her family?
**c. Do we find it hard to clearly distinguish between our applications and God’s direct commands?** Examples: Which of the following are applications, and which direct Scriptural commands? Converts must complete instruction class before being baptized. We must not drink alcohol. We must not smoke. We must not vote. We must not own TVs. Weddings must be held in churches, with an ordained minister leading. Women must not wear pants. Men must not wear skirts. Answer: They are all applications (or, perhaps for one or two, deduced implications).
(For extended reflection on this account, see [my sermon notes for Mark 7](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Mark-7.1-23-Sermon-notes-Web-version.pdf).)
**2\. Galatians 1:14. This is Paul’s testimony of being a good Pharisee: “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.”** Paul is referring here to the same traditions critiqued by Jesus in Matthew 15. There these traditions were shown to be contrary to the word of God. Here they are shown to be contrary to the church of God (Gal. 1:13), the grace of God (Gal. 1:15), and the Son of God (Gal. 1:16). Those who are most zealous for religious traditions may also be those who preach another gospel and oppress the church.
**3\. Colossians 2:8. Here Paul issues a warning: “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.”** Context and Greek vocabulary both suggest that “human tradition” here could perhaps be another reference to the traditions of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, but that is debated among scholars. Later in the same section of Colossians Paul gets more specific:
> …Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath... Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind…
>
> If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”…—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (From Col. 2:16-23.)
In this passage we can see at least two problems with human religious traditions. First, they don’t do anything to stop us from sinning. Second, and most important, they detract from the sufficiency of Christ. Paul presents a clear contrast: You can walk in the human traditions you may have received, or “as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him” (Col. 2:6). Notice that “received” is the language of tradition, of something being passed on from leaders to followers. Only one tradition can save those who receive it—the tradition of Jesus as Christ and Lord.
**The above passages (Matt. 15, Mark 7, Gal. 1, Col. 2) account for all eleven times that the word _tradition(s)_ is used negatively in the ESV Bible.** In all but one of those cases the underlying Greek word is παράδοσις (paradosis), a word referring to a teaching or tradition that is handed over. In the other case (Mark 7:4) _tradition_ helps translate a phrase that refers to receiving and keeping something handed down.
**The KJV and NKJV use _tradition_ in one more passage:**
> …You were not redeemed with corruptible things, _like_ silver or gold, from your aimless conduct _received_ by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Pet. 1:18-19, NKJV)
Here the phrase refers to a way of life inherited from one’s ancestors. Commentator \[amazon text=Karen H. Jobes&asin=0801026741\] explains:
> The πατροπαραδότος (patroparadotos, ancestral way of life) was esteemed and venerated as the basis of a stable society in both Greek and Jewish culture. First Peter is probably the first Christian writing to use the word in a negative sense for one’s way of life before coming to Christ… The ancestral way of life, though appearing to offer a venerable reality, is precisely that from which one has been redeemed when given new birth into the only true reality established by the resurrection of Christ.[5](#fn-1523-5)
A central theme of this passage is Peter’s urgent call to holy living. How is holy living to be achieved? Not through the “futile ways inherited from your forefathers” (ESV), Peter writes, but through Christ. In context, then, these futile traditions include anything that detracts from Christ—an emphasis similar to Colossians 2. Christ has redeemed us from the futility of trying to achieve holiness through adherence to human traditions. Praises to our Savior!
**These passages make it clear that _tradition_ is usually used in a negative sense in the NT.** The evidence is overwhelming: Again and again we see tradition is opposed to the word of God, to grace, to the church, to our own holiness and salvation, and to Christ.
**Is there really any room left for a positive vision for tradition?** Well, we still have three instances of _tradition_ to account for in the ESV NT. God willing, I’ll use them in [a forthcoming post](https://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-2-good-examples/) as the launching pad to talk about “good examples” of tradition. Listening well to the Scriptures demands that we hear the whole biblical story and not just that aspect of tradition (pro or con) that fits most comfortably with our personal stories.
* * *
**It’s your turn.** Have you experienced similar examples of how we listen poorly to what Scripture says about tradition? What authorities do you hear us relying on when we turn from Scripture to other voices? How would you summarize the Bible’s critique of tradition-gone-bad? **[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-1-bad-examples/#respond)**
1. _Pastoral Messenger_ (Scottdale, Pa.), July 1957, pp. 7-8. Article signed by J.P.G. (J. Paul Graybill). Emphasis added. Cited by Melvin Gingerich, _Mennonite Attire through Four Centuries_ (Breinigsville, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1970; dist. by Herald Press), p. 102. [↩](#fnref-1523-1)
2. Ibid.. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-1523-2)
3. Gingerich, _Mennonite Attire_, 148. [↩](#fnref-1523-3)
4. Ibid., 157. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-1523-4)
5. Karen H. Jobes, _1 Peter_, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 118. [↩](#fnref-1523-5)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Study Resources for Hebrews
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-05-31
Category: Study Resources for Bible Books
Meta Title: Study Resources for Hebrews | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here are some resources for teaching and preaching from Hebrews.
Tags: Gareth L. | Cockerill, Thomas R. | Schreiner, Sunday School, George | Guthrie, Hebrews, I. Howard | Marshall, Peter T. | O'Brien, William L. | Lane
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-hebrews
**Those of us who use the Christian Light Publications Sunday School materials will be studying Hebrews for the next three months** (June, July, August). I thought I should post a few suggested study helps for this book.
I have never taught the book of Hebrews, but here are some resources I would want to use if I did. First, however, let me remind you that _**the very best thing you can do to understand any book of the Bible better is to prayerfully read it over and over**_. Some of the best preachers have said they aim to read a book 50 times before beginning a preaching series on it! If you want to understand as deeply as you are capable of understanding, here are more reading tips for those 50 (or 25?) times through Hebrews:
* Read it straight through, in one sitting.
* Try reading aloud.
* Try listening to an audio Bible.
* Read it in multiple translations (ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, etc.).
* Imagine you are part of the original audience for the letter, or that you are the human author. What can you learn about the needs or concerns of each?
* After several times through, choose a theme/word that intrigues you and listen for it the whole way through as you read.
* Look for patterns of thought in the book (Jesus is better than X; warning against falling from faith; etc), divide the book into sections (chapters divisions aren’t always in the right spot) and give a simple heading to each section.
* After more readings, begin using study helps (below); use them to test your insights and to help you see new things as you read.
* Tell a family member or friend what you are discovering as you read Hebrews; the telling will help you organize and summarize your observations, leading to new insights.
**Commentaries**
For most Sunday School teachers I would recommend \[amazon text=George Guthrie’s commentary&asin=0310493900\] in the NIV Application Commentary series. This series is usually very readable and includes helpful suggestions for applications (implications!) of the text for today. Guthrie’s volume is one of the best in the series, for he is known for his extensive study of the literary structure (outline) of Hebrews—a book that is harder to outline than many, given its sermon-style delivery. (Isn’t it hard to find an outline in a lot of sermons today, too?) I have found Guthrie’s commentary helpful.
Some other helpful commentaries:
* \[amazon text=**O’Brien, Peter T.**&asin=0802837298\] _The Letter to the Hebrews._ PNTC. Eerdmans, 2010. 630pp.
* \[amazon text=**Lane, William. L.**&asin=0310521793\] _Hebrews_, 2 vols. WBC. Word, 1991. 617pp.
* \[amazon text=**Cockerill, Gareth L.**&asin=0802824927\] _The Epistle to the Hebrews._ NICNT. Eerdmans, 2012. 742pp.
* \[amazon text=**Schreiner, Thomas R.**&asin=0805496130\] _Hebrews._ BTCP. B&H, 2015. 560pp.
I have O’Brien and have found him helpful. (He draws on Guthrie’s insights and many others.) Lane’s commentary is a modern classic, though I haven’t seen it. Cockerill and Schreiner are new and promising.
**Debates over Calvinism and Arminianism commonly arise while interpreting Hebrews.** Calvinist commentators include Guthrie, O’Brien and Schreiner. Arminian (and/or Wesleyan, which is related) commentators include Lane and Cockerill. In case you’re wondering, I prefer the Arminian reading, despite the fact that I don’t yet own one of those Arminian Hebrews commentaries!
For in-depth help with the question of falling from faith, I recommend \[amazon text=_Kept by the Power of God_&asin=1556355254\], by I. Howard Marshall. (I own this book and have read parts of it.)
If I had more time and experience teaching Hebrews, I’d want to also recommend some online resources and more practical teaching helps. But I’m certain the above resources are some of the best available for those who want to study Hebrews carefully.
**What else would you suggest? [Share resources in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-hebrews/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Trained by Grace, Made Holy by the Gospel
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-05-21
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Trained by Grace, Made Holy by the Gospel | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Meditate deeply on God's grace to you--past, present, and future--and you are sure to grow in holiness. Meditating on rules comes with no such guarantees.
Tags: forgiveness, holiness, gospel, grace, anger, sanctification, -Titus 2:11-15, -Titus 3:3-8, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/trained-by-grace-made-holy-by-gospel
**I’ve suggested in some of my recent blog posts that multiplying church regulations isn’t the solution for producing holiness.** And I’ve said that the gospel of grace _is_ the solution. Grace trains us in holiness:
> For **the grace of God has appeared… training us** to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age. (Tit. 2:11-12; compare Tit. 2:11-15 with Tit. 3:3-8)
It’s always a delight to sense God’s grace operating in our own lives! Here’s a small example from today: A piano student (actually, the student’s parents) failed today for the umpteenth time to come for the scheduled lesson. I’ve decided I’ll adjust my policies to require a minimum of four pre-paid lessons per month, with no same-day cancellations offered. But meanwhile, I’m thankful that I don’t feel angry. Why not?
Because I am keenly aware that my own offenses have been far greater, yet I’ve been given grace! What a wonder! _**Having received this grace, I am equipped and motivated to offer it to others, too.**_
Sanctification isn’t always as easy or immediate as this (and, believe me, I certainly do still struggle with impatience). But the basic path to victory is always the same: lean more heavily on the grace of God shown to us in Christ Jesus.
_**Takeaway: Meditate deeply on the grace of God to you–past, present, and promised for the future–and you are sure to grow in holiness. That’s a guarantee that I’ll never make if you only meditate on a set of rules.**_
**Do you have a testimony of how you have been trained by grace? [Share it below](http://dwightgingrich.com/trained-by-grace-made-holy-by-gospel/#respond), to the glory of God in Christ!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Clarifications about Removing Church Traditions
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-05-21
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Clarifications about Removing Church Traditions | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Should we be drawing parallels between Anabaptist and Jewish traditions? Is it true that removing church rules won't draw anyone closer to Christ?
Tags: Law of Moses, new covenant, separation, gospel, culture, church tradition, -Acts 10, -Matthew 15, uniformity, church standards, -1 Corinthians 5:9-13, -2 Corinthians 6:14-15, -2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, -2 Corinthians 7:2, -Acts 16:3, -Galatians 5:2-4, -Galatians 6:15, church culture
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/clarifications-about-removing-church-traditions
**My recent posts prompted a couple questions that I want to answer briefly here.** Both are good questions, deserving much fuller responses than I will be able to provide. But here’s a start.
* * *
**Q. 1: Should we be drawing parallels between Anabaptist traditions and Jewish traditions?**
As I understand it, the concern here is that comparing the two may cause us to downplay the value of Anabaptist traditions, thus rejecting them too quickly. Here is the question as it was presented to me:
> Is it appropriate to compare the fading Mosaic law at a time when the light of Christ had just come into the world, to the “practice” part of Christian faith and practice that has been established by hundreds of years of born again, Spirit-led Anabaptist believers? One set of rules was outshone by the light of Christ. The other seems to be teetering and threatening to be blotted out by a world that is quickly sliding into darkness as the church is “falling away.”
This is a complicated question! I want to begin by acknowledging the differences. The Mosaic Law clearly belongs to the time before Christ, while Anabaptist traditions have been formed since the time of Christ, by Christ-followers. So, yes, it is very clear that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law (in the sense of being legally bound to observe its rules), but our relationship to church traditions and laws is not always so clear.
That said, I still think we can learn a lot about the potential dangers of regulated church traditions by looking at the Mosaic Law and Jewish traditions.
**First, Jewish traditions did not become a problem only after the institution of the new covenant in Christ.** Already prior to this, Jewish traditions were obscuring God’s true intent with the Law of Moses—see Matthew 15. The word of God for the nation of Israel was being buried under the tradition of the elders. The elders (early Pharisees, etc.) were God-fearing, Law-loving men. They intended this tradition to be a “fence around the law” to ensure no one broke the law. But as the traditions became more extensive and rigid, they actually distracted people from the spirit of the law and hindered people from obeying it. If this all happened within the time of the old covenant, then surely the same can happen today within the time of the new covenant, with its ethical commands. In both cases, good men with good intentions can become badly imbalanced. So I think it is fair and wise to draw lessons from the former for the latter.
**Second, I do not find any NT example of a similar “fence around the law of Christ.”** I do not see any example of an established, prepackaged Christian set of traditions that would parallel the Jewish tradition of the elders. We see no uniform, church-wide sub-culture being promoted, with detailed church standards for things like regulation clothing. On the one hand, this has a natural sociological explanation, for “the Way” was too new to have developed into such an established movement. Indeed, within a couple centuries there _were_ many such church systems, rules, and cultural practices in place.
On the other hand, I think it is significant that the apostles never seem to have envisioned the formation of such a uniform Christian culture. They proclaimed a gospel, not a culture. _**And the gospel is not a culture. The gospel is a message about a King who calls people everywhere to submit their cultures to his reign.**_ Thus in Revelation we see people of _many_ cultures all serving the Lion-Lamb—we see cultural diversity, not homogeneity.
This suggests that _**when we aim to regulate the production of a Christian subculture, we may be borrowing an approach more suitable to the old covenant**_. The Jewish traditions of the elders were based on a Mosaic Law which was designed by God to physically separate Israel from the surrounding nations, forming a people of God identifiable by its own language, geography, national government, foods, and clothing. If a Jew obeyed the food laws of the Mosaic Law, he was physically unable to eat with Gentiles. This was not just an incidental consequence of these food laws; it was the very _purpose_ of the laws—to keep Israel segregated from the influence of their godless neighbors. But this physical segregation was abolished by the introduction of the new covenant (read Acts 10). Spiritual separation from unbelievers is still important (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1), but it is now no longer accomplished by means of physical segregation. (Paul reserves physical segregation for those under church discipline—those who claim to be Christians but don’t live like it; see 1 Cor. 5:9-13.) Rather, spiritual separation is accomplished by being personally cleansed from the sins that unbelievers share in (2 Cor. 6:14-15; 7:1) and by opening our hearts to the apostles and to the gospel message they proclaimed (2 Cor. 6:11-13; 7:2).
_**I want to make some important distinctions within Anabaptist traditions here.**_ Paul’s approach to personal holiness seems consistent with warnings against specific sinful behaviors (including specific clothing items, etc.). It also seems consistent with “holy habits” that a godly community will inevitably form as it follows Christ. But I am not convinced that it is very consistent with an approach that emphasizes prescribed uniform standards—especially when this standard includes rules that have no obvious direct moral significance, rules designed primarily to promote “separation.”
In summary, I think (a) the fact that Jewish traditions were a problem even during the time of the Mosaic Law suggests that church traditions can become a similar problem during the time of the law of Christ. And (b) the fact that the apostles preached a gospel with that promoted holiness by very different means than either the Jewish traditions or the Mosaic Law suggests that we should ask whether regulated church traditions reflect a deep understanding of the gospel.
* * *
**Q. 2: Is it true that “removing even harmful church rules will not, by itself, draw a single person closer to Christ”?**
I made that claim in [my most recent post](https://dwightgingrich.com/thinking-intentionally-about-tradition-change/). One person cited it as my most valuable observation. Another challenged it. Is it true? Here is the question as I received it:
> I guess i don’t get it when someone says that removing harmful church rules has nothing to do with our souls or being a better Christian…. That’s false my friend!!!!…or am I missing something here?????
The key phrase in my statement is the words “by itself.” With that included, I stand by my statement. Without those words, the sentence becomes untrue.
An analogy may help. Merely removing weights from runners will never bring any of them closer to the finish line. However…! If someone has a mind to run, then removing weights may make all the difference as to whether they ever reach the finish line.
If you think I’m being confusing here, listen to Paul. In the letter to the Galatians he writes, “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision” (Gal. 6:15). Yet earlier in the same letter he says this:
> Look: I, Paul, say to you that **if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you**. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Gal. 5:2-4, emphasis added)
So which is true, Paul? Is circumcision neither here nor there, or is it deadly?
Well, it depends. If you are a new creation in Christ (Gal. 6:15), and you are clear that circumcision has zero ability to save you or anyone else, then is neither here nor there. But if you’re thinking you need to be circumcised in order to be saved, or you’re thinking others need to be circumcised in order to be saved, then it’s deadly!
Paul had Timothy circumcised for strategic mission purposes, probably to enable Timothy to enter synagogues with him as they proclaimed Christ on their mission trips (Acts 16:3). But imagine the gross hindrance to the gospel if he had insisted that all converts be circumcised! Similarly, I might wear a regulation plain suit today for strategic purposes, in order to open doors for gospel proclamation and to open the ears of those who might otherwise never listen. Or I might wear it as one of many possible ways to dress in a NT-consistent manner. (Or I might wear it simply because it’s the only suit in my closet, and I’m too cheap to buy another!) But if I insist that I _must_ wear a regulation plain suit, or that others must wear one if they are truly sincere about following Christ, then _**two problems**_ arise: _**First**_, I am confusing myself and others about the true nature of the gospel. _**Second**_, I am creating cultural hurdles for others who may want to respond to the true gospel.
So, to answer the question: It is true, merely removing church rules, even harmful ones, won’t _by itself_ draw anyone closer to Christ. But it is equally true that, _**if I or others are already eager to place faith in Christ or serve him fruitfully in mission, removing unhelpful rules may make a crucial difference for all eternity**_. Thanks for pushing me to speak clearly here!
* * *
**Again, both these questions deserve better answers than I’ve given them here,** but perhaps my responses can help someone continue thinking in gospel-shaped ways about the questions of tradition and change.
**If you have more insights, [please add them in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/clarifications-about-removing-church-traditions/#respond). Thank you!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Thinking Intentionally about Tradition and Change
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-05-18
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Thinking Intentionally About Tradition and Change | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: My main point in this post is captured in these words from John Coblentz: "I wish we could be intentional about change and not just about preservation."
Tags: John | Coblentz, Anabaptist history, culture, church tradition, change, church standards, -Luke 11:24-26, -Philippians 1:27, -Revelation 2-3, -Romans 14:1-15:7, Faith Builders, J. Gordon | Melton, preservation
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/thinking-intentionally-about-tradition-change
**Well, it’s no surprise: The topic of church standards and traditions gets conservative Anabaptists fired up like little else.** My recent posts about [Gerhard Roosen’s critique of Amish clothing rules](https://dwightgingrich.com/holy-scriptures-must-be-our-ruling-standard/), [Frank Reed’s warning about cultural idolatry](https://dwightgingrich.com/christian-atheists-frank-reed/), and [David Bercot’s testimony about cultural hurdles for spiritual seekers](https://dwightgingrich.com/is-radical-lifestyle-hurdle-for-seekers/) are already sitting at 1st, 3rd, and 6th place, respectively, on my list of most-visited blog posts.
Evidently many of you feel that Roosen, Reed, and Bercot are onto something important, whether or not you agree with everything they said or with everything about how I framed their thoughts. Evidently many of you agree we need the reminder to keep church traditions subservient to Scripture. But where do we go from here?
I have no illusions that I can answer this question sufficiently or to everyone’s satisfaction. And I am in no position to specify exactly when or how your church should flex its traditions and standards on a particular point such as regulation suit coats or beards. But **I do feel some responsibility, after having helped raise the issue of problems with church traditions, to suggest some further guidance.** So in this post I want to suggest some basic realities and values to keep in mind as we wrestle with particular questions of tradition and change. And in an upcoming post I hope to examine some of what the New Testament says about the positive role of tradition.
Before I begin: _**One voice I would love to hear more from on the topic of Anabaptist tradition and change is [John Coblentz](http://www.fbep.org/about/personnel/john-barbara-coblentz).**_ In the past I have valued his calm and thoughtful voice, and I think he has more reflective wisdom on this topic up his sleeve. I pray God will nudge him to share it, if doing so would indeed be helpful. (As I reference John, I want to clarify that I’m not claiming he agrees with what I’m writing here.)
**My fundamental point in this post is captured in this sentence I’ve heard John say:**
> **I wish we could be intentional about change and not just about preservation.**
As John has elaborated, we conservative Anabaptists have thought about how to preserve, but we also need to think about how to change. And, what is more, we need to learn to do both _without seeing them in contradiction_.
With that in mind, **here are some suggestions to bear in mind as we think intentionally about tradition and change in our churches:**
**1\. It is easier to tear down than to build, but tearing down is insufficient.** It is easier to be an iconoclast than to build a cathedral, let alone a healthy local church or network of churches. Any fool can grumble about too many church rules. But only a wise man understands the real reasons _why_ too many cultural regulations are a problem, and only divine Holy Spirit guidance can lead a church to make positive changes that build up every member of the body.
In Luke 11:24-26, Jesus warns what will happen to a person who is freed from a demon but does not align themselves with Jesus: The demon will return along with “seven other spirits more evil than itself,” and “the last state of that person is worse than the first.” I think we can make an argument here from greater to lesser. If removing even demons is pointless and dangerous on its own, how much more pointless will it be to content ourselves with taking pot shots at church rules. _**Removing even harmful church rules will not, by itself, draw a single person closer to Christ.**_ \[Update: I clarify this statement [in my next post](https://dwightgingrich.com/clarifications-about-removing-church-traditions/).\] We must set our hearts on Christ, not on personal freedoms. Only Christ-ward change will bring deeper life to our churches.
**2\. The dynamics that are making some conservative Anabaptists dissatisfied with regulated traditions are not likely to go away.** Conservative Anabaptist youth vary widely in how satisfied they are with the traditional religious culture they have inherited from parents and grandparents. In a recent conversation I overheard, one young lady said she would be quick to leave her church if only there were an attractive alternative available nearby. But her friend from the same church replied that she was basically satisfied with their church as it was. She would want only a few small changes.
At a 2014 Faith Builders inter-generational colloquy on challenges facing the conservative Anabaptist church, I was somewhat surprised to hear how many younger men were content to retain many of our traditional religious forms and regulations—as long as we do a much better job of acknowledging which ones are merely cultural rather than directly biblical. That said, at the same forum we discussed how modern developments are fundamentally changing the way we experience church—developments such as electronic communications, national and global travel, missions experiences, the religious blogosphere, the explosion in Christian publishing and our access to it, multiple Bible translations, increasing involvement in higher education, and more. _**The combined effect of such developments is that, for many youth and “not-so-youth,” their local church with its cultural traditions is seen, often rightly so, as just one of many possible ways that faithful Christians have followed Christ.**_
These developments are unlikely to disappear any time soon. One result of these developments is a conclusion that was strongly affirmed by all generations at the Faith Builders colloquy: _**merely providing Scriptural proof-texts in support of Anabaptist cultural traditions is no longer satisfactory**_ (if it ever was). It is becoming increasingly obvious to all that there are many faithful cultural expressions of the same Bible teachings, and proof-texting alone is not sufficient proof for why an individual should choose the particularly Anabaptist traditional expression of a given teaching.
_**In sum, the question of what to do with our traditional church cultures is not going away.**_ Leaders who stick their heads in the sand after reading the concerns of Bercot and Reed are likely to find their flock is restless or scattered when they finally come up for air. (Hello? Do sheep stick their heads in the sand? What’s that? Ostriches run in flocks, too, you say? But since when is the church of Christ compared to a flock of ostriches? And don’t you know that the preferred term for a group of ostriches is a _pride_? Just what are you insinuating, sir? You’re confusing me, Mr. Gingrich!)
In other words, this is a time for intentional change, not only intentional preservation.
**3\. Changes in surrounding cultures make changes in church culture unavoidable.** We need to be very clear here in our thinking. _**The choice is not between change versus no change. The choice is rather in**_ **what kind of change** _**we will experience.**_
What do I mean by this? I draw this point from my observation of church history. On the one hand, we have Anabaptist groups that have changed obviously, in outward ways, such as adopting motorized vehicles or dropping prayer veilings. On the other hand, we have groups such as the Old Order Amish or Mennonites who appear to most casual observers to have changed very little over the past century. But how have they remained “unchanged”? By changing their lists of church rules, expanding and adapting them to address new social and technological developments from without.
As J. Gordon Melton summarizes regarding the Amish, “the number of distinctives multiplied as new innovations in the larger culture were one by one rejected.” And Melton summarizes Mennonite American history like this:
> Given the relatively free atmosphere in the United States, and the large number of issues that were continually pressing upon the Mennonites as they attempted to define themselves as a people apart, it is not surprising that the movement splintered into a number of separate factions. Given the relatively small size of the total Mennonite community (which numbers only several hundred thousand), it is the most splintered segment of American Christianity.”[1](#fn-1489-1)
_**This, too, is change**_—a change that results in churches becoming increasingly distinct from both surrounding culture and each other not only on matters of biblical principle, but on myriad other matters as well.
So, _**just as questioning of Anabaptist cultural traditions is inevitable**_ (point 2), _**so also change is inevitable.**_ The challenge, again, is to be _intentional_ and _wise_ about change. Do you want an ever-growing list of rules? Or a list of consistent length but evolving content, so that your church follows twenty years behind the surrounding culture? Or do you want a change from a list of rules to a focus on other means of achieving church cohesion and holiness? Or some mix of the above? _**All options involve change.**_
Again, this is a time for intentional change, not only intentional preservation.
**4\. Change rarely happens neatly or uniformly, so we should extend grace for Christ-centered, Scripture-bounded diversity.** What issues do you think conservative Anabaptists today should change or preserve? Now think back to yourself ten or twenty years ago. How would you have answered that question then? Differently? If so, how would you have liked the twenty-years-ago you to be treated by the now-you? Here’s my point: _**Most of us experience changes in our understandings about Bible and church over time, and none of experience exactly the same changes at exactly the same times. Therefore, let us extend grace.**_
I am happy to count as my brothers and sisters all who are in Christ, all who are relying on his grace for salvation and all who are seeking to follow him within the bounds of the guidance of Scripture. Do any of us rely on grace perfectly or identify the bounds of Scripture perfectly? No. And are there some who claim to rely on Christ and honor Scripture who do not actually do so? Yes! But I am convinced that many within a wide range of conservative Anabaptist churches, for example, do so _sufficiently_, that is sufficiently to be part of the true church of Christ. (And many, I hasten to add, who are not Anabaptists; but I’m speaking here to my main readership.)
_**Could every one of our churches change in ways that would better honor Christ and reflect the guidance of Scripture? Absolutely!**_ And may we do so, lest our candlesticks be removed (Rev. 2-3)! _**And meanwhile, may our mutual exhortations continue with both zeal and gracious patience.**_
This point, of course, is also an argument for embracing more cultural diversity in our inter-church relationships and, where possible, within our congregations. Rather than monitoring all our intra- and inter-church relationships by rules on matters of divergent opinion, we should learn to welcome each other as we have been welcomed by Christ (Romans 14:1-15:7).
_**Again, two quotes from John Coblentz can help us here.**_ (1) For those of us who are impatient to see urgently needed changes in church standards, we can remember what those who resist change may be aware of: _**“Even good changes have losses.”**_ (2) And for those of us who are inclined to draw our lines of regulation and association too narrowly, may we learn to say, _**“I have purposed to rejoice in Jesus wherever I see him.”**_
Finally, as we still disagree on some important though secondary matters, may Christ find us working together as Paul hoped to find the Philippian believers: living lives “worthy of the gospel of Christ” and “standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27).
**Much more could be said, but this is enough for now.** Even as I urge some patience above, I want to reaffirm my agreement with the concerns raised by Roosen, Reed, and Bercot. I long for our churches to be more fully and _obviously_ centered on Christ, dependent on the Holy Spirit, and guided by Scripture. To the extent that our churches are not each of these, there will be eternal loss: we will fail to meet the needs of generations who are hungry for authenticity and timeless truth. By God’s grace, I’ll share in a coming post some ideas about how we can gain a more Scriptural understanding of the role of tradition in church life and spiritual formation.
**How would you add to this post?** What do you think we should remember in order to think intentionally and wisely about tradition and change? **[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/thinking-intentionally-about-tradition-change/#respond)**
1. J. Gordon Melton, _Nelson’s Guide to Denominations_ (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 248, 249-50. [↩](#fnref-1489-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Jasmine, Our Blossom [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-05-15
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Jasmine, Our Blossom | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In 2011 a precious baby girl was born. Terrifying blood sugar crashes over the next months led to a frightening diagnosis: Jasmine had hypopituitarism.
Tags: trust, poetry, purpose, -1 Samuel 1:27, -Ecclesiastes 3:11, -Job 1:5, -Job 3, -Matthew 7:9, hypopituitarism, theodicy, transience
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/jasmine-our-blossom
_It’s time for another poem from Mom! So I’ll remind you of [the introduction to this monthly series](https://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/) and hand the microphone directly to my mother. Enjoy!_
* * *
In early 2011 a precious baby girl was born to our son Brent and his wife, Carolyn. Terrifying blood sugar crashes over the next months led to a frightening diagnosis. Jasmine had [hypopituitarism](http://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions-and-treatments/conditions/hypopituitarism), an incurable, life-threatening congenital condition.
Jasmine with my parents, Ken and Elaine.
This poem was born on a woodland walk in early May when I felt a desperate need to hear from God. I tossed my questions to the skies and tramped my fears into the forest floor. At my feet the spring blossoms were bursting through the mulch of years past. Poetry is for me a process of discovery, not a pronouncement of pat answers. In the work of God’s fingers I hear whispers of His ways and glimpse parables of His power. On this morning I again sensed God communing with me in the garden of His creative handiwork.
* * *
JASMINE: OUR BLOSSOM
At this time
Of trilliums and violets
Spring beauties and baby leaves
When eternity in our heart grieves
For everything exquisite and beautiful in its time
Whose time is so brief
Leaving behind fading fragrance
Beneath fronds of ferns
In springtime full-leaf—
At this time
Must we alone
Join Job
In receiving stone for bread,
Who wished himself dead,
Who had asked only to be just and merciful
Until he felt the full-force blow of physical
Loss and anguish?
Must we also
Face this puzzle too powerful
For that perfect and upright man?
Like Job who prayed for his children,
For this child’s coming too we prayed,
And open-hearted thanked you for the gift.
Each trillium opens pure and perfect to our sight.
So why at this time this blight,
This tiny hidden deadly flaw
Within this delicate blossom
This cherished child we received with awe?
I pace the wooded paths and ask:
How can You so distant and non-physical
Ethereal and other
Immense and grandiose of plan
Comprehend our weight?
Until I look beneath my feet—
You who find purpose in this brief
Exquisite woodland extravagance,
Each baby leaf,
What have you given us, bereft—
A stone? Or gift?
This we do know,
Whatever life may deny or grant her,
Your love will be her constant shelter,
Till past all brevity
And all disaster,
For all eternity in perfect beauty
Our Jasmine will bloom
Radiant with laughter
Happily forever after.
—Elaine Gingrich, May 12, 2011
* * *
The trillium, Ontario’s provincial flower.
Photo Credit: [anthony\_7x](https://www.flickr.com/photos/38392868@N07/7173837566/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
* * *
Four years have passed since my woodland walk, and our “grand-blossom” is still blooming, exquisite and vibrant, hardy and full of life. Despite heart-stopping 911 calls and anxious hospital stays God has graciously preserved Jasmine’s life. Specialists at [Sick Kid’s Hospital](http://www.sickkids.ca/), a fine-tuned, carefully scheduled regimen of hormones, funding for the incredibly expensive growth hormone, many miracles, and the constant vigilance of loving parents have been God’s gifts to Jasmine’s health.
As with all flowers, we have to learn how to hold such a delicate life in our hands without crushing it, to delight in today with no demands on tomorrow. Must I know God’s purposes before I accept what He sends? Can I joy in the beauty of today and find His grace for any attending pain and for the uncertainty of tomorrow?
Jasmine, December 2014.
Jasmine revels in life—in each moment of it. True, she hates needles, but she loves people and runs laughing to meet life, with arms wide open, eyes sparkling and her voice full of laughter. She is learning to cast a line so she can go fishing with her big brothers. She has crammed a lot of living into four years, and her energy and delight seem boundless. As her grandma, I hold each moment with her in a special place in my heart, and I rest in knowing God holds both of us in His.
* * *
_If you enjoyed this poem, [**leave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/jasmine-our-blossom/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353292584-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
* * *
_PS: You might also enjoy [Mom’s poem about one of Jasmine’s big brothers, my nephew Curtis](https://dwightgingrich.com/watching-you-watch-the-birds/)._
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Christian Atheists” – Guest Post by Frank Reed
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-05-13
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "Christian Atheists" - By Frank Reed | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We have come so far from our Biblical heritage that we now have adopted our own version of culture as god... And when you challenge god you are an atheist.
Tags: church leadership, authority, culture, youth, church standards, -Isaiah 42:8, atheism, denominations, idolatry
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/christian-atheists-frank-reed
_**Hopefully some of you have already read this.** Several days ago Frank Reed wrote this piece on his blog, [Biblical Brethren Fellowship](https://biblicalbrethrenfellowship.wordpress.com/). I asked him if I could re-post it here, since it connects so well with several of my recent posts, including [yesterday’s](https://dwightgingrich.com/holy-scriptures-must-be-our-ruling-standard/), which prompted my busiest-yet day on this blog._
_Who is Frank Reed? Here’s how he described himself just yesterday on his blog (in [another post](https://biblicalbrethrenfellowship.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/what-can-we-do/) well worth your time):_
> I am a committed Anabaptist. I have sought and obtained training in Bible and church history so as to better serve my people and have neglected personal life and business to serve the community. I have served as teacher and administrator in various areas of Mennonite and Brethren education.
_I know Frank from his involvement as a teacher at [Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute](http://smbi.org/) and from listening to [several talks he gave at Anabaptist Identity Conferences](http://www.anabaptistslive.org/?s=Frank+Reed&submit=Search). We’ve only met briefly a time or two, but Frank has my respect and the respect of others I respect. I know that he loves the Lord and that he loves people (what better reputation could one want?), including the youth he has taught for many years. He also deeply loves the church of Christ—deeply enough to take risks for her good, as you will soon see.
_
_One more thing before I share Frank’s post: **I encourage you to subscribe to [his blog](https://biblicalbrethrenfellowship.wordpress.com/)**. You will find Frank a worshipful, insightful, and seasoned voice. Frank has been blogging there since 2012, and **I think he just might be entering his best blogging season**. This winter his life was nearly taken in an auto accident, and now Frank is speaking with new urgency. Listen, pray, and act._
* * *
**Christian Atheists
**(by Frank Reed)
What is Anabaptism when it is not cloaked in Mennonite or Amish or Hutterite or Brethren cultural dress? In other Words, What if we could separate our current cultures from the earliest Biblical/Anabaptist concepts? What would our churches look like then? Would there be enough Biblical content in our cultures to continue to exist as churches?
That is a legitimate and important question. That is the question that many people (especially youth) are asking. That is the question that most church groups are not answering.
Most church groups are insisting on their view of Anabaptism or Pietism while ignoring their Biblical heritage – ignoring it to the extent of marginalizing those who deviate from their specific definitions.
So, whether it is the church rules or the minute book or the denomination or anything else, groups are insisting on their specifics and labeling others as disrespectful of authority. This is essentially idolatry. We have come so far from our Biblical heritage that we now have adopted our own version of culture as god.
This has resulted in a long-term selection process. Compliants are retained while leaders are eliminated. Group maintenance is the primary objective. The group has become god and when you challenge god you are an atheist.
Christians in Rome were called Atheists. Atheists? How could Christians be atheists? All you have to do to become an atheist is to deny god. The Christians denied the god(s) of the Romans and so Rome would not tolerate the Christians.
If you do not do obeisance to the denominational gods of today, you will not be tolerated. I know.
The only choice we have is to change our gods. There is only one God and He will not tolerate rivals.
For the sake of the next generations, I beg of you, we are running out of time to change our gods…
The Bible says:
**I am the LORD,**
**That is My name;**
**And My glory I will not give to another,**
**Nor My praise to graven images.**
Isaiah 42:8
What about you? Is your heart right with God or are you dependent on a cultural system? It is possible to worship idols with a clear conscience. Many people in this world do exactly that.
Examine the Word of God and hear what He says to you through the Holy Spirit. Only then can you be sure that you are a Christian who rejects the gods of this world for the one true God who will tolerate no rivals – not even good cultural rivals.
* * *
_Frank doesn’t have a comments section on his blog, but you can [find his email there](https://biblicalbrethrenfellowship.wordpress.com/about/) if you want to message him privately. He might enjoy hearing from you, but **I think he’d be most honored if you simply stop right now and open your heart honestly to the Lord** about whatever you’re thinking after reading Frank’s words._
_Ask for renewal in your heart and mine. Ask for a deeper work of the Spirit of Christ within our churches._
_**Also feel free to [comment here if you wish](http://dwightgingrich.com/christian-atheists-frank-reed/#respond). Thanks for reading!**_
_For Christ and his Church,_
_Dwight_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “The Holy Scriptures Must Be Our Ruling Standard”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-05-12
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "The Holy Scriptures Must Be Our Ruling Standard" | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: "The Holy Scriptures must be our ruling standard... It is a dangerous venture to step into the judgment of God and bind that which is not bound in heaven."
Tags: Anabaptist history, holiness, John S. | Coffman, Melvin | Gingerich, catechism, Gerhard | Roosen, Amish, Robert | Friedmann, Roosen's Catechism, David | Bercot, gospel, grace, clothing, social classes, character, culture, biblicism, uniformity, church standards, -1 John 2:16-17, -1 Peter 3:3-5, -1 Timothy 2:19, -1 Timothy 2:8-10, -Colossians 2:14-18, -Matthew 10:10, -Romans 12:16, -Romans 15:1-7, -Titus 3:2, fashion, J.M. | Vincent, Jacob | Ammann, John C. | Wenger, sumptuary legislation, worldliness, Zurich Ordinance
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/holy-scriptures-must-be-our-ruling-standard
**A couple weeks ago I posted [a quote from David Bercot](https://dwightgingrich.com/is-radical-lifestyle-hurdle-for-seekers/) that received quite a bit of interest.** Bercot asked us to acknowledge that Mennonite customs and traditions—“things that are added to us that are not biblical requirements”—can “add up and become quite a hurdle” for genuine spiritual seekers.
What Bercot said was not unusual. It is very easy to find other people saying the same sort of thing. And, to be honest, it is also easy enough to find people who say pretty much the opposite—who believe that prescribed Mennonite traditions aren’t much of a barrier if someone is really serious about following Christ.
A testimony alone is not proof of the truth of a claim. What makes Bercot’s words compelling, however, is the life behind his words. Bercot has a pretty solid track record of both preaching and living radical “kingdom Christianity.” His words about cultural barriers have credibility because his life testifies that he is willing to make hard choices for the sake of following Christ. Do I agree with him at every turn? No. Do I listen when he talks? Yes. He has earned our ear.
**When words are backed up not only by a life but also—and this is even more important—by the weight of Scripture, then we should listen carefully. Such is the case with the words of a man I’d like to introduce in this post.**
**Gerhard Roosen** was a name I didn’t recognize until I encountered him in my studies this past month. But for generations of Mennonites and Amish his name was familiar indeed, perhaps nearly as widely recognized as (though less important than) the name Menno Simons.
[Gerhard (or Gerrit) Roosen](http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Roosen,_Gerrit_%281612-1711%29) (1612-1711) was a Mennonite bishop in northern Germany. **He is famous today mostly for the catechism he published when he was 90 years old**, the _[Christliches Gemütsgespräch](http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Christliches_Gem%C3%BCtsgespr%C3%A4ch_%28Monograph%29&oldid=106756)_ or “_Christian Spiritual Conversation on Saving Faith and the Acknowledging of the Truth Which Is After Godliness in Hope of Eternal Life_ _(Titus 1:1, 2), in Questions and Answers for the Rising Youth, by Which They May Be Incited and Encouraged to a Wholesome Practice of Life._” The common English title is simply _Roosen’s Catechism._
Published in Germany in 1702, Roosen’s catechism is “the first complete German Mennonite catechism in existence.”[1](#fn-1461-1) It was reprinted in German or English at least fifteen times from 1769 through 1892 in various North American communities, as well as more recently.[2](#fn-1461-2) Robert Friedmann observed that “few books have met with such general approval among Mennonites everywhere as the _Gemütsgespräch_, the outstanding catechism of the church as a whole.”[3](#fn-1461-3) This catechism is one helpful window into Mennonite theology in the pre-revivalist, pre-Daniel Kauffman era. You can [read an English translation here](https://archive.org/details/christianspirit00ebygoog).
According to Melvin Gingerich writing in 1970, this catechism “is still being read by the Amish.”[4](#fn-1461-4) This use of Roosen’s catechism by the Amish is somewhat curious to me, given that Roosen was not Amish and, what is more, that he strongly critiqued some practices of the Amish.
**It is this critique by Roosen of some Amish rules that I’d like to share here. I want to talk about Roosen’s letter rather than Roosen’s catechism.** But I also want us to remember that behind Roosen’s letter is the trusted leader who wrote Roosen’s catechism. As with Bercot and his words, the life behind the words makes the words more compelling. And more importantly, we should consider Roosen’s appeal to Scripture.
Here is Melvin Gingerich’s introduction to Roosen’s letter and to Roosen, whom he calls a “man of deep piety and moderate views”:
> For the time before Jacob Ammann, leader of the conservative schism which appeared in Switzerland in 1693, no \[Anabaptist\] documents have been found prescribing a definite form of dress, although a degree of uniformity of style was achieved in some groups by forbidding certain styles and colors of costume. In 1697 a deeply respected and very influential leader and an elder of the North German Mennonites, Gerhard Roosen, wrote a letter to the Alsatian brethren protesting against the strict rules on clothing that had been made by Jacob Ammann.[5](#fn-1461-5)
And here is Roosen’s letter, written when he was 85 years old:
> I am sincerely grieved that you have been so disturbed by those who think highly of themselves, and make laws of things which are not upheld in the Gospel. Had it been specified in the apostolic letters how or wherewith a believer should be clothed, or whether he should go in this or that country and this were disobeyed, then these had something of which to speak; but it is more contrary to the Gospel to affix one’s conscience to a pattern of the hats, clothes, stockings, shoes, or the hair of the head (Colossians 2:14-18), or make a distinction in which country one lives; and then, for one to undertake the enforcement of such regulations by punishing with the ban, all who will not accept them, and to expel from the church, as a leaven; those who do not wish to avoid those thus punished, though neither the Lord Jesus in His Gospel or His holy apostles have bound us to external things, nor have deemed it expedient to provide such regulations and laws. I agree with what the Apostle Paul says in Colossians 2 (verse 16), that the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, is not obtained “in meat or in drink,” nor in this or that, in the form or pattern of clothing; to which external things our dear Saviour does not oblige use.
>
> Wherefore then does our friend, Jacob Ammann, undertake to make laws of such things for the people, and to expel from the church those who will not obey him? If he considers himself a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and advocates a literal administration of the law, then he must not wear two coats, nor carry money in his purse, or shoes on his feet. \[Matthew 10:10.\] If he does not adhere to the letter of his Lord, how dare he insist on obedience form his fellow men, in regulations he has not received from his lawmaker? Oh, that he might do as the Apostle Paul has done, in the fear of the Lord; showing meekness to all men. \[Titus 3:2.\] The apostle’s advice is: that the “strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak” \[Romans 15:1-7\].
>
> In all of Paul’s letters we do not find one word in which he has given believers regulations concerning the forms of clothing they should have, but in all things he instructed them to “condescend to men of low estate” \[Romans 12:16\] according to all decency and modesty. \[See 1 Timothy 2:9.\] I hold that it is becoming to adapt the manner of dress to the current customs of one’s environments; but it is reasonable that we abstain from luxuries, pride, and carnal worldly lusts \[1 John 2:16-17\], not immediately adopting the latest styles of fashionable clothing; which is certainly something to be reproved, but when it has come into common usage then it is honorable to follow in such common apparel, and to walk in humility. But, thanks be to God, I do not want showy array or worldly lusts, and have always continued wearing nearly the same pattern of clothes; but if I had dressed in modern fashion, should I then, for this reason, be excommunicated? This would be an injustice, and contrary to the Scriptures. The Lord has, indeed, made regulations in the church of God, for punishment of the contentious, and those conducting themselves contrary to the ordinances of God, as set forth in the Gospel. Herein it must be determined whether the things we wish to bind are also bound there, or are commanded to be bound.
>
> The Holy Scriptures must be our ruling standard; to this we must yield, not running before it, but following, and that not untimely, but with care, fear, and regret; for it is a dangerous venture to step into the judgment of God and bind that which is not bound in heaven.
>
> So much written in love and truth for your service and instruction in things worth while. I can hardly leave off writing to you. The beloved heavenly Father and God of consolation sustain and strengthen you in all oppressions, and bless you in body and soul, to His honor and to your salvation. Amen. From me, your brother, Gerhart Roosen of Hamburg.[6](#fn-1461-6)
**I think Roosen overstates his case just a little.** It is perhaps not strictly true that “in all of Paul’s letters we do not find one word in which he has given believers regulations concerning the forms of clothing they should have.” Roosen would have done well to acknowledge Paul’s prohibitions in 1 Timothy 2:8-10:
> I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.
He could also have mentioned 1 Peter 3:3-5:
> Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands…
These apostolic exhortations match what we generally find in the earliest Anabaptist writings—general admonitions to a humble modesty of dress, a few specific examples of the kinds of adornment to avoid, and a focus on developing a Christ-like spirit and character, but an absence of regulation attire or long lists of clothing rules.
Roosen’s letter could have been strengthened by mentioning these passages, for their emphasis matches his very well. But, to be fair, we should acknowledge that when Roosen claimed Paul gave no “regulations concerning the forms of clothing,” by _forms_ Roosen quite likely meant _specific clothing designs or styles_ (cut of coat, etc.), not merely clothing adornments. If that is what he meant, then Roosen was fully correct in his claim.
**The question of clothing rules is more complex than two or three testimonies or letters.** (If you want to read more of this history, I recommend Melvin Gingerich’s book \[amazon text=_Mennonite Attire Through Four Centuries_&asin=B007ETO0II\] as one very helpful place to continue.) History is littered with countless numbers who have affirmed words such as Roosen’s and then abused grace as a license for vain and sensual living. And the cultural pressures we face today regarding clothing are not the same as the ones the Anabaptists faced in Roosen’s day.
**That said, the Scriptures have not changed, and the gospel has not changed.** True regeneration of heart and lifestyle happens the same way today as it did in Roosen’s day, which is the same way it happened in the time of Jesus and his apostles: by grace. J.S. Coffman realized this as well as Roosen did, and [he said similar things](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-grace-alone-can-do-js-coffman/) near the end of his life.
**If Jacob Ammann did not get the idea of uniform clothing rules from Scripture, where did he get it?** He certainly didn’t get it from the first generation of Anabaptists, for historical records indicate that while they were being persecuted they were indistinguishable from their neighbors based on their clothing.
I’m sure there were many influences on Ammann’s thinking, but here is one important one: the world around him. _**Ammann’s clothing rules were a worldly idea. What do I mean by this?**_ What I mean is that in northern Europe, and in Switzerland in particular, the Reformation era was a time of multiple civil laws about clothing. Gingerich explains:
> These laws attempted not only to freeze the social classes but also to keep the lower classes from spending too much money on luxury items. As illustrations of this kind of ordinances, one can cite the Zurich Ordinance of 1628, the Basel Ordinance of 1637, the Zurich Ordinance of 1650, and the Nuremberg Ordinance, which named what each class was expected to wear and what was forbidden them.[7](#fn-1461-7)
“In cities of Switzerland,” writes Gingerich, “this kind of legislation… became increasingly strict so that city councils ‘even went so far as to prescribe the length of certain garments, length of shoe points or height of bonnets.'”[8](#fn-1461-8)
Jacob Ammann was very familiar with these laws, for [he was a tailor](http://amishamerica.com/amish-dress-code/). As a tailor, he was responsible to tell his customers what kind of clothes they were permitted to wear. If he failed to do this, he and his customers could be fined. It seems that when Ammann became an Amish bishop, he advocated a similar rules-based approach within his church. In fact, he went beyond the civil laws which prohibited lower classes from wearing ornamentation reserved for the upper classes, and beyond what some previous Anabaptists had done in forbidding certain specific excesses for all their members (such as crimson linen or high-heeled shoes). His regulations were so specific and extensive that they resulted in a regulated uniform attire.
This is what I mean when I say that Ammann’s clothing rules were a worldly idea. _**In trying to avoid conformity to the worldliness of upper class clothing, Ammann conformed to a very worldly method: detailed clothing regulations.**_ Perhaps now we can better understand why Roosen so strongly objected, and why he kept pointing to the gospel and emphasizing that “the Holy Scriptures must be our ruling standard.”
**It is not easy to discuss such topics well.** In writing this, I am taking risks. Some may agree with me so strongly that they show no patience for anyone who wants to nuance things differently. (If you’re a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.) Others may disagree strongly, thinking I am undermining our ability to preserve a godly lifestyle. (If you’re a nail, then every solution feels like a hammer.) Others, whether they agree or not, may sigh when they see me getting on my hobby horse again!
I readily admit that each of us tends to have our pet topics, and that one of my central concerns is the question of how our Anabaptist churches can do a better job of rooting both holiness and loving unity—at the same time—in the gospel of grace. To the extent that the gospel is my pet topic, I do not apologize. Where I have undeniable gaps and imbalances, I remind you that this blog is intentionally focused and not designed as a one-stop-meets-all-needs source of spiritual nourishment. I also invite your responses to help balance my thinking.
**Let us be patient with each other** as we seek to understand our Anabaptist history and—more importantly—the Scriptures better. Let us give each other time to grow in our understanding and in living lives made holy by grace. _**But in our patience, let’s keep prodding each other back to the apostolic testimony, back to the gospel, and back to Christ.**_
[**I invite your responses in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/holy-scriptures-must-be-our-ruling-standard/#respond) **May you be clothed in the grace of Christ—and may it show in the clothes you wear!**
1. Robert Friedmann. “Christliches Gemütsgespräch (Monograph).” _GAMEO_ (1953); available from < http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Christliches\_Gem%C3%BCtsgespr%C3%A4ch\_(Monograph)&oldid=106756>; accessed 18 April 2015. [↩](#fnref-1461-1)
2. John C. Wenger. _The Doctrines of the Mennonites_ (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1950), 111. [↩](#fnref-1461-2)
3. Robert Friedmann. _Mennonite Piety Through the Centuries_ (Goshen, IN: Goshen College, 1929), 144. Quoted in Wenger, _Doctrines_, 111. [↩](#fnref-1461-3)
4. Melvin Gingerich, _Mennonite Attire Through Four Centuries_ (Breinigsville, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1970, dist. by Herald Press), 18. [↩](#fnref-1461-4)
5. Ibid., 18. [↩](#fnref-1461-5)
6. Ibid., 19-20. [↩](#fnref-1461-6)
7. Ibid., 15. [↩](#fnref-1461-7)
8. Ibid., 11; quoting J.M. Vincent, “Sumptuary Legislation,” _Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences_ (New York: Macmillan, 1931), Vol. 14, pp. 464-66. [↩](#fnref-1461-8)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Contentment: “Whose God Is Their Belly”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-05-11
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Contentment: "Whose God Is Their Belly" | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: If you want real contentment, don't focus on renouncing your desires. Get a real God. Rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Tags: suffering, idolatry, -Philippians 1:18-21, -Philippians 3:1, -Philippians 3:17-21, -Philippians 4:10-11, -Philippians 4:4, contentment, gods
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/contentment-whose-god-is-their-belly
**Now that it is summer, I spend my Saturdays at the [Des Moines Downtown Farmers’ Market](http://www.desmoinesfarmersmarket.com/),** selling baked goods for my brother-in-law with Mast Family Farm. The best part of market is interacting with customers. I hope we bless them, though I am not always sure we do.
This past Saturday a frequent customer walked up to me at the pie stand. As he approached, I noticed that his shirt was bulging out over his belt. He patted this bulge rather tenderly as he neared the stand, and immediately Paul’s words flashed through my mind: “Whose god is their belly” (Phil. 3:19 NKJV).
I know, my mind isn’t always kind. But that’s the way it sometimes works. And the way the customer patted his stomach did indeed look like he was expressing devotion to his god. More importantly, the way he bought two pies and deliberated about a third suggested that his god has grown because he as been feeding it. (If you struggle with weight gain despite valiant self-control, as many do, please know you have my sympathy, not my condemnation.)
I don’t enjoy selling pies at such moments. As I said, I hope we bless most of our customers.
**“Whose god is their belly.” I thought of these words again this morning in Sunday School class,** when we were talking about Paul’s example of contentment. Paul said, “I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content” (Phil. 4:11).
The Sunday School quarterly suggested that the kind of contentment that Paul was writing about was the kind where we “limit our desires or actions.” I think I understand what the quarterly writer meant, but I’m not sure that definition of contentment captures the full picture of Paul’s testimony.
**What enabled Paul to be content in all circumstances?** How did he “learn” contentment? Did he simply learn to limit his desires? Was Paul a closet Hindu, believing that the key to escaping suffering is to escape desire? I don’t think so.
**I think the real secret of Paul’s contentment is found in the fact that he was devoted to the right God.** In the first chapter of Philippians Paul recounts how he is in prison, and how some envious rivals are taking advantage of his imprisonment by doing some preaching of their own, hoping in their selfish ambition to add to Paul’s misery. But Paul doesn’t mind, as long as they are preaching Christ. “What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, **Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice**.” (Phil 1:18, emphasis added).
_**Christ was Paul’s God, and as long as Christ was being exalted, Paul was content. As long as Christ was being exalted, Paul rejoiced.**_ “Yes, and **I will rejoice**,” Paul continued, “for… it is my eager expectation and hope that… now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Phil. 1:18-21, emphasis added).
“**Rejoice _in the Lord_,**” Paul told the Philippians. “**Rejoice in the Lord** always; again I will say, **rejoice**.” And again: “**I rejoiced in the Lord** greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. Not that I am speaking of being in need, for **I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content**. (Phil. 3:1; 4:4, 10-11, emphasis added).
How did Paul learn contentment? I think one way he learned contentment was through suffering. Each time Paul suffered—and he suffered a great deal indeed—each time he suffered, he grew even closer to his Lord, the one who had born the cross for him. Suffering for his Lord drew him closer to his Lord, causing him to rejoice ever more deeply and exclusively in his Lord.
Paul was not content to remain in his current state of spiritual maturity. He was pressing on to share more fully in the cross of his Lord, in order that he might also share in the resurrection of his Lord (Phil. 3:7-16). But Paul was content with his God—content with and eagerly anticipating the appearing of his Lord Jesus Christ:
> “Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, **their god is their belly**, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. **But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ**, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” (Phil. 3:17-21, emphasis added).
When your mind is on autopilot, do you think of earthly things or heavenly things? When your hands reach out for something to pat, what god do they serve?
**If you want real contentment, don’t focus on renouncing your desires. Get a real God. Rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ.**
Some of you have learned contentment in ways I still have not. How have you learned to rejoice single-heartedly in Christ? **[Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/contentment-whose-god-is-their-belly/#respond)**
* * *
PS: For similar thoughts on how good desires are the key to overcoming evil desires, you might enjoy reading an old essay by Thomas Chalmers entitled “The Expulsive Power of a New Affection.” See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/expulsive-power-new-affection/).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Is a “Radical Lifestyle” a Hurdle for Seekers?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-04-30
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Is a "Radical Lifestyle" a Hurdle for Seekers? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I... do not find the legitimate expressions of... radical Christianity, to be hurdles or barriers. It’s the ones that are Mennonite custom and traditions.
Tags: David | Bercot, culture, biblicism, church tradition, missions, Anabaptist Identity Conference, church standards, pride, seekers
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/is-radical-lifestyle-hurdle-for-seekers
**One conversation that caught my ear at the Anabaptist Identity Conference last month** was a segment of a panel discussion called “[The Turtle Wins](http://www.anabaptistslive.org/?p=640).” David Bercot was asked a question from the floor:
> I’m concerned about the mentality that would lead us to think a radical lifestyle is a hurdle, or makes it—is going to reduce the attraction of the gospel, \[unclear\] make us less effective in our mission in the world.
The moderator helped clarify the intent of the question: _**Does our radical lifestyle pose a hurdle for seekers and make us less effective in our evangelistic mission?**_ (“Radical lifestyle” was left undefined, but the questioner was asking about the lifestyle of conservative Anabaptists.)
This is how David Bercot responded:
> I personally do not find the legitimate expressions of biblical lifestyle, radical Christianity, to be hurdles or barriers. It’s the ones that are Mennonite custom and traditions, those are what make it hard, because other things you can explain to your children, your spouse, say, “Well, hey, it’s right here in the Bible, you know. It may seem strange just because everybody else has dropped it, but it’s in the Bible.” But when you try to explain, you know, why you have to wear a plain coat rather than something else—and some of those are little things that, sure, you know, we can conform to—but, yeah, they can add up and become quite a hurdle. Sometimes it’s forgotten that we have families, too. We have relatives. You all have a blessing that your aunts, your uncles, your grandparents are all Anabaptist. You have family reunions—well, you know, we have family too. And the more things that are added to us that are not biblical requirements, they’re just to fit into Mennonite culture, make us look that much strange and different to our families. And we care about them as well. And I don’t know where the perfect answer is. There just… I think there needs to be a sensitivity that, yeah, everything cuts both ways. If it’s a commandment of Jesus, I think we seekers are often as ready or more ready \[Dean Taylor: “yeah, amen”\] to take, just bring it on—yeah, we wanna follow Christ wherever that leads us. But if it’s purely culture, um, I don’t scoff at that, because I realize that the Mennonites have developed a wonderful culture, and it’s nice to plug into someone else’s culture, not have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, like I say, it does present barriers, and I think it would be something that would be nice to, in our circles, to just recognize that, hey, these are some hard hurdles for seekers, and what can we do to at least show that we’re sensitive and that we appreciate what they’re facing instead of, “Well, you’re proud, that’s the problem why you won’t, you know, wear, you know, a coat with hooks and collars, cause you’re proud,” you know, and it has nothing to do with pride.
**I think that it is crucial for us ethnic Mennonites to listen closely to what David is saying:** “Mennonite custom and traditions, those are what make it hard… they can add up and become quite a hurdle… things that are added to us that are not biblical requirements… it does present barriers… these are some hard hurdles for seekers… and it has nothing to do with pride.”
I was glad David had the courage to say what he did, and I was sad that he didn’t receive stronger agreement from the ethnic Mennonites who shared the stage with him at the time. As David said, the answers aren’t always easy, but _**can we do as he invited and “at least show that we’re sensitive and that we appreciate what they’re facing”?**_
You can listen to this discussion for yourself [here](http://www.anabaptistslive.org/?p=640). (Go to about 33:20 for the interchange quoted above.)
For more of my reflections on this conference, see my post “[What I Learned at AIC 2015 about How to Use the Bible](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-i-learned-at-aic-2015-about-how-to-use-the-bible/).”
**Do you have truth you can share in love on this subject? [Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/is-radical-lifestyle-hurdle-for-seekers/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Unfinished Thoughts for Your Improvement
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-04-25
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Unfinished Thoughs for Your Improvement | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Franz Schubert wrote a beautiful piece of music called the Unfinished Symphony. In the same spirit, I've decided to share some unfinished thoughts.
Tags: faith, culture, -Galatians 2:20, imitation, -Matthew 15, applications, -1 Corinthians 11:1, -1 Corinthians 4:16, -2 Thessalonians 3:10, -2 Thessalonians 3:7, -2 Timothy 1:13, -Acts 17:31, -Philippians 3:17, -Philippians 4:9, implications
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/unfinished-thoughts-for-your-improvement
**Franz Schubert wrote a beautiful piece of music that we call the Unfinished Symphony.** It is called unfinished because it only contains two movements, rather than the four that were typical in his day. Whatever the true story (was it really unfinished in Schubert’s mind?), I’m glad this symphony didn’t get trashed or forgotten simply because it is shorter than some. It’s a work of beauty and power! ([Listen and watch here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpB0ycNiK4k).)
In the same spirit, but with far less grand hopes, _**I decided I’d release some of my own unfinished thoughts from the past week**_. I’ve been too busy to write a blog post lately—partly because I’ve been working on that promised essay on ordinances—but I have commented various places online. So I’ll repost some of those unfinished comments here for your reflection and improvement. (I meant that you can improve the thoughts by your insights, but if you can be improved by my unfinished thoughts, well, go right ahead!)
* * *
**Implications Versus Applications**
I suggest that when thinking about how Scripture should form our lives today, it is usually more helpful to think in terms of implications than applications. That is, ask “What implications does this Bible passage carry for us today?” rather than “How can we make an application of this biblical principle?” I think this choice of questions can help remind us that authority ultimately lies in God’s Word, not in our word.
There’s a chance I’m exaggerating the difference between the two, but I know I’m not the only person to think the difference might be significant. I’ll try to give an example. For instance, take the instruction “If any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). We could ask ourselves, “How could we apply that verse? What’s an application we could make for today?” Then we could make some applications like this: Any able-bodied adult over 18 must work at least 40 hours a week, or else they have no right to eat at church fellowship meals. Or youth 15 to 18 must put in at least 15 hours of labor or they have no right to eat the food their parents prepare. Those examples might be a bit corny, but perhaps you get the idea.
If we ask instead, “What implications does this passage have for us today?” we will probably end up with a different approach. We would still be working with the same underlying principle, but we would be more likely to focus on the spirit of the teaching and ask how it speaks into each individual case we face.
In sum, I think the “make an application” approach is much more likely to produce a list of human rules that generally support the principle but all too often end up overshadowing the principle they are supposed to support. I think it tends to produce a situation like in Matthew 15 where rules about washing hands distracted people from truly honoring God’s word, where we confuse the authority of our words (our applications) with God’s word (the teachings of Scripture).
I’ll leave it to you to work it out in other examples that might be more relevant for us Mennonites.
* * *
**Should We Imitate Jesus or Paul?**
[Asher Witmer was asking](https://asherwitmer.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/when-you-want-more-than-your-mennonite-distinctives/) how we should think about our “Mennonite distinctives.” I responded, in part, with the following:
One question I ask myself when pondering the questions you’re asking is, “What would Paul do?” I think prolonged Scriptural meditation on that question can help produce churches that emphasize both holiness and a love that welcomes all the members of Christ’s body.
Which led to someone asking this: “Should we be more Pauline than Christine \[Christ-ine\]?”
So I responded as follows:
That’s an interesting question! On the one hand I certainly say no. Paul made mistakes at times, (although I hasten to add that Scripture is surprisingly slow to clearly demonstrate this). Christ is our only perfect model and we want to be conformed to his image.
On the other hand…
* Paul claimed that Christ lived in him (Gal. 2:20) and that he was filled with the Spirit to equip him for his specially-designated role as apostle to the Gentiles. That means it’s pretty important, especially for us Gentiles, to listen to what Paul has to say, for Christ was speaking and living through his chosen apostle.
* Paul often told people to imitate him in his whole way of living, as in, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1; cf. 1 Cor. 4:16; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 2Thess. 3:7; 2Tim. 1:13). That means we should not imagine an either-or situation where following one means you aren’t following the other.
* Perhaps most significantly, and this is related to my first point, Jesus lived as a faithful Torah-observant Jew. He lived before believers were freed from the Law of Moses, before resurrection power had been unleashed, before the pouring out of the Spirit, and before the doors were fully opened to the Gentiles. Paul lived after each of these, and so do we.
Thus, if we are asking what kind of an approach we should take to the relationship between culture and religion, I think, yes, we should live and act more like Paul than like Jesus! That is how Jesus lived in Paul, and how he wants to live in us.
* * *
**Faith’s Relationship to Evidence: A Biblical Perspective**
Faith, as understood biblically, is not a perspective that contradicts empirical evidence. Rather, it looks at the evidence that God has revealed and draws reasonable deductions from those facts for other things which cannot yet be established on their own by empirical evidence.
I saw this again just now while stumbling through a bit of Paul’s Acts 17 sermon in Greek. Verse 31 reads like this in the ESV:
> “…He \[God\] has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31)
The word “assurance” is a translation of the Greek word “pistin/pistis.” This is the most common word for “faith” in the NT. Now, I realize that words have ranges of meaning, and the word “pistis” can mean somewhat different things in different contexts. But what I see here fits the pattern elsewhere of how the NT speaks of “faith,” so I’ll continue with my observation.
Notice that Paul says God has given “pistis” to us about an unprovable future event (the final judgment) by means of an empirically-proven past event, the resurrection. Some other translations use an even stronger word than “assurance.” The NASB and NIV both translate “pistis” as “proof.”
I am reminded of a courtroom, with a lawyer laying out evidence for his case. He wants to prove that there will be a final resurrection at which Jesus will be the judge. To convince the jury, he displays artifact one: the empirical fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Based on this fact, it is a very logical deduction to conclude that we, too, will rise someday and that Jesus truly possesses the authority to judge that he claimed he had.
We might ask a person today, “Do you have faith in Jesus?” It is reasonable, biblically speaking, to rephrase this question like this: “Based on the historical proof, do you trust in Jesus?” The Christian walk involves plenty of mystery. Its is not walking by sight. But neither is it walking contrary to the visual evidence God has provided in his revelation of Christ.
Thinking more: I see in some commentaries that the word “pistis” was sometimes used by biblical and nonbiblical writers alike at the time in a somewhat specialized way to refer to specific points of evidence in a rhetorical argument. In other words, here is one pistis/proof, here is another pistis/proof, etc. In this sense, the word means “reason to believe” rather than “belief.” But I still think that this suggests that in the NT world “belief” wasn’t opposed to reason or evidence. Rather, if “pistis” sometimes meant “reason to believe,” at other times it meant “belief based on reasons.”
At other times the reasons for faith may be few to none, as when Abraham believed God enough to leave Ur, prior to any actions of God on his behalf. But even there it was not “belief contrary to reason,” as the word “faith” is so often accused of being in our public discourse today.
* * *
There, I better stop at three or you might get the mistaken impression I’m trying to compose an integrated four-movement symphony. Do you have any insights to help finish these thoughts? **[Share them in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/unfinished-thoughts-for-your-improvement/#respond)**
* * *
PS: Kevin Brendler added [some important historical nuance and correction](http://dwightgingrich.com/schleitheim-confession-who-may-share-lords-supper/#comments) to one of my statements in my recent post about the Schleitheim Confession. (My main theological point still stands.)
PPS: If any of you have been using my [Beginner’s Bible Reading Plan](http://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/beginners-bible-reading-plan/) and have a story to tell or improvements to suggest, I’d like to hear from you!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Schleitheim Confession: Who May Share the Lord’s Supper?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-04-14
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Schleitheim Confession: Who May Share the Lord's Supper? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The Schleithheim Confession emphasizes holiness and unity. Walking in darkness and being disunited from Christ's one body both bar from the Lord's Supper.
Tags: Anabaptist history, holiness, Schleitheim Confession, church universal, church unity, church local, Lord's Supper, -1 Corinthians 11:17-34, church purity, -1 Corinthians 10:14-22, -Ephesians 4:4-6
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/schleitheim-confession-who-may-share-lords-supper
**Who should be included in the Lord’s Supper?** As I’ve been researching today for my promised essay on Mennonites and ordinances, I came across this answer in the [Schleitheim Confession](http://www.anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php/Schleitheim_Confession_%28source%29) (the earliest Anabaptist statement of faith):
> Concerning the breaking of bread, we have become one and agree thus: all those who desire to break the one bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ and all those who wish to drink of one drink in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, they must beforehand be united in the one body of Christ, that is the congregation of God, whose head is Christ, and that by baptism. For as Paul indicates, we cannot be partakers at the same time of the table of the Lord and the table of devils. Nor can we at the same time partake and drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. That is: all those who have fellowship with the dead works of darkness have no part in the light. Thus all those who follow the devil and the world, have no part with those who have been called out of the world unto God. All those who lie in evil have no part in the good.
>
> So it shall and must be, that whoever does not share the calling of the one God to one faith, to one baptism, to one spirit, to one body together with all the children of God, may not be made one loaf together with them, as must be true if one wishes truly to break bread according to the command of Christ.
**I find it interesting how this statement affirms two realities at the same time: (a) _Not everyone has a right to take part in breaking bread_ and (b) _there is only “one body of Christ” composed of “all the children of God.”_**
**On the one hand**, there is a warning that _**those who “have fellowship with the dead works of darkness” have no right to the Lord’s Table**_. It is easy to understand this concern, given how the Roman Catholic mass was extended to all citizens within the Holy Roman Empire, holy and unholy alike. Latter in the Schleitheim Confession this separation from evil is described in very specific language:
> …Everything which has not been united with our God in Christ is nothing but an abomination which we should shun. By this are meant all popish and repopish works and idolatry, gatherings, church attendance, winehouses, guarantees and commitments of unbelief, and other things of the kind, which the world regards highly, and yet which are carnal or flatly counter to the command of God, after the pattern of all the iniquity which is in the world. From all this we shall be separated…
**The second concern**, the concern for unity, may seem less expected. After all, this confession was written by believers that had just broken off from what everyone else thought was the church. But this concern for oneness is also clearly stated: _**Anyone who does not “share” in “one body together with all the children of God” is not eligible to break bread**_. Perhaps significantly, no mention is made of sharing a oneness merely with one specific congregation; the vision of these Anabaptists extended to all who belonged to Christ. In this context this meant, at minimum \[?\], that scattered, rapidly-growing, loosely-connected network of what we now call Anabaptist congregations, which at the time were not formally united into one denomination or church alliance. \[Edit: For a more accurate nuance than what I initially wrote here, see Kevin Brendler’s comment below, with my response. You can find the notes Brendler mentions by following the Schleitheim Confession link above.\]
**The Schleitheim Confession cites Paul as it expresses its warning against the dead works of darkness.** In 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 Paul includes these words:
> You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (v. 21)
**The Schleitheim Confession’s concern for oneness springs equally from Paul**, borrowing language from Ephesians 4:4-6. Paul also expresses this concern in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, where his primary concern is that the Lord’s Supper is being observed in a way that divides believers from one another. Rich believers are consuming the bread and wine of the church love feast without waiting for their poor, tardy brothers! This selfish practice is so at odds with the sacrificial, serving nature of Christ’s death that the Corinthians are supposedly remembering that Paul wonders whether they are even discerning the signified presence of the Lord’s body in the bread and wine that they are consuming! How can they keep the bread and wine of the supper to themselves when Jesus did not keep his own body from them–when he shared it freely, even unto death?
**The framers of the Schleithheim Confession were right to emphasize both holiness and unity.** They were right to say that both walking in darkness and being disunited from the one body of Christ make one ineligible for the Lord’s Supper.
But look again. _**Perhaps most amazingly, these early Anabaptists did not describe these two prerequisites as conflicting values.**_ Rather, they linked them as inseparable:
> …They must beforehand be united in the one body of Christ, that is the congregation of God, whose head is Christ, and that by baptism. **For** as Paul indicates, we cannot be partakers at the same time of the table of the Lord and the table of devils. (emphasis added)
Note the linking word “for.” We could paraphrase these sentences like this: _**They must be united to the one Church**_ **because** _**they must not be unholy.**_ The implication is clear: You are either part of Christ’s one church, or you are unholy. There is no such thing as a holy Christian who has no concern to be united in “one body together with all the children of God.” And there is no such thing as a member of that one body of Christ who is too unholy to take part in the Lord’s Supper.
Since the Roman Catholic Church had dominated Europe for centuries with its strong emphasis on the singularity of the one true Church, these Anabaptists were very clear about the unity of all true believers. Since they had just left that church to escape its entrenched sins, they were clear on the need for holiness. Both concerns were expressed clearly in their qualifications for sharing in the Lord’s Supper.
**What about your church?** Is it clear on the unity of all true believers? Is it also clear that all members of Christ’s body will do the deeds of light? Are these truths pitted against each other or seen as inseparable? _**And are both truths clearly displayed whenever you share the Lord’s Supper?**_
**Thank you for reading!** **[I welcome your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/schleitheim-confession-who-may-share-lords-supper/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## There Is Hope of a Tree [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-04-11
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: There Is Hope of a Tree [Poem by Mom] | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Just as the disciples could not imagine any hopeful future after Jesus' burial, let alone the birth of the church, so we need the eyes of faith today.
Tags: resurrection, faith, -Job 14:7, -John 15:1-8, apostolic church, ascension, church growth, David | Frey
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/there-is-hope-of-a-tree
_**The Lord is risen! Do you still remember?** Yes, I know that Easter was last weekend. But that doesn’t mean that the resurrection is “so last weekend.” Several days ago on Facebook I suggested that those who celebrate 40 days of Lent might consider also celebrating 40 days of Resurrection. A lot of people seemed to like the idea. Even better, as one person replied, we should celebrate Jesus’ resurrection 365 days a year!_
_In the spirit of such eternal resurrection celebration, **I am sharing a resurrection poem from Mom**—a poem that, Mom says, “focuses on the growth of the church post-Resurrection.”_
_First I’ll share Mom’s poem. Then I’ll share Mom’s account of how this poem was born. Finally, I’ll share a bit of my own analysis of this poem’s art. Oh, and a bonus question: Can you identify where Mom got the idea for the poem’s title? Happy reading!_
_(See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/) for an introduction to this monthly series from Mom.)_
* * *
**THERE IS HOPE OF A TREE**
They were the branches, He the Vine.
“Abide in Me,” the Christ had said,
For any branch apart from Me
Will soon be dead.”
And now the Vine lay trampled, dead;
The branches scattered in the field.
Were they to have no leaves to bear,
No fruit to yield?
How could they pierce the tomb, stone-sealed?
“Stay close to Me,” they had been told.
Must they now wither, torn from Him,
Who lay there cold?
None dreamed, their grief but three days old,
Of how the world would scarce have room
For all their fruit when the green Vine
Burst from its tomb!
—Elaine Gingrich, May 1999
* * *
**Mom’s Memories of the Birth of This Poem**
This poem was written in church Sunday morning May 16,1999 when I was supposed to be listening to the sermon. As sometimes happens, the poem arose from a compelling image. The Sunday School lesson was from John 15, about the intimate connection between Christ, the Vine, and the disciples, His branches. When pastor Dave Frey began his Ascension message with reference to the 40-day period between the Resurrection and the Ascension, during which Jesus various times appeared and then disappeared from his disciples’ sight, I suddenly pictured _the Vine cast into Golgotha’s tomb_, to wither away out of sight, while His followers were scattered and cut off from their source of life. Had they wondered what would happen to Vine and branches now?
As Dave mentioned in his message—yes I do have sermon notes beside my poem stanzas in the notebook :-)—Jesus was teaching them in those 40 days after the Resurrection that He was present with them even when He was not visible. Also, when He was most unseen, He was accomplishing the most important work for them. Still today His hidden work behind the veil makes possible what we do for Him as we abide in Him.
_**Just as the disciples could not imagine any hopeful future after Jesus’ burial, let alone the birth of the church, so we need the eyes of faith to catch a vision for Christ’s work today.**_
As compensation for my distracted attention to his sermon, I later gave Dave a copy of my completed poem, which he graciously accepted. I hope that was adequate restitution and that the poem’s readers will not judge it a total waste of time.
* * *
**Art Serving Life**
_**The structure of this poem is simple, but artful.** On the level of plot, it works like this: One stanza establishing the ground rules for life, two stanzas describing the confusion when this life is withdrawn, and a fourth providing unexpected and infinite resolution. On a literary level, it works like this: One stanza of command, two of questions, and one of exclamation._
_**Also artful is the arrangement of sentence lengths:** The first two stanzas each contain two sentences, but of pleasantly contrasting length. The third stanza contains three sentences, which slows the pace of the poem further, suggesting the growing mood of uncertainty. Then the fourth stanza brings a sudden burst of speed by containing only one long sentence. This final sentence begins teasingly, tantalizing us with the possibility of hope in the first two words, hesitating briefly between two commas to remind us of grief, then unexpectedly accelerating with growing fullness and no time to breathe until the last line literally_ bursts _upon us with resurrection life!_
* * *
_If you enjoyed this poem, [**leave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/there-is-hope-of-a-tree/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353321726-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## When the Church Was a Family — Hellerman (Review)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-04-10
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: When the Church Was a Family - Hellerman (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: "The phrase 'personal relationship with God' is found nowhere in the Bible. According to the New Testament, a person is saved to community"--into a family.
Tags: small groups, spiritual formation, marriage, church leadership, reconciliation, church universal, Tertullian, individualism, church unity, -Matthew 12:46-50, atonement, evangelism, family, church local, justification, giving, early church, decisions, church discipline, church boundaries, church standards, -1 Corinthians 7, -Acts 22:1, -Mark 1:14-20, -Mark 10:28-30, -Matthew 10:34-38, -Matthew 15:3-6, -Matthew 18:15-35, -Matthew 19:3-9, -Matthew 8:21-22, -Romans 15:7, -Romans 9:3, church as family, cults, familification, Joseph H. | Hellerman, priorities
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/when-church-was-family-hellerman-review
Hellerman, Joseph H. _When the Church Was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community_ (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2009). 240pp. [_Publisher’s description and author video._](http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/products/when-the-church-was-a-family/) (Amazon new price: $14.79 paperback, $0.99 Kindle) [Buy on Amazon.](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805447792/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805447792&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=E3E4LNLBDZVZZCET)
**I just finished a book that I underestimated.** Sometime over the past months I snatched up _When the Church Was a Family_ on Kindle for 99 cents. Between the low price and the warm photo on the cover, I somehow assumed this was another one of the hundreds of hastily-written, opinion-packed popular-level books on church that are being produced these days. I was wrong.
_\[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0805447792\]When the Church Was a Family_ is indeed as inviting as its cover, and accessible to a wide range of readers. But it is also based on solid scholarship. On page 156 I finally discovered why Joseph H. Hellerman, the author, is able to speak with such confidence: “I researched and wrote my UCLA \[Ph.D.\] dissertation about the church as a family.”
**“Spiritual formation occurs primarily in the context of community.”** This brief opening line captures the thesis of the book. But in order to support this thesis, Hellerman covers an impressive amount of ground. In this review I’ll simply summarize each chapter of this book, providing a few excerpts and a little commentary.
**Chapters 1 and 2 describe the family bonds of the ancient NT world.** Since our family is considering major decisions at present, Hellerman’s discussion of decision-making struck home:
> Collegians and young singles are well aware that the choices they make in the three areas outlined above \[vocation, spouse, residence—we’re currently evaluating 2 of those 3!\] will radically affect every area of their lives—for the rest of their lives. But this makes the process all the more painful, and it generates a certain theological dissonance as well because **the Bible says almost nothing about making the kinds of decisions that face young adults**. One cannot find a passage detailing a series of criteria for choosing a mate or a text that will help a collegian decide which major to pick. God’s Word is relatively silent on these topics. And we should not be surprised. **For all its timeless relevance, the Bible remains a collection of strong-group documents written by people who shared a collectivist worldview. People in biblical times simply did not make major life decisions on their own.** An ancient Israelite, for example, typically did not have to determine whom he was going to marry, what he was going to do for a living, or where he was going to reside. All these decisions were made for him by his community, that is, by his family and the broader society to which he belonged. (p. 24. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
At the end of chapter two, Hellerman provides these summary principles:
> Principle #1: In the New Testament world the group took priority over the individual.
> Principle #2: In the New Testament world a person’s most important group was his blood family.
> Principle #3: In the New Testament world the closest family bond was not the bond of marriage. It was the bond between siblings. (p. 50, Kindle Edition)
At this point you would be forgiven for wondering, as I was, whether Hellerman is arguing that our biological families should look more like families in Jesus’ day. But Hellerman explains why he has taken this “excursion into the realm of cultural anthropology and kinship analysis”:
> We have sought to make sense of ancient family systems in order to understand what the early Christians meant when they used family language to encourage healthy relationships in their churches. (p. 50. B&H Publishing)
**Chapters 3 and 4 deal with NT data about family and church-as-family,** focusing first on Jesus and then on Paul. Hellerman makes some fascinating observations about specific Bible passages in these chapters. For example, he examines the passage in Mark 1:14-20, where Jesus does two things: (1) Preach the good news of the kingdom of God and (2) call his first disciples. Hellerman comments:
> It is no accident that Mark, writing under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, placed the material in vv. 14–15 before the story of the call of the fishermen. The two passages are to be read together. The behavior of Simon, Andrew, James, and John is intended to illustrate the proper response to Jesus’ message in vv. 14–15. Apparently, leaving one’s father and following Jesus constitutes for Mark a paradigmatic example of what it means to “Repent and believe in the good news!” Again, **exchanging one family for another is at the very heart of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus**.(p. 68. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
Hellerman provides a very helpful _**synthesis of Jesus’ contrasting teachings on family**_, arranging them in a triangle: his Pro-family Teachings (e.g. Matt. 15:3-6; 19:3-9), his Anti-family Teachings (e.g. Matt. 8:21-22; 10:34-38; 12:46-48), and his Faith-family Teachings (Matt. 12:49-50; 18:15-35; Mark 10:28-30). The tension between the first two teachings, Hellerman observes, finds its solution in the third group of teachings:
> Jesus strongly affirmed the commandment to honor father and mother. Yet He challenged a potential follower who wished to do precisely that to “let the dead bury their own dead.” How do we harmonize these apparently contradictory sayings? The answer lies in the Faith-Family Teachings, which I have placed at the top of the triangle. Jesus’ establishment of His followers as a surrogate family created a potential conflict of loyalties between a disciple’s natural family and his new surrogate family of faith… A person simply could not express equal allegiance to two families in the social world of Jesus and the early Christians. Those who joined the family of God that Jesus was gathering around Him had to wrestle with their ongoing commitment to their natural families. To which family should they assign priority? The Anti-Family Teachings serve to resolve this conflict in favor of the Faith Family… When a conflict of loyalty occurred, a follower of Jesus aligned himself with his church family as his primary locus of relational solidarity. (p. 72. Kindle Edition)
Hellerman’s key point here is that _**following Jesus involves more than just following a “personal Savior”**_:
> Jesus did not simply intend for His followers to substitute a personal commitment to Him for ties of blood family loyalty. He intended for them to exchange their loyalty to one family for unswerving loyalty to another—the family of God. (p. 71. Kindle Edition)
Hellerman examines Paul’s family imagery under four headings:
> 1\. Affective Solidarity: the emotional bond that Paul experienced among brothers and sisters in God’s family
> 2\. Family Unity: the interpersonal harmony and absence of discord that Paul expected among brothers and sisters in God’s family
> 3\. Material Solidarity: the sharing of resources that Paul assumed would characterize relationships among brothers and sisters in God’s family
> 4\. Family Loyalty: the undivided commitment to God’s group that was to mark the value system of brothers and sisters in God’s family (pp. 78-79. Kindle Edition)
Paul, despite operating partly in a contrasting Gentile world, shared the same concept of Jesus’ followers being a family:
> Unfortunately, most Western readers treat “brothers” in Paul’s letters much as we would a punctuation mark, or perhaps as some sort of aside with little theological import. Such an approach is clearly untenable in view of what we have learned about the importance of sibling relations in the New Testament world.(p. 78. Kindle Edition)
Here I would have liked more analysis on Hellerman’s part of how ancient writers and speakers used the term “brother.” Hellerman believes Paul’s use of such familial terms indicates Paul say his churches as family units. Undoubtedly this is true, yet we also see Paul using “brother” language to describe his unsaved fellow Jews (Rom. 9:3; Acts 22:1). How close or exclusive a bond did this word imply?
But my question must not detract from Hellerman’s strengths. Again, helpful insights into individual passages abound. For example:
> I just opened my NIV Bible to 1 Corinthians 7 and found that the editors have placed the heading _Marriage_ above the chapter. Aha! This is precisely how we teach this chapter again and again in churches all over America: 1 Corinthians 7 is about marriage. But this is simply another clear-cut example of us reading our priorities—the nuclear family—into a passage that is concerned with God’s priority—the church family. This chapter is not about marriage, at least not about marriage in isolation. It is about the status of marriage as a secondary priority in view of what God is doing to grow his eternal family in the world. (p. 90. Kindle Edition)
I will have to evaluate Hellerman’s discussion of this chapter more closely as I consider Paul’s instructions regarding divorce in the future. For example:
> Paul assumed a paradigm that would have had long-standing implications for Christians in the ancient world: unbelievers are not truly family to begin with. All marriages involving a “brother” or a “sister” with an unbeliever are necessarily and ultimately tentative: “For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” (1 Cor 7:16). (p. 94. Kindle Edition)
Jesus and Paul shake up our Western priorities:
> Neither Paul nor Jesus can be cited in support of a life-priority list that generates a false dichotomy between commitment to God and commitment to His group in order to stick natural family relations somewhere in between:
>
> (1st) God — (2nd) Family — (3rd) Church — (4th) Others
>
> For both Jesus and Paul, commitment to God was commitment to God’s group. Such an outlook generates a rather different list of priorities, one that more accurately reflects the strong-group perspective of the early Christians:
>
> (1st) God’s Family — (2nd) My Family — (3rd) Others
>
> (p. 94. Kindle Edition)
**Chapter 5 is full of fascinating stories of how the early church functioned as a family**. Here Hellerman emphasizes that ideological reasons (attraction of monotheism, etc.) alone cannot explain the growth of the early church. Rather, a primary reason for the church’s growth is because Christians were deeply devoted to each other as family. Tertullian’s claim was only mild exaggeration:
> We call ourselves _brothers_. . . . So, we who are united in mind and soul have no hesitation about sharing what we have. Everything is in common among us—except our wives. (Apologeticus 39.8–11, italics added by Hellerman; quoted p. 108. Kindle Edition)
**Chapter 6 is entitled “Salvation as a Community-Creating Event.”** Here Hellerman starts preaching to the American church:
> Due to the individualistic tendencies of our culture, and the correspondingly loose connection in our thinking between soteriology and ecclesiology, it is not uncommon to encounter persons who claim to be followers of Jesus but who remain unconnected to a local faith community.
> In contrast, we do not find an unchurched Christian in the New Testament. Nor do we find one in the ensuing generations of early church history. It is not hard to see why this is the case in light of what happens from God’s perspective when we come to Christ. Paul and the other New Testament writers made it quite clear that getting saved and becoming a member of the people of God are inseparable, simultaneous events: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13).
> In the New Testament era a person was not saved for the sole purpose of enjoying a personal relationship with God. Indeed, the phrase “personal relationship with God” is found nowhere in the Bible. According to the New Testament, a person is saved _to community_. (pp. 123-124. Kindle Edition)
Despite his preaching, Hellerman uses a lot of theological language in this chapter. **This is where he introduces his own new theological term, one I am tempted to add to my vocabulary:**
> Just as we are _justified_ with respect to God the Father upon salvation, so also we are _familified_ with respect to our brothers and sisters in Christ. And this familification is no less a positional reality than our justification.
> It would follow from this that just as we need to increasingly actualize the positional reality of our _justification_ in the spiritual formation process, so also should we long to increasingly actualize the positional reality of our _familification_, as we grow into the image and likeness of Christ. Indeed, as we have seen throughout our discussion, we simply cannot separate the two. To be sold out to God (and thereby actualize our _justification_) is to be sold out to God’s group (and thereby actualize our _familification_). (p. 132. Kindle Edition)
Hellerman notes the obvious—Americans have preached a very individualistic salvation. But then he astutely makes additional observations:
> As long as America’s traditional social glue of relational commitment and integrity continued to hold people together in their marriages, their churches, and their communities, an individualistic “bar code” gospel could be preached and little damage done. In fact, great good was accomplished as converts took their “personal relationships with God” back into their church and family settings.
> Until the late 1960s, social pressure alone was sufficient to keep people married, and it was sufficient to keep church members committed to one another in local community life. Society frowned upon divorce, and it highly valued commitment to church and civic organizations. We could preach an individualistic gospel, ignore the sociological aspects of biblical soteriology, and rely on the pressures of society to keep people in community. And for a season it worked.
> But in recent decades the inherent weaknesses of such an approach to the gospel have become increasingly apparent. As we are now painfully aware, the social values that once exerted pressure in favor of relational commitment are gone. The glue that held American society together for nearly two centuries is irredeemably cracked and brittle. Now that American society has become relationally disconnected, the poverty of our “group-less” gospel is glaringly manifested.
> The practical ramifications of all this for our lives and for our churches are enormous. By separating salvation from church involvement, in a culture that is already socially fragmented and relatively devoid of relational commitment, we implicitly give people permission to leave God’s family when the going gets rough—to take their “personal relationships with Jesus” with them to another church down the block or, worse, to no church family at all. And this is precisely what they do…
> So here is the tragic result of driving a wedge between soteriology (salvation) and ecclesiology (church). We have removed from the gospel what the Bible views as central to the sanctification process, namely, commitment to God’s group. In doing so, we invariably set ourselves up for the relational shipwrecks that happen in the lives of countless Sunday attenders who opt for individual satisfaction over loyalty to God’s group…
> Thirty years of church ministry—combined with constant immersion in the conceptual world of the early Christian church—has convinced me of an important truth. To leave God’s family is to leave the very arena in which God manifests His life-giving power and hope to human beings in the world in which we live. (pp. 135-136. Kindle Edition)
**As Hellerman emphasizes that familification is intrinsic to salvation, he draws lessons both for individuals and for churches.** I was intentionally listening for both, because sometimes those who emphasize church bonds seem to place all the responsibility on individuals, without considering how the social implications of the gospel should inform our church structures and practices. Here is a lesson Hellerman draws for the church as it relates with individuals:
> During my earlier years in the pastorate, I conceived of this process as a linear one: (1) conversion, followed by (2) involvement in a local church, where (3) biblical education would characterize the continuing life of the believer. After all, this had been my own experience when I became a follower of Jesus at 23 years of age in 1975. I am now discovering that the “1→2→3” of discipleship often looks more like “2→1→3” in twenty-first century southern California where I minister. In other words, non-Christian newcomers to Oceanside Christian Fellowship first tend to establish relationships with our church members. Then they make decisions for Christ months or even years later. **In this process of spiritual formation, it is the quality of the relationships our newcomers make with our regular attenders—and the quality of the relationships they observe among the members of God’s family—that ultimately leads these folks to give their lives to Jesus.** (p. 137. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
**Hellerman connects this “2→1→3” discipleship approach with observations about theories of the atonement.** He notes that different images of salvation have resonated more deeply at different times and places throughout history. For example, sometimes people have been most eager to be saved from moral evil within; at other times they have most feared external evil. _**Hellerman says he sees a shift happening in Western culture that suggests a change in our evangelistic approaches:**_
> \[In our\] introspective, individualistic orientation of modern Western society…, until recently, the New Testament image of individual justification through the forgiveness of sins—a message dealing specifically with internal evil—has proven to be the key “facet of the jewel of the atonement” drawing men and women into the kingdom. I included the phrase “until recently” in the previous sentence because I believe that we have observed a shift in our culture that renders yet another biblical image of salvation more relevant for contemporary society. The image I have in mind is the New Testament picture of the atonement as reconciliation—an image drawn not from the temple, the marketplace, the courtroom, or the battlefield, but one drawn instead from the family. (p. 138. Kindle Edition)
Hellerman’s examples of “2→1→3” discipleship stretch me. For example:
> For nearly a year Brian played his guitar on our worship team and vicariously enjoyed the benefits of Christian community before he finally became a child of God… It happened like this. One Sunday Brian approached me to let me know how much he was enjoying our church and to express his appreciation for how much Oceanside Christian Fellowship had done for his marriage and for his family. I was greatly encouraged. But then Brian remarked that he needed answers to some intellectual questions he had about Christianity before he himself would join the party. Here is how Brian expressed it: “It sure is warm and cozy in this hot tub here, Joe, but I just want to make sure the water’s clean before I jump in.” …Shortly thereafter Brian joined his wife and kids as an eternal member of the family of God. We baptized them together as a family at the beach the following August. (p. 142. Kindle Edition.)
**Two things stretch me here:** Brian’s participation on the worship team prior to his conversion, and how the baptism of Brian’s wife and children were delayed until after Brian’s conversion. _**But whatever we make of those particulars, I appreciate Hellerman’s point: when the church is a family, this changes not only the way that the individual relates to the church, but also the way the church relates to the individual.**_ We may debate how much this family warmth should be extended to unbelievers, but (a) I think it is possible that we confuse the NT teachings about how (not) to relate with apostates with how we are to treat spiritual seekers and (b) we certainly underestimate how much family warmth should be extended to some members of Christ’s family.
**Chapter 7 is called “Life Together in the Family of God.”** This chapter includes multiple stories from Hellerman’s own life. We hear stories of familial bonds within his local church, which serves as a kind of lab for experimenting with the fruits of Hellerman’s research. We also hear a fascinating description of how his own natural family has been expanded—for the sake of the church family—to include an older single lady who lives with them. **Here is the outline for this chapter:**
> Four New Testament family values will serve as our roadmap:
> 1\. We share our stuff with one another.
> 2\. We share our hearts with one another.
> 3\. We stay, embrace the pain, and grow up with one another
> 4\. Family is about more than me, the wife, and the kids.
> (p. 145. Kindle Edition)
This paragraph about church unity demands further thought:
> I am not suggesting that there is never a legitimate reason for leaving a local church, but **I find it rather striking that neither in the midst of the Galatian heresy nor in the context of divisiveness and immorality at Corinth did Paul instruct his readers to leave the community in order to find a healthier group of brothers and sisters**. Instead, he challenged them to stick it out and partner with God to make things better. (p. 153. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
As do these about church discipline:
> Most of our churches struggle with exercising church discipline. We are overly hesitant to deal with sin in the church. And when finally we do attempt to correct a hurtful person, we often bumble around and handle the confrontation in a less-than-loving manner.
> Perhaps we need to begin with the social context in which Jesus expects us to work through our conflicts and disagreements. The people involved in Matthew 18 are not simply members of an impersonal institution that assembles for a large meeting on Sunday, which we happen to call “church.” They are brothers—brothers who share their stuff with one another and brothers who share their hearts with one another. **The point here is that Jesus assumes an intimate relational context for the exercise of church discipline. He assumes a family context.** (p. 154. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
**In Chapter 8 Hellerman addresses “Decision** **Making in the Family of God”** by describing a situation where his church advised a couple to delay their wedding until they first received counseling:
> Recall the list of relational priorities with which our own church culture is so familiar:
>
> (1st) God — (2nd) Family — (3rd) Church — (4th) Others
>
> Working from this list, Nick and Tina could have reasoned just like so many other couples do when they are faced with the same dilemma: “How dare the church \[3rd\] tell us what to do! We each have a personal relationship with God \[1st\]. And God is in our relationship with one another \[2nd\]. We can ignore Pastor Joe’s and Pastor Steve’s advice \[3rd\] without being unfaithful to God \[1st\]. After all, family \[2nd\] is more important than church \[3rd\]. We need each other, and the kids need a mother. Let’s just get married in December.” Fortunately, Nick and Tina did not respond like this… (p. 167. Kindle Edition)
Here is the main point of this chapter:
> **In my 25 years of church ministry, I have observed a general principle that I believe we can take to the bank when it comes to making major life decisions.** I have blocked it off in the text in order to emphasize its importance:
>
> The closer a Christian group approximates the strong-group, church family model that characterized early Christianity, the better the decisions that are made by the group’s individual members and nuclear family units. (p. 170. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
Hellerman cautions that reaching this goal is not easy:
> **But teaching our people about the church as a family will not suffice to alter deeply ingrained patterns of behavior. We must also reevaluate the social contexts of church life, the ways in which our ministries are executed.** The priority most churches place upon the success of the Sunday service subtly but powerfully communicates the message that this impersonal, once-a-week social environment is quintessentially what “church” is all about. After all, this is where most church leaders count heads, and this is where we collect the money.
> As a result, the one event preeminently identified with the word “church” in most congregations finds our people seated side-by-side, facing forward, with little or no interpersonal interaction with persons to the right or to the left. A fellow sitting next to me in Sunday church might have lost his job—or his spouse—that very week. Tragically, however, I would never know it. (p. 177. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
>
> Simply promoting a small-group program as a second option during the week is not enough. These relational settings must become central to the values of our church culture.
> **You might try what I did on a Sunday morning some time ago. I preached a sermon entitled “Why Sunday A.M. Is Not Church” in which I compared early church family values and practices with the way that we do church on Sunday morning… I proceeded gently but firmly to inform my people that many of them—some of whom had attended on Sunday for years—had never been to church!** Then I encouraged them to begin going to church, that is, to start attending one of our home-group settings where they could cultivate the kind of surrogate sibling relationships that God intends for His children to enjoy with one another.
> Some months later, I gave a presentation about Christian community at a gathering of our church’s top-level leadership team of 20 or so people. I still recall the rather horrified look on the face of a member of our stewardship committee (these are the precious people who track Sunday attendance and Sunday giving at our church) when I informed the group that, **if I had to choose, I would rather have our people attending a home group than sitting in our Sunday morning service.**
> **Genuine spiritual formation depends upon such priorities.** (pp. 178-179. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
**Chapter 9 is called “Leadership in the Family of God.”** Here Hellerman acknowledges that _**the NT model of strong-group familial churches can, apart from good leadership, lead to abuse:**_
> Cults like Tizer’s \[called “The Community”\] give us serious reservations about the strong-group approach to community life, whether Christian or otherwise. It is important to remember our description of the collectivist church model from chapter 2:
>
> The person perceives himself or herself to be a member of a church and responsible to the church for his or her actions, destiny, career, development, and life in general. . . . The individual person is embedded in the church and is free to do what he or she feels right and necessary only if in accord with church norms and only if the action is in the church’s best interest. The church has priority over the individual member.[1](#fn-1408-1)
>
> Substitute “The Community” for the word “church,” and you have a pretty accurate description of Tizer’s cult group. (pp. 183-184. Kindle Edition)
Hellerman summarizes the problem and proposes _**a two-part solution:**_
> We need some checks and balances that allow us to move ahead with the early Christian approach to community but that at the same time prevent the group—and especially group leaders—from exercising authority in a destructive way. (p. 185. Kindle Edition)
>
> A biblical, strong-group church family led by a _team_ of persons who exercise their authority as _servants_ of their brethren will have no problem with abuse and manipulation. **Plurality and servant leadership are designed to be central to God’s model of the church as a strong-group family.**(p. 186. Kindle Edition, emphasis added)
The rest of this chapter focuses on these two themes. Hellerman’s treatment of these themes is solid, but neither theme is unusual or new to me, so I won’t comment further.
**The Conclusion systematically summarizes the book but also introduces new concepts.** For example, Hellerman describes “two essential values”:
> …Values that gave the ancient church much of its social capital and relational integrity, values that ought to characterize any community that seeks to identify itself as Christian…
> I call the first value **“robust boundaries”**—boundaries that served to distinguish those who belonged to the local Christian community from those who did not…
> **“Relational solidarity”** is what I call the second social value… I have in mind here the way in which the early Christians took care of one another—like family. (p. unclear, Kindle edition, emphasis added)
>
> \[Note: from here on my Kindle edition has neither page numbers nor Kindle locations, so they will be missing from the rest of my quotes.\]
Hellerman is most concerned about the first value:
> …The future looks quite bright for relational solidarity. There is a fresh wind blowing among a new generation of believers who are intentionally seeking to recapture the relational integrity of the early church in ways that baby-boomer Christians have not.
>
> But the idea that we might also need to have robust boundaries in place to define the contours of an authentic Christian community does not particularly resonate with our culture. And I get the impression that this key social value of the ancient church does not particularly resonate with some of our emerging church leaders either.
**I am both happy and dissatisfied with Hellerman’s discussion here.** I agree with his emphasis on the need for robust boundaries, and I agree with his suggestions about what these boundaries might look like:
> **Issues that served to delineate the robust boundaries of the New Testament church included** sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:1–8), lack of repentance when sinning against a brother (Matt 18:15–18), unwillingness to forgive a repentant brother (Matt 18:21–35), the propagation of false doctrine (2 Tim 3:1–8), divisiveness (Titus 3:10–11), and even sloth (2 Thess 3:6–15). People who lived their lives according to community standards remained part of the family of God, but those who did not were excluded. (emphasis added)
**My dissatisfaction comes from what is left unsaid.** Earlier I noted that it is important to ask not only about the implications of the NT church-family model for the individual (in relationship to the church), but also for the congregation (as it relates to individuals). I think Hellerman could do a better job of asking this second question here in his conclusion.
For example, in his discussion of robust boundaries, Hellerman might also ask about the dangers of creating boundaries that divide members of Christ’s family from one another. He doesn’t address the question of whether it is suitable for a local congregation to add boundaries in addition to those biblical boundaries that are provided for the universal church. _**Is it possible to erect robust boundaries (value 2) that actually discourage relational solidarity (value 1) among God’s children? Hellerman doesn’t seem attuned to this possibility.**_
This lacuna (failure to address the question of the congregation’s responsibility toward the individual) becomes more evident as the Conclusion progresses. Hellerman correctly notes that “a saving relationship with God and a commitment to God’s group were apparently inseparable in the early church.” And he warns against too hastily concluding that a person who fails to join a church is unsaved. He also has helpful advice about evangelism, suggesting we should “we inform our potential converts in no uncertain terms that commitment to Jesus also involves commitment to God’s group.” _**But he misses an obvious implication of his own illustration:**_
> An illustration from the natural world will drive the point home. Under normal circumstances, babies are born into families. The social chaos characterizing America in recent decades has generated, among its various casualties, unwanted newborn babies who are left in dumpsters to die. These babies are obviously not born into families. It has become tragically clear to anyone who follows news stories like these that babies who are not born into families do not have a chance for survival.
> So it is with Christians who are not born into the local family of God. Receiving Christ as Savior without church involvement is a sure recipe for stillbirth.
The obvious implication is that _**sometimes Christians, too—new or old—are “left in dumpsters to die.”**_ Not every churchless Christian is churchless by his or her own preference.
To be fair, Hellerman does “put the ball right back in our court” (quote) regarding the church’s responsibility to welcome _unbelievers_:
> Our friends and neighbors often have good reason not to like church. Most of them have never experienced church as we see it functioning in early Christianity. They only know church as an American cultural institution. They only know church as we have designed it.
> The solution to this dilemma is readily apparent. We need to cultivate in our churches the kind of social environments where our non-Christian friends can come and experience firsthand Jesus’ vision for authentic Christian community.
I wish he did the same more clearly regarding the church’s responsibility to _believers_.
**Another way to frame this is to say that Hellerman could have considered more carefully the implications of his findings on the _universal church_, not merely the local congregation.** He does this from time to time, such as when he discusses how the early church collected offerings for distant Christians. But he could have also considered the relationship of the universal and local church in his discussion of church boundaries.
**Why is this important to me?** It is important because _**I have noticed in the past that sometimes conservative Anabaptists take books written by evangelicals, books focusing on evangelical problems and operating with evangelical assumptions, and then use them somewhat out of context to address Anabaptist concerns.**_ More clearly: I have seen evangelical books that rightly promote the need for more church loyalty and church discipline, but that are also written with the assumption that the church has no authority to erect extra-biblical boundaries. In some such books, this assumption is so strong that it is barely mentioned, despite clear teaching about things like servant leadership. Then I have seen Anabaptist churches use such books to reinforce allegiance to extra-biblical boundaries, sometimes in ways that contradict, I am certain, the desires of the authors.
Hellerman is not writing to conservative Anabaptists, so I hesitate to fault him for this lack. But I do think conservative Anabaptists should review Hellerman’s wonderful survey of NT church-family values and teachings, analyzing them for additional implications about how we can better “welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7).
**For my final quote, I want to return to what Hellerman does well**—showing the implications of his findings for relationships within the local church. _**In the following quote he is speaking to church leaders:**_
> …We must answer the question _Who are my brothers and sisters?_ in terms of the people in our own congregations. It will not do for us to share our lives only with other leaders in the broader Christian community, as helpful as that might be on occasion. If a pastor is unwilling to risk openness with a handful of brothers _in his church_—for whatever reason—then the members will surely do likewise. We simply cannot take our people where we are unwilling to go. We must be willing to go there whatever the cost…
> Only when pastors set aside our misled need to _father_ our flocks, and instead share the oversight and instruction of our congregations with other mature _brothers_, will we tangibly and persuasively communicate to others the absolute centrality of the biblical model of the church as a society of surrogate siblings.
As usual, this has turned into more than a simple book review. _**Buy this book—it’s a steal at only 99 cents on Kindle!**_ And it comes with glowing reviews from people as diverse as Dan Kimball (author of _They Like Jesus but Not the Church_) and J.P. Moreland (Christian philosopher and author of many books, including _Love Your God with All Your Mind_).
Hellerman has written an exceptionally useful book for recapturing the NT vision of church.**
I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars.**
**What did you learn from this review? How should Hellerman’s insights change the way we read our New Testaments and live as God’s family? [Share your questions and insights below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/when-church-was-family-hellerman-review/#respond)**
* * *
_Disclosure: I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com._
1. B. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 19, paraphrased. [↩](#fnref-1408-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The New Testament Church: The Challenge of Developing Ecclesiologies – Harrison/Dvorak (Review)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-04-01
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: The New Testament Church - Harrison/Dvorak (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Are you hungry to cut through centuries of traditions and habits and investigate what the NT actually says about the church? Then I recommend this book.
Tags: -1 Corinthians 3:5, -1 Timothy 1:12, -1 Timothy 3:15, -1 Timothy 3:2-7, -1 Timothy 3:9, -1 Timothy 4:6, -2 Timothy 4:5, -Acts 13:15, -Acts 13:5, -Acts 19:22, -Acts 6:1-2, -Acts 6:4, -Ephesians 3:7, -Hebrews 12:1, -Hebrews 3:7-13, -Hebrews 4:1-11, -Hebrews 6:1, -Luke 12:37, -Luke 4:20, -Luke 4:39, -Romans 15:31, Christopher R. | Hutson, Cynthia Long | Westfall, George | Goldman, James D. | Dvorak, John | Harrison, biblical theology, -Acts 18:8, -Titus 1:7, -Hebrews 10:25
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/the-new-testament-church-harrison-dvorak
Harrison John, and James D. Dvorak, eds. _The New Testament Church: The Challenge of Developing Ecclesiologies,_ McMaster Biblical Studies Series (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2012). 302pp. [_Publisher’s description._](http://wipfandstock.com/the-new-testament-church.html) (Amazon list price: $29 paperback, $9.99 Kindle) \[amazon template=add to cart1&asin=160899998X\]
* * *
**Are you hungry to cut through centuries of traditions and habits and investigate what the NT actually says about the church? Then this is exactly the kind of book you should read.**
What kind of questions does _The New Testament Church_ address? From the back cover:
> Christian communities today face enormous challenges in the new contexts and teachings that try to redefine what churches should be. Christians look to the New Testament for a pattern for the church, but the New Testament does not present a totally uniform picture of the structure, leadership, and sacraments practiced by first-century congregations. There was a unity of the Christian communities centered on the teaching that Jesus is the Christ, whom God has raised from the dead and has enthroned as Lord, yet not every assembly did exactly the same thing and saw themselves in exactly the same way. Rather, in the New Testament we find a collage of rich theological insights into what it means to be the church. When leaders of today see this diversity, they can look for New Testament ecclesiologies that are most relevant to the social and cultural context in which their community lives. This volume of essays, written with the latest scholarship, highlights the uniqueness of individual ecclesiologies of the various New Testament documents and their core unifying themes.
**The subtitle of this book is _The Challenge of Developing Ecclesiologies_.** As I’ve described this book to others, I’ve been asked several times what is meant by “developing.” I’m not sure if editors Harrison and Dvorak ever answer this question directly, but I’ll hazard an answer. I think they are observing how difficult it can be to develop a good ecclesiology—a correct understanding of church. (In other words, I think “developing” is probably a verb, not an adjective.) Who finds it a challenge to develop an ecclesiology? I think the authors might answer “everyone”—the authors and original readers of the NT writings, and also us today. Finally, it is important to notice that “ecclesiologies” is plural; as noted above, a primary contention of the editors of this book is that the NT presents a diversity of pictures of the church.
**_The New Testament Church_ consists of an introduction by the editors and thirteen chapters by thirteen authors, as follows:**
1\. Matthew’s Vision for Jesus’ Community of Disciples—_John P. Harrison_
2\. Ecclesiology in the Gospel of Mark—_Mark Rapinchuk_
3\. The Church in Luke-Acts—_George Goldman_
4\. The Church in the Gospel and Epistles of John—_Thomas H. Olbricht_
5\. The Church in Romans and Galatians—_Stanley E. Porter_
6\. The Community of the Followers of Jesus in 1 Corinthians—_Eckhard J. Schabel_
7\. Heaven Can’t Wait: The Church in Ephesians and Colossians—_Curt Niccum_
8\. “In the Churches of Macedonia”: Implicit Ecclesiology in Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians and Philippians—_Jeffrey Peterson_
9\. Ecclesiology in the Pastoral Epistles—_Christopher R. Hutson_
10\. Left Behind? The Church in the Book of Hebrews—_Cynthia Long Westfall_
11\. The Community of Believers in James—_William R. Baker_
12\. Called to Be Holy: Ecclesiology in the Petrine Epistles—_Allen Black_
13\. The Church in the Apocalypse of John—_Olutola K. Peters_
Those familiar with NT studies may recognize several “heavy-weight” names (such as Porter and Schnabel), but I found all authors helpful. A few of the essays deal with questions and assumptions that unschooled conservative readers may not recognize. (What kind of a church community was Matthew written to? Do the Pastoral Epistles “reflect an ecclesiological situation that has moved from the charismatic leadership of the first generation to a third or fourth generation focused on perpetuating a consolidated body of tradition”?) But none of these matters overpower any essay, and most of them are fruitful to consider, as lenses for new biblical insights.
**I’d like to share with you excerpts from three chapters**, to give you some more feel for the value of this book. First, the conclusion from **Goldman’s essay on Luke-Acts**:
> Luke’s contribution to New Testament ecclesiology is unique in that he is the only writer to combine an account of Jesus’ life and ministry with an account of the church that followed thereafter. What is noteworthy in these two accounts is that **the church that Luke describes in Acts looks like the Jesus that was described in the Gospel**. The most important aspects of the ecclesiology of Acts can be traced back to Luke’s Gospel. **Like Jesus, the church follows the leading of the Spirit, includes outcasts, helps the poor, and practices table fellowship. This is the best description of Luke’s vision of what the church should be.** One searches in Luke’s narrative in vain for detailed descriptions of worship practices and church organization. Rather, Luke describes the church as a community of believers in Jesus who continue what Jesus “began” to do and to teach—God’s longtime kingdom purpose for human beings taking place on earth as it is in heaven. (p. 57, emphasis added)
Excellent insights! Goldman’s insights help answer a common question about Acts: Did Luke intend for us to imitate the church patterns that we find in this book? Well, if Luke intentionally portrayed his “Acts” church as imitating his “Luke” Jesus, then, yes, clearly we should imitate the Acts church in its imitation of Jesus.
My next excerpt is from **Hutson’s essay on the Pastoral Epistles:**
> The Greek term ἐπίσκοπος (overseer) was used in both Jewish and Greek literature for various positions of responsibility and direction. in the PE, the overseer is analogous to a head of household (1 Tim 3:4-5, but we should not press that analogy too far, as if an overseer has the absolute authority of a Roman _paterfamilias_. On the contrary, the church in the PE is God’s household (1 Tim 3:15), and the “overseer” is a “steward” or “household manager” (οἰκονόμος, Titus 1:7). A household manager was a slave with management responsibility but was not himself the head of household.
>
> …The qualities of a good overseer begin with “irreproachable” (1 Tim 3:2) and end with “a good testimony from outsiders” (3:7). These concepts bracket the paragraph… In this context, the rationale, “lest he fall into the condemnation and a snare of the slanderer” ( διάβολος, 3:6) seems to refer to a human critic rather than the devil.
>
> …Like the overseer, the deacons (διακόνοι) must have an excellent reputation for conduct and character, but their duties are not spelled out. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the word root (διάκονος, “servant;” διακονἐω, “serve;” διακονία, “service”) is either literal, serving food (Acts 6:1,2; Luke 4:39; 12:37; Rom 15:31; etc.) or metaphorical, ministry of the word (Acts 6:4; 1Cor 3:5; Eph 3:7; etc.). The latter seems to be more in view here, in that deacons are to be grounded in “the mystery of the faith” (3:9) and Timothy himself will be a good διάκονος (1 Tim 4:6) precisely in his role as a teacher (cf. 2 Tim 4:5; 1Tim 1:12).
>
> …The relationship between deacons and overseer is not specified, though deacons may have been assistants to the overseer, much as a synagogue was led by a “chief of synagogue” (…Acts 13:15; 18:8) who was assisted by a “minister” (…Luke 4:20; Acts 13:5…). In this capacity, it is worth comparing Timothy as a “server” to Paul in Acts 19:22. In any case, this is how Hippolytus understood the relationship in the third century. (pp. 179-80)
I like Hutson’s balanced observations about the authority of an overseer. This excerpt also provides examples of how a book like this can challenge our interpretive assumptions, giving us new ideas to test. Who is “the slanderer”? What was the role of a deacon? Other examples in this same essay: Did deacons include women? Are Timothy and Titus really examples of bishops? What was Paul really concerned about when he wrote “husband of one wife”? I don’t have to always agree with Hutson’s answers to benefit from his questions.
**Westfall’s essay on the church in Hebrews** helped me see a theme I have mostly missed in that book:
> **Pastoral Care in a Time of Crisis**
>
> The call to the believers to growth is part of one of the three major themes in Hebrews… The commands are: “Let us enter the rest” (4:1, 11), “Let us press on to maturity” (6:1), “Let us consider how to stimulate each other to love and good works” (10:25), and “Let us run the race” (12:1). However, pastoral care is manifested in concern for every believer as the church moves forward spiritually—**this insistence that all members exercise pastoral care is the most dominant ecclesial theme in Hebrews**. This is particularly interesting in view of the pervasive individualism in North American Christianity. We may tend to read the passages about goals individualistically, particularly since the author does not hesitate to use imagery drawn from athletic competition.
>
> …In 3:7, the author applies a command in Psalm 95 directly to the readers: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion!” But when the author further applies it to the church, the focus is placed on concern for others:
>
> Watch out, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God, But encourage one another daily as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by sin’s deception. (3:12-13)
>
> Again, in the face of crisis, the people are called primarily to pay close attention to each other’s spiritual state…
>
> Similarly, at the conclusion of the unit, **the congregation is supposed to be terrified at the prospect of losing anyone as the community responds as a group to God’s voice and moves forward**: “Therefore, let us be afraid, that since the promise of entering his rest is open, any one of you might seem to come short of it” (4:1). Based on Israel’s example and the parallels between their situations, there is a good chance that some of them may not make it. However, **there is no theology of moving with the movers or looking for a few good men**. No one can be left behind. (pp. 201-02, emphasis added)
**Hopefully these excerpts are enough to make some of you decide to read this book.** The essays are short and sometimes only identify insights for further exploration. And I recommend pairing this kind of a book with one that surveys all the NT data. (For example, see Everett Ferguson’s _\[amazon text=The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today&asin=0802841899\]_, which I was happy to see Harrison and Dvorak recommend, since it is already waiting on my shelf!) But it is good to read a book like this which “zooms in close” to the NT data, for it sharpens our eyesight when we later step back to ponder the big picture of the church in the NT.
This book accomplishes its goals well and will be helpful for students of the church in the NT.
**I give it 5 out of 5 stars.**
**What did you learn from this review? What books on the church have you found helpful? What book would you like me to review? [Share your thoughts in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/the-new-testament-church-harrison-dvorak/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Ecclesiology of the Reformers (7): Conclusions and Questions
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-03-31
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: Ecclesiology of the Reformers (7): Conclusions and Questions | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: How should we live today, as children of the reformers? Should we celebrate the Reformation, seek to undo its damage, or pretend that it never happened?
Tags: -Acts 16:6-10, -Acts 2:42-46, -Ephesians 4:1-16, Bride of Christ, ecclesia sempre reformanda, ecumenism, evangelicals, hoc est corpus meum, marks of the church, priesthood of all believers, Protestant Reformation, sacred and secular, sola scriptura, Vatican Council II, World Council of Churches, Anabaptist history, worship, Christology, Swiss Brethren, Timothy | George, church history, ethics, church unity, biblicism, church tradition, baptism, infant baptism, sacraments, Lord's Supper, -1 Corinthians 3:11, believer's baptism, Mark | Dever, church purity
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions
**How should we live today, as children of the Reformation?** _**Should we celebrate the Reformation**_, looking to its heroes as a foundation for our churches? Should we continue debating and dividing among ourselves in our search for truth, emphasizing our post-Reformation denominational distinctives? Should Anabaptists read the Christian world primarily through an “Anabaptists are not X (especially Protestant)” lens?
_**Should we see the Reformation primarily as a tragedy**_, dividing the seamless robe of Christ, cutting his Bride in two? Should we focus our efforts on reuniting the broken Church, looking for common ground? Should we set aside secondary theological matters as we join arms with all who name Christ’s name, trying to undo the damage triggered by Luther?
_**Should we—as some today seem to be doing—try to do church as if the Reformation never happened?**_ Is it ancient history that we are wisest to ignore, acting instead as if our parents or grandparents lived among the apostles? It has been almost 500 years since the Reformation; may we safely forget it as most of us have forgotten other momentous events in church history (such as the division of Eastern and Western churches, the decline of Christianity in the Middle East, the writings of Thomas Aquinas, or the tragedy and glory of European colonization)? After all, we who are Anabaptists are just biased in thinking that the historical period of our birth was exceptionally important, right?
While some of these questions are deliberately off-balance, I don’t think a simple yes or no answer will suffice for any of them. History abounds with reactionary responses to history.
**This post is a (very belated) final installment in our series surveying the ecclesiology of the reformers, quoting from Timothy George’s excellent book, [_Theology of the Reformers_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=ZYRGOAVXWDMMHG5V).** (See the [introduction to this series](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/) and posts about the ecclesiologies of [Luther](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/), [Zwingli](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli/) , [Calvin](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/), [Simons](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/), and [Tyndale](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale/).)
**In this post I want to do two things:** (1) Quote some of George’s summary reflections on Reformation ecclesiology and (2) add a random and non-representative sample of some of my own questions and conclusions.
**Summary Reflections from Timothy George**
> **The abiding validity of Reformation theology is that**, despite the many varied emphases it contains within itself, **it challenges the church to listen reverently and obediently to what God has once and for all said (_Deus dixit_) and once and for all done in Jesus Christ.** How the church will respond to this challenge is not a matter of academic speculation or ecclesiastical gamesmanship. It is a question of life or death. It is the decision of whether the church will serve the true and living God of Jesus Christ, the God of the Old and the New Testaments, or else succumb to the worship of Baal. (Kindle Locations 8173-8177, emphasis added)
I agree: The Reformation helped to refocus the church of Christ upon Christ himself, not only in its soteriology (theology of salvation) but also in its understandings of the definition of the true church. This lesson must not be forgotten. This next quote underscores the same theme:
> The different Christological nuances among the reformers were substantial and significant, but Menno’s favorite text (1 Cor 3:11) could serve as the basic theme for each of them: the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the only foundation, the only compelling and exclusive criterion, for Christian life and Christian theology. (Kindle Locations 8253-8255)
A second essential lesson of the Reformation is that Scripture—the Scripture that in its entirety gives witness to Christ—must be given primacy over both church tradition and personal experience:
> **In the sixteenth century the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture was not a matter of dispute between Catholics and Protestants.** All of the reformers, including the radicals, accepted the divine origin and infallible character of the Bible. **The issue which emerged at the Reformation was how the divinely attested authority of Holy Scripture was related to the authority of the church and ecclesiastical tradition (Roman Catholics) on the one hand and the power of personal experience (Spiritualists) on the other.** The _sola_ in _sola scriptura_ was not intended to discount completely the value of church tradition but rather to subordinate it to the primacy of Holy Scripture. Whereas the Roman Church appealed to the witness of the church to validate the authority of the canonical Scriptures, the Protestant reformers insisted that the Bible was self-authenticating, that is, deemed trustworthy on the basis of its own perspicuity \[clarity\]… evidenced by the internal testimony \[i.e., witness in our hearts\] of the Holy Spirit. (Kindle Locations 8278-8286, emphasis added)
This emphasis on Scripture carried practical results for church life, resulting in a biblicism that has been both incredibly freeing but also—given (a) human interpretive fallibility and (b) pragmatic retreats to other sources of authority—a trigger point for much unfortunate division:
> **The reformers… were convinced that the proclamation of the Christian church could not be derived from any philosophy or any self-wrought worldview. It could be nothing less than an interpretation of the Scriptures.** No other proclamation has either right or promise in the church. (Kindle Locations 8300-8302, emphasis added)
>
> The second of the “Ten Conclusions of Berne” (1528) \[Reformed\] expresses this positive biblicism that governed, albeit with different results, both Reformed and Anabaptist ecclesiology: “**The Church of Christ makes no laws or commandments apart from the Word of God**; hence all human traditions are not binding upon us except so far as they are grounded upon or prescribed in the Word of God.” (Kindle Locations 8292-8294, emphasis added)
To the above I say a hearty “Amen,” while affirming with Paul and others (Acts 16:6-10, etc.) that the belief in the still-speaking Spirit is also “grounded upon… the Word of God.” (The Bible provides guidance for the church of all time; the Spirit continues to give more specific, limited guidance that is in full agreement with the new covenant gospel Word found in the Scriptures.) Let us press on to ever more faithful biblical interpretation and living, while also extending gracious patience toward those who disagree on what should be identified as “human traditions.”
The following excerpt gives George’s summary of the Reformation definition of the church, followed by a lesson he draws for us today:
> **In the perspective of the Reformation, then, the church of Jesus Christ is that communion of saints and congregation of the faithful that has heard the Word of God in Holy Scripture and that, through obedient service to its Lord, bears witness to that Word in the world.** We should remember that the church did not begin with the Reformation. The reformers intended to return to the New Testament conception of the church, to purge and purify the church of their day in accordance with the norm of Holy Scripture. Even the Anabaptists, who felt that an absolutely new beginning was called for, retained–even as they transmuted–more of the tradition and theology of the church of the Fathers and the creeds than they imagined. While we must not forfeit the hard-won victories of the reformers in the interest of a facile ecumenism, **we celebrate and participate in the quest for Christian unity precisely because we take seriously the Reformation concept of the church–_ecclesia semper reformanda_**, not merely a church once and for all reformed but rather a church always to be reformed, a church ever in need of further reformation on the basis of the Word of God. (Kindle Locations 8294-8300, emphasis added)
**George also summarizes some Reformation church practices**—changes, especially in worship practices, that resulted from changes in their theology:
> As a part of their protest against clerical domination of the church, **the reformers aimed at full participation in worship.** Their reintroduction of the vernacular was itself revolutionary because it required that divine worship be offered to almighty God in the language used by businessmen in the marketplace and by husbands and wives in the privacy of their bedchambers. The intent of the reformers was not so much to secularize worship as to sanctify common life. (Kindle Locations 8315-8318, emphasis added)
In discussing these worship practices, George acknowledges differences among the reformers but seeks common ground:
> We have seen how **the reformers pared down the medieval sacraments from seven to two**. We have also noted how, **with regard to these two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, differences among the reformers became a major obstacle to unity among them**. The Anabaptists insisted that baptism be consequent to faith and further denied that infants could be the proper recipients of faith whether presumed (Luther), parental (Zwingli), or partial (Calvin). Thus they returned to the early church practices of baptism as an adult rite of initiation signifying a committed participation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. **The ecumenical significance of the Anabaptist doctrine of baptism** is recognized in the _Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry_ statement of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. While admitting the validity of both infant and believer’s baptism, it is stated that “baptism upon personal confession of faith is the most clearly attested pattern in the New Testament documents.”[1](#fn-1368-1) (Kindle Locations 8320-8327, emphasis added)
George discusses lessons we can learn about **baptism** from the reformers:
> As a corrective to the casual role assigned to baptism in much of contemporary church life, **we can appropriate two central concerns from the Reformation doctrines of baptism:** From the Anabaptists we can learn the intrinsic connection between baptism and repentance and faith; from the mainline reformers (though more from Luther than from the others) we can learn that in baptism not only do we say something to God and to the Christian community but God also says and does something for us, for baptism is both God’s gift and our human response to that gift. (Kindle Locations 8330-8335, emphasis added)
…and laments that baptismal differences still divide the church:
> Even for many churches that are able mutually to recognize their various practices of baptism, **full participation in the Eucharist can only be hoped for as a goal not yet achieved. There is no easy side-stepping of this serious ecumenical problem**, nor is it possible to ignore the scars that remain from the sixteenth-century disputes over the meaning of “_hoc est corpus meum \[this is my body\]_.” (Kindle Locations 8340-8343, emphasis added)
George also draws lessons from the Reformation about **the Lord’s Supper**. Again, a desire for unity helps shape George’s discussion:
> **What can we learn from the Reformation debates on the Lord’s Supper? First, _we need to reclaim a theology of presence_…** The Lord’s Supper is not “merely” a symbol. To be sure, it is a symbol, but it is a symbol that conveys that which it signifies…
> **Second, _we need to return to the practice of more frequent Communion_.** The earliest Christians may have celebrated the Lord’s Supper daily (Acts 2:42, 46), and they certainly did so weekly… If the Lord’s supper is given to us for “daily food and sustenance to refresh and strengthen us” (Luther); if it “supports and augments faith” (Zwingli); if it is a “spiritual banquet” (Calvin); the “Christian marriage feast at which Jesus Christ is present with his grace, Spirit and promise” (Menno); and if it is the “spiritual food and meat of our souls” (Tyndale), then to neglect its frequent sharing in the context of worship is to spurn the external sign of God’s grace to our spiritual impoverishment.
> **Third, _we need to restore the balance between Word and sacrament in Christian worship._** The reformers did not invent the sermon, but they elevated preaching to a central role in the divine service… \[Since\] Vatican Council II (1963)… many Roman Catholic congregations have emphasized the decisive importance of the Liturgy of the Word in Christian worship. At the same time many Protestant congregations have regained a new appreciation for the central role of the Eucharist in Christian worship. Each of these trends is an encouraging sign. (Kindle Locations 8345-8375, emphasis added)
I find myself agreeing with most of George’s comments here about church worship practices. For example, I wish our churches weren’t so lackadaisical (or fearful?) about observing the Lord’s Supper more often.
**George’s reflections about the ethics of the reformers are also relevant:**
> There is a kind of adulation of the reformers of the sixteenth century that divorces their theology from their ethics. This perspective rightly recognizes the reformers as great heroes of the faith but fails to discern their prophetic role and their revolutionary impact on society. However, Reformation faith was concerned with the whole of life, not merely with the religious or spiritual sphere. (Kindle Locations 8388-8391)
**I am tempted to launch a very Anabaptist-style critique of George at this point.** I notice that in his subsequent discussion of Reformation ethics (four lengthy paragraphs, one each for Luther, Zwingli/Calvin, Menno, and Tyndale) he focuses to a large extent on what each man _said_ about ethics, not what he actually _did_. This is natural in a book about theology, yet it is also a potential weakness, one we Anabaptists are keen to point out as we contrast the Luther of the Peasants’ Revolt with the Anabaptists who refused to bear the sword. In fact, George’s paragraph on Anabaptist ethics does indeed focus on deeds as much as on words, and he observes that “**the Anabaptist vision is a corrective to the ethics of the mainline reformers**. It reminds us that to sanctify the secular must _never_ mean simply to sprinkle holy water on the status quo but always to confront the culture with the radical demands of Jesus Christ” (Kindle Locations 8417-8419, emphasis added). So I’ll end my brief critique and acknowledge that George shares my concern.
After summarizing the ethical emphases of various reformers, George continues:
> **Which of these ethical directions is right for the church today? No one of them is sufficient alone**, for each is susceptible to its own distortion. The Lutheran emphasis on the priority of faith to works can degenerate into mere formalism because pure doctrine without holy living always results in dead orthodoxy. The Reformed emphasis on involvement in the world can turn the church into little more than a political action committee or a social service organization, while the Anabaptist critique of culture can lapse into a sterile separatism that has forgotten its sense of mission. **We have much to learn from each of these traditions, but we are bound to none of them. We are bound only to Jesus Christ.** The church is _communio sanctorum_, a communion of saved sinners, founded on the gospel of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, sent into the world for which Christ died, ever to confront that world in witness and service with the absolute demands of Christ. (Kindle Locations 8427-8433, emphasis added)
**Several things are noteworthy to me in the above excerpt. _First, we see again George’s admirable desire to learn from everyone and to seek common ground in Christ._** George’s ecumenical friendliness, though rooted strongly in devotion to Christ, probably makes some of us at least slightly uncomfortable at times. (George not only “chairs the Doctrine and Christian Unity Commission of the Baptist World Alliance,” but he also “is active in Evangelical-Roman Catholic Church dialogue.” [See here](http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2014/11/07/know-your-southern-baptists-timothy-george/).) But I think George’s keen sense of the unity of all true believers is sorely needed in our conservative Anabaptist churches. His account of the Reformation provides healthy balance to the narrower Anabaptists-focused story we usually hear.
_**Second, the above excerpt provides George’s own definition of the church. It is a remarkably good definition.**_ I might quibble with his use of the word “sinners” to describe Christians (it depends in part on what you mean by “sinner”). But I like how George’s definition (a) is structured around repeated references to Christ, (b) is rooted in the gospel of grace while also affirming good works, (c) distinguishes the church from the world based on the “absolute demands” of Christ, and (d) emphasizes both word and deed as part of the church’s responsibility to the world.
**Random Conclusions and Questions**
One reason why it took me so long to write this final post in this series is because I feel utterly unqualified to properly “wrap up” this subject. I am only a student, and a very part-time and forgetful one! So, at the risk of repeating a redundant redundancy, let me remind you that what follows is only random thoughts that have popped into my head that I managed to write down before they flew.
**First, some of my own conclusions:**
* **It is inaccurate and unfair to describe American evangelicals today by quoting Luther.** Some conservative Anabaptists regularly lament that we are so different from the first Anabaptists. Yet some of these same people regularly summarize Luther on church-state relationships or Calvin on predestination and imply that evangelicals today believe essentially the same thing, unchanged across 500 years. The truth is, some do and most don’t. One example: most American evangelicals today are roughly half way between Luther and the early Swiss Brethren (Grebel and Mantz, etc.) on the relationship between church and state. They have inherited ideas on this topic indirectly from both and also from a host of other sources. In fact, [Luther might not even consider most evangelicals today to actually be true Christians!](https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/would-luther-consider-protestant-evangelicals-christian/) (Calvin would [have his concerns](https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/i-love-jesus-but-hate-the-church-what-would-john-calvin-say/) about many American Christians, too.)
* **Our assumptions about church are powerfully shaped by our historical and ecclesiological contexts.** The obvious lesson here is that we should be humble. We should intentionally allow our assumptions to be tested by others from different times and church traditions. This means that I, as a 21st-century Anabaptist living in the microcosm that is my local church—a very tiny slice of Christ’s church across time and space—this means that I must hold onto Christ and the Scriptures tightly but hold onto my particular ways of doing church lightly. It also means that I would be wise to listen regularly to voices from outside my own church heritage.
* **I am thankful for my Anabaptist heritage.** Everyone grows up somewhere, and denying our roots does not make them disappear. I think my various Anabaptist predecessors were wrong on multiple points: Conrad Grebel should not have forbade singing in church, Melchior Hoffman was wrong to predict the date of Christ’s return, Dirk Philips was too rigid in his application of the ban, and Menno Simons was confused about the incarnation. Anabaptists since have added other errors, some of which remain entrenched to this day. But I am deeply grateful to have been born into a stream of Christ’s church that clearly teaches believer’s baptism and a believers’ church, suffering love and nonviolence, and brotherly love and accountability. I want to humbly rejoice in such blessings while identifying with all of the people of Christ.
* **Christ must be central in everything, including all efforts to unify the church.** Any true unity, any true theology, any true understandings of the church, any true brothers and sisters—all will be found in increasing measure only as we draw ever nearer to Christ. **Ephesians 4:1-16 is so helpful here, with its description of two aspects of church unity: First**, we must eagerly “_**maintain the unity**_” that the Spirit has already created between all who are in Christ, nurturing the bond of peace between us (v. 3). It is already an established fact that there is only “one body” (v. 4); we don’t have to create that reality! **Second,** we must also harness all the Spirit-given gifts (vv. 11-12), each member working properly (v. 16) and speaking theological truth in love (v. 15), all with the goal of “building up” the one “body of Christ” (v. 12) until we all “_**attain to the unity**_ of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.” _Maintain_ unity… _attain_ unity. Both tasks are essential. And both truth and love are essential for both tasks. And both tasks occur with Christ as initiator and Christ as goal (vv. 5, 7, 13, 15).
**Finally, here are some questions that I think we should be asking—some rhetorical, some open-ended:**
* What can I do to imitate the reformers in testing all my received understandings and practices by Scripture? (I have heard that the first self-identity of the Swiss Brethren was “Bible students.” That is an Anabaptist identity that I eagerly embrace.)
* What intentional steps can I take to both “maintain” and “attain” unity among all of Christ’s disciples who live in my local town or community, regardless of denominational affiliation?
* How can I help other people groups worldwide enjoy the biggest single blessing of the Reformation–the Bible in their own language?
* Am I wise and bold enough to know the right times to confront error within my own church, ready to “stand alone on the… B-I-B-L-E” when necessary?
* Am I wise and humble enough to learn from my brothers and sisters, expecting Christ to teach me through them?
* How can we restore greater room for the priesthood of all believers, giving more trust and voice to individual members during times of gathered worship and decision-making?
* Given our Anabaptist emphasis on believer’s baptism, how can we do a better job of teaching our children to believe and welcoming them into our churches? Does our theology equip us to understand the needs of children, or only of adult converts?
* If believer’s baptism is so important, then should we change our baptismal practices so that not only _all who are baptized believe_, but also _all who believe are baptized_? Do we have a biblical basis for withholding baptism from those who believe? If the church is the school of Christ (to borrow Calvin’s term), is baptism the entrance ticket or the graduation certificate?
* If believer’s baptism is so important, replacing infant baptism as the entrance into the true church, then should we change our church membership practices so that not only _all who are members are baptized_, but also _all who are baptized are members_? Or is baptism not that significant after all?
* How can we capitalize on the blessings of freedom of religion that the early Anabaptists lacked (open doors for evangelism and extended biblical study, to name only two) while also regaining the fiery zeal that marked the words and deeds of the martyrs?
**My last question is more complicated, so I’ll present it in paragraphs:**
**Is it possible to divide Christ’s church by treating “marks of a _healthy_ church” as if they are essential “marks of the _true_ church”?** _**The magisterial reformers identified a handful of key marks of the true church;**_ typically correct preaching of the Word and the proper administration of the sacraments are cited, although Luther mentioned as many as seven. Calvin’s heirs added church discipline, which the Anabaptist also affirmed. Menno Simons listed “six marks by which the church is known: (1) an unadulterated, pure doctrine; (2) scriptural use of the sacramental signs; (3) obedience to the Word; (4) unfeigned, brotherly love; (5) a bold confession of God and Christ; (6) oppression and tribulation for the sake of the Lord’s Word” (George, Kindle Locations 6431-6436).
_**More recently the 9Marks ministry has identified “nine marks of a healthy church,”**_ citing preaching, biblical theology, the gospel, conversion, evangelism, membership, discipline, discipleship, and leadership. On the website these nine marks are called “_the_ nine marks,” but I know I’ve heard founder Mark Dever explain that he actually prefers to leave the “the” off, for this list was not intended to be exclusive. In other words, there are additional things that a healthy church will also focus on, besides these nine marks. And I am certain Dever does not intend for this list to be marks of the _true_ church; rather, he knows that many churches are weak in some of these areas. They may be weak churches, but they are still expressions of Christ’s church. (See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/more-on-calvin-marks-of-church-fighting-nicely/) and [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/) for more on marks of the church, past and present.)
**I’m saying all this to return to my initial question. Clearly, there is a difference between a list of marks of the _true_ church and a list of marks of a _healthy_ church.** After all, in Revelation we see a list of churches that were still part of the true church, but not currently healthy! This means, therefore, that any list of marks of the true church should be shorter than any list of marks of a healthy church. _**Thus, some questions:**_ Which kind of list was Menno’s list? How “unadulterated” and “pure” must a church’s “doctrine” be for that church to be part of the true church? How full an “obedience” must her members demonstrate? How much “oppression and tribulation” must they endure? And what about our lists, written or unwritten, of the true church today? _**Are we confusing the two kinds of lists? And does our confusion ever cause us to reject as “untrue” any part of Christ’s church that might be merely “unhealthy” and in need of nurture rather than isolation?**_
I think I’ve written enough to tip my hand: I’m a child of the reformers, and I pray that we will be continually reforming our churches to better follow Christ and honor his written Word.
**I’d love to hear from some of you. What questions do you think we should be asking ourselves, in light of our Reformation heritage?** Maybe we could compile a longer list! What conclusions for today do you draw from your reflection on our history, Anabaptist or otherwise? [**Share your thoughts in the comments below!**](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/#respond)
* * *
_**PS:** If you have enjoyed this series, be sure to [buy Timothy George’s book](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=TW45NY7LIFZE3QFR)! He has much more to say than what I shared here. (Disclosure: The link above is an Amazon affiliate link, so I’ll make pennies if you buy the book.)_
1. Leith, John H., _Creeds of the Churches_, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 610. [↩](#fnref-1368-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Life Thirst: L’Chaim [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-03-19
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Life Thirst: L'Chaim | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Spring is almost here, bursting with new life and old longings, and I have a poem to match the season. Are you thirsty? Then read on...
Tags: blood, Living Water, thirst, toast, spring, crucifixion, life, Lord's Supper, Fiddler on the Roof
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/life-thirst-lchaim
_Spring is almost here, bursting with new life and old longings, and I have a poem to match the season. Are you thirsty? Then read on…_
_(See [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/) for an introduction to this monthly series from Mom.)_
_I think this poem will sing most powerfully if takes your ears by ambush. So, first the poem, then some reflections from Mom._
* * *
**LIFE THIRST: L’CHAIM**
How thirsty you are in the spring,
Earth with your thousand mouths.
Everywhere orifices open
Gaping for trickle,
Stream and torrent.
“A drink please,” you whisper,
“Please, more water, please.”
Mounds of snow you demolish,
Water that travels for miles to slake your thirst.
Cracked skin softens to mud,
Leaves compost, soil moistens,
Thirsty for more, for the future, for life.
Woodlands and roadsides chorus
With the trickle,
Rush,
Thunder of running water,
Gulping faster,
Gasping for breath,
Eyes closed,
All mouth,
Lifting your glass–“To life! To life!”
How thirsty you are in the spring,
Earth with your millions of mouths,
Recalling a dry, dusty hill
In a sun-scorched Judean town
Where the thirst of a thousand generations
Whispering for water–“Please, a drink.”–
Culminated in one agonizing cry
From One lifted up–“I thirst!”
And the parched world drank
As His blood trickled,
Gushed,
Flowed–
A strange, salty drink to satisfy the thirst of the millennia!
Everywhere you hold high
Crystal goblet, plastic tumbler,
Tin cup,
Gasping for life,
Gulping faster,
All mouth,
Belly overflowing with Living Water.
Lifting your glass to Him who calls–“To life! To life!”
–Elaine Gingrich, March 2004
* * *
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Life-Thirst-Spring-Runoff.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/life-thirst-spring-runoff-1721353256927-compressed.jpg)
* * *
**Reflections from Mom**
My husband and I raised our four children in Georgian Bay country in Ontario, where the rocks, lakes and trees cry out God’s grandeur. This poem began with a spring walk, listening to the exuberant sounds of rushing water. I can still see the icy rock cuts with rivulets of water running down into the gurgling ditches on Blue Lake Road. The thirsty earth drinking in new life triggered the image of celebrating Jews in _Fiddler on the Roof_, thirsty for life and hope, lifting their glasses in the Hebrew toast “L’chaim!”–“To life!” The whole earth is toasting life in springtime. An even deeper thirst draws us to lift our glass to Christ who lifted His voice and then His dying body in the ultimate celebration of life. What a price He paid to give us the water of life! We honour Him today when we drink the cup of communion, remembering His blood that flowed one spring day about 2000 years ago.
* * *
_If you enjoyed this poem, [**leave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/life-thirst-lchaim/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353257609-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
* * *
Photo Credit: [D-A-O](https://www.flickr.com/photos/73112564@N00/8606856771/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://www.flickr.com/help/general/#147)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What I Learned at AIC 2015 about How To Use the Bible
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-03-16
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: What I Learned at AIC 2015 about How to Use the Bible | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The 2015 Anabaptist Identity Conference lived up to its reputation by gathering a provocative diversity of speakers and listeners. How did the Bible fare?
Tags: Chester | Weaver, David | Kline, Ernest | Strubhar, Living Word, Matthias | Overholt, Dean | Taylor, biblical interpretation, Theron | Schlabach, David | Bercot, obedience, biblical theology, preaching, biblicism, systematic theology, John D. | Martin, Anabaptist Identity Conference
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-i-learned-at-aic-2015-about-how-to-use-the-bible
This past weekend I was blessed to attend most of the Anabaptist Identity Conference, held this year near Napannee, Indiana. This was the 10th AIC, and it lived up to its reputation as an event which gathers a provocative diversity of speakers and listeners.
We heard an Amish speaker (David Kline) explain the benefits of organic farming, and during one meal I sat across the table from a retired Goshen College history professor ([Theron Schlabach](http://theronschlabach.com/)). David Bercot shared with surprising candor his experience of how hard it is for most non-Anabaptists to ever join an Anabaptist church, given our cultural additives and our reluctance to let “outsiders” have a meaningful voice in shaping our churches. In contrast, Matthias Overholt, dressed in a plain brown suit and sporting a massive beard, animatedly preached the importance of “visible reminders that we are not a part of the world’s culture.” Beachy, Hutterite, Charity, Holdeman, MCUSA, Old Order Amish, New Order Amish, first-generation Anabaptists, unidentified plain Mennonites, and more–we all mingled without bickering for a few days and enjoyed GMO-free meals together. Some even traveled all the way from Down Under just to learn more about the Kingdom that turned the world upside down. Organized by the hippy-Anabaptist Overholt brothers, it was an earthy little bit of heaven on earth.
I don’t plan to give a detailed report of the weekend. The talks should soon be [posted online here](http://www.anabaptistslive.org/) so you can listen and ponder for yourself. \[Edit: See also the reviews by [Rich Preheim](http://mennoworld.org/2015/03/23/news/conservative-anabaptists-reject-fundamentalism/) and [Theron Schlabach](http://mennoworld.org/2015/04/13/latest-issue/opinion-chasm-between-plain-and-liberal/) at the Mennonite World Review.\] It would be interesting to discuss John D. Martin’s remarks about participatory church meetings and observance of the Lord’s Supper (we need more of both) and Chester Weaver’s observations about how we have been shaped by Fundamentalism (some pro, mostly con). Suffice it to say that throughout the entire weekend I sometimes said “Amen,” I sometimes shook my head and agonized over error, and I always enjoyed the immersion education experience.
So, keeping things fairly general and naming names judiciously, here are some things I learned at AIC 2015 about how to use or not use the Bible in our preaching and teaching.
1. **Do call each other to passionately follow Jesus.** Dean Taylor’s favorite question is so helpful: “What if Jesus really meant every word he said?” We need to hear more, not less, about following in Jesus’ steps, obeying his call to radical discipleship. The AIC always does well at this, and for that I am grateful.
2. **Don’t pit Jesus against Paul.** I overheard one of the speakers in conversation, suggesting that it might be wise to place less emphasis on Paul’s writings. I believe he was suggesting that focusing on Paul’s writings tends to increase church conflict and distract us from following Jesus. I think this is a sad misunderstanding. I’ve written at length about this in my essay “Red Letter Reductionism,” which [you can find here](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Red-Letter-Reductionism-Aug-2017-1.pdf).
3. **Do emphasize that obedience is crucial.** Head knowledge without obedience is useless. Preach the Sermon on the Mount! Keep James in the canon, for sure! And don’t hide disobedience behind either theological sophistication or a plain suit and cape dress. Again, AIC generally does very well on this point.
4. **Don’t say theology is unimportant.** I heard one AIC speaker say “We are not theologians.” Another speaker (David Bercot) had a book on display entitled [_Will the Theologians Please Sit Down?_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004HKIPZG/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B004HKIPZG&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=IOPBBOG34N66BM2H) (Full disclosure: I have not read the book through, so I may be wrong; but my sense from the title, excerpts, and some reports is that the book is not as well-balanced as some of Bercot’s other books. At minimum, I sense some readers are using it to bolster an unhealthy whole-sale rejection of theology.) Ironically, every one of the AIC speakers is obviously a theologian himself! This was evident by the multiple explanations (sometimes generalizations) of how Anabaptist soteriology (theology of salvation) and ecclesiology (theology of church) is different from that of Protestants. Theology is inescapable and essential.
5. **Do learn from historical examples of interpreting and obeying the Bible.** One of AIC’s greatest strengths is its emphasis on history. Chester Weaver’s talks on Russian Mennonites were fascinating! AIC always includes such historical talks. Incidentally, the discipline of studying how the church in the past has understood and obeyed the Scriptures is called _historical theology_–more evidence that AIC is full of theology, despite some protests to the contrary.
6. **Don’t rely more on history than on the Scriptures.** One of AIC’s greatest weaknesses is its emphasis on history. (No, I am not contradicting myself.) AIC speakers are very concerned with statistics about how few Anabaptist children have remained in the churches of their parents. They trace the patterns of the past and issue warnings about the future. Make no mistake: I definitely share some of their concerns. But I am even more concerned when I hear almost no appeal to Scripture during a panel discussion on how cultural traditions affect our ability to pass on the faith and integrate non-Anabaptists. (I raised my hand too slowly to add my question: How should 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 affect both our approach as witnesses and also our goals for the kind of self-identity that we want our disciples to adopt?) Some AIC talks referenced much Scripture faithfully and effectively. Others, not so much.
7. **Do shape your sermons around Scripture.** One of the best AIC talks this year was one by Ernest Strubhar, where he traced through the whole Bible the big story of the war of Satan against God. This is _theology_–biblical theology! Some of Strubhar’s Bible texts are notoriously difficult to interpret, and I quibbled with a handful of details in his sermon. But the big picture that he painted was faithful and powerful, providing a real hopeful foundation for radical discipleship.
8. **Don’t pull Scripture out of context to bolster your own claims.** Unfortunately, another sermon this past weekend did not use Scripture so faithfully. By his own admission, the speaker’s key text was used out of context, with key words being interpreted differently than what they actually meant. This text was used to structure the speaker’s entire sermon. In this way, the speaker brought an aura of Scriptural authority to his own ideas, using God’s word to make his own words sound more convincing. _This is very dangerous indeed._ Ironically, the real meaning of the speaker’s text, when read in context, actually undermines (in my estimation) one of the speaker’s main claims!
9. **Do invite others to critique your Bible teaching.** This is another strength of AIC. After each talk there is a brief Q and A session. The Overholt brothers do a good job as moderators, allowing and encouraging honest feedback and questioning. The speakers also welcome this, evidencing grace and humility. Mutual critique is also built into the roster of speakers, since they represent a variety of backgrounds. It would be good to see more of this feedback encouraged in our regular church meetings!
10. **Don’t pit the Scriptures against Christ.** Several times at AIC 2015 there was an evident tension between the Written Word and the Living Word. Several times questioners felt a need to ask a speaker to clarify himself on this point. But it is irrational to try to know a _person_ while downplaying his _words_. The liberal modernists of a century ago claimed that we could follow the _Christ of faith_ even if it was impossible to gain certainty about the _Jesus of history_. They believed that the Scriptural accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection could not be trusted, yet they tried to salvage a mystical Christian faith. Today we can see where “Christ” without Scripture has led the churches that embraced this liberal modernism. I think all the AIC speakers would eagerly affirm the trustworthiness of Scripture. But true trust involves more than affirming that Scripture is true; it also involves drawing our own conceptions of Christ and his kingdom from the full Scriptural witness. Some of the AIC speakers do this very well. Others didn’t always display as much functional reliance on Scripture as I would have liked.
11. **Do call each other to passionately follow Jesus.** Okay, this is a repeat of my first point, but worth repeating. This is AIC’s greatest strength, and it is the very best way that you can use the Bible in your own preaching and teaching.
**I came away from AIC 2015 with multiple blessings,** including a renewed desire to live among a body of believers that listens well to the Written Word as a vital witness to the Living Word. I wouldn’t feel at home in every church group represented at AIC. But I am thankful to all the speakers for honestly sharing their hearts and prodding us to better follow Jesus.
**Do you have anything to add to this list?** What would it look like if you made a similar list based on how the Bible is used in your church pulpit? **[Share your thoughts in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/what-i-learned-at-aic-2015-about-how-to-use-the-bible/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Reading the Psalms as Christians
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-03-08
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Reading the Psalms as Christians | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Reading the Psalms "backward," starting with Christ, we can see what things truly meant all along at the deepest level. We can sing the Psalms as our own.
Tags: -1 Corinthians 13:9-10, -1 Peter 1:10-12, -Psalm 122, C.H. | Dodd, flat Bible, history of religions, psalms, R.T. | France, biblical interpretation, -Daniel 7, worship, typology, Isaac | Watts, NT use of OT
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/reading-the-psalms-as-christians
**A friend (and relative of a relative) raised some good questions after [my last post about Psalm 122](https://dwightgingrich.com/pray-for-the-peace-of-jerusalem/).** In summary, if I understood him correctly, he wondered whether my interpretation might be another example of a flat Bible approach. Let me quote some of his questions:
> Are OT scriptures sometimes just that, OT scriptures? And even though we can possibly identify with the sentiment, a passage may not have been intended to refer to us, and/or the church. Maybe some passages are more relevant to a Jew than to a Christian? Do we read things into scripture that it was never intended to mean?
As I started answering these questions in a comment, my thoughts kept growing, so I thought I’d post my reply here instead. So here it is.
* * *
Thanks for your thoughts, Wayne. I’m not surprised this post raises some questions, and I’m still thinking through some of them myself.
A few thoughts. **First, I don’t think the approach I presented is a flat Bible approach**, although I did think about that concept as I wrote; the topic was certainly relevant to my post. But a flat Bible approach would be to read Psalm 122 today in the same way that the ancient Israelites did. In my post I carefully distinguished between how the Israelites would have read it and how I’m suggesting we can. So that’s not a flat Bible approach.
**Let me sketch some alternate approaches to mine:**
**(A)** I think it is actually “flatter” to read vs. 6 as we often hear it–as still referring to the current earthly city of Jerusalem. This approach does not recognize the coming of Christ as making any hermeneutical difference; **all the words in the psalm _only_ and _still_ have their original ethnic Israel referents**. If we insist that vs. 6 still carries this meaning for today, then we should be consistent and conclude that no one is currently able to sing vs. 1, for there is no earthly temple at present. We could only sing a lament: “I used to be so glad back when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of the Lord!’ But now the temple is destroyed, and we cannot go!”
**(B)** An approach somewhat similar to A, but avoiding the problem of a flat Bible problem, is the approach I hear you tentatively suggesting: To conclude that **the psalm had an original meaning for the ancient Israelites and that, since the coming of Christ, no one can any longer read it as they did**. This would mean that we should also stop thinking that vs. 1 is ours to quote, too. This is the approach of higher critical bible scholars, who take the history of religions approach and see the book of Psalms as being Israel’s hymn book, interesting for learning more about the religion of ancient Israel, but of little direct significance for us today.
**(C)** Or, and this is probably even closer to what you may be thinking, we could tweak B to say that, **though no one can any longer sing Psalm 122, it is still useful for us today as revelation from and about God**, useful for learning his character and observing his history of redemption. I like what this approach affirms (educational value of the psalm) but not what it denies (that we can no longer sing the psalm). This approach might work for 1 and 2 Chronicles, but hardly for Psalms.
**In short, I think that perhaps the key reason why the approach to Psalm 122 that I sketched in my last post sounds strange to some (in part even to me) is that the modern Church has, by and large, ceased to sing the Psalms.** This is an historical abnormality! The early Church sang the Psalms, the Reformers did, as did many other saints across time. How might we read the Psalms as we sing them? Are we to sing them merely as historical pieces, stepping into ancient roles as actors, rehearsing the thoughts and feelings of ancient Israel but knowing they are not our own? Or is there a way in which we can sing the Psalms from our hearts, as our own expressions of lament and praise to God? I think it is clear that the Church has done the latter.
I have a reprint of a hymnal that was originally produced in 1843. It includes 241 pages of hymns based directly on the Psalms! Included are four hymns based on Psalm 122, two of them by Isaac Watts. The interpretive approach in these hymns matches my post exactly. (I did not think to check this until now!)
Here are those two hymns, as copied from [this website](http://www.cgmusic.org/workshop/watts/psalm_122.htm):
> _ Going to church._
>
> 1 How pleased and blessed was I To hear the people cry, "Come, let us seek our God to-day!" Yes, with a cheerful zeal We haste to Zion's hill, And there our vows and honors pay.
>
> 2 Zion, thrice happy place, Adorned with wondrous grace, And walls of strength embrace thee round; In thee our tribes appear To pray, and praise, and hear The sacred gospel's joyful sound.
>
> 3 There David's greater Son Has fixed his royal throne, He sits for grace and judgment there: He bids the saint be glad, He makes the sinner sad, And humble souls rejoice with fear.
>
> 4 May peace attend thy gate, And joy within thee wait To bless the soul of ev'ry guest! The man that seeks thy peace, And wishes thine increase, A thousand blessings on him rest!
>
> 5 My tongue repeats her vows, "Peace to this sacred house!" For there my friends and kindred dwell; And since my glorious God Makes thee his blessed abode, My soul shall ever love thee well.
>
> _ Going to church._
>
> 1 How did my heart rejoice to hear My friends devoutly say, "In Zion let us all appear, And keep the solemn day!"
>
> 2 I love her gates, I love the road; The church, adorned with grace, Stands like a palace built for God, To show his milder face.
>
> 3 Up to her courts with joys unknown The holy tribes repair; The Son of David holds his throne, And sits in judgment there.
>
> 4 He hears our praises and complaints; And while his awful voice Divides the sinners from the saints, We tremble and rejoice.
>
> 5 Peace be within this sacred place, And joy a constant guest, With holy gifts and heav'nly grace Be her attendants blessed!
>
> 6 My soul shall pray for Zion still, While life or breath remains; There my best friends, my kindred dwell, There God my Savior reigns.
**I think that if we reject the interpretation I suggested in my post, then we will need to reject these hymns, along with many hymns in our current hymnals**, including favorites like “Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken,” based in part on Psalm 87.
**Clearly it is possible to jump too quickly from OT to NT.** For example, the promises made to Israel were first made to Israel; when they apply also to us, it is often only in a varied form, as fulfilled in Christ (“The meek shall inherit the earth,” for example). I think we should be very careful to never hastily draw 100% equivalence between ancient Israel and the Church. Israel is a type of the Church, and types contain differences as well as similarities; they do not match in every detail, and sometimes, in fact, they are mirror opposites in some respects. We need to first read the OT, including the Psalms, in their original historical and covenantal contexts.
**At the end of the day, however, when I ask myself what a psalm like Psalm 122 _means_, I need to ask:** Why, in the first place, did God instruct Israel to build the tabernacle? Why did he choose Jerusalem? What did these _mean_ at the deepest level _from the very beginning_? Where they not intended from the start to prepare the way for Christ, to provide images and patterns that would never be fully realized until Christ appeared? So, **reading the Bible “backward,” starting with Christ, _we can see what things truly meant all along at the deepest level_.** Thus we sometimes see things in the OT that the original earthly authors either never grasped at all or only partially, as prophets (1 Pet. 1:10-12; 1Cor. 13:9-10). What we see is not at odds with what they saw, for sure, and our new insight does not mean that their understandings were wrong. Rather, _**it is like they were painting by candlelight and we can now view the same Scriptures in the full light of the Sun.**_
**The foundation for this approach to reading the OT, I believe, is Jesus himself.** He read the OT in ways that none of his own contemporaries imagined. (Seeing himself as the Son of Man from Daniel 7 is just one example of a new interpretive move.) The apostles, trained by Christ and guided by the Spirit, continued this new hermeneutical approach. Many psalms were among the texts that they reread in convincing ways that astounded their Jewish hearers.
It would be fun to dig into multiple examples from the NT of reading the OT (including psalms) in just the kind of way I’ve suggested. But I’ll end by mentioning two books that have helped me start to see these realities: \[amazon text=According to the Scriptures&asin=B001AH04SA\], by C.H. Dodd (currently out of print), and \[amazon text=Jesus and the Old Testament&asin=1573830062\], by R.T. France. Both are technical, but both are extremely helpful and oft-cited books that are guaranteed to help you read Scripture with sharper vision.
Finally, let me repeat that I am still learning. _I feel like I’m wading on the edge of the ocean!_ May God help us learn together, to the glory of Christ, the one to whom the Scriptures point.
[**Feel free to share your insights in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/reading-the-psalms-as-christians/#respond) And God give you joy as you gather with his people this Lord’s Day!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem!”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-03-07
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem!" | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!" (Ps. 122:6). How can we read this verse in a way that honors both its original meaning and Christ?
Tags: -Psalm 122, -1 Peter 2:4-5, -1 Timothy 2:1-5, -2 Corinthians 1:20, -2 Corinthians 6:16, -Ephesians 2:19-22, -Galatians 4:21-31, -Hebrews 11:10, -Hebrews 12:22-23, -John 17, -John 2:21, -Matthew 12:6, -Revelation 19:7, -Revelation 20:9-10, Christotelic, New Jerusalem, Christocentric, peace, prophecy, -1 Corinthians 3:11, -1 Corinthians 3:16-17
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/pray-for-the-peace-of-jerusalem
**I’ve been listening through the Psalms lately.** Sometimes I listen intently. Other times I just let the words of Scripture wash over me, allowing my mind to wander without self-condemnation. While half-listening to several psalms the other day, a familiar sentence kindly retrieved my mind from a daydream: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!” (Ps. 122:6).
Upon hearing this, I immediately thought of how this verse is commonly used: as an exhortation for us to pray for the political (and sometimes spiritual) peace of the modern, geopolitical nation state of Israel. While I most certainly affirm praying for the peace of Israel and its capital city, I strongly doubt that this is the primary significance that God intends for this verse to carry for Christians today. Before I explain myself, please read the entire psalm, posted here in the English Standard Version:
**Psalm 122**
(ESV heading: “Let Us Go to the House of the Lord”)
> A Song of Ascents. Of David.
> 1 I was glad when they said to me,
> “Let us go to the house of the LORD!”
> 2 Our feet have been standing
> within your gates, O Jerusalem!
> 3 Jerusalem—built as a city
> that is bound firmly together,
> 4 to which the tribes go up,
> the tribes of the LORD,
> as was decreed for Israel,
> to give thanks to the name of the LORD.
> 5 There thrones for judgment were set,
> the thrones of the house of David.
> 6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!
> “May they be secure who love you!
> 7 Peace be within your walls
> and security within your towers!”
> 8 For my brothers and companions’ sake
> I will say, “Peace be within you!”
> 9 For the sake of the house of the LORD our God,
> I will seek your good.
The two most famous verses in this psalm are verses 1 and 6. It is instructive to compare how these verse are commonly used by Christians today.
**Verse 1 is commonly used as a way of expressing our joy over going to church: “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of the Lord!'”** In this usage, we identify with the “I” of the psalmist, and the “they” becomes our fellow believers, those who are urging us (“Let us go”) to gather with them at or as the church. I say “at or as” because we commonly interpret the phrase “the house of the Lord” in two ways. First, we frequently speak as if the house of the Lord is our local church building, the physical place where we gather with other believers. But if we are more careful to honor how the NT speaks of the church, we adopt a second meaning: the house or temple of the Lord is the people of God, all those who belong to Christ (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19-22; 1Pet. 2:4-5). A third understanding would also fit the NT pattern: We could understand “house of the Lord” as referring to Christ himself, who is greater than the earthly temple (Matt. 12:6), whose body is the true temple (John 2:21), and who is the foundation of the temple of the church (1 Cor. 3:11). Ultimately, we are “glad” because we can gather with fellow saints in the presence of Christ, as fellow members of the temple of his body.
None of the above is objectionable, I trust. It is both common understanding and good, new covenant thinking. It is a Christocentric (Christ-centered) and Christotelic (climaxing in Christ) reading of Scripture that affirms the original meaning for OT saints while also recognizing that God has made all things new in Christ.
**So here’s my question: What would it look like to interpret verse 6 in the same Christ-centered way that we interpret verse 1?**
First, it is important to interpret verse 6 carefully as an OT saint might have, in its original context. What did an ancient Israelite mean when they sang, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!”? Clearly, they longed for protection from enemy armies. They longed for security within the walls and towers of the city of Jerusalem (v. 7). And why did they care so much about the peace of Jerusalem? The psalm provides two reasons: “For my brothers and companions’ sake” and “for the sake of the house of the LORD our God” (vv. 8-9). In other words, I pray for the peace of Jerusalem because (a) I am an Israelite and I want my fellow Israelites to be safe, and (b) I don’t want the physical temple–God’s dwelling place on earth, where sacrifices are shed for my sins–to be destroyed.
**It is crucial to recognize that no Christian today can read this verse in exactly the same way as an OT saint did.** Jerusalem today is not protected by “walls” and “towers”; at minimum, readers today will need to read these words symbolically, as referring to missile shields and the threat of nuclear weapons. A small minority of Christians today are Jews and can truly pray for the peace and safety of their fellow Jews; others will need to read “brothers” symbolically, expanding it to include Gentiles in a way almost no ancient Israelite would ever have done. And no true Christian believes that God’s dwelling place on earth _today_ is in a non-existent physical temple in Jerusalem, where non-existent sacrifices are shed for our sins, the sins for which Jesus has already died. (This is true no matter what you may or may not believe about a future physical temple, an idea which I’ll confess I find very unlikely. But that would be another post.)
**So what implications does verse 6 have for Christians today?** How can we read this verse in a way that affirms its original meaning for OT saints while also recognizing that every promise of God finds its fulfillment in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20)?
I want to underscore that we find the phrase “the house of the LORD” in both verse 1 and verse 9. I suggest that it means the same thing in both places. If it refers to the church of Christ in verse 1, as described above, then it also refers to the church of Christ in verse 9. This means that one of our reasons for praying for the peace of Jerusalem today (whatever that means), is because we don’t want the church of Christ to be destroyed. This begs the question: _**Will the church of Christ be destroyed if the earthly city of Jerusalem is destroyed?**_ Was the church of Christ destroyed in AD 70 when the city of Jerusalem (with its earthly temple) was destroyed? Would the church of Christ be destroyed today should the unthinkable happen and the modern state of Israel be destroyed?
**I think we will quickly begin to find the authentic contemporary significance of verse 6 if we simply follow the pattern of how we read verse 1.** If the new covenant “house of the LORD” is Christ and all who belong to him by faith, then what is the new covenant “Jerusalem”? Answer: It is the church, the Bride of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7; 21:9-10). It includes all who are children of the promise, born according to the Spirit (Gal. 4:21-31). It includes all those who are enrolled in heaven, and even God’s holy angels (Heb. 12:22-23). An OT Israelite could refer to “the temple” and mean the whole city of which the temple was its heart. He could also refer to “Jerusalem” and be thinking primarily of the temple and all gathered around it. Likewise, the new temple and new Jerusalem of the new covenant are related terms. Jesus is the cornerstone of the true temple (Eph. 2:20), and we are gathered around him as the fullness of the temple and the heavenly New Jerusalem.
**If this is the case, then to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” is to pray for the peace and security of the church of Jesus Christ!** It is to pray that our brothers and sisters in Christ, our heavenly family, will be protected from all the attacks of the evil one. It is to pray that Christ and his people will not suffer dishonor and loss. It is to pray that the joy we experience as we gather together (v. 1) will not be destroyed. It is to pray that thanks will be offered to the Lord and that justice will prevail from the throne of the Son of David (vv. 4-5). It is to love Christ and his church and to say, “I will seek your good” (Ps. 122:9). It is to pray that Jesus’ own prayer for his church will be answered (John 17).
Paul tells us to pray “for all peoples, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life” (1 Tim. 2:1-2, etc.). “All peoples” certainly includes the modern nation of Israel. So, yes, do pray for the physical peace of the earthly city of Jerusalem–especially, according to Paul, for the sake of Christians and because civil peace often facilitates the advance of the gospel (1 Tim. 2:3-5)! And _**set your heart and hopes on the city above**_, which has foundations (Heb. 11:10). The NT gives us no reason to rejoice over any earthly temple as ancient Israel did (Ps. 122:1); it would be just as wrong-headed and Christ-dishonoring today to focus our hopes for peace on the walls and towers of the earthly city of Jerusalem (Ps. 122:6-7). True security, for Jew and Gentile alike, is found only in Christ and in his church. _**Pray for her peace, and seek her good!**_
I realize this post touches on a lot of questions of prophecy and eschatology that it does not answer. I don’t mean to demean those of you who have different understandings of these questions than I do. My own understandings have changed over the years and will doubtless continue to develop. I love you just like I love the changing versions of me! _**However, hopefully this post does prompt us to be more consistent in how we read the OT in the light of Christ.**_
**May Christ be honored as we read his Word!** [**Share you insights in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/pray-for-the-peace-of-jerusalem/#respond)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Love of Christ Controls Us
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-03-03
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: The Love of Christ Controls Us | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: My post about Sabbath went viral. I am excited over your excitement about our freedom in Christ! Yet, as I reflected, I became aware of a subtle danger.
Tags: -1 Corinthians 7:22, -2 Corinthians 5:14-15, -Acts 13:38-39, -Galatians 2:19-20, -Galatians 5:13, -John 8:34-36, -Mark 7:19, -Mark 7:21-23, -Mark 7:9-13, -Romans 6:18, -Romans 7:4-6, -Romans 8:2, conservative versus liberal, lawlessness, legalism, Law of Moses, love, gospel, devotion, -1 Corinthians 9:19, word of God, biblicism, Lord's Day, Sabbath, freedom
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/the-love-of-christ-controls-us
**My [Sunday post about Sabbath and the Lord’s Day](https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-flat-bibles-and-sabbath/) went viral.** Okay, I’m speaking in relative terms. But it has certainly struck a chord: That post has already been viewed over 600 times, which is already more all-time views than any other single post or page on my website. (Even more than [the one about kissing in the first century](https://dwightgingrich.com/kissing-in-first-century-craig-keener/). Which is strange, because I enjoy kissing more than working on Sunday. Or most any other day. I digress.)
**Freedom Recap**
**I am excited by this response.** People love good news! We love _the_ good news! And the gospel of grace through Christ does indeed bring freedom. It brings freedom from **sin**:
> Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:34-36)
And from “good cop” Sin’s “bad cop” buddy, **Death**:
> For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (Rom. 8:2)
The gospel of Christ brings freedom from **everything that the Law could not free us from**:
> Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:38-39)
And it brings freedom from **the Law** itself:
> For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:19-20)
(Note closely: The previous famous verse is _not_ about “dying to self,” but about how we, in Christ, die “to the Law,” so that we now live instead by faith in Christ, relying on all the benefits of his cross-work. Read the rest of Galatians for context!)
**A few of you might have thought that my post on the Sabbath wasn’t very “conservative.”** Maybe it sounded rather “liberal.” But I submit that it is the very essence of true conservatism to hold faithfully to Scripture, without adding or subtracting. It is very “liberal,” indeed, to add to God’s word, even if what we are adding is rules. (This is why some scholars suggest that the Sadducees were actually more conservative than the Pharisees.) Insofar as I have faithfully explained Scripture, I make no apologies for my post. Insofar as I have failed to do so, please instruct me.
**So I am excited over your excitement about our freedom in Christ!** (I could even add more about how Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath, based in part on your insights. What a rich reality!)
**A Potential Danger**
**Yet, as I reflected on our joy, I became aware of a subtle danger.** I found this danger lurking within my own heart. Here is the danger: _**It is possible to be more excited about our own freedom than about Christ.**_ So I’m writing this post as a follow-up sermon to myself and to you.
Let’s pursue Christ, not freedom! After all, freedom isn’t our end goal. In Romans 6:18, Paul writes, “having been set free from sin, \[you\] have become slaves of righteousness.” This sounds ironic, but is true: Authentic freedom from sin involves “bondage” to righteousness.
**So what does authentic freedom from _the Law_ look like?** Or, to put it another way, what does authentic freedom from legalism look like?[1](#fn-1320-1) How should we finish this statement: “Authentic freedom from legalism involves ‘bondage’ to ?” What is the opposite of legalism? These questions sound a bit topsy-turvy, I realize. We might want to stick “freedom” in the blank, but we’ve already used that word in our sentence. Is there another word that fits?
I’d like to suggest two good ways to fill in our blank: “The word of God” and “Christ.” Let’s consider them in order.
**“Bondage” to the Word of God**
Authentic freedom from the law involves “bondage” to the word of God.[2](#fn-1320-2) Let me explain.
**Legalism and lawlessness are two variations of the same problem: disregard for the word of God.** If you reject legalism simply because you don’t like to be restricted, then you will probably end up embracing some measure of lawlessness. If you reject lawlessness simply because you want law and order, then you will probably end up preaching some legalism.
**Here is the key: We must not simply _turn away from_ legalism or lawlessness; we must also–and primarily–_turn toward_ the word of God.** Jesus makes this abundantly clear in Mark 7. On the one hand he strongly condemns legalism because it sucks all the life-shaping power out of the word of God:
> And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:9-13)
In this chapter, as Mark observes, Jesus undermines both human traditions and also, by implication, even the OT food laws. (See Mark 7:19 in translations such as the ESV: “Thus he declared all foods clean.”) Yet Jesus equally firmly rejects any hint of lawlessness:
> 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:21-23)
The word of God, as taught by Christ, brings freedom from _both_ legalism and lawlessness.
**This begs the question: Am I more excited about my freedom from observing a mandatory day of rest, or about being devoted to living out the word of God?** Am I excited about ridding my heart of all things the Bible labels “evil” (by diligently walking moment-by-moment with the Spirit)? Or am I only excited about tossing aside the Law of Moses and all human traditions?
**“Bondage” to Christ**
Authentic freedom from the law also involves “bondage” to Christ. Paul understood this well:
> …My brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Rom. 7:4-6)
**Notice: Paul says we died to the Law “_so that_” we may belong to Christ.** He says we are released from the Law “_so that_ we may _serve_ in the new way of the Spirit.”
> For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. (1 Cor. 7:22)
And for Paul, “bondage” to Christ meant “bondage” to his fellow man:
> For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. (1 Cor. 9:19)
>
> For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal. 5:13)
Here is one of the most memorable ways he put it:
> For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Cor. 5:14-15)
**So, here is my question: What is controlling you, Dwight? Is it love of freedom? Or the love of Christ?** Are you controlled (compelled, driven, guided) by Christ’s love for you–by the grace that is yours thanks to sharing in his death and resurrection? Are you controlled by your love for Christ (a possible secondary meaning of 5:14), serving him from a heart of gratitude? _Or are you merely happy to be free from the Sabbath law?_
_**How sad it would be if freedom from the Sabbath law wouldn’t turn our hearts toward Christ, the fulfillment of the Sabbath!**_
Are you running from legalism, or are you running in step with the word of God? Are you driven by your love of freedom, or are you compelled by the love of Christ? Does the freedom Christ has given you awaken delight in Christ and stir devotion to him? _Are you listening, Dwight?_
**May Christ’s love compel us!**
**Do you ever find yourself greedily enjoying Christ’s gifts while forgetting the Giver?** How do you cooperate with God to keep your heart devoted to Christ? How can we use our Christian freedom regarding the Lord’s Day to serve Christ and others? [**Freely share your comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/the-love-of-christ-controls-us/#respond)
1. _Legalism_ is a slippery term. In this post I am using it with imperfect consistency, referring specifically to bondage to the Law of Moses but also broadly to the practice of multiplying rules to achieve or enforce holiness. [↩](#fnref-1320-1)
2. _Word of God_ is another slippery term. By _word of God_ here I mean primarily _Scripture_, although it is important to remember that the two terms, as used in Scripture, are not identical in scope. _Word of God_ sometimes refers more narrowly to the gospel message, and sometimes more broadly to any communication from God to man, including Jesus himself. But I believe all Scripture is properly called “the word of God.” [↩](#fnref-1320-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## NIV Proclamation Bible (Book Review)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-03-03
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: NIV Proclamation Bible (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The NIV Proclamation Bible is useful for what it is: An attractive, hardcover NIV Bible with some basic theological and application help for Bible teachers.
Tags: biblical interpretation, individualism, biblical theology, preaching, study Bibles, Charlie | Skrine, Christopher | Ash, NIV, Peter | Adam, reductionism, topical sermons
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/niv-proclamation-bible-book-review
_Note: This review is of a book I was received for free because I joined [BookLook Bloggers](http://booklookbloggers.com). If I decide to continue, you may see one review like this every month or so._
**Introduction:** The NIV Proclamation Bible (NIVPB) is aimed at Bible teachers of all kinds. The subtitle clarifies _**the goal of this Bible: \[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0310437954\]”Correctly Handling the Word of Truth.”**_ NIVPB consists of the NIV text, about 50 pages of introductory essays about interpreting and applying the Bible, brief introductions to each book, and some standard helps (table of weights and measures, a concordance, and maps). The NIVPB contributors are mostly British Anglicans, but the theological perspective is broadly evangelical.
Since _**the most unique element of this Bible is the introductory essays**_, I will list them here:
1. What is the Bible? (Mark D. Thompson)
2. A Bible Overview (Vaughan Roberts)
3. The historical reliability of the Bible (Dirk Jongkind)
4. Finding the “melodic line” of the Bible (Tim Ward)
5. From text to doctrine: the Bible and theology (Peter Adam)
6. From text to life: applying the Old Testament (David Jackman)
7. From text to life: applying the New Testament (Charlie Skrine)
8. From text to sermon: preaching the Bible (Christopher Ash)
9. From text to study: small groups and one-to-ones (Leonie Mason)
10. Biblical interpretation: a short history (Gerald Bray)
**Observations:** Unfortunately, the worst thing about this Bible is the first thing you see on the cover: Tim Keller’s claim that “There are many Study Bibles, but none better.” In fact, _**this is not a study Bible**_ at all, in my estimation. There are no commentary notes throughout the Bible text, and the book introductions range from only about 1 to 1-1/2 pages short.
\[Update: Blah. This morning I received an email from Faithlife (affiliated with Logos Bible Software). The email subject line was “Tim Keller endorses new Bible.” And the image that leaps at you from inside the email prominently displays the Keller quote. This kind of marketing is tiring. Did Keller see the full manuscript before giving his endorsement? Did the marketing team take his statement out of context, cutting some qualifiers off the end of his sentence? Someone somewhere is being less than fully truthful. Moral: Double-check celebrity endorsements, even if they come from celebrities you trust.\]
If you want a good study Bible, I suggest either the excellent [ESV Study Bible](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433502410/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1433502410&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=C4UNG5RMEWFZFZX7) or the very promising forthcoming [NIV Zondervan Study Bible](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310438330/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0310438330&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=2BCW66IPJPNLO35D). **(Update: See [my long review](http://dwightgingrich.com/niv-zondervan-study-bible-review-comparison-esv-study-bible/) of the NIV Zondervan Study Bible. It is indeed good!)** That said, _**the NIVPB is useful for what it is: An attractive dual-column, cross-referenced, hardcover NIV Bible with some basic helps for faithful proclamation.**_
**The introductory essays** rightly focus on helping readers glimpse the “big picture” of the story and unfolding themes of Scripture–biblical theology. These essays will coach you about how to teach and preach Scripture, not merely your own pet ideas imposed on the text. Given the unified focus, some content is repeated throughout. Given the short lengths, some essays (especially the last) feel like a movie trailer. Thankfully, each essay end with 3 book recommendations for further study. Here are _**some favorite quotes from the essays**_, with introductions only as needed:
> By itself, “teaching the Bible” does not ensure theology. It is possible to expound a book of the Bible, but avoid its theology. We may give good practical teaching, or encourage greater experiences of God, but not tackle its theology. This produces people who conform to Christian practice without knowing why. The shortcut is not helpful. It produces deadening legalism in believers and teaches legalism to others. It is below the standard of the Bible itself. (Adam, A38)
>
> There is a popular idea that all we need is the Bible. That is the minimum that is required, but not the maximum that God has provided. And it reflects two unhelpful assumptions of our age: our individualism and our reductionism. Individualism assumes that I must function in isolation. Reductionism asks, “What is the minimum needed?” not “What is the maximum God has provided?” We need help, insights, encouragements and challenges from others in our preparation. In this activity, as John Calvin wrote, “Solitude provides too much liberty”… (Adam, A39-40)
> Often I think I have understood a passage right up until the point where I have to put something into words. I am going to use a non-Bible example initially so that we can agree on the principle even if you do not like my specific exegesis. Let’s imagine this is the theme of a piece of writing we are wanting to apply: _Theme: Brussels sprouts taste disgusting._ Once we have worked out the theme, we also need to ask what the author’s aim was. Even with our trivial example you could think of saying the same truth for many different reasons. Perhaps this is a book intending to help young boys make life hard for their older sisters, so the aim would be, “Get Brussels sprouts into as many meals as possible; pulp them and hide them inside donuts and cakes.” Or perhaps this is a book intending to make everyone’s mealtimes full of nice-tasting food, so the aim would be, “Don’t eat Brussels sprouts.” The same truth could be intended to achieve opposite effects by different authors… Let’s say, in our food example, that we are reading the book with this aim… _Aim: Don’t eat them._ …We have not yet thought about how this theme and aim will apply differently to different specific people… For the Sunday school we might want to spend lots of time passing on useful strategies for sprout avoidance: the plastic bag in your pocket, good use of the family dog, even hiding food under a well-placed knife and fork. For the parents you might spend some time in repentance for leading others into sprout-eating in the past, and some time working on how to fight the peer pressure at Christmas time. If you had in your business breakfast a woman who was a national buyer for a supermarket, or a man who was head of agricultural investment at a pension fund, then you could apply in ways that would make a difference across the whole country. Still at every stage the driving force is, “What has God said to these people?” not “What would I say if I were God?” (Skrine, A50-51)
Two more quotes that suggest the importance and potential dangers of topical sermons:
> For most people, ourselves included, life is made up of facing daily topics rather than continually expounding the Bible! Much of our ministry of apologetics, evangelism and encouragement with unbelievers and other believers is discussing daily issues that are always theological issues. We need to teach topics of daily life to help people think biblically and theologically. (Adam, A41)
>
> A common danger for preachers is this: I read a Bible passage, for example about prayer. This makes me think of all the thing I know… about the Bible’s teaching on prayer. This framework helps me understand my particular passage. But I can end up preaching a topical sermon that pretty much unloads on my hearers everything the Bible teaches about prayer. I preach my framework rather than this particular text. I need to remember that this particular passage contributes something unique; without it, the Bible would be a deficient book. So I ask myself, “What distinctively does this passage teach?” Although my preaching will be controlled by my overall framework of understanding, I want my hearers to go away with this particular passage ringing in their ears and resounding in their hearts… What is the tone of the passage? If you set it to music, would it be joyful, plaintive, perplexed, confident, or what? In our preaching, we will want to try to reflect and convey something of this tone. (Ash, A55)
**The book introductions** are generally good, but too short to offer much help. My inner editor kicked into gear as I surveyed these. Philemon gets just over one page—exactly the same as Genesis, the second-longest book in the Bible. Some one-sentence book summaries describe historical content, while others focus on Christian application (Joshua: “God gave the land he promised and Israel took it \[11:23; 21:43-45\].” Numbers: “God has saved us and, as we travel through the wilderness of this world, we need to go on exercising faith to enter the inheritance Christ has secured for us.”). Book outlines vary without reason in _structure_ (an unpredictable mix of letters, Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, typefaces, or paragraph descriptions), _kind_ (content or preaching points), and _length_ (the outline for 1 and 2 Chronicles combined–65 chapters–is only 4 lines long, while the outline for 1 John–5 chapters–is over 21 lines long). Despite these quirks, the actual content is, again, generally good. Each book introduction helpfully ends with a list of three suggested commentaries of varying depth. Most suggestions look reasonable, although I did notice that the technical commentary suggested for Galatians is rather old, overlooking strong recent offerings.
**Conclusion:** Since I’ve recovered from my dashed expectations (see Keller), my impressions of this Bible have improved. I think the NIV is one of the most useful translations for reading and comparison. The special content of this NIVPB is generally sound and insightful. I do wonder, though, how many people will choose this edition over either a smaller Bible for reading or a true study Bible, which would contain much of the special content found here plus much more (the NIVPB is just under 1500 pages; the forthcoming \[amazon text=NIV Zondervan Study Bible&asin=0310438330\] has over 2900 pages!).
I think the NIVPB achieves most of its goals.
_**I give it 4 out of 5 stars.**_
* * *
**Does this Bible sound like one you would use?** Do the essay excerpts above make you hungry for more? Or do you have another favorite Bible to suggest? Do you use study Bibles? (I rarely do!) [**Share your thoughts in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/niv-proclamation-bible-book-review/#respond)
* * *
_Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookLook Bloggers <[http://booklookbloggers.com](http://booklookbloggers.com)\> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/16cfr255\_03.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html)\> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Anabaptists, Flat Bibles, and the Sabbath
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-03-01
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Anabaptists, Flat Bibles, and the Sabbath | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: We tend to assume that, just as the Sabbath was the day of rest for OT saints, so the Lord's Day is our day of rest. But this is not taught in Scripture.
Tags: flat Bible, Daniel | Kauffman, Anabaptist history, -Genesis 2:18, -Romans 6:14, -Colossians 2:16-17, -Revelation 1:10, -Romans 14:5, Lord's Day, Sabbath, -1 Corinthians 16:1-2, -1 Corinthians 7:27-35, -1 Corinthians 7:8-9, -1 Corinthians 9:20, -Acts 17:11-12, -Acts 20:7, -Ephesians 2:15, -Galatians 3:2-3, -Galatians 3:23-26, -Galatians 4:9-11, -Galatians 5:1-4, -Galatians 5:18, -Genesis 2:1-3, -Hebrews 4, -Hebrews 7:12, -Matthew 28:1, -Matthew 9:35-38, -Proverbs 10:5, -Romans 12:2, -Romans 14:1-6, -Romans 14:14, -Romans 14:19-20, -Romans 14:23, -Romans 2:15, John D. | Roth, -Acts 16:3
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-flat-bibles-and-sabbath
**When I was a teenager, on many a weekend we youth from our small church drove for 3-1/2 hours to spend time “down south” with church friends.** Then on Sunday afternoon or evening, after a fine (or angst-laden) time in the Kitchener-Waterloo region with friends who sported last names like Bauman, Biehn, Martin, Frey, Horst, Martin, Koch, Weber, Martin, and Zehr, we would reluctantly hit the road north for Parry Sound and home. Usually our homeward journey took us through the little town of Arthur. There we would fill up with cheap(er) southern gas.
Yes, you read correctly. We bought gas on our homeward Sunday journey. I don’t remember ever buying supper in Arthur, however. Gas was a necessity. Food was not. If we were fortunate, our weekend hosts had already stuffed us with food. But not always. I clearly remember the hunger I felt during many long trips home, stomachs rumbling in the car as we rolled past many a welcoming restaurant.
If we timed things just right, the story ended more happily. I also remember many Sunday nights, driving home late after perhaps an evening revival meeting, when we rolled into the city of Barrie just as the clock struck midnight. On such nights–after 12:00 but not a moment before (usually!)–McDonalds was more than a welcome bathroom break. It was also the scene of happy teenagers scarfing cheezeburgers and fries. _Ah, the salty satisfaction of stepping out of the sphere of the Law!_ McDonalds fries never tasted better.
**This morning in Sunday School we discussed the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.** Our class had an interesting and profitable conversation. But it wasn’t until the sermon that this post started to form in my mind. The sermon this morning was more of a teaching session, perhaps because the preacher recently returned from several weeks as a Calvary Bible School instructor. His presentation today contrasted Anabaptists and Protestants, explaining how differing theologies have led to differing behaviors. Some such presentations stick in my throat on the way down, but this one contained enough caveats and compassion that I thought it was quite helpful. Beliefs _do_ matter, after all, and different beliefs _do_ tend to produce different results, and I _do_ find myself affirming a higher percentage of Menno Simon’s beliefs than those of Martin Luther.
One of the contrasts between Anabaptists and Protestants that was mentioned today was in our approach to Scripture. Protestants, we heard, have tended to have a “flat Bible.” That is, they have tended to draw principles and practices from both testaments quite equally. Thus, they while they affirm salvation through Jesus’ blood, drawing this from the New Testament, they usually also affirm that Christians can go to war, swear oaths, and baptize infants–often basing these affirmations on Old Testament precedents. Anabaptists, in contrast, have historically interpreted the OT through the NT, reading all through the “Jesus lens” (as a recent _evangelical_ book encourages us to do!). Thus Anabaptists have rejected practices such as war, oaths, and infant baptism based on the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
This general distinction is historically true. But, while talking with friends after the service this morning, I realized there are important exceptions. For example, my mind drifted back to our Sunday School topic: the Sabbath.
**Let me state two theses for the heart of my post:**
1. _**I think that many conservative Anabaptists today take a very “flat Bible” approach to the question of Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.**_
2. _**I think that this is due, at least in part, to Protestant influence. Update: And also due to much older influence—Constantinian law.
**_
Let me briefly defend my first thesis and suggest research pointers for me second.
Many Anabaptists that I know are much like the teenaged me. **Without even thinking about it, we tend to assume that the Lord’s Day replaces the OT Sabbath.** More specifically, we believe that, just as the Sabbath was the day of rest for OT saints, so the Lord’s Day is the day of rest for NT saints. _**But this idea is not taught anywhere in Scripture.**_
**Here are some things I do find in Scripture:**
1. **Christians are not bound to “remember the Sabbath day” (Ex. 20:8).** This command given to the Israelite nation. As NT believers, our general relationship toward the Law of Moses is that we are not under its authority (Rom. 6:14; Rom. 7:6; 1Cor. 9:20; Gal. 3:10, 23-26; Gal. 5:18; Eph. 2:15; Heb. 7:12; etc.). While Jesus reaffirmed 9 of the 10 Commandments as part of new covenant ethics, he never clearly reaffirmed the Sabbath command. If we only had Jesus’ direct words, you might be able to argue fairly convincingly that Christians should observe the Sabbath. But, after his resurrection, Christ clarified many things through his Spirit and his apostles. Paul answers our question very clearly: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in question of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:16-17; cf. Rom. 14:1-6; Gal. 4:9-11). If you want to hang onto the Sabbath law, then please enjoy your kosher meat and your new moon celebrations! The author of Hebrews makes a similar point. In his argument that Christ is “better than” all things previous, he notes that Israel’s rest in Canaan was not the final fulfillment of God’s seventh-day rest (Heb. 4:4-8). Rather, “we who have believed enter that rest” (Heb. 4:3). And in classic already/not-yet tension, he adds, “There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest” (Heb. 4:9-11). To supplement our rest in Christ with Sabbath laws makes as much sense as insisting that we must also move to Canaan and rest in that earthly promised land.
2. **We find examples, but no rules, regarding the Lord’s Day.** Our Sunday School booklets asked the blunt question: “Is there anything unlawful for us on the Lord’s Day?” To answer this well, we first need to ask, “Does Scripture give any laws about the Lord’s Day?” The answer is “no.” _Here are some of the things we do find about the “Lord’s Day.”_ This term is use only once in Scripture–in Revelation 1:10, where John writes, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” John does not say which day of the week this was. However, based on what we know of early church use of this term, it seems reasonable that he was referring to the first day of the week. Elsewhere in the NT we read of other Christian activities on the first day of the week: meeting to break bread and receive apostolic teaching (Acts 20:7) and setting money aside for collections for poor believers (1 Cor. 16:1-2). It seems reasonable, again based on early church history, that the reason Christians began meeting on the first day of the week was because this was the day that Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1) and also the day when the Spirit was poured out (based on calculations for the date of Pentecost).
**In summary,** Scripture makes it clear that : (1) Christians are not bound to obey the Sabbath. (2) We are not required to observe _any other_ holy days. (3) Rest in and through Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the Sabbath law. (4) The origin of the Lord’s Day is unrelated to the Sabbath. (5) No rules are given for the Lord’s Day.
At this point some of you may be thinking: _**“But what about Genesis 2? What about God’s example of resting on the seventh day–an example that precedes the Law of Moses?”**_ Good question!
**Here is how I think that question can be answered:**
1. It is crucial to note that _**God’s example does not overturn the clear statements of the NT**_: Christians are _not_ bound to observe any holy day.
2. However, I think God’s example–as well as his institution of all sorts of Sabbaths (weekly and otherwise) in the Law of Moses–reflects the reality that _**all of creation flourishes best with regular times of rest**_. This is a creation fact, and I know it to be true in my own life: I flourish best with regular days of rest.
3. However…! (This is where some of you may finally fall off my train.) I don’t think we should expect to enjoy _now_ all of God’s original provisions for our flourishing. Put more bluntly, **_I don’t think Christians have a right to demand a weekly day of rest._** A comparison may help. In Genesis 2:3 we read that God “blessed the seventh day and made it holy.” And in Genesis 2:18 we hear God say, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him.” This blessing, the blessing of a wife, is the greatest blessing that God gives to man in Genesis 2. Most men–myself included–generally flourish best if they are married. (I’m speaking here as a male; most of what I’m saying is true for women, too, I think, although I have a hunch that on average single women fair slightly better than single men. Let’s put the lid back on that can!) So we have these two great Genesis 2 blessings provided for humanity: a day made holy because God rested, and marriage. But when we come to the NT, what do we find? Well, what might Paul say? Let’s listen:
> 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion…
>
> 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. 29 This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, 31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.
>
> 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Cor. 7:8-9, 27-35)
This is uncomfortable theology for many of us, but I think Paul possessed exceptional insight. _Given life post-Fall, and given the NT call to proclaim the gospel_, Paul sees that marriage is not for all. Indeed, for those who can do without, marriage is sometimes actually a hindrance, a distraction from serving the Lord. God said “It is not good that the man should be alone,” but Paul knows we no longer live in the Garden, so he writes, “It is good for them to remain single.”
**What does this have to do with a weekly day of rest?** Well, back to a question from our Sunday School booklets:
> Can resting on the Lord’s Day become laziness? (Consider Proverbs 10:5 in light of Matthew 9:35-38.)
Proverbs 10 teaches that a prudent son will gather during harvest. Matthew 9 records Jesus’ command to pray for more laborers in the spiritual harvest and describes him working hard in this harvest–including on each Sabbath, when he was “teaching in their synagogues.” Jesus did not rest his body on his Sabbath day; he knew there was a harvest urgently awaiting laborers.
**Jesus did not have a flat Bible. Neither did Paul. But I fear that conservative Anabaptists sometimes have flatter Bibles that we realize.** While discussing this after church, a friend suggested that we also have a flat Bible approach to our understanding of who is or is not authorized to preach. I agree that at least some of our ideas about leadership seem to arise as much from OT kingship and priesthood as from the NT. Our thinking about ordinances has suffered in similar ways. (I have not forgotten that essay.)
_**What did the early Anabaptists believe about a weekly day of rest?**_ I don’t know, and don’t have time now to check. Edit (5/4/2015): John D. Roth, writing in his book \[amazon text=_Practices: Mennonite Worship and Witness_&asin=0836194276\], summarizes early Anabaptist belief on this topic:
> Initially, the Anabaptists do not seem to have elevated any particular day of the week above another for their worship. They gathered for prayer and Bible study throughout the week, and some even went out of their way to work on Sunday as a public expression of their opposition to the Catholic mass. By the end of the sixteenth century, however most Anabaptist groups had settled into a pattern of Sunday worship. Traditionally, Mennonite groups in North America took God’s example of Sabbath rest quite literally. Although practices varied widely, many Mennonite communities prohibited their members from all forms of buying and selling, from participation in sports, and from most forms of entertainment on Sunday. (pp. 157-58)
_**How did we get to where we are today, so that most of us have grown up believing it is wrong to work on Sunday?**_ Again, I don’t know all the influences. I do know that the Puritans in the 1600s enacted laws prohibiting work and pleasures on Sunday. And I do know that there was a Sabbatarian movement again in the 1800s and early 1900s, when “blue laws” were enacted prohibiting businesses from being opened on Sunday. Both of these are examples of Protestant influence. I also know that this Protestant influence was codified in Anabaptist thinking in part through the efforts of Daniel Kauffman, who wrote the following of the Lord’s Day in his _Doctrines of the Bible_:
> It is a day of rest… This is not a mere arbitrary command, a religious dogma, a scriptural “blue law” to restrain man of his liberties… Let us give this beneficent provision of an all-wise God our respect and obedience by laying all secular labor aside on the Lord’s Day. (pg. 177-78)
Edit (5/5/2015): I now have confirmation that the idea of Sunday as a day of rest goes back far beyond Protestant influences. Dom Gregory Dix, writing in _[The Shape of the Liturgy](http://www.global.org/Pub/PDF/SOTL_11_Time.pdf)_ (1945), summarizes how early Christians contrasted the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, and how this changed:
> It is still too often assumed that the observance of the christian Sunday is a continuation on a different day of the jewish sabbath. It is more than likely that the idea of such a weekly observance was suggested to the first jewish christians by familiarity with the sabbath; hellenism \[Greek culture\] furnishes no close analogies. But **the main ideas underlying the two observances were from the first quite different.** The rabbis made of the sabbath a minutely regulated day of _rest_, the leisure of which was partly filled in by attendance at the synagogue services which were somewhat longer on sabbath than on other days. But though the sabbath rest was emphatically a religious observance, based on the fourth commandment, it was the abstinence from work, not the attendance at public worship, which pharisaism insisted on; and indeed this was the only thing the commandment in its original meaning prescribed.
>
> By contrast Sunday was in the primitive christian view _only_ the prescribed day for corporate worship, by the proclamation of the Lord’s revelation and the Lord’s death till He come… But **there was no attempt whatever in the first three centuries to base the observance of Sunday on the fourth commandment**. On the contrary, christians maintained that like all the rest of the ceremonial law this commandment had been abrogated; and **second century christian literature is full of a lively polemic against the ‘idling’ of the jewish sabbath rest. Christians shewed no hesitation at all about treating Sunday as an ordinary working day like their neighbours,** once they had attended the synaxis \[gathering for prayers, readings, and psalms\] and eucharist \[Lord’s Supper\] at the _ecclesia \[church gathering\]_. This was the christian obligation, the weekly gathering of the whole Body of Christ to its Head, to become what it really is, His Body. **It was only the secular edict of Constantine in the fourth century making Sunday a weekly public holiday which first made the mistake of basing the christian observance of Sunday on the fourth commandment, and so inaugurated christian ‘sabbatarianism’.**
>
> Early christian documents on the contrary go out of their way to oppose the two observances. So e.g. the so-called _Epistle of Barnabas_ (c. A.D. 100-130) introduces God as rebuking the whole jewish observance of the sabbath, thus: ‘“It is not your present sabbaths that are acceptable unto Me, but the sabbath which I have made, in the which when I have set all things at rest, I will make the beginning with the eighth day, _which is the beginning of another world_.” Wherefore we (christians) also keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens’. Here Sunday is a festival, but not a day of rest…
>
> It seems likely, therefore, that Sunday was from its first beginnings a christian observance independent of the sabbath, though its weekly observance was probably suggested by the existence of the sabbath… \[Dix also suggests that Jewish Christians, probably from the earliest times, observed both a weekly Sabbath and the Lord’s’ Day, but with differing purposes for each.\] (pp. 336-37, emphasis added)
Later Dix explains how Sunday’s role was reevaluated during the time of Constantine, as the year-long Christian calendar was developing. With the development of liturgical events such as Holy Week observances, the role of weekly Sunday worship evolved:
> A new basis was therefore found for Sunday by making it what it had never been before, a weekly holiday from work. **In A.D. 321 Constantine issued an edict forbidding the law-courts to sit upon that day, and the enforcement of an official holiday brought daily life to something of a standstill** (as in the case of a modem Bank Holiday). The result was in large part to carry out Constantine’s design of rendering attendance at christian worship possible for all his subjects, christian or otherwise-it was largely a propaganda measure; though the church had difficulty in some places in securing that its provisions were extended to that large proportion of the population who were slaves. (p. 360, emphasis aded)
Thus, the idea of Sunday as a day of rest has a very long history—but a history which is clearly post-biblical in its origin, and unbiblical as a mandated practice.
Well, much more could be said, but this is nearly enough work for one Lord’s Day! Before going to some final exhortations, _**let me summarize how I now make decisions about work and purchases on the Lord’s Day**_. In short, I follow two principles:
1. I remember all the above: I am not under any rules about any holy days.
2. However, I also remember the multiple NT instructions for believers to gather together regularly for exhortation, teaching, worship, and more. I ask myself, “What can I do to make it as easy as possible for others to gather with God’s people? What can I do to make it easy for both saved and unsaved to gather under the sound of the gospel?”
_**Since Sunday morning is the time when it is easiest for most people in America to obey these NT commands to gather under the gospel, I do what I can to make it easy for others.**_ I am free in my spirit; I sense no compulsion. If the goals of the gospel will be best accomplished by me working or buying on Sunday, so much the better. Most times I find that it is best to help others to be free from work, and to take Sunday as an opportunity to take a break from my own non-essential work.
Except of course when it is time to do the work of writing a blog post. 🙂 But now I better stop. It’s time to gather again with God’s people to do the work of worship!
**If you agree with what I’ve written about Sabbath:**
1. **Honor your neighbor.** Don’t flaunt your Christian liberty before those who do not yet understand the freedom you possess (Rom. 14:19-20). Remember how long it took for you to reach your current understandings; remember those topics where you are still uncertain about the limits of your freedom. Give your neighbor the same time for growth that you require.
2. **Honor the Holy Spirit.** Despite the freedom God has given you, there may still be times when God says, “For you, for the next while, I am calling you to regular Sabbath rest.” You have been freed from the Sabbath law; don’t replace that law with another that forbids the Holy Spirit from ever calling you to Sabbath observance. Even Paul, who thunderously forbade mandatory circumcision (Gal. 5:1-4), still practiced it at times for strategic reasons (Acts 16:3).
3. **Honor God’s Word.** From time to time, when you can do so in love, teach others about what the New Testament says about holy days. [Share your Scripture-based convictions with others.](https://dwightgingrich.com/keep-convictions-secret-romans-14-22/) Don’t let fear of man keep you from honoring God in this way.
**If you disagree with what I’ve written about Sabbath:**
1. **Honor your neighbor.** Your neighbor has been instructed to not “let anyone pass judgment” on him “with regard to… a Sabbath” (Col. 2:16). Make it easy for your brother to obey this verse! Don’t set rules for your neighbor or expect him to live up to your conscience on this matter. But do…
2. **Honor your conscience.** Don’t work or buy on Sunday if you truly feel it is wrong to do so. Your conscience is one of the ways that God guides you (Rom. 2:15), and to reject your conscience is to act without faith–to sin (Rom. 14:5, 14, 23). So don’t trample your conscience. Rather, train it: Study and…
3. **Honor God’s Word.** Be a Berean (Acts 17:11-12)! You might be surprised to find, [as the Bereans did](https://dwightgingrich.com/if-youre-not-berean-who-might-you-be/), that the good news is even better than you imagined.
**[Please share your thoughts in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-flat-bibles-and-sabbath/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Study Resources for Matthew
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-02-23
Category: Study Resources for Bible Books
Meta Title: Study Resources for Matthew | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: If you use the Christian Light Publications books for Sunday School, you will be studying Matthew for March and April. Here are a few suggested resources.
Tags: David | Instone-Brewer, R.T. | France, Craig | Blomberg, divorce and remarriage, Finny | Kuruvilla, Andrew | Cornes, William E. | Heth, Clair | Martin, Michael J. | Wilkins, Kenneth E. | Bailey, parables, -Colossians 2:16-17, -Hebrews 4, -Matthew 12, David | Wenham, Gordan | Wenham, H. Van Dyck | Parunak, Klyne R. | Snodgrass, -Mark 7, -Matthew 15
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/study-resources-for-matthew
**If you use the Christian Light Publications materials for Sunday School, you will be studying Matthew for March and April.** This is a bit last-minute and I’ll need to be brief, but I thought I’d share a few suggested resources. If you have other resources, feel free to share them in the comments below.
**Commentaries**
My favorite Matthew commentary is the \[amazon text=big one by R.T. France&asin=080282501X\] in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series, widely considered a “must-buy.” It was written when he was an older man, so it has a maturity and wisdom that some commentaries lack. It is based on the best scholarship, but it is not hard to read. France’s method as he wrote this commentary was to simply read Matthew and write commentary. Only after this did he check to see what other commentators have written and what he previously wrote in his earlier, shorter Matthew commentary. So this is a commentary on Matthew, not a commentary on commentaries! Some readers don’t like France’s take on Matthew 24 (he emphasizes how part of the chapter was fulfilled in A.D. 70), but (a) I think he get’s it right and (b) we’re not studying that chapter this go around, anyway. I haven’t read this commentary through, but the parts I’ve read have been consistently insightful.
If you don’t want to invest in France’s 1169-page volume, here are a few others that would be helpful for most Sunday School teachers:
* \[amazon text=Michael J. Wilkins&asin=0310493102\] (NIV Application Commentary, 1008 pages, with many of those pages focusing on application)
* \[amazon text=Craig L. Blomberg&asin=0805401229\] (New American Commentary, 464 pages)
* \[amazon text=R.T. France&asin=0830842314\] (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 422 pages)
**Other Suggestions**
* **Lesson 1 is about the Sabbath (Matthew 12).** I am pleased to see the commentary recognizes that Christians are not required to observe the Jewish Sabbath, and that we are not judged on whether we keep holy days (Col. 2:16-17). I affirm that we were designed to experience regular times of rest (some of us need the reminder), but a proper understanding of the Sabbath’s fulfillment in Christ, both now and in the future (see also Heb. 4), should prevent us from setting rules for others about holy days. For more help on how such things changed with the coming of the new covenant, see “The Law of Moses and the Christian” by Dorsey on [this page](https://dwightgingrich.com/other-resources/essays/) (also Moo’s essays), and the “New Covenant Theology” talks by Steve Atkerson of New Testament Reformation Fellowship on [this page](https://dwightgingrich.com/other-resources/audio/).
* **Lesson 3 is on the relationship between tradition and the word of God (Matthew 15).** I once preached a sermon on Mark 7, a parallel passage. You can find my Scripture outline for Mark 7 [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Mark-7.1-23.pdf), and you can find my (slightly modified) sermon notes [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Mark-7.1-23-Sermon-notes-Web-version.pdf). My sermon notes include a lot of rather pointed (some of you might think _too_ pointed!) application questions to help us sense the force of Jesus’ words to the Pharisees.
* **Lesson 6 is on Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 27-28).** While his book does not deal directly with this Scripture text very much, I cannot help but mention _\[amazon text=Surprised by Hope&asin=0061551821\]_ by N.T. Wright. If you are like me, you will disagree on some secondary points but walk away truly surprised anew by the hope provided by Jesus’ resurrection!
* **Lesson 7 is on the permanence of marriage (Matthew 5 and 19).** I don’t feel well qualified to give recommendations on resources for this topic, so I’ll just mention some of the resources that are on my want-to-read list. Some conservative Anabaptists have found \[amazon text=_Jesus and Divorce_&asin=1608992403\] (Wenham and Heth) helpful. Here is a [booklet by Clair Martin](http://www.biblicalmennonite.com/support-files/marriage-divorce-and-remarriage-booklet-final-.pdf) that the Biblical Mennonite Alliance published on the topic. Here is an [online book by H. Van Dyck Parunak](http://www.cyber-chapel.org/LetNotManPutAsunder.pdf) that takes a conservative position on most questions. Here is a [booklet by Finny Kuruvilla](http://www.anchorcross.org/people/kuruvilla/essay_remarriage.pdf) about the question of remarriage after divorce. The most influential scholar on this subject in the evangelical world is \[amazon text=Instone-Brewer&asin=0802849431\], who mentions a \[amazon text=book by Andrew Cornes&asin=1857927567\] as being “the best presentation” of the opposing conservative viewpoint. Divorce and remarriage involves complex exegetical and pastoral questions, and we will not serve people well with poorly thought-out answers or [approaches that avoid the Scripture passages that raise the hardest questions](http://www.beachyam.org/librarybooks/beliefs/marriage.pdf). (I do not say this from a desire to be critical, for I still do not have solid answers for all my own questions.)
* **Lesson 8 is a parable (Matthew 20).** You might want to add a book on parables to your library, such as _\[amazon text=Interpreting the Parables&asin=0830839674\]_ by Craig L. Blomberg (463 pages) or \[amazon text=_The Parables of Jesus_&asin=0830812865\] by David Wenham (256 pages). For detailed scholarship look for Klyne R. Snodgrass, and for fascinating cultural insights see Kenneth E. Bailey–best compared with a more traditional commentary. (Note: I own Snodgrass and Bailey, have enjoyed other works by Blomberg, and see Wenham is recommended by a trusted source.)
Since I’m a bookish sort of fellow, a lot of the above recommendations are books. Don’t buy them all at once. 🙂 But do consider buying one or two that are likely to serve you well for years to come. A good book is a wise investment, especially when that good book is a book that helps you understand the Best Book.
**What other resources would you suggest for studying and teaching Matthew? [Share them with other readers in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/resources-for-studying-matthew-in-sunday-school/#respond) Thanks!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Ecclesiology of the Reformers (6): William Tyndale
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-02-18
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Ecclesiology of the Reformers (6): William Tyndale | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: The idea of Tyndale having an ecclesiology is new for me. Tyndale is famous for being the father of the English Bible, not for having founded any church.
Tags: priesthood of all believers, Protestant Reformation, King James Version, church leadership, Bible translations, Paul, Timothy | George, William | Tyndale, church history, love, sexual sin, faith, gospel, -Colossians 1:18, preaching, missions, persecution, conversion, justification, sacraments, soteriology, -Matthew 16:18, election, born again, giving, -Ephesians 5:30, -James 2:14-24, -John 3:16-17, -Luke 12:32, -Romans 8:9, congregation, greed, Henry VIII, John | Foxe, teaching, Thomas | More, vocabulary, William S. | Stafford
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale
**The idea of Tyndale having an ecclesiology is new for me.** Tyndale is famous for being the father of the English Bible, not for having founded any church. Yet Tyndale _did_ have an ecclesiology, and he _did_ help to found a new church. Just as Tyndale’s translation work lies hidden in plain site within the King James Version Bible–[about 80% of the KJV NT matches Tyndale’s](http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.html)–so his influence on ecclesiology lies hidden in plain sight in the many branches of the English Protestant church.
> **Tyndale’s ecclesiology was hammered out in the context of his experience, a scholar on the run, a theologian in exile…** Even Menno Simons, who faced harassment and persecution, seems to have had a respected leadership role among the scattered Anabaptist communities in the Low Countries. He was able to get married and have a family. Not so William Tyndale. He lived hand to mouth, so to speak, depending on the generosity of a few friends, never knowing when the creak on the stairs or the turn of the lock would be his summons from the authorities. **And yet he thought and wrote a great deal about the church, which he frequently referred to as God’s “little flock”:** “The Kingdom of heaven is the preaching of the Gospel, unto which come both good and bad . But the good are few. Christ calleth them therefore a ‘little flock’ (Luke 12:32).” (Kindle Locations 7737-7744, emphasis added)
**This post continues our series on the ecclesiology of the Reformers, quoting from Timothy George’s excellent book, [_Theology of the Reformers_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=ZYRGOAVXWDMMHG5V).** (See past posts about the ecclesiologies of [Luther](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/), [Zwingli](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli/) , [Calvin](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/), and [Simons](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/). See also the [introduction to this series](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/), and stay tuned for, hopefully, [some wrap-up thoughts](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/).)
One of the first things I noticed while reviewing George’s survey of Tyndale’s theology was that **Tyndale’s Bible translation had ecclesiological effects**. Even if Tyndale would have had no conscious theology of the church himself, he still would have shaped the ecclesiology of the English world simply through his translation. This happened in at least two ways: _**(1) through the gatherings that were formed by readers of his translation and (2) through the vocabulary choices he made as he translated.**_
**Tyndale didn’t aim to produce a new church through his translation work:**
> At first Tyndale tried to accomplish his mission by working through official channels of the established church… The decree of 1408 forbidding English Bible translations provided only one loophole: Such a project could be undertaken with the permission and supervision of a bishop. (Kindle Locations 7176-7179)
Though the established church denied him support, Tyndale refused to deny the common plowman the chance to read “God’s Word.” Tyndale’s declared goal was to work for spiritual renewal of both individuals and the English nation at large:
> Tyndale believed that the translation of the Bible and its dissemination into the hands of ordinary people were the means God had appointed to bring about genuine reformation and spiritual renewal in his time. In his brief epistle “To the Reader,” Tyndale commended his translation of the New Testament in this way: “Give diligence dear reader (I exhort thee) that thou come with a pure mind and as the Scripture saith with a single eye unto words of help and eternal life: by the which (if we repent and believe them) we are born anew, created afresh, and enjoy the fruits of the love of Christ.” (Kindle Locations 7225-7233)
**Tyndale longed for God to use his translation to create new creatures in Christ Jesus. It did more than that; it also _created new gatherings of believers._**
> Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament entered England as contraband and began to circulate in this way. Literacy was on the rise but still not common. **Those who did not know how to read gathered eagerly around others who did** to hear for the first time the words of the New Testament read aloud in English. Here and there, in the dark corners of the land, **common folk gathered for such secret readings of Tyndale’s New Testament. Imagine being in such a group and hearing for the first time these words** from the Gospel of John: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son for the intent, that none that believe in him should perish: But should have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world: But that the world through him, might be saved” (John 3:16–17 Tyndale).(Kindle Locations 7215-7221, emphasis added)
King Henry VIII banned Tyndale’s translation; it was burned in St. Paul’s churchyard; and Tyndale remained on the run throughout the continental Europe. Yet his translation continued to find readers and to gather these readers into groups.
> The case of William Malden illustrates the impact of Tyndale’s New Testament as it began to circulate throughout England in the late 1520s. Malden was a teenager, fifteen years of age, who lived with his family in the town of Chelmsford. At that time all of the services in the parish church there were still conducted in Latin. But, as Malden later recalled, **“Divers poor men in the town of Chelmsford . . . bought the New Testament of Jesus Christ and on Sundays did sit reading in the lower end of the church and many would flock to hear their reading.”** When Malden’s father found out about his son’s attendance at these Bible-reading sessions, he forbad him to participate anymore, insisting that he could get all the Bible he needed by going to Latin matins. Contrary to his father’s wishes, young William learned to read so that he could have access to the Scriptures for himself and not depend on its being read to him by others. (Kindle Locations 7259-7266, emphasis added)
Given this result of Tyndale’s efforts, it is interesting how he has been compared to the Paul the apostle and church planter:
> Tyndale had enemies in high places, but he also had his champions, among whom there was none greater than John Foxe. In his _Acts and Monuments_, Foxe referred to Tyndale as one “who for his notable pains and travails may well be called the Apostle of England in this our later age.” Foxe invited one to think of Tyndale as a kind of apostle for his time, like Paul. The parallels between the two are, in fact, striking. Both were unmarried celibates who had no family of their own. Both Tyndale and Paul skirted danger in the fulfillment of their mission. Both were betrayed by untrustworthy companions, both spent time in prison and produced letters in their confinement, both were shipwrecked and finally put to death at the hands of imperial power . What Paul said about himself in his “catalog of sufferings” could be echoed by apostle Tyndale in the sixteenth century… (Kindle Locations 7241-7248)
**A second way that Tyndale’s translation had ecclesiological effects was through the vocabulary choices that Tyndale made as he translated.**
> Tyndale’s desire to put the Scriptures into “plain plowman’s English” led him to introduce a new biblical vocabulary. As we have seen, _charity_ became _love_. He turned _penance_ into _repentance_ and rendered _confess_ as _acknowledge_. And, just as Luther preferred _Gemeinde_ (community) to the German word _Kirche_ (church), so **Tyndale translated the Greek _ekklesia_ as _congregation_**. (Kindle Locations 7748-7752, emphasis added)
According to George, Tyndale recognized that there were four ways that the terms _church_ and _congregation_ were used. Tyndale didn’t approve of all these uses:
> …Fourth, in Tyndale’s day the word _church_ was used in a technical and exclusive sense to refer to all the clergy, who were also known as “the spirituality.” Tyndale called them “a multitude of shaven, shorn, and oiled.” Tyndale pointed out that this use of the word is found nowhere in the Scriptures; it represents a false institutionalization of the people of God.
**So, what did Tyndale mean by _congregation_?**
> Congregation, as Tyndale often used it, refers to **the true remnant, the “little flock,” Christ’s elect church**, which is
>
> **The whole multitude of all repenting sinners that believe in Christ, and put all their trust and confidence of God**; feeling in their hearts that God for Christ’s sake loveth them, and will be, or rather is, merciful unto them, and forgiveth them their sins of which they repent; and that he forgiveth them also all the motions unto sin, of which they fear less they should thereby be drawn into sin again.
>
> Upon the rock of the faith that Peter confessed in Matthew 16, Jesus said that he would build his congregation. “And against the rock of this faith can no sin, no hell, no devil , no lies, nor error prevail,” Tyndale declared. **It is this knowledge and faith that “maketh a man of the church.”** Furthermore: “And the church is Christ’s Body (Col. 1); and every person of the church is a member of Christ (Eph. 5). Now it is no member of Christ that hath not Christ’s Spirit within it (Rom. 8); as it is no part of me, or members of my Body, wherein my soul is not present and quickeneth it. And then, **if a man be none of Christ’s, he is not of his church**.” (Kindle Locations 7753-7772, emphasis added)
**Given this emphasis on knowledge and faith, we can see that Tyndale’s translation work was urgent and essential.** He rested his hopes for individual salvation and for church renewal on the power of the written Word. To put it another way, Tyndale’s beliefs about the Word and about salvation shaped his understanding of the true Church. _**The Word awakens faith in the individual, and the gathering of the faithful is the Church:**_
> “In as much as the Word is before the faith, and faith maketh the congregation, therefore is the Word or Gospel before the congregation.” (Kindle Locations 7777-7778)
Once again, as we’ve seen before in this series, _**ecclesiology rests on soteriology**_–that is, what we believe about the church is based on what we believe about the gospel and how it saves us. Differences in soteriology (doctrine of salvation) inevitably led to division between Tyndale and the Roman Catholic Church:
> Both Thomas More \[Catholic English statesman\] and William Tyndale, like all Catholics and Protestants engaged in sixteenth-century salvation debates, believed in _both_ faith _and_ works. But how these two dimensions of the Christian life are related, which came first, whether either involves the accrual of merit, and what role each plays in the economy of grace—**these were church-dividing matters that could not be resolved**. (Kindle Locations 7607-7610, emphasis)
**So what did Tyndale believe about salvation?** In summary, according to George: Tyndale “was the first English-speaking theologian to give” justification by faith “due attention” (Kindle Locations 7495-7496). He emphasized the covenants God made with humanity, God’s work of electing and granting faith to his chosen ones, and how God grants sinners “_totus Christus_, the whole Christ: ‘His blood, his death, all that he ever did, is ours. And Christ himself, with all that he is or can do, is ours.’” (Kindle Locations 7581-7582)
At some points Tyndale sounds very Anabaptist:
> None of this happens apart from the Holy Spirit. Tyndale’s emphasis on regeneration, the new birth, resonates more with Menno Simons and the Anabaptist vision than with the other reformers studied in this book. (Kindle Locations 7581-7584)
>
> Unlike Luther, Tyndale placed a high value on the letter of James and quoted from it often. Tyndale saw no real contradiction between Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith apart from the works of the law and James’s statement that one is justified by works and not by faith only (Jas 2:14–24). James was not opposing works to true faith, Tyndale said, but rather works to a false conception of faith. (Kindle Locations 7682-7684)
And at other times not so much:
> In his prologue to Romans, Tyndale declared that “predestination, our justifying and salvation are clean taken out of our hands, and put in the hands of God only, which thing is most necessary of all. For we are so weak and so uncertain, that if it stood in us, there would be of a truth no man be saved, the devil no doubt would deceive us.” (Kindle Locations 7538-7540)
>
> Now may not we ask why God chooseth one and not another; either think that God is unjust to damn us before we do any actual deed; seeing that God hath power over all his creatures of right, to do with them what he list, or to make of every one of them as he listeth. (Kindle Locations 7545-7547)
Tyndale’s soteriology–with its ecclesiological ramifications–was not just communicated subtly through vocabulary choices in his translation:
> **Tyndale was not only a translator of the Bible, but he was also a teacher of the church.**
>
> In the preface to his commentary on 1 John, he gave this as the reason for writing that book and everything else he produced : “to edify the layman, and to teach him how to read the Scriptures, and what to seek therein.” In addition to translating most of the Bible into English from Hebrew and Greek—a formidable task no one had ever done before or has been required to do since—**Tyndale produced an amazing theological corpus:** prologues, introductions, expositions, and commentaries on the Bible as well as polemical and doctrinal treatises, not to mention sermons , letters, and liturgical writings, only a small portion of which have survived. (Kindle Locations 7334-7338, emphasis added)
Nor was Tyndale afraid to directly criticize the established church:
> **Among many complaints registered by Tyndale against leaders of the church, two stand out as especially offensive. The first was their avarice, greed, and exploitation of the flock** over which they had been placed as shepherds… Every priest took his cut, as Tyndale wrote with sarcasm: “The parson sheareth, the vicar shaveth, the parish priest polleth, the frier scrapeth, and the pardoner pareth; we lack but a butcher to pull off the skin.” (Kindle Locations 7788-7794, emphasis added)
>
> **Tyndale also excoriated religious leaders for their moral laxity and sexual sins.** Although he did not regard marriage as a sacrament—only baptism and the Lord’s Supper were New Testament institutions with a “promise”—he held a high view of married life… He strongly opposed the imposition of enforced clerical celibacy. This practice, Tyndale believed, invariably led to two extreme responses: On the one hand, the shunning and despising of all women—an attitude he detected in Jerome among others—and, on the other hand, a “false feigned chastity” that resulted in lust, lechery, and sexual abuse. (Kindle Locations 7801-7807, emphasis added)
Tyndale’s criticism of the established church clarifies that _**his vocabulary choices as a translator were very intentional, loaded with theological significance:**_
> In criticizing late medieval religious practices, **Tyndale made the priesthood of all believers the basis of his own ecclesiology**. William S. Stafford has pointed to the significant **change signaled by Tyndale’s choice of the term _congregation_ over _church_. It amounted to “the re-evaluation of the laity**, a religious, social and political relocation of the multitude who were baptized but untonsured.”[1](#fn-1285-1) (Kindle Locations 7816-7819, emphasis added)
**Tyndale’s emphasis on the priesthood of all believers reminds me of Luther.** The similarities between the two men go beyond the fact that both permanently shaped their respective national languages through their exceptional linguistic and translational skills. Tyndale was strongly influenced by Luther’s theological writings and may have even studied directly under him for a time. The following, though written of Tyndale, equally accurately describes Luther:
> He believed that everyone in the congregation, informed by the Scriptures, had the right to admonish teachers and pastors when they went astray. All walks of life are holy callings. (Kindle Locations 7827-7829)
>
> However, **we should not imagine that Tyndale had no concept of an ordered ministry.** Certain persons, mostly men, Tyndale thought, but also women (in case of emergency) were charged with preaching openly to the entire congregation. Tyndale opposed the idea that “the wagging of the bishop’s hand over us” had some supernatural power to make a preacher where there was none before. What mattered most was neither the ceremony of induction nor degrees earned at a college or university and certainly not the social status or rank of the preacher. Rather, **what mattered most was the integrity of the message and the endowment of the Spirit.** “When a true preacher preacheth,” wrote Tyndale, “the Spirit interrupts the hearts of the elect…” (Kindle Locations 7831-7837, emphasis added)
**I want to end this survey of Tyndale’s ecclesiology where I began–by observing how fellowship around the Bible was central to his ecclesiology.** Yet this fellowship, for Tyndale the “true preacher,” was not a self-centered withdrawal from the world, but one more way of sharing the love of God with all he met.
> For nine months before his arrest, Tyndale lived in the English Merchants House in Antwerp… **On Sundays he could be found in one of the largest rooms in the house reading a portion of the Scriptures**, no doubt from his own translation. These readings would have included expositions of the text and pastoral applications as well. He repeated this exercise after dinner, **“so fruitfully, sweetly, and gently” that he brought heavenly comfort to his listeners.** On Mondays he would visit the English refugees who had come to Antwerp. On Saturdays he would walk around the city, looking into “every corner and hole” for those especially destitute—the elderly, women, children, the outcast. He gave liberally from the means he had to help those in need. He maintained a study in Merchants House and on all other days gave himself “wholly to his book.” In this brief sketch we see something of **the pastoral calling at the heart of Tyndale’s work**. (Kindle Locations 7850-7860, emphasis added)
>
> * * *
**Postscript**
Although the theme of this series is ecclesiology, I am so impressed by **Tyndale’s words about loving our neighbors** that I cannot help sharing them also. And where better to begin loving our neighbors than right in our own churches? Listen and live:
> **“For as a man feeleth God in himself,” Tyndale wrote, “so is he to his neighbor.”** Behind this principle is a view of Christian sociality that denies private ownership of one’s possessions in any absolute sense. This is how Tyndale put it: “For if my neighbor need and I give him not , neither depart liberally with him of that which I have, then withhold I from him unrighteously that which is his own.” And again: “**Among Christian men love maketh all things common**: every man is other’s debtor, and every man is bound to minister to his neighbor, and to supply his neighbor’s lack, of that wherewith God hath endowed him.”
>
> **But who is my neighbor?** Tyndale answered that our neighbors are, in the first place, the members of our own family and household. Second, our neighbors include all those who live in proximity to us, “them of thine own parish,” as Tyndale put it, or, as we might say, the folks in our neighborhood. But our indebtedness to our neighbors extends far beyond this close circle, even to “the brethren a thousand miles off,” and, beyond that, “to the very infidels.” **All these “have as good right in thy goods as thou thyself:** and if thou withdraw mercy from them, and has wherewith to help them, then art thou a thief”! …**“Neighbor is a love word,”** he wrote. Loving our neighbors means that we pray for them, extend help and mercy to them in their need, and also share with them the message of Christ’s gospel. **“Them that are good I love, because they are in Christ; and the evil, to bring them to Christ.”** (Kindle Locations 7710-7724)
>
> Tyndale extended the scope of Christian witness to include those outside the bounds of Christendom: “**I am bound to love the Turk** with all my might and power; yea, and above my power, even from the ground of my heart, **after the example that Christ loved me**; neither to spare goods, body, or life, to win him to Christ.” (Kindle Locations 7726-7728)
* * *
(Next up: some of [my conclusions and questions](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/) as I reflect on the ecclesiology of the reformers.)
**What did you learn from this survey of Tyndale’s ecclesiology?** What should we learn from Tyndale yet today? Do we need to relearn the importance of choosing sound vocabulary when talking about the Church or our congregations? How does our ecclesiology line up with our soteriology? Are our churches gathered around the reading of the Scriptures? [**Share your insights and questions in the comments below!**](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale/#respond)
* * *
_**PS:** If you are enjoying this series, be sure to [buy Timothy George’s book](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=TW45NY7LIFZE3QFR)! He has much more to say than what I am sharing here. (Disclosure: The link above is an Amazon affiliate link, so I’ll make pennies if you buy the book.)_
1. William S. Stafford, “Tyndale’s Voice to the Laity,” in Day, Lund, and O’Donnell, _Word, Church, and State_, 106. [↩](#fnref-1285-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Professor Janzen Reads Hopkins’ Sonnets [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-02-16
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Professor Janzen Reads Hopkins' Sonnets | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This month's poem is the most technically challenging of any of Mom's poems that I've shared so far. Yet this sonnet also comes with a personal story.
Tags: creation, sonnet, Gerard Manley | Hopkins, Lorraine | Janzen Kooistra, Margaret | Avison, Robert | Robinson, Samuel | Medley
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/professor-janzen-reads-hopkins-sonnets
_**This month’s poem is the most technically challenging of any of Mom’s poems that I’ve shared so far.** Yet this poem also comes with a personal story._
_(See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/) for an introduction to this monthly series from Mom.)_
_Back in my days at [Nipissing University](http://www.nipissingu.ca/academics/faculties/arts-science/english-studies/Pages/default.aspx), I took a Victorian Literature class under [Lorraine Janzen Kooistra](http://www.ryerson.ca/content/ryerson/graduate/programs/comcult/areas-of-study/research-profiles/kooistra-2013.html). Since Mom enjoys the poetry of the 19th century, I asked my professor if Mom could join me in class. Professor Janzen[1](#fn-1270-1) agreed. So Mom joined me on a day when we were studying the poems of [Gerard Manley Hopkins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Manley_Hopkins) (1844–89), and afterward she wrote a poem in memory of the occasion._
_I’ll let Mom continue with her own introduction to this poem:_
* * *
“Teach me some melodious sonnet, Sung by flaming tongues above.” Every time I sing that line from [Robert Robinson’s hymn](http://cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/o/comethou.htm), my heart lifts with longing. Samuel Medley, another eighteenth century hymn writer, yearned to “[speak the matchless worth](http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/c/ocouldis.htm)” of his Saviour, to “sound the glories forth.” Like him I ache to “soar and touch the heavenly strings, and vie with Gabriel while he sings in tones almost divine.” Neither of those hymns are sonnets and we don’t usually sing sonnets in our worship, but sometimes my attempt to soar in private worship is on the wings of a sonnet, one of the most perfect of poetic forms.
The Canadian poet, Margaret Avison, who became a believer during her writing career, compared a sonnet to a stiff butterfly specimen in her sonnet [Butterfly Bones; or Sonnet Against Sonnets](https://connectere.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/butterfly-bones-or-sonnet-against-sonnets-by-margaret-avison/), suggesting that the form, like cyanide, “seals life” with its cryptic laws. Can a sonnet take wings and soar? Can it live and breathe inside the confines of its form?
This poem is a sonnet about reading sonnets, but not just any sonnets. The sonnets our professor was reading were composed by Gerard Manley Hopkins, a Catholic priest writing in the late nineteenth century, a poet of deep faith who knew and mastered the rules of sonnet writing but transcended and transformed them, bouncing the rhythm and building words, and so creating highly original, masterful sonnets that were uniquely his own.
Perhaps this was because his inspiration came from observing the natural world which was created by a God Who Himself had devised the rules by which life exists, and then delighted in displaying infinite variety of form and creature within those confines. The God of gravity and precisely regulated atmospheric gases also playfully created koalas and kangaroos, amphibians and ocean mammals, butterflies and birds, the platypus and penguin, each able to flourish within the precise requirements and provisions of planet earth, and together displaying the incomprehensible mental and artistic powers of our Creator God.
Hopkin’s world was “charged with the grandeur of God,” full of the glory of “dappled things,” where God “fathers-forth” and “Christ plays in ten thousand places,” and “the Holy Ghost over the bent world broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.”
Ah wings! Can a sonnet soar? This poor specimen may be a bit stiff in places but if it causes you to read Hopkins, worship the Creator, or echo His glory more uniquely, that may be as wondrous as soaring.
* * *
_Mom says that her own poem, “as a sonnet, presents some irregularities of rhythm and syllable count, perhaps justified by Hopkin’s own unusual sonnets. Would Hopkins approve? I don’t know.”_
_We don’t know if Hopkins would approve, but Mom’s poem did manage to win 2nd prize for Rhymed Poetry in the 2002 [Inscribe Christian Writers’ Fellowship](http://inscribe.org/about-us/) Fall Contest._
_And Professor Janzen also approved. Describing one of my own poems as well as Mom’s, she wrote:_
> Your poem is, as I thought it might be, a highly crafted and intellectual lyric. But the laurel is reserved for your mother, who has a real poetic gift (& also, of course, several more decades of writing experience than you do!). Please tell her for me how very much I enjoyed her Hopkins imitation. The compounding and chiming are particularly deft, & the final [sestet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestet) is positively magisterial.
_So, for your enjoyment and worship, here is Mom’s poem:_
* * *
**PROFESSOR JANZEN READS HOPKINS’ SONNETS**
When Janzen scans his lines, each stanza enchants–
Soft, swell; breath, bell; speak, spell–each noted nuance
Of stone rung, rhythm sprung… silence… All enhance
His intricate syllabic aural contredanse.
The optic nerves catch fire: a micro-expanse
Of inner landscapes; unique icons and fonts
Inscribe inscapes, transcribe atomic dance;
Words deftly flash designs that nature flaunts.
And more, each self that solos prominently
Echoes its source–By Him we cohere, consist–
As teacher, class and I, the dilettante,
Meet the word-waltzing, the word-wielding, the word-waking Word–all three:
The poem and poet, and Maker by whom they exist,
And we, wonderstruck with creation’s concertante.
– By Elaine Gingrich, 2002
* * *
_To help you better appreciate this poem, Mom and I thought it would be good to post one of Hopkin’s own sonnets as well. Here is one of the poems that Janzen read on that day–one of the poems that inspired Mom’s poem:_
**34\. ‘As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies dráw fláme’**
As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies dráw fláme;
As tumbled over rim in roundy wells
Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell’s
Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;
Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves—goes itself; _myself_ it speaks and spells,
Crying _Whát I do is me: for that I came._
Í say móre: the just man justices;
Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is—
Chríst—for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men’s faces.
_And here are links to a few more of Hopkin’s better-known sonnets, ones that Mom quoted in her introductory essay above:_
**[7\. ‘God’s Grandeur’](http://www.bartleby.com/122/7.html)
**[**13\. ‘Pied Beauty’**](http://www.bartleby.com/122/13.html)
* * *
_If you enjoyed this poem, [**leave a comment here for Mom**](http://dwightgingrich.com/professor-janzen-reads-hopkins-sonnets/#respond), or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)_
_[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353448651-compressed.png)_
_. Thanks!_
* * *
1. Sometimes in conversation we dropped Lorraine Janzen Kooistra’s married name, simply calling her by her maiden name, “Janzen.” [↩](#fnref-1270-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Ecclesiology of the Reformers (5): Menno Simons
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-02-15
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Ecclesiology of the Reformers (5): Menno Simons
Meta Description: Menno Simons would have been dumbfounded: today there are about 1.7 million Mennonites. So what did Menno Simons believe about the Church?
Tags: Bride of Christ, marks of the church, Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura, Chester | Weaver, Mary, Anabaptist history, holiness, catechism, Menno | Simons, restorationism, Christology, Münster, Swiss Brethren, Timothy | George, Mennonites, church history, faith, gospel, repentance, incarnation, persecution, baptism, conversion, infant baptism, original sin, sacraments, church and Israel, Lord's Supper, state church, born again, giving, teaching, -John 3, -John 6:51, -Matthew 18:15-18, celestial flesh, corpus christianum, divine nature, docetism, Evangelical Rationalists, Foundation of Christian Doctrine, George H. | William, J.A. | Oosterbaan, Max | Göbel, Radical Reformation, regulative principle, Spiritualists, transubstantiation, Zacchaeus, church discipline, church purity, apostolic church
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons
**Menno Simons, had he foreseen it, would have been dumbfounded: today [there are about 1.7 million people who belong to churches that bear his name](https://www.mwc-cmm.org/article/world-directory).** (He would have been doubly disoriented by the discovery that over 96% of them do _not_ live in Europe!) As one of these Mennonites, I have good reason to be curious about what Menno Simons believed about the Church.
**This post continues our series on the ecclesiology of the Reformers, quoting from Timothy George’s excellent book, [_Theology of the Reformers_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=ZYRGOAVXWDMMHG5V).** (See past posts about the ecclesiologies of [Luther](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/), [Zwingli](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli/) , and [Calvin](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/). See also the [introduction to this series](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/), and stay tuned for [William Tyndale](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale/) and [my conclusions and questions](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/).)
Perhaps because I have personal stake in the quest, I have found this the hardest post yet to prepare for this series. I’ve had to cut out so much intriguing information! _**To manage length somewhat, I will focus on one theme in Menno Simon’s ecclesiology: the purity of the Church.**_ Along the way, I’ll note other themes also worth exploring.
First, I’ll let Timothy George introduce the Radical Reformation:
> The Radical Reformation…, was not merely a “wing,” a side effect that revealed a more extreme form of the Reformation; it was instead a movement that gave birth to a new form of Christian faith and life. As one scholar put it, it was a “reformation of the Reformation” or “a correction of the correction of Catholicism.”[1](#fn-1248-1) Precisely this, together with the fact that for the most part the radicals were forced to develop their model of the Christian life outside the confines of the official churches, gave their spirituality and church life a distinctive cast. (Kindle Locations 5827-5831)
George identifies three branches of the Radical Reformation–the Anabaptists, the Spiritualists, and the Evangelical Rationalists.
> Each branch of the Radical Reformation attached itself to a distinctive “root.” For the Anabaptists it was the Bible, especially the New Testament. They desired not merely to reform the church but to **restore it to its pristine, apostolic purity**. (Kindle Locations 5820-5822, emphasis added)
Menno’s early life and education were formative, but let’s leap ahead: _**What drove Menno Simons from being a Roman Catholic priest to becoming “the most outstanding leader” (George) of the Anabaptists?**_
> Three important clusters of events and ideas are in Menno’s developing consciousness of the true church and his role in it… In 1525, the year that Grebel and Mantz were organizing the first Anabaptist congregations in Switzerland, Menno began to entertain doubts about the dogma of **transubstantiation**. “It occurred to me, as often as I handled the bread and wine in the mass, that they were not the flesh and blood of the Lord.” (Kindle Locations 5887-5894, emphasis added)
>
> Menno might have quietly remained within the Roman fold had he not come to question another pillar of the established tradition, **infant baptism**… On March 20, 1531…, an itinerant tailor named Sicke Freerks was beheaded because he had been baptized a second time. Menno later commented, “It sounded very strange in my ears that one spoke of a second baptism.” …He began to investigate the basis for infant baptism. He examined the arguments of Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, and Bullinger but found them all lacking… Finally, he “searched the Scriptures diligently and considered the question seriously but could find nothing about infant baptism.” (Kindle Locations 5908-5917, emphasis added)
>
> Possessed of new convictions on the Lord’s Supper and baptism, Menno nonetheless did not break with the Roman Church until he was deeply stirred by events surrounding the… violent, revolutionary kingdom of the two Jans at **Münster**… On March 30, 1535, a group of some three hundred violent Anabaptists captured the Old Cloister near Bolsward… On April 7 the cloister was retaken and the radicals savagely slain. Among them was Menno’s brother…
>
> After this had transpired the blood of these people, although misled, fell so hot on my heart that I could not stand it, nor find rest in my soul… I saw that these zealous children, although in error, willingly gave their lives and their estates for their doctrine and faith. And I was one of those who disclosed to some of them the abominations of the papal system… I thought to myself—I, miserable man, what am I doing? If I continue in this way, and do not live agreeably to the Word of the Lord, according to the knowledge of the truth which I have obtained; if I do not censure to the best of my little talent the hypocrisy, the impenitent, carnal life, the erroneous baptism, the Lord’s Supper in the false service of God which the learned ones teach; if I through bodily fear do not lay bare the foundations of the truth, nor use all my powers to direct the wandering flock who would gladly do their duty if they knew it, to the true pastures of Christ—oh, how shall their shed blood, shed in the midst of transgression rise against me at the judgment of the Almighty and pronounce sentence against my poor, miserable soul! (Kindle Locations 5920-5936, emphasis added)
**Let me draw two observations from this description.** First, note _**the centrality of the Scriptures for Menno**_. They are, he realized, the ultimate guide both for discerning truth and for living rightly. Second, note _**Menno’s self-identity as a teacher**_. He was a teacher before he became an Anabaptist, and when he finally decided to become one, his decision was sealed by his sense that the Anabaptists needed a pastor-teacher “to direct the wandering flock… to the true pastures of Christ.”
> Menno… felt a special compassion for the “poor misguided sheep” who wandered about without a shepherd. About a year after he had left the comfortable parish at Witmarsum to become an itinerant underground evangelist, …Anabaptist brethren near Groningen entreated him to accept the office of elder or chief shepherd of the brotherhood. After a time of struggling with this decision , he consented and so began “to teach and to baptize, to labor with my limited talents in the harvest field of the Lord, to assist in building up his holy city and temple and to repair the dilapidated walls.” Having been baptized earlier, Menno was now duly ordained… (Kindle Locations 5950-5956)
> Menno Simons is reported to have said, …that nothing on earth was as precious to him as the church. For twenty-five years he labored throughout the Netherlands and northern Germany to establish fellowships of believers into organized congregations committed to one another and to their mission in the world. (Kindle Locations 6385-6387)
Most of those years were spent on the run for his life. And somehow, while on the run with his family, Menno wrote.
> …Menno’s theology was situational; it emerged in the context of his active involvement in the life of the church… Menno never had the leisure to produce learned tomes or to develop a systematic theology. Yet he wrote with vigor and insight, drawing both on the earlier Anabaptist heritage and the wider Christian tradition but primarily on his own intensive engagement with the Scriptures. (Kindle Locations 5981-5984)
**In Menno’s writing, as in his speaking, he was a teacher of the Church:**
> In 1540 Menno published what was to become his most influential writing…_The Foundation of Christian Doctrine_. In some ways this treatise is comparable to the first edition of Calvin’s _Institutes_, published only four years earlier. It was at once a tract for the times and a sort of catechetical instruction for new believers. (Kindle Locations 5986-5989)
>
> _The Foundation_ was an apology for those Anabaptists who chose the way of the cross over that of the sword… Menno’s book had little if any impact on the rulers, who continued their unabated assault against all Anabaptists. Its real influence was on the believers, who found in it a succinct summary of Anabaptist theology and churchmanship. (Kindle Locations 5998-6002)
**Menno’s beliefs about the purity of the true Church were shaped by his understanding of conversion:**
> As long ago as 1848, the historian Max Göbel recognized that “the essential and distinguishing characteristic of this \[Anabaptist\] church is its great emphasis upon the actual personal conversion and regeneration of every Christian through the Holy Spirit.”[2](#fn-1248-2) Although Luther described himself as “born again,” and both Zwingli and Calvin commented on Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, Menno placed the greatest emphasis on the necessity for the new birth: “If now you desire to have your wicked nature cleared up, and desire to be free from eternal death and damnation . . . then you must be born again.” (Kindle Locations 6029-6034)
Conversion involved both faith and repentance:
> Faith was the inward appropriation of the gospel, which Menno defined as “the blessed announcement of the favor and grace of God to us, and of forgiveness of sins through Christ Jesus.” (Kindle Locations 6034-6036)
God radically transforms such a believing heart! But faith
> was incomplete without the prior act of repentance… It will not “help a fig,” he averred, to be called Christians or boast of the Lord’s blood, death, merits, grace, and gospel, as long as believers were not genuinely converted from their wicked, sinful lives. (Kindle Locations 6044-6048)
>
> If believers had the faith of penitent Zacchaeus , Menno claimed, then… “There would soon be a different and better situation because, **it cannot fail, the righteous must live his faith**.” (Kindle Locations 6059-6062, emphasis added)
**Much could be said here about how Menno’s understanding of Scripture shaped his theology and ecclesiology.** For example, his “severe pruning of the liturgical tradition of the church was based on a strict application of the principle that what the Bible does not expressly enjoin should not be permitted” (Kindle Locations 6169-6171).
> It is significant that Menno quoted more from the New Testament than the Old at a ratio of 3:1… The thrust of the whole Scripture is to direct us to Christ… According to Menno, Jesus Christ really did bring something new. (Kindle Locations 6210-6213)
Thus Menno rejected the mainline reformer’s use of the Old Testament to justify infant baptism and church-state relationships.
Such topics are familiar to most amateur students of Anabaptism. _**But fewer people are aware of another theological topic that shaped Menno’s understanding of the church:**_
> **Menno obviously felt that his doctrine of the incarnation was worth defending in large treatises as he devoted more attention to it than to any other doctrinal concern…** Menno could not allow that Christ received his human nature from Mary, else he would have been tainted with the Adamic sin that is common to all his descendants. (Kindle Locations 6325-6330, emphasis added)
More could be said here about Menno’s understanding of Adamic sin (he did not actually believe we are held guilty because of it) or of Roman Catholic and Reformed explanations for Christ’s sinlessness.
> Menno set aside both of these explanations: The former elevated Mary to the status of a divine goddess, the latter split Christ into two parts, destroying the unity of his person. Menno sought to resolve the problem by pointing to the celestial origin of Christ’s entire being: “The entire Christ Jesus, both God and man, man and God, has his origin in heaven and not on earth.” (Kindle Locations 6335-6340, emphasis added)
>
> \[Menno’s\] opponents… accused him of teaching a docetic Christology, the ancient heresy that Christ only appeared or seemed to be human… However…, Menno had no intention of denying the true humanity of Christ… He asserted that Christ “was truly human and not a mere phantasm… He was afflicted, hungry, thirsty, subject to suffering and death, according to the flesh.” **Menno’s concern was to show how Christ remained unsullied from original sin**, able to offer a perfect sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world. (Kindle Locations 6355-6364, emphasis added)
Many Anabaptists in Menno’s own time, and most since, have rejected Menno’s understanding of the incarnation. So why is it worth mentioning in this post about ecclesiology?
> …During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries **Menno’s doctrine had important soteriological and ecclesiological implications for Dutch Anabaptism**. The crucial importance of the new birth depends on the incarnation through which believers are made partakers of the divine nature. **Menno’s concept of the church as a community without spot or wrinkle**, feasting at Communion on the heavenly “manna” that Jesus identified with his body (John 6:51), **is also related to the miracle of the incarnation**. (Kindle Locations 6374-6381, emphasis added)
If true believers share in Christ’s pure divine nature, then purity, surely, is a distinguishing mark of the true Church. Menno’s words:
> They verily are not the true congregation of Christ who merely boast of his name. But **they are the true congregation of Christ who are truly converted**, who are born from above of God, who are of a regenerate mind by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the hearing of the divine Word, and have become the children of God, have entered into obedience to him, and live unblamably in his holy commandments, and according to his holy will with all their days, or from the moment of their call. (Kindle Locations 6390-6394, emphasis added)
Thus, with the other Anabaptists, Menno wanted to _restore_ the Church, not merely _reform_ it:
> Unlike Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, who wanted to reform the church on the basis of the Word of God, the radical reformers were more concerned to restore the primitive church, which they believed had “fallen” or apostatized… New wine could not be stored in old wineskins. Rather the New Testament church had to be restored “according to the true apostolic rule and criterion.” (Kindle Locations 6418-6422)
Doctrinal and ethical purity marked the truth Church:
> Menno’s favorite word for the church was Gemeente (cf. Gemeinde), by which he designated the living fellowship or community of believers, the true communion of saints. In his _Reply to Gellius Faber_ **Menno listed the following six characteristics by which the church is known:** (1) an unadulterated, pure doctrine; (2) scriptural use of the sacramental signs; (3) obedience to the Word; (4) unfeigned, brotherly love; (5) a bold confession of God and Christ; (6) oppression and tribulation for the sake of the Lord’s Word. It is significant that four of these six marks of the church are concerned with the ethical and moral dimensions of the Christian life. (Kindle Locations 6431-6436, emphasis added)
**Menno’s understandings of baptism and the Lord’s Supper also featured this focus on purity.** George summarizes Menno’s doctrine of baptism in three affirmations. Here is the third:
> _Baptism is the public initiation of the believer into a life of radical discipleship._.. For Menno baptism signaled a response of obedience to the gospel, a literal imitation and initiation taken by a novice upon his entrance to the monastic order. In the monastic tradition, such a vow implied a radical break with one’s past life and the assumption of a new identity within the community, symbolized by the receiving of a new name and investiture in new garments. Baptism among the Anabaptists was symbolic of a similar radical change in identity and lifestyle. (Kindle Locations 6475-6485)
In his _Foundation_ Menno discusses four affirmations about the Lord’s Supper. Here is George’s description of the fourth:
> …The Supper was the Communion of the body and blood of Christ… With connotations of the heavenly flesh of Christ, Menno declared that in Communion Christians were made “flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone.” (Kindle Locations 6545-6550)
> **Menno’s emphasis on the purity of the church was related directly to his “celestial flesh” Christology and to his view of the Supper as a marriage feast or fellowship meal with the sinless Christ.** As Adam had but one Eve, and Isaac but one Rebecca, and even as Christ had but one body
>
> which was heavenly and from heaven, and was righteous and holy in all its members, so also he has but one Eve in the Spirit, but one new Rebecca, who is his spiritual body, spouse, church, bride, namely, those who are believers, the regenerate, the meek, merciful, mortified, righteous, peaceable, lovely, and obedient children in the kingdom and house of his peace; pure, chaste virgins in the spirit, holy souls, who are of his divine family and holy flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. (Kindle Locations 6585-6591, emphasis added)
If–as all the Reformers agreed–the sacraments form the boundaries of the Church, and if it is also true–as Menno emphasized–that personal and corporate purity are intrinsic to the sacraments, then _**the true Church must practice church discipline**_.
> Despite the differences among themselves, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin agreed on two essential marks or characteristics (_notae_) of the true church: the correct preaching of the Word and the proper administration of the sacraments… The Anabaptists, on the other hand, insisted that discipline, carried out in accordance with the instruction of Jesus in Matt 18:15–18, was an indispensable mark of the true church… (Kindle Locations 6568-6573)
Menno wrote three treatises on the subject of church discipline.
> So prominent did the role of excommunication become in the Dutch Anabaptist tradition that one historian has dubbed the entire movement as “Anabanism.”[3](#fn-1248-3) …In his later years Menno regarded the strict practice of discipline as one of the features that distinguished the peaceful Anabaptists from their violence-prone rivals: “It is more than evident that if we had not been zealous in this matter these days, we would be considered and called by every man the companions of the sect of Münster and all perverted sects.” (Kindle Locations 6579-6584)
Church discipline was essential, especially for a church without the governing “help” of magistrates. But it was also a point of great controversy among the Anabaptists. For example, should a wife sleep with her husband if he was under church discipline? Answers varied.
> …The formal ban was, at least in theory, only a social confirmation of a severance from Christ that had already occurred in the heart of the unrepentant member:
>
> No one is excommunicated or expelled by us from the communion of the brethren but those who have already separated and expelled themselves from Christ’s communion either by false doctrine or improper conduct. For we do not want to expel any, but rather to receive; not to amputate, but rather to heal; not to discard, but rather to win back; not to grieve, but rather to comfort; not to condemn, but rather to save.
>
> The pastoral tone of this statement, which comes from Menno’s _Admonition on Church Discipline_ (1541), was in fact often betrayed by the vindictive and harsh recriminations often involved in the shunning of expelled members. (Kindle Locations 6600-6607)
**I don’t have time or space to reflect deeply here on this issue of the purity of the Church.** It was a burning issue in Menno’s day, and it remains a burning one today. On the one hand, I resonate deeply with the Anabaptist insistence that Christ’s grace transforms individuals! I also heartily affirm their rejection of _corpus christianum_ and their insistence on a believers’ Church.
That said, it is no secret that even Menno was distressed in his latter days by harsh applications of church discipline and the resulting church divisions. ([Listen here to a fascinating talk by Chester Weaver](http://www.anabaptistslive.org/?p=425) which contrasts this Dutch Anabaptist experience with the Swiss Brethren emphasis on brotherly love.) **Perhaps the strongest warning I would sound today is that it is deadly to retain the Anabaptist emphasis on the purity of the church _while also forgetting Menno’s clear teaching about the gospel of grace and the regenerating power of the Spirit._**
Let me end with three more quotes from George–one summarizing what we’ve already discussed, and two introducing more of Menno’s marks of the church:
> Faced with persecution and hostility from without, the Anabaptist churches were especially on guard against corruption or laxity from within. Membership in an Anabaptist church was neither casual nor assumed; participation was perforce hearty and vigorous. A true, visible church was at once a rebaptized company of gathered saints, _separated from_ the world in its autonomous polity and eschewal of all violent connections, and a squad of spiritual shock troops _separating back to_ the world through congregational discipline those members whose lives betrayed their profession. (Kindle Locations 6622-6626)
Another mark of the Church:
> Perhaps more so than with most other Christian groups, it is difficult to separate the ecclesiology of the Anabaptists from their ethics. **Menno felt that genuine compassion for the poor was one of the marks that distinguished his movement from that of the mainline reformers.** He criticized the “easygoing gospel and barren bread-breaking” of the established clergy who lived in luxury while their poor members begged for food, and the old, lame, blind, and suffering ones were shunted. (Kindle Locations 6780-6783, emphasis added)
And one final mark of the true Church:
> **Menno… believed the true church of Christ was characterized by the fact that it suffers and endures persecution but does not inflict persecution upon anyone.** The gospel was to be preached to everyone, but no one was to be compelled by force to accept it. These principles are accepted as axiomatic by large segments of modern society. Yet we should not forget that they were first enunciated at great risk by the early Anabaptists. (Kindle Locations 6794-6797. B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Emphasis added)
(Next up: [the ecclesiology of William Tyndale](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale/).)
**What did you learn from these excerpts of Timothy George’s survey of Menno’s ecclesiology?** What do you think we should learn from Menno today? What are the strengths and weaknesses of our early Mennonite ecclesiological DNA? **[Share your insights and questions in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/#respond) Thank you!**
* * *
_**PS:** If you are enjoying this series, be sure to [buy Timothy George’s book](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=TW45NY7LIFZE3QFR)! He has much more to say than what I am sharing here. (Disclosure: The link above is an Amazon affiliate link, so I’ll make pennies if you buy the book.)_
1. J. A. Oosterbaan, “The Reformation of the Reformation: Fundamentals of Anabaptist Theology,” MQR 51 (1977): 176. [↩](#fnref-1248-1)
2. Max Göbel, _Geschichte des Christlichen Leben_ (Coblenz, 1848), 37. [↩](#fnref-1248-2)
3. George H. Williams, _The Radical Reformation_, (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992), 485. [↩](#fnref-1248-3)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## More on Calvin: Marks of the Church and Fighting Nicely
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-30
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: More on Calvin: Marks of the Church and Fighting Nicely | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: That's "more on Calvin," not "moron Calvin"! I want to talk more about that in a moment, but first I want to talk about marks of the true Church.
Tags: marks of the church, Anabaptist history, nonresistance, oaths, ordinances, church history, John | Calvin, love, Golden Rule, biblicism, -Galatians 5:12, -Matthew 23:18, -Matthew 5:33-37, -Matthew 7:12, Alight, Calvary Messenger, kindness, Louis | McBride, Nicene Creed, nonconformity
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/more-on-calvin-marks-of-church-fighting-nicely
**That’s “more on Calvin,” not “moron Calvin”!** I want to talk more about that in a moment, but first I want to share something from Calvin that I read this morning.
**Marks of the Church**
As you may have noticed several times in my series on the ecclesiology of the Reformers (begin [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/)), **one way that many Reformers tried to identify the true Church was to identify marks (or _nota_) that characterized the true Church**. Luther is generally said to have identified two marks of the church (the Word rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered), but [he actually identified seven](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Councils_and_the_Church). Calvin also focused on Word and sacrament, but he nuanced them a little differently and his Reformed heirs added a third, church discipline ([see here for a modern defense of this triad](http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-marks-of-the-church/)). Some of Calvin’s heirs in our own generation have identified “[Nine Marks of a Healthy Church](http://9marks.org/about/).” If we go back to the early church, we see [the Nicene Creed identified four marks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church): One, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The activity of identifying marks has a long history!
With that background, here is an excerpt from a blog I read this morning, containing quotes from Calvin’s _Institute of the Christian Religion_:
> “**_It is always disastrous to leave the church_**.” The words are from John Calvin…
>
> Clearly, Calvin knew churches had problems. But he warns against leaving simply because there are problems.
>
> “The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, **_even if it otherwise swarms with many faults_**. . . . But I say we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions.” (4.1.12) He plainly says those who seek a church “besmirched with no blemish” are looking in vain (4.1.13) but we must remember that it “is no less true that the Lord is daily at work in smoothing out wrinkles and cleansing spots” and from this “it follows that the church’s holiness is not yet complete.” (4.1.17) \[Emphasis added by Louis McBride at Baker Book House Church Connection.\]
[–> To read the rest, click here <–](https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/i-love-jesus-but-hate-the-church-what-would-john-calvin-say/)
My observation today about this activity of identifying marks is modest: _**It seems to me that we sometimes identify marks of the true Church based on our dissatisfaction with other branches of Christianity as much as on a careful reading of Scripture.**_ In short, our marks tend to be somewhat reactionary.
We even see this, I think, in the two marks of the church that Luther and Calvin featured: Word and sacrament. What did Luther and Calvin like least about the Roman Catholic Church? I’m guessing it would be hard to find two better answers than (a) the Roman Catholic Church’s failure to proclaim the Word faithfully and clearly in the vernacular languages and (b) its understanding of sacraments such as the mass.
Let me hasten to assure you: I strongly agree that faithful proclamation of the Scriptures and biblical practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are central marks of a healthy church. But it is interesting to note that the Roman Catholics had an important historical mark in their favor as well: the true Church was “one.” This was important to them in part because the Reformers threatened it. And the Anabaptists, while agreeing on the importance of right observance of the sacraments, identified the true Church differently than the magisterial Reformers did because they disagreed on the correct observance of baptism. Each stream of the Reformation emphasized different marks of the Church (and thus identified the true Church differently) based in part on their disagreements with the other streams.
**We do that yet today. Let me give two related examples.** Here is the first: In a recent edition of the mission paper _Alight_, an “entirely Columbian movement of churches” is described.[1](#fn-1238-1) Despite having “no help from foreign missionaries and… no knowledge of the Anabaptists,” this movement believes and practices “virtually all of what conservative Mennonites do.” In particular, they “are nonresistant, nonconformed to the world, and with some slight variation practice all seven of what we call ordinances. Their churches are disciplined, and holiness of life is their hallmark. The church is zealous in evangelism.” Again, let me hasten to reassure you: I also rejoice when I hear of other Christians who share my convictions ([see here for a recent example](http://www.westernseminary.edu/transformedblog/2015/01/28/american-values-are-not-necessarily-christian-values/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedigitallearner%2FUhEH+%28Trans%C2%B7formed%29)). But I do want to observe that the list above sounds suspiciously like another list of marks of the true Church. And again, nonresistance, nonconformity, and seven ordinances are beliefs that conservative Anabaptists hold _in opposition to many other church traditions._ The danger is that forming church marks in opposition to others is likely to produce an imbalanced set of marks of the true Church.
My second example affirms the first. A friend recently told me this: “When we put an addition on at \[our church building\], the contractor who did the concrete work was Amish (or Beachy…not sure). He wanted to know whether we practiced the 7 ordinances and if so, we’d get a discount on his work.” For this contractor, clearly, a mark of the true Church is that it practices seven ordinances.
**In saying all the above I do not mean to criticize the task of identifying the true Church.** I do think it is important to identify specific marks of the true Church–and also marks of a _healthy_ church, as one example above puts it. _**But let’s honestly evaluate the marks that our own church traditions have emphasized**_, comparing them with marks identified in other traditions and with Scripture. This can help us achieve a more biblical balance.
What might Paul say about the marks of the true Church? That’s a topic for another post (or book!), but I’ll say that my recent reading of Galatians has made one point crystal clear: **_We will never identify the Church correctly until we first identify the gospel correctly._**
**Fighting Nicely**
When I was a boy, I used to sometimes fight with my brothers. (Still do!) Our father sometimes interrupted our squabbles with the admonition, “Fight nice!” _**I think this is wise advice not only for boys, but also for Christians relating to Christians in other denominations and church traditions.**_
After my last blog post on Calvin ([see here](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/)), one good-hearted friend sent me a brief response:
> “Anabaptists demonstrate a total lack of intelligence. There is nothing to be learned from their ideas.” — John Calvin 🙂
_\[Note: See the update at the end of this post for a bit more context.\]_
I pondered a while, did a bit of research, and responded thus (abridged and lightly edited):
> I think you just posted in fun, so I don’t want to attribute unkind motives to you. But I have to ask, do you think your comment reflects a Golden Rule approach? Does it give a fair and balanced representation of Calvin or of those who find him of value? Did you provide a source to (a) prove that your quote is accurate and (b) provide context for Calvin’s words?
>
> I did a bit of searching online for your quote this morning. Interestingly, the only place I’m seeing that exact quote is on Anabaptist websites that are anti-Calvin. As best as I can tell, the source for the attribution of these two sentences to Calvin seems to come from the headline of this blog: [http://modern-parables.blogspot.com/](http://modern-parables.blogspot.com/)
>
> Interestingly, I also find the same sentences on this website: [http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/448](http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/448) But notice how this website (more scholarly than the former) clarifies that only a few of the words are actually directly from Calvin, and that even those words were spoken in a very specific context and not as a general statement about Anabaptists:
>
> With reference to their views on oath-taking, the Genevan Reformer John Calvin said the Anabaptists demonstrate a “total lack of intelligence.”43 There is nothing to be learned from them or their ideas.
>
> It looks like the blogger above (or someone before her) did a cut-and-paste from this scholarly website, deleted the quotation marks, deleted a few words near the end (“them or”) in order to make it fit on her headline, and falsely attributed the whole to Calvin. Ouch
>
> The Anabaptist Network website helpfully includes a footnote that gives a source for the “total lack of intelligence” phrase. It comes, apparently, from Calvin’s Harmony of the Gospels. You can read it here: [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xlviii.html](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xlviii.html) Here is the extended passage where Calvin discusses Jesus’ words about oaths (Matt. 5:33-37), with the quoted phrase highlighted (it is slightly different than above because it is a different translation of Calvin’s Latin or French, but I’m quite certain it’s the source for our mysterious “quote”):
>
> Many have been led by the phrase, _not at all,_ to adopt the false notion, that every kind of swearing is condemned by Christ. Some good men have been driven to this extreme rigor by observing the unbridled licentiousness of swearing, which prevailed in the world. The Anabaptists, too, have blustered a great deal, on the ground, that Christ appears to give no liberty to swear on any occasion, because he commands, _Swear not at all_ But we need not go beyond the immediate context to obtain the exposition: for he immediately adds, _neither by heaven, nor by the earth_ Who does not see that those kinds of swearing were added by way of exposition, to explain the former clause more fully by specifying a number of cases? The Jews had circuitous or indirect ways of swearing: and when they _swore by heaven, or by earth,_ or _by the altar_ (Matthew 23:18), they reckoned it to be next to nothing; and, as one vice springs from another, they defended, under this pretense, any profanation of the name of God that was not openly avowed.
>
> To meet this crime, our Lord declares that they must _not swear at all,_ either in this or that way, either _by heaven,_ or _by the earth_ Hence we conclude, that the particle, _at all,_ relates not to the substance, but to the form, and means, _“neither directly nor indirectly._” It would otherwise have been superfluous to enumerate those kinds: and therefore the Anabaptists betray not only a rage for controversy, but **gross ignorance**, when they obstinately press upon us a single word, and pass over, with closed eyes, the whole scope of the passage. Is it objected, that Christ permits no swearing? I reply: What the expounder of the law says, must be viewed in connection with its design. His statement amounts to this, that there are other ways of “taking the name of God in vain,” besides perjury; and, therefore, that we ought to refrain from allowing ourselves the liberty of unnecessary swearing: for, when there are just reasons to demand it, the law not only permits, but expressly commands us to swear. Christ, therefore, meant nothing more than this, that all oaths are unlawful, which in any way abuse and profane the sacred name of God, for which they ought to have had the effect of producing a deeper reverence.
>
> I’m not saying that Calvin was right on this point about oath-taking (although his emphasis on context is salutary), but I think we owe him Golden Rule justice and kindness in quoting him accurately and in context.
>
> So… 🙂 Again, I think you were just commenting in good humor, and I thank you for starting me on a fascinating rabbit trail.
My friend and I proceeded to enjoy a good conversation about Calvin and Anabaptists. My friend shared his concerns, including this:
> It does seem that reading Calvin has seen a resurgence among some youth today, I suspect maybe in reaction to postmodernistic doctrinal squishiness and a desire for hard propositional truths. We have several young men in our community who have become avid disciples of Calvin and claim to have a much deeper, authentic, and alive relationship with God as a result. If that is true, well, praise the Lord!
>
> What saddens me though is that the applications they have made from 5 point Calvinism have led them to overemphasize (in my opinion) overemphasize God’s justice and wrath, and they have convinced themselves that there is nothing they can do to choose God, only God can choose them and anything good they do is only because God is making them do it. Worse, they see God’s justice and wrath towards sin as normative for human responses toward other humans who threaten their well being, property, security, and lives.
>
> It may be unfair to blame Calvin or his followers for the fact that these youth have lost their belief in non-violence, but I think there is a link between a theology of a “macho” muscular God who crushes all His enemies and metes out judgement and wrath towards sin and a personal loss of conviction that violence in protection of oneself and ones property is not for the believer. Maybe Calvin isn’t the problem here but his theology doesn’t seem to help the situation much.
I told my friend that I share some of his concerns (abridged and lightly edited):
> I agree that the voices of the New Calvinists are a mixed blessing. I certainly have found them a blessing in many ways, but I have not been tempted by the non-nonviolent elements of their teachings. It saddens me when I hear D.A. Carson (whom I respect deeply in many other ways) celebrate how his son is in the military, and it saddens me even more to hear that some Anabaptist youth are losing their nonviolent convictions…
>
> I would agree that “Calvin probably doesn’t deserve all the blame” for some Anabaptists today losing their nonresistance. For one thing, a lot of Calvinists today believe and emphasize things quite differently from what Calvin himself did. Also, my favorite book in support of our nonviolent position is one written by a Reformed professor who moves in the circles of John Piper, John MacArthur, and others: \[amazon text=_Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence_&asin=1434704920\], by Preston Sprinkle. So, believe it or not, and like it or not, Calvinist soteriology can exist alongside a nonviolent position. Perhaps you could introduce your youth friends to Sprinkle’s book?…
>
> If only we could learn what is good from each other without either abandoning truths we already possess or blacklisting those who disagree with us on a few key points! The fact is, most of my scholarly biblical studies resources (three quarter?) were written by Calvinists. To cut myself off from their voices would be very costly.
All that to say that, though I most certainly agree that vigorous debate on matters like nonresistance is essential, let’s–in the words of my dad–be sure that we “fight nice.” Yes, Paul, did say he wished the pro-circumcision party would castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12), but at least he made sure he had his facts straight before he said it! _**In doctrinal debates and otherwise, kind words are as important as kind hands. And love of neighbor is most certainly one mark of members of the true Church.**_
**Do you have thoughts on marks of the true Church or on fighting nicely? [Share them in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/more-on-calvin-marks-of-church-fighting-nicely/#respond)** _(And if my good-hearted friend wants to identify himself, I’ll leave that up to him. 🙂 We did discuss the possibility of me turning our conversation into a blog post.)_
Update: After writing this post, I looked again at Timothy George’s book Theology of the Reformers. I was reminded that, while Calvin did not say the quote attributed to him above, he did say other things against the Anabaptists that were equally disparaging. George: “Calvin’s epithets were no less pejorative \[than Luther’s\]: “fanatics,” “deluded,” “scatterbrains,” “asses,” “scoundrels,” “mad dogs.” (George, Timothy \[2013-09-01\]. Theology of the Reformers \[Kindle Locations 5805-5806\]. B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Source: John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines_, ed. Benjamin W. Farley \[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982\], 30.)
Unfortunately, this kind of language was par for the course in Reformation times. George again: “Caspar Schwenckfeld, one of the spiritualist reformers, observed that on the basis of the Bible “the papists damn the Lutherans, the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians, the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists, and the Anabaptists damn all of the others” (Kindle Locations 3772-3774).
Given this cacophony of cursing, Calvin’s “quote” above sounds very believable. Hopefully we today can be better listeners and kinder speakers.
* * *
1. Witmer, Dallas. “Working With God in Columbia.” _Alight_, Vol. 27, No. 4. October, November, December 2014. Christian Light Publications. This article was referenced in the January 2015 Calvary Messenger, where Ronald J. Miller emphasizes most of the same points I quote here. [↩](#fnref-1238-1)
2. I have contacted this blogger, but so far have not received a response. [↩](#fnref-1238-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Ecclesiology of the Reformers (4): John Calvin
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-27
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Ecclesiology of the Reformers (4): John Calvin | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: John Calvin is not a name that most Anabaptists like. But if Jacob Arminius is correct, we will benefit greatly from studying Calvin's ecclesiology.
Tags: marks of the church, Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura, psalms, Geneva, Institutes of the Christian Religion, invisible church, Mark A. | Ellis, sola fide, sola gratia, Strasbourg, visible church, Anabaptist history, holiness, church leadership, worship, catechism, Timothy | George, church history, John | Calvin, church unity, Magisterial Reformation, preaching, sacraments, church and Israel, state church, election, Calvinism, Jacob | Arminius, systematic theology, sanctification, pastor, teaching, corpus christianum, -Mark 5:39, -Matthew 13:38, corpus permixtum, education, church discipline, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin
**John Calvin is not a name that most Anabaptists like**. Unfortunately, too many people today assume either that Calvin is the ultimate theological authority or, conversely, that his theology is completely warped. Neither assumption is close to the truth.
Given the traditional Anabaptist bias, perhaps it would be helpful to begin this post with a quote from Jacob Arminius (1560-1609)–the Arminius after whom Arminianism is named. After all, we are Arminians and not Calvinists, right? We don’t believe in “once saved, always saved” or that God elects people against their will to be saved or damned. Well, that may be true enough (although the way I’ve phrased things isn’t fair to Calvin or his adherents). But let’s listen to Arminius to see if we should bother listening to Calvin:
> After reading of Scripture, which I vehemently inculcate \[“hammer home”\] more than anything else,… I encourage the reading of the commentaries of John Calvin, which I extol with greatest praise,… for I say that **he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture**, and his comments are far better than anything which the Fathers give us.[1](#fn-1205-1)
Yes, you read that correctly. So let’s consider a little of what we can learn from Calvin about ecclesiology (church theology and practice).
**This post continues our series on the ecclesiology of the Reformers, quoting from Timothy George’s excellent book, [_Theology of the Reformers_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=ZYRGOAVXWDMMHG5V).** As George writes, “Calvin wrote more in one lifetime than most people are able to read” (Kindle Location 4193). This means that our observations about Calvin’s ecclesiology here will be even more selective than our past posts about [Luther](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/) and [Zwingli](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli/) were. (See also [the introduction to this series](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/). Stay tuned for [Menno Simons](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/), [William Tyndale](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale/), and [my conclusions and questions](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/).)
**Calvin was a second generation Reformer:**
> Calvin’s great achievement was to take the classic insights of the Reformation (_sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura_) and give them a clear, systematic exposition, which neither Luther nor Zwingli ever did, and to adapt them to the civic setting of Geneva. From Geneva they took on a life of their own and developed into a new international theology… (Kindle Locations 3781-3784)
Calvin was an exceptional student, well-trained in Latin, theology, and law. By the time he graduated from his studies, his first love was studying ancient texts in original languages. Upon Calvin’s conversion to Protestantism, _**he soon became a natural but reluctant leader**_. From Calvin himself:
> But I was utterly amazed
> That before a year had passed
> **All those who yearned**
> **For pure doctrine**
> **Were coming again and again to me**
> **To learn it.**
> Even though I had scarcely commenced
> To study it myself…
> In short, although I always cherished
> The goal of living in private, incognito,
> God so led me and caused me to turn
> By various changes
> That he never left me at peace in any place
> Until, in spite of my natural disposition
> He brought me into the limelight.
> (Kindle Locations 3908-3925, emphasis added.)
**Calvin was above all a teacher in the Church.** Calvin’s teaching has endured largely because of his writing, and none of his writings has been more influential than his _Institutes of the Christian Religion_. Why did Calvin write (and rewrite, and rewrite) this book? He wrote it as a training manual for the Church:
> **The primary purpose of the Institutes… was catechetical.** From the time of his conversion, Calvin had been pressed to serve as a teacher of those who were hungry for the true faith. One can still see a cave near the city of Poitiers where Calvin was said to have ministered to the needs of a (literally!) underground congregation. **He knew firsthand the urgent need for a clearly written manual of instruction** that would present the rudiments of a biblical theology and lead young Christians into a deeper understanding of the faith. (Kindle Locations 4002-4006, emphasis added.)
Calvin was “conscripted” (fascinating story) to come to Geneva to lead the Reformation there:
> Calvin was genuinely shocked at the idea and protested that he was ill suited for such a task. He could better edify the church by his quiet study and writing. “ The summit of my wishes ,” he later wrote…, “was the enjoyment of literary ease, with something of a free and honorable station.” (Kindle Locations 4028-4031)
>
> From that moment Calvin’s fate was linked to that of Geneva. In his earliest letters after his call, **he referred to himself as “Reader in Holy Scripture to the Church in Geneva.”** Though he took on many other duties over the years, his primary vocation remained that of pastor and teacher. (Kindle Locations 4048-4050, emphasis added.)
Calvin briefly left Geneva, spending three happy years in Strasbourg, where he continued _**developing and serving as a church leader**_ before returning to Geneva. His time away was profitable. For example:
> He gave serious thought to **the role of worship in the church** and translated a number of psalms into French meter. Thus began the congregational singing of psalms that became such an integral part of French Reformed worship. (Kindle Locations 4063-4065, emphasis added.)
>
> In 1539 Calvin published his Commentary on Romans, a masterful treatment of what for him no less than for Luther was the most important book in the Bible… Eventually he **published commentaries** on most of the Old Testament and on every book in the New Testament except Revelation and 2 and 3 John. (Kindle Locations 4083-4086, emphasis added.)
>
> Calvin was **a church statesman**. \[He\] participated in a series of conferences aimed at reuniting Protestants and Catholics . Unity still seemed possible in 1540 because the Council of Trent had not yet convened… He traveled to Frankfurt, Hagenau, and Worms as a kind of adviser to the Protestant delegations at these interfaith conferences… The real importance of these meetings for Calvin was the worldwide vision of the church they confirmed for him. He lamented the fragmented character of Christendom: **“Amongst the greatest evils of our century must be counted the fact that the churches are so divided one from another and that there is scarcely even a human relationship between us.”** Calvin was not willing to compromise essentials for the sake of a false peace, but he sought to call the church back to the true basis of its unity in Jesus Christ. (Kindle Locations 4093-4102, emphasis added.)
These three paragraphs hint at _**the wide range of Calvin’s ecclesiological interests**_–worship, biblical studies, church unity, and more. I think his lament about church disunity remains timely today!
Upon his return to Geneva, Calvin resumed his series of expository sermons where he had left off three years before.
> Calvin was a master preacher in an age when the pulpit was the primary medium of communication to the entire culture. **“When the gospel is preached in the name of God,” Calvin said, “it is as if God himself spoke in person.”** Following the pattern Zwingli had instituted in Zurich, Calvin generally preached continuously through the books of the Bible. (Kindle Locations 4183-4186, emphasis added.)
Calvin was a teacher and a preacher in the Church. But _**how did he define the Church? What was its core? What was its relationship to Scripture?**_
> Calvin , like Luther, affirmed that **the Scripture was the womb from which the church was born** and not vice versa. Popes, councils, even the early church fathers whom Calvin frequently quoted, could be and often were in error. Through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures authenticated themselves and disclosed their proper interpretation to the diligent believer. (Kindle Locations 4359-4362, emphasis added.)
>
> Significantly, Calvin did not follow Bucer, as did the Reformed tradition generally, in elevating ecclesiastical discipline to the technical status of a _nota_. For Calvin, as for Luther, **the more certain… marks remained the Word purely preached and the sacraments duly administered. However, he did not for that reason disparage the importance of discipline** for the well-being of the church. If the saving doctrine of Christ was the soul of the church, then discipline served as its sinews… through which the members of the body were held together, each in its own place. Discipline, then, pertained to the constitution and organization, if not to the definition , of the true congregation. (Kindle Locations 5113-5119, emphasis added.)
So the Church is born from the womb of Scripture and has the saving doctrine of Christ as its soul. But the question of church discipline raises more questions: **_What is the boundary of the Church? And what is the relationship between the universal (or invisible) Church and the local (or visible) church?_**
> Luther’s predominant concern was with the evangelical center of the church; later reformers took up the difficult task of determining with some precision its circumference. Zwingli, Bucer, and Oecolampadius struggled with this problem; yet **it remained for Calvin, the “poor, timid scholar” as he described himself, to exploit fully the theory and practice of the Protestant congregation**. Beset by a resurgent Catholicism on the one hand and a proliferating sectarianism on the other, Calvin developed a more formal theory of the relation of the invisible church and the church as an external institution recognizable as true by certain distinguishing marks. (Kindle Locations 5101-5106, emphasis added.)
> Calvin’s concern for the order and form of the congregation derived from his emphasis on sanctification as both the process and goal of the Christian life. In contrast to the unilateral accentuation of justification in the Lutheran confessions, Calvin gave precedence to sanctification in his systematic arrangement of the “benefits of Christ.” …In this life **the locus of sanctification is the congregation, the visible church**, in which the elect participate in the benefits of Christ not as isolated individuals but as members of a body in which “all the blessings which God bestows upon them are mutually communicated to each other” (Inst. 4.1.3). In this way **the visible church becomes a “holy community,”** an agent of sanctification in the larger society in which every aspect of life is to be brought within the orbit of Christian purposes and Christian regulations. (Kindle Locations 5121-5128, emphasis added.)
**If I read only the previous paragraph, I might guess that Calvin was an Anabaptist!** (Perhaps this shared concern for sanctification is explained in part by how both Calvin and the Swiss Brethren Anabaptists share Zwinglian roots–Zwingli who was more zealous than Luther both in pruning away extrabiblical practices and in attempting to form good Christian citizens?) How did this concern for sanctification affect Calvin’s thinking about the tension between the visible congregation and the invisible Church?
> **The two poles of Calvin’s ecclesiology, divine election and the local congregation**, are held together in the closest possible connection, frequently in the same sentence. The church is called God’s house, explained Calvin, because “not only has He received us as His sons by the grace of adoption (election), but He Himself dwells in the midst of us” (the congregation)… **Only when we realize that Calvin never relaxed the visible/invisible tension can we understand his diverse characterizations of the church.** On the one hand, the church appears in mortal danger. If false doctrines are allowed to spread, they will “completely destroy the church.” …At the same time, …human fickleness and unfaithfulness “cannot prevent God from preserving His Church to the end. (Kindle Locations 5142-5150, emphasis added.)
Other than the emphasis on election (perhaps), _**this still sounds quite Anabaptist. But our next quote sharpens the contrast:**_
> **For Calvin the visible church was not a progressive approximation of the invisible.** The former was a _corpus permixtum_, wheat and tares growing in the same field, whereas the latter included elect angels, Old Testament worthies, and assorted predestined souls who find themselves outside the “Lord’s walled orchard.” (Kindle Locations 5151-5153, emphasis added.)
So again, as with Luther and Zwingli but in contrast to the Anabaptists such as Menno Simons, **Calvin believed the visible church was a _corpus permixtum._** And again, perhaps even more clearly than Zwingli (George’s words are a bit vague), Calvin understood the invisible Church to include even beings who have never been part of any NT church. Here, again, is the Zwinglian emphasis on continuity between old and new covenants.
**So is it correct to consider the visible church a _corpus permixtum_?** On the one hand I want to say “no,” for in Jesus’ parable the field where the tares grow is the world, not the church (Matt. 13:38). On the other hand I think it is very possible to develop unrealistic, unPauline, and ultimately unbiblical expectations about how pure the Church will be before this present evil age is finally laid to rest (see [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/when-will-the-church-be-pure/)). Either way, unbiblical expectations will lead to unbiblical strategies and methods. I would want to push back against the assertion that the visible church is not supposed to be a progressive approximation of the invisible Church, and I would also want to push back against the idea that perfect church order can lead to a perfect match between the two.
I’m not sure this tension was ever fully resolved within Calvin himself–for, as we saw earlier, he, too, was very eager to see the church grow in maturity. He often expressed this by describing _**the church as a school:**_
> We are conceived in the womb of Mother Church , nourished at her breast, and enrolled as pupils in her school all the days of our lives (Inst. 4.1.4). (Kindle Locations 5159-5160)
>
> **The church, of course, is a school from which one never graduates** (this side of heaven, if then!), hence the need for continual instruction. The church is also, in the best sense of the term, a “reform school,” complete with specified dress code, censored reading matter, compulsory attendance at chapel, and truant officers to deal with recalcitrant students! (Kindle Locations 5188-5190, emphasis added.)
Okay, that sounds pretty familiar to this modern Mennonite, at least until the truant officers bit. This bit points to another crucial difference between Anabaptists and Calvin–_**the relationship between church and state:**_
> By rejecting the Anabaptist concept of the congregation as a conventicle sequestered from the environing culture, **Calvin rooted his reformation in the “placed Christianity” of the medieval _corpus christianum_.** (Kindle Locations 5268-5270, emphasis added.)
>
> The rule of Christ was to be manifested, ideally, in the institution of a godly magistracy… In the words of Isaiah, **Calvin urged the magistrates to be “nursing fathers” to the Reformation.** They were to maintain not only civic order but also religious uniformity… The proper relationship of the two \[congregation and magistrate\] is illustrated by the example of a pertinacious \[stubborn\] heretic. After thorough examination… and patient admonition, the obstinate heretic may be, must be, expelled from the congregation by excommunication. Beyond this the church cannot go. However, the magistrate was well within his bounden duty in bringing to bear what Calvin called, somewhat euphemistically, “further measures of greater rigor.” (Kindle Locations 5286-5293, emphasis added.)
“Further measures of greater rigor” could include, as [Servetus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus) discovered, burning at the stake. It is sad that Calvin did not learn to renounce the sword after his own early experience as a persecuted Protestant minority in France.
**I’ll bring this survey of Calvin’s ecclesiology to a close with some quotes about church leadership.** Calvin believed that “a fourfold office of pastor, teacher, elder, and deacon… was mandated by Scripture” (Kindle Locations 5194-5199), but he spoke most often and most clearly about pastors.
> Calvin believed that the offices of prophet, apostle, and evangelist, so prominent in the New Testament, were temporary in nature and had ceased at the end of the apostolic age. Of the offices that are extant in this dispensation, that of **the pastor is clearly the most honorable and the least dispensable for the proper order and well-being of the church**. (Kindle Locations 5220-5223, emphasis added.)
>
> **What is the role of the pastor?**—to represent God’s Son…, to erect and extend God’s kingdom, to care for the salvation of souls, to rule the church that is God’s inheritance. Calvin held that there should be at least one pastor in every town… (Kindle Locations 5227-5230, emphasis added.)
>
> **How was a pastor to be chosen?** …While it was certainly wrong for an individual to “thrust himself forward” out of self-seeking ambition, it was proper for one moved by a godly desire to prepare for the office. **“What are theological schools if not nurseries for pastors?”** Yet one had to be publicly called according to the order the church prescribed. (Kindle Locations 5231-5234, emphasis added.)
>
> Ordination… Calvin described as a “solemn rite of institution” into the pastoral office. Calvin elsewhere referred to ordination as a sacrament and admitted that grace was conferred through this outward sign. (Kindle Locations 5236-5237)
>
> **But why are pastors so important to the church?** “Does not everyone have a chance to read the Scriptures for himself?” asked Calvin. Yes, but pastors had to carve or divide the Word, **“like a father dividing the bread into small pieces to _feed_ his children.”** Pastors must be thoroughly taught in the Scriptures that they can rightly instruct the congregation in heavenly doctrine. The importance of preaching in Calvin’s thought can hardly be exaggerated. (Kindle Locations 5246-5250, emphasis added.)
>
> The pastor is charged with preaching and governing. **“A pastor needs two voices,” said Calvin, “one for gathering the sheep and the other for driving away wolves and thieves.”** (Kindle Locations 5261-5262, emphasis added.)
>
> **Calvin did not hesitate to advocate a double standard for clergy/laity…** Calvin had not here relapsed into the two-tiered morality of medieval Christendom. Rather, he was concerned with the visibility of the church, with the “face” of the church. An unworthy minister can do irreparable harm to the congregation. For this reason he must hold to a stricter accountability. (Kindle Locations 5263-5268, emphasis added.)
**I think we conservative Anabaptists could learn from Calvin’s emphasis on the importance of pastors and preaching.** I am not entirely comfortable with everything that Calvin and some of his Reformed heirs say about the father-like authority of pastors, and I think a sacramental understanding of ordination sometimes bears bad fruit even in our own churches. I would want to remember Luther’s insistence on the priesthood of all believers and his reminder, spoken in the voice of a godly congregation, that “What we give him today we can take away from him tomorrow,” should the pastor prove unworthy. (And Calvin almost certainly agreed; reread the last quote.)
But, caveats aside, I have been impressed with how much more seriously many Reformed preachers take their duties as teachers and preachers of Scripture than many leaders in our own churches do. Most church members never rise above the level of the biblical understanding and vision cast by their pastors. We could learn, I believe, from Calvin’s emphasis on pastoral training. I know from experience that there is a helpful “third way” between seminary training and no training (and I have also been blessed by leaders in our own church fellowships who have had some formal seminary training). _**If more local church leaders caught a vision for rigorous training right in their own congregations, we might be surprised at the caliber of our future leaders.**_
I’ll give the last word to Timothy George:
> In the midst of our secular culture, we need to appropriate Calvin’s vision of the church as the special creation of the Holy Spirit, a community that can point men and women beyond itself to the transcendent source of their lives and of life itself. On the other hand, we can only deplore Calvin’s coercive view of society, his intolerance of dissenters, his acquiescence in the death of Servetus, notwithstanding his plea for leniency in the mode of execution. (Kindle Locations 5363-5366. B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)
(Next up: [the ecclesiology of Menno Simons](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/).)
**What do you think?** Are you surprised by anything in this survey of Calvin’s ecclesiology? What would you add? What do you think we should learn from his example? **Gather the sheep and drive off the wolves by [sharing your insights in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/#respond)!**
* * *
_**PS:** If you are enjoying this series, be sure to [buy Timothy George’s book](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=TW45NY7LIFZE3QFR)! He has much more to say than what I am sharing here. (Disclosure: The link above is an Amazon affiliate link, so I’ll make pennies if you buy the book.)_
1. Jacobus Arminius to Sebastian Egbert, 3 May, 1607, Christiaan Hartsoeker and Philippas van Limborch, eds., _Præstantium ac eruditorum visorum epistolæ ecclesiasticæ et theologicæ_ (Amsterdam Henricum Welstentium, 1660), 236-37. As quoted by Mark A. Ellis, ed., in _The Arminian Confession of 1621_ (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005), vii. Emphasis added. [↩](#fnref-1205-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## When Will the Church Be Pure?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-24
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: When Will the Church Be Pure? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Sometimes godly wisdom involves not only identifying correct goals, but also understanding what God has affirmed about when those goals will be fulfilled.
Tags: -1 Corinthians 5:1-2, -1 John 1:8, -1Corinthians 5:11, -Acts 20:29-30, -Ephesians 4:11-16, -Ephesians 5:27, -Galatians 5:4, -Galatians 5:5-6, -Galatians 6:1-2, -Revelation 19:8, -Revelation 22:14, -Revelation 6:9-11, -Revelation 7:14, -Romans 14:1-14, environmentalism, new earth, over-realized eschatology, pacifism, holiness, eschatology, -1 Corinthians 12:13, church purity, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/when-will-the-church-be-pure
**Sometimes godly wisdom involves not only identifying correct goals, but also understanding what God has affirmed about when those goals will be fulfilled.** For example, the purity of the Church is undeniably a good goal; but _when_ should we expect the Church to be pure?
Two preliminaries: (1) My discussion here will raise more issues than it will answer, and what answers I do suggest will not be as firmly proven from Scripture as what they should be in an essay or book context. (2) The way I am going to frame my question will involve big words. But fear not! I will immediately provide definitions.
Here, then, is my thesis: _**While liberal Anabaptists tend to have an over-realized eschatology regarding their ecology, conservative Anabaptists tend to have an over-realized eschatology regarding their ecclesiology.**_
Working definitions:
* _eschatology_: Our beliefs about all things “end-time,” that is, our beliefs about the ultimate results of Christ’s saving work
* _over-realized_: Something that happens too fully too soon (opposite of under-realized, which is something that happens too partially and too slowly)
* _over-realized eschatology_: A belief that we should expect to see various results of Christ’s saving work now that have not been promised until after Christ’s return (example: expecting to never experience physical pain)
* _ecology_: study of living things and their environments
* _ecclesiology_: study of the Church
**Let me continue by briefly explaining the first half of my broad-brush thesis.** (This first half is really a set-up for the second half.) I am suggesting that those Anabaptists commonly identified as being liberal (MCUSA, etc.) are prone to having expectations about the physical world that go beyond what the Bible gives us reason to hope for. We see this, I think, both in some strains of pacifism and also in some versions of environmental advocacy. The early Anabaptists were right to see Christ’s first coming as inaugurating the age when swords would be beat into plowshares. But if I understand Revelation correctly, we can expect warfare to continue–despite our valid and important efforts to the contrary–until the final judgment. And only then will the natural environment reach its perfect state, the lion lying down with the lamb and the tree of life yielding fruit for the healing of the nations.
Once, after I preached a sermon urging people to fix their hopes on the new heaven and new earth that God will unveil at Christ’s return (see [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/audio/)), one of my wife’s aunts said something like this: “I like to think of the new earth as something we are trying to build here right now.” I hasten to recognize that there is such a thing as an under-realized ecology, and that some conservative Anabaptists are most certainly guilty of it. But when our hopes for the present begin to eclipse our hopes for the fullness of God’s kingdom in the consummation of the age to come, something is seriously amiss.
**So what about conservative Anabaptists and ecclesiology?** Here I am suggesting that we sometimes act as if we expect that a fully pure Church (or at least _church_, i.e., _congregation_) is attainable right here and now, if only we find the right methods and draw the right lines. But does this hope match the biblical picture? Yes, Christ’s goal is to “present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). But when will this perfection of holiness be achieved?
Back to Revelation: I find it interesting that “the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they bore” were, sometime _after_ their death, “each given a white robe” (Rev. 6:9, 11). In the context of Revelation, the robe represents glory and holiness; later we read of the Bride of the Lamb that “‘it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure’–for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints” (Rev. 19:8).
Doesn’t it seem that if anyone achieves truly holiness prior to death, it would be martyrs? Indeed, the righteousness described in chapter 19 (and perhaps in Rev. 7:14 and definitely in Rev. 22:14) probably is experienced before the saints died. And right-now holiness _is_ important; there is most certainly such a thing as an under-realized holiness leading to an under-realized ecclesiology! But the fullness of our holiness, chapter 6 seems to suggest, will not be experienced until we are in the very presence of God. And this conclusion seems undeniable based on 1 John 1:8: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
An over-realized ecclesiology can be expressed in many ways. There are those who multiply behavioral rules in an attempt to precisely codify holy living. There are also those who refuse to commit to any church because none is perfect enough. I’m sure you could add to this paragraph.
**I find Paul’s example instructive.** He readily identified with many different churches throughout his lifetime, counting believers in each as his brothers and sisters. He even identified with the miserably imperfect Corinthian church: “in one Spirit _we_ were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13, emphasis added). I also find it interesting that he rarely “pulled the excommunication card,” saving it for either those who distorted the core of the gospel (Gal. 5:4) or those who engaged in gross immorality of the kind that damaged the Church’s reputation before unbelievers (1 Cor. 5:1-2, 11). He never pursued present purity in the Church so rigorously that he excluded all who were caught in any transgression (Gal. 6:1-2) or those who disagreed with him (wrongly!) on details of holy behavior (Rom. 14:1-14). He told the church at Ephesus that growth in maturity was a long, challenging process (Eph. 4:11-16). And he told the Ephesian elders that he expected their Church to continue to battle impurity in the future (Acts 20:29-30). Immaturity is not good, and false teachers certainly must be defeated; but both are “normal” until Christ returns.
**So, how much holiness should we expect to see in our churches today?** Here’s a brief answer, from Paul: While we “through the Spirit, by faith… eagerly _wait_ for the hope of righteousness,” we should expect to see “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:5-6, emphasis added).
**What do you think?** Is my thesis basically accurate? What do you think it looks like for a church to have a truly biblical goal of purity? [**Share your insights below**](http://dwightgingrich.com/when-will-the-church-be-pure/#respond)–we’re all still learning!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Ecclesiology of the Reformers (3): Huldrych Zwingli
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-22
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Ecclesiology of the Reformers (3): Huldrych Zwingli | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Zwingli is not as famous as his German peer (Luther) or his French successor (Calvin), but his influence on Anabaptist ecclesiology is at least as direct.
Tags: Protestant Reformation, sacred and secular, sola scriptura, -1 Timothy 2:1-4, -Colossians 3:16, -Ephesians 5:19, -Exodus 4:16, Ecclesia catholica, George H. | Williams, nationalism, Thomas | Müntzer, Anabaptist history, nonresistance, Angel M. | Mergal, Conrad | Grebel, Felix | Mantz, Huldrych | Zwingli, sermons, Swiss Brethren, Timothy | George, church history, patriotism, Greek, church unity, Magisterial Reformation, preaching, biblicism, infant baptism, church and Israel, state church, corpus permixtum
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli
**Huldrych Zwingli is not as famous as his German peer (Luther) or his French successor (Calvin), but his influence on the Anabaptist tradition is at least as direct.** It was under Zwingli’s teaching in Zurich, Switzerland, that the first Swiss Brethren developed the convictions that earned them the name _Anabaptist_. For this reason alone, Zwingli is worth our reflective attention. Add to this Zwingli’s exceptional skill and dedication as a Bible expositor, and we are wise to join Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz for a time as his students.
**This post continues our series on the ecclesiology of the Reformers, quoting from Timothy George’s excellent book, [_Theology of the Reformers_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=ZYRGOAVXWDMMHG5V).** While George surveys a wide range of themes, I am focusing on the subtopic of ecclesiology (theology of the church). Even within this topic I am limiting myself to quotes that I find especially fascinating or significant as I refine my own understandings about the Church. (For the introduction to this series, [go here](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/). For the ecclesiology of Martin Luther, [go here](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/). For the rest of my posts in this series, go here: [John Calvin](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/), [Menno Simons](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/), [William Tyndale](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale/), and [my conclusions and questions](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/).)
**Here, then, is Timothy George on Zwingli:**
> Zwingli memorized in Greek all of the Pauline Epistles, having copied them down word for word. This spadework would later bear fruit in Zwingli’s powerful expository preaching and biblical exegesis. (Kindle Locations 2560-2562)
>
> On this date \[January 1, 1519\] the new pastor shocked his congregation by announcing his intention to dispense with the traditional lectionary. Instead of “canned” sermons, Zwingli would preach straight through the Gospel of Matthew , beginning with the genealogy in chapter 1. Matthew was followed by Acts, then the Epistles to Timothy, then Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter, and so on until by 1525 he had worked his way through the New Testament and then turned to the Old. (Kindle Locations 2568-2572)
How amazing it must have been to sit under such preaching for the first time! While our own sermons today could benefit greatly from frequent imitation of Zwingli’s expository approach, _**I think it is easy to underestimate the novelty of Zwingli’s preaching in his day**_. In many of our own churches we hear more topical sermons than expositional ones. Sometimes these topical sermons are more like a random collection of leftovers than a well-designed meal. But even our topical sermons, like our unsystematic theologies, are indirectly the offspring of Bible exposition and careful theological reflection done in generations past. To have heard the Bible expounded directly and sequentially in this manner for the first time must have been exhilarating–a bit like a going hang gliding for the first time, with nothing but unfamiliar air currents (Scripture) to hold you up.
Even for Zwingli this must have been an exhilarating adventure. (I read that most of his sermons were delivered extemporaneously.) On the one hand we have the astounding fact that he had memorized the entire NT in Greek. On the other hand, Zwingli himself was learning as he preached his way through the NT–and learning without the benefit of a trusted theological tradition to guide him. _**We should not be surprised, given Zwingli’s mix of keen sight and lack of map, to find in his writings both brilliant observations and, at times, tentative or premature conclusions.**_
> Two events mark his break with Rome and his public adherence to the Protestant cause. In late 1520 he renounced the papal pension he had been receiving for several years. Two years later, on October 10, 1522 , he resigned his office as “people’s priest” of Zurich, whereupon the city council promptly hired him as preacher to the entire city. Zwingli was now in a position to press for an official reformation in Zurich. (Kindle Locations 2597-2600)
I include the above quote because it shows that _**Zwingli’s ecclesiology began where it ended: arm-in-arm with the state**_. It seems Zwingli couldn’t imagine (or didn’t want to) a church that was not working in partnership with the state.
> Zurich lay within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Constance, who regarded Zwingli’s strident preaching with growing alarm. The fear of schism was on his mind when he warned the Zurichers to maintain “the unity of the Church, without which there can be no Gospel; Christ is one, and the Church is one.” To this admonition Zwingli replied with his _Apologeticus Archeteles_ (“ my first and last defense”). At points he sounded almost flippant. Is he accused of not listening to the bishops? “Nothing is easier, since they say nothing.” As for the charge of abandoning Holy Mother Church, he called on his opponents themselves “to leave the asses and come over to the oxen, abandon the goats for the sheep.” (Kindle Locations 2611-2616)
The above quote is perplexing, because _**I find myself initially liking the words of the bishop of Constance more than the words of Zwingli**_. On one level my reaction is just a distaste for the vulgar language that was employed by most religious combatants in the sixteenth century. On another level, 500 years after the Reformation it is easy to see the high cost of the Church being fractured into thousands of shards. I might not say that “there can be no Gospel” without “the unity of the Church.” But I do think that the disunity of the Church has tarnished the gospel in the eyes of millions. And I definitely affirm that–despite the Reformation!–“Christ is one, and the Church is one.” Yet, if I had to choose between the Roman Catholic mass of 1500 and the preaching of Zwingli… I have little doubt about my choice.
When Zwingli’s Roman Catholic opponents refused to engage in debate with him, saying that a city like Zurich was not an appropriate venue for resolving theological matters, Zwingli disagreed:
> Zwingli responded , “I say that here in this room is without doubt a Christian assembly; there is no reason why we should not discuss these matters, speak and decide the truth.” This was a remarkable claim. Zwingli regarded this assembly not merely as a special session of the town council but as an evangelical synod on a par with a general council of the church universal, fully competent to pronounce authoritatively on matters of faith and worship. (Kindle Locations 2629-2632)
_**I think we see here something of Zwingli’s Swiss nationalism.**_ He was very willing to cut ties with the Roman hierarchy. Yet he was equally willing to walk arm-in-arm with the local city council, even calling it an “assembly”–an echo perhaps of the NT word _ἐκκλησίας_, which means “assembly,” though often translated _church_.
The city council was on Zwingli’s side, so the First Zurich Disputation ended in his favor:
> In the afternoon session the councilmen delivered their verdict: Master Zwingli could “continue and keep on as before to proclaim the holy Gospel and the correct divine Scriptures with the spirit of God in accordance with his capabilities .” …Zurich became “the first Protestant state by magisterial initiative.” (Kindle Locations 2635-2639)
I strongly disagree with Zwingli’s linking of church and state, but _**I fully affirm Zwingli’s core definition of the Church as presented here**_:
> \[As with Luther and Calvin, in Zwingli’s theology\] the church is seen as the company of those who truly belong to God by faith: “All who dwell in the head are members and children of God, and that is the church or communion of the saints , the bride of Christ, _Ecclesia catholica_.” (Kindle Locations 2695-2697)
“All who dwell in the head are members”; this is clear and biblical thinking. On the other hand, while I, too, want to “let God be God,” I confess I find Zwingli’s stretching of Christ’s redeeming activity to be, well, somewhat stretching:
> Zwingli held that even among those who had never heard the gospel, those who lived outside the chronological or geographical bounds of salvation history, God chose some. They were future neighbors in heaven—not only the Old Testament worthies but “Hercules too and Theseus , Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios,” indeed every pious heart and believing soul from the beginning of the world. (Kindle Locations 2771-2773)
>
> In accordance with John 14:6, which he often cited, Zwingli insisted that no one could come to the Father except through Christ who is “the way, the truth, and the life.” He refused, however, to limit the scope of Christ’s redeeming activity to the circumference of the visible church. This was his own way of saying, “Let God be God.” (Kindle Locations 2789-2791)
_**Socrates in heaven? And can one really be saved without being part of the Church ([contra Luther](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/#he))?**_ First, according to George, Zwingli did not say that such “pious hearts” are outside the _Ecclesia catholica_ (the universal Church), but outside the _visible_ church. Perhaps he thought one could be part of the Church without being part of the church? Second, I want to affirm the NT insistence on the urgency of proclaiming, hearing, and believing the gospel, without pretending to fully understand how God will judge those who have heard less than we have. The NT says little about the latter, but much about the former.
> Zwingli was much more radical than Luther in trying to prune from church life those ceremonial rites and religious accoutrements that were the mainstay of medieval piety. Thoughtless prayers, prescribed fasts, the bleached cowls and carefully shaved heads of the monks, holy days, incense, the burning of candles, the sprinkling of holy water, nuns’ prayers, priests’ chatter, vigils, masses, and matins—this “whole rubbish-heap of ceremonials” amounted to nothing but “tomfoolery.” To depend upon them at all for salvation was like “placing iceblocks upon iceblocks.” (Kindle Locations 2887-2891)
Amen! Let us listen and apply in our own churches. And yet…
> Why was Zwingli so sternly opposed to images and other forms of ceremonial piety? …First, the principle of scriptural authority relativized all extrabiblical practices. This is clearly expressed in the second of the Ten Conclusions of Bern (1528): “The Church of Christ makes no laws or commandments apart from the Word of God; hence all human traditions are not binding upon us except so far as they are grounded upon or prescribed in the Word of God.” In general, the Lutheran tradition has willingly retained in its worship those practices and customs not directly prohibited by Scripture. The Reformed tradition, following Zwingli, has tended to eliminate what is not expressly commanded in Scripture. (Kindle Locations 2898-2903)
Amen again! At least until the last two sentences.
**I am eager to see** the Church freed from all merely human traditions _that are bound upon us as inflexible commandments_, for they repeatedly make the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:9-13). **But shall we insist** that we must eliminate from our churches all freely-chosen practices that are not expressly commanded in Scripture? Here I confess that I disagree with Zwingli–and with Conrad Grebel, who even forbade singing in church on this basis–and agree with Luther, who commissioned and composed church music and prepared the way for his great Lutheran offspring, J.S. Bach.
(Grebel wrote: “Paul very clearly forbids singing in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 since he says and teaches that they are to speak to one another and teach one another with psalms and spiritual songs, and if anyone would sing, he should sing and give thanks in his heart… Whatever we are not taught by clear passages or examples must be regarded as forbidden, just as if it were written: ‘This do not; sing not.'” — From “Letter to Thomas Müntzer,” Sept. 5, 1524, _Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers_, ed. George H. Williams and Angel M. Mergal \[Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957\], page 75.)
Back to Timothy George:
> In Zurich, perhaps more than in any of the other Reformed cities, church and civic community were one indivisible body, governed by the spiritual and secular officers who both accepted the principle of scriptural authority as the basis of their joint governance… Zwingli saw no problem in this sort of cooperation between church and state. In a famous statement written shortly before his death he said, “The Christian man is nothing else but a faithful and good citizen and the Christian city nothing other than the Christian church.” (Kindle Locations 2947-2953)
>
> Church and state were related as soul and body, distinct yet necessarily conjoined and interdependent. More than any other reformer, Zwingli reacted against the clerical supremacy of the medieval church . The error of the Roman Antichrist had been to set himself above princes and kings. Zwingli believed the Bible taught (Exod 4:16) that priests were to be subordinate to the magistrates. Zwingli’s message required a leveling of the sacred and the secular and a vision of reform that embraced both minister and magistrate as coservants of the Word of God. That “the kingdom of Christ is also external” meant that no dimension of human existence could be excluded from the claims and promises of the gospel. (Kindle Locations 2995-3000)
Here again, I think, we see a mixture of motives in play–probably some Swiss nationalism, combined with a laudatory vision how Christ’s kingdom reaches into both sacred and secular arenas, combined with a failure to understand that the kingdom of Christ is not served when its servants wield the sword of the state. Paul did teach us to pray for civil authorities, so that civil peace might assist the spread of the gospel (1 Tim. 2:1-4). But _**to effectively equate the “Christian city” and the “Christian church” goes far beyond anything the apostles envisioned**_.
(It would be interesting here to compare how Luther’s vision of two kingdoms contrasts with Zwingli’s pairing of church and state–and then to tease out how such apparently different theological starting points could lead them both to become magisterial Reformers with state churches. But I am not wise enough for the task!)
The next set of quotes describes _**the link between Zwingli’s defense of infant baptism and his concept of the church**_:
> Zwingli believed that baptism was not primarily for the sake of the one who received it; it was, rather, a guaranty for those who witnessed it. Its purpose was to inform the whole church rather than one’s self of the faith that had been inwardly wrought by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Kindle Locations 3060-3062)
>
> Zwingli’s description of water baptism as a public pledge implied that it was applicable only to adults who could consciously make such a commitment. In fact, this is precisely what he seems to have believed in the early years of his reforming career in Zurich… \[But\] beginning in late 1524, Zwingli issued a series of writings in which he disabused himself of his earlier doubts about infant baptism and defended the practice by means of a new argument: covenantal continuity between the people of Israel in the old dispensation and the visible church in the new. (Kindle Locations 3066-3074)
>
> Zwingli did… place great store in the personal faith of the parents who offered the child for baptism… For Zwingli, though, the faith of the parents was secondary to the faith of the whole church. This is why he frowned on private baptisms and insisted that baptism be administered “in the presence of the church” by a duly appointed minister of the Word. “The recipient of baptism testifies that he belongs to the Church of God, which worships its Lord in soundness of faith and purity of life.” Infant baptism was, for Zwingli, essentially an ecclesial event. (Kindle Locations 3110-3119)
Part of the reason, then, why Zwingli and the Anabaptists disagreed on infant baptism was because they disagreed on the relationship between the NT Church and the OT nation of Israel. But _**I sense that there was a deeper cause for Zwingli’s disagreement with the Anabaptists over baptism**_. Before Zwingli ever began arguing for continuity between Israel and the Church, he was already committed to serving his city and his state. Zwingli was a Swiss army chaplain before he was a Reformer, and he died on the battlefield while serving in the same role.
([Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli) puts it this way: “Zwingli had considered himself first and foremost a soldier of Christ; second a defender of his country, the Confederation; and third a leader of his city, Zurich, where he had lived for the previous twelve years. Ironically, he died at the age of 47, not for Christ nor for the Confederation, but for Zurich.” Citation: Potter, G. R., _Zwingli_, \[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976\], page 414.)
Back to Timothy George:
> In one of his earliest writings as a reformer, Zwingli described himself as “a Swiss professing Christ among the Swiss.”(Kindle Locations 2523-2524)
>
> By 1524 he had discerned that the real danger from the Anabaptists was not so much heresy as schism and sedition. Infant baptism came to be the fulcrum on which both the unity of the church and the integrity of the civic order turned… Zwingli’s program of reform… equated the visible church with the populace of the Christian city or state: “A Christian city is nothing other than a Christian church.” The Christian _civitas_ might be a _corpus permixtum_ of sheep and goats, God alone knowing for sure who was which, but it could not be a company of baptized and unbaptized lest the civic order itself, and the proclamation of the gospel that depended upon it, be imperiled. It is ironic that water baptism, which played at best an adiaphorous \[neutral\] role in Zwingli’s soteriology \[doctrine of salvation\], became the basis for his defense of the visible church. (Kindle Locations 3123-3132)
>
> Despite Zwingli’s enhanced view of the Eucharist \[later in life he “moved toward a more positive appreciation of the real presence of Christ in the Supper”\], the primary pastoral purpose of the Supper—as with baptism—remained congregational rather than individual. The sacraments were chiefly those signs by which the believer proved to the church that he was a soldier of Christ; their purpose was “to inform the whole church rather than yourself of your faith.” (Kindle Locations 3388-3396)
>
> Zwingli’s bold program of reform included a reordering of the whole community, not just the church. From beginning to end, he was single-mindedly concerned to uphold the sovereignty of God and to root out every practice that encouraged the placing of one’s trust in the creature. He took more literally than Luther the _sola_ in _sola scriptura_, even if the Anabaptists did him one still better in this regard. (Kindle Locations 3443-3446)
**Many more lessons could be drawn from Zwingli’s example. I’ll end by briefly underscoring two.** _A negative lesson_ is the reminder that our ecclesiology can be gravely distorted by our patriotism. Need I say more? _A positive lesson_ is the reminder to test all church practices and beliefs by Scripture. Zwingli did this imperfectly, but he did it better than many in his day. His skillful biblical exposition paved the way for others to surpass him in forming biblical churches, and should remind us of our own unfinished task.
(Next up: [the ecclesiology of John Calvin](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/).)
**What did you learn from these highlights from Zwingli’s ecclesiology?** What might you add to George’s observations? How might you balance my reflections? What should the Church today learn from Zwingli? [**Share your insights in the comments below!**](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli/#respond)
* * *
_**PS:** If you are enjoying this series, be sure to [buy Timothy George’s book](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=TW45NY7LIFZE3QFR)! He has much more to say than what I am sharing here. (Disclosure: The link above is an Amazon affiliate link, so I’ll make pennies if you buy the book.)_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Ecclesiology of the Reformers (2): Martin Luther
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-20
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Ecclesiology of the Reformers (2): Martin Luther | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Luther's ecclesiology flowed from a deeper concern: the nature of the gospel itself. Here are some quotes from Timothy George about Luther's ecclesiology.
Tags: priesthood of all believers, Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura, invisible church, -1 Peter 2:13-14, -John 10:16, -Matthew 13:24-30, -Matthew 5:16, -Romans 13, communio sanctorum, Congregationalism, Cyprian, Gemeine, hidden church, Kirche, semper iustus et peccator, simul iustus et peccator, Versammlung, holiness, Martin | Luther, church leadership, John | Wyclif, Timothy | George, Augustine of Hippo, church history, church universal, faith, gospel, church unity, two-kingdom theology, preaching, church tradition, justification, sacraments, state church, clergy, laity, -1 Corinthians 5:12-13, -Matthew 13:38, corpus permixtum, church discipline, church purity
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther
**Martin Luther, by almost anyone’s estimation, was the single most influential figure of the Protestant Reformation.** (Gutenberg, with his printing press, is a serious outlying contender.) If Luther was the single most influential figure of the Reformation, the single most influential idea of the Reformation was surely Luther’s understanding of justification.
Luther did not set out to start a new church, and most children of the Reformation today do not belong to the Lutheran Church. Yet Luther’s understanding of justification has shaped the churches of all the children of the Reformation, just as it shaped his own developing conception of the church. **_Luther’s ecclesiology, then–and the ecclesiologies of each branch of the Reformation–was a by-product of a deeper concern: the nature of the gospel itself._**
This, of course, is how it should be; if we define the gospel based on our churches rather than defining our churches based on the gospel, our ecclesiology will inevitably go awry. But this historical observation also reminds us that Luther’s ecclesiology was a work in progress. He, like us, did not possess a fully-formed and clear conception of the true Church and its temporal manifestations at the moment of his new birth. So as we consider Luther’s ecclesiology, let’s consider him a fellow student–not a complete novice, to be sure, but not an all-wise master, either.
**Here, then, are some quotes about Martin Luther and ecclesiology from Timothy George’s excellent book, [_Theology of the Reformers_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=ZYRGOAVXWDMMHG5V).** (For the introduction to this series, [go here](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/). For the ecclesiology of [Huldrych Zwingli](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli/), [John Calvin](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/), [Menno Simons](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/), or [William Tyndale](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale/), stay tuned. And [here is my concluding post](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/) in this series.)
From Timothy George:
> Far from attempting to found a new sect, Luther always saw himself as a faithful and obedient servant of the church. Thus his deep chagrin that the first Protestants, in England and France no less than in Germany, were being called “Lutherans”: “The first thing I ask is that people should not make use of my name, and should not call themselves Lutherans but Christians.” (Kindle Locations 1142-1145)
>
> Luther did not see himself as an agent of ecclesiastical revolution, a sixteenth-century Lenin or Robespierre out to shake the world and overturn kingdoms. That the papacy and empire were shaken, if not overthrown, by the words of a simple German monk was, he thought, merely a providential by-product of his prior vocation. “I have done nothing. I have let the Word act.” What Luther did do, what he was called to do, was to listen to the Word. “The nature of the Word is to be heard,” he remarked. (Kindle Locations 1158-1161)
>
> Protestantism was born out of the struggle for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. For Luther this was not simply one doctrine among others but “the summary of all Christian doctrine,” “the article by which the church stands or falls.”(Kindle Locations 1292-1293)
>
> The person who has… received the gift of faith Luther described as “at once righteous and a sinner” (_simul iustus et peccator_)… \[As his theological understanding developed\], Luther \[used\] _simul iustus et peccator_… in the sense of _semper_ (always) _iustus et peccator_. The believer is not only both righteous and sinful at the same time but is also always or completely both righteous and sinful at the same time. What does this mean? …Luther expressed the paradox thus: “We are in truth and totally sinners, with regard to ourselves and our first birth. Contrariwise, in so far as Christ has been given for us, we are holy and just totally. Hence from different aspects we are said to be just and sinners at one and the same time.” …Luther’s doctrine of justification fell like a bombshell on the theological landscape of medieval Catholicism. It shattered the entire theology of merits and indeed the sacramental-penitential basis of the church itself. (Kindle Locations 1459-1476)
>
> The principle of _sola scriptura_ was intended to safeguard the authority of Scripture from that servile dependence upon the church that in fact made Scripture inferior to the church… The church, far from having priority over Scripture, is really the creation of Scripture, born in the womb of Scripture. “For who begets his own parent?” Luther asked. “Who first brings forth his own maker?” Although the church approved the particular books included in the canon…, it was thereby merely bearing witness to the authenticity of Scripture, just as John the Baptist had pointed to Christ. (Kindle Locations 1640-1647).
>
> At the same time Luther did not simply throw out the preceding 1,500 years of church history. In his treatise against the Anabaptists (1528), he said, “We do not act as fanatically as the _Schwärmer_. We do not reject everything that is under the dominion of the Pope. For in that event we should also reject the Christian church. Much Christian good is to be found in the papacy and from there it descended to us.” _Sola scriptura_ was not _nuda scriptura_.
> (Kindle Locations 1651-1655)
>
> “Now if anyone of the saintly fathers can show that his interpretation is based on Scripture, and if Scripture proves that this is the way it should be interpreted, then the interpretation is right. If this is not the case, I must not believe him.” Thus Luther argued for the coinherence of Scripture and tradition , Holy Writ and Holy Church, while never wavering in his commitment to the priority of the former. (Kindle Locations 1662-1666)
>
> The last thing in the world Luther wanted to do was start a new church. He was not an innovator but a reformer. He never considered himself anything other than a true and faithful member of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church…. \[Luther’s acts\] provoked a schism in Western Christendom that has not yet been healed. Luther, however, was no mere iconoclast . He revolted against the church for the sake of the church, against a corrupt church for the sake of the “true , ancient church, one body and one communion of saints with the holy, universal, Christian church.” (Kindle Locations 1735-1743)
>
> He said, echoing Cyprian, that outside the church there was no salvation. (Kindle Location 1747)
>
> But what exactly is the church? Luther once responded impatiently to this question: “Why, a seven-year-old child knows what the church is, namely, holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd.” We have in this answer a major thrust of Luther’s ecclesiology: the essentially spiritual , noninstitutional character of the church. Luther disliked the German word _Kirche_ (which , like _church_ in English, or _curia_ in Latin, derives from the Greek _kuriakon_, the Lord’s house) because it had come to mean the building or the institution. He preferred _Gemeine_, “community,” or _Versammlung_, “assembly.” For him the true church was the people of God, the fellowship of believers, or, as the Apostles’ Creed has it, the communion of saints. (Kindle Locations 1756-1762)
>
> Against the Roman conception of the church, Luther stressed the priority of the gospel. Luther insisted that the gospel was constitutive for the church, not the church for the gospel: “The true treasure of the church is the holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.”(Kindle Locations 1782-1784)
>
> Like Augustine, Wyclif, and Hus before him, Luther talked about the invisible church whose membership comprised the whole company of the predestined… Its invisibility derives from the fact that faith itself is invisible, “the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11: 1 KJV). If faith were a measurable quantity, we could identify the church by its outward characteristics. But because faith as the radical gift of God is not definable in external terms, the church, too, is not a physical assembly but “an assembly of hearts in one faith.” (Kindle Locations 1784-1790)
>
> In addition to “invisible,” Luther also spoke of the church as “hidden.” This is a more complex concept and carries several connotations. It means first of all that the church, while manifest to God , is hidden from the world… The hiddenness of the church also extends to its holiness. Unlike the Anabaptists, Luther never espoused a pure church composed only of discernible saints. In this age the church is a _corpus permixtum_ containing at once sinners and saints, hypocrites and devout believers, tares and wheat. The purity of the church is not subject to examination, nor does it depend on the moral qualifications of the members or the ministers. “Our holiness is in heaven, where Christ is; it is not in the world, before the eyes of men, like a commodity on the market.” (Kindle Locations 1791-1806)
>
> It seemed to some that Luther’s emphasis on the hidden, invisible character of the church would undermine its tangible, historical reality. However, Luther intended neither to dissolve the church into a fairy castle in the clouds nor to reduce it to a loose-knit association of like-minded individuals. The gospel remained the sole, infallible mark of the church but the gospel in a particular sense, as it was manifested in the Word rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered. Wherever these two “notes” are evident, the true church exists, even if it is composed only of children in the cradle. (Kindle Locations 1815-1819)
>
> Luther did not invent preaching, but he did elevate it to a new status in Christian worship.(Kindle Locations 1824-1825)
>
> Luther’s greatest contribution to Protestant ecclesiology was his doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Yet no element in his teaching is more misunderstood. For some it means simply that no priests are in the church— the secularization of the clergy… More commonly people believe that the priesthood of all believers implies that every Christian is his or her own priest and hence possesses the “right of private judgment” in matters of faith and doctrine. Both of these are modern perversions of Luther’s original intention. The essence of his doctrine can be put in one sentence: Every Christian is someone else’s priest, and we are all priests to one another.
> Luther broke decisively with the traditional division of the church into two classes, clergy and laity. Every Christian is a priest by virtue of his baptism… The priestly offices are the common property of all Christians, not the special prerogative of a select caste of holy men. Luther listed seven rights that belong to the whole church: to preach the Word of God, to baptize, to celebrate holy Communion, to bear “the keys,” to pray for others, to sacrifice, to judge doctrine. (Kindle Locations 1909-1920)
>
> All of this means that no one can be a Christian alone. Just as we cannot give birth to ourselves, or baptize ourselves , so neither can we serve God alone. Here we touch on Luther’s other great definition of the church: _communio sanctorum_, a community of saints.(Kindle Locations 1926-1928)
>
> How did Luther relate the priesthood of all believers to the office of the ministry? While all Christians have an equal share in the treasures of the church, including the sacraments, not everyone can be a preacher, teacher, or counselor…
> Strictly speaking, Luther taught that every Christian is a minister and has the right to preach. This right may be freely exercised if one is in the midst of non-Christians, among the Turks, or stranded on a pagan island. However, in a Christian community one should not “draw attention to himself” by assuming this office on his own. Rather he should “let himself be called and chosen to preach and to teach in the place of and by the command of the others.” The call is issued through the congregation, and the minister remains accountable to the congregation. Luther went so far as to say: “What we give him today we can take away from him tomorrow.” (Kindle Locations 1935-1944)
>
> The exigencies of the Reformation did not conform to Luther’s early Congregationalism. If the church were to be reformed, the governing authorities had to play a role. Luther referred to the prince as a _Notbischof_, an emergency bishop. Through the institution of the visitation, the territorial prince assumed a larger role in the affairs of the church. Eventually a network of state churches emerged in Germany. (Kindle Locations 1948-1951. B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)
**Timothy George goes on to survey Luther’s understanding of the state and its relationship to the church.** It is here that I have some of my strongest disagreements with Luther. Time does not permit me to discuss Luther’s conception of church and state, but I do want to note one point: **_Luther taught a doctrine of two kingdoms–the spiritual government of the Church and the worldly government of the state. This may surprise some of us Anabaptists._** We emphasize our “two-kingdom theology,” and rightly so. But I don’t think we always remember that Luther, too, had a two-kingdom theology (as did many other Reformers). In fact, it was a quite nuanced two-kingdom theology, well-versed both in historical and systematic theology, and based in part on biblical passages such as Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13–14. To repeat, I disagree strongly with important aspects of Luther’s understanding of the two kingdoms. But my point here is that I think we owe it to Luther and to ourselves to remember that we Anabaptists are not the only ones to have wrestled with such ideas.
**Back to the quotes above. What do I like or dislike about Luther’s ecclesiology? First, some affirmations:**
* I like his humility and his desire to be a servant of the Church.
* I think he was exactly right to stress the priority of the gospel in defining and creating the Church, and to insist that the Church was and is born in the womb of Scripture, not vice versa.
* I like his preference of _assembly_ over _church,_ and his understanding that the Church is essentially a communion of saints, not a building or even primarily an institution.
* I like his identification with the catholic Church across time and space.
* I like his rediscovery of the priesthood of all believers.
* I think he was right to say that there is no salvation outside the Church. (Of course, this statement hinges on your definition of the Church!)
**What are some points where I might disagree with Luther’s conception of the Church?** I’ll answer this question paragraph-style:
My biggest point of disagreement with Luther begins at my biggest point of agreement: I think he was exactly right to define the Church based on the gospel, but **_I don’t think his understanding of the gospel was perfect_**. Luther deserves great credit for helping to trigger a vast European discussion about the nature of the gospel, and I am eager to give him credit for this. His writings were very helpful to thousands of seeking souls, including many early Anabaptists such as Menno Simons. But this does not mean his understanding of the gospel was perfect in all respects.
For example, _**I think that Luther’s understanding of semper iustus et peccator (always or completely both righteous and sinful at the same time) weakened the biblical link between faith and works in ways damaged his ecclesiology**_. While faith may be invisible, as Luther insisted, it does not exist without visible manifestation. Luther based his conception of an invisible church on his understanding of invisible faith. While I agree with the concept of an invisible church in the sense of how the true Church extends across time and denominational lines without respect to either, I do not think that this true Church is invisible in the sense that it is impossible to recognize a member of this Church when you see one. Our human discernment on such matters will always be imperfect. Yet “by their fruits you shall know them” applies, I think, not only to false prophets but also to true Church members.
**This leads me to also disagree somewhat with Luther on the concept of a _corpus permixtum_**–a Church containing at once sinners and saints, hypocrites and devout believers, tares and wheat. After Jesus told the Parable of the Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30), he explained that the field that contained both wheat and weeds was “the world” (Matt. 13:38). This understanding of the parable matches Paul’s understanding of the church’s role in judging sinners (1 Cor. 5:12-13): “Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.'” Thus, I think those Reformers were correct who added to Luther’s two “notes” of the church (right preaching and right sacraments) the mark of the proper exercise of church discipline. Luther was certainly right to root our holiness in Christ, but he was misleading to say that our holiness was “not in the world, before the eyes of men, like a commodity on the market.” Our holiness is not a commodity on the world’s market, for sure; we are not justified of damned based on the assessment of unregenerate observers. But the world around should indeed be able to “see \[our\] good works and give glory to \[our\] Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). (I will also add that I think some Anabaptists have fallen into the opposite ditch on the question of a pure church, but that is a topic for another post.)
**I’ll end by repeating one of my favorite quotes from Luther, followed by one of my favorite statements of Jesus about the Church:**
Luther: “Why, a seven-year-old child knows what the church is, namely, holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd.”
Jesus: “There will be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16).
(Next up: [the ecclesiology of Huldrych Zwingli](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli/).)
**What did you learn reading these excerpts from Timothy George about Martin Luther’s ecclesiology?** Where do you agree with Luther? Where do you disagree, and why? What do you think our churches today should learn as we ponder Luther’s example and influence? [**Share your insights in the comments below!**](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/#respond)
* * *
_**PS:** If you are enjoying this series, be sure to [buy Timothy George’s book](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=TW45NY7LIFZE3QFR)! He has so much more to say than what I am sharing here. (Disclosure: The link above is an Amazon affiliate link, so I’ll make pennies if you buy the book.)_
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Ecclesiology of the Reformers (1): Late Middle Ages
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-17
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Ecclesiology of the Reformers (1): Late Middle Ages | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Here are some excerpts from Timothy George about the church of the late Middle Ages, the church against which the Reformers hammered out their ecclesiology.
Tags: Protestant Reformation, conciliarism, curialism, Dante, Franciscans, Joachim of Fiore, John | Hus, Middle Ages, papacy, Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Pius II, Pope Sylvester I, Reformation, Roman Catholic Church, St. Francis, Waldensians, William of Ockham, Martin | Luther, John | Wyclif, Timothy | George, church history, church unity, predestination
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages
**I recently finished an excellent book: [_Theology of the Reformers_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805401954/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0805401954&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=CTQZ3CX7TMIOVDVI), by Timothy George** (republished in 2013 in an expanded 25th-anniversary edition). This book summarizes the theology of the Reformation by focusing on five key characters: [Martin Luther](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/), [Huldrych Zwingli](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-3-huldrych-zwingli/), [John Calvin](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-4-john-calvin/), [Menno Simons](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-5-menno-simons/), and [William Tyndale](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-6-william-tyndale/). (Click on the names above for my posts on each, and [click here for my final post](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-7-conclusions-questions/) in this series.)
Among the many topics surveyed in George’s book is the topic of ecclesiology (the theology of the Church). Since ecclesiology is one of the primary themes of this website, I want to post here some key excerpts from George’s book on the topic.
This won’t be a book review, nor will I attempt to systematically summarize everything George writes about the ecclesiology of the Reformers. Rather, **look for about six or seven blog posts containing a semi-random collection of quotes**–anything about the Church that seems especially interesting or significant to me as I look to sharpen my own ecclesiological vision.
**History is important!** If we want to understand ourselves and our churches well, we will need to learn at least a little about our roots. In fact, we should look _beyond_ our own roots to examine the branches that grow beside us on the great tree of the Church. No, we do not look to history for the last word about what the Church is or how church should “be done.” We look to Scripture and the Word-wielding Spirit for that. But the study of history can equip us to see ourselves and our churches more clearly in the mirror of the Word.
To that end, **let me begin in this post by sharing some excerpts from Timothy George about the church of the late Middle Ages**–the church that gave birth to each of the Reformers, the church against which they hammered out their own ecclesiological conclusions.
Timothy George:
> We have said little about the notorious abuses of the pre-Reformation church: simony, nepotism, the misuse of benefices, clerical concubinage, and so forth. All of the reformers— Catholic, Protestant, and radical alike—strenuously opposed such practices. However, some among them also realized that something more than a general housecleaning was demanded. It would do no good to sweep out the cobwebs if the foundation itself was rotten. **What was needed was a new definition of the church based on a fresh understanding of the gospel.**(Kindle Locations 577-581, emphasis added.)
>
> Unlike the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology, which were subjects of official conciliar definitions in the early church, **the doctrine of the church had never received such dogmatic status**. Neither Peter Lombard in his Four Books of Sentences nor Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica has a separate locus for the church in his systematic theology. However, from the fourteenth century onward, numerous treatises bear the title De ecclesia. This **explosion of interest in ecclesiology** coincided with extensive institutional changes within the church… (Kindle Locations 582-587, emphasis added.)
>
> The Reformation is often portrayed as having shattered the unity of the medieval church , bequeathing to the modern world the legacy of a divided Christendom. **When we look closer at the centuries preceding the Reformation, however, we discover a plurality of ecclesial forms and doctrines**… The Reformation of the sixteenth century was thus a continuation of the quest for the true church that had begun long before Luther, Calvin, or the fathers of Trent entered the lists.(Kindle Locations 587-591, emphasis added.)
**Timothy George describes “five competing models of the church in the late Middle Ages.”** Here a few excerpts for each:
**1\. Curialism**
> In medieval times the Curia Romana referred to the papal court, including all of the officials and functionaries who assisted the pope in the governance of the church. Curialism thus was **a theory of church government that invested supreme authority , both temporal and spiritual, in the hands of the papacy**. (Kindle Locations 593-595, emphasis added.)
>
> Building on the work of his predecessors, Pope Boniface VIII set forth the most extravagant claims for papal sovereignty in his bull Unam Sanctam ( 1302 )… “We declare, state, define and pronounce that **it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff**.”(Kindle Locations 615-619, emphasis added.)
>
> \[The Italian poet\] Dante, who placed Boniface in one of the lowest circles of hell with two other simoniac \[buying or selling church privileges\] popes, described the consequences of the curialist position: “Since the Church has sought to be two governments at once \[temporal and spiritual swords\], she sinks in much, befouling both her power and ministry.”(Kindle Locations 623-625)
**2\. Conciliarism**
> The specter of the body of Christ divided into three papal obediences, each hurling anathemas and interdicts at the other two, gave urgency to the call for reform. Out of this crisis emerged **the conciliar view of the church, which affirmed the superiority of ecumenical councils over the pope in the governance and reform of the church**. At the heart of the conciliar theory was the fundamental distinction between the universal church (representatively embodied in a general council) and the Roman Church (consisting of pope and cardinals). (Kindle Locations 630-634, emphasis added.)
>
> In the case of multiple schisms, who was qualified to hold the popes accountable? William of Ockham had declared that any Christian , even a woman, could call together a general council in a time of emergency. (Kindle Locations 638-639)
>
> The death knell of conciliarism can be heard in the papal bull Execrabilis, promulgated by Pope Pius II in 1460.
>
> A horrible abuse, unheard-of in earlier times, has sprung up in our period. Some men, imbued with a spirit of rebellion . . . suppose that they can appeal from the Pope, Vicar of Jesus Christ . . . to a future council . . . . Desirous, therefore, of banishing this deadly poison from the Church of Christ , . . . we condemn appeals of this kind, reject them as erroneous and abominable, and declare them to be completely null and void.(Kindle Locations 650-654)
**3\. Wyclif and Hus**
> Both Wyclif, “The Morning Star of the Reformation,” and Hus are often referred to as forerunners of the Reformation. Indeed, **Hus’s treatise, De Ecclesia, played an important role in Luther’s eventual break with the papacy**. At one point Luther was forced to confess: “We are all Hussites now.” 35 He later realized that his affinity with Wyclif and Hus was only provisional; neither of them approached his radical understanding of justification by faith alone . Nonetheless their own radical ecclesiologies contributed significantly to Luther’s developing doctrine of the church.(Kindle Locations 661-666, emphasis added.)
>
> Wyclif’s strident anticlericalism issued from his definition of the church as the predestined body of the elect. Hus later echoed Wyclif’s idea: “**The unity of the Catholic Church consists in the bond of predestination**, since her individual members are united by predestination, **and in the goal of blessedness**, since all her sons are ultimately united in blessedness .” (Kindle Locations 670-672, emphasis added.)
>
> Wyclif divided the church into three parts: the Church Triumphant (including the angels) in heaven, the Church Militant on earth, and the Church Dormient in purgatory. As the Church Militant contained both wheat and tares, and as no one could know for sure in this life which of those one was, neither affiliation with the institutional church nor the holding of clerical office guaranteed membership in the invisible church, whose “chief abbot” was Christ. **It was thus possible to be _in_ the church without being _of_ the church.**(Kindle Locations 676-680, emphasis added.)
**4\. Spiritual Franciscans**
> The power of their appeal sprang from two sources: Francis’s ideal of poverty, which the Spirituals understood from reading his Rule to be absolute, and the philosophy of history set forth by Joachim of Fiore (d. 1202), which they applied to their own order and to their own times. In combination these elements provided an explosive critique of the contemporary church. Joachim divided history into three ages associated respectively with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The dawn of the Third Age would be heralded by the coming of a new order of barefooted spiritual men who would oppose the false hierarchy of the church and prepare the way for a millennium of peace that would continue until the last judgment. (Kindle Locations 696-701)
>
> **As Wyclif and Hus opposed the empirical church of their day with the concept of the invisible church of the elect, so the Spiritual Franciscans held out the ideal of the church of the future, the church of the soon-coming Third Age of the Spirit**, of which they were forerunners. In the later Middle Ages, the intensity of eschatological expectations and calculations increased. This “pursuit of the millennium” carried into the Reformation, especially among the radical reformers…(Kindle Locations 714-717, emphasis added.)
**5\. Waldensians**
> Whereas the Spirituals looked forward to the church of the coming new age, **the Waldensians**, devoid of apocalyptic fervor, **harked back to the _ecclesia primitiva_, modeling their congregations on the simplicity of the early church**.(Kindle Locations 718-720, emphasis added.)
>
> The Waldensian view of the church was characterized by a strong perfectionist tendency and an antisacerdotal bias. They believed that the Roman Church had lost all of its spiritual authority when Pope Sylvester I received a gift of property and worldly power from Emperor Constantine in the fourth century.(Kindle Locations 726-728)
>
> The Waldensians were able to survive frequent persecutions because of their separatist model of the church and their practice of clandestine worship. Their obvious affinities with the Protestant movement made them prime candidates for conversion. Indeed, at the Reformation many of the Waldensians merged with the Reformed Church without giving up their own identity.(Kindle Locations 733-736)
After surveying these “five competing models of the church,” George concludes:
> From the foregoing survey of late medieval piety and ecclesiology, it should be clear that the church on the eve of the Reformation was beset by diverse models of spirituality and Christian community. **The old idea that the Reformation burst asunder the undisturbed unity of an undivided Christendom must be set aside** in the light of what one historian has called the “pregnant plurality” of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. (Kindle Locations 738-740, emphasis added. B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)
And that’s all for this post! Next up: [the ecclesiology of Martin Luther](https://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-2-martin-luther/).
**What did you learn in this post? What did you see that still impacts the way we think about the Church today? What do you have to add to (or balance) Timothy George’s observations? [Share your insights in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/ecclesiology-of-reformers-1-late-middle-ages/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Watching You Watch the Birds [Poem by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-16
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Watching You Watch the Birds | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Who watched when rubies first took wing? / Who gazed attentive, open-mouthed, / As you do at flash of feather, / Swoop and swing...
Tags: -Genesis 1:31, watching, creation, birds, Adam
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/watching-you-watch-the-birds
**This month I’m sharing a poem that Mom wrote about her first grandson**, my nephew Curtis, when he was about 8 months old. I’ll add a few pictures and then let the poem speak for itself. I think you’ll like this one!
(See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/) for an introduction to this monthly series from Mom.)
If you enjoy the poem, **[leave a comment here for Mom](http://dwightgingrich.com/watching-you-watch-the-birds/#respond)**, or send her an email at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353258845-compressed.png)
. Thanks!
* * *
My nephew Curtis, watching.
* * *
**WATCHING YOU WATCH THE BIRDS
**(to Curtis)
Who watched when rubies first took wing?
Who gazed attentive, open-mouthed,
As you do at flash of feather,
Swoop and swing,
Your eyes dreamy, wonder-focused,
Face as fluid as first love,
Following dip and dart of winter birds—
Robust redpolls flocking the feeder
Like ruddy-faced farmers at an auction,
Cheeky chickadees in formal attire?
Perhaps an audience of angels,
Abandoning anthem to learn a new roundelay,
Or listening to one of Heaven’s hymns
Transposed into flight of feather, oriole’s melody.
Watching you watch the birds
I see Adam waking,
That first dawning of awareness,
Those first steps taken,
A world to explore,
A Designer to worship.
I am certain that when from God’s fingers
Birds flew
He thought of you,
A small child’s delight, infant’s laughter.
He knew what He was after.
Reflected in your eyes
I see the face of the Creator watching you
Knowing that what He has made is very good.
– By Elaine Gingrich, February 2008
* * *
_PS: As I’m finishing up this post I just noticed something: By happy coincidence, today is the birthday of Curtis’s dad! Happy birthday, brother! 🙂_
* * *
[](https://www.flickr.com/photos/86953562@N00/8370954561/)
[
](https://www.flickr.com/photos/86953562@N00/8370954561/)
[withrow](https://www.flickr.com/photos/86953562@N00/8370954561/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/)
[](https://www.flickr.com/photos/10191531@N03/2066966136/)
[
](https://www.flickr.com/photos/10191531@N03/2066966136/)
[Cynnerz Photos](https://www.flickr.com/photos/10191531@N03/2066966136/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/oriole-1721353262303-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/oriole-1721353262303-compressed.jpg)
[Adam C. Smith Photography](https://www.flickr.com/photos/35287402@N05/5709076348/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Kissing in the First Century: Excerpt from Craig Keener
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-12
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Kissing in the First Century (C. Keener) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Conservative Anabaptists have retained kissing as a religious practice. But we often have little understanding of kissing in the first century.
Tags: -Acts 20:37, -Proverbs 24:26, holy kiss, kiss, Craig S. | Keener, Anabaptist history, ordinances, love
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/kissing-in-first-century-craig-keener
**Conservative Anabaptists are one of the few North American Christian groups to have retained kissing as a religious practice.** But in the past 120 years we have turned this practice into an “ordinance” (an historical anomoly, though rooted in ancient ritual practices) and we often have little understanding of kissing practices or beliefs in the first century. This leaves us poorly prepared to understand what Paul and Peter meant when they commanded their readers to kiss one another.
\[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0801048389\]The following post ([reblogged from Baker Book House Church Connnection](https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/kissing-in-the-first-century/) and quoting [Craig Keener’s Acts commentary](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801048389/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0801048389&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=CFCDWJKDH4BPO5WO)) contains the most detail that I’ve read yet on kissing in the first century. Some of the details challenge our own practices. For example : (1) Christian kissing was initially probably “less a rite than an expression of familiar affection”; (2) “the earliest form of this practice probably was not limited to one’s own gender”; and (3) “some kissing may have been on the cheek” but “most kissing… was on the mouth,” regardless of which gender was kissing which. One or more of these is probably guaranteed to make every one of us squirm just a little!
I don’t have time to discuss these findings in more detail now, but am posting them for my reference and our shared learning. I’ll invite you to **[share your thoughts in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/kissing-in-first-century-craig-keener/#respond)**, and sign off with another first century greeting: _May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all!_
* * *
The following is an excerpt from Craig Keener’s [commentary on Acts](http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/acts-an-exegetical-commentary-volume-3/335572). The comment comes from 20:37: “They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him.”
> “Kissing normally expressed love; the term φιλέω, can mean either ‘love’ or ‘kiss,’ and occasionally writers played on words to signify both. In dramatic situations kissing and weeping were conjoined as here—for example, as signs of mourning the deceased or of the joy in being reunited. The imperfect tense may suggest repeated kissing, more emphatic than everyday greetings (although it should also be noted that Paul would have _received_ repeated kisses even if each person kissed him only once).
>
> Relatives greeted one another with kisses, notably when reunited or about to be separated. Kissing was a conventional greeting for family members. Thus, for example, Roman women kissed kinsmen; likewise, a child should kiss his mother and father. A mother’s kissing a son or a father’s kissing a daughter was normal, considered suspicious only if excessive and immodest. Male friends could embrace and kiss without sexual connotations; the kiss functioned as an intimate greeting. Kissing between friends was apparently less common in urban settings, however. Kisses could be conveyed by proxy, often in secondary greetings in letters.
>
> Kisses further served as respectful greetings to one of higher status; they showed respect among social peers as well as connections between patrons and clients; one could also offer congratulatory kisses. Disciples and pupils kissed teachers; often on the head; in such cases, the kiss could be an affectionate contact on the mouth. One person who wished to honor his teacher in a particular extreme way kissed his feet. An arrogant person of wealth might offer his hand to be kissed. A general needing to secure soldiers’ favor might go about, greeting them with kisses. Kissing was such a standard salutation that neglecting it could function as an obvious insult.
>
> A person might kiss another who pleased him; a kiss was generally seen as pleasant (Prov 24:26) and hence might function as a suitable reward. A king might rise to kiss a teacher whose wise discourse had pleased him (1 Esd 4:47). A rabbi might rise and kiss the head of a student who expounded well; a Roman patron could also greet a client with a kiss.
>
> Kissing could also have sexual overtones, however, under some circumstances; demanding labial as well as genital virginity, a strict father executed his freedman for kissing the father’s daughter. Traditionally, Roman values condemned public erotic kissing, restricting it to the private sphere, but erotic banquets had given way to excesses.
>
> Some kissing may have been on the cheek. Most kissing, however, was on the mouth (closer to, e.g., one older Russian form of greeting than to, e.g., the contemporary way of kissing cheeks in France or much of Latin America). This included kissing teachers, as noted above. One typically kissed relatives on the lips. Thus, for example, Roman women kissed kinsmen on the lips; mothers kissed daughters on the lips; a Roman father might kiss his son on the lips, albeit lightly, or his daughter on the lips in pure innocence. A mourning sister might wish to kiss her dead brother on the mouth; children might do likewise with a deceased mother. Facial kissing may have sometimes compromised hygiene; it was said that social kissing in Rome let to ‘at least one outbreak of an infectious disorder among the leading citizens.’
>
> A kiss of greeting could become the occasion for lustful abuse, but such abuse could be betrayed by the kiss’s character. Kissing on the lips was common, but a kiss on the lips of a sister or mother was naturally said to be less passionate than that of a lover; likewise, maidens kissed one another on the lips, but only modestly. Thus a lustful deity in disguise might give himself away.
>
> That Pauline (and other) Christians greeted with a kiss is clear in our early sources, where it appears less a rite than an expression of familiar affection. Later the ‘kiss of peace’ even achieved a liturgical role (Justin _1 Apol._ 65). The earliest form of this practice probably was not limited to one’s own gender, producing condemnations for those who kissed a second time; concerned with abuses, Christians eventually restricted its practice to members of one’s own gender. It came to express Christian ideals of spiritual equality. Conjoined with embraces and weeping, the kisses here in Acts mean more than the casual kisses typically used to greet family, friends, or teacher; they resemble the stronger expressions of emotion encountered at sad partings (as here) or reunions.” ([_Acts_](http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/acts-an-exegetical-commentary-volume-3/335572) Vol. 3, pp. 3071-73)
Keeners has over 40 footnotes in this section from both primary and secondary sources. Such a discussion is important for more than one reason not the least of which is cited in his footnote number 1265 “Given the pervasiveness of ancient kissing documented above (and the utter lack of initiatory significance in our NT texts), a writer’s association of early Christian kissing with Mysteries’ ‘rites of recognition’ (Mack, _Lost Gospel_, 220) unfortunately reflects the writer’s inadequate acquaintance with the range of sources.” (p. 3073)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## NIV Turns 50: An Interview with Douglas J. Moo
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-08
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: NIV Turns 50: Interview with D. Moo | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Bible interpreters are wise to become familiar with the best Bible translations. This interview with Moo gives helpful insights into the NIV translation.
Tags: biblical interpretation, Bible translations, Douglas J. | Moo, NIV
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/niv-turns-50-interview-douglas-moo
\[Repost and discussion of [an interview by Books at a Glance](http://www.booksataglance.com/author-interviews/interview-with-douglas-j-moo-chair-of-the-committee-on-bible-translation-niv).\]
**One of the wisest things a Bible interpreter can do is become familiar with the best translations of Scripture in his or her own language.** The NIV (New International Version), whether or not you agree with every aspect of its approach, is certainly one of the best in English. Credit for that goes to its thoughtful and informed translators–people such as Douglas J. Moo.
Moo is one of my favorite NT commentators. (His name appears seven times on [my list of recommended commentaries](https://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/nt-detailed-lists/).) He also serves as current Chair of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), the body of translators that produces the NIV translation.
**I’m posting this interview with Moo here because I think it gives helpful insights into the mindset of the NIV translators.** If we understand the NIV’s translators better, we can make wiser use of the NIV translation.
Moo says lots of useful things in this interview. I especially noticed this sentence about **translation philosophies**:
> “The key tension here is not form vs. meaning but, in practice, form vs. natural English.”
I find that sentence interesting because it avoids the fallacy that a translator needs to choose between (a) accurately conveying the _form_ of an original text or (b) accurately conveying the _meaning_ of the original text. Too often that is exactly the claim that you hear, especially from proponents of functional equivalence translations (otherwise known as dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought–translations such as NIV or, more radically, the NLT). Moo avoids that fallacy. Instead, he correctly understands that (a) all good translations aim to convey meaning accurately, and (b) all translations must continually make choices between following the form (sentence structure, etc.) of the text in the original language or the forms of natural English.
I also admire the way he expresses the NIV’s goals regarding **decisions about gender**:
> To put it simply: our “agenda” on the CBT is clear and single: to put the meaning of the Scriptures into accurate, natural, and contemporary English. We view our gender decisions in this context – and only in this context. To render expressions in the original text that clearly refer to human beings in general with words such as “man,” “he,” etc., is to betray our mandate to put the Bible into accurate English.
Three things in response: (1) I think the updated NIV can be a great help in alerting readers to passages where gender decisions must be made, and to where they may have had false assumptions about what a passage actually says about gender (see [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/anyone-not-provide-for-his-relatives/) for an example from my own experience). (2) I think the NIV would do well to balance its valid concern for gender accuracy with an increased emphasis on other equally valid translation concerns, such as the concern to properly transmit number (singular vs. plural pronouns, for example). (3) I think it is time for those of us who have some legitimate concerns about the NIV’s gender choices (see 2) to stop insinuating they have an egalitarian agenda. The truth is, the CBT contains both members of egalitarian persuasion and members of complementarian persuasion, who agree on their goal to translate Scripture faithfully. We may (should) discuss the extent to which they achieve their goal, but I don’t think it is helpful to question their good intent.
**Here is the beginning of the interview with Moo**, hosted over on [Books at a Glance](http://www.booksataglance.com/author-interviews/interview-with-douglas-j-moo-chair-of-the-committee-on-bible-translation-niv):
> **If you’ve kept an eye on the headlines** **at all** you are aware that 2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the NIV, an enormously successful and influential Bible translation. To mark the celebration here at Books At a Glance, we are very pleased to have our good friend Dr. Douglas J. Moo, Chair of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) here to talk to us about their work.
And here is Moo’s final sentence in this interview:
> At some point – perhaps 8-10 years from now – we will probably release a new edition.
[–>Read the rest of the interview here<–](http://www.booksataglance.com/author-interviews/interview-with-douglas-j-moo-chair-of-the-committee-on-bible-translation-niv)
* * *
**Random Addendum**
(hey, that sounds nice!)
I’m reading through Galatians right now (repeatedly–about nine times in the last ten days or so), and I’m reading it in a variety of translations (ESV, NASB, NLT, NIV, plus a wee bit of Greek). The ESV is the translation I use most (see [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/my-resources/advice-bible-translations/)), but here, for the record, are several places where I like the NIV translation of Galatians at least as well or maybe even better than the ESV:
**Galatians 1:16** — Here the NIV actually follows the Greek more closely than the ESV does, relying more on immediate Greek vocabulary and less on contextual interpretive clues in its translation choice.
* ESV: “to reveal his Son to me” (footnote: Greek in)
* NIV: “to reveal his Son in me”
**Galatians 3:16** — Here I don’t know which translation I prefer, but the NIV, interestingly, chooses a word that is more suggestive of the underlying Greek word (σπέρματι, or spermati, which was used to refer to, among other things: plant seeds, sperm, offspring, or anything possessing vital life force).
* ESV: “to Abraham and to his offspring”
* NIV: “to Abraham and to his seed”
**Galatians 6:1** — Here the NIV, though less word-for-word (a slight negative), does a better job of recognizing that Paul is still talking about walking and living by the Spirit, as he was in the immediately preceding verses of chapter 5.
* ESV: “you who are spiritual”
* NIV: “you who live by the Spirit”
* * *
Thoughts about this interview, Douglas Moo, or the NIV translation? **[Share them in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/niv-turns-50-interview-douglas-moo/#respond)!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Final Surprises about 2014’s Most Popular Verses (Part 3)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-03
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Final Surprises about 2014's Most Popular Verses (3) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This is the final post about 10 Bible verses that were most popular in 2014. Even the most familiar verses contain surprises worth pondering!
Tags: -Acts 2:24-32, -Hebrews 2:17, -Hebrews 2:9-10, -John 10, -Matthew 1:23, -Matthew 28:20, -Philippians 4:13, -Psalm 16, -Psalm 23:4, -Psalm 91:14-16, -Psalms 15-24, -Romans 8:17, -Romans 8:18, Bruce K. | Waltke, Douglas J. | Green, Messianic Psalms, -Romans 8:28-30, Good Shepherd, NT use of OT
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/final-surprises-2014s-popular-verses-3
This is the third and final post about the Bible verses that were most popular among readers of YouVersion and Bible Gateway in 2014. (See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses/) for background data and surprises 1-3, and [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses-2/) for surprises 4-7.)
**Hopefully this little series reminds us that even the most familiar Bible verses contain surprises worth pondering.** Woe to the Bible reader who has become so accustomed to Holy Writ that he navigates its pages on autopilot, with eyes closed! Blessed is the reader who never loses the joy of puckered-brow pondering: “Now I wonder what _that_ might really mean?”
I’ll summarize the first seven surprises and continue:
1. **Bible reading is growing fastest in unlikely places.**
2. **“World” in Romans 12:2 might better be translated “age.”**
3. **“Finally” in Philippians 4:8 doesn’t necessarily indicate Paul plans to quit soon.**
4. **Despite Philippians 4:6, not all “anxiety” is wrong.**
5. **Some who are claiming Jeremiah 29:11 are actually destined to experience Jeremiah 18:11.**
6. **The “you” in Matthew 6:33 is plural.**
7. ****The Gospel writer John uses bad grammar in John 3:16.****
Now, on to the final three surprises:
8. **Philippians 4:13 is Paul’s testimony about his contentment, not God’s promise about my ambition.** This surprise is well-known to any of you who are good Bible readers, but it is worth repeating since I still commonly hear this verse misused. “I can do all things through him who strengthens me,” says Paul. And so says a hopeful football team before a game–or perhaps both teams before the same game! (At least hockey teams, being rather scarce in the Bible Belt, are less likely to abuse Scripture in such ways.) The context of Paul’s statements should save us from any such foolishly ambitious über-confidence and also from such self-centered appropriations of Scripture.
According to the surrounding verses, “all things” refers to “any and every circumstance,” –“whatever situation” Paul finds himself in. These circumstances include, according to Paul, both living in abundance with plenty to eat and also living humbly–being hungry and needy (Phil. 4:12). “I can do,” according to the context, means “I am able to be content.” Paul said nearly the same thing a few verses earlier: “I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content” (Phil. 4:11). Now he repeats the same idea: “I can do all things.” I don’t really need your gifts, Philippian believers, Paul says, for I know how to be content without them–the Lord gives me strength to always be content! It is also worth considering why Paul frequently suffered hunger and need. Again, context reminds us: Paul suffered need because he was engaged in dangerous frontier evangelism (Phil. 4:15-16).
So perhaps football teams, if they really wish to quote this verse, should do so only if they consciously and honestly view the football field as an evangelism field–and only if their principle desire is to display Christ’s abundant power to make them content in him–whether they win _or_ they lose. And maybe, like Paul, they should only say it _after_ the game, after their actions have demonstrated that their testimony is indeed true!
9. **“For good” in Romans 8:28 might not mean what you first think it does–nor what you “second think” it does, either.** “All things work together for good,” Paul writes (or perhaps “in all things God works for the good,” see the NIV). Many people just wrap this verse around themselves like a cozy blanket, without ever really defining what “good” might mean. That’s up to God, they might think. Some define it in very materialistic or at least temporal ways–the things that happen to me are kind of like a Christian karma that God magically turns to my benefit, making me or those around me happier/better persons. They are content to read this verse in a translation such as the VOICE and stop mid-sentence: “We are confident that God is able to orchestrate everything to work toward something good _and beautiful_.” Ah, something “good and beautiful.” Lovely! I can cozy up to that!
Those who give the verse a second look know better. First, this promise is only for “those who love God… who are called according to his purpose.” No matter what we conclude about the doctrines of election and predestination, one thing is clear: Everything won’t work out for good for _everyone_–just for those who are devoted to God. Second, the following verse defines “good” for us: “to be conformed to the image of \[God’s\] Son” (Rom. 8:29). What is the image of God’s Son? When I read this phrase, words and images appear: holy, righteous, cross, suffering, discipline. And I am partly right! I am encouraged when I hear people say we should never quote verse 28 without also quoting verse 29. But I think we should press on to verse 30.
Those who give the passage a _third_ look know there is still more! Verse 30 outlines God’s plan for those whom he “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” And what is the end goal of this plan? Glorification! “Those whom he justified he also _glorified_.” This should not surprise us a bit. God’s Son–the one who is “bringing many sons to glory”–is right now “crowned with glory and honor” (Heb. 2:9-10)! Suffering for the Christian is never the end goal. It is always the means to an end. As Paul wrote earlier in the same chapter, “we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom. 8:17). For those who love God, God plans that they will experience the ultimate “good”: sharing in Christ’s eternal glory at the resurrection!
Verse 28 without verse 29 can lead to humanistic definitions of _good_. But stopping at verse 29 can lead to ascetic or Gnostic definitions of _good_ that sometimes, frankly, don’t sound very good at all. “The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18).
10. **God is with us! (Psalm 23:4)** There are many potentially surprising things I could explain about this verse, such as how the word translated “shadow of death” doesn’t actually mean that the psalmist is literally dying, or how this verse transitions the psalm from talking _about_ God to talking _to_ him. But the biggest surprise is the one that makes all the difference, the one that makes this verse so popular, and rightly so: “You are with me.” Why in the world would God choose to be with us humans? I don’t know. And not only with us in green pastures and beside still waters; he is with his sheep even in “the valley of deep darkness” (ESV footnote; or “a dark ravine,” see [Waltke](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802863744/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0802863744&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=M35J3MVWD6OJ2YLY)[1](#fn-1131-1)).
I am reminded of another Psalm passage which was a favorite of my maternal grandfather:
> “Because he holds fast to me in love, I will deliver him;
> I will protect him, because he knows my name.
> When he calls to me, I will answer him;
> **I will be with him in trouble**;
> I will rescue him and honor him.
> With long life I will satisfy him
> and show him my salvation.” (Ps. 91:14-16)
Before God rescues us–or perhaps _as_ he rescues us–he is first _with_ us. This is the way of our mysterious God.
Jesus, of course, is the ultimate demonstration of this truth. He is the true Good Shepherd (John 10) who has promised to be with his disciples always, to the end of the age (Matt. 28:20). But Jesus is also Immanuel–“God with us” _in the flesh_ (Matt. 1:23). He, too, walked the valley of deep darkness. We see this in the Psalms, too. The NT reads many psalms as messianic, with both the sufferings and the glories of the psalmists finding their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. Psalm 16 is one of these messianic psalms, according to Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost. (Read Acts 2:24-32 for a valuable lesson in biblical interpretation!) Listen to Jesus speaking through this psalm:
> I bless the LORD who gives me counsel;
> in the night also my heart instructs me.
> I have set the LORD always before me;
> because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. (Ps. 16:7-8)
Just as David in Psalm 23 feared no evil while walking through “the valley of deep darkness” because he could say “You are with me,” so Jesus was comforted “in the night” because he could say “The LORD… is at my right hand.” Our Good Shepherd is a _good_ shepherd in part because he was first a sheep.
Back to Psalm 23, by way of a detour. Scholars of Hebrew poetry notice that the book of Psalms is highly ordered, with psalms grouped according to authorship and themes. Some scholars note that Psalms 15-24 seem to form one such group, with these psalms arranged in a chiastic pattern. Thus Psalm 15 asks “Who has access to the temple?” while Psalm 24 asks “Who may ascend the holy hill?” Similarly, Psalms 16 and 23 are both confessions of trust in Yahweh, Psalms 17 and 22 are both pleas for deliverance from foes, Psalms 18 and 20-21 are both praises with royal themes, and Psalm 19 is the hinge of this unit, praising Yahweh in his creation and his Law.[2](#fn-1131-2)
Notice how Psalm 16 and Psalm 23–the two Psalms I just compared above–are matching Psalms. This leads me to a suggestion. If the apostle Peter read Psalm 16 as expressing the voice of Christ, might we also read Psalm 23 in this way? Might we see Christ not only in “the LORD” (the shepherd) but also in the voice of David (the sheep)?
If you want to ponder this interpretive possibility further, read this ground-breaking essay by Douglas J. Green: [“The LORD is Christ’s Shepherd”: Psalm 23 as Messianic Prophecy](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Green-The_Lord_is_Christs_Shepherd._Psalm_23_as_Messianic_Prophecy.pdf). Although Green’s essay generated some controversy for hermeneutical reasons (see [here](http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september/too-much-jesus-in-bible.html) and [here](http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=1794) for rather unsatisfactory public explanation of this controversy), I think his interpretation is worth pondering and anything but novel theologically. As Hebrews says, “He had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest” (Heb. 2:17). Or, in the language of Psalm 23: “He had to be made like the sheep in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful Good Shepherd.” Truly, “You are with me.” May we never stop being surprised!
**And that ends my thoughts on some of the most popular verses in 2014.** What surprises you most about these verses? [**Share your thoughts in the comments below**](http://dwightgingrich.com/final-surprises-2014s-popular-verses-3/#respond), or forward this post to a Bible-reading friend if you wish. May God bless us with alert eyes and fresh insights into the Scriptures in 2015!
* * *
1. _The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary,_ Bruce K. Waltke and James M. Houston (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmanns, 2010), 434. [↩](#fnref-1131-1)
2. Ibid., 290-91. [↩](#fnref-1131-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## 10 Surprises about 2014’s Most Popular Bible Verses (Part 2)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-02
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: 10 Surprises about 2014's Most Popular Bible Verses (2) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Finally... let me share more surprises about 10 of 2014's most popular Bible verses. I'll summarize the first three surprises and continue.
Tags: -1 Corinthians 12:25, -1 Corinthians 7:32-35, -1 Peter 5:7, -2 Corinthians 11:28, -2 Corinthians 8:15, -Jeremiah 18:11, -Jeremiah 29:11, -John 11:33, -John 12:27, -John 13:21, -John 14:1, -John 3:16, -Matthew 6:33, -Matthew 6:34, -Philippians 2:20, -Philippians 2:28, -Philippians 4:8, Craig | Blomberg, Bill | Mounce
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses-2
Finally, brothers and sisters… let me share more surprises about 10 of 2014’s most popular Bible verses. (See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses/) for the first 3 surprises and background data for this post.)
I’ll summarize the first three surprises and continue:
1. **Bible reading is growing fastest in unlikely places, including Israel, South Sudan, the Republic of Suriname, Iraq, and Macedonia.**
2. **“World” in [Romans 12:2](http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+12.2) might better be translated “age.”**
3. **“Finally” in [Philippians 4:8](http://www.esvbible.org/Philippians+4.8) doesn’t necessarily indicate Paul plans to quit soon.**
4. **Despite Philippians 4:6 (“Do not be anxious about anything”), not all “anxiety” is wrong.** A fairly literal translation of this command would read, “For nothing be anxious.” Yet another form of this same verb “be anxious” (μεριμνάω) is used earlier in the same letter in a positive way: “I have no one like \[Timothy\], who will be genuinely concerned \[μεριμνήσει\] for your welfare” (Phil. 2:20). This is high praise of Timothy: he was genuinely “anxious” about the Philippian believers!
Paul uses the same verb to tell the Corinthians of God’s purpose for the Church body: “that the members may have the same care \[μεριμνῶσιν\] for one another” (1 Cor. 12:25). Earlier in that letter he uses related words to say both positive and negative things about “anxiety” (1 Cor. 7:32-35). First he seems to be opposed to all anxiety: “I want you to be free from anxieties.” Then he seems to affirm a certain kind of anxiety: “The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” Next he clearly dislikes another kind: “But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife.” Then he clarifies his real point: “his \[the married man’s\] interests are divided… I say this… to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.”
Jesus, using the same verb, strongly forbids anxiety in the Sermon on the Mount. Yet even he seems to leave room for some legitimate “anxiety”: “Tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matt. 6:34). In other words, concern for today’s needs is understandable (cf. “give us this day our daily bread”), but anxiety about tomorrow demonstrates lack of faith. We find a similar tension in Jesus’ words when he tells his disciples “Let not your hearts be troubled” (John 14:1, different Greek verb), for his own heart was troubled multiple times (John 11:33; 12:27; 13:21).
Finally, back to Paul: He confesses his own “anxiety” to the Philippians (Phil. 2:28; unrelated Greek word) and tells the Corinthians of “the daily pressure… of \[his\] anxiety for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28; closely related word). So don’t be anxious if you are sometimes anxious! Just cast it on the Lord (1 Pet. 5:7).
5. **Some who are claiming Jeremiah 29:11 (“For I know the **plan**s I have for you, declares the Lord, **plan**s for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope”) are actually destined to experience Jeremiah 18:11.** Jeremiah 29:11 is an increasingly popular verse. Last year it didn’t make the top 10 ranking for YouVersion. But this year it was the only verse to make top five ranking for both YouVersion and Bible Gateway, and it was the number 1 most popular verse this year for YouVersion in Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Australia. It’s not hard to understand why this verse is popular. Who doesn’t want to be assured that God has good plans for them?
But what if he doesn’t? Does God have good plans for everyone? Apparently not, according to Jeremiah 18:11: “Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and _devising a plan against you_. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’”
Those who hope to legitimately claim Jeremiah 29:11 for themselves must remember several things: (1) It was initial spoken to a specific audience just as much as Jeremiah 18:11 was; the original audience was also assured in the immediately preceding verse that “when seventy years are completed for Babylon,” God would bring them back to Jerusalem. (2) The original hearers were warned not to expect God’s good plans for them to happen anytime soon; contrary to the words of the false prophets, they would have to wait seventy years before being released from exile–by which time many of the original hearers would have been dead! (3) The original promise was given to a group of people and not to an individual; only faithful members of the group who sought God with all their heart could hope to benefit from the promise. Those who were not part of Israel’s faithful remnant would not experience God’s good plans.
In summary, while Jeremiah 29:11 certainly does reveal God’s heart for his own people, it is dangerously wrong to use this verse as a universal promise to hand out indiscriminately to high school graduates and New Year celebrants. God has plans for you, no doubt! But unless you are repentant, his plans will only bring you disaster.
6. **The “you” in Matthew 6:33 is plural.** As with the preceding example, this verse is often taken as a personal, individual promise: If I “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” then I can expect God to give me “all these things”–sufficient daily food and clothing, according to the context. And perhaps it is legitimate to understand this statement this way. Maybe Jesus simply meant “every individual (singular) one of you (plural).” But it is intriguing to ponder a possible deeper significance of the plural “you.”
Might Jesus be saying that if his followers, together, faithfully seek God’s kingdom first, then he will ensure that his followers _as a group_ will be given sufficient food and clothing to go around? Might he design to give this provision in such a way so that we share among ourselves until whoever gathers much has nothing left over, and whoever gathers little has no lack (2 Cor. 8:15)? Could it be that some poor believers are waiting for us to enable this promise of God to be fulfilled on their behalf? Can anyone who prays “give _us_ this day _our_ daily bread” act otherwise?
Craig Blomberg writes the following about this verse: “Either one must entirely spiritualize this promise or relegate its fulfilment to the eschaton, neither of which fits the immediate context of one who is worrying about _current material_ needs; or else we must understand the plurals of verse 33 as addressed to the community of Jesus’ followers corporately (as indeed the entire sermon is…). As the community of the redeemed seeks first God’s righteous standards, by definition they will help the needy in their midst… Serious application of this principle to contemporary churches would require such radical transformation of most Christian fellowships that few seem willing even to begin.” ([Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830826076/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830826076&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=P7OB3T33KBZGYFX2), 132)
7. **The Gospel writer John uses bad grammar in John 3:16.** The phrase “that whoever believes in him should not perish” literally reads, “that whoever believes _into_ him.” (For you Greek readers, the word is εἰς, not ἐν.) In the previous verse Jesus said, “that whoever believes _in_ \[ἐν\] him.” But when John adds his commentary, beginning with verse 16 (another surprise–literary clues strongly suggest Jesus never spoke 3:16), he strengthens Jesus’ words by using bad grammar: “believes _into._” Bill Mounce says that this is “a horrible ‘blunder’ that is so bad we have no record of anyone else in all Greek literature making the same blunder.”
Why does John do this? Mounce again: “Of course, he is doing it intentionally to make a point… Saving faith is a trusting in the person and work of Jesus (who he is and what he has done) such that we move our self-reliant trust out of ourselves, flinging ourselves into the merciful arms of God.” (For more, see [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/believe-into-jesus/).)
And another surprise: The word “so” in the opening phrase (“For God so loved”) might not mean what you think it does. See [the NET footnotes](https://lumina.bible.org/bible/John+3:16) for more.
_**Finally…**_ in good Pauline fashion I think I should give you yet another indication that I hope to end soon. So I’ll make a transition and save the final 3 surprises for [yet another post](https://dwightgingrich.com/final-surprises-2014s-popular-verses-3/). 🙂
**What about the surprises in this post? Which one surprises you the most?** Which old familiar verse feels richer to you (or maybe less comfortable) after reading these thoughts? **[Share your surprising insights below](http://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses-2/#respond)!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## 10 Surprises about 2014’s Most Popular Bible Verses
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2015-01-01
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: 10 Surprises about 2014's Most Popular Bible Verses | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: YouVersion and Bible Gateway just released data on the most popular verses for 2014. Here are some surprises about the world's most popular Bible verses.
Tags: -Philippians 4:8, -1 Corinthians 2:6-8, -1 Thessalonians 4:1, -2 Timothy 1:9, -Ephesians 2:7, -Galatians 6:17, -Romans 12:3, -Romans 13:13-14, age, Bible apps, Bible Gateway, YouVersion, world, -1 Corinthians 10:11, -Romans 12:2, -Galatians 1:4, -Philippians 3:1
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses
In 2014, more people read the Bible on electronic devices than ever before. This gives us a clearer picture than ever into Bible reading habits and preferences. But are people also gaining a clearer understanding of the Bible verses that they are reading? That is harder to measure. In this post I want to share some things you may not know about the world’s most popular Bible verses.
**2014’s Most Popular Bible Verses**
Last month both YouVersion and Bible Gateway released data on their readers’ most popular verses for the previous year.
**YouVersion** has been downloaded [nearly 165 million times](https://www.youversion.com/) and its readers have logged [nearly 122 billion minutes reading](http://now.youversion.com/). This almost certainly makes it the world’s most popular Bible app. Among YouVersion readers, these were the five most popular verses in 2014:
1. **Romans 12:2** – “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
2. **Philippians 4:8** – “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.“
3. **Philippians 4:6** – “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.“
4. **Jeremiah 29:11** – “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
5. **Matthew 6:33** – “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.“
(For lots more data on YouVersion readers in 2014, see [here](http://blog.youversion.com/2014/12/our-year-with-the-bible-infographic-2014/#).)
**Bible Gateway** logged over 1.5 billion pageviews and over 150 million unique visitors from December 2013 through November 2014. These were the five most popular verses for Bible Gateway readers during this time period:
1. **John 3:16** – “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
2. **Jeremiah 29:11** – “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
3. **Philippians 4:13** – “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.“
4. **Romans 8:28** – “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.“
5. **Psalm 23:4** – “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.“
(For lots more data on Bible Gateway readers in 2014, see [here](https://www.biblegateway.com/year-in-review/2014/).)
One more thing: I should perhaps quote these verses in either the KJV or NIV translations, since [these remain the most popular translations](http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html?paging=off) at least among American English readers. But I’ve stuck with the ESV here based on my own preference.
**10 Surprises about These Bible Verses**
Here are some surprises, big and small, about the verses listed above–one introductory surprise and 9 more based on the verses themselves.
1. **Bible reading is growing fastest in unlikely places.** This first surprise isn’t specifically about the 10 verses listed above. But it is a happy surprise that will introduce these verses to many more readers. Quoting from [The Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/29/most-popular-bible-verse-2014_n_6350212.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular):
> Interest in using the \[YouVersion\] Bible App surged over the past year in several surprising places. The highest amount of growth in activity — in terms of reading, sharing, bookmarking, etc. — was found in Israel, according to YouVersion founder Bobby Gruenewald. After that came South Sudan, then the Republic of Suriname in South America, Iraq and Macedonia.
>
> “What’s interesting to me is that several of those countries are definitely not majority Christian,” Gruenewald told HuffPost. “And in some cases, the Bible isn’t that accessible or isn’t considered to be acceptable culturally.”
2. **“World” in Romans 12:2 might better be translated “age” and refers more directly to _a Christ-less mindset or way of viewing reality_ than to _a fashionable or immoral way of appearing or acting_.** When Paul wrote τῷ αἰῶνι (“this world” in ESV), he wasn’t thinking of planet Earth, or even just of the unsaved people who surround us on this planet. The word αἰῶνι is often translated elsewhere as “age.” According to NT writers, the history of the world could be described as a series of ages. Paul speaks of a time “before the ages began” (2 Tim. 1:9), “the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4), “the end of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11), and “the coming ages” (Eph. 2:7). The difference between “the present evil age” and “the coming ages” is the difference triggered by Christ’s first coming–his death, resurrection, and ascension to reign at God’s right hand. In Romans 12 Paul is urging us to stop living as if Christ had never come! Being “conformed to this age” can have many different expressions, from sensual living (Rom. 13:13-14) to haughty self-sufficiency (Rom. 12:3) to even legalistic righteousness as with the Jewish leaders who were among the “rulers of this age… \[who\] crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:6-8). Since we live between Christ’s first and second comings, we live in “the end of the ages”–a time when the old age (pre-Christ) and the coming age (after Christ’s final coming) overlap. We must continually renew our mind with the reality of Christ’s comings and then live accordingly, for this present age is about to die!
3. **“Finally” in Philippians 4:8 doesn’t necessarily indicate Paul plans to quit soon.** Okay, this one is no surprise to anyone who’s ever heard a sermon. But here’s biblical data support your experience: Paul used the same word “finally” back at the start of chapter 3! (He did the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 4:1, also two chapters before the end.) In Galatians 6:17 this same word λοιπόν is translated “from now on,” and the [BAGD (Bauer-Arndt-Danker-Gingrich Greek Lexicon of the New Testament)](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226039323/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226039323&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=BEFKPB55GDOEPPAY) lists multiple definitions, including these which it suggests are mostly likely for its usage in Philippians: “as far as the rest is concerned, beyond that, in addition, finally” (480). So maybe Paul was just showing that he was transitioning to a new topic. Or maybe Paul really _did_ initially plan to quit writing after Philippians 3:1, but then changed his mind. Commentators are divided on this question; we simply don’t know for sure. But we _do_ know that we’re glad he didn’t stop the first time he wrote (or dictated) λοιπόν!
Finally… Surprise! I think I’ll end this post now and save the last seven surprises for [another post](https://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses-2/)! 🙂
**Do you find anything else surprising about the verses that were most popular in 2014? [Tell us in the comments below!](http://dwightgingrich.com/10-surprises-2014s-popular-bible-verses/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## 5 Ways to Understand the Bible Better in 2015
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-28
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: 5 Ways to Understand the Bible Better in 2015 | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I just finished reading Revelation, and I don't understand it all very well. That's hardly a news flash. I, like you, long to understand the Bible better.
Tags: -2 Timothy 3:15-16, bibliblogs, BiblicalTraining.org, Jeremy | Bouma, Marc | Cortez, Phillip | Long, biblical interpretation, Tim | Challies, Allen | Roth, Robert | Stein, Bill | Mounce, Louis | McBride
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/5-ways-understand-bible-better-2015
**I just finished reading Revelation, and… I confess I don’t understand it all very well.** Even in the New International Version, with its goal of “[providing the best possible blend of transparency to the original documents and comprehension of the original meaning in every verse](https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/),” Revelation has one or two mildly confusing spots.
I know, that’s hardly a news flash. But the non-news comes with a point: I, like you, long to understand the Bible better. The good news is that I think I understand parts of Revelation better than I did five years ago. The _other_ good news is that there is still much left for me to learn!
**Brief story:** About five or six years ago I was assigned to preach from Matthew 24–that confusing chapter about the signs leading up to Christ’s return… or is it the non-signs that occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem? Anyhow, puzzling over such questions aroused my interest in Bible prophesy, and I started wishing to understand Revelation better. I soon learned that if you hope to understand Revelation, you must first understand the OT prophetic books, where much of Revelation’s imagery comes from. Then I learned that if you hope to understand the OT prophetic books, you must first understand the five books of Moses, for the OT prophets were enforcers of the Mosaic covenant.
These observations shaped my growing interest in serious Bible study. So I listened to the Pentatauch repeatedly while pounding nails at work, and I read some big semi-technical commentaries on \[amazon text=Genesis&asin=0805401016\], \[amazon text=Exodus&asin=0805401024\], and \[amazon text=Leviticus&asin=0802825222\]–straight through, cover to cover. It was very rewarding, but I got bogged down as I began a commentary on Numbers, and I haven’t yet read a commentary on any of the Major Prophets straight through. And my Revelation commentaries… well, I’ve dabbled in them, but not enough to fully defuse my confusion.
Thank God, you don’t need to understand much prophecy to become “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”! And thank God, he rewards the diligent student of “the sacred writings” so that we can become increasingly “equipped for every good work” as we grow in our biblical understanding (2 Tim. 3:15-16).
**So, without further ado and in random order, here are…**
**Five Ways You Can Understand the Bible Better in 2015**
1. **Read, read, and reread the Bible.** This is obvious, yet it is exactly here where most of us fail worst. First, most of us read far less than we need to if we are ever going to understand the Bible well. Second, when many of us do read, we read in such a way (poor technique, poor heart condition) that our understanding doesn’t grow as it could. Two excellent blog articles I read recently address both these problems. “[How to Change Your Mind](http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-to-change-your-mind)” by Joe Carter describes a Bible reading plan that I heartily endorse, based on my own similar short-term efforts while preparing to preach and teach. “[What Kind of a Thing Is the Bible? 6 Theses](http://gavinortlund.com/2014/12/26/what-kind-of-a-thing-is-the-bible-6-theses/)” by Gavin Ortlund reminds us of the forest before we get lost in the trees reading individual Bible passages. He says he’s “naming the obvious,” but this article is packed with pregnant points that invite deep consideration and help make sense of the Bible. Read these articles, then read your Bible–more, and more wisely. Bonus tip: Audio Bibles count, too!
2. **Read a book on biblical interpretation.** Don’t let words like _exegesis_ and _hermeneutics_ scare you. They aren’t any worse than words like _carburetor_ (had to check how to spell that one) or _hemorrhage_ (had to look that one up, too). They’re just words that are suited for the job and help us understand how things work. There are books on biblical interpretation suited for every reader, and it’s a shame that more of us aren’t reading them. I’m a case in point: Despite graduating from a four-year Honours English Literature program with a bachelor’s degree, I had never read a single book on biblical interpretation! It wasn’t until Allen Roth assigned [Understanding and Applying the Bible](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802490921/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0802490921&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=IC3LFMJK4E3NUZEV) (McQuilkin) as reading material for our church leadership team that I opened such a book. Since then I’ve read at least four others through and scanned others, besides reading more specialized books on related topics. You don’t know which one to choose? I have a page ([see here](https://dwightgingrich.com/other-resources/books/)) that lists nine such books, with descriptions to help you find the right one for you. None of these books are perfect, but all have proven helpful again and again for hundreds and thousands of people. Better yet: find some friends and read one together!
3. **Listen to free seminary lectures on the Bible.** If I had to name a single resource that has been most helpful in my own growth in biblical understanding over the past 5 years, it would probably be the website [biblicaltraining.org](http://www.biblicaltraining.org/). This website–the brainchild of [Bill Mounce](http://www.billmounce.com/personal) who served as the NT chair of the ESV translation team–aims “to help leaders in the local church become effective ministers of the Gospel by providing them with world-class, Christ-centered educational resources that will allow learning to take place in community. In other words, our goal is to help make fully-formed followers of Christ.” This website has free audio recordings of Bible classes for all levels, from new believers to graduate students. Free lectures from dozens of seminary courses are included. Most of the speakers are well-known evangelical professors and authors. I’ve listened to most of the seminary lectures on this site. I’ve found all the Bible courses helpful for growth in biblical understanding, and several courses like Robert Stein’s excellent “[Biblical Hermeneutics](http://www.biblicaltraining.org/biblical-hermeneutics/robert-stein)” are especially relevant to this post. (By the way, one great thing about this website is that the speakers don’t agree on every point of interpretation or doctrine! This diversity-within-gospel-unity provides excellent training in discernment and nudges you back to the Bible to think things through for yourself.)
4. **Subscribe to some good blogs.** The number of scholarly blogs and websites devoted to biblical interpretation and theology is astounding! The best you can do–which can be good indeed–is to pick a handful and begin following. Here are some I’ve been following:
\* [http://readingacts.wordpress.com/](http://readingacts.wordpress.com/) Phillip Long, a conservative seminary prof, started a blog on Acts but now writes on all things NT. Includes helpful book reviews and monthly links to a “Biblical Studies Carnival”–long lists highlighting “the best and the brightest in the world of bibliblogs.”
\* [http://zondervanacademic.com/blog/](http://zondervanacademic.com/blog/) Jeremy Bouma posts most often, with a wide range of thoughts usually triggered by some book he’s reading. Other blog authors take their turns as well, including Bill Mounce with his “Mondays with Mounce” about NT Greek and Lee Fields with a similar series about Hebrew. A great way to be introduced to lots of big name biblical studies and theology authors.
\* [https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/](https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/) Louis McBride, the Bible and academic book buyer at Baker Book House, a Christian bookstore, writes on all things biblical and theological, again usually triggered by a book he’s reading. Lots of good stuff to chew.
\* [http://marccortez.com/](http://marccortez.com/) Marc Cortez teaches theology and supervises doctoral students at Wheaton College and writes here at Everyday Theology. Thus says Marc: “The purpose of the blog is to connect theology with everyday life. I’m convinced that what we believe matters – it shapes who we are and how we live in the world. So I want to help people access the best that theology has to offer and see how it matters for life today. Having said that, I’m also a bit random. They say that a good blog should have 3-5 categories that provide focus and purpose for the blog. Following that guideline, my three categories are: life, the universe, and everything.” Yup, that’s about right! 🙂
\* [http://www.challies.com/](http://www.challies.com/) Tim Challies provides a firehose for all things Reformed and conservative, with daily postings that include links to theological blogs and Kindle books on sale. Lots of very good stuff (even if you question his Calvinism and wish he’d include more diversity of voices at times). For example, the two blog articles I recommended in point #1 above were recommended by Challies. If you follow Challies you’ll soon learn of lots more helpful Reformed bloggers that I won’t name here.
\* This list could go on forever, and I know I haven’t even mentioned some of the best. For a dizzying list of helpful and not-so-helpful blogs, see [this](https://biblioblogtop50.wordpress.com/biblioblogs/). I’ve only visited a tiny fraction of the blogs listed there.
_A final caveat is extremely important_: Blogs like the ones I’ve listed contain a mixture of truth and error. (So does my blog!) Some others are only helpful as case studies of heresy. Of my five suggestions in this post, this is the one that is least helpful unless you already have some solid biblical grounding. That said, good biblical blogs have prodded my thinking with new insights and perspectives, helped me assess the strengths and weaknesses of popular evangelical scholars (good prep for book buying), and introduced me to valuable online and print resources. The five blogs I mentioned first generally do a good job of achieving these benefits without throwing in intentionally provocative or theologically liberal ideas.
5. **Attend a good Bible conference or training program.** I’ll keep this point short by directing you to my page about upcoming events for Bible students: see [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/other-resources/events/). Two things: (a) I recently added a couple more events that will be helpful for some of you; (b) the BMA Ministers’ Enrichment Weekend (end of January and open to everyone) is now open for registration. Go if you can!
(By the way, thanks to those of you who have been sharing this events page on Facebook and elsewhere. Let’s spread the word and help people–especially our pastors–get some good training.)
So, there you have it: five ways to understand the Bible better in this coming year. _My advice would be to pursue #1 and then pick two or three others to supplement it._
**What else would you add to this list?** What has helped you understand the Bible better? **Share your thoughts [in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/5-ways-understand-bible-better-2015/#respond).**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## At Christmastime; Christmas Comes Again [Poems by Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-21
Category: Previous Post
Meta Title: Christmas Poems by Mom | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: It's time for more of Mom's poems. This month I'm sharing two of her Christmas poems. Enjoy!
Tags: -1 Corinthians 2:9, -Isaiah 64:4, Emmanuel, hope, sorrow, love, waiting, Christ's return, Christmas
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/at-christmastime-christmas-comes-again
It’s time for more of Mom’s poems. This month I’m sharing two of her Christmas poems. Enjoy!
(Tips: Read these poems aloud to hear them best. And see [here](http://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/) for an introduction to this series.)
* * *
**AT CHRISTMASTIME**
At Christmastime the bells of joy
Ring out in every town–
But it was for our sorrowing
That Jesus Christ came down.
At Christmastime the carollers sing
To celebrate good cheer.
But still Christ comes to comfort those
Who shed a private tear.
At Christmastime the Christ was born
To heal our grief and pain.
And soon to banish death and tears
The Christ will come again.
– Elaine Gingrich (shared on her 2014 Christmas cards)
* * *
**CHRISTMAS COMES AGAIN THIS YEAR:
_TO LOVE IS TO WAIT FOR_**(I Cor. 2:9; Isaiah 64:4)
_Once again, Lord, Christmas finds us waiting,
Needy, with great want for You and Your coming,
Like Mary awaiting her birth pangs,
And old Simeon waiting to die.
We are weary of groaning and wanting.
But without want, we would have no need of hope,
And Paul states we are saved by hope,
Like the wise men with eyes on the sky.
What shall we do with this severe blessing of waiting,
Of hopefully living without?_
Waiting is the time for preparing…
An open door, a welcoming heart,
A costly gift and a packed bag for the journey to worship.
Waiting is the time for remembering…
Ancient prophecies finally fulfilled,
A virgin, a baby, the angels, a star.
Christmas is waiting for a promise to come true,
Doing without until the gift is ready.
Maybe there is not even a scrap of tissue in sight—
But if we know that the one who promised loves us,
Then we know that it is worth our while to keep waiting.
_To love is to wait for._
Do we truly know the One who promised Christmas?
Do we love the One who said that he who waits will not be disappointed,
Will not be embarrassed in front of the watching world?
Because He will come again and keep His Word!
He said that the crown is laid up, that the gift may tarry,
But in the fulness of time, behold He will come quickly!
But sometimes when the race is hard and the wait is long
Our nights are spent impatiently watching for a star bright enough to guide us,
Trying, with our prayers, to punch holes in heaven’s brass canopy,
Filling empty space with despairing baby-faith cries.
Meanwhile the Star pinpricks through the cloudy curtain.
We feel an unexpected warmth behind us
Warming our bent backs, stooped under heavy burdens.
We turn and raise our damp eyes to the kindest light
Piercing the gloom with an undeserved grace,
Spotlighting the Desire of the ages—
The Healer of our hearts with smiling face
Lying in a simple stable,
Revealed in an old Book.
The pages turn and the glory burns ever brighter,
Delighting with miracle and majesty,
Truth and transformation,
Wisdom and comfort;
Giving and demanding all that we are and have.
Emmanuel! God is with us while we wait.
Till He comes, the long-awaited One!
_Lord, this Christmas may I again face the darkness with hope,
_ _And humbly accept this gift of waiting._
_To love is to wait for._
_–_ Elaine Gingrich, December 13, 2012/December 14, 2014
* * *
**Two Poems, One Hope**
At first glance these two poems are very different. One trips with apparent innocence through three short, parallel stanzas. The other explores unguided paths of free-verse thought.
Thematically, however, the poems are similar. Both confess our human groaning and pain; both look to the past, the present and the future, discovering hope; both long for Christ to come again; and both wonder that “God is with us while we wait.”
One poem exudes radiant hope; the other waits long to unwrap the gift of hope with “not even a scrap of tissue in sight,” until finally hope glimmers in the dark. Whatever your experience this season, “may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope” (Rom. 15:13).
As Mom says, “Christmas is a bit like signs of spring in the heart of winter, but the actual change of weather is still to come, and so we ache for the full radiance of the Son in that day when we shall be with Him and when our world will be made new. Meanwhile He is with us, warming our hearts and lighting our imperfect world with a hint of heaven.”
**If you enjoyed these poems, [leave a comment here](http://dwightgingrich.com/at-christmastime-christmas-comes-again/#respond) or send an email to Mom** at[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/momsemailaddressimage-1721353263385-compressed.png)
. She’ll enjoy hearing from you!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Does the Resurrection Matter? (Albert Mast’s Memorial Service)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-19
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Does the Resurrection Matter? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This week, at the memorial service of my father-in-law, I had a wonderful chance to speak of life in Christ--resurrection already and resurrection not yet!
Tags: -Philippians 4:13, -1 Corinthians 6:3, -2 Peter 3:13, -2 Timothy 2:12, -Colossians 1:20, -Romans 6:11, Albert | Mast, burial, David | Powlison, Glen | Mast, How Firm a Foundation, obituary, On the Resurrection Morning, Sabine | Baring-Gould, creation, kingdom of God, suffering, death, resurrection, sin, faith, salvation, -1 Peter 1:13, Satan, Christ's return
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/does-the-resurrection-matter-albert-mast-memorial-service
Two days ago I was privileged to speak at the memorial service of my father-in-law, Albert Mast. This was a great honor, and a wonderful opportunity to ponder the life that is ours in Christ Jesus–resurrection already and resurrection not yet!
This post will be a bit of a tossed salad, so here’s an ingredient list to help you proceed:
* [Audio of Sermon and “So What?” Thoughts about Resurrection](#audio)
* [“On the Resurrection Morning” — A Gospel Song that “Gets” Life After Death](#on)
* [“Burial Ground” — An Article by My Mother](#burial)
* [“How Firm A Foundation” — How a Hymn Helped Strengthen Albert’s Faith](#how)
* [Albert Mast’s Obituary (With Photo)](#albert)
* * *
**Audio of Sermon and “So What?” Thoughts about Resurrection**
Thanks to each of you who prayed for me regarding this sermon! I felt God’s strength and zeal as I spoke, and I sensed people were listening. Our primary texts were Romans 6:11 and 1 Peter 1:13, and my primary goal was to help people rejoice in the blessings of Christ’s resurrection and long for his return.
**Here is the sermon: [“The Lord Is Risen! Come Lord Jesus!”](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Albert-Mast-Memorial-Service.lite_.mp3)** (right-click title to download audio or listen below)
[http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Albert-Mast-Memorial-Service.lite\_.mp3](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Albert-Mast-Memorial-Service.lite_.mp3)
After the sermon, a friend who had read my recent post about resurrection to come ([What is the Christian’s True Hope in Death?](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-is-the-christians-true-hope-in-death/)) and who heard me share similar thoughts in the sermon asked me a question: **Why does it matter? Why is it important for us to fix our hopes on Christ’s return and our resurrection then, rather than merely anticipating dying and going to heaven?** My friend agreed with what I had shared, but wasn’t sure what difference it made.
Good question! I shared with my friend an illustration that I didn’t have time to share during the sermon. I’d like to share it here, too.
**Imagine, if you can,** that you agree with me that the “good guys” in the American Rebellion–er, the American Revolutionary War, that is–were the British, and not the American colonists. (I’m speaking here as my adolescent Canadian self, not my adult kingdom-of-God self.) Now imagine that you and I are both British soldiers, returned from the war. Imagine I come up to you after the war is over and say something like this:
“Isn’t it great how we won the war! We had wonderful campaigns in the king’s colonies. We really knocked those rebellious colonists around in some good fights. Sure, we lost some battles, but look at how those Loyalists escaped to Canada! And just when things looked the worst, wasn’t it wonderful to get on our ships and sail safely home to England? Now those colonists can never touch us. Yes, isn’t it great how we won the war?”
How would you respond? I suspect you’d knock me about the head a time or two to bring me to my senses and shout, “_But what about the kingdom? What about the king’s colonies? How can you say we won the war when the king lost his kingdom?_”
(If that illustration is too difficult for your imagination, then use the American invasion of Iraq instead.)
**Now imagine a similar conversation,** this time between you and me as we discuss our Christian war against sin and Satan. Imagine if I say something like this:
“Isn’t it great how we’ll win this war! Saints in the past have engaged in quite the battles with Satan, and there have been wonderful victories. Think of Noah, and Abraham, Moses, and David–a long list of heroes of the faith that have stood firm against the forces of darkness. Sure, the nation of Israel eventually fell away from God and was sent into exile, but then God started a whole new campaign with his Church! Peter, John, Paul, then Augustine, Saint Francis, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, Felix Manz, Menno Simons, William Carey, Billy Graham, and countless more \[edit the list as you wish\]–what a list of victors! Each one of them, at his death, escaped safely to heaven. And now, just as the war is raging at its fiercest, and the Church is being reduced to a tiny remnant band, we have this wonderful confidence: God is going to call us home and we’ll all go sailing off safely into heaven! Isn’t it wonderful how we’re going to win the war!”
Now, what would be a proper response to such an outburst? I suggest the following: Hopefully you’d knock me about the head a bit (metaphorically, of course) and sober me up with these words: “_But what about the kingdom? What about God’s original purposes for the wonderful world that he created? How can you say we will win the war if the King will loose his kingdom?_”
**When God created the world (Gen. 1-2), he created it perfect but incomplete.** It possessed the perfection of an immature child. God put humans into his world to steward it and to bring about his creative purposes for his world. But Satan and sin hijacked God’s original intent. More accurately, God foreknew sin’s entrance, and planned all along to work through it. However we word it, this fact remains: God’s purposes for his world remained incomplete at the time when sin entered. If this is true, then salvation alone–the removal of sin from human hearts or even from the cosmos–is not the sum total of God’s purposes for his creation. No, after sin is removed God will want to get on with his other plans for his creation.
Ask a cook, “What do you want to do with these dishes?” and he might answer, “I want them washed.” Ask a 16-year-old what he plans to do with his car and he might say, “I plan to give it a wash and a wax.” But no cook would be satisfied washing dishes without ever getting to cook with them, and it is a rare teen who would be content working at a car wash all day and never driving a car! _To reduce God’s purposes for his world to his “plan of salvation” is like reducing a cook’s purposes for dishes to his plan for washing them._
**So what difference does it make if we focus on dying and going to heaven rather than on Christ’s return and our final resurrection?** I think it is the difference between being satisfied with human salvation or rejoicing in God’s victory. _Is it enough for me that I win? Or do I care about God winning?_ Do I imagine a grand conclusion where Satan succeeds, kamikaze-style, in demolishing God’s good creation? Where Satan, like Samson, dies while bringing down God’s house? Where God wins the war but looses half his kingdom? Or do I grasp God’s vision for creating “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:13)? Do I remember that my own eternal glory is bound up in his, and that the Bible hints at things like us reigning with Christ (2 Tim. 2:12) and judging angels (1 Cor. 6:3)–things seemingly timed to happen only long after my death, when Christ returns?
More could be said, but hopefully that begins to answer the “so what” question that my friend raised. There is much I don’t understand yet about God’s purposes for his creation. God still has some big secrets up his sleeve. But this much I do understand: _God’s purposes matter, and they will be fulfilled!_ Through Christ God will “reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven” (Col. 1:20).
**If you want to read more,** the book that has shaped my thinking as much as any other (besides Scripture) is on sale on Kindle right now: **[Surprised by Hope](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0010SIPOY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0010SIPOY&linkCode=as2&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=I3MBPYTZMVVMAZUI), by N.T. Wright**.
* * *
**“On the Resurrection Morning” — A Gospel Song that “Gets” Life After Death**
In my sermon I quoted an old gospel song by [Sabine Baring-Gould](http://www.cyberhymnal.org/bio/b/a/r/baring-gould_s.htm) that I a friend shared with me just a few days ago. Here are two of its eight stanzas. Notice especially the lines I’ve emboldened. How often do you hear such ideas in a gospel song? I think this author understood our Christian hope well.
> For a while the wearied body
> Lies with feet toward the morn;
> Till the last and brightest Easter
> Day be born.
>
> **But the soul in contemplation,**
> **Utters earnest prayer and strong**,
> Bursting at the resurrection
> Into song.
For the rest of the song, [click here](http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/onresmor.htm).
* * *
**“Burial Ground” — An Article by My Mother**
If our sights are to be fixed on our final resurrection and not merely on going to heaven, then how should we bury our loved ones? During the sermon I answered this question by quoting from an article written by my mother (Elaine Gingrich). Mom wrote this article over 20 years ago, after death touched my life significantly for the first time by claiming the lives of five young friends in a car accident.
**Here is the article: [Burial Ground](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Burial-Ground.pdf)** (By the way, I discovered just now that in my sermon I misquoted a Tozer quote that Mom uses in this article: It should be “It is hard to imagine anything less hopeful than the sight of a burial”–not “more hopeful.” But sorry, Tozer; I think I like my version at least as well.)
* * *
**“How Firm A Foundation” — How a Hymn Helped Strengthen Albert’s Faith**
At Albert’s memorial service his “little” brother Glen Mast told a story that few of us knew. Five or six years ago, when Albert’s pain was at its worst, he experienced a severe trial of his faith. One time when Glen was visiting, Albert confessed that he felt “worthless.” Worse still, Albert was troubled by this question: What if someday he would stand before God and hear these terrible words: “I never knew you, depart from me.”
Glen reassured Albert, reminding him that, while each of us is unworthy, none of us are worthless. God paid a dear price for us! Glen also explained that when Jesus foretold those terrible words, “I never knew you,” he was warning religious leaders who felt no need for Jesus. Albert, on the other hand, had relied from his youth on the grace of God given through Christ (Eph. 2:8-10). God knew his name! (I might add that Jesus was describing false prophets who seemed more interested in wielding the power of God than in doing the will of God.)
Then Glen showed Albert and Katie (my mother-in-law) a video of a presentation by David Powlison, called “[Christ’s Grace and Your Sufferings](http://www.desiringgod.org/conference-messages/christs-grace-and-your-sufferings).” (Click the link for audio and video options. Or go to page 145 of this [free PDF book](http://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/documents/books/suffering-and-the-sovereignty-of-god.pdf) for a transcript.) Powlison shapes his talk around the grand old hymn, “[How Firm a Foundation](http://nethymnal.org/htm/h/f/hfirmafo.htm)“–a hymn which, unlike most hymns, has God speaking directly to us for most of its verses. (When re-enacting this story at Albert’s memorial, Glen had us turn and face each other while singing verse one, then turn our hands palms-up toward God while singing the rest of the song.)
Glen’s words, Powlison’s presentation, and the words of this hymn were used by God to renew Albert’s faith. Perhaps they will renew the faith of someone reading this blog, too.
* * *
**Albert Mast’s Obituary**
Finally, here is Albert Mast’s obituary:
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/alberts-obituary-picture-1721385417110-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/alberts-obituary-picture-1721385417110-compressed.jpg)
Albert Mast was born on May 2, 1943 in Thomas, Oklahoma, the son of Joas and Katie Mast. He was married to Katie Stoltzfus on November 10, 1973. Later that year, they moved to Leon, Iowa, where they farmed and eventually established the family baking business, Mast Family Farm.
From a young age, Albert faced many challenges related to what was eventually diagnosed as dystonia. Though some of those challenges shook him at times, he held fast to his faith in Christ, and lived a vibrant testimony of joy in the midst of pain. He was known for his determination, his smile in spite of his pain, his care for others who were hurting, and for planting straight rows. Some of Albert’s favorite quotes: “I may be crippled, but I am NOT handicapped.” “If you can do it, so can I.” One of his life verses was Philippians 4:13.
Albert was released from his body on December 15, 2014. Albert is survived by his dedicated wife, Katie, and their children Zonya (Dwight) Gingrich, Albert L. Mast, and Joy (Craig) Miller; Grandchildren Priya, Shani, and Ayla Gingrich, and Dexter Miller; Siblings Susie Joy Mast, Moses (Sadie) Mast, William (Betty) Mast, Lydia Mae (the late Virgil) Wagler, John (Esther) Mast, Harry (Flo) Mast, Glen (Ellen) Mast, and many nieces and nephews. Albert was preceded in death by his parents, and his daughter Angela.
Donations in memory of Albert may be made to [Dystonia-Foundation.org](http://dystonia-foundation.org) or [Hospice of Central Iowa](https://givalike.org/dm/Albert%20Mast/R/2251502/Nonprofit-Directory/Nonprofit/421239748/Hospice-of-Central-Iowa-Foundation?eqg=1).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A “Far Better” Morning for Albert
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-15
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: A "Far Better" Morning for Albert | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: "My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better" (Phil. 1:23). My father-in-law passed away peacefully this morning.
Tags: Albert | Mast, death, resurrection
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/far-better-morning-for-albert
> My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. (Philippians 1:23)
The amount of interest expressed in [my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/what-is-the-christians-true-hope-in-death/) was unusual, breaking records for the number of daily visitors to my fledgling blog. Given your kind interest, I thought I should post here that my father-in-law Albert Mast passed away peacefully around 8:00 this morning.
The funeral is planned for Wednesday morning at 10:00 a.m., with visitation 5-8 Tuesday evening, both at Salem Mennonite Church in Leon, Iowa. Out of respect to Albert’s wishes, the casket will be closed.
Several hours before Albert’s passing, in the wee hours of this morning, I posted this on Facebook:
> I’m 40 years old, yet I’ve never seen anyone die. How strange is that, given that we live in a world where everyone dies? I’m not sure what to think about it.
>
> I haven’t intentionally avoided being present at anyone’s death. I simply haven’t been there. (Three of my grandparents have died, but I was hundreds of miles away when each one passed on. I’ve lost a few friends, but not that many, and never in predictable situations or in times and places where I could have been present.)
> On the one hand death, like conception and birth, is a sacred event and rightly shielded from careless or voyeuristic view. On the other hand, most cultures have usually been much more open about death than our culture is, and the Preacher (Ecclesiastes) said it is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting. I wonder if I would be a different person if I had observed death more closely before this.
>
> God knows, and he’s been observing all along with a wise eye.
I am glad I was present for Albert’s death. What a gift to share this moment with family, and with dear friends who have been visiting this morning.
And thank you so much to each of you who have shared kind thoughts and prayers over recent days. Your words and prayers are a blessing! Death, like birth, reminds us of our common humanity and also of our common need for new birth in Christ and–on that great Day to come–a full sharing in his resurrection.
Come, Lord Jesus!
* * *
If you wish to leave messages for the family, you may do so on [Albert’s Caring Bridge site](http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/albertmast/journal) or on [his Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/albert.mast.3). Or, [leave a comment here](http://dwightgingrich.com/far-better-morning-for-albert/) or on [my Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/dwight.gingrich) and I’ll do my best to share it with family.
If that is not enough options, prepare to greet Albert personally after your own death. The “link” for that option is faith in Jesus Christ who died and rose to rescue you from the kingdom of darkness and welcome you into the kingdom of light.
Thank you!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What Is the Christian’s True Hope in Death?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-13
Category: Dwight's Family
Meta Title: What Is the Christian's Hope in Death? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: My father-in-law is nearing death. While we wait, we think. What will happen to him when he dies? What will he experience? What should he hope to experience?
Tags: -Revelation 19:8, -Revelation 6:9-11, Albert | Mast, -1 Corinthians 15:20-26, -1 Peter 1:3-7, -1 Samuel 28:16-19, -1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, -2 Corinthians 5:1-10, -2 Timothy 4:6-8, -Acts 7:59, -Daniel 12:2, -Ephesians 1:20, -Luke 16:19-31, -Luke 23:43, -Philippians 1:21-24, -Philippians 1:3-5, -Philippians 3:10-14, -Philippians 3:20-21, -Revelation 18:20, -Revelation 19:1-5, -Revelation 21:4, -Revelation 3:4-5, -Revelation 6:11, -Revelation 7:9-14, afterdeath, endurance, heaven, intermediate state, purgatory, Randy | Alcorn, death, hope, joy, resurrection, -Matthew 17:23, -Matthew 20:19, -1 Peter 1:13, -Hebrews 12:2, N.T. | Wright, comfort, -Mark 5:39
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-is-the-christians-true-hope-in-death
My father-in-law, Albert Mast, is nearing death. At least, that’s the way it looks to those of us who are nearest to him. It sounds strange to say it, and stranger still to experience it, but we are waiting for him to die. I waited beside his bed for some four hours last night, then one of his brothers waited till morning. I think Albert’s been waiting longer than any of us.
While we wait, we think. My wife Zonya’s thoughts, along with the thoughts of many in her family, seem to be drawn mostly to the past, reflecting on memories of Albert from before his illness turned much worse about five years ago. Since I have fewer memories of Albert from before that time, and since I may have opportunity to speak publicly after his passing, my thoughts are wandering more to the future than to the past.
**What will happen to Albert when he dies?** What will he experience? What should he _hope_ to experience? He’s lived in a crippled body for so long; what measure of relief will he experience immediately? What surprises might he experience? To what extent is his hope shaped according to the biblical revelation, and to what extent has it been shaped by gospel songs we sing and by that vast stock of traditional Christian phrases that reveal and drive our popular theologies?
Don’t worry. I’m not on a campaign to change my father-in-law’s theology at this point. I’ve read some Scriptures to him (1 Cor. 15) and prayed with him, but this is not the time for theological education. His hope is fixed on Jesus, and that’s more than sufficient for his journey ahead! But for those of us who will remain, I think a better understanding can lead to a fuller hope, a more expansive vision of what lies ahead. So here are a few thoughts while I wait.
**A question: When Jesus endured the cross “for the joy that was set before him” (Heb. 12:2), what was the joy that he was anticipating?** What anticipated joy gave him such great endurance? Was Jesus anticipating “dying and going to heaven”? Was he eager to “spend eternity in heaven with God”?
I’m certain Jesus was indeed eager to return to the presence of his Father, but I think such phrases miss a crucial element of the joy that fueled his endurance. Hebrews summarizes Jesus’ reward by saying that he “is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” This phrase does not mean merely that Jesus is in the presence of God. Rather, it means that he is _reigning_ with God. So, when did Jesus begin to reign? On Friday evening, immediately after he cried “It is finished” and gave up his spirit? Sometime on Saturday, while his body lay in the grave? Or on Sunday, after the stone was rolled from the tomb?
I think Paul summarizes the NT answer to this question well: “\[God\] raised \[Jesus\] from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph. 1:20). In other words, Jesus was granted authority to reign not on Friday, not on Saturday, but on Sunday morning–or maybe at his ascension about 40 days later.
**What is very clear is that “the joy that was set before Jesus,” the joy that fueled his endurance, was _not_ something that he anticipated would happen on Friday night or on Saturday. _The joy that fueled Jesus’ endurance was the joy of his upcoming resurrection and all that would flow from it._**
We can see this, too, in Jesus’ repeated prophecies of his own suffering. Each time he told his disciples of his impending death, it was all bad news until the final line: “and he will be raised on the third day” (Matt. 17:23; 20:19; etc.). Never do we read anything like, “and he will go to heaven to be with God.” As true as that was, Jesus didn’t mention it. It wasn’t on his radar. The focus of his hope was his upcoming resurrection. I simply cannot imagine Jesus being satisfied with “going to heaven to be with God” on Friday without also being “raised on the third day”! The very idea is so strange that, if you’re like me, you’ve never even thought of that possibility before today.
**If all that is true, then what about our own hope in death?** I’d like to suggest that it is just as strange for us to focus our hopes on “going to heaven to be with God” when we die as it would have been for Jesus to do so. I’ll say that again: **_I think it is just as strange for us to focus our hopes on “going to heaven to be with God” when we die as it would have been for Jesus to do so._**
**Here’s a challenge: Do a word search in the NT for “heaven,”** and see if you can find any passages that are anything like “go to heaven when you die.” See if you can find any passages that invite the Christian to set his hopes on going to heaven after death. **Then do another search, a search for “resurrection,”** “raised,” and all the other related words you can think of. See how many pages of passages you can find describing the hope that awaits the Christian in the coming resurrection, at Christ’s return. I did such searches several years ago, while preparing for Easter sermons, and I’ve never recovered. (Here is where I must also thank N.T. Wright and Randy Alcorn for starting me down this path and surprising me with new hope–see \[amazon text=here&asin=0061551821\] and \[amazon text=here&asin=0842379428\].)
Millions of saints who have believed in purgatory have faced a pleasant surprise after death: They have found themselves immediately with Jesus, with no need to suffer long years in purgatory! But some of us who have rightly rejected purgatory have set ourselves up for a less pleasant surprise: If we think we are going straight to our full eternal reward immediately after death, we will suddenly discover that we need to “wait a little longer” (Rev. 6:11) for Christ’s return, bringing our resurrection and the final judgment. This is a less significant error than purgatory—but also a less pleasant surprise. Yes, it is “far better” to leave our bodies and be with Jesus (Phil 1:23). But let’s “set \[our\] hope fully on the grace that will be brought to \[us\] at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:13) and “encourage one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:18).
**Much should be said about why this clarification of our hope matters.** Perhaps the most important thing to mention is that a hope fixed on “going to heaven when you die” tends to be more self-centered than a hope fixed on Christ’s return and the resurrection and the restoration of all things. The former focuses on personal salvation; the latter on cosmic salvation. The former focuses on us going to be with Jesus; the latter focuses on Jesus coming to be with us and with his entire creation. I’m sure many selfless saints have fixed their hopes on “crossing the river” to see Jesus face to face and meet their loved ones. But I think a hope fixed on Christ’s return helps us see much more of the glory of Christ!
**_A bigger vision of a bigger Christ, a greater hope that fuels a greater endurance. I’m sold. Where are you pinning your hopes?_**
**I’ll end my polished thoughts here and invite you to [respond in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/what-is-the-christians-true-hope-in-death/#respond).** But I’ll also post the Scriptures I was mediating on today, along with my observations about four things I think we can learn about from each passage: death, afterdeath, resurrection, and implications for us now. Many more passages could be cited, but these alone are enough, I think, to shift the focus of our hopes from after death to the resurrection to come.
* * *
**Afterdeath and Resurrection – Scriptures Describing the Christian’s True Hope**
Note: I am using the term _afterdeath_ rather than _afterlife_ for the intermediate state (between our death and Christ’s return) because _afterlife_ is potentially misleading. For the Christian, though death brings an end to the natural life of our bodies, our life continues and then blossoms into fullness after death. Eternal life is unending, so there is nothing that comes “after” life for the Christian.
* * *
**2 Timothy 4:6-8**
> 6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.
Death: Death is the time of departure, the end of the fight, the end of the race, the end of the fight/race of preserving the true faith from attack and corruption. (It could also be called an offering, at least if it involves the suffering accompanying a martyr’s death, as with Paul’s suffering and impending death.)
Afterdeath: No more fight, race, or faith-keeping. Time of waiting for final rewards.
Resurrection: Christ’s appearing on that Day, the day of judgment, is when the crown of righteousness will be given.
Now: We love and long for Christ’s appearing, willingly suffering for Christ as we pin our hopes on that Day.
* * *
**Philippians 1:21-24:**
> 21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 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. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.
Death: When we die we no longer remain in the flesh. We depart from fellow believers and our time of labor and serving others in gospel ministry ends.
Afterdeath: Christians are with Christ in a fuller way than we presently are. (Cf. Stephen in Acts 7:59: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” and Jesus’ words to thief on cross in Luke 23:43: “Today you will be with me in paradise.”) They rest from their labors. Therefore, the afterdeath is far better than remaining in our corruptible flesh. Yet it is a time of separation from earthly saints.
Resurrection: Paul says nothing about the resurrection in this passage. Later in the same book he does (3:10-14, 20-21), and notice how he makes it the centerpiece of Christian hope:
> “10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus… 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.”
Now: For us to live is Christ—we live Christ-shaped lives, imitating him in suffering service for his sake, laboring for the good of others.
* * *
**Revelation 6:9-11:**
> 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.
Death: Can come through martyrdom, unjustly, because of our faithfulness to the word of God for the witness we have borne. Yet even this kind of death is “numbered” and overseen by God. Yes, death is our enemy. But every Christian dies under God’s watchful eye.
Afterdeath: At least for some (martyrs), a time of intense longing for God to bring final justice on the earth. Saints are crying, “How long?!” just as the ancient psalmists did. They are conscious. They can speak with God. They experience the passage of time. They remember their earthly lives and have a least some awareness of what is currently happening on earth (cf. 1 Sam. 28:16-19; Rev. 18:20; 19:1-5)—at least that suffering and wickedness is continuing. Tears are seemingly not all wiped away until the coming of the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 21:4). Yet saints now in God’s presence also receive God’s comfort—purity (Rev. 3:4-5; 7:9-14; 19:8) and glory as symbolized by a white robe, and the assurance that it will be only “a little longer” until God judges evil and rescues his people. _Note: these robes are clearly metaphorical in Revelation (“washed… and made white in the blood of the Lamb,” 7:14) and do not indicate that saints in the intermediate state possess bodies._
Resurrection: Not mentioned directly, but the joint-event of the final judgment is presented as the hope of the saints.
Now: Endure faithfully as witnesses for Christ.
* * *
**2 Corinthians 5:1-10:**
> For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
>
> 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
Death: Our tent (body) is destroyed; our time of being in the body and away from the Lord ends.
Afterdeath: We are “away from the body and at home with the Lord.” Sight begins to replace faith. Yet it is still a time of waiting for our final clothing. (Vs. 3-4 are difficult. Perhaps they suggest that during afterdeath, as now, we will still experience something of the shameful nakedness of Adam as we wait for our final glorious bodies and the full restoration of all that was lost at the Fall; see Scott Hoffman NIVAC. But Murray Harris NIGTC thinks the “nakedness” comments are rather designed to refute the Corinthian doubts about bodily resurrection during the eternal state, as in 1 Cor. 15.)
Resurrection: We will put on our heavenly dwelling, our eternal bodies, our final and full clothing. This will happen at the judgment seat of Christ (which happens at Christ’s return) we each receive what is due for what we have done while in our bodies. All that is mortal will be swallowed up by life!
Now: We are only partially clothed, and we groan for our “overgarments”—our eternal bodies; we don’t yet see all we long for, but we are of good courage as we walk by faith, because we already have the Spirit as a guarantee of our eternal bodies to come.
* * *
**1 Corinthians 15:20-26:**
> 20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Death: Experienced by all descendants of Adam; a result of the Fall, an enemy that has not yet been fully destroyed.
Afterdeath: A sleep. This was a common way of referring to death, used by pagans, Jews, and Christians alike, whether or not anyone believed in a coming resurrection (Green, _Thessalonians_, 217). Perhaps this term was used as a way of expressing the fact that we can’t communicate with the dead, just like we can’t communicate with people who are sleeping. Or maybe it was just a pleasant term to soften the ugliness of death. _Most important: It does not indicate that those who are dead are unconscious_ (which would contradict other texts like Luke 16:19-31 or Rev. 6:9-11). Although it was used by all kinds of people, it is sometimes used in Scripture to insinuate that death isn’t the final end (Dan. 12:2; Mark 5:39). Therefore, even though the term in its original usage doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the afterlife, it is a doubly-fitting term for Christians: death, like sleep, is a temporary time of waiting that will be followed by an awakening on the resurrection morning.
Resurrection: All who are belong to Christ will be made alive at his coming—they will receive incorruptible, spirit-powered bodies. Then, at the end, death itself will be destroyed.
* * *
**In Conclusion: Being with Christ is “Far Better,” But Sharing in Christ’s Resurrection is Our True Comfort and Hope**
**The message we use to comfort each other:**
> 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. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede 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. 18 Therefore **encourage one another with these words.** (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)
**The place where our hope is fixed:**
> 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ… 13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, **set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.** (1 Peter 1:3-7, 13)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## ESV Audio Bible on Sale
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-09
Category: Book Deals
Meta Title: ESV Audio Bible on Sale | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Our Caribbean trip brought opportunities to ponder churches and money in more contexts. // My favorite audio Bible is on sale at ChristianAudio.com.
Tags: audio Bible, Brian | Fikkert, church buildings, Dominican Republic, ESV Audio Bible, Steve | Corbett, church giving, Haiti, Open Hands
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/esv-audio-bible-sale
Dear blog readers,
Welcome back to me after a wonderful trip to Canada, Dominican Republic, and Haiti! Highlights of the southern leg of this trip included a beautiful Caribbean wedding, a Haitian airline that took our money and flew ran, visits with Open Hands groups and national leaders in Haiti, and losing my glasses in the ocean.
Since this is not a travel blog, I’ll leave the rest to your imagination–except to say that **our trip brought opportunities to ponder churches and money in more contexts**. I learned anew, for example, that nationals often learn church giving patterns, for better or for worse, from foreign missionaries. In Haiti I heard of one foreign mission agency whose primary work, I understand, is to go around building churches buildings for Haitians. What do you think? Is this helpful? Sometimes? Always? Rarely? And in the Dominican Republic I listened as the wife of a long-time pastor described how nationals in their local church went about starting an evangelistic outreach in a neighboring town: they assumed that they should build a church building for the residents of the town and send them clothing. They did this, I understand, before many converts had even been won to Christ. Evidently they learned well from the foreign missionaries who helped start their own church. What are we teaching, intentionally and otherwise?
I also rejoiced to see Haitians providing for themselves with responsibility and dignity through the [Open Hands](http://www.afweb.org/open-hands) program, and heard Christian workers from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico describe an urgent need for similar financial teaching in their own nations.
I do not mean to be critical in my questions above. Even our best efforts often have unintended negative consequences. And thankfully, God takes even our imperfect efforts and wins children for himself! That said, this might be a good place to plug a book on missions and giving that many are finding helpful: [When Helping Hurts](http://www.amazon.com/s/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&field-keywords=when%20helping%20hurts&index=blended&linkCode=ur2&sourceid=Mozilla-search&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=V2GSGPJ25UGFSU4R), by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert.
I enjoyed reading your comments on my series about church giving. I’ve responded to each in the comments threads and will consider this series done for the present. Thanks for your interest!
* * *
**Now, as my title promised: The ESV Hear the Word Audio Bible is on sale at ChristianAudio.com.** Since _this website exists to build up the Church of Jesus Christ by helping her listen carefully to the Scriptures,_ I thought you’d like to know. This is my favorite audio Bible, and it comes on sale for this price only once or twice a year. (Many other audiobooks are also on sale.)
You can download it for only $7.49 here: [http://christianaudio.com/esv-hear-the-word-audio-bible-audiobook-download](http://christianaudio.com/esv-hear-the-word-audio-bible-audiobook-download).
If you’ve never used an audio Bible, I encourage you to try it. I’ve found that listening to the Bible provides some benefits that reading doesn’t (and vice versa). In most historical periods, including biblical times, more people have _heard_ the Bible than _read_ it. God’s Word is designed to be heard!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Giving To and Through the Church (Part 6)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-08
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Giving To and Through the Church (6) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Now that this series is nearly over, perhaps I should discuss my title. Did you notice that it's a little clunky? "Giving To and Through the Church."
Tags: -1 John 3:17, -Galatians 6:6-10, -James 2:15-16, church universal, church local, -Galatians 6:10, church giving, giving
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-6
_\[See [Part 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-1/), [Part 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-2/), [Part 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-3/), [Part 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-4/), and [Part 5](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-5/) in this series.\]_
**Part 6: A Handful of Concluding Thoughts About Giving to the Church**
**Now that this series is nearly over, perhaps I should discuss my title.** Did you notice that it’s a little clunky? “Giving To and Through the Church.” Why two prepositions–_to_ and _through_? And why did I capitalize them, contrary to standard practice? (You might not have noticed unless you’re reading by email.)
Good questions. Thanks for asking!
**I chose this title because I wish to draw attention to something I’ve noticed as I’ve read the New Testament with an eye for what it says about church and giving.** Unless I’m forgetting something, I don’t think we read any commands in the NT to “give to the church.” We read commands to give to _needy Christians_ and to _gospel proclaimers_. We read encouragements to give to _church leaders_ who are overseeing and distributing collections for needy Christians. But we don’t find any commands to give to _the church_.
In other words, I think we are quite missing the point if we simply teach people that they should put money in the offering plate on Sunday, thereby fulfilling their duty to “give to the church.”
**The church offering is not a destination for your giving; it is a channel for your giving.** In the NT the closest we read of people giving “to the church” is when they were giving money “to” church leaders (such as the apostles in Jerusalem or Paul visiting his young churches) with the express purpose that it would flow “through” these leaders and on “to” needy Christians. The goal in such giving was not to fulfill some legal demand that Christians must faithfully give to their local church. Rather, the goal in such giving was to meet actual physical needs. People were hungry!
In some cases it just so happens that it is most effective to meet physical needs through a systematic effort organized by church leaders, rather than by disorganized individual donations. But to give “to the church” simply for the sake of giving to the church is as insensible as giving to [Voice of the Martyrs](http://www.persecution.com/) merely for the sake of fulfilling some abstract sense of duty rather than out of compassion for suffering Christians. _“To” the offering plate is useless on its own; “through” the offering plate is powerful when the money actually goes “to” needy Christians._
**After all, “the church” is a term that refers in the NT to _people_, not to a building, a bank account, or a denominational body.** If this is true, then our vision for giving to Christ’s church should extend beyond our local congregation and even beyond our church fellowship, conference, or alliance. We follow the NT pattern of giving “to and through the church” when we give to local leaders who distribute funds to local Christians. But we also follow this NT pattern when we give to [Destinations International](http://www.biblicalmennonite.com/destinations_international.html) or [Christian Aid Ministries](https://www.christianaidministries.org/). We follow this NT pattern when we organize local collections for that lonely Catholic widow, or for that sick Pentecostal father of eight whom God hasn’t yet healed. _The church is bigger than your local congregation, so giving to and through the church is bigger, too._
Since the church is like a family, we should give “especially \[to\] members of \[our\] household” (cf. 1 Tim. 5:8), that is, to the saints whom we see regularly in our own church gatherings. The brother I can see (1 John 3:17), the brother I can speak to (James 2:15-16), is the brother I am most responsible to care for. But when Scripture says we are to give “especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10), do not imagine for a moment that this household is limited to your local congregation.
**In other words, when we consider my title, we would do well to ponder not only the clunky prepositions, but also what the NT means when it speaks of _church_.** Then we should let our observations shape what we do when we “give to and through the church.”
* * *
**Let me summarize this series by quoting Paul’s words to the churches of Galatia.** Notice, in the middle, the gospel motivations for giving (reaping eternal life from the Spirit). And notice, at the beginning and the end, the instructions about where our gifts should go:
> Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches. Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Gal. 6:6-10)
* * *
**Systemizing biblical data, as I’ve done in this series, is important and ultimately inevitable. Yet it carries the potential risk of leading us to read the data through our own patterns.** Sometimes we force data to fit our patterns, and sometimes we entirely miss other data that our patterns don’t prompt us to be looking for. I’m sure I’ve done some of both in this series. I’ve argued that there are three main NT reasons for giving to and through the church: (1) to support needy local Christians, (2) to send relief to distant Christians, and (3) to support gospel proclaimers. I’ve suggested that church building expenses must not detract us from these primary reasons, and that churches should not command tithing but rather exalt giving as a gospel grace. And I’ve reminded us that “the church” is much bigger than your local congregation and the Sunday morning offering plate.
**What have I missed?** Where have I been imbalanced? Which other NT passages should I have included in my survey?
**[Share your insights and questions](http://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-6/#respond) below.** If there is enough feedback, I might respond in one final post for this series. Thanks much for reading! _And thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!_
* * *
**PS: If you enjoyed this series on giving, please consider making a donation to Open Hands.** (Visit their [Website](http://www.afweb.org/open-hands) or [Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/OpenHandsAF) to learn more, or send a donation to Open Hands, 1245 Old Route 15, New Columbia, PA 17856.) **Why should you consider giving to Open Hands?
**
1. **It is a great way to put to practice what you just read!** (Here is a quote from their website: “Open Hands operates savings and credit associations in countries where Anabaptist missions are working with people who are experiencing the effects of poverty. We hire and train national Christian individuals to form and supervise savings groups in association with local churches. Our objective is to assist the local churches by helping people grow in Christ, and by teaching them to save funds in order to operate micro-businesses. The Open Hands program will increase their income and will result in stronger, more self-sufficient churches.”)
2. **I adapted this series on giving from some curriculum that Open Hands hired me to help write.** Without Open Hands, this series wouldn’t have happened. (Disclaimer: This series has been significantly adapted and personalized according to my own perspectives. Open Hands may not agree with everything in this series.)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Giving To and Through the Church (Part 5)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-04
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Giving To and Through the Church (5) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: You may be surprised I’ve barely mentioned tithing in this series on giving. So, here I go! The first thing to say is that the NT doesn’t say much about it.
Tags: -1 Corinthians 8:8, -1 Corinthians 9:13-14, -2 Corinthians 8-9, -2 Corinthians 9:7, -Hebrews 7:1-10, -Hebrews 7:11-12, -Hebrews 7:18-19, -Luke 11:42, -Luke 18:11-12, -Malachi 3:8-10, Levitical priests, Melchizedek, temple worship, tithing, -Matthew 23:23, Law of Moses, church giving, giving
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-5
_\[See [Part 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-1/), [Part 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-2/), [Part 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-3/), and [Part 4](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-4/) in this series.\]_
**Part 5: Another Controversial Topic About Giving to the Church**
Unless I follow up on your comments and questions, this is my second-last post in this series on giving to and through the church. **Some of you might be surprised that I’ve barely mentioned tithing yet. So, here we go!**
**But first, a brief review**: In my first post I clarified my goals for this series and quoted two early Christian writings about giving (you may wish to review what they said about tithing). In my second and third posts I discussed three primary NT reasons for church giving: (1) to support needy local Christians, (2) to send relief to distant Christians, and (3) to support gospel proclaimers. And in my fourth post I discussed a controversial topic: church buildings and their expenses. On this last topic, we discovered that the normal NT pattern was for wealthier Christians to open up their homes to host church gatherings. When Christians needed more room, they met in public spaces, such as the Jerusalem temple or rented lecture halls.
Onwards to tithing. I will not attempt to summarize the range of current Christian beliefs and practices about this topic. I’m neither qualified nor particularly interested to do so. Rather, I want to present my own understanding of what the NT says on the matter, then invite your feedback.
**The first thing to say about tithing in the NT is that the NT doesn’t say much about it.** This is why I haven’t said much about it so far. To have featured it in my first post about church giving would not reflect the preoccupations of the NT writers as they wrote about giving.
**We only have record of Jesus mentioning tithing twice:**
> “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” (Matt. 23:23; see parallel passage at Luke 11:42)
>
> “The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’” (Luke 18:11-12)
These are the only times tithing is explicitly mentioned in the Gospels. The first instance is a command; the second is a description from a story. What should we make of these verses? **Based on these verses, must Christians today tithe? I don’t think so.**
**Here’s why.** Consider the first passage. First, Jesus is speaking to Jews. He is not speaking to Gentiles, nor even to Christian Jews. Second, Jesus bases his command on “the law,” that is, the Law of Moses. Under this Law, the Jewish tithe was designed in part to support the Jewish system of tabernacle and temple worship. Third, Jesus is speaking before his own death and resurrection which brought an end to temple worship, inaugurated the new covenant, and birthed the Christian church. So the audience, the rationale, and the timing all suggest the same thing: _this command alone is not a good reason for commanding Christians to tithe._
The second passage contains a remarkable description (albeit a self-description) of a man who is truly outwardly righteous. He not only faithfully tithes according to his duty as a Jew, but he also keeps the “weightier matters of the law.” So here we have a description of a good Jew (though a self-righteous one). But we do not necessarily have a model for Christian imitation (that is found in the repentant tax collector). Or do you think we should also command all Christians to fast twice a week?
**The only other place that tithing is explicitly mentioned in the NT is in the book of Hebrews**, in the middle of a fascinating passage about Melchizedek:
> For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything… See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. (Heb. 7:1-2, 4-10)
**What can we learn about tithing from this passage?** First, it was an ancient practice that preceded the nation of Israel and the Law of Moses. Second, in the event described here, tithing was voluntary. Third, tithing under the Law of Moses was designed to support the Levitical priests. (It was also designed to support “the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow”; see Deut. 14:28-29.) Fourth, the Law of Moses with its ceremonies and commands is inferior to the New Melchizedek, Christ. This last point is the central point for the author of Hebrews. Immediately after the above passage we find this:
> Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well… For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. (Heb. 7:11-12, 18-19)
**Can you picture the author of Hebrews writing this and then turning around and insisting on tithing?** “I know there’s been a change in the law, but be sure you keep the commands about tithing! I know the law is weak and useless, but you need to tithe or else you’re robbing God!” (“Robbing God,” of course, comes from what is probably the most famous passage on tithing: Malachi 3:8-10. I’m not discussing such OT verses here because I’ve already argued that Christians are not directly bound by such commands from the Law of Moses. If I had space, however, valid and valuable lessons could be drawn from such passages.)
**There are plenty of places in the NT where tithing could have been mentioned if it is required of Christians.** Why don’t we read of it in Acts 4 and 5, where the apostles distributed the gifts of the first Christians to needy believers? Why don’t we read of it in 1 Corinthians 9, where Paul emphasizes Christ’s command to support gospel proclaimers? Why don’t we read of it in 1 Timothy 5, which describes how the church maintained a list of needy widows to support? Why don’t we read of it in 1 Corinthians 16, where Paul urges believers to “put something aside” on a weekly basis toward giving?
**In the longest passage about giving in the NT (2 Cor. 8-9), Paul pulls out all the stops as he tries to motivate the Corinthian church to give. Well, _almost_ all the stops.** He piles up stirring examples of generosity upon theological expositions about God’s “inexpressible gift,” upon borderline flattery of his readers, upon assurances of his own plans to handle donations with utmost transparency, upon psychological moves that will motivate his readers to avoid public shame, upon reminders of eternal rewards, upon assurances of God’s abundant provision, upon grand descriptions of how their giving will bring glory to God, upon… you get the picture. _But there is one thing Paul does not do: “I say this not as a command” (1 Cor. 8:8)._
Read 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 for yourself sometime. If you’re not motivated to give generously after you’re done, then commanding you to tithe certainly won’t help. If pondering “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (“though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor”) doesn’t move you to “excel in this act of grace” for yourself, then no amount of “compulsion” (2 Cor. 9:7) will produce any gospel fruit.
**I’ve argued strongly that tithing is no longer commanded for NT saints. However, the NT does draw an implication from OT tithing for believers today.** Remember that tithing was commanded under the Mosaic Law in order to support temple workers. Then remember that we, the Body of Christ, are now a new temple. Then return to 1 Corinthians 9 and consider Paul’s logic:
> Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:13-14)
First, Paul mentions offerings and alludes to tithes, reminding us how these supported OT temple workers. Then Paul makes a comparison (“in the same way”), saying that gospel proclaimers today should receive similar support. Is this an implicit command for Christians to tithe in order to support their pastors? I don’t think so, given everything else we’ve considered. But I think Paul _is_ saying this: **_NT gospel proclaimers are the temple workers of the new covenant, and they have just as much right to material support as what OT temple workers had._**
**So, if you want to fulfill the OT commands to tithe, give a generous gift to someone who has proclaimed the gospel to you!** Or give something to an immigrant, an orphan, or a widow. And if you make a personal choice (as I normally have) to devote a certain percentage to give away systematically, go for it. Just don’t command others to give a certain percentage. And don’t assume that your personal choice to tithe fulfills your Christian duty—no, _opportunity_—to imitate the generosity of Christ.
**What do you think?** Have I caught the heartbeat of the NT regarding tithing? **[Share your thoughts and questions](http://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-5/#respond) below!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Giving To and Through the Church (Part 4)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-12-01
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Giving To and Through the Church (4) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Isn’t pastoral support a controversial issue? Yes, it is. But this post addresses a giving topic that, at least for some people, is even more controversial.
Tags: church buildings, -1 Corinthians 16:19, -Acts 12:12, -Acts 18:4-7, -Colossians 4:15, -Philemon 1:1-2, -Romans 16:23, Archaeology Magazine, Dura-Europos, Evangelical Christian Credit Union, house church, Rad | Zdero, church budgets, church giving, giving
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-4
_\[See [Part 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-1/), [Part 2](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-2/), and [Part 3](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-3/) in this series.\]_
**Part 4: A Controversial Topic About Giving to the Church**
**After my last post, you might think that I got my titles mixed up.** Isn’t pastoral support a controversial issue? Yes, it is. But this post addresses a topic that, at least for some people, is even more controversial.
**First, a brief review.** I suggested that the NT describes and teaches three main reasons for giving to and through the church: (1) to support needy local Christians, (2) to send relief to distant Christians, and (3) to support gospel proclaimers. The first of these soon became quite systematized, with daily distributions and widows lists. The other two seem to have occurred, at least based on NT evidence, more on an as-need basis, prompted by things like specific famines or missionary trips.
There are other kinds of giving that are also emphasized in the NT, such as caring for family or individuals giving directly to needs. Giving happens on a spectrum, in all kinds of situations, and all individual Christians are also simultaneously members of Christ’s church according to NT thinking, so it I don’t want to force an imaginary line between church giving and giving done by families or individuals. But the three reasons I have noted are, I think, primary NT reasons for giving collectively, to and through local churches.
**Is there any reason for giving that you are surprised _not_ to see on my list?** If you compared this list with the average giving patterns of most American churches, what unmentioned reason for giving might stand out?
**The answer to my question is, surely, giving to pay for church buildings.** (There, I promised this would be controversial!) In a survey of American evangelical churches conducted in 2012 by the Evangelical Christian Credit Union (see [here](https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20)), average church expenses broke down as follows:
* Personnel Expenses: 58%
* Facilities/Occupancy Expenses: 18%
* Programs Expenses: 14%
* Administration Expenses: 6%
* Other Expenses: 3%
Here are several other findings:
* The largest single sub-category was Pastoral/Executive Salaries, at 36%.
* Only 3% was given to either Local/National Benevolence or International Benevolence, the subcategories that best match the first two reasons for giving that I cited.
* Building Fund expenses constitute a third of the Other Expenses category, so that effectively bumps Facilities/Occupancy Expenses up to 19%.
* For whatever reasons, Facilities/Occupancy Expenses are much lower for micro (14%), small (18%), and medium churches (15%) than for large churches (29%).
Other studies have yielded different percentages, but the general pattern seems accurate: personnel expenses forms the largest portion of most American church budgets, followed by expenses related to buildings. What would a survey of conservative Anabaptists find? I don’t know, but I suspect that personnel expenses would be way down (not entirely for good reasons—see my last post), giving to benevolence causes would be considerably up, and facilities/occupancy expenses might be roughly similar. What do you think?
**How do we square these giving priorities with the NT?** _After all, not one text in the NT either commands or describes giving to pay for church buildings._
Here is a sample of the evidence I find in the NT about this topic. What conclusions do you think we should draw from these verses?
> When he \[Peter\] realized this \[that he had been delivered from prison by an angel\], he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. (Acts 12:12)
>
> And he \[Paul\] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. (Acts 18:4-7)
>
> Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you. (Romans 16:23)
>
> The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 16:19)
>
> Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. (Colossians 4:15)
>
> Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house… (Philemon 1:1-2)
Analyzing historical evidence based on such slim evidence is tricky (although I haven’t post it all), and drawing valid theological and practical conclusions for today is even trickier. But let me take some risks.
**First, historical conclusions.** The early church didn’t have single-use church buildings. Instead, as they were pushed out of the synagogues by unbelieving Jews, they met in public spaces and in private homes. This explains why no commands to support building projects are found in the New Testament. In place of church buildings and building funds, we find that Christians who were wealthy enough to own large houses gave to the church by hosting the church in their own homes. According to [Archaeology Magazine](http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/dura_europos/), the world’s oldest known church building (located in eastern Syrian in the ancient town of Dura-Europos) was not built until around AD 241. “Inside is the earliest known baptismal font.” This church building was located, not surprisingly, “in a house.”
People debate why the early church did not build church buildings. Was it because they were too poor? Was it because their congregations were so small? Was it because of persecution? While each of these factors undoubtedly played a role, none of them were universally true for the first 200 years of the church. I don’t think any of them explain fully why the pagans built temples, the Jews built synagogues, but the Christians didn’t build church buildings. I suspect a better answer is found in the theological nature of the church as a spiritual household, a missional body, and a heavenly citizenship, but that is a topic too big for this post.
**Second, what theological and practical conclusions can we draw from the historical evidence?** At minimum, I think, these:
* Local Christians should work together to provide space for the church to gather, whether in homes or other buildings. The church does need space to meet, and this means some people will need to give to make this possible.
* Richer members of the local congregation should be willing to give more than their poorer brothers and sisters. In fact, poor Christians should never be pressured to pay for church buildings.
* Church building projects should not distract the church from its primary giving goals: supporting gospel workers and caring for poor Christians near and far. If church building expenses become the central focus of our giving and our talk about giving, then we have severe vision problems.
**What else might we learn from the example of the early church here?** What might we learn from the global house church movement today? (For example, _Nexus: The World House Church Movement Reader_, edited by Rad Zdero. See \[amazon text=here&asin=087808374X\].) How might we adapt our assumptions about church meeting places, church sizes, and church giving patterns to streamline them for missional goals? How many large church buildings does each community really need? Might some people be drawn to church buildings rather than to Christ? Or, at minimum, do some of us have trouble imagining how we could follow the Homeless Man without well-equipped, expansive and expensive church buildings?
More could be said, but it is your turn. **[Tell us what you think](http://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-4/#respond) in the comments below!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Giving To and Through the Church (Part 3)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-27
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Giving To and Through the Church (3) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: In today’s post I want to examine a third NT reason for giving to the church: to support gospel proclaimers.
Tags: -Philippians 1:3-5, -1 Corinthians 9:13-14, -1 Corinthians 16:5-6, -1 Corinthians 9:11, -1 Corinthians 9:4-7, -1 Corinthians 9:9, -1 Timothy 5:17-18, -3 John 5-8, -Deuteronomy 25:4, -Luke 10:2-9, -Luke 8:1-3, -Philippians 4:10, -Philippians 4:13-18, -Romans 15:24, -Titus 3:13-14, church leadership, gospel, church giving, giving
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-3
_\[See [Part 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-1/) for the series introduction.\]_
**Part 3: Another Primary New Testament Reason for Giving to the Church**
**In [my last post](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-2/) I identified two primary reasons for giving to and through the church: (1) to support needy local Christians and (2) to send relief to distant Christians.** These are the reasons found in the _first_ NT passage describing church giving and in the _longest_ NT passage about giving.
Both of these reasons involve caring for physical needs. _Crucially, however, both kinds of giving sprang out of gospel truth._ The early Christians gave to needy local Christians because of the new unity and grace that they experienced in the gospel. And they sent physical relief to distant Christians in Jerusalem because they knew that they had received spiritual blessings from them. The gospel bound believers together and was the real reason for their generosity in response to physical needs.
**In today’s post I want to examine a third NT reason for giving to the church.** This reason will even more obviously involve spiritual motivations. Yet it, too, will involve physical needs just as much as our first two reasons.
The classic passage about this reason for giving is found in Paul’s first letter to Corinth. In the immediate context, Paul is describing his rights as an apostle:
> Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? …If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? …Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:4-7, 11, 13-14)
**This is a powerful passage, but also a potentially confusing one.** The confusion mostly arises from the role this passage plays within its larger context. Within the larger context—a discussion about whether Christians should eat food offered to idols—this passage was written by Paul to share his own example of forgoing his liberties and rights in order to bless others. Given this larger purpose, Paul emphasizes how he gladly preaches the gospel without receiving support from others. In fact, on one level he actually prefers to be unsupported, for then he can boast of his voluntary service, he can expect a reward from God, and he can avoid putting an obstacle in the way of the gospel.
But in order for Paul’s example of forgoing rights to have any legitimacy and power, _he first needs to emphasize that it is indeed his full right to be fully supported._ It is this emphasis that is relevant to our topic in this post. Paul claims he has a “right to refrain from working for a living” (1 Cor. 9:6). Listen again to how strongly he states this point:
> The Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:14)
**So here we have our third reason for giving to and through the church: to support gospel proclaimers.** (This reason is found repeatedly throughout the NT. See, in addition to the texts I discuss here, Luke 8:1-3; Rom. 15:24; 1Cor. 16:5-6; Phil. 1:3-5; 4:10, 13-18; Tit. 3:13-14; 3John 5-8.)
**Where did Paul get the idea that the Lord commanded such support?** And who does he mean by “the Lord”? Earlier Paul quoted the Law of Moses as evidence that gospel proclaimers should be supported (“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain”; 1 Cor. 9:9, from Deut. 25:4). Is this what he means when he says “The Lord commanded”?
I don’t think so. First, in quoting that OT command, Paul refers to “God,” not “the Lord.” The term “the Lord” is used in this chapter, as usually in Paul, to refer specifically to Jesus Christ. Second, I think we can find a statement of Jesus that supports Paul’s claim.
**Listen to Jesus’ instructions to the seventy-two workers:**
> “And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest… Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road. Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’” (Luke 10:2, 4-9)
First, notice the task given to these seventy-two workers: they were gospel proclaimers. Second, notice that Jesus is giving commands in this passage. Third, notice that brief clause in the middle of verse 7: “The laborer deserves his wages.” While this clause is not a command, it is given as evidence to undergird a whole series of surrounding commands: “Stay in one house, eating and drinking whatever they provide. Don’t look for other places to stay. Eat whatever is set before you.” Why do all these things? Because “the laborer deserves his wages.” **_Jesus presents this as an undisputable universal principle, a principle that commands specific behaviors._**
Perhaps the Gospel of Luke was already written before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Or perhaps Paul knew these words of Christ from those who shared them orally. Either way, I (with many commentators) think Paul was referencing this teaching of Christ and teaching that it applied to all gospel proclaimers, including himself.
**Does this command apply only to missionaries, or does it also apply to local church gospel proclaimers?** Listen to Paul’s words to Timothy:
> Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:17-18)
Notice some details in these verses: First, these verses are discussing elders, a term used for local church leaders. Second, Paul says these elders are worthy of double “honor,” a term used earlier in the same chapter to refer, at least indirectly, to the church’s material care of needy widows. (The same term _honor_ is used in the next chapter to refer to the respect and good service that Christian bondslaves must give to their masters.) Third, notice how Paul says that it is especially those who work at preaching and teaching who should be honored, thus matching the focus in 1 Corinthians on gospel proclaimers. Fourth, notice the Scriptures that Paul uses to support his command: The first is the same OT command that he used for the same purpose in 1 Corinthians 9, and the second is the same teaching of Jesus that I suggested was the basis for Paul’s statement “the Lord commanded” in that chapter. The citation of that teaching here confirms the hypothesis that Paul also had it in mind when writing to Corinth.
**Put these details together, and it becomes clear: Paul is telling Timothy that local church leaders—those who preach and teach the gospel—should be given generous (“double”) material support.** (\[amazon text=Mounce&asin=0849902452\] suggests another likely interpretation of “_double_ honor”: respect + an honorarium.) In fact, if we compare this passage with 1 Corinthians, I think it is fair to say this: Paul thought that local church leaders who devote themselves to gospel proclamation have a “right to refrain from working for a living.” “The Lord commanded” that they “have \[a\] right to eat and drink,” and not “at \[their\] own expense.”
**I realize such statements make some conservative Anabaptists a little uncomfortable.** But I ask: Have we run so far from the salaried minister model that we are no longer hearing Scripture well on this point? Yes, the salaried model has its own problems. But what problems have we been reaping by expecting all (or nearly all) our local church leaders to provide most of their own support? What additional gospel proclamation could be happening if some of our leaders dared to devote themselves to that work full-time, and if we dared to support them to make it possible? What gospel fruit might we see grow right in our own churches and communities? (And it seems to me that we should not limit such support to “ordained” brothers, but extend it to any and all full-time local gospel proclaimers. If we do this for unordained missionaries “on the field,” why not at home?)
I plan to return to 1 Corinthians 9 in my fifth post in this series. But now it is your turn. What do you think? Have I handled Scripture faithfully here? What do I still need to learn? What do you think our churches need to learn?
**[Post your comments and questions](http://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-3/#respond) below!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Giving To and Through the Church (Part 2)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-24
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Giving To and Through the Church (2) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: If you listed two primary reasons for giving to your church, what would you say? Let's consider two reasons found early and often in the New Testament.
Tags: -James 2:15-16, -2 Corinthians 9:7, -1 Corinthians 16:1-3, -1 John 3:16-18, -1 Timothy 5:16, -1 Timothy 5:3, -1 Timothy 5:9-10, -2 Corinthians 8:1-4, -2 Corinthians 8:9, -2 Corinthians 9:11-15, -2 Corinthians 9:6, -Acts 11:28-30, -Acts 4:32-35, -Acts 6:1-3, -James 1:27, -Romans 15:25-27, poverty, church giving, giving
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-2
_\[See [Part 1](https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-1/) for the series introduction.\]_
**Part 2: Two Primary New Testament Reasons for Giving to the Church**
**If someone asked you to list two primary reasons to give to your local church, what would you say?** In this post I want to consider two reasons that appear early and often in the New Testament.
Let’s begin in Acts, where giving to the church begins almost as soon as the church itself begins:
> Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)
>
> Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.” (Acts 6:1-3)
**Imagine you are Luke, who wrote these passages.** Why did you write them? Why did you record the giving practices of the early Christians? **What do you want us to learn about giving to and through the church from these passages?**
(Bible scholars have valid debates about the extent to which the narrative passages of Acts provide a model for the church today. My thoughts: While NT commands usually carry more normative weight than NT stories, _both_ need to be interpreted in their historical contexts and both should help guide us today. I think one of the reasons why Acts was written was to equip us to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the Spirit-guided church in its dynamic infancy.)
**At minimum, we can likely agree on the following observations from these Acts passages:**
* The early Christians _did_ give to the church.
* Their giving was a result of the unity and grace found in the gospel.
* Church leaders received and distributed the money.
* The church soon learned that some leaders should be appointed to oversee church giving programs so that other leaders were free to focus on preaching the word of God.
* There was one initial purpose for the giving—to support needy local Christians.
**This gives us our first reason for giving to the church: to support needy local Christians.** If we, like the first believers, know unity and grace through the gospel, then we, too, will share with needy Christians in our local fellowships.
Here are some more passages that support this reason for giving to the church (hover over the references to read the verses): 1 Timothy 5:3, 9-10, 16 (about supporting widows), James 1:27; 2:15-16 (about caring for widows, orphans, and anyone lacking clothes or daily food), and 1 John 3:16-18 (about showing love by sharing goods with brothers in need). Some of these verses can be obeyed by direct, personal giving as well as by giving through the church, but all focus on giving to needy fellow Christians. And all match what was happening through the church giving described in Acts.
**Can you think of another reason why early believers gave to the church?** Here are more Scriptures, beginning again with Acts:
> And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11:28-30)
>
> Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Cor. 16:1-3)
>
> We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints. (2 Cor. 8:1-4)
**These passages show a second primary reason for giving to the church: to send relief to distant Christians.** This is an important theme in NT theology. Two different collections are described above, and local churches in four different cities or regions are mentioned as participating in the giving. The second collection (the one in the last two passages) actually involved additional churches, and it was a central purpose for Paul’s third missionary journey. Paul described the purpose of this gift in a letter to the church at Rome:
> At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. (Rom. 15:25-27)
This collection was important enough to Paul that he devoted two complete chapters to the topic in 2 Corinthians. (Of course, the chapter divisions weren’t created by Paul.) **_This is the longest single passage in the NT on the topic of giving._** It includes these famous lines:
> For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. ( 2 Cor. 8:9)
>
> Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. (2 Cor. 9:6)
>
> God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor. 9:7)
Paul ends this passage with an amazing crescendo of theology, practice, and doxology (truth, deeds, and praise):
> You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift! (2 Cor. 9:11-15)
**So there you have it—two primary NT reasons for giving to and through your local church: (1) to support needy local Christians and (2) to send relief to distant Christians.** These are the reasons found in the _first_ NT passage describing church giving and in the _longest_ NT passage about giving.
**How are these reasons reflected in your church?** Is a large portion of your church’s offerings devoted to caring for the physical needs of Christians near and far? Does this focus on physical needs surprise you? Does your church see such giving as a basic expression of the gospel? What are some ways our churches could grow in these kinds of giving? And what do you think will be the third primary NT reason I’ll observe for giving to and through the church?
**[Share your responses and questions](http://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-2/#respond) below!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Giving To and Through the Church (Part 1)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-20
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Giving To and Through the Church (1) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This month will flood you with opportunities to give. But what about giving to your church? What does the New Testament say about giving to and through the church?
Tags: tithing, Irenaeus, The | Didache, church giving, giving
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-1
_\[I expect to be away from the Internet for much of the next few weeks, so I thought I’d prepare a series of posts for you to enjoy while I’m gone. If technology is kind to us, you should see a new post every three or four days. Please comment and share freely in my absence (although new comment-ators will need to wait to have their website comments approved). I’ll join the conversation, God willing, after I return. Grace and peace to you!\]_
* * *
**Part 1: Introduction**
**Brace yourself. The next month will flood you with opportunities to give.** Over last Christmas—yes, I used that word already—a pile of papers rose on my desk, each inviting me to share with some worthy cause. The pile, I’m ashamed to admit, lasted for months. Already this year I have “The Most Important Gift Catalog in the World” atop the beginnings of a new pile. But I’ve been proactive enough to send a few requests directly to file 13—with a brief prayer on the way, of course.
The needs are real, and each one tugs. And it is fitting, with Thanksgiving and Christmas near at hand (or past, if you’re Canadian and referring to Thanksgiving), to think about giving.
**But what about giving to your local church?** Does your church send you special requests for money as the year fades to white? Does giving to your local church go up or down in December, as competing needs clamor for attention? Do you even know? Does your local church have a budget, with carefully planned giving goals? (This was the practice of my former church in NYC, and I had the mixed pleasure for several years of helping draft detailed budgets for the missions committee or for the church.) Or does your church achieve its giving goals more informally, with only a flexible offering schedule and occasional invitations to support urgent needs? (This is the practice of the church where I now attend.)
**Many people have strong opinions about giving to the church.** Tithing, of course, is often the hot potato. It would be unfair of me to mention it without telling you what I think, so… stay tuned! But there are plenty of other sizzling items to digest. Should pastors be salaried? Or voluntarily supported? Or self-employed? In what ratio? What qualifies as “giving to the church”? Does supporting missionaries count? If your wallet is tight and you have to choose, may you give to Christian Aid Ministries, or should you first give to your local church? What about the alms or deacons fund? Who qualifies for such support? Who gets to (or has to) decide? And should giving to brotherhood aid plans (sharing health care costs) be counted as “giving”?
In this series I’d like to mention some of these questions (certainly not all of them). But mostly **_I’d like to consider an underlying question:_ What does the New Testament say about giving to and through the church?**
I’ll divide my thoughts into at least six blog posts, as follows:
1. Introduction (this post)
2. Two Primary New Testament Reasons for Giving to the Church
3. Another Primary New Testament Reason for Giving to the Church
4. A Controversial Topic About Giving to the Church
5. Another Controversial Topic About Giving to the Church
6. A Handful of Concluding Thoughts About Giving to the Church
As you can see, I’m not about to tip my hand. You’ll have to read each post for the juicy details!
I should also clarify **two things this series will not do**: First, I will not attempt to be comprehensive in our survey of NT evidence. Rather, I hope to hit the main NT themes by considering representative passages. Second, I am not addressing other important NT giving themes, such as (a) giving to family members or (b) personal giving that is not channeled through the church. I am skipping these topics to remain focused, but not because I think they are unimportant.
As food for thought, I’d like to return to hot potatoes as I close this post. Before we start considering NT evidence in my next post, here are **two** **readings from the early church**. Both readings mention the tithe, but with differing emphases. The first reading comes from _The Didache_, or “The Teaching of the Twelve.” This was written about 40 to 80 years after the death of Christ. _The Didache_ includes a church instruction manual. In that manual is the following paragraph:
> A genuine prophet… who wishes to make his home with you has a right to a livelihood. (Similarly, a genuine teacher is as much entitled to his keep as a manual labourer.) You are therefore to take the first products of your winepress, your threshing-floor, your oxen and your sheep, and give them as first-fruits to the prophets, for nowadays it is they who are your ‘High Priests’. If there is no prophet among you, give them to the poor. And when you bake a batch of loaves, take the first of them and give it away, as the commandment directs. Similarly when you broach a jar of wine or oil, take the first portion to give to the prophets. So, too, with your money, and your clothing, and all your possessions; take a tithe of them in whatever way you think best, and make a gift of it, as the commandment bids you. (Translated by Maxwell Staniforth, in _Early Christian Writings_ (London: Penguin, 1968), 196-197.)
Second, here are some words from Irenaeus, a bishop in Lyons, France, writing about A.D. 185:
> We are bound… to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation, as Moses also says, “Thou shalt not appear in the presence of the Lord thy God empty…” There were sacrifices among the \[Jewish\] people; there are sacrifices, too, in the Church: but… the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by free men… \[The Jews\] offered the tithes of their goods, but those who have received liberty set apart all their possessions for the Lord’s use, cheerfully and freely giving them. (From _Against Heresies_, translation adapted from several sources, including _Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume 1_, ed. by Philip Schaff.)
So, what do you think? Are _The Didache_ and Irenaeus in agreement? If yes, how do you synthesis their differences? If not, which, if either, is right?
And to bring it home to us, what do you think: **Do Christians have a duty to give to the church? Why or why not? If yes, how much?**
**[Leave a comment below](http://dwightgingrich.com/giving-to-through-church-1/#respond) with your response or a question that you think this series should address.** Depending how things go, I may add one more post to the series to respond to your questions and comments.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Two Trees [Poem By Mom]
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-15
Category: By Elaine Gingrich
Meta Title: Two Trees | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: I'm pleased to begin a new blog series in which I share one poem or article from my mother, Elaine Gingrich, each month. Mom is a life-long amateur wordsmith.
Tags: authorial intent, Calvary, Eve, Garden of Eden, Gethsemane, goodness, Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Tree of Life, wisdom, biblical interpretation, death, cross, life, words
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees
_Today I’m pleased to begin a new blog series in which I plan to share one poem or article from my mother, Elaine Gingrich, each month._
My parents, Ken and Elaine Gingrich.
_Mom has been a life-long amateur wordsmith. She loves literature, especially poetry, and has spent many more hours enjoying literary arts than this English Literature graduate ever has or is likely to. I have a fond memory of Mom joining me in class for a day, meeting my Victorian literature professor, and then writing a poem based on the experience in amazing imitation of Gerard Manley Hopkins, to the delight of student and professor alike._
_But I’m getting ahead of myself. I hope to share that poem another day. For today I’d like to share a more ordinary poem, one neither too complex nor too simple, one that most of you should enjoy._
_Why else have I chosen this poem? I think “Two Trees” hints at Mom’s way of drawing spiritual analogies from the world of nature–although in this case she is following analogies prepared in Scripture. Sometimes she draws more directly from the world of nature outside her door in Parry Sound, Ontario. I also thought I’d share this poem now because its themes overlap with some posts I’ve been sharing recently on original sin._
_Before I scare you with visions of abstract theological unknowables, here is Mom’s poem. Enjoy!_
* * *
**TWO TREES**
In the center of a garden stood a tree to make one wise,
Dripping fruit ripe-sweet for eating and most pleasing to the eyes.
Eve reached out to pluck the knowledge in the fruit, twice bittersweet.
She would know both good and evil. She would take the risk and eat.
“You shall be as gods,” the promise of the serpent taunted her
As she hid from God with Adam, His displeasure to defer.
Plagued by thoughts of guilt and evil, savouring things of Satan’s sphere,
Less a god and more a devil, trading innocence for fear.
This can be no godly wisdom, this confusion, grief and strife.
Earthly, sensual and devilish–bringing death instead of life.
Sorry wisdom that she tasted, sorry reaping to live by.
For this tree of bitter knowledge was a tree to make one die.
Near a garden on a hillside stood a tree to make one good.
Here the apple of God’s eye was nailed and Calvary’s tree dripped blood.
From this wine rough-crushed and scarlet came the only antidote
For the ancient cursed enlightenment Eve’s awful morsel wrote
On each cell of mind and body. This rare blood God sacrificed
Gives the damaged human seeker the transcendent mind of Christ!
Free to know the pure and lovely, yet untainted by the sin,
All our world becomes God’s garden, Satan banished in chagrin.
Truly this is godly wisdom–hating evil, loving good.
Fellowship with God restored and peaceful living understood.
Sweetest fruit man ever tasted, gladdest wisdom time could give.
For this tree of sacred suffering was a tree to make one live.
— Elaine Gingrich, December 4, 1998
* * *
> _“Poetry writing has been one of the avenues God has given me to learn to know Him better. My deepest desire is to honour Him with everything I write, and to live what I have learned from Him.” — Elaine Gingrich
> _
* * *
_**A Three-Part Postscript**_
**_First, some technical details._**
1. _Please don’t republish or repost Mom’s writings without asking permission. Links to this page are always most welcome, as is printing off a copy for a friend._
2. _If you want to thank Mom for her poem, you can [leave a comment here](http://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/#respond), message her via Facebook (if you are her friend) or email her at[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MomsEmailAddressImage.php_.png)._
3. _I’ve retained Mom’s Canadian spelling. So “savouring ” is not a spelling error._
**_Second, some reflections on “Two Trees.”_**
_I like the way this poem builds on nature imagery found in the Bible, and how the second stanza builds on the imagery of the first stanza. For example, compare the opening lines of each stanza: “In the center of a garden stood a tree to make one wise” becomes “Near a garden on a hillside stood a tree to make one good.” Here we have Eden versus the garden of Gethsemane; a tree in the middle of the garden versus one near a garden (but banished outside); a tree to make one wise versus a tree to make one good. This garden imagery reappears later in the second stanza, in one of my favorite lines of the poem: “All our world becomes God’s garden.” This is_ Eden _turned into_ New Earth _via_ Gethsemane_. Only God!_
_Two themes central to this poem are the themes of goodness/evil and of wisdom. As I trace these themes through the poem, beginning with the opening lines of each stanza (“a tree to make one wise/good”), this paradoxical thought arises: If you make wisdom your primary goal (“a tree to make one wise”), you probably won’t end up either wise or good. But if you hunger and thirst above all to be made good (“a tree to make one good”), then you will gain both goodness and wisdom. And as the final lines of each stanza show, lusting for wisdom leads to_ death_, while hungering for goodness leads to_ life_. Ponder that for moral formation.
_
_My only theological complaint about this poem is that I think Adam gets off too easily! 🙂 But perhaps that’s a gracious result of the fact that the author is female._
_There is much more happening in this poem, both theologically and literarily. [What do you see](http://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/#respond)? Enjoy the craft and worship the Christ!_
_**Third, a question: Why share poetry on a blog about biblical interpretation?**_
_Here are several answers:_
1. _This blog features biblical interpretation, but is also interested in other kinds of exploration. Remember my three-part website vision ([see here](https://dwightgingrich.com/vision/)): “Exegesis, Ecclesiology, and Exploration.”_
2. Poetry underlines the necessity of the interpretive task_. Some of us like to think that we can just read the Bible without worrying about interpretation. But almost no one thinks this of a poem. Rather, some of us rather dislike poetry for this very reason: it demands interpretation. Poems are often rather cryptic. The formal constraints of poetry (such as meter and rhyming patterns) tend to leave little room for superfluous, explanatory sentences or footnotes. These formal constraints force poets to choose words consciously and purposefully. Readers, in turn, are forced to slow down their reading in order to trace or produce meaning._
3. Poetry trains readers in the interpretive task_. Slow reading helps readers ask “Why this word and not some other?” In bad poetry the answer too often is merely “Because it rhymes!” In good poetry–poetry where the author masters the form rather than the form mastering the author–or, better, poetry where the author has learned to sing in the key of her chosen form–the answers to “Why this word and not another?” are more profound. But, quite apart from the question of how profound the answers will be, the mere asking of the question_ trains readers to ponder authorial intent_. What did the_ poet _mean by this sentence? The more cryptic the sentence, the more we wish the author were at our side to explain it. But the author is not present. So, in the absence of the author, we are forced to try to discover authorial intent through the words on the page. Now, with biblical interpretation there is a crucial difference: For the Spirit-filled believer, the divine Author_ is _present. But (a) the human author is not, and we must not overlook the significance of human participation in the writing of Scripture, (b) words are still a primary–I would argue the primary–way in which God speaks to us, and (c) even with the Spirit’s presence to guide biblical interpretation and speak fresh words, many Christians seem to be in dire need of reminders to actively seek Authorial intent._
_So, to underscore an important point and bring this to a close: Reading poetry (wrestling it, riding it, meditating on it, singing it) can help us become better readers. And, all else being even, better readers are usually better Bible readers, too._
**_What do you think? [Share your comments](http://dwightgingrich.com/two-trees/#respond) below!_**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Which Came First–Original Sin or Infant Baptism?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-12
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: Which Came First--Original Sin or Infant Baptism? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Chrysostom, Gregg R. | Allison, Pelagius, Peter | Sanlon, Augustine of Hippo, Everett | Ferguson, infant baptism, original sin, sinful nature, Justin Martyr, Louis | McBride
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/which-came-first-original-sin-infant-baptism
**I read something this morning that got me thinking again about the question of original sin.** (See [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/whats-bit-sinful-nature/) and [here](https://dwightgingrich.com/in-adams-sin-we-imperialism-inclusion-romans-5/) for my previous thoughts.) The “question of original sin,” in my case, is the question of whether that phrase is a good and biblical way to talk about what went wrong when Adam sinned. I don’t doubt that Adam’s sin was the first or “original” human sin, but the term usually means more than that. It usually refers to “[humanity’s state of sin resulting from the fall of man](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin),” and it often includes the idea that humans are born with a “sinful nature.” It is these latter concepts with which I am wrestling. The biblical data on such topics has been shrouded in encrusted layers of theological language for so long (to use rather negative language) that it is difficult for us to hear what Scripture itself has to say.
**What I read this morning was [something Louis McBride posted today](http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/did-augustine-invent-original-sin/) over on the Baker Book House Church Connection blog, something about Augustine, infant baptism, and original sin.** (A blog worth following for biblical interpreters and theologians.) His post summarizes an essay by Peter Sanlon entitled “Original Sin in Patristic Theology.”
Here is part of McBride’s summary:
> \[Sanlon\] demonstrates that it was vitally important to Augustine to show that his views \[about the doctrine of original sin\] were not original with him but reflected the historic position of the church. Augustine offered “citations from Scripture, church fathers, and councils” in his defense and he “coined an epithet for the Pelagians who denied original sin. They were the _novi hereticic_, ‘new heretics.’” (91) An important doctrine tied to this was infant baptism. Augustine agreed with the Pelagians that babies had committed no actual sin. “Unable to commit any actual sins, the sin babies needed rescuing from had to be original sin.” (93) The antiquity of infant baptism was evidence, Augustine claimed, that the church had long accepted original sin.
Now, I have not read Sanlon’s full essay, nor have I read Augustine’s writings against the Pelagians, so I can’t weigh all Augustine’s evidence well. But _**what caught my attention was how Augustine (AD 354-430) relied on infant baptism as strong evidence for the correctness of his views on original sin**_. His thinking went something like this: (1) Infant baptism has been practiced from ancient times, (2) therefore infant baptism is legitimate, (3) there must be some reason why babies need to be baptized, (4) therefore original sin must be true.
\[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0802871089\]**McBride’s summary of Sanlon’s summary of Augustine reminded me of something else I’ve read. The following is from Everett Ferguson**, in his magisterial volume entitled Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (see \[amazon text=here&asin=0802871089\]):
> There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it does mean that supporters of the practice \[such as Augustine?\] have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations.
>
> Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptistries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it (Chrysostom and the eastern churches vs. Augustine).
>
> The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It because the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries. (856-57)
Okay, that was all background to prepare for this quote:
> In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principle support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became _the_ reason for infant baptism in the western church. (857)
**With Ferguson’s input, we can now update our flow chart of the logic of original sin and infant baptism:** (1) Infant baptism has been practiced from ancient times, (2) therefore infant baptism is legitimate, (3) there must be some reason why babies need to be baptized, (4) therefore original sin must be true, (5) therefore infant baptism is necessary.
**Does anyone else see any problems with this logic? I see at least two:**
1. The last point introduces circular logic. To believe infant baptism for the reasons given is about as logical as saying “We need a good speaker for our fall meetings, and we’ve asked Dwight to be our speaker, therefore Dwight must be a good speaker.” Sorry, you just might be disappointed.
2. The premise is faulty. As Ferguson shows, there is “no firm evidence” that infant baptism was a practice with any “antiquity” (to use Sanlon’s term) older than about AD 150 or later. Since infant baptism is shaky, it is also shaky evidence for original sin.
Neither of these logical flaws proves that original sin is not a biblical doctrine. But our historical survey does show that _**the doctrine of original sin has been defended from early days in questionable ways**_. If original sin is a valid doctrine, it certainly is not valid because of infant baptism, contra Augustine.
**So, to answer the title of this post, which came first–the doctrine of original sin or the practice of infant baptism?** I still don’t know, but _I’m still waiting for evidence that clearly shows that either belonged to the New Testament church_.
\[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0310230136\]One good place to look for such evidence is in Gregg R. Allison’s book Historical Theology (see \[amazon text=here&asin=0310230136\]). His chapter on “Sin” summarizes the development of the church’s beliefs about, among other things, original sin. Perhaps I can do a follow-up post summarizing Allison’s evidence. For now, let this summary of Justin Martyr, one of the very earliest Christian writers (c. AD 100–165) whet your curiosity:
> Justin Martyr focused on individual responsibility for sin, affirming that people “become subject to punishment by their own fault.” Although Justin linked humanity to Adam, the relationship is one of ancestor to descendants, each of whom sins individually. Thus, sinful people become “like Adam and Eve,” but they do so when they “work out death for themselves.” (343)
And in Justin’s own words:
> The human race… from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile \[deceit\] of the serpent, and each one had committed personal transgression. — _Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew,_ 88, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Schaff/Hendrickson, 1994), 1:243
**Does this sound like original sin to you? [Share your thoughts](http://dwightgingrich.com/which-came-first-original-sin-infant-baptism/#respond) below.**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Kindle Sale: NIV Application Commentaries
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-11
Category: Book Deals
Meta Title: Kindle Sale: NIV Application Commentary Series | Dwight Gingrich Online
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/kindle-sale-nivac
The NIV Application Commentary series is on sale on Kindle today! ($4.27-$4.99 each.) Note: Several volumes were release on Kindle for the first time only about a week ago.
[Click here for the sale.](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=as_li_ss_sm_fb_us_ndp_tl?_encoding=UTF8&camp=213733&creative=399841&linkCode=shr&tag=dwiggingonli-20&linkId=KITVUEHLDPONQJP2&rl=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=niv+application+commentary&sprefix=niv+application%2Caps%2C286) \[Note: You may need to narrow Amazon search results to “Kindle Store” (select this from the drop-down menu beside the search window). You should find 44 results for this sale.\]
Sunday school teachers: Christian Light Publications has us studying Job for two months in January/February. Walton’s commentary might help: \[amazon text=Job NIV Application Commentary&asin=0310214424\]. (Choose Kindle version for best deal.)
This series is designed to (a) briefly examine the “original meaning” of each passage, (b) identify some “bridging” concepts that connect the original context to today’s world, and (c) suggest some applications that Christians today should be drawing from the passage.
The series is somewhat uneven. It’s rarely the best help for detailed study, and on most Bible books there are other commentaries I like better. But some of the volumes are superb (Guthrie on Hebrews, Jobes on Esther, etc.) , and _for the price_ it’s a great portable library to help you think about Bible interpretation! I had most volumes already and bought more today.
Based on [commentary research I did this spring](http://dwightgingrich.com/recommended-bible-commentaries/intro/), I know these volumes have been well-received by evangelicals pastors and/or scholars: Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy \[very good\], Joshua, Judges/Ruth, Samuel, Chronicles, Esther \[often called the best conservative commentary on this book\], Psalms, Ecclesiastes/S of S, Isaiah \[very good\], Jeremiah/Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai/Zechariah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, \[John’s not rated quite as high but I like it\], Romans, 1 Corinthians \[but I think he’s very weak on chap. 11\], 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians/Philemon, Thessalonians, Hebrews, 2 Peter/Jude, 1/2/3 John, Revelation.
More would be on this list, but are too new to be well-known.
Just to be clear, I am most certainly not recommending these as the last word on every passage! We can learn from imperfect people (like each other) as we compare and test all things.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Should Every Church Gathering Look Like 1 Corinthians 14?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-10
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Should Every Church Gathering Look Like 1 Corinthians 14? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Was 1 Corinthians 14 intended to be a manual that describes what all churches must do every time they gather? Should this be what all our Lord's Day gatherings look like?
Tags: house church, Rad | Zdero, -1 Corinthians 14:26-33, -Acts 20:7-12, Floyd | McClung, Frank | Viola, Jack | Deere, Larry | Kreider, participatory church, speaking in tongues, Steve | Atkerson, David | Garland, prophecy, Lord's Supper, Lord's Day, early church, teaching
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/should-every-church-gathering-look-like-1corinthians14
Yesterday a friend of mine[1](#fn-973-1) asked a good question:
> **Is the way you “do church” found in the Bible?** I’m not asking if it’s inherently wrong, but just wondering if it’s in the Bible?
I responded with this:
> No, and neither was the car I drive in to get to the church gathering. So there needs to be some flex. But: I think there’s been too much flex in most churches, and we’re missing out on potential blessings.
Another friend thought I was being too easy on our churches–that I was, to use my words, guilty myself of “too much flex.” He said that God gives us instructions in Scripture on how church meetings should be held. Then he quoted these verses:
> What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up… If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged… (1 Cor. 14:26, 30-31)
What do you think? **Was 1 Corinthians 14 intended to be a manual that describes what all churches must do every time they gather?** Should this be, for example, what all our Lord’s Day gatherings look like?
My friend’s helpful challenge pushed me to think hard enough that I thought I’d share my response here. Here, with minor edits, is what I wrote:
* * *
I’ll try to explain a bit more where I’m coming from with my brief comment above.
**First, I am aware of various house c****hurch insights _and sympathetic to most of them_.** In fact, from time to time I’ve been strongly tempted to get involved in such a fellowship, although in my case it would probably mean starting something new. (I won’t go into the pros and cons of me doing that now, because they are complex!) What I mean to say is that I’ve read authors such as \[amazon text=Rad Zdero&asin=0878083421\] (also \[amazon text=this&asin=087808374X\]) and \[amazon text=Frank Viola&asin=141431485X\] and \[amazon text=Larry Kreider and Floyd McClung&asin=0800796799\] and listened to people like \[amazon text=Steve Atkerson&asin=0972908226\] and I really like a lot of their ideas. I think more people should be considering what they are saying. I’m a fan of house churches! I’m just not ready to say that it’s the _only_ possible way to “do church.” Many of the above writers would agree with me.
**Second,** while I definitely wish we had more 1 Corinthians 14 elements in our gatherings (I’m reading \[amazon text=Jack Deere&asin=0310211271\] these days), **I’m not convinced that Paul intended that the verses you quoted be a manual for how all churches must conduct all their gatherings.**
_**Why don’t I think so?**_
**(1) Because of the immediate literary context.** Those verses were written to a church that was already practicing all those gifts in abundance, but in a disorderly way. Paul’s main intent was not to try to urge his readers to use those gifts. Rather, he was trying to bring order to the chaos. Thus, _in vs. 26 the only command is the last sentence: “Let all things be done for building up.” The previous sentence is not a command, but just a description: “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.“_ The vast majority of English translations, including the best, I think, agree on this, as do a number of highly respected commentators that I consulted, ones who know Greek well. This is either a description of what regularly happened in Corinth, or of what Paul imagined was likely to happen at a given gathering. (Commentator \[amazon text=David Garland&asin=080102630X\] writes, “Paul presents a hypothetical scenario, ‘suppose that when you assemble,’ rather than a real description of what is happening.” I think it is more likely that Paul is describing what commonly happened at Corinth, but the fact remains that the sentence is almost certainly a description, not a command.) Other less important things could be noted–like that the phrase “each one” does not always literally mean every single person, but simply “lots of individuals.”
As for verses 30-31, I think it is significant that these come in a paragraph about prophets. So I think Paul is saying that _when the prophets are speaking_ in a gathering, these rules apply. I don’t think he is saying that _only_ this kind of (possibly) spontaneous prophetic speaking is permitted, or that all _other_ kinds of speakers must follow these same rules, including the rule about sitting down when another receives something to say. _I don’t think we have exegetical reason for applying this same sitting-down rule to, say, recognized teachers_. And in this “prophets passage” it is interesting to note that Paul says only two or three prophets should speak. We need to keep this in mind when he says, two verses later, that “you can all prophesy one by one.” It seems Paul was not envisioning meetings where either prophets or tongues-speakers dominated for long periods of time. Only four to six such speakers, in total, were to speak in any one meeting. The rest of the time was for other things.
**(2) Because there are other NT passages that describe other kinds of gatherings.** For example, in the Lord’s Day gathering described in Acts 20:7-12 one speaker spoke all night (Paul). This speaking almost certainly included more dialogue than our sermons do (the verb used to describe Paul’s speech suggests this, for it means “\[amazon text=to reason, argue, prove, persuade&asin=0310248787\]”), but one person was clearly the main speaker for hours on end. In other places churches are commanded to read apostolic letters when they gather (Col. 4:16)–something that can take from 10 to 45 minutes, depending on the letter, not counting time taken to add explanations and respond to questions. So I think we have good biblical precedent for having one or several main speakers prepared to speak at many of our gatherings–not as a replacement for every-member input, but as part of the whole edifying mix.
**(3) Because of the importance of teaching both doctrine and practice, and the importance of the church being unified in the teaching it receives.** (This point draws a logical deduction from Scripture and is thus less weighty than my first two points, which involve direct Scriptural input.) I think it is a terrible mistake to think that teaching can only happen “over the pulpit”! (Or, if you’re happy like me to skip the furniture, in a weekly preaching session.) But I found it interesting to hear Steve Atkerson describe the experience of his house church. They have a very strong emphasis on having a “1 Corinthians 14 meeting” that is centered on the Lord’s Supper. But they found that they were hurting because the only intentional teaching input that their church members were receiving was happening at a variety of other weekly events, times when the whole church was never together. So they finally decided that they were going to include a scheduled teaching input time in their Lord’s Day gatherings. (If you don’t know Steve Atkerson, check out [New Testament Reformation Fellowship](http://www.ntrf.org/).)
**So, to wrap up my thoughts**, _I think thriving churches will experience a lot more of what we see in 1 Corinthians 14 than what many of our churches currently experience_. I agree that, far too often, our typical church practices are a recipe for boredom. (And, as it’s been said, it’s pretty close to a “sin” to bore people with God’s Word!) I also think we would benefit from sharing the Lord’s Supper every week around a common meal. (A practice that has wider and stronger early historical support than the practice of having a primarily or totally spontaneous-input church gathering.)
_**So I’m completely with you on thinking our churches should look a lot more like NT ones! I’m just not ready to say the NT explicitly commands that we all need to always look like 1 Corinthians 14:26.**_
* * *
My response here was trying to do two things at once: speak in favor of NT-style participatory house churches, while questioning the idea that 1 Corinthians 14 is a sufficient manual for church gatherings. My double aim probably leaves some of you with as many questions as answers. Some of you might be worrying I’m dropping off the deep end into house church chaos, while others might be thinking I’m still far too tradition-bound!
I won’t try to answer your questions now. Instead, I invite you to:
1. Consider some of the house church authors and speakers I’ve named above, testing them by Scripture. (I certainly don’t agree with all of them on every point. I think Rad Zdero is at least as balanced as any of them.)
2. **[Tell us what you think in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/should-every-church-gathering-look-like-1corinthians14/#respond)**. Am I off the wall? What do I still need to learn? What do you think our church gatherings should look like? Why?
_**For Christ and his Church!**_
* * *
1. His name is Christopher Witmer. He has a way with good questions. [↩](#fnref-973-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On Translation Choices and Pastoral Concerns
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-08
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: On Translation Choices and Pastoral Concerns • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -1 Corinthians 7:3-4, -Acts 20:27, -Acts 5:29, -Matthew 10:23, -Nehemiah 8:7-8, pastoral concerns, submission, marriage, biblical interpretation, Bible translations, sex, authority, -Romans 13:1-2, proof-texts
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/translation-choices-pastoral-concerns
This morning I noticed an example of the NIV being very politically correct–or, to be kinder, very pastorally aware:
> The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. (1 Cor. 7:4)
The Greek text for this verse has no word that corresponds to the NIV word “yields.” The ESV translates the end of each sentence well: “but the husband/wife does.” This translation supplies the implied verb, “does.” The KJV does not supply any implied verb. So it is less clear but mirrors the Greek even more closely: “but the husband/wife.”
**On Translation Choices…**
In the NIV Paul sounds like he is urging voluntary mutual submission in this verse, rather than providing a reason _why_ such submission is important. It is more likely, I think, that Paul is urging mutual submission in the previous verse (“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband” 1 Cor. 7:3.) and then adding a reason why in this verse. In other words, I think verse verse 3 says _what_ married people should do–give each other their conjugal rights–and verse 4 says _why_–because married people don’t possess autonomous authority over their own bodies.
There, I find myself being PC, too! There is no word “autonomous” in the Greek to soften the force of Paul’s assertion.
The ESV, interestingly, shows it agrees with my understanding of how verses 3 and 4 are related by adding a “for” at the start of verse 4, even though none is present in the Greek.
**So is there any linguistic basis for the NIV’s choice here?** There probably is, for the NIV is usually very intentional. I’m speculating here, because I don’t know what discussion the translation committee had on this verse. But _I suspect the textual basis for their choice is found in the verb “have authority over.”_ They may understand this as “_keep_ authority over,” concluding, therefore, that the opposite idea is to yield. But it seems odd to me, if this is really what Paul was thinking, that he would end his sentence with “but the husband/wife.” Rather, it would be more natural, if he understood the verb this way, to end, “but yields it.” This, of course, is how the NIV translates the end of the sentence. So the NIV provides what Paul _should_ have said if their understanding of the verb is correct, not what Paul actually said!
At least, that’s my best guess at what’s happening linguistically here with the NIV.
**Let me contrast the NIV and ESV translations another way.** In the ESV, Paul is contrasting _persons_: Who has authority over the husband’s body? Not the husband but the wife. In the NIV, Paul is contrasting _actions_: What does the husband do with his body? Not rule it himself but yield it to his wife. I think the ESV reflects the Greek more accurately.
I quickly surveyed all 50 translations on Bible Gateway. If I counted correctly, _only the Phillips, the Message, the NLT, and VOICE translations agree with the NIV here_. That’s not proof that the NIV is wrong, but neither is it a ringing endorsement.
A few translations find other ways of “softening the blow,” such as EXB’s “The wife does not have full rights over her own body; her husband shares them…” This translation softens the blow at two points: by adding the word “full” before “rights” (but they add a note after “full rights” that provides a literal translation: “authority”) and by providing the word “shares” in the final clause, where the Greek gives no suggestion of anything being mutual.
Probably little real damage is done by NIV’s choice, and it may prevent some dangerous misapplication. But it’s _**yet another reminder of (a) how pastoral concerns can shape translation choices, and (b) the importance of comparing translations when we can**_.
**And Pastoral Concerns**
The pastoral concern that probably motivated the NIV translators is legitimate: We do not want to encourage abusive spouses to demand sexual rights from their spouses. Just as slave owners have pointed to texts commanding slaves to obey their masters, so abusive husbands have pointed to texts like this to convince their spouses that they must submit to abuse.
**The pastoral problem is very real. So is there another way to address the problem besides rewriting Paul’s thoughts** (as I think the NIV is doing)?
I think there is. _**I think the answer is to preach and teach “the whole counsel of God”**_ (Acts 20:27). We need to constantly discourage people from building theologies and practices on isolated proof-texts. I believe proof-texting can be legitimate and even important; the NT authors do it regularly as they quote the OT. But we must not use _isolated_ proof-texts. Our proof-texts must reflect the whole counsel of God. We can do this by choosing proof-texts that are balanced within themselves. We can also do this by providing multiple proof-texts. And we can avoid proof-text problems by remembering that, according to Scripture, Scripture often requires explanation, not mere quotation (see Neh. 8:7-8).
**Here is an example that parallels the problem in our text:** The question of relating to civil authorities. Paul says some very hard-to-swallow things about this question, too:
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Rom. 13:1-2)
Taken in isolation, this can be a dangerous proof text. But we don’t solve this problem by rewriting Paul. We don’t translate Paul like this: “Let every person be subject to those governing authorities which have been instituted by God.” (At least, I hope we don’t.) Rather, we recognize that Paul is stating a foundational principle. We quote this principle and feel its full force. Then we pull in other Scriptural data and recognized that there are exceptions. For example, the apostles said “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) and Jesus even commanded his disciples to flee authorities who tried to persecute them (Matt. 10:23).
**If we apply these parallels to the question of conjugal rights and sexual submission in marriage**, then several conclusions are suggested: (1) There are times when one spouse will need to tell the other, “I must obey God rather than you.” (2) There are times when a spouse will need to flee abuse.
Other passages could enrich our observations here. My point is that **_I think this kind of theological and expositional legwork is a good way to address the pastoral concerns of a text like 1 Corinthians 7:4_**. I appreciate when translations try to avoid leaving misimpressions. But I don’t appreciate when they do this by changing what the text actually says. So, in this case, I prefer the ESV over the NIV.
**What do you think? [Leave a comment](http://dwightgingrich.com/translation-choices-pastoral-concerns/#respond) and share your perspective.**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Who Judged After Samson? Eli or Samuel?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-07
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Who Judged After Samson? Eli or Samuel? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -1 Samuel, -1 Samuel 1:1, -1 Samuel 4:18, -1 Samuel 7:15, -Judges 17:1, Eli, judges, Samson, Samuel, chronology, Robert B. | Chisholm Jr.
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/who-judged-after-samson-eli-samuel
A friend just asked a question about the upcoming Sunday School lesson (Christian Light Publications). The topic is rather technical and not obviously important, but I’m posting it here for those want SS input.
\[First: I edited my last post about Romans 14:22 and the topic of keeping our convictions secret. A closer look at commentaries and textual details revealed my thinking was incomplete. My conclusions didn’t change much, but a few of you might find the exegetical trail educational, as I did.\]
* * *
**The Question**
> Who was the judge that succeeded Samson? Was it Samuel or Eli? …Some say Eli was a High Priest and never filled roles that the Judge did. Some day Samuel was possibly placed in the judge position within days of Samson’s death….others say no, that was Eli. Samuel only served as judge for approx 10 years of his life. I suppose these things don’t really matter….. but I am interested in the setting historically and politically.
And a follow-up:
> The Bible says Samuel judged all of his life. Some say the Bible can’t mean that literally… That he could only have judged 10 years. \[But\] if Eli was only the high priest then Samuel could have judged all his life.
**My Answer**
Introductory comments:
* I think both Eli and Samuel should be considered as judges. You already mentioned that Samuel is called this. Eli is, too: “As soon as he mentioned the ark of God, Eli fell over backward from his seat by the side of the gate, and his neck was broken and he died, for the man was old and heavy. He had **judged** Israel forty years.” (1 Sam. 4:18). I suppose we could debate about what is meant by the word “judge(d),” and it seems like it didn’t mean exactly the same thing for everyone who bore that title. But both Eli and Samuel are called that, and at minimum I think it means that they were recognized as important leaders.
* The question of whether it was Eli or Samuel who succeeded Samson is complicated by questions about the chronology of the judges in the book of Judges, and by whether the events of that book ended before the events of 1 Samuel, or whether there was overlap.
\[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0825425565\]So, based on the research of Robert B. Chisholm Jr., as presented in his \[amazon text=big 2013 commentary on Judges and Ruth&asin=0825425565\], _**here are some possible chronologies**_:
* Philistines oppress Israel 40 yrs (Jg 13:1) — _**1110-1070**_
* Samson judges Israel 20 yrs (Jg 15:20) — _**Sometime between 1110-1070**_
* Eli judges Israel 40 yrs (1 Sam 4:18) — _**1130-1090**_
* Philistines capture the ark (1 Sam 4:11) — _**1090**_
* Ark is at Kiriath-Jearim 20 yrs (1 Sam 7:2) — _**1090-1070**_
* Samuel defeats Philistines and judges Israel (1 Sam 7) — **_1070-1050_**
* Samuel anoints Saul, continuing as prophet (1 Sam 10) — _**1050**_
That chronology assumes overlap between Judges and 1 Samuel, as you can see. I won’t try to explain why, because it’s super technical and I haven’t tried to understand it!
Another scheme (preferred by Chisholm) does not assume overlap between Judges and 1 Samuel. (It has the judges of Judges overlapping instead.) It goes like this:
* Philistines oppress Israel 40 yrs (Jg 13:1) — **_1190-1150_**
* Samson judges Israel 20 yrs (Jg 15:20) — **_1150-1130_**
* The rest is the same, with Eli taking over from Samson at **_1130_**.
So, to answer your question, the first scheme has Samson judging until the time of Samuel, and the second has Eli taking over from Samson. _**Good scholars argue both ways. Take your pick!**_
A quote from Chisholm:
> Eli served as a judge for forty years (1 Sam. 4:18), but it is possible that this period was concurrent with one (Samson) or more of the final judges. Earlier we argued against overlapping periods for the judges because the expressions ‘again did evil’ and ‘after him’ most naturally indicate chronological succession. However, the notation about the length of Eli’s tenure is not part of this chronological sequence. (pg. 41)
Then, in a footnote:
> In the overall structure of the history, 1 Samuel follows the epilogue of Judges (chapters 17-21), which is not in chronological sequence with the central section of the book… So, it is possible the incidents recorded in the early chapters of 1 Samuel, like those recorded in Judges 17-21, occurred during the judges period. 1 Samuel begins with an introductory formula that is similar to the introductory formula in Judges 17:1 \[“Now there was a man from X whose name was Y”\], suggesting they are linked at the macrostructural or discourse level. (pg. 41)
For reasons that have to do with the chronology within Judges itself, however, Chisholm prefers the scheme where Judges and 1 Samuel do not overlap.
One more comment: I would understand the statement that Samuel judged “all the days of his life” (1 Sam. 7:15) to mean that he judged from that point onward, not from birth. Even after the arrival of the kings, Samuel remained an important and recognized national leader. After all, he was the one who anointed both Saul and David. At his death “all Israel assembled and mourned for him” (1 Sam. 25:1).
* * *
A few of us will find it fascinating to puzzle over historical details like this, and I’m glad some of us do. Hopefully we can all agree, however, that both Judges and 1 Samuel clearly show that _**God is the one controlling the timetables of history, raising up and removing leaders. The lives of Samson, Eli, and Samuel all make this abundantly clear.**_ Perhaps that is something you want to ponder in your SS classes?
Post your [comments](http://dwightgingrich.com/who-judged-after-samson-eli-samuel/#respond) below!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Should You Keep Your Convictions Secret? (Romans 14:22)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-04
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Should You Keep Your Convictions Secret? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: While reading through Romans in the NIV this morning I came across chapter 14, verse 22: So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself...
Tags: -Romans 14:22, beliefs, convictions, faith, church unity
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/keep-convictions-secret-romans-14-22
\[Editorial comments added Nov. 5, 2014.\]
While reading through Romans in the NIV this morning I came across chapter 14, verse 22:
> So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. (NIV)
(This verse is part of an extended passage where Paul instructs the believers at Rome on how to handle their disagreements about whether they should observe Jewish holy days and dietary laws.)
**What does it mean to keep something between yourself and God?** It would be fun to stop and poll you on this question. When I hear that sentence, I hear Paul encouraging us to keep our own convictions secret between us and God, without telling others what we believe. Several other translations make this idea explicit:
> You should keep your beliefs about these things a secret between yourself and God. (ERV)
>
> Your beliefs about these things should be kept secret between you and God. (EXB)
>
> Your beliefs about these things should be kept secret between you and God. (NCV)
Several other translations soften the “secret” language but still lean in the same direction:
> Keep the belief that you have to yourself—it’s between you and God. (CEB)
>
> You may know that there is nothing wrong with what you do, even from God’s point of view, but keep it to yourself; don’t flaunt your faith in front of others who might be hurt by it. (TLB)
>
> You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. (NLT)
**What does it mean to “keep” something?** As I read the NIV this morning, I realized the word “keep” has a range of meanings. To give only two examples: Keep can mean “to refrain from divulging.” But it can also mean “to be faithful to; fulfill.” _To keep a promise and to keep a secret involve two different kinds of keeping._
So is Paul saying we should “refrain from divulging” our personal convictions? Or is he saying we should “be faithful to and fulfill” our personal convictions? The two will look very different at times. (Or is he saying something else?) \[**Edit**: I’m committing an interpretive error here, importing ideas into Greek from an English word, without demonstrating from other examples that the Greek word itself sometimes carries the idea. See the comments below where I refine my conclusions in this post a little and consider other interpretive possibilities.\]
**When we examine the Greek, we discover that the word translated “keep” in the NIV actually occurs two times in this sentence.** You’d never guess it from the NIV:
> So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. (NIV)
You might guess it from the ESV, but it’s still unclear:
> The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. (ESV)
The KJV, though it turns the first phrase into a question, shows the repeated word clearly:
> Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. (KJV)
**In the Greek we find two different forms of the same verb: ἔχω (echō), translated in the KJV both times as “have.”** This verb is extremely common, occurring 708 times in the New Testament. The basic gloss or core definition (according to [Mounce](https://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/echo)) is “to have, hold, keep.”
Words like ἔχω have a range of meanings in various contexts. But when the same word appears within the same context–indeed, within the same sentence–it normally carries the same meaning. _**I can’t see any good reason to translate ἔχω two different ways here. Can you?**_ \[**Edit**: I’m on the verge of another interpretive error here, for the immediate phrase in which the second ἔχω is found does indeed open the door to some variation in meaning. I should at least consider this possibility. See below.\]
I think the NASB communicates Paul’s probable intent quite clearly here:
> The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. (NASB)
The NRSV also does well here–better than it’s younger, conservative ESV sister:
> The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. (NRSV)
Several other translations also express this idea well:
> As for the faith you do have, have it as your own conviction before God. (ISV)
>
> The faith that you have, have with respect to yourself before God. (LEB)
Phillip’s translation strangely turns a command into a statement of fact without telling us what to do about it. Otherwise, it’s pretty good:
> Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God. (Phillips)
Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase isn’t very literal but, given the context of the entire passage, it expresses Paul’s desire well:
> Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don’t impose it on others. (The Message)
**Here’s what I think Paul is saying in this verse:** I think he is returning to an idea he emphasized earlier in the chapter, when he said that each of us lives to the Lord (Rom. 14:8). Whatever conviction we hold on disputable matters, we should be faithful to that conviction and live it in honor of the Lord (Rom. 8:6). We should not judge or despise each other as we do this, for “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10). Paul is urging us to turn our critical eye inward, away from others, focusing instead on our own accountability before God. Here’s how Paul continues the thought that he began in our key sentence: “Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever had doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Rom. 14:22). Rather than destroying the work of God in your brother’s life (Rom. 14:20), Paul says, be sure you are honoring God in your _own_ life. \[**Edit**: Despite my oversights above, I still think this is a likely understanding of Paul’s intent. See Kruze in my comments below.\]
**Here’s what I _don’t_ think Paul is saying in this verse:** I don’t think he is saying that we should never voice our convictions on disputable matters. First, this seems to be stretching the meaning of the word ἔχω in this passage, which, I believe, probably means “have” or “observe” rather than “keep hidden.” \[**Edit**: Again, see comments below for more nuance.\] Second, Paul himself expresses his belief about disputable matters very clearly in this passage: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14). In case we missed it, he repeats his conviction later: “Everything is indeed clean” (14:15). Paul is less concerned that everyone agree with his conviction on this point than that they learn to live together in love. But he does think it is helpful to state what he believes. Why would he turn about and command us not to do what he has just done?
_**No, we should not try to force others to live according to our own beliefs.**_ Nor should we speak or live in any way that will “offend” our brother–that is, cause him to violate his own beliefs. Nor should we be known for harshly announcing our opinions every time a disputable matter arises. _**But** **there is a time to lovingly explain our convictions when we disagree with each other, to teach the things that we are fully convinced of in our own minds.**_ \[**Edit**: I still fully agree with my conclusions here!\]
What do you think? **Tell us what you believe [in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/keep-convictions-secret-romans-14-22/#respond)!**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What to Expect Next on Dwight Gingrich Online
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-03
Category: DGO website
Meta Title: What to Expect Next on DGO | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Reflection and plans for DGO after 2 weeks online. Your input is most welcome!
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-to-expect-next-on-dgo
**Well, it’s been just over two weeks since I launched DGO. It’s time to regroup and look ahead.** Thank you very much for your interest and encouragement!
Thanks especially to those of you who voted to show what content you’d like to see in the future. I was unable to tell who voted for what, but your cumulative feedback is very helpful. Over 30 people voted. Voters identified themselves as male 24 times, female 8 times, and “Good” once. 🙂
(_**If you have not yet voted in the “Readers’ Choice Poll**_,” please do so. One easy place to find the poll is at the bottom of [this post](https://dwightgingrich.com/launch-day/).)
**Results From Your Voting**
**Popular ideas:**
* 20 votes were cast asking for more _**essays**_ from me on theological/Bible interpretation topics. Add to this the 11 votes asking for “that paper on the ‘ordinances'” and we have a clear winner. Many of you are looking for more long-form biblical reflection, the kind of thing that can’t happen in a blog post.
* 25 votes were cast for either “_**book reviews**_” or “a series of summaries/reviews of books about the Church.”
* 15 votes were cast for a _**Q & A forum**_ where readers can submit Bible interpretation questions.
* Other fairly popular categories include: _**interviews**_ with Bible teachers and church leaders, _**upcoming events**_ for Bible interpreters and church leaders, and _**Sunday School tips**_.
**A few surprises:**
* Only 4 votes were cast for book giveaways. I guess we’re already overwhelmed with books! Or else afraid to admit we like handouts?
* Only one person wants to hear “more about Dwight’s life.” (Thanks, Gerard. I happened to see you voted right before that new category appeared. I feel the love.)
**How Your Votes Are Shaping DGO**
**Plans so far:**
* I’ve added a new page of [**_Events for Bible Students_**](https://dwightgingrich.com/other-resources/events/). Judging by Facebook likes, this is already one of my post popular pages. Please suggest more events you think people should know about.
* Since there is interest, I’ll try to finish that _**essay on ordinances**_. I’ll also stay alert for more essay fodder. Good essays take time, so don’t expect more than several a year at most.
* I’m gathering ideas for a series of _**“interviews” with church leaders about biblical interpretation**_. I already have one pastor who has agreed to share how attending Shepherd’s Institute and listening to online seminary lectures is changing how he preaches. Whom else should I include in this series? Do you have a story or insights to share with the Church?
* Based on your votes, I hope to start reading through some _**books on ecclesiology**_ (theology of the Church) and sharing my reflections here. This might not begin until 2015. Here are some I’d like to read as I have time: _\[amazon text=The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today&asin=0802841899\]_ (Everett Ferguson), _\[amazon text=The New Testament Church: The Challenge of Developing Ecclesiologies&asin=160899998X\]_ (ed. John Harrison and James D. Dvorak), _\[amazon text=The Church&asin=0830815341\]_ (Edmund P. Clowney), _\[amazon text=The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study&asin=1592440479\]_ (ed. D.A. Carson), _\[amazon text=An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical %26 Global Perspectives&asin=0830826882\]_ (Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen), _\[amazon text=The Emergence of the Church: Context, Growth, Leadership %26 Worship&asin=0830826505\]_ (Arthur G. Patzia), and _\[amazon text=Images of the Church in the New Testament &asin=0664227791\]_ (Paul S. Minear). I also have Kindle books, including these: _\[amazon text=The Church: The Gospel made Visible&asin=1433677768\]_ (Mark Dever), _\[amazon text=Perspectives on Church Government: 5 Views&asin=080542590X\]_ (ed. Brand and Norman), _\[amazon text=Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government&asin=0310246075\]_ (ed. Engle and Cowan), _\[amazon text=When the Church Was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community&asin=0805447792\]_ (Joseph H. Hellerman), and _\[amazon text=Your Church is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church&asin=031032114X\]_ (John H. Armstrong). Then I could also review some books influential among conservative Anabaptists, such as ones by Val Yoder and Finny Kuruvilla, or ones promoted by Christian Light Publications. Then there are others on my Amazon wish list and more on related topics such as Church history and mission. Are there any you would especially like me to read and reflect on here?
* I’ll probably add a _**Q & A Bible interpretation forum**_ sometime soon.
* As for **_Sunday School tips_** and thoughts about **_Anabaptists and fundamentalism_**, they will probably be placed on the back burner. The former isn’t of interest to over half of you, and the later isn’t my expertise. That said, I’m sure I’ll say things about both from time to time in my spontaneous blog posts.
**Up in the air:** I’m not sure what to do with the following ideas. What do you think? Reply in the comments or add one you like to the poll and start voting.
* **_Bible interpretation help for beginners._** I don’t want to overlook this need. In fact, this need is dear to my heart! How to respond? One idea: DGO could host a series reading through George Guthrie’s book _\[amazon text=Read the Bible for Life: Your Guide to Understanding and Living God’s Word&asin=0805464549\]._ It’s my current favorite such book for beginners, and refreshing, too, for others. We could set a time to begin, then read and discuss one chapter a week. Such things are better done face-to-face, but online discussion could also be helpful. Thoughts?
* _**Seminary lectures:**_ It was suggested that some would enjoy listening to some free seminary lectures from [BiblicalTraining](http://www.biblicaltraining.org/) and discussing them together here on DGO. These lectures have been a huge help to me. This idea would be a significant time investment, but could bring a big pay-off. Is anyone interested?
**Something New**
I’m very pleased to announce that _**my mother, Elaine Gingrich, has agreed to let me post some of her poems and short articles**_ here on DGO. Mom is a skilled amateur wordsmith. She drank in all she could second-hand as I completed my English Literature B.A., and she’s spent far more hours than I have reading and thinking about great literature. She has written some real gems, some of which connect well with my themes of Bible and Church. I hope to post one a month to add literary craft and heart reflection to my less-polished reflections. I think you’ll find this refreshing.
**Thanks!**
I want to end this update by thanking you again for your interest as I begin this new online venture. About 45 of you have signed up for emails, Feedly tells me 6 of you are following me there (I don’t know who you are!) and others have been finding me via social media and search engines. _**If DGO proves useful, it will be in large part because of your support and feedback.**_ May we serve Christ and his Church together, for his glory!
[Post your comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/what-to-expect-next-on-dgo/#respond) or sign up for DGO emails:
\[wysija\_form id=”1″\]
* * *
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “In Adam’s Fall We…?” Inclusion or Imperialism in Romans 5
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-11-01
Category: Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]
Meta Title: "In Adam's Fall We...?" Inclusion or Imperialism in Romans 5 | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -1 Corinthians 15:22, -Romans 5:12-21, age of accountability, damnation, New England Primer, sin, Douglas J. | Moo, Warren W. | Wiersbe, Adam, salvation, Reformed theology, original sin, sinful nature, systematic theology
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/in-adams-sin-we-imperialism-inclusion-romans-5
_I’m reading through Romans right now, on target for finishing my through-the-NIV-Bible-in-a-year goal. This morning I arrived again at that head-scratching passage at the end of Romans 5. So much ink has been spilled over this passage that a few more bytes shouldn’t hurt. So here I go again, thinking aloud over this passage. (See a [previous post here](http://dwightgingrich.com/whats-bit-sinful-nature/).) Please test my thoughts and [respond below](http://dwightgingrich.com/in-adams-sin-we-imperialism-inclusion-romans-5/#respond) if you wish._
* * *
**Here’s my initial dilemma: I’m not satisfied with the typical Reformed approach to this passage.** For one thing, it often imports foreign language about a “sinful nature.” (See that previous post.) Whether the idea of a sinful nature is accurate or not, I’d rather attempt to understand this passage with the language and imagery that it actually uses.
For another, I’m not quite convinced by the interpretation that says that we sinned in Adam and that we are guilty (eternally damned) because of that act of sin. For example, **here are some typical Reformed statements that leave me dissatisfied:**
First, from Warren W. Wiersbe:
> “For that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12) means “all have sinned in Adam’s sin.” – _\[amazon text=Be Right (Romans)&asin=1434768473\]_, pg. 64
\[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0310494001\]Second, from Douglas Moo. “At the risk of a gross simplification,” he summarizes the interpretive options about “the relationship between the first or original sin of Adam and the sin and death of all other people” into three categories. The first two, _imitation_ and _infection_, he rejects as not fully explaining the evidence of Romans 5.[1](#fn-927-1) The third, _inclusion_, is his preference:
> The relationship between the sin of Adam and the sin of all people is closer \[than merely _infection_\]. How can Paul say in the same passage that all die because all sin (v. 12) and all die because Adam sinned (v. 18)? Because Adam’s sin is, at the same time, the sin of everyone else as well. I think Paul does infer this idea of inclusion here in Romans 5:12-21. I lean this way for three basic reasons: (a) the repeated emphasis on the determinative significance of the “one” act of the “one” man Adam (vv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19); (b) the corporate background of Paul’s thinking as sketched above; and (c) the more natural parallel it creates between Christ and Adam. – _\[amazon text=Romans (NIV Application Commentary)&asin=0310494001\]_, pg. 190
Third, this understanding is most concisely expressed in an ABC poem from an old New England Primer:
> In Adam’s fall
> We sinned all.
[](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/newenglandprimeratom-1721385398755-compressed.jpg)
[
](https://superblog.supercdn.cloud/site_cuid_cltmr6s080011pelc74knn9b3/images/newenglandprimeratom-1721385398755-compressed.jpg)
This passage is hugely complex and I don’t have time to discuss all the evidence in favor of the Reformed position. I respect Moo’s scholarship deeply and he deserves much more than the following few lines. But **let me proceed by responding briefly to Moo’s three reasons for leaning toward the _inclusion_ interpretation:**
1. I think the emphasis on the “one” act of the “one” man Adam fits just as well with the idea that Adam’s sin opened the floodgates, admitting sin into the world, so that humans subsequently were born under the “reign” of sin and death (see Rom. 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12). (We could call this view the _imperialism_ view, to continue Moo’s tidy alliteration.) The “one man” language points to the singularity of the cause, not the precise manner of the cause.
2. The idea of corporate solidarity is powerful. Some version of it is undeniably biblical. As Moo notes, it is expressed clearly in the story of Achan, where the Lord says, “_Israel_ has sinned” (Josh. 7:11, emphasis added). I don’t have a ready response to this point, except to note that this Romans passage does not explicitly mention this idea.[2](#fn-927-2) If it is present, it is assumed, not stated. The language of sin and death “reigning,” in contrast, is explicitly and repeatedly emphasized.
3. The _inclusion_ view certainly does create a natural parallel between Christ and Adam. The language of being “in Christ” permeates Paul’s thinking, and he uses similar language about being “in Adam” in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” This verse clearly is similar to Romans 5; both speak of death coming through Adam and life coming through Christ. However, there are also differences. Romans 6 does speak of our being “in Christ” (see Rom. 6:3, 11, 23; cf. Rom. 8:1, 39). But Romans 5 itself never uses this language.[3](#fn-927-3) And _nowhere in Romans does Paul use the language of being “in Adam.”_ (In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 is the only place where that exact language is used in all of Scripture.) Additionally, I think the _imperialism_ view, explicit in this passage, creates an equally natural parallel between Christ and Adam: Just as Adam introduced the kingdom of sin and death into the world, so Christ introduced the kingdom of God into the world.
**It is this concept of a parallel between Christ and Adam that first triggered this meandering post today.** The comparison and contrast between Christ and Adam is central to Paul’s thought in this passage. But how, exactly, are the two alike? And how are they different? Paul is concerned both to compare _and_ to contrast the two. Errors will abound if we think they are similar on a point where they are actually different, or if we think they are different on a point where they are actually similar.
**Let me present another dilemma:** If we deny that our experience of sin and death comes through our participation in Adam’s trespass (_inclusion_ view), then how can we claim that our experience of righteousness and life comes through our participation in Christ’s act of righteousness ? After all, consider Romans 5:18:
> Therefore, as one trespass \[or perhaps “the trespass of one”\] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness \[or perhaps “the act of righteousness of one”\] leads to justification and life for all men.
**Doesn’t a denial of the _inclusion_ view undermine our inclusion in Christ?** How can we be sure of our salvation in Christ if we deny that we were damned because of our participation in Adam’s sin? (I’m sure I’ve seen this presented as an argument in favor of the Reformed _inclusion_ view, although I can’t think at the moment where I’ve read it.) I’d like to suggest several responses.
**First, it is important to note that our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection is an undisputable fact.** It is taught repeatedly and abundantly throughout the New Testament. This teaching will stand undisturbed even if we do not find it taught in Romans 5.
**Second, it is possible to be “in Adam” in some sense without saying that we were “in Adam” as participants in his sin.** There are various ways we could be said to be “in Adam.” As I noted, the only place this language is explicitly used is in 1 Corinthians 15:22. What does Paul mean by this phrase in that chapter? Whom is he describing with this phrase? I suggest that Paul is using this phrase to refer to all human beings who have lived after Adam. Notice that the described effect of being “in Adam” is physical death: “in Adam all die.” This death is experienced by all, believer and unbeliever alike. In this sense, all alike are “in Adam,” but some are _also_ “in Christ.” Notice also the scarcity of “sin” language in 1 Corinthians 15. The focus of the whole chapter is on physical death and its reversal in the coming resurrection, not on achieving victory from sin. Romans 5, in contrast, focuses on sin as much as on death. But in neither passage is “in Adam” language used to describe our participation in Adam’s _sin_.
**Third–and this has been my usual answer to my question above–perhaps Paul is not drawing comparisons between the _way_ in which Adam and Christ affect us, but only between the _extent and certainty_ of their effect upon us.** In other words, the exact manner or “mechanism” by which Adam’s sin leads to our sin and death might be different from the manner in which Christ’s death and resurrection leads to our salvation. Reformed authors seem to get hung up on the mechanism; if we are not linked to Christ in exactly the same manner in which we were linked to Adam, then, they say, we cannot be certain of obtaining Christ’s benefits. But Paul does not assume identical mechanisms in this passage. Yes, he says both death and life come through “one man.” Yet, just as he contrasts the effects of Adam and Christ, so he also notes some differences in the mechanisms of their actions: one was a trespass, the other an act of righteousness; and one occurred as the first trespass, the other following many trespasses (5:18, 16). So Paul is emphasizing that the _effect_ of Christ’s obedience is even greater than the effect of Adam’s sin. But I’m not sure he is saying that the effects are achieved in the same way.
In fact, a little reflection shows that we are _not_ linked to Christ in the same way we were linked to Adam. We are linked to Christ, Paul insists, by a faith that produces a new birth. But no faith or new birth are needed to live under the effects of Adam’s sin.
**Fourth–and finally I’m getting to the point that triggered my thoughts this morning–I think a mistaken, punctiliar model of salvation leads some people to assume a similar, punctiliar model of how Adam’s sin affects us.** (Punctiliar means “[of or relating to a point of time.](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punctiliar)“) A punctiliar model of salvation says that we are saved all at once, at one point in time. This is the stereotypical Baptist model, where a saint begins her testimony by saying, “Back on June 6, 1983, at 9:45 p.m., when I got saved…” A parallel view of Adam’s sin says that at the moment that Adam ate of the fruit, then I, too, sinned and died. Both events happen in an instant–instantaneous death, or instantaneous life.
**But what if salvation is not punctiliar?** Again, this is a big subject. But let’s stick to the immediate context of Romans 5. In this context, salvation is clearly _not_ punctiliar. Paul has already shown in chapters 3 and 4 how a person can be justified. At the beginning of chapter 5 he says that “we have been justified by faith”–it is a completed act.[4](#fn-927-4) But then Paul writes, “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Rom. 5:9-10). Therefore, in the context of Romans 5, salvation is an ongoing and future event. This process nature of salvation is the reason why Romans 5-8 was written: to ensure believers that God intends to complete the work he has begun, and to teach them how to cooperate with God in that work, producing the fruit of righteousness that will lead to the gift of eternal life.
**If salvation is not a punctiliar event in Romans 5, then what about damnation? Was that punctiliar? Or is the outworking of Adam’s sin a process, just as the outworking of Christ’s obedience is?** I suggest that, just as the results of Christ’s work involve both punctiliar and ongoing elements, so do the results of Adam’s sin. The curse started unfolding immediately. Sin and death entered the world immediately and began to reign. Thorns began to grow. Adam and Eve were immediately expelled from the Garden and the sweetness of God’s presence. But thorns take time to grow. Eve didn’t experience the added pain in childbirth until at least 9 months later. And Adam didn’t die physically until he had lived 930 years. During those years, Adam had many opportunities to choose spiritual life or death. I hope to meet him in glory when Christ returns.
Similarly, the effects of Adam’s sin upon us include both immediate and unfolding elements. The reign of sin and death is felt by each of us from our earliest days–or at least as soon as we experience the trauma of birth. From before we are born we are “damned” to die physically. We are also “damned” to be born into a world where sin reigns, dominating us until–apart from God’s intervention–we will certainly sin. But, as I understand the doctrines of predestination and election, humans are not all damned to eternal death before we are ever born. Rather, those who respond to Christ’s offer are called to make a choice: Will we offer ourselves as slaves to sin, or as servants of righteousness? “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Our actions, our choice of masters, Paul indicates, effects the outcome: salvation or damnation.
**So, when did we die? It depends.** We were doomed from the moment of Adam’s sin to be born into a world ruled by sin and death. We began to die physically the moment we are born. We progressively died spiritually as our hearts grew harder through our childhood and youth, prior to our regeneration. We will die physically sometime soon. And, apart from Christ, all will die eternally.
Is it right to say that, because of Adam’s sin, humans are morally evil by nature? Were you evil from the moment of conception? Were you under eternal damnation from that moment? Or did the damnation come later? I am not arguing that we should look around us and conclude that the humans we see are morally good by nature. Everyone I see, if I look long enough (usually not long at all), shows signs of sin within. And these signs of moral badness begin at a very early age. But _why_ are we bad? Is it because of something inner, a spiritual “genetic deficiency”? Or are we corrupted from without, with sin dominating us and increasingly taking up residence within us? I don’t have answers for all my questions, and I’m not satisfied with all the answers I hear.
**Why does any of this matter? More specifically, what difference does it make what we believe about how Adam’s sin affects us?** Let me answer by quoting Moo once again, this time at length.
First, here is his summary of the _inclusive_ view against which I have been arguing:
> While theologians who hold the inclusive view argue about just what our relationship to Adam might be, they all insist that it is a genuine relationship and that, in a way we cannot understand, we really did sin when Adam did. We do not die for a sin someone else commits; we die for a sin we committed. – Ibid., pg. 190.
Now, what difference does this make? Here is an answer from Moo:
> The inclusive interpretation has potentially great importance for one of the most difficult of all theological and pastoral issues: the fate of infants and other people without the mental capacity ever to commit a sin or to respond to the gospel. While there is a lot of debate over the details, theologians who think that Adam has infected us all with sin but that we each ultimately die only when we sin personally usually teach that deceased infants go to heaven. After all, they have never committed a personal act of sin. \[My understanding would be similar with the _imperialism_ view I suggested above.\]
>
> But if one holds the inclusive view, the situation is quite different. Since all people have sinned in Adam, all people, including children of any age, have already been condemned. Does this mean that any child who is not old enough to understand and respond to the gospel is automatically lost? No. Theologians who hold the inclusive view take three different positions. Some think that God, in an act of grace, accepts into heaven all those who never had a chance to commit a sin in their own persons. Others think that the children of believing parents will be saved. Still others think that God’s election will determine the matter: Infants chosen by God for salvation from eternity past will be saved, while those \[who have\] not been chosen will not be.
>
> I have personally wrestled with this emotive question especially since my niece was born with such severe handicaps that she is not expected to live long. What am I to say to her parents when she dies? What do I respond when they ask me, the “family theologian,” where their daughter will spend eternity? All that is within me wants to be able to assure them that their daughter is in heaven. But I am not yet convinced Scripture gives me the right to do so. And I don’t want to be a purveyor of “cheap comfort,” giving hope based on my emotions rather than on Scripture.
>
> I do not yet have an answer I am comfortable with. But two things I can say. (a) God is just and loving; we can leave such questions in his hands. (b) Whatever position we take will be decisively influenced by our theology of sin and salvation. This, after all, is the ultimate purpose of theology. We put together what God says on issues to come to a conclusion about truths that we can use to comfort, rebuke, and exhort ourselves and others. All theology is finally pastoral theology. – Ibid., pgs. 190-91.
**I can say “Amen” to much of what Moo wrote here.** I certainly agree that our theological conclusions on such matters must be guided by Scripture and not merely based on our own emotions. And I certainly agree that we can ultimately rest such things in the just and loving hands of God. But I also agree, with Moo, that such questions are worth wrestling with. The answers we find will enable us to comfort and instruct each other better in real-life situations.
And so… I want to ponder this more. I have more thoughts, but this post is long enough. **For now, I’m suggesting that Romans 5 portrays an _imperialism_ model of the influence of Adam’s sin more than any of the other common models: _imitation_, _infection_, or _inclusion_.**
**What do you think? I invite you to [respond](http://dwightgingrich.com/in-adams-sin-we-imperialism-inclusion-romans-5/#respond) below.**
* * *
1. _Imitation_ says Adam set a bad example. This, Moo says, was Pelagius’s view. _Infection_ is basically the sinful nature view. “Adam’s sin introduced a stain… on human nature that inevitably leads people to turn away from God.” Moo says this is a “basic truth” taught throughout Scripture, but “it is not explicitly taught in Romans 5:12-21.” (Romans, NIV Application Commentary, pg. 189) [↩](#fnref-927-1)
2. Notice that Moo excludes the _infection_ view for this same reason. See footnote 1. [↩](#fnref-927-2)
3. The most similar language it uses is “through Christ”; see 5:1, 2, 11, 17, 21. But this portrays a different relationship than “in Christ.” [↩](#fnref-927-3)
4. In other biblical contexts justification is described as something that is yet to be completed. But that is another topic! [↩](#fnref-927-4)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Can a Hermit Be Humble?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-10-24
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Can a Hermit Be Humble? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Acts 20:18-19, -Colossians 2:18, -Colossians 2:23, -Colossians 3:12, -Ephesians 4:2, -Matthew 18:4, -Philippians 2:3, hermit, O.M. | Bakke, service, -1 Peter 5:5, humility, children, imitation, relationship
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/can-hermit-humble
**Dwight’s rules about Christian virtues:**
1. Be humble about your own virtues.
2. This starts with being humble about your humility.
3. Etc.
**Paul’s first words as he summarizes his ministry to the Ephesian elders:**
> “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I cam into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with **great humility**…” (Acts 20:18-19 NIV)
**What gives?** Here are some observations:
1. There _is_ a time to urge others to imitate our own Christ-imitation. Paul did it regularly and is clearly doing it in this passage.
2. Perhaps…. perhaps the word _humility_ here would be better translated as _humiliation_. Or, better (after I check the NT usage of this Greek term), perhaps as _willingness to experience humiliation_.
This translation suggestion fits with Paul’s next words: “and with tears and in the midst of severe testing by the plots of my Jewish opponents.” Paul’s ministry involved much public humiliation, especially in a shame-and-honor culture where public expressions of respect were much more important than in our own culture. This \[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=B002G9U288\]suggestion also fits with what I think Jesus was saying when he urged his listeners to humble themselves as little children (Matt. 18:4). In that case, I doubt that Jesus was pointing to an inner attribute of humility that children may or may not possess. I’m not sure that children in the ancient world were admired as models of virtue as they sometimes are today. Rather, I think Jesus was referring to the humble social status of children in the ancient world; we should be willing to be treated as nobodies, just as children were treated. (A fascinating book by O.M. Bakke led me to this conclusion: _\[amazon text=When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity&asin=B002G9U288\]._)
**Humility, I suggest, is more about relating to others (outer) than about personal feelings (inner).** Humility, like love, only occurs in relationship. _It is hard for a hermit to experience humility._
The word translated _humility_ in Acts 20:19 often occurs in the NT alongside other distinctly relational (rather than merely personal) virtues: gentleness, patience, bearing with one another in love (Eph. 4:2); considering others more important than yourselves (Phil. 2:3); and compassion, kindness, gentleness, patience (Col. 3:12). Peter shows this relational aspect of humility most clearly: “Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another” (1 Pet. 5:5).
Sometimes the same Greek word is used negatively, of self-abasement or asceticism. In these contexts (Col. 2:18, 23), the relational aspect is significantly missing. This is a false humility that remains insular and ingrown, preoccupied with personal visionary experiences and self-imposed religious piety, distancing itself both from Christ the head and from his body, the Church. _True humility is preoccupied with serving others, rather than with personal virtue, piety, or appearance._
**So, what about when I am asked to speak in church?** Or serve as a friend’s wedding coordinator? Or to serve as church song leader? Or fill some other role of public leadership? How should I respond?
True humility, it seems to me, will see these invitations as opportunities to serve, not opportunities for self-exaltation. Thus, true humility will be eager to say, “Yes, I’m willing to do that”–without immediately needing to list reasons why someone else should do it instead, without worrying about personal humiliation in case of failure, _and without worrying_ _whether such willingness might be thought arrogant by others_. Paul, after all, proved his humility to the Ephesian elders by describing how hard he worked in his public ministry of preaching and teaching! He proved his humility by public action, not merely by attitude or by attempts to avoid being noticed.
**So when I am asked to fill some public role, I want to reach out in service and relationship rather than withdraw as a pious hermit.** And if there is unseen service for me to do, I want to do that, too. To the extent that I am imitating Christ, I urge you to imitate me!
Do you have insights about living together humbly in Christ’s Church? Serve us by sharing them in the [comments section below](http://dwightgingrich.com/can-hermit-humble/#comments).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## If You’re Not a Berean, Who Might You Be?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-10-22
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: If You're Not a Berean, Who Might You Be? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -1 Thessalonians 2:13, -1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, -Acts 17:1-9, -Acts 17:10-15, Berea, gullible, head, jealousy, Thessalonica, unbelief, faith, gospel, heart, reason, prophecy, biblicism, -Acts 17:11-12
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/if-youre-not-berean-who-might-you-be
Be a Berean! This is a common encouragement among Bible-loving Christians. But what does this mean? Why is it important to be a Berean? And what is the alternative to being a Berean?
The term “Berean” comes, of course, from Acts 17:11-12, which records what happened when Paul and his band arrived in Berea on his second missionary journey:
> 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (ESV)
**The most common way that I recall hearing these verses used goes something like this:** “Be a Berean! Test what you hear by the Scriptures. Don’t believe everything you hear from every radio preacher. Don’t base your theology on what you read online. Don’t let commentaries determine what you believe. In fact, even when your own pastor teaches you something, don’t believe it without testing it first. **Don’t be gullible! Test everything by the Scriptures!**”
**While I heartily agree with this exhortation, I don’t think it’s the most direct implication** of what Luke (the author of Acts) records in our passage. Let’s reconsider these verse by examining their literary context.
According to Luke, whom were the Bereans more noble than? The Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonians. More precisely, the _Jews_ in Berea were more noble than the _Jews_ in Thessalonica.
**So, in this situation, what was the alternative to being a Berean?** What was the problem with the Jews in Thessalonica? We find the answer in the preceeding passage. The problem with the majority of the Thessalonican Jews is that they refused to believe Paul’s proclamation about Christ. Paul “reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead” (17:2-3). He did this over “three Sabbath days” (17:2). What was the response of the Jews? “Some of them were persuaded” (17:4). But the majority of them “were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob” (17:5). They dragged Paul’s converts before the city authorities and shouted denunciations against Paul and his coworkers: “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also” (17:6).
_**In short, the problem with the Thessalonian Jews was not gullibility, but unbelief.**_ Despite Paul’s careful exposition of Scripture–reasoning, explaining and proving everything he claimed based on the Jew’s own Scriptures, the Jews still refused to believe.
Why didn’t these Thessalonian Jews believe? I think we find an answer in verse 5: “the Jews were jealous.” They didn’t like how Paul was turning their world upside down. They refused to believe for the same reason the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem refused to believe Jesus (see 1 Thess. 2:14-16)–because believing would have meant loss of prestige and power.
**So, what about us? What implications might this passage have for us today?** Here are several I’d like to suggest–two exhortations and three theological truths.
**Two exhortations:**
1. _Don’t be a Thessalonian._ Don’t reject gospel truth without giving Scripture a fair hearing. Don’t let a desire to preserve prestige and power keep you from believing the Good News. Don’t prevent the gospel from turning your world upside down! What about the truth that good works are the fruit and not the root of our salvation; have we let this good news shake our world? What about the truth that God the Holy Spirit dwells in his people, empowering victorious living and manifesting himself in a multitude of “natural” and “supernatural” gifts; have we examined the Scriptures and let our hearts believe? (What gospel truths do you think we might be in danger of rejecting?)
2. _Do be a Berean._ When you hear someone proclaim good news, take time to examine it by Scripture. Don’t be surprised or alarmed if the gospel sounds like _good_ news. Examine the Scriptures “daily.” If what you hear passes the Scripture test–that is, it is “necessary” according to Scripture (_and certainly not everything does pass this test_), then accept it “not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). Believe it and let it turn your world upside down, even if it means rejection and “suffer\[ing\]… things from your own countrymen” (1 Thess. 2:14).
**Three theological truths:**
1. _Faith and reason are friends._ Christian faith is rooted in reasoned, Scriptural evidence. True faith is not opposed to reason. It is not opposed to explanation and proof. It is not opposed to diligent Scriptural study. Notice the cause-and-effect link in our passage: The Bereans examined the Scriptures daily, and “therefore” many of them believed (17:12). Rational investigation is encouraged in Scripture and can lead to a strengthened faith. (In this case the rational investigation was of Scripture; in other places investigation of historical evidence is also encouraged.)
2. _Trust in Scripture is a friend to trust in Jesus._ If the Bereans had not taken time to examine Scripture, they would not have accepted the gospel message Paul was proclaiming. But when they saw that Paul’s message was “necessary” (17:3) according to Scriptural evidence (that is, what Paul said had happened to Jesus was the perfect and necessary unfolding of the prophecies and typologies found in Scripture), they believed. It was the Berean’s prior trust in Scripture that prepared them to trust in Jesus. Those today who erode trust in Scripture are, by intention or not, also eroding trust in Jesus–even if the results of such erosion are not always evident for a generation or two.
3. _Heart condition determines our response to gospel truth._ This observation opens difficult questions related to the order of salvation. (Which comes first? Our faith in Christ, or God’s work of regenerating our hearts?) But laying aside such discussions for the moment, notice the evidence in our passage. Both the Thessalonians and the Bereans possessed the Scriptures. They both heard the Scriptures explained by Paul. But one group was “jealous” (17:5) while the other “received the word with all eagerness” (17:11). And so, in the first group “some of them were persuaded” (17:4), while in the second group “many of them… believed” (17:12). _Some_ versus _many_. Only hearts delivered from jealousy and self-preservation are prepared to believe the fullness of the Good News.
So, let’s be Bereans! **_Let’s be “gullible” enough to let Scriptural evidence convince us that all the riches of the gospel are true._** Then let’s go out and imitate those who have willingly suffered for the sake of the word of God.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Launch Day!
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-10-18
Category: DGO website
Meta Title: Launch Day! | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This post announces the launch of Dwight Gingrich Online.
Tags: DGO polls, DGO website
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/launch-day
Hi friends!
Welcome to Dwight Gingrich Online. (Special thanks to those of you who have been enduring my countdown on Facebook.)
For a while I’ve been wanting a better venue for saving and sharing my reflections about biblical interpretation and the Church. Most of these thoughts have been either buried in computer files or lost to the depths of Facebook history. Sometimes this has been a great blessing! 🙂 But other times someone asks me for my advice about something (such as Bible translations), or I remember that I wrote something somewhere on a given topic… and then I have to go digging.
So, early in 2014, I decided this would be a good year to start a website. With my wife’s encouragement and patience, and with God’s blessing,[1](#fn-779-1) this goal is now becoming a reality. I chose to launch this website today on my 40th birthday–hoping I’m still young enough to manage a website and finally old enough to have one or two things worth saying. So here, for what they’re worth, are my scattered thoughts in a searchable format.
The content on this website is delivered in two main ways:
1. **Blog posts:** These are the posts (such as this one) that you will see when you first arrive at DGO. To get readers started, I’ve re-posted 50 of my most useful old Facebook posts (2009-12). I hope to add more old posts (2013-14) in coming weeks. New posts will be added sporadically, with a couple new posts appearing, God willing, every day, week, or month–as frequently as I think I have something worth sharing.
2. **Web pages:** The main menu at the top of the page lists some of the most important material that I’ve either written or enjoyed from others–things that I want easily accessible. I don’t want DGO to be just a blog. I’ve already been “blogging” on Facebook. Rather, I want DGO to be a resource center with content that isn’t buried as soon as a new post appears.
While I hope not to spend too much time dialoguing in comments threads, I do invite your feedback.[2](#fn-779-2) Growth usually happens best in the context of relationships. Most importantly, if you think you see something that is dishonoring to Christ, damaging to his Church, or clearly unfaithful to Scripture, then please comment or send me a private message. I want to be fruitful, though fallible.
**I suggest you begin exploring DGO by doing three things:**
1. Subcribe by email: `[wysija_form id="1"]`
2. Click “[About](https://dwightgingrich.com/about-me/)” on the main menu to read more about me and this website.
3. Click “[Index](https://dwightgingrich.com/blog-index/)” for advice on navigating this site most successfully.
**And now, I welcome your input.** What new content would you like to see on DGO? Please **cast your votes below** and suggest new ideas. Vote for as many ideas as you wish. You can vote for each other’s suggestions, too. (This means you may wish to return several days later to cast more votes. Just try not to vote for the same ideas more than once!) I will consider your votes as I design upcoming website content.
For the glory of God alone,
Dwight Gingrich
* * *
\[yop\_poll id=”2″\]
* * *
1. God’s blessing was partially hidden in the shape of a shoulder injury which has given me more free time this fall. Isn’t this just like God to bring blessings out of troubles? [↩](#fnref-779-1)
2. For now the only comments guideline I have is the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). More will be added if I think they would be useful. I reserve the right to delete comments. [↩](#fnref-779-2)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Social Media according to the Gospel
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-10-01
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: Social Media according to the Gospel | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Luke 12:1-2, hypocrisy, integrity, social media, holiness, gospel
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/social-media-according-to-gospel
(Old Facebook Post – Expanded)
**Let’s talk about social media.** But first ponder, in context, this 141-character tweet from Jesus:
> “…When so many thousands of the people had gathered together that they were trampling one another, he began to say to his disciples first, ‘Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.’” (Luke 12:1-2 ESV)
**This is a warning against hypocrisy.** But notice the context: “When so many thousands of the people had gathered together that they were trampling one another.” Isn’t this when hypocrisy is most likely? And isn’t social media the perfect modern equivalent—many thousands of people trampling one another online? Aren’t we tempted to craft a perfect public persona before the crowds that we hope (or fear) are watching? And aren’t we tempted to believe that we actually _are_ the person whom we project ourselves to be?
**What is the solution?** Not spilling your “ugly guts” on Facebook, surely—although public confession from time to time is indeed healthy. And not becoming a hermit—although many of us do spend too much time seeking crowds, and regular prayerful solitude does help purify our souls. Rather, _**the solution is to live in line with the gospel**_—to live so that we will be unashamed when the things that are “hidden” will “be made known.” This means living with integrity, so that our private lives are as beautiful as we wish to look on Pinterest. It means we will not protect private sin behind Twitter testimonies. The gospel says that Jesus is returning to reward the righteous and judge the wicked. In that day, our private lives will become more public than if they had been streamed live online!
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5653817859_a2cf291915.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5653817859_a2cf291915.jpg)
**Here are ten more gospel truths.** Consider how each truth impacts your use of social media. Use the references to help you. Some suggested answers are provided. Use the comments thread to share your answers and suggest more gospel truths that should shape our use of social media.
**According to the gospel…**
**Therefore my use of social media should…**
**1.** The kingdom of God is at hand (Mark 1:14-15).
Show that my hopes are fixed on Christ’s kingdom, not any earthly kingdom.
**2.** Our words reveal what is in our hearts (Matt. 12:33-37).
**3.** Jesus suffered without insulting or threatening (1 Pet. 2:21-23).
**4.** Jesus rose from the dead. (Rom. 6:1-14).
**5.** The Holy Spirit has been poured out (Acts 2:1-4).
Reflect the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) and not grieve him (Eph. 4:29-30).
**6.** Confessing Jesus as Lord is a must (Rom. 10:9).
**7.** We have been forgiven (Eph. 4:32–5:2).
**8.** All Christians belong to one body (1 Cor. 12:14-27).
**9,** The grace that saves us also trains us (Tit. 2:11-14).
**10.** Words without deeds are useless (James 2:14-26).
Photo Credit: [khalid Albaih](https://www.flickr.com/photos/47130629@N04/5653817859/) via [Compfight](http://compfight.com) [cc](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## "If anyone does not provide for his relatives"
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-10-01
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "If Anyone Does Not Provide for His Relatives..." | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -1 Timothy 5:8, biblical languages, husbands, widows, biblical interpretation, Bible translations, Greek, fathers, gender roles
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/anyone-not-provide-for-his-relatives
(Old Facebook Post)
**What does the Bible say about who is responsible to provide for the family?** Google that question, and [the first website listed](http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-family.html) will give this answer:
> “A father is also to provide for his family. If he does not, he “denies the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). So a man who makes no effort to provide for his family cannot rightly call himself a Christian. This does not mean that the wife cannot assist in supporting the family—Proverbs 31 demonstrates that a godly wife may surely do so—but providing for the family is not primarily her responsibility; it is her husband’s.”
[The next website](http://www.gospelway.com/family/family_relations.php) references the same verse from 1 Timothy, with this commentary:
> “1 Timothy 5:8 — As the head of the family (see next point), a man should provide, not just for himself, but for his whole household.”
Here, for review, is the full verse in the ESV:
> “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
At least six of the first ten Google results[1](#fn-579-1) interpret the same verse in the same way. Only one might disagree. If you base your theology on Google, then you have **a pretty strong consensus: 1 Timothy 5:8 teaches that husbands and fathers must provide for their families.** But is it correct?
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ID-10011643.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ID-10011643.jpg)
**I think there are two problems with this interpretation.** _First, the context of the verse is not about fathers or husbands._ It is not about caring for wives or children. It is about carrying for widows. The widows are older women, not children and–obviously–not wives. The only caregivers explicitly mentioned are “children and grandchildren” (or perhaps other descendants; the second word is a general term) and “believing women.” (“Believing women” are probably mentioned because the care of widows was generally seen as the responsibility of woman; it was often considered unfitting for a single man to care for a widow relative, and a married man would usually let his wife do the care-giving.)
No direct mention is made of husbands anywhere in the context except in the qualifications for enrolling widows under the church’s care; such a widow must have “been the wife of one husband”–a one-man woman, probably meaning not adulterous. And the only roles of husbands that are mentioned (indirectly) are their roles in satisfying the passions of their wives and helping them bear children. Even when discussing how younger widows will want to remarry, no mention is made of how they might be seeking a husband to provide for them. So nothing in the context suggests that 1 Timothy 5:8 is about the role of husbands.
_This raises a question: If 1 Timothy 5:8 is about the care-giving duties of children, grandchildren, and believing women, then why the masculine terms in our verse?_ The ESV has three masculine pronouns: his, his, and he. Why the masculine language if men are not in focus?
This question leads me to _**my second problem** with the Google interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:8: In the Greek text, there is no masculine subject in this verse!_ The updated NIV reflects this accurately: “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” The Greek text, as I understand it, works like this: The first two times the ESV uses “his,” the Greek text simply has nouns with possessive endings–nouns that show that they belong to an individual, with no gender specification. Where the ESV uses “he,” the Greek has a third-person singular verb, again with no gender specification. So there is no grammatical reason to conclude that this verse is talking directly about males, let alone specifically about husbands and fathers.
**Neither context nor grammar indicate that 1 Timothy 5:8 teaches that husbands are responsible to provide for their families.** Does that mean they are not responsible? Of course not! I still think husbands and fathers bear a primary responsibility to care for their families. But we must base our teaching on other passages. And perhaps a corrected understanding of this verse will also allow us to hear the strength of other passages that speak of women providing for and managing their families. We men need all the help we can get!
Shopping for the perfect Bible translation?
**I think we can learn a couple more lessons from this investigation:**
1. _Gender-neutral translations are helpful._ If you understand just a little about how gender works in the Greek, and if you understand the translation philosophies of the ESV and the NIV, for example (one favoring masculine pronouns and the other generally gender-neutral), then you can often guess what is happening on the Greek level just by comparing the two translations. The ESV tells you the Greek is singular; the NIV tells you the Greek uses language that can be–and sometimes, should be–gender-neutral. Comparing a gender-neutral translation can prevent false assumptions. (Of course, the reverse is also true!)
2. _It is futile to search for the perfect translation._ “Translators are traitors,” as the famous Italian proverb goes. (I’ve always wondered what that proverb actually means in Italian!) In this case, we could ask, why does the ESV–and the KJV, and the majority of English translations–get this verse wrong? But the problem lies with the English language, not with the translators. In common English usage, we have no gender-neutral third person pronoun suitable for referring to persons[2](#fn-579-2)–no word for “s/he.” So translators must choose to either go with a generic (but misleading) masculine singular pronoun (as with the ESV), or else switch to the plural pronoun “they,” which is nicely gender-neutral but wrongly plural[3](#fn-579-3) (as with the NIV).
There is no way to provide a perfectly “literal” and accurate translation. Even if you do this: “Anyone who does not provide for his or her relatives, and especially for his or her own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever,” then you have the problem of an awkward sentence with more complex syntax than the Greek. So there is no perfect translation. But that’s okay! If we do a little study, compare with other texts, and a possess good theological foundation, our translations are accurate enough to prevent us from adopting serious error.
[](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/elderly-crosswalk.jpg)
[
](http://thesynergists.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/elderly-crosswalk.jpg)
**So, what should we learn from 1 Timothy 5:8?** If you have a parent or grandparent who needs your care–especially if he or she lives in your own house, and especially if she is a widow–then it is your Christian duty to do your best to ensure that he or she receives the needed care. _Do you hear this, ladies?_ (And men.)
First two images courtesy of graur razvan ionut and Iamnee at FreeDigitalPhotos.net.
1. At the time of this post; results will change. [↩](#fnref-579-1)
2. “It” doesn’t count, because it is used to refer only to non-persons. [↩](#fnref-579-2)
3. The NIV translators would disagree, and history will probably prove them right: “They” and “their,” if I remember correctly, were once commonly used for singular as well as plural purposes before wide-spread attempts to standardize English, and this usage seems to be the wave of the future as well. Currently, however, it still strikes many people as strange or misleading. [↩](#fnref-579-3)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Subscribe
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-05-08
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/null
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Resurrection Now! Seated with Christ in Heavenly Places
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2014-02-01
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Resurrection Now! Seated in Heavenly Places | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: "Heavenly places" is a strange term found often in Ephesians. Contrary to popular opinion, it does not refer to the cozy feeling found in a holy huddle.
Tags: -Ephesians 1:16-23, -Ephesians 1:3-10, -Ephesians 2:1-10, -Ephesians 3:14-15, -Ephesians 3:8-12, -Ephesians 4:7-14, -Ephesians 6:10-20, -Ephesians 6:9, Clinton | Arnold, Ephesus, heavenly places, power, spiritual warfare, resurrection, Harold W. | Hoehner
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/resurrection-now-seated-with-christ-in-heavenly-places
(Old Facebook Post – Slightly edited and shared April 3, 2015)
**Since I expect to take a blogging holiday this weekend, I thought I’d share a resurrection post now before I leave.** If you are troubled by a resurrection post that comes on Good Friday, well, I guess you can stop reading now!
Or, better yet, _**receive this as a parable: Just as this resurrection blog post has broken unexpectedly into your present from the future, so the blessings of Christ’s resurrection break into our lives now**_, long before our bodies die. Resurrection now! Or, to use theologian-speak: [inaugurated eschatology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaugurated_eschatology)! In the [book I reviewed Wednesday](https://dwightgingrich.com/the-new-testament-church-harrison-dvorak/), the chapter on Ephesians and Colossians is entitled “Heaven Can’t Wait.” Well, I can’t either, so here’s a post from Ephesians on how Jesus’ resurrection carries us to heaven, right here and right now.
This post is actually a re-post from something I shared on Facebook over a year ago, but good news like this never gets stale. God bless you as you meditate on Christ’s death and resurrection this weekend!
* * *
**“Heavenly places” is a strange term that is found repeatedly throughout Ephesians.** Contrary to what is sometimes suggested, this term does not refer to the cozy feeling we experience when we gather in a holy huddle as believers within our holy sanctuaries in our sacred church buildings (my tongue is firmly in my cheek as I write such phrases). Nor does it refer primarily to some after-death experience of “going to heaven when we die.” Let’s examine Paul’s use of the term to seek a more accurate understanding.
**Here’s my plan:** First, I’ll post all the passages in Ephesians where this term is found. Second, I’ll make a (very incomplete) list of observations about these passages. Third, I’ll summarize from Acts why this was relevant to the church at Ephesus. And fourth, I’ll quote a couple commentators conclusions about the term “heavenly places.” Let’s begin!
**“Heavenly Places” and “Heaven(s)” in Ephesians**
Here, for your meditation, are the five times where Paul uses the term “heavenly places” (actually a single Greek word) in Ephesians. I will also include the four times where Paul uses the related term, “heaven(s).” (All quotations are from the ESV.)
Ephesians 1:3-10:
> “3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the **heavenly places**, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in **heaven** and things on earth.”
Ephesians 1:16-23:
> “16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, …that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the **heavenly places**, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”
Ephesians 2:1-10:
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the **heavenly places** in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Ephesians 3:8-12:
> “8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the **heavenly places**. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.”
Ephesians 3:14-15:
> “14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family \[or ‘fatherhood’\] in **heaven** and on earth is named…”
Ephesians 4:7-14:
> “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, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”
Ephesians 6:9:
> “9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in **heaven**, and that there is no partiality with him.”
Ephesians 6:10-20:
> “10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the **heavenly places**. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.”
**Observations about Heavenly Places in Ephesians**
This is what I think the previous passages suggest about the terms “heavenly places” and “heaven(s)”:
**1\. A variety of persons are said to be, right now, in these heavenly places:** rulers, authorities, powers, dominions, and spiritual forces of evil (Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; I take this to refer, at minimum, to demonic forces); Jesus (Eph. 1:20; 2:6; 4:10; 6:9; perhaps Eph. 1:3); and all believers who are “in” Christ (Eph. 2:6; perhaps Eph. 1:3; 6:12).
**2\. Warfare is waged in these heavenly places** between God/believers and the forces of evil (Eph. 6:12).
**3\. There are “higher” and “lower” positions within these heavenly places,** so that Christ is said to be “far above” the other inhabitants of the heavenly places (Eph. 1:20-21; 4:10).
**4\. Christ is “seated” in heavenly places**—language that suggests ruling from a throne (Eph. 1:20; 2:6).
**5\. By virtue of our being “in Christ,” believers are also said to be “seated” in the heavenly places** and thus “above” the forces of evil (Eph. 2:6), so that we can fight these forces “in the strength of \[the Lord’s\] might” (Eph. 6:10).
**6\. Christ’s exalted place within the heavenly places was secured through the power God exercised in his resurrection and ascension** (Eph. 1:20; 2:5-6; 4:10), and now that power is now available on behalf of believers (Eph. 1:19; 6:10-13).
**7\. The battle that the forces of evil wage against believers involves things like** “the passions of the flesh” (Eph. 2:1-3), “craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph. 4:14), and all kinds of things that oppose the gospel and its advance (Eph. 6:10-20).
**8\. God’s purposes for the believer in this warfare involves things like** being “holy and blameless” and being united with Christ (Eph. 1:4, 10), experiencing resurrection power (Eph. 1:19), walking in good works rather than after the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2, 10), demonstrating God’s manifold wisdom to the forces of evil (Eph. 3:10), receiving church leaders as gifts designed to shape the body into the image of Christ (Eph. 4:10-12), exercising leadership as one subservient to our “Master… in heaven” (Eph. 6:9), and waging warfare in the Lord’s might, the armor of God, all kinds of prayer, and the proclamation of the gospel (Eph. 6:10-20).
More could be observed, but this suffices to show that _**the concept of “heavenly places” is somewhat similar to how we today speak of “the spiritual world.”**_ Paul is saying that believers, by virtue of their being united with Christ and participating in his resurrection power and authority, can successfully wage warfare right now against the forces of evil and live holy and blameless lives as children of God.
It is also important to notice that this successful warfare is only possible as believers work together as one body composed of many diverse gifts. _**The promise of resurrection power against the forces of evil is given to the unified church, not primarily to isolated individuals.**_ This is evident from Paul’s use of plural pronouns, which are hidden in most English translations (for example, see Eph. 2:16-20; 6:10-20). Thus Paul covets the prayers of the Ephesians to help him experience supernatural boldness as he engages in the spiritual warfare of proclaiming the gospel.
**Spiritual Warfare in Ephesus: Data from Acts**
It is instructive to consider Paul’s emphasis on spiritual warfare in light of what Acts records about his ministry in the city of Ephesus. (Acts 19 is well worth reading now!) At Ephesus:
**1\. Paul emphasized** the importance of not merely repenting of sins, but of **being baptized “into” Christ.** (Remember the “in Christ” emphases of Ephesians.)
**2\. Paul waged spiritual warfare** by “reasoning and persuading… about the kingdom of God” and by healing the sick and casting out evil spirits.
**3\. The seven sons of Sceva** attempted to imitate Paul’s exorcisms, with disastrous results.
**4\. Many books of magic** were burned by new believers.
**5\. Demetrius and other idol-makers** stirred up a riot against Paul.
Clearly, the Ephesians were used to spiritual warfare! Paul’s reminders about the authority they possessed in Christ and the identity of their true opponents (demonic, not human) were timely.
**“Heavenly Places” in Commentaries**
Here are some summaries by commentators on the topic of “heavenly places” in Ephesians. First, from Harold W. Hoehner (_Ephesians_, Baker Academic, 168-70.)
> “The word \[“heavenly places”\] in classical Greek \[before NT Greek\] can refer to the place where the gods dwell and from which they come or… it can be used synonymously with God… \[One author, Caragounis, suggests that the term ‘heaven(s)’\] begins with the air space where birds fly and continues all the way up to God’s throne, while \[the term ‘the heavenly realms’\] refers to the higher layers of space, from God’s throne down to the sphere where cosmic powers reside and operate… **Believers operate simultaneously in two realms:** they live in their bodies on earth (Eph 3:1; 6:10-20) but their spiritual enrichment is from the heavenlies (1:3) and their struggle is not with flesh and blood but with spiritual foes in the heavenlies (6:12; cf. 3:10)… In receiving the spiritual benefit from the heavenly places it is in the midst of satanic attack and interference. The spiritual benefits for the believers are from the heavenlies and the unbelievers’ opposition to the believers find their source in wicked spiritual leaders who also reside in the heavenlies (6:12). In other words, **the struggles in the heavenlies are also played out on earth.”** (emphasis added)
And from Clint E. Arnold (_Ephesians_, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series, 78.)
> “’In the heavenly places’… should probably be… interpreted metaphorically as ‘the spiritual dimension’ or ‘the unseen world of spiritual reality’… Paul seems to be using the term… in the sense of ‘the heavenlies’ as a sphere of spiritual blessings to which believers now have access as well as the realm populated by evil spiritual powers. Thus, **the term might be best understood as ‘the spiritual realm.’”** (emphasis added)
And some more commentary by Arnold (496-98):
> “What happened in Ephesus \[as described in Acts 19\] could have taken place in virtually any city of the Roman empire (and beyond)… What made Ephesus unique is that this city had a distinct reputation in antiquity as a place where magical arts flourished. This suggests that believers in the young Christian congregations in and around Ephesus had experience with these sorts of practices. The many new believers who have streamed into the churches since Paul was last there probably also struggled with renouncing these practices and embracing Christ fully…
>
> “All of the means that they had formerly used to protect themselves, their households, their livestock, and their crops from hostile spiritual powers have now been unmasked as evil and contrary to the kingdom of Christ. What could they do to protect themselves against spiritual forces of evil?
>
> “Paul eloquently addresses this question in Ephesians… There are four \[misprint?\] essential aspects of Paul’s teaching about the powers:
>
> “(1) _The superiority of the power of God and the supremacy of Christ_…
>
> “(2) _Believers have access to divine power and authority over this realm by virtue of their union with Christ_…
>
> “(3) _A new perspective on the powers_. The Gentile readers had been accustomed to making distinctions between good and evil spirits… But Paul commends them to only _one_ Spirit (4:4)…
>
> “(4) _A new perspective on the purpose of spiritual power_… \[believers possess spiritual power not for self-exaltation or merely self-protection, but for holy living, building up the church in love, and spreading the gospel\]
>
> “(5) _God will ultimately subdue all of the rebellious powers through Christ_… (1:10)”
**Amen! That’s “Resurrection Now” for the Christian.** Now, may we live “in Christ” in such a manner “that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places”!
[**Share your insights in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/resurrection-now-seated-with-christ-in-heavenly-places/#respond)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Tools for Reading Old Testament Stories Well
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2013-11-02
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: Tools for Reading Old Testament Stories Well • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Old Testament stories can be confusing. What do they mean? In this post I'll share two tools that can help us read OT stories well.
Tags: -2 Samuel 6, -2 Samuel 7, -Acts 2:25-36, -Acts 2:31, -Matthew 12:42, -Psalm 16:8-11, OT narrative, R.T. | France, Douglas | Stuart, biblical interpretation, Gordon | Fee, typology, house, prophecy, -Psalm 110
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/tools-for-reading-old-testament-stories-well
(Old Facebook Post – Lightly Edited)
**Old Testament stories can be confusing. What do they mean?** What are they intended to teach us? How can we read them in a way that helps us hear the messages that God designed for us to hear?
**In this post I’ll share two tools that can help us read OT stories well:**
1. A multi-purpose tool: _**Read each story on three levels.**_
2. A more specialized tool: _**Distinguish between prophecy and typology.**_
I’ll illustrate these tools by discussing a couple stories from 2 Samuel—especially 1 Samuel 7, which tells the story of God promising David a “house.” (By the way, this chapter is so important that you should memorize the reference. Use the alliteration to help you: “**S**econd **S**amuel **S**even.”)
**READING OLD TESTAMENT STORIES ON 3 LEVELS**
[](http://amzn.to/2eosfXq)
[
](http://amzn.to/2eosfXq)
In Fee and Stuart’s book on biblical interpretation, _[How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth](http://amzn.to/2eosfXq)_, they distinguish three different levels of Old Testament narrative (historical story). When interpreting any one passage, you can (and, if possible, should) consider all three levels at which the narrative functions. What are the three levels?
First, there is _**Level 1—the over-arching narrative of the Bible’s big story**_ of how God is sending a Redeemer to rescue a people from sin and for himself. Second, there is _**Level 2—the individual books of Scripture, or perhaps major “cycles” within books**_. For example, 1 Samuel contains a series of stories (one “cycle”) featuring Samuel, a series of stories featuring Samuel and Saul, and then a series of stories featuring Saul and David. Third, there is _**Level 3—the individual stories**_, such as last week’s story about David bringing the ark into Jerusalem. (I’m paraphrasing Fee and Stuart’s terminology. I also would add that one could suggest more than three levels, but let’s keep it simple.)
Fee and Stuart emphasize that _**each individual story plays a role at all three levels**_. Not all stories function equally clearly at all levels, but all are connected somehow. We should consider all three levels when trying to interpret Old Testament stories.
For example, when we read the story of David bringing the ark into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6) we often focus on Level 3—on what we can learn from the story itself. So we often discuss what we can learn about how we should act in the presence of a holy God. If we focus on level 2, we might notice how this story is part of a series of stories from 2 Samuel 1-6. This series of stories describes how David’s reign was firmly established, beginning with Saul’s death and ending with David reigning from his newly-conquered city Jerusalem—reigning in the presence of Israel’s true King, God himself. We might also notice how the episode in chapter 6 about Michel serves to eliminate Saul’s line from the throne forever, preventing the mingling of David’s and Saul’s dynasties. And if we focus on Level 1? I would have to think about that for a while. Perhaps on that level chapter 6 says something about how the priestly and kingly roles were starting to be united—a unity that would find its ultimate fulfillment in Christ.
_**All the above is preamble for my comments about 2 Samuel 7.**_ This chapter, unlike chapter 6, very obviously has great significance at Level 1. God’s promise to David that he (God) would build him a “house” (a dynasty) is interpreted by the rest of Scripture to find its ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah, Jesus. So I’ll limit my comments here to Level 1 interpretation, even though this story also works (and suggests applications for faith and practice) at the other two levels.
**PROPHECY AND TYPOLOGY**
**So here is my question: Is God’s promise to David a prophecy of Jesus?** I’m thinking specifically of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (ESV):
> 12 “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.”
**When you start reading at verse 12, it indeed sounds like a direct prophecy of Jesus.** You continue on through verses 13 and into 14, and it still sounds like a direct prophecy of Jesus. Especially when you read this: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” God only has one Son, right?
And then you hit 14b: “When he commits iniquity…” Wait a minute! The Messiah won’t sin! Suddenly we’re faced with the fact that this can’t be a direct prophecy about Jesus, but only a direct prophecy about Solomon.
Indeed, in the ancient world (both pagan and Israelite), it was common to think of the king as being a “son” of the gods/God. Being a son meant that you represented and mediated the authority of your “father.” So we should not be shocked to read that God calls Solomon his “son.”
**So, if this is not a direct prophecy about Jesus, what is it?** I would say, instead, that it is typology. It is prophecy about Solomon, and Solomon was a type of Jesus. Actually, there _is_ some prophecy here that points directly to Christ, but _**let’s first define our terms.**_
_**Prophecy is easy: it is direct prediction.**_ Often this is the only category we think of when we think of how the OT points to Christ. We find individual predictions (a king riding on a donkey, a king born in Bethlehem) and note their explicit fulfillment in the life of Jesus.
_**[](http://amzn.to/2eoyZ81)**_
_**[
](http://amzn.to/2eoyZ81)**_
_**Typology is a little harder.**_ Here I’ll rely on a favorite author, R.T. France. In his classic book _[Jesus and the Old Testament](http://amzn.to/2eoyZ81)_ he distinguishes typology from both prediction and allegory. I’ll omit the discussion of allegory to keep it simple:
> A type… represents a pattern of the dealings of God with men that is followed in the antitype, when, in the coming of Jesus Christ and the setting up of His kingdom, those dealings of God are repeated, though with a fulness and finality that they did not exhibit before… A type is not a prediction; in itself it is simply a person, event, etc. recorded as historical fact, with no intrinsic reference to the future. Nor is the antitype the fulfilment of a prediction; it is rather the re-embodiment of a principle which has been previously exemplified in the type. A prediction looks forward to, and demands, an event which is to be its fulfilment; **typology**, however, **consists essentially in looking back and discerning previous examples of a pattern now reaching its culmination**…. The idea of fulfilment inherent in New Testament typology derives not from a belief that the events so understood were explicitly predicted, but from the conviction that **in the coming and work of Jesus the principles of God’s working, already imperfectly embodied in the Old Testament, were more perfectly em-bodied, and thus brought to completion**. In that sense, the Old Testament history \[all of it, not just isolated prophetic predictions!\] pointed forward to Jesus.” \[emphasis added\]
Whew! Are you still with me?
**To summarize: Prophecy directly predicts, but typology sets a pattern that only _later_ is seen as being more perfectly fulfilled (or “filled full”) in Christ.**
**So, which do we have in 2 Samuel 6? Clearly, both.** Again, I would say that we have prophecy about Solomon, and, from the perspective of the NT, we can now see that Solomon was a type of Christ. Solomon was a king of peace; Christ is the King of peace. Solomon’s throne was established; Jesus’ throne is established. Most directly for our text: Solomon built a temple; Christ is building the true temple where God will forever dwell—the gathered people of God.
**Distinguishing between prophecy and typology helps me to understand how to read this chapter.** Clearly, it points to Christ. Equally clearly, it is not all direct prophecy about him. But that doesn’t matter; it still points to him. Solomon was Israel’s grandest king. But he still sinned, as predicted in this chapter. A greater-than-Solomon (sound familiar? see Matt 12:42) was coming in Christ. He fulfilled God’s promise to build David a dynasty better than Solomon ever did. And we can be part of his kingdom!
**Finally, I promised I’d explain how this passage _does_ also directly prophecy of Christ.** I think it does this when God says “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever… And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.” Solomon did not live “forever.” And, although this prophecy could have initially been understood as referring to David’s later kingly descendants, later history has proven that David’s merely earthly descendants have _not_ always been established on a throne. Only in Christ has David’s throne been established forever.
(It might be observed that the Hebrew word translated “forever” in the OT does not always literally mean “forever.” In some cases it apparently means ” a very long time.” But “forever” might be the best translation here, given what I’m about to observe next.)
**Most amazingly, David seemed to understand something of this prophesy about Christ!** In Acts 2:31 Peter says that the “prophet” David “foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ” based on the promise given here in 2 Samuel 7! If that intrigues you, here’s some further reading: Ponder Acts 2:25-36, then go back to Psalms 16 (vv. 8-11) and 110. It’s amazing what David understood.
And it’s amazing how the story of 2 Samuel 7 (when interpreted at Level 1) is _our_ story! Truly, “O Lord God, you are God, and your words are true” (2 Sam 7:28).
* * *
**These tools have helped me to read Old Testament stories more productively.** Hopefully they will help you, too. Do you have other tools that help you make proper sense of Old Testament stories? [**Please share them in the comments below.**](http://dwightgingrich.com/tools-for-reading-old-testament-stories-well/#respond)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Which New Testament Church Practices Are Normative for Today?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2013-07-20
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Which NT Church Practices Are Normative for Today? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: How do we know which NT church practices are normative for us? Which must we imitate? Our case studies (Lord's Day, house churches) suggest some guidelines.
Tags: -1 Timothy 3:15, church buildings, -1 Corinthians 16:19, -Acts 12:12, -Colossians 4:15, house church, Rad | Zdero, -1 Corinthians 11:22, -1 Corinthians 11:34, -1 Corinthians 4:16-17, -1 John 2:1, -1 John 2:12-14, -1 Peter 1:4, -1 Timothy 3:4-5, -1 Timothy 5:13, -2 John 1:1, -2 John 1:10, -2 Thessalonians 3:7-9, -2 Timothy 3:6, -Acts 2:46, -Acts 20:20, -Acts 20:8, -Acts 8:3, -Colossians 2:16, -Ephesians 1:11, -Ephesians 1:5, -Galatians 4:30, -Galatians 4:5, -Hebrews 1:4, -Hebrews 12:7, -Hebrews 13:7, -Hebrews 2:11, -John 4:19-24, -Jude 1:12, -Luke 7:1-5, -Matthew 12:50, -Philemon 1:2, -Philippians 4:22, -Romans 16:5, -Romans 8:15, architecture, brothers, historical precedent, love feasts, NT practices, Paul S. | Minear, sacred space, biblical interpretation, worship, resurrection, -1 Peter 4:17, -1 Timothy 5:1-2, -Ephesians 2:19, -Galatians 6:10, household of God, Pentecost, -1 Corinthians 16:2, -Revelation 1:10, -Romans 14:5, Lord's Day, -John 1:12-13, -Acts 20:7, -1 Corinthians 11:1, -Philippians 3:17, -Philippians 4:9, church as family
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/which-nt-church-practices-are-normative-for-today
(Old Facebook post, lightly revised 7/23/2016.)
_Facebook reminded me that I wrote this post three years ago. I wish I had more time for such study and writing today. But I am thankful that I am now_ living _what I wrote then more fully than ever before. Prayers are welcome as I prepare to teach tomorrow (the Lord’s Day) at our little church (in a friend’s house)._
* * *
**How do we determine which NT church practices are normative for us today?** That is, how do we know, when reading of what the New Testament church did, whether the church today should imitate them? (To be clear, I am not asking about NT _commands_; that is another valid question for another time.)
**Test Cases: When and Where the Church Gathers**
**For example, _when_ and _where_ should the church today gather to worship?** Let’s talk about **_when_** first. The NT church commonly met on the Lord’s Day. Yes, early in the book of Acts we read of the church gathering “day by day.” But the history of the early church shows that gathering on the Lord’s Day rapidly became the standard practice of the early church. This practice has remained the norm for most of the world-wide church to this day. Is this simply a matter of tradition or preference? Or does this example carry a stronger force, obliging us to follow the practice of the early church?
Before we answer, let’s consider the second part of our question: **_Where_** should the church gather to worship? Again, while early in Acts we read of the church gathering in the temple, the pattern of the rest of the NT becomes clear: the early church normally gathered for worship in private homes (and sometimes also in public spaces). The history of the early church clearly shows that this practice became the near-universal norm for the first several hundred years of the church. In fact, church historians regularly report that Christians built no buildings specifically for worship gatherings during the first several hundred years of the church. Since the time of Constantine, however, the regular practice of most of the church has been to build special “church buildings” for worship. So again we ask, is the NT example simply a matter of tradition or preference, or does it carry a stronger force, obliging us to follow the practice of the early church?
**We imitate the NT practice for _when_ the church meets, but not for _where_ it meets. Why?** The contrast between these examples gives us an opportunity to evaluate our theological understandings. It should cause us to scratch our heads and sift our assumptions. **But first, let’s examine the historical and theological evidence for both NT church practices a little more closely.**
**Examining Historical Data**
**Again, let’s address the _when_ question first.** By my count, there are two places in the NT where we read of the church gathering on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2). Besides this, we also read of John being “in the Spirit” (though presumably alone in exile) on the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10). Judging by later historical evidence, this was likely a reference to the first day of the week. In addition, the disciples were gathered on the first day of the week when Jesus appeared to them. This happened twice, judging by John’s idiomatic expression “eight days later.” But it could be argued that this hardly counts, because during these post-resurrection weeks the disciples were gathered most every day! If I missed one or two references in my summary here, the point remains the same: _**we have only a handful of NT references to the church meeting on the Lord’s Day.**_
**In contrast, the host of references and allusions to the church gathering in private homes is too long to summarize properly in a paragraph.** For a list of only the clearest evidence, see Acts 2:46; 12:12; 20:8; Romans 16:5; 1Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 1:2. For example, four of these references speak of “the church in so-and-so’s house.” In addition, given the clarity of this evidence, a range of other references also appear to fit the house church pattern: Acts 8:3; 20:20; Philippians 4:22; 1Timothy 5:13; 2Timothy 3:6 and 2 John 1:10 (more could be added). For example, Acts 8:3 speaks of Paul “entering house after house” as he searched for Christians. 2 John 1:10 warns not to “receive \[a false teacher\] into your house.” The internal and external evidence is beyond dispute: the normal practice of the NT church was to gather for worship in private homes. In fact, _**if we look at the NT historical data alone, the evidence for house churches is much stronger than the evidence for Lord’s Day worship.**_
So, what should we do? Today the typical American church gathers on the Lord’s Day, but not in homes. In fact, the average American Christian (including the average Mennonite) would be quite uncomfortable if “church” was switched to any day besides Sunday. But many of the same people are rather suspicious of those who gather in homes for worship. Are we inconsistent here? Or is there a theological distinction between the two examples that I am missing?
**Examining Theological Purposes**
**Here is one factor that I have delayed mentioning: the Lord’s Day is called the Lord’s Day because it was on this day that our Lord rose from dead.** Church history clearly shows that the reason the church met on the first day of the week was because they wanted to celebrate Christ’s resurrection. In addition, it appears that the Holy Spirit was first poured out on a Sunday (the Pentecost of Acts 2). Indeed, the first day of the week (sometimes called the eighth day) was the beginning of the new creation. No other day of the week has been graced with such a high honor! It can be argued from this theological symbolism that there is great value in meeting on the Lord’s Day. Every time we gather on the Lord’s Day we are (or should be) reaffirming our faith in our risen Lord and celebrating the outpouring of the Spirit.
**No such rich theological meaning is tied up with meeting for worship in houses. Right? Not so fast.**
_**First, we should note in passing that the NT nowhere mentions the above theological motivation for gathering on the Lord’s Day**_; this connection is only found in later historical writings. It is almost certain, however, that the NT church shared this theological understanding. (This is an example of how historical study can help us understand the Bible better.)
_**Second, neither persecution nor poverty can explain the practice of house churches.**_ Persecution, though severe at times, was sporadic and localized during most of the first three centuries. And while many Christians were poor, others (such as Erastus the city treasurer and members of Caesar’s household) would have possessed the funds to build church buildings, much as the Roman officer who built a synagogue in Jesus’ day (Luke 7:1-5). Yet, for nearly three hundred years Christians were “one of the few religious groups at the time that did not make use of some sort of sacred buildings or structures” (Rad Zdero, author of the helpful brief book [_The Global House Church Movement_](http://amzn.to/2a7RXxY)).
_**Third, we should not overlook the ubiquitous NT references to imagery of the church as a household, a family.**_ Here, again, the evidence is too overwhelming to properly demonstrate in a paragraph. As Paul S. Minear writes in his classic work [_Images of the Church in the New Testament_](http://amzn.to/2a7SC2o), “the salutation ‘brothers’ was in the New Testament the most natural (and therefore most quickly conventionalized) way to address fellow Christians or a congregation as a whole.” The word “brothers” is found 183 times in the ESV NT, many times used to refer to fellow Christians. In addition, we find a host of other familial terms, such as the family of God, little children, God’s household, children of God, God as our heavenly father, Jesus as our brother, adoption, heirs, fellow heirs, and inheritance. Consider a few typical examples:
* Jesus to his disciples (Matt 12:50): “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
* Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 5:1-2): “Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.”
* Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 3:15): “…The household of God, which is the church of the living God…”
* Paul to the Ephesian church (Eph 2:19): “…You are… members of the household of God…”
* Peter to some scattered saints (1 Pet 4:17): “It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God…”
See also John 1:12-13; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5, 30; 6:10; Ephesians 1:5, 11; 1Timothy 3:4-5; Hebrews 1:4; 2:11; 12:7; 1 Peter 1:4; 1John 2:1, 12-14; 3:1; 2John 1:1—varied references that demonstrate that the household imagery was shared widely by many NT authors. In addition, given the nature of the first-century household, which included more than the just the “nuclear family” of parents and children, we should also probably consider the use of terms such as servant/slave, master, manager, and elder.
**Thus, both the time _and_ the place that the NT church met are filled with rich theological significance.** In both cases, the link between NT church practices and theology is never made explicit in the NT itself. Nowhere do we read that “we meet on the first day of the week because that is the day Christ arose.” No text says “we meet in houses because we are a family, the household of God.” Yet in both cases, the practice was both a natural outflow of their theological understandings and a natural result of imitating the practices of the apostles.
**_Must_ We Gather Today on the Lord’s Day and in Homes?**
So, are we obliged to meet on the Lord’s Day? Are we obliged to gather in private homes to worship? Here’s the best answer I can give: **No, and no; but we should not overlook the possible blessings of doing so.**
**Regarding the _time_ of meeting:** Since this was a major point of conflict in the first century, it is addressed clearly in Scripture. Christians are no longer compelled to observe a weekly sabbath: “Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” (Colossians 2:16; for a longer answer to this question, [see here](http://dwightgingrich.com/anabaptists-flat-bibles-and-sabbath/)). Romans 14:5 broadens this freedom to all days, implicitly including the Lord’s Day: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Therefore, Christians are free. I bless my brothers and sisters in Muslim lands who gather on Friday, the one day of their week when they are not expected to be at work. On the other hand, let us never forget our Lord’s resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit! I bless all who gather on the Lord’s Day with these gifts in mind. I enjoy this practice myself.
**Regarding the _place_ of meeting:** This also was of major significance in the first century, but in a different manner. The temple, the focal point of Jewish worship, was eclipsed by Christ who freed us to worship anywhere as long as it is in S/spirit and in truth (John 4:19-24). However, the Jews already also worshiped in synagogues, so NT Christians did not argue over the place of meeting as they did over the time of meeting. They were already used to the idea that there was not only one place where worship could happen. Therefore, the NT does not speak prescriptively about where Christians should meet. This, too, is a matter of freedom in Christ. I bless Christians who meet in barns, offices, and caves. I even bless those who meet in “church buildings.” However, let us never forget that the church is a family, a household!
**_I will add this: Perhaps we need to consider afresh how the architecture of our meeting places sometimes inhibits NT church family life._** For example: we often _add_ a concept of “sacred space” that is very foreign to NT Christianity, calling the building “the church” or “God’s house.” On the other hand, we _lose_ the interactive familial exchange of participatory worship when we sit in rows like spectators, staring at the backs of each others’ heads. Our love feasts have shriveled into mere symbols of a symbol. When did we forget that eating a full meal together in communion with Christ can be a central element of our worship services? Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians suggests that such love feasts may not be essential (1 Cor 11:22, 34). But they are certainly possible and even desirable, if they be true “love feasts” (Jude 1:12). (Paul does not argue against love feasts in 1 Corinthians 11, only against their abuse.)
Too often our church buildings become sterile, safe places where our Sunday best becomes armor that shields us from each other. If you really want someone to get to know you deeply, where do you invite him to meet? In a coffee shop, an office, or a warehouse? At a concert hall—which is the secular venue that our modern church sanctuaries are perhaps most closely patterned after? Or do you invite him into the intimacy of your own home, where he can see your economic status, your hobbies, your family, and all your worst and best up close? And what about when you are someone else’s guest? _Which location makes you most feel like you are being included as part of the_ _family_?
**In sum, just as I have a slight preference to meet on the Lord’s Day, so I also hunger for the kind of NT church family life that often comes most naturally as we gather to worship, eat, and pray within our own homes.**
**Summary: Guidelines for Imitating NT Church Practices**
**To return to our initial question:** How do we determine which NT church practices are normative for us today? _**Our dual case studies suggest a few guidelines:**_
1. We should not automatically assume that we are obligated to woodenly imitate every physical practice of the NT church. Historical precedent is not _necessarily_ prescriptive.
2. We should remember that one repeated NT _command_ was to imitate the actions of the apostles and other faithful leaders (1 Cor 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 2Thess 3:7-9; Heb 13:7)—even though no specific list of mandatory actions is ever given.
3. We should try to be consistent, not turning historical precedent into prescription in one area while feeling smugly superior to those who imitate NT church practices literally in another area.
4. We should examine closely the possible benefits of freely imitating NT church practices and not simply react against others who have abused them.
5. We should aim to chose practices that naturally express the rich theological truths of our Christian faith.
6. We should remember that the same theological truths may be expressed through a variety of practices. Where Scripture does not speak clearly, we should allow much diversity and bless our brothers and sisters who serve their Master in ways different from us.
Each of these, I think, are worth further reflection.
**What do you think?** Is it helpful to imitate the NT church in their practices of meeting on the Lord’s Day and in houses (and public spaces)? Do you have other biblical observations, or other guidelines for weighing NT church practices? **[Share your insights in the comments below](http://dwightgingrich.com/which-nt-church-practices-are-normative-for-today/#respond), and thanks for reading.**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Should You Desire to Be an Elder?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2013-06-09
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Should You Desire to Be an Elder? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: Suppose I say, "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the hand of my daughter, he desires a noble lady." Am I urging everyone to try to marry her?
Tags: -1 Timothy 1:7, -1 Timothy 3:1, -1 Timothy 3:2, -1 Timothy 5:10, -1 Timothy 5:25, -1 Timothy 6:18, -Hebrews 10:24, -Titus 1:16, -Titus 2:14, -Titus 2:7, -Titus 3:14, -Titus 3:8, Donald | Guthrie, false teachers, good work, noble, speech-act theory, Walter | Liefeld, biblical interpretation, church leadership, desire, Bill | Mounce, Alexander | Strauch
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/should-you-desire-to-be-an-elder
(Old Facebook Post–Slightly edited and shared November 19, 2015.)
**When we seek to understand Scripture, we should ask not only what the words _say_, but what they were intended to _do_.** It is not sufficient to consider the abstract, factual meaning of words and sentences, as if reading from a dictionary or an encyclopedia. We must also consider why they were written. What difference were they intended to make? Or, to phrase it a bit differently, what actions were the words designed to perform?
(In philosophical discussions of hermeneutics, these questions are the focus of an approach called speech-act theory, but I’ll avoid technical terms.)
I’m thinking of this because I was thinking tonight about 1 Timothy 3:1:
> This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (KJV)
**I have often heard this verse expounded along these lines:** Paul is saying that it is good to desire to be a pastor in a church. Being a pastor is a good work, and it is a worthy goal to pursue; those who desire this work are to be affirmed for their desire. In fact, one of the qualifications for being a pastor is that you really should have a desire to be one; if you don’t have a deep inner desire for this office, then you are probably are not qualified to fill it.
Whether or not the above statements are all true—and I think evangelicals tend to err here on one side while conservative Anabaptists tend to err on the other—I that think such an exposition is missing the point of this verse.
**It always makes me nervous, however, when I find myself reading a passage of Scripture in a unique way,** without finding confirmation for my reading from any other interpreters. After all, here are a few prominent explanations of this verse:
> An obvious but not insignificant qualification is the shepherd’s personal desire to love and care for God’s people. Paul and the first Christians applauded such willingness by creating a popular Christian saying \[1 Tim. 3:1\]… In brief, this early Christian saying declares the great value of the work of the office of overseer (eldership) while also encouraging those who desire this work… **The first matter to consider in appointing elders is the candidate’s personal desire**.” —Alexander Strauch, _Biblical Eldership,_[1](#fn-1988-1) emphasis added.
>
> Before he lists the qualifications for overseers, Paul affirms the importance of their work… **Those who desire to serve in this way are to be encouraged**, perhaps as those who build the church with valuable materials as in 1 Corinthians 3:12-14, a task that is indeed “noble.” —Walter Liefeld, _1 and 2 Timothy, Titus,_[2](#fn-1988-2) emphasis added.
>
> Why does this statement warrant the solemn introduction of a faithful saying? Most answer that the church placed its greatest esteem on the more visible, ecstatic gifts, and the Ephesians needed to be reminded that the more practical functions such as overseer were also significant and worthy of honor… It seems, rather, that any **hesitancy to accept positions of leadership** by members of the Ephesian church was the result of the excess of the opponents. They were bringing reproach not only upon the church itself but also upon anyone in leadership. Perhaps as well people were **hesitant to accept positions** that would bring them in direct confrontation with the opponents… The church needed leaders who would do their job well, and **it was therefore a good thing to aspire to the office of overseer**… The word \[ὀρέγεται, “desire”\] describes **an ‘ambitious seeking’.**..; whether the aspiration is good or bad is determined by the context. In our text it must be good since **Paul is recommending it**.” —William D. Mounce, _Pastoral Epistles_,[3](#fn-1988-3) emphasis added.
**Notice how all three commentators above make the same exegetical slip** (most clearly in the 1st and 3rd example): They slip from the biblical words about a “good work” to talking about a “good desire.”
Read 1 Timothy 3:1 again; it does not actually say that _the desire_ is good. True, presumably the desire _is_ good—or at least _it could potentially be_, since the object of the desire is explicitly affirmed as being good. But **the main point of the verse, even on an abstract, factual meaning, has nothing to do with “good desires,” but with a “good work.”**
(My point here is not to belittle these commentators; I have been helped immensely by them, especially by Strauch and Mounce.)
When we consider the question of what this verse is intended to _do_, then the real message of the verse becomes clearer.
But before we do that, **let’s consider another hurdle:** A concordance search for the Greek phrase behind “good works” would seem, at first reading, to affirm the commentators I’ve quoted above. This exact phrase is used elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles to describe:
* What widows should be doing if they are to be considered eligible for the “widows list” (1 Tim. 5:10).
* The behavior that potential elders should be demonstrating before they are appointed (1 Tim. 5:25).
* What rich Christians should be “rich” in (1 Tim 6:18).
* What Titus should show himself to be a pattern of (Tit. 2:7).
* What all the Cretans should be eager to do (Tit. 2:14; 3:8, 14).
In all these cases (and elsewhere in the NT, such as in Heb. 10:24), God’s people are urged to be pursuing “good works.” So doesn’t it make sense that here, too, in 1 Timothy 3:1, Paul is urging people to _pursue_ a “good work”—this time the “good work” of an overseer?
I don’t think so. Here context is key, and **two aspects of context bear consideration:**
**(1)** First, and most importantly, notice how the following verse begins: “A bishop then must be blameless…” (KJV). Do you notice **the word “then”**? This word links the first two verses of 1 Timothy 3. Verse one says that the office of overseer involves a good work; verse two says that, because that office involves a good work, the overseer must be blameless. Or, to say it in reverse: Why must an overseer be blameless (v. 2)? Because he is doing a good work (v. 1).
The NASB and NET read much like the KJV. The ESV makes the connection even clearer: “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach…” The NIV hides the connection almost entirely: “Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach…”
This link suggests something of why Paul wrote verse 1; he was not trying to lift up the office of overseer so that everyone would start filling out applications for the pastorate. Rather, _**he was lifting up the office of overseer in order to demonstrate why such high qualifications were required for those who filled it**_. Perhaps we could paraphrase: “If anyone is reaching for the chance to be an overseer, he’s reaching very high indeed!”
**(2)** Second, **the context of the entire letter** (and of all three Pastorals) is that Paul is writing to churches wracked by false teachers. Both 1 Timothy and Titus begin abruptly; after brief greetings, Paul skips the customary prayer/blessing found in most letters, and jumps right into the topic of the need for proper leadership. Here in 1 Timothy we read of false teachers who were “desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (1 Tim. 1:7). Similarly, in Titus 1:16 we read of false teachers who were “unfit for any good work” (“good work” here is a different, but similar Greek phrase).
This context suggests that _**Paul was facing a situation where unqualified people were serving as leaders in the church**_. In such a situation, Paul was concerned to elevate the office of the elder/overseer, reminding people of the high qualifications that were required of those who would fill it. The first and overriding qualification in both 1 Timothy and Titus is that leaders must be “above reproach.”
_**The problem facing Paul was not simply a lack of leaders**_ (“Let’s lift up the office of overseer so we receive more applications!”) _**but a multiplication of bad leaders**_ (“Let’s lift up the office of overseer so that only qualified persons will be allowed to lead”).
I have read this verse along these lines for quite a while, so **I was delighted tonight to find a commentator who affirmed my reading:**
> Why does Paul cite a trustworthy saying (1)? Since this appears to be a commonly known saying, he was probably here using it to underline the importance of the overseer’s office **for the benefit of those who were underestimating it**. Paul sees the work as a noble task. **Such an office needs the right kind of people to fit it.** —Donald Guthrie, _The New Bible Commentary_,[4](#fn-1988-4) emphasis added.
(To be fair, both Strauch and Mounce also say similar things, but only after being temporarily derailed by first emphasizing the points quoted above; Guthrie never gets similarly derailed.)
**Does this all matter? Well, suppose I say, “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the hand of my daughter, he desires a noble lady.”** Would I be content if all the young ruffians in town thought I was urging them to aspire to marry my daughter? Or might I be happier if one of them took a good look at how noble my daughter really is, then refocused his gaze inward to become the man truly qualified to win her hand?
May we read God’s Word not only to discover God’s _truth_, but also to discover God’s _desires_.
* * *
**What do you think?** Am I reading Paul well here? Do we need a renewed sense of how noble the task of overseeing is? (I sometimes think some conservative Anabaptists are a little _too_ afraid of possessing a desire to shepherd–or at least of anyone _saying_ they possess the desire.) **Are there other Scripture passages where we might be understanding the words but missing the point? [Share your insights in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/should-you-desire-to-be-an-elder/#respond)**
1. Alexander Strauch, _Biblical Eldership_ (Colorado Springs, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1995), 83, 187, 281. [↩](#fnref-1988-1)
2. Walter Liefeld, _1 and 2 Timothy, Titus,_ NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), Kindle location 2487. [↩](#fnref-1988-2)
3. William D. Mounce, _Pastoral Epistles_, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 167-68. [↩](#fnref-1988-3)
4. Donald Guthrie, _The New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), note on 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (Logos Bible Software edition, page unknown). [↩](#fnref-1988-4)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## 3 Lessons from the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35)
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2013-05-05
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: 3 Lessons from the Rechabites (Jer. 35) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Meta Description: This call to obey God's own words is the reason God called Jeremiah's attention to the Rechabites. It should be the main lesson we draw from them today.
Tags: -Jeremiah 35, houses, III, Jonadab, Rechabites, rules, Tremper | Longman, wine, repentance, obedience, parents, vineyards, tradition
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/3-lessons-from-rechabites-jeremiah-35
(Old Facebook Post – Lightly edited and reposted May 31, 2015)
**I recently heard a sermon based on the story of the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35), who faithfully obeyed the commands of their ancestor Jonadab**, who lived several hundred years earlier and commanded them not to drink wine, etc. (See the end of this post to read the story for yourself.) I’ve pondered this story some since hearing that sermon, and here are my thoughts.
**We can learn three lessons from this story.** The first lesson is the lesson that is most central to the Jeremiah passage, but it is sometimes barely noticed by preachers and teachers. The second lesson is also noted briefly by the Bible, and is usually given due attention by preachers. The third lesson is not mentioned in the Jeremiah passage at all, but sometimes becomes the central theme of pastors who chose this text—especially conservative pastors, including conservative Anabaptists.
**In reverse order, here are the three lessons:**
**Lesson 3 is based on the example of Jonadab, father of the Rechabites, who established rules for his descendents.** These rules (don’t drink wine, build houses, or possess vineyards) separated his descendants from wicked Israelite society and, it is said, preserved his family for generations to come. The application is often made that we fathers (and perhaps churches) should imitate him and set rigorous rules for our own descendents—rules which call them to remain obviously and arbitrarily different and distant from surrounding culture. _Problem: the text never once affirms either Jonadab’s rule-setting or the inherent value of any of his rules._ Why didn’t God set these rules for the entire nation before they ever entered Canaan, instead of promising wine and houses and vineyards as blessings? Why didn’t Jeremiah learn from these rules and command the faithful remnant in Israel to start following the Rechabite rules? Why didn’t Jeremiah himself follow these rules? We are explicitly told that Jeremiah was commanded by God to buy a field, as proof that “Houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land” after the exile (Jer. 32:15). Actually, the main point of the passage (Lesson 1) is strengthened by the fact that these rules were only man-made and did not necessarily have any intrinsic value. As Tremper Longman III writes: “God never required such a mode of living; these seem to be human laws. Whether their mode of life was right or not is not the issue in this chapter, however. It rather has to do with the quality of their obedience” (_Jeremiah, Lamentations_, New International Biblical Commentary series, 232). This observation leads us to the next two lessons.
**Lesson 2 is based on the exceptional quality of the obedience of the Rechabite descendents to their ancestor Jonadab.** This is emphasized in the text when God promises that they will be rewarded by never failing to have a man to stand before him. Notice he does not promise that their obedience to Jonadab’s rules will preserve the whole family from sliding into the sins of surrounding culture; only that Jonadab will always have at least one survivor serving God. One application of this lesson would be the value of honoring and obeying our own parents.
**Lesson 1 is based on the contrast between Jonadab and God.** This is an argument from the lesser to the greater: If the Rechabites faithfully obey laws that are merely man-made, then how much more should Israel obey laws that were given by God himself! Longman writes that the Rechabite “obedience to conscience is commended, but the point is that this requirement is one imposed by a human authority figure. While the Recabites obey their forefather, the rest of the people do not obey God himself” (234). The application for us today parallels the lesson God intended for ancient Israel: We should faithfully obey all that God has commanded us to do, eager to “receive instruction and listen to \[his\] words” (Jer. 35:13). In particular, we should respond with ready obedience when God calls us to repentance, for his promises of deliverance and his warnings of judgment far exceed anything that accompany obedience to any merely human commands. _**This call to repent and obey God’s own words is the true reason why God called Jeremiah’s attention to the Rechabites in the first place. Therefore, it should also be the main lesson we draw from their example today.**_
Here is the story of the Rechabites, from Jeremiah 35 (ESV). Read it for yourself to test my observations:
> 1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah: 2 “Go to the house of the Rechabites and speak with them and bring them to the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers; then offer them wine to drink.” 3 So I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, son of Habazziniah and his brothers and all his sons and the whole house of the Rechabites. 4 I brought them to the house of the Lord into the chamber of the sons of Hanan the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was near the chamber of the officials, above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, keeper of the threshold. 5 Then I set before the Rechabites pitchers full of wine, and cups, and I said to them, “Drink wine.” 6 But they answered, “We will drink no wine, for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, ‘You shall not drink wine, neither you nor your sons forever. 7 You shall not build a house; you shall not sow seed; you shall not plant or have a vineyard; but you shall live in tents all your days, that you may live many days in the land where you sojourn.’ 8 We have obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, in all that he commanded us, to drink no wine all our days, ourselves, our wives, our sons, or our daughters, 9 and not to build houses to dwell in. We have no vineyard or field or seed, 10 but we have lived in tents and have obeyed and done all that Jonadab our father commanded us. 11 But when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against the land, we said, ‘Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans and the army of the Syrians.’ So we are living in Jerusalem.”
>
> 12 Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 13 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Go and say to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will you not receive instruction and listen to my words? declares the Lord. 14 The command that Jonadab the son of Rechab gave to his sons, to drink no wine, has been kept, and they drink none to this day, for they have obeyed their father’s command. I have spoken to you persistently, but you have not listened to me. 15 I have sent to you all my servants the prophets, sending them persistently, saying, ‘Turn now every one of you from his evil way, and amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to serve them, and then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to you and your fathers.’ But you did not incline your ear or listen to me. 16 The sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have kept the command that their father gave them, but this people has not obeyed me. 17 Therefore, thus says the Lord, the God of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing upon Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the disaster that I have pronounced against them, because I have spoken to them and they have not listened, I have called to them and they have not answered.”
>
> 18 But to the house of the Rechabites Jeremiah said, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Because you have obeyed the command of Jonadab your father and kept all his precepts and done all that he commanded you, 19 therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before me.”
**What do you think? What can we learn does _God_ _intend_ for us to learn from this story? [Share your thoughts in the comments below.](http://dwightgingrich.com/3-lessons-from-rechabites-jeremiah-35/#respond)**
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The Big Picture Story Bible – David R. Helm
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-12-25
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: The Big Picture Story Bible -- Helm (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: book reviews, books for children, children
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/big-picture-story-bible-helm
(Old Facebook Post – Updated)
Our oldest daughter’s favorite Christmas gift in 2012 was _The Big Picture Story Bible_, by David R. Helm.
Lots of children’s Bible story books do a good job telling individual Bible stories, but few do a good job telling the “big picture” of our promise-keeping God–redeeming his people, to live in his place, in his presence, under his kingship, obeying his word, forever. This Bible story book tells the big story well. It also has large, colorful pictures that skillfully reinforce connections between key events of the biblical story. And it comes with 2 well-produced, reasonably-pleasant audio CDs (one OT, one NT), so children’s listening is not limited by parent’s reading time.
Many (seemingly most) children’s Bible story books add a lot of extra-biblical content. Without fail, I find some of that content unhelpful. A great strength of this book is that it has very few such additions. (The only one I recall is how it plays up Caesar’s role as an opponent of the true King: “How will everyone know that I am the great Caesar, the Roman ruler, the king of the world? I know! I will count all the people under my rule…” This is a theologically acceptable addition to the biblical narrative.)
This book has been one more tool to help our children form a mental timeline of biblical history, tracing the “spine” of redemptive history. With this spine in place, we can attach all the other “ribs”–the individual stories that a book like this can’t include (such as Cain and Abel, Esau, Gideon, Samson, Ruth, Saul, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Esther, Daniel, etc.). Highly recommended!
Here’s Amazon’s blurb:
> “No child is too young to begin learning about the greatest love story of all—God’s love for his people, as portrayed in the Bible. David Helm and Gail Schoonmaker have together created a colorful book of Bible stories written especially for children ages 2–7. Rather than simply retelling portions of the Bible, this book presents the big picture—the unified story running through the Old and New Testaments. Twenty-six stories together form parts of this big picture.
>
> Simply written and beautifully illustrated, this book teaches children the Bible’s whole story so they can begin to appreciate the fulfillment of God’s promise to his people. The Big Picture Story Bible is perfect for parents to read to their children and for older children to read on their own.
>
> First published in 2004, The Big Picture Story Bible has been widely praised and used by parents. It now comes with an audio recording of the book, read by the author and presented on two CDs, one each for the Old and New Testaments. Great for Sunday school classes and trips in the car \[the book might be a bit heavy for that?\], children can listen to the text and follow along in the book.”
Five stars.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On motivating Christians to holy living
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-12-24
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: On motivating Christians to holy living • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Roland | Allen, Anabaptist history, holiness, church leadership, Paul, law, church history, grace, Holy Spirit, missions, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/motivating-christians-to-holy-living
(Old Facebook Post)
I once heard three seasoned conservative Anabaptist church leaders (many of you would recognize their names instantly) discuss the challenge of motivating church members to live holy lives. Specifically, they discussed how to help members walk in holiness _without the presence of multiple church standards_.
The first described the difficulty of awakening in members a sense of modesty. He said he found this most difficult to achieve among those who had grown up in settings with many prescribed standards. The second then turned to third with an observation phrased as a question: Is it not true that in your church fellowship (different than the speaker’s own) the members who are giving you the greatest challenges are those from backgrounds with many church standards? The third affirmed that this, indeed, is true.
I have often pondered that conversation. I remembered it again last night when I read this from Roland Allen’s classic book, _Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?_ (written in 1912, by an Anglican missionary):
> “In our dealings with our native converts we habitually appeal to law. We attempt to administer a code which is alien to the thought of the people with whom we have to deal, we appeal to precedents which are no precedents to them, and we quote decisions of which our hearers do not understand either the history or the reason. Without satisfying their minds or winning the consent of their consciences, we settle all questions with a word.”
That paragraph sounds like the experience of some youth in some of our Anabaptist churches. But it is the next paragraph that reminded me of the above conversation:
> “This is unfortunate because it leaves the people unconvinced and uneducated, and teaches them the habit of unreasoning obedience. They learn to expect law and to delight in the exact fulfilment of precise and minute directions. By this method we make it difficult to stir the consciences of our converts, when it is most important that their consciences should be stirred. Bereft of exact directions, they are helpless. They cease to expect to understand the reason of things, or to exercise their intelligence. Instead of seeking the illumination of the Holy Ghost they prefer to trust to formal instructions from their foreign guides. The consequence is that when their foreign guide cannot, or will not, supply precise commands, they pay little heed to his godly exhortations. Counsels which have no precedent behind them seem weak. Anything which is not in open disobedience to a law can be tolerated. Appeals to principles appear vague and difficult. They are not accustomed to the labour of thinking them out and applying them. If a missionary explains to his converts that some act is not in harmony with the mind of Christ his words fall on deaf ears: if he tells them that it was forbidden in a council of such and such a date, they obey him; but that is the way of death not of life; it is Judaism not Christianity; it is papal not Pauline.”
Allen ends this chapter with these probing words:
> “Christians are not only what they are by nature, they are a Spirit-bearing body. It is not a question merely of our faith in them: it is still more a question of faith in the Holy Ghost. We look too much at our converts as they are by nature: St Paul looked at his converts as they were by grace.”
Thoughts?
* * *
I dream of writing a book inspired in part by Roland Allen’s book, called perhaps “A Pure Church: St. Paul’s Methods or Ours?” It would give a brief historical overview of Anabaptist methods of producing pure churches, then systematically survey Paul’s approaches to the same goal in each of the churches he founded (and what he envisioned that goal to look like), then compare the two, ending with a challenge to change our methods where they don’t line up with Paul’s.
Subtopics could include issues like leadership and authority (source, limits, use of), congregational decision-making methods (biblical and current), membership paradigms (who is my brother?), keeping unity of the Spirit while building toward unity of the faith (Eph 4), true nature of NT separation (physical vs. spiritual), covenantal contrasts between OT pure community (Israel) and NT pure community (Church), inclusion/discipleship of new believers and exclusion of sinful believers (conversion, baptism, catechism, training, disciplining, excommunicating), methods/grounds of motivation toward holiness, training by grace (Titus 2), the regenerate/Spirit-filled nature of the true believer, etc., etc.
We Anabaptists can sometimes become so enamored with parsing our own history (congratulating ourselves, selectively and favorably comparing ourselves with other groups, justifying current practices based on trends of 50 years ago, aiming for pragmatic solutions that will preserve our churches unchanged for centuries) that we fail to listen closely to Scripture as we ought. Perhaps it is true that, when looking for guidance on practical church governance, we look more to history than to God’s Word. We base decisions on our own Anabaptist history; the early Anabaptists examined their history in light of God’s Word and made changes. I’ve heard it said that we now have our theology already worked out, with the implication our doctrine is basically all correct and we just need to get busy putting it into practice. I think a close look at Paul’s vision for the church is a necessary corrective for every generation, including ours. (And not just Paul’s; such a book could draw from Jesus and the rest of the NT, too.)
Enough ranting. May we proceed in love and be open to correction ourselves.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Men learned in the Greek and Hebrew languages”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-12-19
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "Men Learned in the Greek and Hebrew Languages" | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: biblical languages, Hebrew, Hutterite Chronicle, John | Piper, Anabaptist history, biblical interpretation, Conrad | Grebel, Felix | Mantz, church history, Greek, Balthasar | Hubmaier, education
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/men-learned-in-greek-and-hebrew
(Old Facebook Post)
Did you know that Conrad Grebel and Felix Mantz were “men learned in the German, Latin, Greek, and also Hebrew, languages”? (From the Hutterite Chronicle.) Felix Mantz had even been marked out by Zwingli for teacher of Hebrew in Zwingli’s projected evangelical academy. The Hutterite Chronicle also states that “soon thereafter \[after the first re-baptism service\] several others made their way to them \[to Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock\], for example, Balthasar Hubmaier of Friedberg, Louis Haetzer, and still others, men well instructed in the German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, very well versed in Scripture.”
Do we have such men in our churches today? Or we content to pretend such education is really unnecessary–claiming, on the one hand, that Scripture is plain enough that education beyond high school is only likely to confuse our interpretation and relying, on the other hand, rather casually on the expert scholarship of others–those who translate our Bibles for us, produce our Bible dictionaries and commentaries, and do the heavy work for us of refuting false doctrine by their careful exegesis of Scripture? Should our own heritage teach us something about the crucial role of exegesis in biblical languages? (I’m posting these questions as someone who cannot read Hebrew or Greek.)
* * *
Follow-up reflections:
Conservative Anabaptists have no truly first-rate Bible scholars, to my knowledge (despite lots of wonderful second and third-rate Bible teachers), and I think our doctrine suffers for it in ways that tend to hamper the health of our churches and the success of our witness.
I remember John Piper once stopping in the middle of one of his teaching sessions (something pretty technical, I forget) and telling his audience that most of them should not live the life he does. He told of how he walked passed a homeless man on the way to the meeting, too busy to help because of the fast pace of his life as a scholar-pastor-teacher. Most people should be free enough to stop and help. His point was that the church needs a few people like himself and lots of people not like himself. I think he was right. I’m arguing we might not have the few scholars that we need.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Handbook on the NT Use of the OT – G.K. Beale
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-12-19
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: Handbook on the NT Use of the OT -- G.K. Beale (Review) | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: book reviews, Moises | Silva, biblical interpretation, G.K. | Beale, NT use of OT
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/handbook-on-nt-use-of-ot-beale
(Old Facebook Post)
A lot of rather careless biblical interpretation is happening today. (By God’s grace, thankfully much of the time the truth is still being taught, even if by using questionable or haphazard exegetical methods.) On the other hand, there are a lot of really helpful books out there on how to interpret the Bible–books like _Grasping God’s Word_ that I do highly recommended.
What I’ve rarely seen, however, are books and interpreters that consciously try to determine _from the Bible itself_ how the Bible should be interpreted. Usually lots of helpful methods are imported from the disciplines of literature and history into the practice of biblical interpretation. All truth is God’s truth, so these importations can be very useful. But rarely do we ask: How did the Bible authors interpret the parts of the Bible that already existed in their day?
For the student who wants to seriously investigate that question and then apply the results to shape their own interpretive methods, I know of no better place to begin than this brief, information-packed book by G. K. Beale: _Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament_. It’s only 173 pages, but it distills the very best on this topic that has been written in over 100 years.
Beale quotes Moises Silva:
> “If we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that of the apostles, we are in practice denying the authoritative character of their scriptural interpretation–and to do so is to strike at the very heart of the Christian faith.”
And Beale states his goal for his own book:
> “The goal is to better grasp the way the two Testaments are related at the particular points where OT references are found. Our ultimate aim is to hear and understand more clearly the voice of the living God as he has spoken and continues to speak in his ‘living words’ (Acts 7:38 NIV) and accordingly to know and encounter God increasingly, to know his will, and so to honor him.”
Highly recommended.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## According to the Scriptures – C.H. Dodd
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-12-19
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: According to the Scriptures - C.H. Dodd • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: C.H. | Dodd, -Psalm 16, book reviews, -2 Samuel 7:13-14, -Amos 9:11-12, -Daniel 12, -Deuteronomy 18:15, -Deuteronomy 18:19, -Genesis 12:3, -Genesis 22:18, -Habakkuk 1-2, -Hosea 13, -Hosea 2-3, -Hosea 5:8-6:3, -Isaiah 11:1-10, -Isaiah 28:16, -Isaiah 29:9-14, -Isaiah 40:1-11, -Isaiah 42-46, -Isaiah 49:1-13, -Isaiah 50:4-11, -Isaiah 52-53, -Isaiah 55:3, -Isaiah 58:6-10, -Isaiah 6-9, -Isaiah 61, -Jeremiah 31:10-34, -Jeremiah 7:1-15, -Joel 2-3, -Malachi 3:1-6, -Psalm 132, -Psalm 2, -Psalm 22, -Psalm 31, -Psalm 34, -Psalm 38, -Psalm 41, -Psalm 42, -Psalm 43, -Psalm 69, -Psalm 8, -Psalm 80, -Psalm 88, -Zechariah 9-14, NT theology, -Daniel 7, -Psalm 118, gospel, prophecy, NT use of OT, -Psalm 110
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/according-to-scriptures-dodd
(Old Facebook Post)
Have you ever wondered which are the most important Old Testament passages? Or at least which ones tell us the most about Christ?
There’s a fascinating old book I recently read, _According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology_, by C. H. Dodd. It analyses the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament to try to determine which OT passages were most central in shaping the apostles’ understanding of the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. Which passages did they quote most often when explaining the gospel message? Which most powerfully explain the significance of Christ’s coming?
Dodd’s list could be refined a little, but it’s a great start. Here are some of the most important OT passages you will ever read!
Genesis 12:3; 22:18
Deuteronomy 18:15, 19
2 Samuel 7:13-14
Psalms 2; 8; 16; 22; 31; 34; 38; 41; 42; 43; 69; 80; 88; 110; 118; 132
Isaiah 6:1–9:7; 11:1-10; 28:16; 29:9-14; 40:1-11; 42:1–46:5; 49:1-13; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12; 55:3; 58:6-10; 61
Jeremiah 7:1-15; 31:10-34
Hosea (especially Hosea 2-3; 5:8–6:3; 13)
Joel 2-3
Amos 9:11-12
Habakkuk 1-2
Zechariah 9-14
Daniel 7; 12
Malachi 3:1-6
Each of these passages were referenced by multiple NT authors, often in ways that show they assumed their readers were already familiar with them. Learn them well, and watch for how the NT quotes and alludes to them. Find a good cross-reference Bible to see where these verses are used in the NT, and ponder how the apostles understood them. Then see the gospel with new eyes, and read the OT with new eyes.
I think one of the most exciting ways this list could be used would be as a guide for selecting OT memory passages! It would also serve as a good guide for public Scripture readings in church services.
Dodd groups these passages according to key themes of the gospel message: 1) apocalyptic-eschatological–prophesies about the Day of the Lord, with judgement and redemption; 2) scriptures of the new Israel–judgement upon rebellious national Israel, the calling of the remnant, the inauguration of the New Covenant and the emergence of the Church; 3) scriptures of the Servant of the Lord and the Righteous Sufferer; and 4) unclassified–which interestingly includes a few explicitly messianic passages–very few of the others on the list actually speak of a coming “anointed” one!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What is “the Rapture”?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-10-31
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: What is "the Rapture"? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -1 Thessalonians 4:17, rapture, eschatology
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/rapture
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Here’s some [good exegesis from Phillip Long](http://readingacts.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/1-thessalonians-415-17-meeting-the-lord-in-the-air/) related to the verb “will be raptured \[caught up\]” found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. (The Bible never mentions “The Rapture” in noun form.)
Quote:
> “The purpose of this catching away is to “meet with Lord.” The word translated “to meet” (ἀπάντησις) is often used of a delegation sent from a city to greet a dignitary or king, usually in order to escort that important person into a city… When the great king comes, his followers will be gathered to him in order to be a part of his great entourage escorting him back to the world he created.”
I find this understanding more convincing than the explanation I grew up hearing, which imported far too many end-times assumptions into the text without listening carefully enough to the text itself in its own historical and cultural context.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “The Expulsive Power of a New Affection”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-10-24
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: "The Expulsive Power of a New Affection" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Thomas | Chalmers, holiness, sin, law, gospel, grace
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/expulsive-power-new-affection
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Do you long for victory over sin–for yourself, or for those you love? Here is some great reading from an old Scotsman. Read it slowly, enjoying every drop. Enjoy the presentation of the gospel of Christ–for what you love, you will serve.
“[The Expulsive Power of a New Affection](http://www.theologynetwork.org/historical-theology/getting-stuck-in/the-expulsive-power-of-a-new-affection.htm),” by Thomas Chalmers. (Thanks to Tim Keller for alerting me to this old essay.)
* * *
My reflections after reading the essay:
How do we try to motivate people to live holy lives? Often the motivations we use, while they are true and even useful, fall short of the gospel. Sometimes the motivations we use actually reinforce sinful patterns in our hearts.
For example, how might we motivate a person to live honestly? We might warn him that lying to his wife may cost him his marriage, that shady business practices can lead to lost profits, that lying under oath can lead to prison time, and that little white lies will cost you your reputation in the community. All these warnings are true, and all of them are useful and valid when used wisely. But when cut loose from the gospel, they only reinforce the idolatry of our hearts, strengthening sinful motivations of fear and pride—the very motivations that cause us to deceive in the first place! These warnings may help some people choose good behavior (though see Chalmer’s essay), but when they become our primary motivations for good behavior, they will not form a Christ-like character in us or in those we love.
A grace and gospel-based motivation might look more like this: We will remind ourselves that it is impossible to hide anything from God, but that God has extended his love toward us even while knowing the worst about us—while knowing the fear and pride that cause us to deceive. We might ponder the absolute honesty of Christ, both in his own relationships with the Father and with others, and in his manner of dealing justly and lovingly with our sin. We would meditate on the wonderful assurance provided by the certainty that it is impossible for God to lie. Our hearts would become so captivated by the integrity of God that fear and pride would drain out of our hearts, removing all motivation for dishonesty and reshaping us in the image of Christ.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Are you being trained by grace?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-10-19
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Are you being trained by grace? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Titus 1:1, -Titus 2:11-14, -Titus 3:4-8, Martin | Luther, grace
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/trained-by-grace
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Are you being trained by grace today? What does that training look like in your situation? How do you discipline yourself to undergo grace’s training? How does the fact that you have been saved by grace change you so that you engage in godly behaviors?
> “The **grace** of God has appeared, bringing **salvation** for all people, **training** us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” (Titus 2:11-14 ESV)
>
> “When the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. (Titus 3:4-8, ESV.)
Note how the second passage parallels the first one, with “goodness and loving kindness” matching “grace.” Both of these first “appear,” then “save” us (fleshed out in much greater detail in the second passage), and finally lead to “good works.”
I think one way we can cooperate with grace’s training is to regularly meditate on all the aspects of how grace has saved us (as begun in the second passage). This is the “knowledge of the truth that accords with (or leads to) godliness,” see Titus 1:1. Martin Luther counseled pastors to preach the gospel of grace and “beat it into people’s heads” continually.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Deuteronomy–heart of the Old Testament, hints of the New
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-08-05
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Deuteronomy--heart of the Old Testament, hints of the New • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Deuteronomy, OT Theology, Paul | Barker, sermons, law
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/deuteronomy-heart-of-old-testament-hints-of-new
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Let me recommend [these sermons](http://www.holytrinitydoncaster.org.au/resources/sermons/) on Deuteronomy. (Find HDT Deuteronomy 2007, Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3, by doing a search for the preacher “Paul Barker” and the book “Deuteronomy.”)
If you want to understand the big story of the whole Bible well, and only have time to seriously examine 4 or 5 Old Testament books, Deuteronomy should probably be one you include in your study. It basically summarizes or predicts everything crucial from Moses to Malachi. In other words, most of the rest of the OT is commentary on and contemporary application of Deuteronomy. Plus, it clearly foretells Christ and his heart-changing work!
Paul Barker is an Australian Anglican who did his PhD thesis on Deuteronomy, and his sermons are models of how to present insightful scholarship in a very understandable form, as preaching that convicts. If you listen, notice also how he demonstrates Christian application of OT Law and how he continually and authentically traces the connection from the text at hand to Christ. God, give us more able and faithful preachers of your Word!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “What I learned in seminary” — a list for pastors
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-07-30
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "What I learned in seminary" -- a list for pastors • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: church leadership, sermons, education
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-i-learned-in-seminary-list-for-pastors
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Pastors, please feed the sheep! I’ve noticed that sheep who are fed low-nutrition, fast-food leftovers either shrivel up spiritually (sometimes in agony of starvation, sometimes dumbly, without awareness) or else start feeding in other, richer pastures. Neither will be good for the flock in your charge! So please take extra time away from your business or employment, dig more deeply in God’s Word than you ever have before, and craft rich meals. Seek the training you need to excel. God bless all who are already doing this!
[Here’s a link](http://www.westernseminary.edu/transformedblog/2012/07/30/what-i-learned-at-seminary/) with good points for self-examination (written by seminary graduate Sol Rexius). A favorite excerpt:
> “I learned to trust a man who is humble enough to say nothing more than God says and bold enough to say nothing less.”
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Decision-making with God in the picture
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-07-26
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: Decision-making with God in the picture • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: wisdom, Jerry | Sittser, faith, decisions
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/decision-making-with-god-in-picture
(Old Facebook Post)
Good words from a good book–Jerry Sittser writing in _The Will of God as a Way of Life:_
> “I think decision-making is inherently messy, especially when God enters the picture. It is hard enough to make a decision on one’s own; it is even harder when we consider God’s mysterious purposes.”
On the other hand:
> “What counts most is that God is working in my life, writing a redemptive story. I can trust him and do his will wherever I am, whether or not I made the ‘right’ choices, whether or not those ‘right’ choices had a good outcome.”
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Music-making and bonding in multicultural churches
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-06-23
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Music-making and bonding in multicultural churches • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: book reviews, music, church unity, culture
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/music-making-bonding-multicultural-churches
(Old Facebook Post)
This is fascinating! As someone who has spent significant time pondering and reading about to what extent musical languages are universal, [this article](http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/juneweb-only/multiracial-church-music.html) corroborates my conclusions. (Musical languages are mostly _not_ universal. This challenges a lot of conservative assumptions about “good” and “bad” music and the “inevitable” effect certain kinds of music will have upon a person.)
But this article (and the book reviewed) also surprise me with another idea: apparently musical success in a multicultural church is determined less by the extent to which multiple musical styles are incorporated into the worship service than by the extent to which the group bonds around _any_ style in mutual, shared music-making. In other words, give more effort to including everyone in making music together (use all the local talent you can awaken, involve everyone) and lose less sleep trying to include the traditional musics of each sub-culture in your church. The later is good, but apparently not absolutely essential for congregational satisfaction.
I suspect there are additional considerations not mentioned in the article: What about newcomers to the church, who may face a musical language they do not know and in which they have not yet participated in musical fellowship? What about musical language differences that are so large that it is hard for people to begin entering into a true fellowship of shared music making? In such cases, would it not be better to begin the shared music-making process with a mixture of musical languages that are closer to what people already know?
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Creating a Reading Culture in Your Church”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-06-22
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "Creating a Reading Culture in Your Church" | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: church leadership, reading, Allen | Roth, Mark | Dever, education
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/creating-reading-culture-in-church
(Old Facebook Post)
This is great! [Mark Dever here explains](http://www.westernseminary.edu/transformedblog/2012/06/20/creating-a-reading-culture-in-your-church/) what he does to create a culture of reading in his church. Can you imagine what would happen if we put his advice to work in our Mennonite churches over the next 15, 25 years? The only person I know well who has come close to following this advice is Allen Roth (former lead pastor at [Followers of Jesus Mennonite Church](http://www.fjmcny.org/) in NYC), to whom I owe much of my growing passion for reading scholarly biblical literature, and who is a wonderful model of being a continual learner.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Getting Excited About Melchizedek”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-06-17
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "Getting Excited About Melchizedek" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Melchizedek, -Hebrews 5:10, -Hebrews 5:6, -Hebrews 6:20, D.A. | Carson, biblical interpretation, biblical theology, NT use of OT, -Genesis 14:18-20, -Hebrews 7, -Psalm 110
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/getting-excited-melchizedek
If you want to finally understand that bit about Melchizedek, or what to know the real reason why we today talk about Jesus being our high priest, or just want to watch a veteran Bible student demonstrate how to read the whole Bible, paying close attention to the tiniest meaningful details and tracing how the Bible writers read their own Bibles… then watch [this talk by D. A. Carson](http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/getting-excited-about-melchizedek-don-carson-tgc-2011). (An audio file should also be available.) Zonya and I watched it together tonight and were blessed!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Why become ‘all things to all people’?”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-06-12
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "Why become 'all things to all people'?" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -1 Corinthians 9:20-23, noncomformity, D.A. | Carson, law, gospel, culture, missions
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/why-become-all-things-to-all-people
(Old Facebook Post)
I think [this is the best sermon](http://ridleymelbourne.podbean.com/e/why-become-%E2%80%98all-things-to-all-people%E2%80%99/) I’ve heard on the following passage. Thank you D. A. Carson!
> “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23 ESV).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Mennonites, education, and missions
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-06-05
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: Mennonites, Education, and Missions | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: missions, education
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/mennonites-education-missions
(Old Facebook Post)
Words about Mennonites and education from a friend on a cross-cultural mission field:
> “I think the challenge for me was being discouraged by the Body not encouraged. If somehow the church can see education as the beginning of service…
>
> “The challenge for us here is that we are needing people to commit about 6 years to prepare to join us. Four years for a bachelor’s degrees then 2 year in language study before they would move to where we are. Most people hear that they will need to learn another language and then we never hear from them again. The rest do not have any education or significant skill to offer \[this country\] that will get them a visa and they want to do something right now. There is that idea out there that a person should do a VS term and that is enough 2 maybe 3 years. We need people willing to give their life for the Kingdom.
>
> “The same goes for theological study. Years need to be invested and it will not be money that will be paid back.”
Friend, you will remain nameless here, but your words need to be heard: “Education as the beginning of service; people willing to give their lives to the Kingdom.”
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Story-powered godly living
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-05-10
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: Story-powered godly living • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: American Dream, David and Goliath, Michael | Lawrence, moralism, holiness, law, biblical theology, story, identity, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/story-powered-godly-living
(Old Facebook Post)
What is the best way to teach people how to live godly lives? Michael Lawrence, speaking as a pastor at T4G (Together for the Gospel) 2012, gives an interesting answer. He begins by referring to the American Dream and other meta-narratives:
> “Don’t think your people aren’t buying into these stories in one way or another. And those stories, because they tell a beginning and an end, they give purpose, they shape our lives. Without telling me what to do… they tell me what to do. Because they define the goal. And now I begin to live, I begin to make decisions. Nobody has to tell me what to do. I now know, and make decisions in order to get to that goal.
>
> “Biblical theology gives us a different story to tell. It gives us a true story to tell. It gives us the story of what God is doing, has done, and will do. It begins at the beginning, it ends at the end, and we are smack-dab in the middle of it. And it is not through more and more rules that I know how to live; it is by being immersed in the story that I know how to live. Because this story now defines me. It shapes me. It tells me where I came from, who I’m related to, and where I’m going. I can’t give my people enough rules to get them to lead a godly life. There’s no way. But I can give them the story of God and how they fit into it through the gospel. And the Holy Spirit uses that story to redefine themselves \[sic\], their identity, and now they begin to know how to lead godly lives that fit into the story.”
I would probably want to nuance that to note that the Bible does indeed give rules as explanations of what the two great commandments look like in shoe leather, but that too often we point people to the rules without explaining the story very well. Rules are meaningless without the story! Indeed, we are powerless and unmotivated to heed the rules apart from the story. And the better we understand the story and our place in it, the less we may need reminders of individual rules, for God’s law is written on our hearts.
* * *
Here is a talk by Lawrence called “[Why Every Pastor Should Be a Biblical Theologian](http://t4g.org/media/2012/04/why-every-pastor-should-be-a-biblical-theologian/).” Highly recommended! Listening to a talk like this could trigger a permanent change in the way you read and teach the Bible. For example: If you think the story of David and Goliath is mostly about having the courage to face our own personal giants, then you just might be missing the main reason God included the story in the Bible. It’s really a story about Jesus… Enough with mere moralism–let’s find our place in God’s Big Story!
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On pragmatism and biblicism
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-05-09
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: On pragmatism and biblicism • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: pragmatism, church leadership, Holy Spirit, biblicism, -Galatians 3:2-3, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/pragmatism-biblicism
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
I would rather be part of a biblical church that lasts only 10 years than be part of a human institution that lasts for 10 generations.
When it comes to church governance, leadership, and applications, the question “What will work?” (that is, “What will keep my church from falling into sin?”) must always be subordinated to the question, “What does the Bible teach us?” The former question, when given precedence, leads to rationalization and humanistic pragmatism, no matter how baptized with good intentions and genuine spiritual sincerity. The second question forces us to submit our thinking and planning to what truly works in God’s eyes, from his eternal perspective. And his Church will not die, no matter how many human religious institutions stand or fall. Nor will our churches die if we exalt His Word, no matter how radically they may experience outward change in the process.
The heavenly pragmatist remember’s Paul’s stinging admonition: “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:2-3 ESV)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The goal of gospel contextualization
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-04-27
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: The goal of gospel contextualization • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -1 Corinthians 9:22-23, contextualization, Thabiti | Anyabwile, church leadership, church unity, culture, missions, identity, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/goal-of-gospel-contextualization
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Good [questions and reflections here](http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2012/04/24/t4g-debrief-questions-about-contextualization/) by Thabiti Anyabwile for missiologists and church leaders about the gospel and culture. I especially found this thought-provoking:
> “It seems to me that a lot of the popular discussion of contextualization suffers from an incomplete statement of the goal. Contextualizing isn’t the goal. I think everyone who pauses to think about this even for a moment would agree with this. But what’s missing is, imo, a robust statement of the goal. What’s the end we ought to have in mind as we employ this strategy? What does Paul have in mind when he says “so that I might win some”? It’s not simply Christian profession. Nor is it simply personal discipleship. Neither is it simply church membership. If Paul means to win people to the position he himself occupies, it also includes such a radical redefinition of personal identity that he and the convert can become all things to all men (a kind of loose grip on natural identity itself, or a radically enlarged notion of freedom in Christ).”
How should this shape our churches? What if the goal of our discipleship programs and church structures was to equip each member to “become all things to all people… for the sake of the gospel,” as Paul did, “that by all means \[they\] might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22-23)? What would such a church look like? How much visible diversity would be present? How much gospel unity?
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “For you formed my inward parts”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-04-22
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "For you formed my inward parts" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Psalm 139, abortion, goodness of God, omniscience, identity
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/formed-inward-parts
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Here’s a prompt for a fascinating Bible study from Psalm 139. One oft-overlooked word (“for”) can mean so much:
> …Darkness is as light with you.
> **For** you formed my inward parts;
> you knitted me together in my mother’s womb…
> My frame was not hidden from you,
> when I was being made in secret,
> intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
> Your eyes saw my unformed substance… (Ps. 139:12-16)
David knew that God could see in the dark. _How did he know this?_ Because God had seen him even when he was in his mother’s womb!
When David remembered this, he concluded that there was **no _use_** running from God. And because the God that saw him in his mother’s dark womb was a good God, who shaped him in marvelous and wonderful ways, David knew there was also **no _reason_** to run from God.
Suddenly God’s thoughts about David became “precious” to him! In fact, David begged the God who knew and shaped him in the womb to continue thinking about him and shaping his path:
> Search me, O God, and know my heart!
> Try me and know my thoughts!
> And see if there be any grievous way in me,
> and lead me in the way everlasting! (Ps. 139:23-24)
This has huge implications for all who are running from God… and for all who doubt that they are created wonderfully… and for all who deny that the unborn are persons cherished by God. What other implications to you see?
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Eating and drinking unworthily” and Christian poverty
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-04-10
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "Eating and Drinking Unworthily" and Christian Poverty | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Craig | Blomberg, poverty, Lord's Supper, giving, -1 Corinthians 11:17-34
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/eating-drinking-unworthily-christian-poverty
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Ouch! Craig Blomberg on 1 Corinthians 11:17-34:
> “Those who should refrain from the bread and the wine lest they profane the eucharist are not those with a profound sense of their own inadequacy, but those who are actually eating and drinking in an unworthy fashion… ‘One remains hungry, another gets drunk.’ …Once one understands that the gluttony and drunkenness described take place… at the expense of the needy Christians in their midst, then ‘eating and drinking unworthily’ applies in our modern culture to any who continue glibly to partake of the Lord’s Supper, yet who have no track-record in their own lives of giving from their surplus possessions to the poor. The question of who should and should not take the Lord’s Supper in any given church could be revolutionized if we began to obey Paul’s words and apply them as they were intended in their original context.”
— From pages 187-88 of _Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions_, by Craig Blomberg. This is one of the very best books on its topic. Very highly recommended.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “With a rich man in his death” — Holy Saturday thoughts
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-04-07
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "With a rich man in his death" -- Holy Saturday thoughts • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Isaiah 53:9, Holy Saturday, J. Alec | Motyer, Joseph of Arimathea
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/with-rich-man-in-his-death
(Old Facebook Post)
Today is the day we remember Christ was in the grave. Have you ever considered that there, too, he was unexpectedly exalted? The NASB brings this out in its translation of Isaiah 53:9:
> “His grave was assigned with wicked men,
> Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
> Because He had done no violence,
> Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.”
J. Alec Motyer comments:
> “Since the Servant was condemned as a criminal, the natural expectation was that he would be brought to a criminal’s grave but, on the contrary, following a superb/real/violent death \[suggested by the fact that in Hebrew the word “death” in this verse is actually plural\] he was found ‘with a rich man.’ The enigma of 52:13-15 (how could such suffering lead to such exaltation?) and of 53:1-3 (how could one so plainly human be “the arm of the Lord”?) is, therefore, compounded: how could a condemned man receive a rich man’s burial? …Like the other enigmas of this Song, this too is written so that when the turn of events provides the explanation \[that is, when Jesus was actually buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s grave\] we shall know for certain that we stand in the presence of the Servant of the Lord.” (The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, J. Alec Motyer, IVP Academic, 1993, page 436).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Many” New Testament allusions to Isaiah 53
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-04-05
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "Many" New Testament allusions to Isaiah 53 • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Isaiah 52:14-15, -Isaiah 53:11-12, -Matthew 20:28, -Matthew 26:27-28, atonement, prophecy, NT use of OT
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/many-nt-allusions-to-isaiah-53
(Old Facebook Post)
Isaiah 53 is a rich gospel feast. It is quoted very frequently by the New Testament writers. Following are two of the more subtle references, made by Christ himself.
**Jesus said:**
> “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for **many**.” (Matt 20:28 ESV)
>
> And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for **many** for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt 26:27-28 ESV)
**Isaiah wrote:**
> As **many** were astonished at you—
> his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
> and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
> so shall he sprinkle **many** nations;
>
> …by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
> make **many** to be accounted righteous,
> and he shall bear their iniquities.
> Therefore I will divide him a portion with the **many**,
> and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
> because he poured out his soul to death
> and was numbered with the transgressors;
> yet he bore the sin of **many**,
> and makes intercession for the transgressors.
> (Is 52:14-15; 53:11-12 ESV)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A Definition of “Baptism”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-03-27
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: A Definition of "Baptism" | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: baptism, conversion
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/definition-baptism
(Old Facebook Post)
How is this for a definition of baptism? “Baptism is our confession of faith in Christ through which we are saved by the grace of God.”
(This is an attempt to define baptism as the NT church understood it–not as a sacrament in which the physical act confers grace even upon those who may not yet be capable of faith, nor as an ordinance which presents baptism as a mere symbol of a prior conversion event, but as an inseparable dimension of the moment of our first saving faith-repentance-confession-regeneration\-Spirit infilling.)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On reading Augustine of Hippo
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-03-27
Category: Book Reviews
Meta Title: On reading Augustine of Hippo • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: book reviews, City of God, Augustine of Hippo, church history
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/reading-augustine-hippo
(Old Facebook Post)
I finished listening to St. Augustine’s City of God today. Forty-five hours of listening to a master rhetorician from the 5th century. One moment I’m stirred by top-notch logic, powerful theological insights, and fascinating historical observations, the next I’m plunged into confusion by yet another hour of describing pagan gods and philosophies, and yet again I’m smiling at some strange ancient belief (salamanders can live in fire; peacock meat doesn’t spoil) or preoccupation (if “not a hair of your head will perish,” does that mean your resurrection body will have long hair and fingernails?). A wonderful opportunity to time travel, to remember again how much bigger this world is than our little 21st century. Now on to Augustine’s Confessions.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## The frustration and joy of John the Baptist
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-03-24
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: The frustration and joy of John the Baptist • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -John 3:27-30, frustration, John the Baptist, joy
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/frustration-joy-of-john-the-baptist
(Old Facebook Post)
I love John the Baptist’s frustrated/joyful response to those who rejected Jesus:
> “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. **_\[Pulls out his hair and rolls his eyes.\]_** You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bride, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. **_\[Wow! Here’s a key to joy!\]_** He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:27-30 ESV)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Fun with church history and chastity
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-03-13
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: Fun with church history and chastity • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: chastity, Noah's ark, Tolstoy, Augustine of Hippo, church history, Tertullian
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/fun-with-church-history-chastity
(Old Facebook Post)
Church history is fun! Today I learned from St. Augustine what the 3 floors of Noah’s ark might symbolize: 1st floor–chastity (faithfulness) in marriage; 2nd floor–chastity of widows; 3rd floor–chastity of virgins. It’s easy to see which he prized as displaying the highest virtue.
Tertullian’s perspective was even more interesting. He thought it was no great virtue to be a virgin if you had never married–that was only a natural and expected state for the never-married. If you wanted a virginity that counted, you should be a virgin as a widow, after having know the pleasures of sexuality. But if you really wanted a virginity that would really earn some merit… you should live as a virgin while married. Unfortunately for Tolstoy’s wife, that’s what Tolstoy also believed.
As I said, church history rocks! 🙂
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What’s this bit about “sinful nature”?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-03-04
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: What's This Bit about "Sinful Nature"? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: age of accountability, Clinton | Arnold, -Ephesians 2:1-3, -Isaiah 7:16, -Romans 5:13, -Romans 7:20, -Romans 7:9, 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith, Book of Life, children - evangelism, Douglas | Stuart, confessions of faith, Paul, sin, Adam, sinful nature
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/whats-bit-sinful-nature
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Two questions:
* Does a Christian still have a sinful nature?
* Did Adam’s sin cause everyone to be born with a sinful nature?
A definition: I’m understanding _sinful nature_ to mean: an inner identity that naturally tends toward sin.
To supplement my original questions:
* Is it correct to consider Adam our _federal head_–that he is our representative and, since he as our representative died, we also died “in” him? (Similar to how we say Christ is our representative and that we participated in his death and resurrection.)
* If so, are we being punished for Adam’s sin? Or are we only judged for our own sins (into which we have been led, thanks to Adam’s influence)?
* Would it be more accurate to say (with Rom. 5) that Adam’s trespass brought sin into the world (rather than that it gave us a sinful nature) and that sin overpowers us and reigns over us? If so, then when we die with Christ in conversion, what dies is not so much a _sinful_ nature that by its very nature was guilty, but a _powerless_ self that was ruled by sin. This seems to better fit the vocabulary of Romans (sin reigning over the Spirit-less man and taking up residence in our flesh, contaminating it–but no mention of a sinful nature) and also seems to make better sense of the idea of children not being accountable for their sins.
[](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/gift-from-adam1.jpg)
[
](http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/gift-from-adam1.jpg)
_Sinful nature_ is, arguably, not a biblical term. The phrase is never found in the KJV, nor in two of my favorite modern translations, the NASB and the ESV. Even the latest version of the NIV now only contains that phrase twice (both in Romans 7, where the actual word is _sarx_–“flesh”). So if we want to affirm the concept of a sinful nature, we will need to deduce it from other terms, much as we deduce the concept of the Trinity from various texts that describe the unity and divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Perhaps the closest Paul comes to directly mentioning a sinful nature is when he says that we were “_by nature children of wrath_, like the rest of mankind” (Eph. 2:3). But in the same context he describes our _sinfulness_ as a combination of outward realities and of the flesh–no mention of a sinful nature. He says we are “dead” (“alienation from the one who gives life,” a relational problem), “under the control of the age of this world” and “under the control of the ruler of the realm of the air”[1](#fn-549-1) So our outward sin problem is that we are separated from God and under the control of the world and the devil. The inner aspect of sin Paul locates in our _flesh_, not in some sinful nature: “We all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body \[literally, _flesh_\] and of the mind.” We were “children of wrath” when the world, our flesh, and the devil met apart from Christ’s saving presence. In this context, sin ruled us, leaving us “dead” under God’s wrath. Notice also that this passage speaks only in the past tense: Paul does not say that Christians are still “by nature children of wrath,” let alone that they still have a sinful nature.
It seems to me that _sinful nature_ tends to blend together what Paul carefully separates when he says, “Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me” (Rom. 7:20). _Sinful nature_, though usually phrased as something we _have_, is sometimes treated as an identity, as if _sinful nature_ = _I_. But Paul says _sin_ = an _it_ inside of _I_.
Another way of getting at my central question here is to ask these questions:
\* Do we sin because we are sinners?
\* Or are we sinners because we sin?
Perhaps neither, ultimately? Perhaps we sin because, apart from God’s Spirit, we are powerless in this post-Adamic world where sin and death reign. Then secondarily, because we sin, we are sinners.
Another factor that got me thinking along these lines was reading a brief essay summarizing what the Bible says about the Book of Life. Perhaps all initially are written in Book of Life and only removed later by God when they have filled up the measure of their sins. From that essay:
> “Everyone starts out in the Book of Life. It is a book of the living, and all who are born originally appear in it…. All who come into the world have the potential for eternal life… but most ignore, reject, disdain, put off, or otherwise forfeit that potential—and so their names are eventually blotted out of the Book of Life…. Their rejection of \[God\] eventually earns them rejection from being listed among the living.” Note: “One could argue that the time of blotting out would be when they died, once they no longer had any opportunity to retain their names in the Book by trusting Christ for their eternal life, but the Bible does not speak to the question of when blotting out occurs” (Douglas Stuart, “Excursus: The Book of Life,” pg. 688).
The 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith tries to get around the problem of guilty-because-we-have-a-sinful-nature by saying:
> “Although men are sinners by nature because of Adam’s fall, they are not guilty of his sin. Those who perish eternally do so only because of their own sin…. We believe that children are born with a nature which will manifest itself as sinful as they mature. When they come to know themselves to be responsible to God, they must repent and believe in Christ in order to be saved.”
I think that is essentially accurate, depending on how you understand _nature_. Perhaps it would be more clear and accurate (and more helpful for understanding the biblical perspective that children are not accountable for their sins) to say:
“Because of Adam’s sin, children are born into a world ruled by sin. They are powerless against sin and fall under its rule. As they mature they become aware of good and evil (see Is. 7:16). They also become aware of God’s Law (Rom. 5:13, “sin is not counted where there is no law”; Rom. 7:9 “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died”; etc.). As this awareness grows, they become accountable for their sins. If they refuse to repent and trust in Jesus throughout their lives, eventually God in his own time will remove them from his Book of Life.”
In summary: I wonder if it might be more biblical to say we are ruled by sin (as an external force that takes up residency in our flesh) rather than saying we are born with a sinful nature.
The above way of thinking about sin reigning (a powerless old man instead of a sinful nature) and the accountability of children would also have repercussions for evangelism of older children. The “sinful nature paradigm” I have grown up with suggests that children go from _saved_ to _damned_ to _born again_. The “sin reigning paradigm” would allow for this progression: _saved_ to _awareness of danger of losing that security but not yet damned_ to _born again_. Thus in coaching children to trust in Christ we would not be so much waiting until they gain consciousness of sin and then telling them “You are sinners who are currently worthy of hell” but rather, when that consciousness of sin begins to arise, we might say: “Do you know why you sin? Sin is a powerful force within you that drives you to do what you don’t want to do. If you place your trust in Jesus and turn away from sin, your old powerless self will die and you will be born again with the powerful Spirit of God inside of you, giving you victory over sin. That way you never need fear the wrath of God. However, if you refuse to trust in Christ, God will eventually–we don’t know when–judge you worthy of eternal death.” Explaining all that (beginning with the basic awareness of why they sin, gradually explaining the hope of the gospel) would be more of a process than a single child-evangelism event. And, if the child responds in faith throughout, it might be right to say they never were “lost.”
Hmm… That’s called thinking aloud.
1. Definitions and translations by Clinton Arnold, in _Ephesians_ (Zondervan, 2010, pages 129-30). [↩](#fnref-549-1)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Head and heart: Worshiping as whole persons
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-01-18
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Head and heart: Worshiping as whole persons • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: head, emotions, intellect, John | Piper, worship, heart
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/head-heart-worshiping-as-whole-persons
(Old Facebook Post)
Words from John Piper jumped out at me today as I listened. I think I now more clearly understand something that is deeply wrong with some of our conservative Mennonite churches that we love.
Piper said we must target both “head and heart” in our church worship. He described the goal of worship like this:
> “Worship that aims at kindling and carrying deep, strong, real emotions toward God, but does not manipulate people’s emotions by failing to appeal to clear thinking about spiritual things… Keeping these together–head and heart–is the difference between emotion and emotionalism, and between intellectual and intellectualism… If you target only the head, you’ll be intellectualistic. If you target only the emotions, you’ll be emotionalistic. But if you target the emotions _through_ the head, you will be _truly_ emotional. And if you target the head _for the sake of_ the emotions, you’ll be _truly_ intellectual.”
When I read this quote to my wife (having scribbled it down while on break at work), she immediately jumped in with the same response that I had: The problem with too many Mennonite churches is that we target _neither_ the intellect nor the emotions! When this is the case, it is no wonder if we start to dry up spiritually!
Some churches emphasize one extreme (emotionalism or intellectualism) in an attempt to avoid the other extreme. Conservative Mennonites over the past 100 years have developed both an unfortunate aversion to expressing emotions in worship (that’s actually even older) and also an unhealthy fear of using the intellect. But the godly solution is to bring the _whole_ person in worship before the glory of Christ–to stir up both head and heart for the sake of producing Christian disciples who are both _wise_ and _zealous_!
How do we get there from here? One way to start would be to encourage friends to read or listen to Piper’s teaching on Desiring God (“Christian hedonism”)– or [find the lectures at Biblical Training](http://www.biblicaltraining.org/desiring-god/john-piper).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Old Testament holy war and Christian nonresistance
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-01-14
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: Old Testament Holy War and Christian Nonresistance | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Ephesians 6:10-20, -Exodus 20:13, holy war, Douglas | Stuart, nonresistance, -Romans 13:1-5
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ot-holy-war-christian-nonresistance
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
I learned another reason why I, as a Christian, cannot serve in any military. Here is the teaching of the Old Testament regarding Israel’s participation in war, as summarized by Douglas Stuart in his Exodus commentary:
> “Old Testament holy war… may be summarized by twelve propositions:
> 1\. No standing army was allowed…
> 2\. No pay for soldiers was permitted…
> 3\. No personal spoil/plunder could be taken…
> 4\. Holy war could only be fought for the conquest or defense of the promised land. Israel had no right to any other land or to warfare for any other purpose…
> 5\. Only at Yahweh’s call could holy war be launched…
> 6\. Solely through a prophet could that divine call come…
> 7\. Yahweh did the real fighting in holy war because the war was always his…
> 8\. Holy was was a religious undertaking, involving fasting, abstinence from sex, and/or other forms of self denial…
> 9\. A goal of holy war was the total annihilation of an evil culture…
> 10\. The violator of the rules of holy war became an enemy…
> 11\. Exceptions and mutations were possible, especially in the case of combat with those who were not original inhabitants of the promised land…
> 12\. Decisive, rapid victory characterized holy war…”
Proposition 4 suggests Christians are left without any legitimate right to physical warfare. In the New Testament, the promised land is now no longer physical territory in the Middle East, but spiritual realities (Christ, his Kingdom, and the new creation coming at the end of this age). Therefore, the only warfare for the Christian is spiritual warfare (as in Ephesians 6:10-20). Since the US military (and that of any other nation, including modern Israel) is not defending the land God has promised to his people, any killing I would do under its orders would be murder, contrary to the 10 Commandments and contrary to Christ’s command in the Sermon on the Mount to love, pray for, and do good to my enemies.
(Sadly, Stuart misses the implications of his own findings when commenting on “Thou shalt not murder.” There he intentionally tries to leave room for military service with the equivocating statement, “No unauthorized ‘private’ person or group has the right to end a human life.”)
Propositions 5 and 6 also pretty well eliminate Christian participation in the military–and none of the other propositions match modern warfare, either.
Of course, none of the above contradicts the NT teaching (see Rom. 13:1-5) that God uses the sword of the government to punish evil (although that teaching is given in the context of capital punishment, not war).
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On the danger of turning norms into absolutes
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-01-07
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: On the danger of turning norms into absolutes • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Ephesians 4:11-12, -Matthew 28:19, -2 Timothy 3:16, pragmatism, biblical interpretation, ordinances, church leadership, baptism, Lord's Supper
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/danger-of-turning-norms-into-absolutes
(Old Facebook Post)
One danger in biblical interpretation is the temptation to turn pragmatic norms into absolute rules. I’ve been thinking about this in relation to the question of who may baptize or serve the Lord’s Supper.
It is only natural and right, given biblical teaching about the responsibility pastors/elders bear to lead churches, and given socially-driven expectations placed upon leaders, that they will regularly perform baptisms and serve the Lord’s Supper. However, besides the command in the Great Commission about baptizing (Matt. 28:19), no biblical text gives any explicit instructions whatsoever about who should perform either of these tasks. Yet most Protestant and Anabaptist congregations have created a near-absolute rule that only ordained ministers may “administer the ordinances.” I think this does violence to Scripture, turning norms into absolutes.
Indeed, it could be argued that the more mature a local church is, the freer its individual members will be to _all_ baptize and serve the Lord’s Supper without direct ministerial participation. As I understand it, Ephesians 4:11-12 does not say that leaders are given “for the work of ministry” (as KJV wrongly indicates), but that they are to given “equip the saints for the work of ministry” (ESV). Should not a well-equipped saint be prepared for “every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16), including baptizing new believers and celebrating the Lord’s Supper with fellow saints?
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Church cultures and the danger of complacency
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-01-06
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Church cultures and the danger of complacency • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: complacency, John | Johnson, vision, John S. | Coffman, church leadership, church unity, Arnold L. | Cook, change, church culture
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/church-cultures-danger-of-complacency
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
“[The Dangerous Side of Success](http://www.westernseminary.edu/transformedblog/2012/01/06/a-sense-of-urgency/).” This article by John Johnson is a superb warning for pastors (or other leaders of spiritual institutions) about the dangers of complacency. Giving examples from the business world, Johnson observes:
> “Something… tends to happen with success. Organizations become arrogant, monolithic, and inflexible.”
Another key quote:
> “Church cultures are prone to the same thing—to achieve some success and then become satisfied, content, turning insular, rigid—oblivious to the warning Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, who once said: ‘When the rate of change inside an organization is slower than the rate of change outside of an organization, the end of the organization is in sight.’”
How do we keep our churches and church fellowships “cutting edge,” so that we keep young spiritual visionaries growing up within our ranks, rather than ignoring them, then suppressing them, then squeezing them out altogether?
* * *
Reader response:
> “Change management practice \[from business education\] would indicate that to initiate the process, what is needed is a core group of “change champions,” preferably people with a high level of credibility and some level of power or influence. And of course, lets not forget that this is the Church of God–prayer is a powerful tool that tends to not make it into the textbooks I bought while I was in school.” 🙂
* * *
My response to reader:
…A combination of prayer and “change champions with credibility.” The latter requires patient people, persistent people, people who intentionally and humbly stay in meaningful dialogue with existing leaders, people who actively support everything current that is worth supporting, etc. For an old-fashioned account of such a change champion, read _His Name Was John_, a biography of J.S. Coffman, early Mennonite revivalist (d. 1898), who persisted against significant opposition to help introduce “protracted meetings” (week-long revival/teaching mtgs.) and Sunday School, etc. into very tradition-bound churches. Although some of his efforts resulted in new ossified traditions within a couple generations, he was, in his time, someone who brought needed fresh vision and life to the Mennonite church.
* * *
My main concern here is this: How can we better disciple new leaders within our churches? New leaders will mean some new ideas and ways of doing things (godly, but new). Do we intentionally make room for this newness? Or are our church institutions so rigid that we stifle godly visionaries and set ourselves up for constant cycles of churches dying and new institutions being formed, often through conflict with old leadership?
It’s easier to criticize than to find solutions. An interesting book on this topic, which borrows carefully from business principles as well as church history, is _Historical Drift: Must My Church Die? How to Detect, Diagnose and Reverse the Trends_, by Arnold L. Cook.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “What grace alone can do” — J.S. Coffman
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2012-01-01
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: "What grace alone can do" -- J.S. Coffman • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Daniel | Kauffman, John S. | Coffman, church history, grace, church standards, worldliness
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-grace-alone-can-do-js-coffman
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
Here’s an interesting quote for historical and theological reflection, written in 1893 by J.S. Coffman (1848-98), the hugely influential Mennonite revivalist and editor:
> “The Virginia church and conference has done much legislating to keep our people down out of the world in dress and other things, but in spite of all the keeping down they have done, their young men are now more conformed to the world than ours at Elkhart where we do not legislate much, but do some teaching on this point, and instead put our young people to work and have them contend for these principles…. They have tried too much to do by force of law what grace alone can do. What is it worth to keep people down in any sense if they submit only by constraint? We are in the dispensation of grace, and I shall never again help to legislate on outward forms as I did once in the Virginia conference when I did not know better. But I shall work harder in another way for the same principle.”
(I did not record a source for this quote. It may come from _His Name Was John_, a biography of J.S. Coffman by his granddaughter.)
It was under J.S. Coffman’s preaching that Daniel Kauffman was converted. Kauffman’s writings (sometimes interpreted in ways Kauffman would not have desired) form the doctrinal foundation for conservative Mennonites today–a group that has shown a tendency to emphasize the “outward forms” that Coffman later renounced.
How would conservative Mennonites be different today if they had heeded the elder Coffman’s advice? (Or was Coffman mistaken, as some might conclude from the subsequent liberalization of Goshen College in Elkhart?)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Coffman and the origin of 7 ordinances
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-12-04
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Coffman and the Origin of 7 Ordinances | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Mark R. | Wenger, Daniel | Kauffman, Anabaptist history, John S. | Coffman, ordinances, church history
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/coffman-origin-7-ordinances
(Old Facebook Post)
Apparently the traditional 7 Mennonite ordinances go back one step earlier than Daniel Kauffman and his “Doctrines” books, to evangelist J. S. Coffman in 1891 or earlier. Here is an excerpt from a fascinating [article by Mark R. Wenger](http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/jan05wenger.html) in the Mennonite Quarterly Review that tells the story (through the lens of the topic of anointing with oil):
> Despite his personal unfamiliarity with anointing the sick, sometime in the next decade Coffman began to refer to it as an “ordinance” of the church. The term “ordinance” had been used widely and loosely across the church to refer both to shared understandings that governed church life, and specific church ceremonies like baptism and Lords’ Supper. \[32\] By 1891, however, Coffman had begun to give “ordinances” a more precise meaning, even providing a definitive list of them.
>
> Coffman usually opened his series of revival services with an emphasis on repentance, new birth, faith and salvation. Toward the end of a revival series, Coffman nearly always took an explicitly doctrinal tack, teaching the ordinances and restrictions of the church. These were firmly buttressed with Scripture citations rather than appeals to tradition. In his diary he sometimes noted the sermon topic as “Ordinances as Symbols,” and referred to the ordinances “as a chain.”\[33\]
>
> In the wake of a particularly long-running and successful revival series in 1891 in Waterloo County, Ontario, Coffman compiled and published a four-page pamphlet entitled Fundamental Bible References, the earliest compilation of Mennonite ordinances that specifically includes anointing with oil. Under the heading “Requirements of Obedience,” Coffman included “Ordinances,” “Duties” and “Restrictions.” The Ordinances were listed with short descriptions and scriptural references as follows:
>
> Principal Ordinances-Heb. 9:1
>
> (1) Baptism with Water
>
> (2) Communion
>
> (3) Footwashing
>
> Secondary Ordinances-1 Cor. 11:2
>
> (1) Prayer Head-Covering for the Women
>
> (2) Greeting with the Holy Kiss
>
> (3) Marriage
>
> (4) Anointing with Oil for the Recovering of the Sick
It’s historical research like this that makes you stop and think: How much that we consider completely normal… would have never become reality at all, had it not been for a whole slew of “accidents” of history… like a conversation here, a personal letter there, a person here who had the means to travel and share the idea, a periodical article there, which was read by so-and-so, and one more person who “happened” to think writing a book about it was important, etc…. And WHAM! Suddenly we have a brand new FORMAL LIST of “ordinances” that thousands of people grow up assuming has always around, handed down from Mount Calvary. Nothing like studying history to help you break free of chronological snobbery and live disoriented by culture shock within your very own social backyard–and turn to the Bible for better foundations.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Do you “believe into” Jesus?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-11-25
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Do you "believe into" Jesus? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -John 3:16, faith, Bill | Mounce
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/believe-into-jesus
(Old Facebook Post)
Do you really believe in Jesus? Do you “believe into” him? [This blog post](http://www.westernseminary.edu/transformedblog/2011/11/25/what-does-it-mean-to-believe/) is a description of true Christian belief (faith), from one of my favorite Bible teachers, Bill Mounce. Keep reading for a good insight into John 3:16:
> “Biblical belief means that you no longer believe or trust in yourself but rather have moved that trust out of yourself and “into” Jesus. Biblical belief is leaving self-sufficiency behind and embracing Christ-sufficiency. Biblical belief is throwing yourself into the merciful arms of Jesus, believing that he will catch you. Biblical belief is trusting him for everything: forgiveness, salvation, life.
>
> To state it more theologically, biblical belief is believing that Jesus is who says he is, and that he will do what he said he will do. It is to believe that he does for you what you could not do for yourself. What did he do? He provided the means by which our sins could be forgiven and we could be brought into fellowship with God. God’s love and Jesus’ death built the gate at the cross so that by faith the door could swing open and we could walk through.
>
> But the Bible doesn’t just say “believe in,” it says “believe into.” The New Testament was originally written in the Greek language, and one of the frustrating parts in being a translator is that certain things simply cannot be restated in English. This is one of those passages.
>
> John wants to make a point, and to do so he breaks Greek grammar. And he doesn’t just kind of break grammar; he makes a horrible “blunder” that is so bad we have no record of anyone else in all Greek literature making the same blunder. Of course, he is doing it intentionally to make a point. John doesn’t say we should respond by “believing in” but rather “believe into.” It is the “into” with the verb “believe” that is such bad Greek grammar.
>
> Saving faith is a trusting in the person and work of Jesus (who he is and what he has done) such that we move our self-reliant trust out of ourselves, flinging ourselves into the merciful arms of God, believing and trusting that he will catch us, care for us, provide for us, protect us, and eventually bring us home to live with him forever.
>
> So what do you think? How is this as an explanation of “believe”?”
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Seeing the face of God
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-11-06
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Seeing the face of God • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Genesis 32-33, reconciliation
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/seeing-face-god
(Old Facebook Post)
Reflections on Jacob’s encounter’s with God and Esau in Genesis 32-33:
Until you experience the shock of actually surviving a solitary “face-to-face” encounter with God where you admit your true character as a heel-grasping, selfish, deceiving wretch, you may never get over your fear of facing your brother against whom you have sinned. But if you do survive such God-wrestlings, and even come out with the gift of a divine blessing, then seeing your brother’s face may feel like seeing the face of God.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On scanning Mennonite confessions of faith
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-11-05
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: On scanning Mennonite confessions of faith • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: noncomformity, confessions of faith, ordinances, -Romans 12:2, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/scanning-mennonite-confessions-faith
I’m scanning some Mennonite confessions of faith and booklets of instruction for new Christians, researching where we got the idea of 7 ordinances. It’s pretty frustrating. One moment you’re reading wonderful summaries of biblical truths, and the next moment you’re left wondering whether you are reading the same Bible.
Example: After quoting Rom. 12:2, we’re told “nonconformity to the world in the above passage refers primarily to the way we dress.” Hello? Did you forget to give Paul that memo? He never mentions dress in that passage… Then we get: “The church has the responsibility to design patterns of simple dress for her people, in harmony with Biblical principles. You will find this code written in the standards of the church. You ought to become acquainted with these standards and obey them willingly.” \[Military salute. “Yes, SIR!!”\] For some reason there is no Scripture reference given for this last paragraph. ??
Or, in another booklet, after a generally good paragraph on what “the Word teaches” about clothing, a move away from “the Word” to simply what “we believe”: “We believe that the principles of nonconformity, modesty and simplicity can best be maintained by uniformity \[no evidence given, from “the Word” or otherwise\], therefore, we believe uniform plain attire in the congregation is necessary” (a move from “best” to “necessary”).
Or this: “In this chapter we are going to study about the seven ordinances of the church \[Pardon me? What seven ordinances? Which Bible passage lists these seven?\] The word “ordinance” could mean any commandment or law \[pretty close to the Bible’s use of the word, I believe\], but in this chapter we will use it in a different \[non-biblical?\] sense.”
I’m starting to feel like I have when I’ve scanned Roman Catholic catechism books…
\[Affirmation: I love my Mennonite brothers and sisters!\]
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “Ran… embraced… kissed”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-09-01
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "Ran... embraced... kissed" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Genesis 29:13, -Genesis 33:4, -Luke 15:20, NT use of OT
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/ran_embraced_kissed
(Old Facebook Post–Revised)
Compare Luke 15:20 with Genesis 33:4. The father in the Prodigal Son parable “ran… embraced… kissed” his younger son; in Genesis the older son Esau “ran… embraced… kissed” the younger son Jacob.
Perhaps Jesus is saying prodigals and sinners (see Luke 15:1) are the typological fulfillment of Jacob–and are therefore the true Israel! The Pharisees and scribes (Luke 15:2), on the other hand, aren’t even as good as foolish, non-elect Esau (or the scoundrel Laban; see Genesis 29:13), who had the decency to welcome his younger brother.
Note: These are the only Bible verses where all these key words occur.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Wisdom versus revelation – James 1:5
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-08-28
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Wisdom Versus Revelation | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: wisdom, -James 1:5, prayer
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/wisdom-versus-revelation
(Old Facebook Post)
_Wisdom_ is the God-given ability to make decisions when faced with complex situations. _Revelation_ is a voice from heaven–God speaking his wisdom directly to me.
So when I am faced with a complex decision and pray for wisdom, in response to James 1:5 (“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God…”), why am I often waiting, not for _wisdom_, but for _revelation_?
And by the way, wisdom comes by persevering faithfully through trials (cf. James 1:2-4), which means it might not come instantly.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Jonah and superficial repentance
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-07-31
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Jonah and superficial repentance • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Jonah 2, repentance
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/jonah-superficial-repentance
(Old Facebook Post)
Those of you who studied Jonah in Sunday School today may especially be interested in [this study](https://bible.org/seriespage/psalm-prodigal-prophet-jonah-21-10) which suggests Jonah’s chapter 2 prayer was a sham. I agree! (There is even more evidence than given here.)
Takeaway thought: Beware superficial repentance–repentance which is still self-centered, which feels worthy of God’s mercy and refuses to offer it to others.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On taking God’s name in vain
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-07-28
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: On taking God's name in vain • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -Deuteronomy 5:11, -Exodus 20:7, -James 5:3, -John 16:23-27, -Philippians 2:8-11, John H. | Walton, name of God, prayer
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/taking-gods-name-in-vain
(Old Facebook Post)
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain” (Exodus 20:7).
> “The name is equivalent to the identity of the Deity… We are familiar with identity theft today, when a symbol such as a… social security number can be used to abuse or exploit the economic power or authority of an individual. Commandment three works on the same premise and prohibits divine identity theft.” – John H. Walton
I think the idea here is that we are prohibited from commandeering God (God’s name entails all that God is) for our own selfish purposes. I’m reminded of James: “You ask and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it upon your own lusts” (James 5:3). I think we can even take God’s name in vain in our prayers–perhaps _more_ easily there than at any other time.
And yet… Jesus invites us to confidently pray in _his_ name (John 16:23-27)… and he has been given “the name which is above every name… LORD” (Philippians 2), that is–as a Jewish mind would understand it–Jesus has been given God’s own name, Yahweh. (Re-read Philippians 2:8-11 and let that sink in for a bit.)
So, God has given Jesus the authority to use _God’s own name_, and Jesus then gives us authority to use _Jesus’ name_, and… _God forbid that we use his name in vain_! This makes me aware again what an awesome invitation and responsibility it is to pray.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “When people add to the Word of God”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-07-24
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: "When people add to the Word of God" • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: Eve, -Genesis 2:17, -Genesis 3:2, Dennis | McCallum, biblical interpretation, Adam, Satan, church standards
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/people-add-word-god
(Old Facebook Post)
Dennis McCallum on adding to God’s Word:
> “How much should we make of Eve’s addition to God’s Word–that even touching the fruit would cause death? **_\[See Genesis 3:2. God had only said, “If you_ eat _it’s fruit, you are sure to die.” Genesis 2:17, italics added.\]_** Some commentators think this is significant, and I tend to agree.
>
> “Remember, Eve wasn’t around when God spoke his directive to Adam… Therefore, Adam probably had to convey what God had said. Perhaps he decided to play it safe and, just in case, add a restriction that God never mentioned. If so, his addition is similar to what believers have historically done with God’s Word. Instead of sticking with what God has said, we tend to add extra restrictions, as layers of protection or control…
>
> “When people add to the Word of God, they tend to add more boundaries and guidelines than he gave in the original. **Such additions can become openings for Satan because they represent God as being needlessly restrictive** and portray the Christian life as stuffy and unlivable. **Satan then uses this to call God’s character into question**.”
Excerpts from _Satan and His Kingdom: What the Bible Says and How It Matters to You_ (Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2009), page 29. (The bracketed comment and the boldface were added by me.)
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## On borrowing pagan musical forms
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-07-13
Category: Old Facebook Posts
Meta Title: On Borrowing Pagan Musical Forms | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: psalms, noncomformity, Christopher J. H. | Wright, worship, music, poetry, culture
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/borrowing-pagan-musical-forms
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
I find hard to believe that heavenly music will be restricted to the styles of 16th to 19th century Europe. The Bible itself demonstrates the appropriateness of borrowing from other musical cultures:
> “It is clear that Israel’s psalms have in some places happily taken over Canaanite poetic meter, imagery, and even aspects of their mythology and utilized it all in extolling the unique sovereign and providential power of YHWH.” – Christopher Wright, _The Mission of God_ (footnote on page 443)
I’ve done some study of how music “means,” looking both at music history and at some scientific literature. I’ve concluded that there is _some intrinsic emotional meaning_ to some sounds (for example, sudden, loud or fast sounds tend to increase the excitement level–or, more accurately according to scientific literature, it is _unexpected_ sounds that do this, so an unexpected silence can achieve the same), but that _most of the meaning/affective power of music comes from the extrinsic associations we bind up with a particular kind of sound_, thanks to our past history and teaching regarding that kind of sound. What we hear and enjoy in our adolescence/youth tends to become the norm by which we experience and compare all other musics we subsequently hear throughout life.
(I’ve heard a story of an ex-Satanist fleeing a church because of the organ music of Bach, which had been used in his Satanic cult, and another story of a mother and infant in severe distress during birth, until medical personnel were convinced to play her favorite heavy metal music–at which point the baby’s heart rate calmed down, as did the mother, and the birth proceeded successfully.)
I think much fundamentalist/conservative Anabaptist teaching regarding music is a reactionary theology, developed on the “battlefield” in response to the rock and roll music revolution, during which time certain sounds were connected quite closely by a majority of musicians with an evil lifestyle. Those concerns were valid for the time. However, such music today is does not carry those evil associations to a majority of listeners and performers, being innocent enough to be useable for radio jingles and children’s educational songs.
The suitability of musical sounds is an important question, yes, but the deeper question is whether the musician is using sound to bless God and neighbor. David used pagan poetic meters to praise Yahweh.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## “The difference between Christians and the rest of mankind”
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-05-09
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: Difference between Christians and rest of mankind | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: noncomformity, abortion, citizenship, separation, church history, culture, persecution, early church
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/difference_between_christians_and_rest_mankind
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
An excerpt from [The Epistle to Diognetus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Diognetus), written about the end of the second century:
> “The difference between Christians and the rest of mankind is not a matter of nationality, or language, or customs. Christians do not live apart in separate cities of their own, speak any special dialect, nor practice any eccentric way of life… They… conform to ordinary local usage in their clothing, diet, and other habits. Nevertheless, the organization of their community does exhibit some features that are remarkable, and even surprising. For instance, though they are residents at home in their own countries, their behavior there is more like that of transients; they take their full part as citizens, but they also submit to anything and everything as if they were aliens… Like other men, they marry and beget children, though they do not expose their infants. Any Christian is free to share his neighbour’s table, but never his marriage-bed… Their days are passed on the earth, but their citizenship is above in the heavens. They obey the prescribed laws, but in their own private lives they transcend the laws. They show love to all men–and all men persecute them.“
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## What do I love most?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2011-03-05
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: What do I love most? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -John 12:42-43
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/what-do-i-love-most
(Old Facebook Post)
What I _love_ most… trumps what I _believe_… and determines what I _fear_ and what I _confess_ publicly.
> “Many even of the authorities **believed** in him, but for **fear** of the Pharisees they did not **confess** it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they **loved** the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God” (John 12:42-43, ESV).
What do _you_ love most?
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## A doctrine of “continually renewed minds”?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2010-12-17
Category: Church Chat [Ecclesiology]
Meta Title: A doctrine of "continually renewed minds"? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: noncomformity, church unity, Holy Spirit, -Romans 12:2
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/doctrine-of-continually-renewed-minds
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
How would Anabaptist churches be different if we taught a doctrine of “continually renewed minds” rather than only one of “nonconformity” (Rom. 12:2)? What if Paul never mentioned clothing/hairstyles/music/etc. in this verse… or chapter… or entire letter, but he did stress humble and loving thinking within church members, springing from worship of the God who has mercifully welcomed all peoples in Christ?
* * *
Reader response:
> “What if Paul never mentioned” is treading on dangerous ground for anyone that believes the Bible to be God’s word and authority. The fact is Paul did mention these things, not to be legislated, as in legalism but rather because they are affected by the “renewed mind”. There is a fine balance between the two. The Anabaptist churches have gone too far on one side, while I believe the more modern churches have gone too far the other way. It is very interesting to observe what happens to individuals that are brought up in either extreme. Separation from the world in dress is a carry over from the Old Testament Jewish law that stated they were to have fringes of blue on their clothing. There is significant meaning behind the “plain” dress of the Mennonites that doesn’t get taught today. While I do not practice the traditions of our fathers, I do have an appreciation for them.
My reply: I should clarify that I definitely do believe Paul (elsewhere), Jesus, and other NT writers give some direct and indirect instructions about such things, and that a Holy Spirit-renewed mind will be eager to obey God in such matters. I also agree with your generalizations about Anabaptists and “modern churches” and reactionary tendencies. However:
1. Let us please have enough fear of God to read Scriptures in context and not abuse them to buttress our own scripts!
2. Focusing on nonconformity without the deep root of Holy Spirit mind renewal will not bear good fruit, leading only to deadly Romans 2 self-righteousness, Romans 14-15 judgmental church members, and an ossification of traditions that prevents the Romans 16 in-gathering of all nations.
3. I’m not sure it’s good theology to base our separation from the world on attempts to find modern external equivalents to fringes of blue… If that’s the basis for our current practices, then perhaps we understand the gospel as poorly as churches that require no obedience to God’s Word.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Rapture? Or a new heaven and a new earth?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2010-07-18
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Rapture? Or new heaven and new earth? | Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: new earth, -2 Peter 3:13, -1 Thessalonians 4:17, rapture, -Galatians 4:26, -Isaiah 65:17, -Isaiah 66:22, -Peter 1:13, -Revelation 21, -Revelation 21:1, -Revelation 22, -Revelation 3:12, new heaven
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/rapture-new-heaven-new-earth
(Old Facebook Post)
Why do we let one passing reference to “the rapture” (mentioned only in 1 Thess. 4:17, in a manner open to alternate interpretations) determine our vision of where we will spend eternity, while we ignore at least four mentions of a “new earth” (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; and esp. 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1) and 1-1/2 whole chapters about a “new Jersualem” (Rev. 21-22a; see also Rev. 3:12; Galatians 4:26)?
* * *
My… concern… is that an emphasis on one uncertain interpretation of the idea of a rapture has eclipsed all that Jesus and Paul said about the resurrection–including the judgment of the saints but especially the redemption of our bodies and of all creation.
* * *
Follow-up for bonus points: Can anyone show me where the Bible says that when Christians die they go to spend eternity in heaven?
* * *
My big point is that the Bible doesn’t say “Set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when you die and go to heaven,” but “Set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed” (1 Peter 1:13). I think the difference is very significant, and usually forgotten both in our evangelism language and our attempts to comfort believers. The NT writers had their eyes fixed on the final resurrection; do we?
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---
## Did Enoch and Elijah die?
Author: Dwight Gingrich
Published: 2009-04-19
Category: Bible Bites [Exegesis]
Meta Title: Did Enoch and Elijah die? • Dwight Gingrich Online
Tags: -2 Kings 2:11, -Genesis 5:24, -Hebrews 11, -Hebrews 11:5, Enoch, Elijah
URL: https://dwightgingrich.com/enoch-elijah-die
(Old Facebook Post – Revised)
It’s quiz time: According to the Bible, did Enoch & Elijah die natural deaths?
Hint #1: Read Heb 11:5, 13. (Use NASB or some other “word-for-word” translation, not NIV, etc.)
* * *
For the sake of time, I’ll cut to the chase: I think it’s quite likely that Enoch and Elijah _did_ die, and that the popular interpretation we’ve all heard that “they just got took”… is inaccurate. Instead, they may have experienced something more like what Phillip did, when he “got took” to meet the Ethiopian eunuch, but later died. To study more, try visiting:
[http://www.cgom.org/Publications/Booklets/Enoch\_Elijah.htm](http://www.cgom.org/Publications/Booklets/Enoch_Elijah.htm)
[http://www.tftmin.org/archive/enoch-elijah-rip](http://www.tftmin.org/archive/enoch-elijah-rip)
[http://fulfilledprophecy.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=19591…
](http://fulfilledprophecy.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=19591&highlight=soul+sleep)(Go 1/2 way down, to post at Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:55 pm.)
I didn’t scour these sites for possible heresies, so of course compare all with the Word.
---
This blog is powered by Superblog. Visit https://superblog.ai to know more.
---