The inspiration for this series comes from my article, The Apostle Who Divided the Church, in my previous series, Knowing Your Apostles, where I presented Paul as the most controversial apostle. My approach, based on the apostle Peter’s description of Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15–16), is to not only clarify some of these doctrines, but also to expose what I believe are revisionist interpretations of them.

Series Question

Is Paul’s teaching on the roles of men and women in marriage outdated and out of touch with modern realities?

This post continues my answer to the series question above, which I began addressing in Part 2: Does the Bible Enable Patriarchy? There, I laid the groundwork for examining Paul’s teachings on gender roles.

As I argued in Part 1: Is Justification by Faith a Hoax?, Paul didn’t invent a new doctrine. He merely taught what God Himself established in the creation order—something that godly men and women had been taught and practiced long before Paul.

The Creation Order

For us to understand the premise of Paul’s teachings, we have to go back to the beginning and examine what God said. There are some who will not like what I am about to lay out, but if you’re a Christian, I urge you to approach this with an open mind. If what I present conflicts with your current worldview, you will need to decide whether you will accept or reject the authority of Scripture.

I have heard absurd claims that the Bible was written from a male perspective, which is not necessarily untrue since most of its books are attributed to men. But the suggestion that the Bible is male-biased is false.

Some have even claimed that the translations have been falsified to prop up male authority and patriarchy. However, I have not seen a single piece of evidence for this alleged falsification. I once commented on a post by a woman who made this claim and challenged her to read the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and provide proof.

Now, to the creation order.

Genesis 3 is where, I believe, God clarified this order after the fall in the Garden of Eden. It began with God first questioning Adam. He didn’t ask Eve first; He asked Adam. It’s like when something goes wrong with a team: you begin with the team leader. God was signaling that the man was the leader.

Second, after God first pronounced judgment on the Serpent as the one who engineered the fall, He turned to the woman and said:

“...Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
— Genesis 3:16

I used to understand this, along with God saying that the woman would have difficulty in childbirth as punishment, but I no longer believe that is the case. Instead, God was affirming to the woman that He had made the man the head in their relationship. By telling the woman that the man would rule, God identified a vulnerability in the arrangement between Adam and Eve that the Serpent had exploited.

Eating the fruit was the most consequential decision Eve could have made—and did make. Eve should have spoken to Adam first before deciding to eat the fruit, because Adam was the one to whom God gave the instruction not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Some have tried to argue otherwise, but I believe the text indicates that Adam wasn’t with Eve when she spoke to the Serpent and that she also ate the fruit before giving it to Adam. She herself said:

“...The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
— Genesis 3:13

Eve admitted two things here: first, that she was the one who was deceived, not Adam; Paul said the same thing in 1 Timothy 2:14. And second, that she ate it first. If they had eaten at the same time, I believe she would have said, “and we ate.”

By setting the order in their relationship, or in the home, God was patching the vulnerability that the Serpent had exploited. We have seen that where this gap exists in a home, the damage the devil can do through infighting and the spillover into children’s lives.

God set the man—the husband—as the final decision-maker. It’s not that he would be the only decision-maker or that he is the only one who can make good decisions, but that where there is disagreement, the husband’s decision would be final. God was protecting peace in the home. It’s not subservience but order.

This is not unlike what organizations do. In organizations, you have the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who is just one of many decision-makers. Although the CEO is the ultimate decision-maker, most decisions are actually made by other senior executives and middle managers. The CEO is usually consulted when there are major decisions to be made or when he needs to arbitrate conflicting decisions. Conversely, the CEO also consults others on the decisions he/she makes. He/she is not a dictator and shouldn’t behave as one.

I believe that the failure by some women to recognize or accept this divine order is the reason for many marital conflicts, broken homes, and failed marriages.

The Examples of the Patriarchs

In the Bible, we see many men and women living within this order. In Does the Bible Enable Patriarchy?, I highlighted the story of Abraham and Sarah. What we see is far from the narrative that is often put forward by those who reject traditional marriage. Sarah actually made many of the big decisions, and Abraham concurred.

We also saw Abraham make some big decisions, and Sarah went along. Sarah followed Abraham on all his journeys:

• The journey from Ur of the Chaldeans although it is technically Terah who brought them along — Genesis 11:31

• The journey to Egypt, where they probably acquired Hagar as a maidservant — Genesis 12:10

• The journey to Gerar, which was the first patriarchal contact with the Philistines — Genesis 20:1, 26:1

Abraham’s relationship with Sarah, as I dissected in Does the Bible Enable Patriarchy?, was one of mutual respect, but Sarah followed Abraham’s lead when needed. This is the model that God established for the Christian home and that, as Christians, we are supposed to follow.

Where this example is not practiced, the home becomes the epicenter and ground zero of gender battles.

Wives To Submit

Paul didn’t teach anything new. He only spelled out in clearer detail God’s standard for a Christian marriage and home, assigning the overall role of the husband versus the wife. Ephesians 5 is where we see Paul lay out this doctrine. He began with the wife by saying

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

— Ephesians 5:22

Notice the phrase “as to the Lord.” This is significant because some women would argue that their husband doesn’t deserve their submission. Paul is here preempting that kind of thinking by saying, don’t submit for the man’s sake when you don’t feel like it but do it as if you’re submitting to the Lord. I doubt that any true Christian woman would refuse to submit to the Lord.

I’ve heard some women argue that Paul earlier says “submitting to one another in the fear of God” (Ephesians 5:21). Yes, we are to submit to one another generally. In the context of marriage however, it is the wife who is supposed to submit.

Then he followed by saying

“For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.”

— Ephesians 5:23

Paul is not introducing anything new; he is simply reframing the creation order discussed above. He is echoing what God established at the beginning—that the man is the head in a home. He further illustrated it by stating

“Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

— Ephesians 5:24

Then, wanting to make sure that he leaves no room for ambiguity, he grounds it in the relationship between Christ and the church.

Lastly, I don’t think that I need to, but Paul is not the boogeyman or the out-of-touch apostle that some like to make him out to be. Apostle Peter said the same thing

“Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives.”

— 1 Peter 3:1

Peter even went further than Paul when he said wives should submit as Sarah did and obeyed Abraham (1 Peter 3:5-6). He also gave us the Abraham and Sarah relationship as a model for what this submission looks like. I encourage you to read my analysis of their relationship in “Does the Bible Enable Patriarchy?” Also, read my exposé on what to do to avoid the flashpoint of household duties and chores.

Paul and Peter didn’t coordinate on this, and there is no conspiracy. They both just stated the creation order that God established.

Just in case you think that God’s requirement for men is some kind of softball, let’s examine the role that God assigned the husband-man.

Husbands To Love

If you think that Paul is biased towards the husband-men, think again. I truly believe that God has placed the greater responsibility on the man, and this is not because I am a man. Paul devoted four more verses to elaborating the husband’s role—seven verses versus three verses for the wife’s.

He began by saying

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.”

— Ephesians 5:25

Similar to how he framed the requirement for wives to submit to their husbands, he said “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.” He is telling husbands to love their wives as Christ regardless of anything. Then he grounded this admonition in three specific things: purpose (Ephesians 5:26-27), self-love (Ephesians 5:28-30), and lastly creation (Ephesians 5:31). Let me unpack them.

One, Purpose: Paul says

“that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”

— Ephesians 5:26-27

I believe that Paul is saying husbands loving their wives help them to become their best self. He is saying that wives are a reflection on the husband. If your wife is fearful and timid around you, check yourself. It could mean that you’re an abusive and controlling husband. A confident and radiant wife would also reflect a husband who doesn’t put his wife down but compliments her and makes her feel loved and wanted.

Two, Self-love: Paul says

“So husbands ought to love their own 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 the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.”

— Ephesians 5:28-30

Paul is saying husbands loving their wives are in fact loving themselves. This is about perspective. When, as a husband, you care for your wife like you would care for your body, you’re in fact loving yourself—which raises a question. How do you care for a wife if you don’t know how to care for yourself? Perhaps this is the reason why some husbands don’t know how to show love and affection.

If as a man you have not learned how to love yourself, I’d say you are not ready to get married. And for any woman looking to get married, this is something you should look for. A man who doesn’t love himself may struggle to love you.

Lastly, Creation: Paul says

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

— Ephesians 5:31

You see, it all comes back to creation. Just as a wife is to submit to her husband the way God established it at creation, so a husband is to love his wife. There is another important truth hidden in this verse. A man who has not learnt to make decisions independent of his parents is not ready to marry or lead any woman.

Women, don’t marry a man who cannot respectfully say no to his parents when necessary. Don’t marry a man who still takes orders, especially from his mom. Such a man is not mature and ready to lead you. What you will have in your home is two heads: the mom who is the real head, and the man who is only a figurehead.

Final Word

I don’t believe there is anything controversial about these teachings. It is actually on the man that God has placed the greater responsibility to protect and provide.

If you are a wife and you struggle with submitting to your husband, you need to examine your heart. If you are a woman looking to marry, also examine your heart and make sure that you’re ready to submit to the man.

I think women sometimes spend too much time daydreaming and planning their weddings; they don’t give enough thought to what it means to be married. If you’re not ready to compromise, and consider yourself an independent woman, then perhaps you’re not ready to be married. Because you can’t be married to a man and continue to maintain an independent mindset.

Like I said to the woman, men, also make sure you test for this in a would-be wife. If you find that the woman would never go along with any decision you make or is the only one who makes all the decisions, you may want to reconsider.

Your Turn

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

The inspiration for this series actually comes from my article, The Apostle Who Divided the Church, in my previous series, Knowing Your Apostles, where I presented Paul as the most controversial apostle. My approach, based on the apostle Peter’s description of Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15–16), is to not only clarify some of these doctrines, but also to expose what I believe are revisionist interpretations of them.

Series Question

Is Paul’s teaching on the roles of men and women in marriage outdated and out of touch with modern realities?

The questions surrounding the roles of women vis-à-vis men are, for the most part, questions about the home—about what happens between husbands and wives. Although the home is a microcosm of society, these questions are rarely debated outside the home because they are usually settled by whatever authority structure is in place.

It is within the home, therefore, that these debates become a battleground. Instead of being a refuge, a safe haven for husbands, wives, and their children, the home has often become the place where these skirmishes are fought. This is not surprising because it is part of a demonic agenda to destroy the home and, ultimately, society.

Jesus said:

“The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy…”

— John 10:10

Let that sink in. Jesus is saying that the sole purpose of the devil—his only mission—is to steal, kill, and destroy. He wants to steal the joy and peace in the home, kill the love that husbands and wives should have for each other and their children, and ultimately destroy the children.

The target of dysfunction in the home is often not the parents but the children, and the evidence is all around us in their moral degradation. Why? Because parents who should be coordinating and collaborating in the training of their children are instead busy fighting each other and, sometimes, emotionally manipulating those children to take their side.

In this article and the next, I will focus on the two fronts of this battleground.

Patriarchy: The Ideological Battleground

I believe that any discussion of the debates surrounding gender roles is incomplete without a brief examination of the word ‘patriarchy’ as it is now used in feminist ideology, because it is the ideological pole around which much of the argument rests. In this usage, it is the belief that societal structures were created by men and for men to subjugate women. This meaning emerged with its adoption and reinterpretation by feminist ideology.

It is generally believed that the systemic indictment of patriarchy crystallized during the second-wave feminist movement, with much of its intellectual grounding found in the works of Kate Millett and, subsequently, Shulamith Firestone. I don’t intend to outline the ideas they advocated here. Instead, I want to examine their backstories.

Kate and Shulamith both grew up in traditional homes with a father and mother, yet their upbringing and experiences at home would play a role in their eventual rejection of patriarchy.

According to accounts by Kate herself and her two sisters, she had an alcoholic and violent father who later became absent and resented the fact that all his children were girls. Following her parents’ divorce, her mother struggled to find employment in the male-dominated society of the time and eventually sold insurance, earning only about $1,000 per year.

Neither of her two sisters followed in her footsteps, one of whom would eventually come to publicly oppose her views.

Shulamith’s life story followed a similar arc. She grew up in an Orthodox home with a very controlling father who directed much of his anger toward her, sometimes resulting in open physical confrontation. Her mother modeled the traditional submissiveness expected of a wife—the very thing Shulamith rejected. Her two sisters, like their mother, also did not embrace her worldview; one eventually became a rabbi and worked within the very tradition she opposed.

Shulamith, Kate, and Valerie Solanas — who wrote the SCUM Manifesto, standing for the “Society for Cutting Up Men” — were all diagnosed with schizophrenia. While it cannot be empirically established that there is a causal relationship between schizophrenia and the development of these ideas, family dysfunction was a defining factor in their stories.

This review is not meant to denigrate these women, but to argue that their rejection of patriarchy was largely a reactionary ideology and to highlight, especially for Christian women who have embraced these ideas, their origin story.

Kate was a lesbian and married her lesbian partner, while Shulamith and Valerie both died alone and isolated. I believe these outcomes offer a cautionary lesson for Christian women, especially young women. We are now seeing an epidemic of men who do not want to marry, and marriages are increasingly failing. I believe the growing embrace of this worldview by women is one contributing factor.

I believe that the grievances of Kate and Shulamith, which shaped their worldviews, were in many ways legitimate. But the demonization of men was not the solution. The idea that patriarchy is inherently evil and exists to control and subjugate women is simply not true, nor is it borne out in the vast majority of cases.

Now that we have reviewed the origin story of patriarchy, let’s explore some of its flashpoints.

Flashpoint One: Household Duties and Chores

One of the flashpoints concerns household duties and chores. One of the things women have traditionally been expected to do is cook and clean. Some women have rejected this as a legacy of patriarchy and claimed that it is incompatible with modern society. But is it?

There are practical explanations for why this has traditionally been the case, and it is not necessarily because of a patriarchal system. In fact, the practice long predates the modern era, as we see in Scripture.

When Abraham received the three visitors, it was Sarah whom he called upon to prepare a meal for them — Genesis 18:6. We can also infer from the account of how Jacob stole Esau’s birthright that Rebekah did most of the cooking, because she was the one who prepared the meal that Isaac had asked Esau to prepare for him — Genesis 27:14. There are more examples in both the Old and New Testaments.

The tradition of women usually doing the cooking and cleaning grew for several practical reasons. First, husbands were traditionally the primary providers for the family. They went out to work while wives took care of the home front—cooking and cleaning. Second, wives were traditionally the primary caregivers for children and therefore naturally did much of the cooking. Third, wives were often thought of as the hostesses of the home and were responsible for making guests feel welcome and providing them with food.

However, we now live in a different society, where there needs to be a new accommodation in which husbands do not simply leave every chore to their wives. I believe the division of labor should be based on the principle of equitability, where who does what and when depends on capability, capacity, and availability. I believe the principle Paul articulates here when he discussed taking collections for the poor in Jerusalem can also be applied to household duties. He said:

“For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality.”

— 2 Corinthians 8:13–14

If the husband is the sole provider and the wife is a stay-at-home wife, it is not unreasonable to expect that the wife would do most of the cooking and cleaning. I have heard a pastor and some Christian women say that, based on the fact that God told Adam to tend the garden (Genesis 2:15), it is the man’s duty to cook and clean. But this is based on an incorrect understanding of Scripture and taking one biblical category and applying it to a category to which it does not belong.

If one person works longer hours than the other, it is not unreasonable that the person who gets home first would do the cooking. If both work the same hours, then they should share the cooking duties if that arrangement works for them. Or perhaps the wife does the cooking if that is what she is good at, while the husband does the cleaning. Christian men who would not step up in these ways do nothing but reinforce the negative stereotype of patriarchy and discredit the Word of God.

Abraham and Sarah: Role Models

I will leave the second flashpoint, related to authority in the home, for my next post. However, I will end this post with the story of Abraham and Sarah, whom the Bible holds up to us as an example of what godly submission in marriage looks like.

This will be controversial for some women, but godly women must be willing to accept what Scripture teaches, even when it challenges their assumptions.

“For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.”

— 1 Peter 3:5–6

The idea that wives should submit to, obey, or even call their husbands “lord” is one of the things that generates the strongest angry responses from women who reject it. Sadly, even some Christian women have come to view the concept of submission in a negative light.

To fully grasp what submission means, however, we need to examine the relationship between Abraham and Sarah. Notice that the Bible does not hold up Isaac and Rebekah, or Jacob and his two wives, Leah and Rachel, as models. Rather, they are examples of the dysfunction that Christian marriages need to avoid.

It was in Genesis 18:12 that Sarah called Abraham “lord” when she laughed and doubted God’s promise that she would have a son — Genesis 18:12

If you hear the word “submission” and think that Sarah was afraid of Abraham, that she was controlled by him, or that he subjugated her, think again. The picture we see is entirely different.

It was Sarah who told Abraham to marry and have sexual relations with Hagar, her maidservant. Abraham did as she asked (Genesis 16:2–4).

When Sarah became displeased with Hagar because of her insolence, Abraham allowed her to deal with Hagar as she pleased. So, when Sarah dealt harshly with Hagar, Hagar fled (Genesis 16:6).

Later, when Isaac was weaned and Ishmael was mocking, Sarah told Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away. It was a very difficult decision for Abraham, but God told him to listen to Sarah, and he did (Genesis 21:8–14).

What we see, then, is that Sarah was the one who actually made many of the big decisions, much as in many marriages. The reality is that husbands often want to please their wives and willingly do the things their wives want.

Where this gets mixed up is when women or wives think they do not need to consult their husbands or seek their consent for major decisions. Sarah made many of the big decisions, but she did so in consultation with Abraham and with his consent. That is the way it should be.

Without suggesting that Adam was without fault, I believe this was the mistake Eve made that contributed to the Fall: she listened to the serpent without consulting with, or deferring to, Adam. Remember that it was to Adam that God gave the instruction not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16–17). Eve received the instruction from Adam and should have followed what Adam had told her.

Christian wives need to understand that they cannot simply make unilateral major decisions without consulting their husbands and, specifically, without their consent, just as they would not want their husbands making unilateral decisions without consulting them. This, in essence, is what it means to be submissive to one’s husband.

So, “Does the Bible enable patriarchy?” Yes, unapologetically. But it is not the patriarchy caricatured by feminist ideology. God Himself instituted a form of patriarchy in the home, with the husband bearing final responsibility and authority. And if that biblical order makes you uncomfortable as a Christian woman, then perhaps your understanding needs to be brought into submission to Scripture.

In this post, I have laid the groundwork for examining Paul’s teachings on gender roles. In my next post, I will explore Paul’s teachings and analyze why they generate so much controversy and angst among some women and wives.

Your Turn

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

This is Part Two of my examination of Kathryn Krick and the controversies surrounding her. In Part One, Is Kathryn Krick a False Apostle?, I shared some of the concerns that have been raised about her, but I also argued that some of the criticisms miss the mark because they are not biblically grounded. I believe that any criticism of anyone purporting to represent God must focus on their message and practices, and any such critique must be anchored in Scripture rather than church traditions or theological bias.

I wanted to hear directly from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, so I watched a podcast she did with Bishop Alan DiDio of Revival Nation. Let me state that I did not previously know this bishop or his theology. If you wish to watch the video, you will find this segment from the 57-minute mark to the 1-hour, 27-minute mark. The bishop asked her about many of the controversies that have been raised about her from her videos, including her practice of bowing to her spiritual father, GeorDavie, her followers bowing to her, and her association with GeorDavie himself. I may address the issue of bowing in another post, but in this post I will examine her explanation of her doctrine of sowing seeds for deliverance.

The Question

Bishop Alan began by showing a clip from 2022 in which she was seen telling a mother to sow a seed for her son’s deliverance. In the clip, the son can be seen convulsing on the floor while Kathryn tells the woman to give a larger donation for his deliverance than what she had spent on psychics.

He then quoted, “Freely you have received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8), arguing that there could not be any biblical basis for asking people to sow for deliverance, and asked her to respond.

Kathryn’s Appeal to “New Wine”

Kathryn’s answer was, to say the least, very underwhelming and would not convince any knowledgeable Christian. I will outline some of the reasons below. In fact, this was the point in the almost two-and-a-half-hour video where she appeared the most animated, agitated, and clearly defensive.

She began by framing it as a new wine versus old wine situation (Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37), claiming that sowing for deliverance was a revelation from God.

To illustrate the new wine concept, she recounted the story of the seventy disciples in Luke 10. After they returned from ministry, they reported to Jesus that even the demons submitted to them in His name (Luke 10:17). Jesus replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18), indicating that He was not surprised by what had happened. Later, Jesus praised the Father and said:

“...You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes.”

— Luke 10:21

Kathryn explained that God reveals His truth only to those who come in humility. That is true, but it still does not explain why anyone should sow for deliverance.

Then, as if sensing that her argument was not tracking, she read Malachi 3:10 as the basis for this “revelation.”

“Bring all the tithes into the storehouse,

That there may be food in My house,

And try Me now in this,”

Says the Lord of hosts,

“If I will not open for you the windows of heaven

And pour out for you such blessing

That there will not be room enough to receive it.”

Anyone, even without prior Bible education, can immediately see that this passage has nothing to do with sowing for deliverance but with tithing.

She then went on at length, suggesting that this was a revelation she had received that might not be for everyone and that she was not imposing it on anyone. To my disappointment, Alan began agreeing with her.

Still unable to make the case, she pivoted and claimed that the connection between sowing and deliverance is surrender. She strung together a series of Bible stories as illustrations. I have seen this approach many times, where people claiming authority on a subject assemble a collection of loosely related Bible passages out of context and without really understanding what they are saying. None of these stories provides any theological basis for sowing to receive deliverance, but I will outline them below.

The Biblical Examples Examined

1. The Widow’s Two Mites

One, she mentioned the story of the widow who gave two mites, and Jesus commented that she had given more than the rich people who gave out of their abundance (Luke 21:1–4). This story is not about sowing for deliverance or even about surrender. Rather, it shows that God does not measure our giving or generosity by its size but by how much it costs us.

She explained further that because the mother in the aforementioned video had given to psychics, she had opened the door to demonic activity and therefore needed to give generously to God for that door to be closed.

2. The Testimony of a Church Worker

Two, she mentioned the example of one of her church workers who, she said, had struggled with masturbation for a long time and had never been able to tell his wife. She said that after sowing a seed, he was able to tell his wife and has been free ever since. This church worker and Kathryn might believe that sowing the seed led to his deliverance, but I believe instead that it was the power of God’s truth that set him free. Jesus said:

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

— John 8:32

She argued, “Miracles are free, but they shouldn't be cheap.” This statement is actually incoherent because miracles are either free or they are not. The idea that you have to pay for miracles—any miracle—is what Peter rebuked Simon the magician for in Acts 8:18–23.

3. Noah’s Sacrifice

Three, she recounted how Noah offered a sacrifice to God after the flood, and God blessed him afterward (Genesis 8:20–9:17). Noah’s sacrifice was an expression of gratitude for God saving them through the flood, not a seed for deliverance.

4. David and Araunah

Four, she talked about David offering a sacrifice to God at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24). David had numbered the people, which displeased the Lord, and God brought a plague by the hand of an angel that killed seventy thousand Israelites. God then restrained the angel when he reached Jerusalem, specifically at Araunah’s threshing floor. God instructed Gad, David’s seer, to tell David to erect an altar there. The sacrifice was for atonement, not for deliverance. God had already stopped the plague.

5. Solomon’s Sacrifices

Five, she mentioned how God gave King Solomon wisdom and riches after he offered sacrifices to God (1 Kings 3:1–15). However, God’s response to Solomon was based on His sovereign choice and Solomon’s request for wisdom, not on a transactional exchange of sacrifice for blessings or a sowing-for-deliverance paradigm.

6. The Cleansed Leper

Lastly, she related the story of the leper whom Jesus told to go and offer to the priests the ritual sacrifice required for his cleansing (Mark 1:40–44). This was Jesus instructing him to perform the sacrifice prescribed by the Law. It was not, in any way, sowing for deliverance because Jesus had already healed him.

No Biblical Basis for Sowing for Deliverance

None of these stories provides any biblical grounding for asking people to sow in order to receive deliverance. If you watch the video, what you see, it seems to me, is a woman desperately trying to justify the practice, but it simply doesn’t land.

As noted earlier, Bishop Alan agreed with her and, in support, quoted:

“And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.”

— Philippians 4:19

By this point, Bishop Alan seemed to have forgotten how he had begun:

“Freely you have received, freely give.”

— Matthew 10:8

There is no biblical basis for asking people to sow in order to receive deliverance. Sowing is a biblical principle but it’s about generosity, obedience and investing in God’s kingdom. You won’t find any Scripture that tells people to sow for deliverance. Jesus never asked anyone to pay for their deliverance, neither did the apostles.

The scene in the video of the mother with her son is very reminiscent of the story of the father with his demon-possessed son (Mark 9:14–29). I am disturbed that, seeing the boy in that condition, Kathryn’s response in that moment was to ask his mother to sow a seed. That was not what Jesus did. Jesus responded with compassion.

A Broader Concern

One thing that became apparent from different parts of this podcast is that Kathryn’s understanding of the Bible seems very limited for someone who is leading God’s people. For example, she said that the problem in the story of David and Araunah was a lack of rain, and Alan had to correct her that it was a plague. She herself admitted as much when she said she has renounced many of the things she said to her spiritual father, GeorDavie, in another controversial video. She explained that she was immature at the time and had limited knowledge.

The examples she used in this discussion reveal significant weaknesses in her biblical interpretation. It is often the case that those who do not understand the Word of God, yet think they do, are the ones who teach error. Paul warned about such people, describing them as those:

“...desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.”

— 1 Timothy 1:7

This is also why some of the qualifications for anyone who would lead God’s people are that they must not be a novice and must be “...able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2). This is not about being articulate, being a good speaker, or attending a Bible college or seminary. It is about having a correct understanding of the Bible. I see many people on social media who claim to teach the Bible but do not know what they are talking about.

We must all study and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal the Word of God to us so that we are not:

“...tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting.”

— Ephesians 4:14

Conclusion

Moses gave a very important test of ministry authenticity. In Deuteronomy 13:1–3, he said that if a prophet performs a sign or wonder that comes to pass but then tells you to follow other gods, you are not to listen to him. Signs and wonders are not, by themselves, evidence of God’s anointing or approval.

I believe that we must ultimately judge Kathryn Krick—or anyone else—not by her claim to be an apostle or even by her association with GeorDavie, but by her teachings and practices. These are what ultimately reveal who is true and who is false.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share Strong Faith Publications

The inspiration for this series actually comes from my article, The Apostle Who Divided the Church, in my previous series, Knowing Your Apostles, where I presented Paul as the most controversial apostle. My approach, based on the apostle Peter’s description of Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15–16), is to not only clarify some of these doctrines, but also to expose what I believe are revisionist interpretations of them.

Series Question

Justification by faith is a cornerstone of the gospel and of Christianity. In fact, I’d dare say that without it, Christ’s death and resurrection do not accomplish their intended saving purpose for the sinner because the sinner remains without a righteous standing before God. So why is there any debate about it anyway?

These are the questions I will attempt to answer in this post:

• Is the Protestant interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith mistaken, as the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) claims?

• Or is James the one who actually got it right?

• Is justification by faith uniquely Paul’s invention, as a fringe offshoot of NPP claims?

Did Protestants Misinterpret The Doctrine?

The majority view among New Perspective on Paul (NPP) proponents is that they disagree with the Protestant understanding of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. Most do not deny the doctrine itself, but they claim that Protestants misunderstand and overextend it to mean what Paul did not say. It is noteworthy that many of these scholars consider themselves Protestants.

They contend that justification by faith is not primarily about God transferring Christ’s righteousness to an individual sinner, but about God’s declaration of who belongs to His covenant family alongside the Jewish people. But let me address that.

Justification by faith is indeed primarily about God transferring, or imputing, Christ’s righteousness to us. Protestants did not misunderstand it. It is the basis of justification because we can never be justified by works of the law. Paul says:

“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:5 (NKJV)

Frankly, it is difficult for me to grasp the point of this argument, and it just seems to me to be the kind of scholarship that has no real utility.

Was it James Who Got it Right?

I previously answered this question in detail in my piece The Apostle Who Seemed to Contradict Paul, so I won’t spend much time on it.

Paul and James were answering two different questions. Paul was answering the question of how to be saved, whereas James’s faith-plus-works formulation is about demonstrating the evidence of one’s faith, which is why he said, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17, 26). James was not saying that works were necessary for justification.

Is Justification by Faith a Paul’s Invention?

This last question is the one that deserves special attention, and it is the most profound and egregious lie. While this is not the position of mainstream NPP scholars, an offshoot called “Paul within Judaism” (aka the Radical New Perspective), which traces its roots to the earlier History of Religions School, argues that justification by faith is uniquely Paul’s invention. The suggestion that Paul invented it out of whole cloth is breathtaking, factually inaccurate, and without biblical basis.

Justification by faith was not novel, nor was it invented by Paul. I will outline several instances where it was taught before Paul.

One, interestingly, God Himself first instituted the doctrine when the Bible says Abraham:

“…believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.”

— Genesis 15:6 (NKJV)

Imputed righteousness is the whole basis of justification: God imputed, in this case, righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of faith. It was not because of any acts of righteousness that Abraham performed. Paul actually built his doctrine primarily on this theological foundation, with Abraham as the archetype—the first person whom God explicitly declared righteous by faith.

Two, David also understood something about God forgiving sins and not counting a person’s sins against them. We do not know what experience or scenario led him to write this, but he called it a blessing when he said:

“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,

Whose sin is covered.

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity”

— Psalm 32:1–2

Notice the word “impute”; it is the same word Paul used when he described justification by faith, and he referenced David by saying:

“just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works”

— Romans 4:6

Three, the prophet Habakkuk also understood this. In chapter 1, he started out complaining about the widespread unrighteousness in the land and feeling exasperated that God would not answer his prayers and would not judge the people. Then, when God told him that He was going to use the Babylonians—a nation more wicked than they were—for judgment, he was apoplectic and horrified. Then, God assured him that even though the Babylonians would indeed come, the righteous, unlike the proud, would be saved because of their faith:

“Look at the proud one,

His soul is not right within him,

But the righteous will live by his faith [in the true God].”

— Habakkuk 2:4 AMP

I will note, though, that the Hebrew word for “faith” is emunah, and it can also mean “faithfulness” or “steadfastness.” Translations like the NIV and ESV render it as “faithfulness.” However, I believe “faith” is the better translation in this context because the overall prophecy points to reliance on God rather than human merit. This was also how Paul and the writer of the book of Hebrews rendered it when they quoted Habakkuk (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38).

God said the Babylonians were going to conquer the Israelites, even though they were more righteous than the Babylonians. Habakkuk 1:13 shows that Judah’s relative righteousness would not save them. Therefore, Habakkuk 2:4 is contrasting those who trust in themselves with those who live by faith in the true God.

Lastly, Jesus Himself taught justification by faith. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9–14, we see it at work. The Pharisee stood before God and boasted about himself (vv. 11–12). The tax collector, on the other hand, would not even lift up his head to heaven but prayed, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” (v. 13).

Jesus said of the tax collector:

“I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other…”

— v. 14

Notice the word “justified.” The tax collector, although a sinner, was justified by God, not on the basis of the works that the Pharisee boasted about, but because of his faith.

We even see Jesus practice this in His treatment of so many people: the man at the pool of Bethesda (John 5), the paralytic (Mark 2:1–12), etc. If Jesus Himself taught justification by faith, I wonder how this radical element—Paul within Judaism—can say that Paul invented it, especially when we see that it has been around since Genesis 15.

So, the claim that Paul invented justification by faith on his own is preposterous, ridiculous, and discredits the “scholarship” of these critics. I believe that this group belongs in the category of those that Peter described as “untaught and unstable” (2 Peter 3:16).

Last Word

So, what does all this mean for us?

Justification by faith is a wonderful blessing. It is the assurance that no matter your sin, God can and will forgive you and accept you as His child. If you are not a Christian and are trying to please God by your own works, you should know that you do not have to. You only need to believe in the finished work of Jesus.

Your Turn

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

If you are on social media, you would have seen the numerous posts critical of apostle Kathryn Krick. I believe many of the criticisms are misplaced, and some of them seem to me to be nothing more than reflexive demonization. I, too, have my concerns about her, but not for many of the arguments that have been advanced. But first, I will review some of the criticisms and state why I believe they miss the mark.

One: Lack of Formal Theological Training

Many have questioned her claim to be an apostle, but not for the reason I would have expected. Instead, they question it on the grounds that she has no formal training—meaning that she didn’t attend a seminary or divinity school.

I believe that this is the least credible argument because it presumes that you have to be formally trained to be used by God. I believe that some who advance this argument are in error because they clearly do not understand the Word and works of God. This was the error Jesus pointed out in the Sadducees’ disbelief of the resurrection. Jesus said:

“You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.”
— Matthew 22:29, NKJV

Most doctrinal misunderstanding comes from this twin error: not knowing the Scriptures and not understanding the power or works of God.

The belief that someone has to be trained to be used by God is largely a Western narrative and one that is not grounded in Scripture. I am personally circumspect about some seminary and divinity school training, in part because it is often those with such training who introduce revisionist ideas that question the meaning of Scripture and its historic interpretations.

Moses was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” — Acts 7:22 — but the Bible didn’t record that he had formal theological training. Yet, he was the greatest Old Testament prophet.

There is no evidence that the apostles were formally trained either. In fact, the Jewish council observed concerning Peter and John that they were “untrained and unlearned men” — Acts 4:13 — yet they were the ones Jesus chose to lay the foundation of the church.

Two: The Cessation of the Apostolic and Prophetic Offices

Some have also questioned her apostleship because of the belief that the spiritual offices of apostle and prophet have ceased. This is not true. This is the so-called cessationist view, but I believe it arises from the same kind of error Jesus identified: failing to account adequately for both the Scriptures and the power of God.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that these offices, or any of the spiritual offices, have ceased. Paul says that Jesus gave these offices for this purpose:

“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”
— Ephesians 4:11–13, NKJV

Then he added:

“that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—”
— Ephesians 4:14–15, NKJV

When you look at the church today, who would say that this mission has been accomplished? It is simply presumptuous for anyone to claim that these offices have ceased. Are we wiser than God or stronger than Him?

Along with the claim that the spiritual offices have ceased is also the claim that the manifestations at her events, where people are convulsing or falling down, are definitive indications that she is operating by demonic power. Didn’t we see this kind of manifestation in Jesus’ ministry with those who are demon-possessed—Mark 9:25-27? I’m not making any claim one way or the other; I’m simply saying that these manifestations, by themselves, are not necessarily evidence that she is false.

This view is usually held by those who claim that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased but we must be careful not to be quick to condemn something simply because we do not understand it or have not experienced it.

Three: Seed Donations for Healing and Deliverance

There have also been criticisms of her asking her followers and those who attend her events to make a seed donation for their healing and deliverance. This actually has validity and contradicts Scripture. Jesus said:

“Freely you have received, freely give.”
— Matthew 10:8, NKJV

However, this is not a practice unique to her; other preachers, such as Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Wynita Barnum, etc., have engaged in the same practice. I am not justifying this practice at all because it is unbiblical. My point is that it might be unfair to single her out for rejection simply because of this practice.

Other Legitimate Concerns

There are other legitimate concerns about her, such as the fact that she was anointed by one GeorDavie, a Tanzanian prophet, of whom little is known. It is legitimate to ask what the theological basis and authority is by which he prophesied that she is called to be an apostle, and whether Scripture establishes that kind of apostolic commissioning

I also share the concern about the cult-like nature of her followers, especially with the recent performance at her birthday celebration, where these followers were bowing to her and calling her “mama.” I believe this is unbiblical because Jesus said not to call anyone on earth ‘father’ as a religious title or authority, which, by inference, would also apply to the equivalent title ‘mother. Jesus condemned this practice among the Pharisees, and He still condemns it today.

A Word of Caution

I have written this post to give the same advice that Gamaliel gave to the Jewish council after the apostles were put on trial a second time:

“And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”
— Acts 5:38–39, NKJV

At the same time, Scripture commands us to test all things. So, all true Christians should be vigilant about her, and we must call out any false teachings she may teach.

If you’ve already concluded that she’s a false apostle, just make sure you’re on solid biblical grounds.

She may turn out to be a false apostle, but it won’t be for some of the reasons that have been put forward. I don’t believe that there is yet sufficient evidence to condemn or reject her. So, for me, the jury is still out on whether she is indeed called or not.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share Strong Faith Publications

I’ll be starting a new series called The Controversial Doctrines of Paul 📖🔍.

The inspiration for this series actually comes from my article The Apostle Who Divided the Church in my previous series, Knowing Your Apostles, where I presented Paul as the most controversial apostle. I believe that no other apostle’s teachings generate as much theological debate ⚖️ , disagreement 💬 , and conflict as Paul’s.

It is not because Paul was intentionally controversial or because he wanted to create controversy 🌪️ . Rather, I believe it is for two reasons that the apostle Peter noted:

“...as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”

— 2 Peter 3:15–16

First, some of Paul’s teachings are genuinely difficult 💡 to understand, so some may misunderstand them out of pure ignorance.

Second, as Peter also noted, the controversies are sometimes created by “untaught and unstable“ people who are not interested in the truth but only in perverting or distorting Paul’s teachings for their own selfish and godless purposes.

I will attempt to address these two broad groups throughout this series.

In this series, I will be exploring some of the questions 🔥 that continue to divide the church today, including the following:

1. Is the Protestant interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith mistaken, as the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) claims? Or is James the one who actually got it right? And is justification by faith uniquely Paul’s invention, as a fringe subset of this movement claims?

2. Is Paul’s teaching on the roles of men and women in marriage anachronistic and out of touch with modern realities?

3. Have the spiritual offices of apostles, prophets, and evangelists ceased?

4. Have the gifts of the Holy Spirit 🕊️ ceased and are modern manifestations merely psychosis and fake?

5. Should Paul’s teaching that women should not teach in the church be understood only within its cultural context, and was he simply a male chauvinist perpetuating patriarchy?

And more...

Some of the answers may contradict your long-held theology or challenge your assumptions. Others will surprise you, may not satisfy you, or may even infuriate you. However, I can assure you that they will be thought-provoking 🧠 and grounded in the whole Bible, not just parts of it. You will be able to decide whether your beliefs are truly grounded in Scripture or in tradition, your own understanding, or what others have taught you.

I come from a Christian background where we sought to let the Bible speak for itself and not read our own ideas into it 📖🔍 . We didn’t have these debates, so they’re frankly surprising to me, and I’ve had to go back and reexamine 🗝️ what Scripture actually says. I say this simply to signal that I approach these questions without any preconceived conclusions or theological hang-ups.

Paul says that we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth (2 Corinthians 13:8). I hope you’ll join me on what I believe will be an exciting journey 🧭 through the Bible. I promise you that, if you’re open-minded to the truth, you will learn something new.

Jesus said:

“My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”

— John 7:16–17 (NIV)

Subscribe so that you don’t miss these messages.

Stay tuned, and remain blessed.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Series Question

The final question of this series is: Who’s the most controversial apostle?

My Answer: Paul

I believe the apostle Paul is, arguably, the most controversial of the apostles.

Before going any further, let me clarify what I mean by “controversial.” I don’t mean it in a negative sense. Rather, I mean that, more than any other apostle, Paul’s life, personality, and teachings have sparked the greatest number of debates, disagreements, and theological discussions throughout history.

With that definition in mind, let’s begin by looking at his biography.

A Few Biographical Facts

In this article, I won’t spend much time on Paul’s biography, as I’ve already covered much of it in earlier articles.

In Part 4 of this series, The Greatest Apostolic Dispute, I examined Paul’s disagreement with the apostle Barnabas over John Mark. In Part 7, The Other Apostolic Dispute, I discussed Paul’s public rebuke of the apostle Peter. Finally, in Part 8, The Apostle Who Seemed to Contradict Paul, I explored whether the apostle James truly disagreed with Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith.

Together, these articles cover many of the key events and relationships that shaped Paul’s life and ministry.

Paul’s Personality

I believe any profile of Paul would be incomplete without examining his personality. I don’t mean a clinical or psychological examination, but a philosophical one based on the available evidence.

Paul is first introduced at the martyrdom of Deacon Stephen. There we see a young man who already had considerable influence. Scripture says Stephen’s stoners,

“laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.”

— Acts 7:58

This was not merely someone watching over their clothes or a bystander; he was someone endorsing the outcome. The Bible says he was “consenting to his death” (Acts 8:1).

Paul then went on to make “havoc of the church” (Acts 8:3), arresting believers and dragging them to prison. With the authority of the Jewish council, he even traveled to foreign cities to pursue them.

Paul seemed unstoppable until the Lord stopped him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).

From this, we see a passionate individual who was already a leader and a force of nature. Paul later channeled that same intensity into defending the gospel through his ministry and teachings.

I believe this personality provides a possible backdrop to his disagreements with first Peter and later Barnabas. His larger-than-life tendencies can be seen in his ministry with Barnabas, where Paul would eventually become the more prominent figure. The transition from “Barnabas and Saul“ to “Paul and Barnabas“ reflects this shift in prominence. While this does not necessarily diminish Barnabas, it does reveal Paul’s forceful presence and leadership style. Paul’s personality is the one reason I personally think he is the apostle I would have been least likely to get along with.

In some ways, Paul was like Moses when God called him: forceful and even impetuous. Like Moses, Paul also possessed remarkable intellectual ability. Stephen said of Moses,

“...was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds.”

— Acts 7:22

Similarly, Festus said of Paul,

“...you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!”

— Acts 26:24

Passion and talent are still qualities God seeks in those who represent Him. God can refine your passion, but you must invest yourself in learning to become an effective vessel in His hands.

I see many passionate Christians on social media who lack biblical knowledge and understanding. They may have large followings, but they are not qualified to teach God’s Word. James warned,

“...not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.”

— James 3:1

Now that we have examined Paul’s personality, let’s explore his doctrines. Many of his teachings—including justification by faith, predestination and election, women’s roles in the church and marriage, speaking in tongues and spiritual gifts, the nature and timing of Christ’s return, and homosexuality as sin—continue to be debated today, making him, as I previously noted, the most controversial apostle.

For some of these doctrines, I believe the debates are sincere because they are difficult to understand, even for the most seasoned biblical scholars and theologians. However, for others, I believe the debates come from revisionists, including so-called biblical-historical scholars. This includes scholars of the “New Perspective on Paul” and those who question Paul’s authorship of some of the books that bear his name and have traditionally been attributed to him.

For this latter group, I will focus on just one of Paul’s doctrines that has generated debate both then and now.

Circumcision: A Trojan Horse

Circumcision is the subject of one of Paul’s greatest theological battles, and I believe it was his fiercest. We see him oppose it throughout several letters, including Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Titus.

This should not have been a battle Paul needed to fight, since the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 had already settled the matter. The early church leadership decided Gentiles were not required to be circumcised (Acts 15:23–29). Yet the “circumcision party” continued insisting on it.

However, Paul’s fight was not merely about the physical act. It was about something far more fundamental. The “circumcision party” was effectively attempting to require Gentiles to observe the Law and its rituals through the back door.

Paul understood what was at stake: if they succeeded, they would undermine the gospel and justification by faith. This was especially clear in Galatians, where Paul called it a different gospel—not the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6–9).

He directly refuted it by writing,

“knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ...”

— Galatians 2:16

Paul would not allow this to stand. He called them “mutilators” (Philippians 3:2–3), referred to them as agitators, and even wished they would go all the way and emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:12, NIV).

Paul also recognized that there were financial motives involved:

“For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.”

— Titus 1:10–11

The same pattern can be seen today, where some false teachers revise settled doctrines for financial gain or greater influence. They seek to legitimize practices Scripture forbids, such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and polygamy.

Others seek to overturn God’s created order for the home and society by embracing feminist ideologies and rejecting male headship as mere patriarchy.

In the church, I do not believe Scripture forbids women from serving in leadership. However, the biblical pattern shows that God has primarily entrusted leadership to men. Sadly, some men have also joined in promoting these departures from biblical teaching and other destructive heresies.

Paul’s Legacy

Paul’s greatest legacy is arguably the extensive body of work he contributed to biblical literature and theology. Beyond this, I believe the debates and arguments he engaged in throughout Acts were also critical to preserving the faith.

I believe Jesus chose him, in part, because He needed someone with Paul’s intellect, passion, and energy to stand against error during the early church’s formative years.

The early church may not have remained as intact without Paul’s ministry and apostleship. The church today also needs people like Paul.

Your Turn

Who do you think was the most controversial apostle? Do you think Paul fits that description, and why? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

This is the final article in my series, Knowing Your Apostles. If you missed any previous articles or would like to revisit them, you can find the full series on my Substack, Bible Apostles.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Series Question

The eighth question of this series is: Which apostle should we believe: James or Paul?

My Answer: Both

If this wasn’t the answer you expected, you’re not alone. One famous theologian even disagreed with one of these apostles. But before we get into the nitty-gritty of answering this question, let’s review some biographical details about these apostles.

A Few Biographical Facts

James

James was the brother of the Lord Jesus and of the apostle Jude. After Jesus’ resurrection, he became one of the leading figures of the Jerusalem church alongside Peter and John . You can learn more about him in Part 3 of this series, The Skeptic Who Became an Apostle.

Paul

Paul was a staunch defender of the faith in its nascent stages. Without him, I believe “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) would have been diluted and corrupted during those formative years. I previously discussed him in Part 4 of this series, The Greatest Apostolic Dispute.

I plan to devote a more in-depth profile to Paul in a later installment of this series.

James’ Teaching on Faith and Works

James 2:14-26 is where we see James’ doctrine of works take shape. He taught that genuine faith is never alone but is demonstrated through works. He expressed his argument this way:

“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”
— James 2:14

He then gave two examples, which I will cite in reverse order from the text, to illustrate his argument.

First, the harlot Rahab not only received the spies—faith—but also sent them away safely (v. 25)—a work.

Second, Abraham offered his son Isaac on the altar (v. 21)—a work—and by that act his “faith was made perfect” (v. 22).

James concluded by saying:

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
— James 2:24

This verse is considered the most problematic because it appears to directly contradict Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone. What did Paul actually say?

Paul’s Teaching on Justification

Apostle Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, expressed most fully in Romans 4, is actually the culmination of a theological argument that began in Romans 2 where Paul shows that possession of the law does not make someone righteous before God.

Paul began by asking how Abraham received his justification before God:

“What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?”
— Romans 4:1

He then recalled Genesis 15, which says:

“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
— Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6

Paul went on to argue that Abraham received this justification long before the law was given and, more specifically, before circumcision was instituted. He concluded that because the grace of justification was given solely through Abraham’s faith, it is available not only to the Jews — Abraham’s biological descendants — but also to Gentiles.

“Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.”
— Romans 4:16

The Misunderstanding

Was James saying that works are needed for justification? Based on the following passage, it would seem so:

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
— James 2:24

The German reformer Martin Luther famously wrestled with this apparent contradiction because it seemed to challenge his doctrine of justification by faith, which was itself based on Paul’s teaching that faith alone is the basis for justification.

In his early writings, Luther even questioned James’ apostolic status. Later Protestant traditions generally accepted James as canonical and harmonized it with Paul. Luther, also, continued to include James in Scripture but placed it lower in authority among New Testament books.

Resolving The Contradiction

I believe that one of the ways to resolve this lies in understanding what both apostles meant by “works.” This distinction is essential in determining whether this is a real contradiction or merely a misunderstanding. Let’s begin with Paul.

Paul’s reference to works was specifically about works of the law, such as circumcision. Earlier, in Romans 3:20, he says:

“For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
— ESV

But what did James mean by “works”? To understand this, we need to begin at the start of James 2.

James began by criticizing partiality and the preferential treatment of the rich (vv. 1–4). Later, he referred to Abraham being justified when he offered his son Isaac. However, notice that James also referenced Genesis 15:6:

“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.
— James 2:23

James connected Genesis 15 to Genesis 22 to show that Abraham’s earlier faith was proven genuine when he offered his son, Isaac.

He then also mentioned Rahab, the harlot.

Whether it was the treatment of the poor versus the rich, Abraham offering his son Isaac, or Rahab protecting the spies, these were not works of the law. They were actions that demonstrated and expressed their faith. This is why James said:

“But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
— James 2:18

It becomes even clearer that James was not contradicting Paul when we consider his other statements. In verse 5, James says that God has chosen the poor of this world to be heirs of His kingdom as an act of His sovereign grace.

Earlier, in James 1:21, he says:

“Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.”

This shows that James recognized that it is faith in the word of God that saves, not the observance of the law.

Lessons For The Church

Therefore, the works James referred to were practical expressions of faith — the proof and demonstration of the faith a person already possesses. He was not teaching, as Catholic and other traditions erroneously teach and practice, that human works independently merit justification apart from God’s grace .

The message that faith must be practical is one the church today needs to hear. True faith must be expressed in treating other people with kindness, respect, and fairness. There are many people who claim to be Christians, yet those around them cannot see evidence of that faith. Our works must serve as proof of our faith, which is also what Jesus meant when He said:

“Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”
— Matthew 7:20

James is not saying that works add to faith as a second ingredient of justification; he is saying that our works reveal whether our faith is genuine.

Your Turn

What do you think? Was James contradicting Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, or was he complementing it? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Series Question

The seventh question in this series is: Who is the apostle history forgot?

My Answer: Apostle Barnabas

Were you surprised by my answer? How many people even know that Barnabas was an apostle?

Perhaps you thought of the Apostle Matthias, who was chosen to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). He would certainly fit the question, but Scripture records nothing further about his ministry, and I doubt many Christians have even heard of him.

Or perhaps you assumed it would be one of the other apostles Jesus chose alongside Peter, James, and John—Andrew (Peter’s brother), Thomas (famously remembered as “the doubter”), Matthew the Gospel writer, Philip, whom we get to observe more closely in John’s Gospel, and the rest.

However, none of them fit my framework of an apostle who was once widely known but later faded from both the biblical and historical record. Barnabas is the only apostle who truly fits that profile.

A Few Biographical Facts

I previously established that Barnabas was an apostle. If you weren’t aware, I covered this in Part 4: The Greatest Apostolic Dispute.

Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:36), meaning he came from a priestly family. That detail is significant because it is one reason some believe he may have been the author of a book of the Bible.

Son of Encouragement

Barnabas was well known among the foundational apostles and the Jerusalem church. In fact, it was the apostles who gave him the name “Barnabas.”

“And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus.”

— Acts 4:36

At first glance, it seems they named him this because he sold his land and donated the proceeds to the church (Acts 4:37). But I don’t believe it was because of that act alone. Many others also sold lands and houses and gave the proceeds to the church (Acts 4:34–35). I believe the apostles recognized an innate quality in Barnabas that went beyond a single act of generosity—and we see that quality consistently throughout his life.

Scripture describes him as:

“...a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.”

— Acts 11:24

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, is the only other person described in similarly exceptional terms (Acts 6:5).

When the church kept its distance from Paul after his conversion, it was Barnabas who accepted him and introduced him to the apostles (Acts 9:26–27).

Later, Barnabas traveled to Tarsus to find Paul and bring him to Antioch (Acts 11:25–26), which became the home base of Paul’s missionary ministry.

Barnabas was also the one the apostles entrusted to visit the newly converted believers outside Jerusalem. When he arrived in Antioch, Scripture says:

“When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord.”

— Acts 11:23

This quality of encouragement, I believe, is what ultimately shaped his disagreement with Paul over Mark.

The Book of Hebrews

The book of Hebrews was once believed by some to have been written by the Apostle Paul. However, many scholars have since concluded that it was not.

Regardless of scholarly opinion, having read Hebrews many times myself, I also do not believe Paul wrote it. It lacks Paul’s customary opening, where he identifies himself as the author, and his distinguishing closing signature (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:17). There are other indicators that point away from Pauline authorship, but I won’t go into them here.

Because the author of Hebrews remains unknown, scholars have proposed two leading candidates: Barnabas and Apollos.

The case for Apollos rests on the book’s rigorous and systematic argumentation, which fits what we know of Apollos (Acts 18:24–28):

“...for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.”

— Acts 18:28

The case for Barnabas rests on the book’s emphasis on Jesus’ superiority to the Levitical priesthood and the Old Testament sacrificial system. The author is clearly someone with an intimate knowledge of priestly worship and rituals, which fits what we know of Barnabas, a Levite (Acts 4:36). It also aligns with his pastoral character as an encourager.

This is where I land. I believe Barnabas is the most likely author of the book of Hebrews.

Barnabas’ Disagreement With Paul

Barnabas’ disagreement with Paul and their subsequent separation seems to have been the catalyst for his disappearance from the biblical record. Luke, the author of Acts, evidently remained with Paul and continued recording Paul’s missionary journeys and ministry.

The last event Scripture records of Barnabas after the disagreement is his departure with Mark, the Gospel writer, to Cyprus—his homeland. Luke writes:

“Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus.”

— Acts 15:39

After this, Barnabas disappears from the narrative of Acts. We only encounter brief references to him later in Paul’s letters.

According to early Christian tradition, Barnabas settled in Cyprus and became a leader of the church there. He is venerated as a saint in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. That distinction doesn’t carry theological weight for me, however, because every believer is a saint in Christ, and no ecclesiastical canonization is necessary.

Barnabas’ Legacy

I believe that Barnabas’ decision to stand by Mark is his greatest contribution to the church—and to Christianity. Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.

The Gospel of Mark is widely believed to have been the first of the four Gospels. Many scholars also believe it served as a primary source for Matthew and Luke.

The Gospel of Mark contains one of the first recorded mentions of the “Son of Man” in the New Testament. This designation points to Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in Daniel 7:13:

“I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven...”

— Daniel 7:13

Beyond Mark himself, I believe we can also thank Barnabas for this profound contribution to biblical theology. By standing with Mark when others would not, Barnabas may have helped preserve the very Gospel that shaped the writing of Matthew and Luke.

We can only speculate what course Mark’s life might have taken if Barnabas had rejected him as well. Would he have gone on to write his Gospel?

If so, one of the greatest contributions to Christianity may have come through the apostle history forgot.

Your Turn

What do you think? Who do you believe is the apostle history forgot? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Series Sixth Question

The sixth question of this series is: Was Paul wrong to publicly rebuke Peter?

My Answer: Yes

I believe the apostle Paul was wrong to publicly rebuke the apostle Peter. Notice that my emphasis is on “publicly.” I believe the rebuke itself was justified, but I disagree with the public manner in which it was delivered because:

1. I don’t believe Peter’s offense warranted a public rebuke, at least not as the first step.

2. I think it failed to give proper regard to Peter’s position as a senior apostle and elder.

3. It doesn’t align with the pattern Jesus taught and modeled for handling sin and correction (Matthew 18:15–17).

But before I get into that, a few biographical facts.

A Few Biographical Facts

Both men are well-known apostles, so I won’t spend much time on their biographies.

Peter

Peter was the first person Jesus called to be an apostle, making him, in a sense, first among equals. Along with James and John—the two brothers—he formed Jesus’ inner circle.

He led the church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and was the primary spokesman in defending the faith before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council (Acts 4–5).

You can read more about his life in Part 2 of this series, The Outspoken Apostle and His Transformation.

Paul

I believe Paul was arguably the early church’s most fearless apostle and its leading apologist. He began as a persecutor of the church but, after his conversion, became its most prominent defender.

You can read more about his life in Part 4 of this series, The Greatest Apostolic Dispute.

The Incident at Antioch

Interestingly, Luke does not record this rebuke in Acts as he does Paul’s disagreement with Barnabas. Instead, the account comes from Paul himself in Galatians 2, where he says:

“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;”

— v.11

Peter had come to Antioch and was apparently very comfortable eating with Gentiles, I believe in no small measure because of the vision the Lord had shown him and his subsequent visit to Cornelius’ house (Acts 10). He had come to understand that he was not to discriminate against Gentiles and was comfortable eating with them until some believers who appear to have been James’ disciples arrived from Jerusalem. Paul writes:

“for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.”

— v.12

The Jewish practice of not eating with Gentiles was an ethnocultural one never commanded by God. It’s why the Samaritan woman questioned why Jesus would ask her for a drink of water (John 4:9).

Based on the details Paul provides, the incident appears to have taken place shortly after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), where the apostles and elders settled the question of whether Gentiles should be circumcised, and before Paul and Barnabas parted ways, since Paul says:

“...even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.”

— v.13

Should Paul Have Publicly Rebuked Peter?

Should Paul have publicly rebuked Peter over this? I believe the answer is no. In fact, I don’t think it should even have been a rebuke. Given Peter’s status in the church. It should have been a private correction.

Some may point to 1 Timothy 5:19–20 as justification for Paul’s actions, but I believe that misses the point.

“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.”

Let me explain.

Peter was indeed an elder and fits the general framework of the passage, but what he did was not, in itself, a sin. There are two things at play here: the action and the motive.

Withdrawing from eating with Gentiles (the action) was not sinful. Doing so because he feared offending James’ disciples (the motive) could certainly be considered wrong. Frankly, I’m not even sure I would call it hypocrisy. Peter wasn’t living a lie; he wanted to avoid offending—or perhaps more accurately, appeasing—these believers.

For perspective, Paul himself did something similar on two occasions.

First, in Acts 16:3, he had Timothy, whose father was Greek, circumcised. One of Paul’s biggest theological battles was over circumcision, and some may see this as capitulation. But he did it to avoid criticism from this same group—the circumcision party. Some may point out that Timothy’s mother was Jewish, but that doesn’t change the fact that Paul circumcised him to avoid criticism from that group.

Second, in Acts 21, on the advice of James—and possibly Peter, if he was still in Jerusalem at the time—Paul underwent Jewish purification with four men and paid their expenses to avoid the accusation that he was teaching Jews to forsake the Law of Moses.

“Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.”

— Acts 21:24

Paul didn’t sin, just as I don’t believe Peter did. In both cases, however, the motive was essentially the same: to avoid criticism or causing offense to a particular group.

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, Paul explained that he adapted himself to different people depending on the situation in order to win them. No one would accuse Paul of hypocrisy for doing that. To be clear, I’m not accusing Paul of hypocrisy either. I’m simply pointing out that there is an important nuance here that should not be overlooked.

How Should Paul Have Handled Peter’s Actions?

Jesus established a model which I believe serves as a general principle for resolving conflicts and correcting others: Matthew 18:15–17. It is a three-step process, and the first step is a private conversation.

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.”

— v.15

The second step is mediation (v.16). The final step is to bring the matter before the church (v.17).

I believe Paul should have corrected—or, if necessary, rebuked—Peter privately first. I think it should have mattered that Peter was an apostle of the first order, an elder in the Jerusalem church, and senior to Paul in the church’s leadership.

Given that Peter neither argued nor became defensive (Galatians 2:11–14), I’m confident he would have taken the appropriate steps to also publicly correct his actions without the need for a public rebuke or confrontation.

Lessons from the Incident

I believe there are important lessons to be learned from this incident.

One

The Church needs leaders like Paul who are willing to boldly call out sin within their leadership circles, or elsewhere when it is clearly present and established.

Sin must be exposed—especially among leaders—without exception, in order to protect the body of believers.

Recently, I heard a pastor at Lionheart Church criticize Christians who call out megachurch pastors for living frivolous and extravagant lifestyles. I found his defense baffling because many of the criticisms are legitimate, especially considering that he himself is not a megachurch pastor.

There is often a cover-up culture around church leadership that resists accountability, even when wrongdoing is present. We have seen this at times—for example, more recently with Bethel Church, which, according to Mike Winger’s exposé, failed to expose false prophets like Shawn Boltz.

Two

We also need leaders like Peter—those who receive correction and respond appropriately, whether by repentance or stepping back from leadership when necessary.

Peter appears to have accepted the rebuke. He did not argue with Paul, and there is no indication of any resentment. In fact, Peter later speaks of Paul with respect (2 Peter 3:15).

There are many unqualified individuals leading God’s people who remain unaccountable and unwilling to receive correction.

Church leaders must be held accountable and, hopefully, will respond with the kind of humility and maturity that Peter demonstrated.

Your Turn

What do you think? Do you agree that Paul was wrong to confront Peter the way he did? If not, I would like to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Series Fifth Question

The fifth question of this series is: Who is the apostle who quoted a non-canonical book?

My Answer: Apostle Jude

Apostle Jude was the one who quoted a non-canonical book—the Book of Enoch. In fact, he also referenced another non-canonical work, which I will highlight below.

Some may disagree with my calling him an apostle. That is okay, but it is my considered view. I will lay out my case below. First, however, a few biographical details.

A Few Biographical Facts

Jude was a brother of the apostle James (Jude 1), whom I highlighted in Part 3: The Skeptic Who Became an Apostle. Like James, he was a son of Mary and Joseph, making him Jesus’ half-brother.

Like the apostle James, there is no evidence that Jude believed in Jesus during His earthly ministry. They shared the same unbelief, as reflected in these verses:

“Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.”

— John 7:3–4

“For even his own brothers did not believe in him.”

— John 7:5

They viewed Jesus as someone seeking public attention and promoting Himself because they neither recognized His divine identity nor understood His mission.

Scripture is silent on when or how Jude came to faith, but sometime after Jesus’ resurrection he became a believer and went on to author the Epistle of Jude. Next, I will make the case for why I consider Jude to be an apostle.

The Case for Jude’s Apostleship

I consider Jude to be a second-generation apostle, like James, Barnabas, and Paul. Also, I do not believe he was an apostle simply because James was his brother or because he was Jesus’ brother. My case rests on the evidence found in his letter. Allow me to explain why I believe Jude should also be regarded as an apostle.

First, Jude’s letter is classified among the Catholic Epistles, alongside those of Peter and John. “Catholic” here does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church but means universal, since these letters were addressed to the church at large rather than to specific congregations. This distinguishes them from Paul’s letters, which were written to individual churches, such as the Corinthians and Ephesians, or to a group of regional churches, such as the Galatians. Jude opens his letter by writing:

“To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:”

— Jude 1

Second, flowing from the universality of his letter, I believe Jude must have been widely recognized by the church as an elder alongside Peter, John, and James. It is difficult for me to imagine someone writing authoritatively to the entire church if his authority as a church leader had not already been broadly acknowledged.

Third, Jude writes with the voice of an authority figure and church elder:

“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

— Jude 3

For perspective, consider Mark, whom I discussed in Part 4: The Greatest Apostolic Dispute. Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name, recording historical events. Jude, however, wrote pastoral instruction grounded in established apostolic doctrine.

My point is not that Jude was an apostle merely because he wrote an epistle. Rather, I believe the tone, authority, and theological weight of his letter place it alongside the writings of Peter, John, and Paul. He wrote with what I regard as apostolic authority.

Finally, Paul provides explicit evidence that James was an apostle when he writes:

“After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.”

— 1 Corinthians 15:7

By distinguishing James and then mentioning “all the apostles,” Paul appears to be indicating a broader group of apostles beyond the Twelve. Earlier he had already written:

“and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.”

— 1 Corinthians 15:5

I believe this points to a second generation of apostles, a group that I believe included Jude. Since Jesus appeared to James and many others after His resurrection, it is not implausible that He also appeared to Jude, although Scripture does not explicitly say so.

This is my case for Jude’s apostleship. It is my considered opinion, and you are free to disagree.

Now, let’s explore the non-canonical books that Jude either quoted directly or indirectly referenced.

The Book of Enoch

Jude quotes the Book of Enoch in verses 14-15:

“Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.’”

This is a close paraphrase of 1 Enoch 1:9.

The Book of Enoch was never canonized for several key reasons. Scholars believe it was not written by Enoch himself, dating its composition between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century AD and attributing it to multiple authors. Additionally, what I consider the strongest argument against its canonization is that some of its theological content is incoherent and inconsistent with Scripture. Having read it, I can attest to this.

The Book of Enoch appears in the Ethiopian Bible (which totals 81–82 books) alongside 21 other non-canonical writings. I have seen people on social media promoting the Ethiopian Bible and claiming the standard 66-book canon is “abridged.” This is completely false.

Also, Jude appears to reference a tradition associated with the Assumption of Moses, when he describes the Archangel Michael disputing with Satan over Moses’ body (v. 9).

You might ask: If these books are not canonical, why does Jude reference them? Other literature can contain kernels of truth, and citing it does not amount to full endorsement. Paul likewise quoted pagan poets (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12) without endorsing everything they wrote.

The Bible itself mentions other books that were not included in the canon, such as the Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18) and the Book of the Wars of the LORD (Numbers 21:14). Their absence does not mean the Bible is incomplete. The canon stands complete as it is.

Jude’s Legacy

Whether you consider Jude an apostle or not, his contribution to biblical theology is undeniable. His letter is not a systematic doctrinal treatise but mostly instructions and exhortations based on established doctrines.

He urged believers to contend for the faith (v. 3).

He warned about false teachers (v. 4) and described their character and conduct (vv. 8-13).

He grounded his warning against complacency by recounting historical examples of God’s judgment (vv. 5-7). I believe this is a warning that some Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) advocates forget.

He predicted the rise of scoffers, as has happened in all generations, and noted the apostles’ prior warnings (vv. 17-19).

He called believers to build themselves up in the faith (vv. 20-23).

I believe that one of his greatest contributions to church literature is one of the most quoted benedictions in the New Testament:

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

— Jude vv.24-25 NIV

Your Turn

What do you think? Do you consider Jude an apostle or not and why? What do you think is his greatest contribution to the church?

Your answer doesn’t have to be as long as mine—feel free to share in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Series Fourth Question

The fourth question of this series is: In the dispute with Barnabas, was Paul wrong to reject Mark?

My Answer: Yes

I believe the apostle Paul was wrong to reject Mark. You don’t have to accept my conclusion, but I want to explain why I believe Paul was wrong.

First, let’s review what Scripture records about the three men involved: Barnabas, Paul, and Mark.

A Few Biographical Facts

Barnabas

Barnabas’ birth name was actually Joses (which I suspect is a variant of Joseph). He was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36). The name Barnabas, meaning “Son of Encouragement,” was given to him by the apostles. I suspect this was not only because of his selfless act of selling his land and giving the proceeds to the early church (Acts 4:37), but also because they recognized that quality as an inherent part of his character.

After Paul’s conversion, it was Barnabas who introduced him to the apostles and the church in Jerusalem. The believers there had initially rejected Paul, fearing he was still the man who had persecuted them (Acts 9:26–27). Scripture doesn’t tell us how, but Barnabas had evidently become convinced that Paul’s conversion was genuine.

The apostles also held Barnabas in very high regard. When they heard about the growing church in Antioch, it was Barnabas whom they sent to investigate (Acts 11:22–24). He later departed for Tarsus to find Paul and brought him back to Antioch, where the two ministered together as leaders.

Scripture describes Barnabas as:

“...a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.”

— Acts 11:24

Keep all of this in mind, because I believe what we’ve learned so far about Barnabas becomes pivotal in understanding the dispute that later unfolded between him and Paul.

One interesting nugget you may not have heard before: Barnabas, along with Apollos, has long been one of the two leading candidates proposed as the author of Hebrews. While the book itself is anonymous and Scripture never identifies its author, Barnabas has been a prominent suggestion throughout church history.

Lastly, in case anyone questions whether Barnabas was an apostle—he was. Acts 14:14 explicitly refers to both Barnabas and Paul as apostles.

Paul

Paul is already well known, so I won’t spend much time on his biography.

He was born in Tarsus of Cilicia and raised as a Pharisee. He studied under one of the most respected Jewish teachers of his day—Gamaliel.

A zealous defender of Judaism, Paul fiercely persecuted the church until his dramatic encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). From that moment on, he was never the same.

Paul was unquestionably an apostle. He repeatedly identified himself as one in his letters, and Scripture also explicitly recognizes both Paul and Barnabas as apostles (Acts 14:14).

Paul wrote thirteen books of the New Testament.

Mark

Mark’s mother’s name was Mary, and it was to her house that Peter went after an angel released him from Herod’s imprisonment (Acts 12:1–12).

We know him as Mark, but that was actually his last name (Acts 12:12). John was his first name, which is why he came to be known as John Mark.

He was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), and their stories actually parallel one another in their association with the apostles.

Mark was not an apostle, but he was one of the four Gospel writers and the author of the Gospel of Mark.

Background of the Dispute

Barnabas and Paul were leaders in the church at Antioch (Acts 13) when the Holy Spirit sent them to preach to the Gentiles (vv. 2–3). One of the first places they visited was Cyprus, Barnabas’ hometown, and Mark accompanied them as their helper (v. 5).

One of the notable events of this first missionary journey took place at Paphos on the island of Cyprus, where they encountered a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, also called Elymas (vv. 6–12). Paul famously struck him with blindness because he tried to prevent the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, from coming to faith.

Another nugget: scholars believe that the conversion of Sergius Paulus was why Paul, who until then was known as Saul (his birth name), came to be called Paul, in keeping with a Roman military tradition in which Roman generals adopted the names of important cities they conquered.

From Paphos they sailed to Perga, and it was there that Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem (v. 13). Although Scripture doesn’t tell us why he left, I wonder if he was simply homesick or seasick. The journeys to both Cyprus and Perga were by ship.

The Dispute

Barnabas and Paul completed this first missionary journey at the end of Acts 14 and returned to Antioch, where they had begun, and remained there for a long time — v. 28.

The time between this first missionary journey and the second was when Barnabas and Paul went up to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and elders on the matter of circumcision. I previously referenced this story in Part 3, The Skeptic Who Became an Apostle.

Following the resolution of the controversy over circumcision in Acts 15, Paul asked Barnabas that they should go back and visit the places where they had been on the first missionary journey — v. 36. Barnabas wanted to take Mark along — v. 37; apparently, he had returned to Antioch. Paul did not think it was wise, since he had previously deserted them in Pamphylia — v. 38.

They had such a heated disagreement that Barnabas sailed for Cyprus with Mark, and Paul chose Silas and left to go visit the believers.

My Opinion

It may seem that Barnabas chose family over his relationship with Paul, and there could be other undertones at play. However, I believe Barnabas knew or saw something about Mark that Paul did not—namely, that Mark was not an unreliable person.

The biblical record bears this out. He was highly regarded by the apostle Peter, and even later by Paul, who had previously rejected him.

Peter calls him “son” while Mark was with him in Babylon — 1 Peter 5:13.

He is subsequently found alongside Paul on multiple occasions (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24). Paul later writes of him:

“Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.”

— 2 Timothy 4:11

Some scholars believe Paul wrote 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy 15–18 years after his disagreement with Barnabas over Mark, near the end of his life.

This is the same Paul who earlier thought it was not wise to take Mark along. Yet here he acknowledges Mark’s usefulness. We do not get to hear Barnabas’ side of this story, but this stands as a clear endorsement and reversal of Paul’s earlier judgment.

This is, for me, the strongest argument for believing that Paul was wrong to reject Mark at that earlier point.

The object lesson I take from this is that we must be careful not to be quick to dismiss or reject people, and certainly not on the basis of a single failure (real or imagined) or disagreement. I believe this aligns with Paul’s own words:

“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.”

— Romans 15:1 (ESV)

Your Turn

You don’t have to agree with my analysis because it is only my interpretative inference. If you believe Paul was right or have other ideas, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Your answer doesn’t have to be as long as mine—feel free to share in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Series Third Question

The third question of this series is: Who is the unexpected/surprising apostle and church leader?

My Answer: Apostle James

James is the one I’m most surprised to see emerge as an apostle and church leader—and here’s why. But first, a few biographical details.

A Few Biographical Facts

The James in question is not James, the brother of the apostle John. That James was killed early in the life of the church by King Herod (Acts 12:2).

This James is the brother of Jesus Himself, meaning he was a son of Mary and Joseph. In other words, he was biologically related to Jesus through their mother, Mary.

He was also the brother of Jude (Jude 1), whom I will explore in a separate post.

And yes, this James is the one who wrote the book of James.

James’ Sudden Rise

That James was an apostle, in the broader New Testament sense, is not in doubt, although he was not a foundational apostle like Peter and John. Rather, he belonged to the second generation of apostles, alongside figures like Paul.

James was a peripheral figure in the Gospel narratives, almost standing in the shadows. The Bible didn’t record that he was present at Jesus’ trial or crucifixion. Even in Acts, he is absent from many of the early defining moments of the church. He is not mentioned on the Day of Pentecost, during the initial persecution by the Jewish council, or in major events such as Peter’s imprisonment and miraculous release.

Then we arrive at Acts 15, and suddenly James appears as a figure of immense prominence alongside Peter and the other apostles.

Barnabas and Paul had come down from Antioch to consult with the apostles and elders regarding whether Gentile converts should be circumcised like the Jews.

After much debate, Peter addressed the council and argued that requiring circumcision of Gentiles would place upon them an unnecessary yoke (Acts 15:7–11). Barnabas and Paul then recounted the signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12).

Finally, James spoke—and his was the decisive voice.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

— Acts 15:19

He then outlined recommendations that became the basis of the letter sent to the church in Antioch and the standard by which Gentile believers were expected to live (Acts 15:23–29).

James’ leadership and authority in the early church are remarkable in themselves, especially when one considers his beginnings and his early relationship with Jesus.

Let’s explore that.

James Was a Skeptic

James, along with Jesus’ other brothers—Jude and the rest—did not believe in Him at all.

In John 7, they said to Him:

“Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.”

— John 7:3–4

They viewed Jesus as someone seeking attention, eager to make a name for Himself. Then John adds this devastating comment:

“For even his own brothers did not believe in him.”

— John 7:5

Ouch.

It is one thing for outsiders not to believe in you. It is another thing entirely when your own family—your brothers and sisters, the people who know you best—do not believe in you.

In addition, in Mark 3, we are told that because of Jesus’ relentless ministry, His family reacted this way:

“When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’”

— Mark 3:21 NIV

In other words, they thought He had lost His senses. This is remarkably similar to the accusation made by some of the Jews in John 10:20.

I believe this attitude toward Jesus forms the backdrop to His response in Matthew 12. When He was told that His mother and brothers were waiting to speak with Him, He asked:

“Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?”

— Matthew 12:48

He then added that those who do the will of His Father are His brother, sister, and mother (Matthew 12:49–50).

Given this background, how did James go from being an unbelieving brother—a skeptic to becoming an apostle and one of the most prominent leaders in the early church?

James Became an Apostle

First, let’s establish that James was an apostle. Then we can explore how he became one and rose to such prominence in the early church.

James never referred to himself as an apostle, but others did, and I believe his standing alongside Peter and John confirms it.

Paul referred to him as an apostle when recounting an early visit to Jerusalem:

“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”

— Galatians 1:18–19

Then, describing a later visit to Jerusalem some fourteen years afterward, Paul acknowledged James alongside Peter and John as leaders and pillars of the church (Galatians 2:2, 9).

This establishes James as an apostle and one of the foremost leaders of the early church. Yet it still does not explain how this happened.

Paul may provide a clue elsewhere. Defending the reality of Christ’s resurrection, he listed several post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. After mentioning Peter, the Twelve, and many other witnesses, he wrote:

“After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.”

— 1 Corinthians 15:7

We are given no details about this encounter, but I believe it was probably the moment that finally convinced James of Jesus’ divinity and that He truly was who He claimed to be.

It may also have been the occasion on which the risen Christ commissioned him for ministry. That would explain why James was later recognized by the other apostles as a fellow elder, apostle, and leader in the church.

James’ Transformation and Impact

James’ contribution to the circumcision debate in Acts 15 was decisive. His judgment became the basis upon which the church resolved the issue, and it provided support for Paul’s continuing struggle against those who insisted that Gentile believers must be circumcised. That conflict would continue to surface throughout Paul’s ministry and can be seen in letters such as Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians.

His story is remarkable.

He went from not believing in Jesus to becoming His disciple. He went from being a skeptic who thought Jesus was “out of His mind” to becoming an apostle and one of the most influential voices in the early church.

Few stories illustrate the transforming power of the resurrection more clearly than that of James.

Your Turn

Are you surprised, as I was, that James became an apostle? Or is there someone else whose apostleship surprises you even more?

Your answer doesn’t have to be as long as mine—feel free to share in the comments.

Next Episode Preview

I will be announcing, by Tuesday, the question for the next part on my Facebook page. Please check it out and stay tuned.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Series Second Question

The second question of this series is: Who’s the apostle you’re most likely to get along with and why?

My Answer: Apostle Peter

Peter is the apostle, I believe, I can very much get along with—and here is why.

A Few Biographical Facts

Like John, my favorite apostle, Peter was a fisherman, along with his brother Andrew, and the two were close associates.

He was from the town of Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew, Philip, and possibly James and John (John 1:44). Bethsaida was among the cities Jesus later denounced for their unbelief, along with Capernaum, His home base, because He had performed many mighty works there (Matthew 11:20–24).

Peter is the only apostle whom Scripture explicitly identifies as married, although Paul suggests that the other apostles may also have been married (1 Corinthians 9:5). We know this from the account of Jesus healing Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29–31).

Peter, along with James and John, formed Jesus’s innermost circle. There were the Twelve, and then there were these three. They alone accompanied Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1–8), were present when He raised Jairus’s daughter from the dead (Luke 8:51–56), and were with Him in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–42).

Peter was also the author of 1 and 2 Peter.

Paul characterized Peter, along with James—the Lord’s brother—as apostles to the Jews, while he was an apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7–9).

Why Apostle Peter

There’s so much that’s endearing about the apostle Peter.

One thing that quickly strikes you about him is his outspokenness and curiosity. He’s the one quick to ask or answer questions. His most famous answer came when Jesus asked who the Son of Man is:

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16)

He also asked if he needed to forgive his brother only seven times, and Jesus replied no—70 times seven, effectively an unlimited number of times (Matthew 18:21–22).

Peter’s outspokenness also shows in how he sometimes speaks or acts rashly. When Jesus said He would be killed, Peter took Him aside and rebuked Him:

“Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” (Matthew 16:22)

Jesus responded immediately:

“Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men” (Matthew 16:23)

Peter even stepped out onto the water to come to Jesus but began to sink when fear of the wind and waves overcame him (Matthew 14:28–31).

Genuine

Taken together, these moments paint a candid portrait of Peter. Where some may see someone rash, I see someone genuine. Peter was rash but never brash—there’s a difference. Someone who always speaks their mind is unlikely to harbor dark thoughts; they are usually open, unpretentious, and not phony. You usually would never have to guess what’s on their mind.

There are many phony people in the world, even among Christians. I will take, any day, someone authentic who speaks their mind, even if it doesn’t always come out perfectly. Peter is that kind of person.

Humble

Peter is a foundational apostle—a first-class apostle, in fact, an apostle of apostles. But you may not know it because he was refreshingly humble, unassuming, and human.

When members of the circumcision party challenged his decision to visit and eat with Gentiles in Cornelius’ house, he did not dismiss their criticism or assert his authority as an apostle. Rather, he responded calmly and explained his decision (Acts 11:1–18).

Similarly, when Paul rebuked him for withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentiles in Antioch—an episode I’ll return to in a later part of this series—he received it without argument or condescension (Galatians 2:11–14).

In these cases, he acted with the mind of Jesus:

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death…” (Philippians 2:6–8 NIV)

In my view, Peter exemplified the kind of leaders that are generally lacking in the church today. In their place, there are leaders who are unaccountable to, contemptuous of, and lord it over God’s people. Peter is the kind of leader I can follow and get along with.

Finally, Loyal

Finally, Peter embodied the kind of loyalty you expect in a family member or friend. You may ask, didn’t he deny Jesus? Yes, and Jesus had predicted it and warned him:

“…Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail…” (Luke 22:31–32)

Yet Peter, overconfident, boasted:

“…Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death” (v.33)

He meant it sincerely and later demonstrated his loyalty by cutting off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant (John 18:10).

Peter faltered and ultimately denied Jesus as predicted—his most well-known failure. But I believe it was not a betrayal like Judas, which was deliberate. His came from fear, highlighting his human weakness. Many of us have acted or spoken out of fear at some point.

Nonetheless, he recovered from this failure and became a loyal and fearless follower of Jesus, to the point that even the Jewish council noticed his boldness (Acts 4:13).

He remained loyal to the very end, reportedly (recorded in extra biblical tradition) requesting to be crucified upside down because he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus.

Peter’s Transformation

Peter’s story is less about his failures and more about his conviction and unwavering loyalty to Jesus. The defining character of his life is his transformation: the disciple who was often rash and sometimes fearful became a disciplined and formidable leader of the early church after Jesus’ resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).

Jesus’ questioning and commissioning of Peter in John 21:15–19 is his ultimate seal of approval.

Peter is a kindred spirit and an apostle I can get along with.

Your Turn

Who’s yours?

Your answer doesn’t have to be as long as mine—it could be as simple as one reason why you think you’ll get along with any particular apostle. Feel free to share in the comments.

Next Episode Preview

In the next part, let us examine the question Who is your unexpected/surprising apostle and church leader? Stay tuned.

Share

Leave a comment

As previously announced, this is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

The First Question

The first question of this installment is: Who’s your favorite apostle?

My Answer: Apostle John

Bar none, the Apostle John is my favorite apostle—and the one I’d most want to hang out with.

A Few Biographical Facts

He was a fisherman, alongside his brother James and their father Zebedee (Matthew 4:21–22; Mark 1:19–20). Scripture never explicitly states they were twins, though it could be assumed from their close association.

He was one of only 2 apostles—alongside his brother James—whose mother is directly featured in the Gospel narrative—specifically in her request that her sons sit at Jesus’ right and left in His kingdom (Matthew 20:20–23).

In addition to the Gospel of John, he wrote 1, 2, and 3 John, as well as the Book of Revelation.

He also referred to himself euphemistically as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; John 19:26; John 21:20).

Why Apostle John

The Gospel of John is my favorite Gospel for several reasons.

First, it gives us the clearest and most comprehensive evidence of Jesus’s divinity. John chapters 14–17 especially contain some of the clearest distinctions within the Trinity or Godhead because Jesus Himself makes those distinctions explicit. I frankly cannot understand how anyone can read and understand those chapters and still teach or believe the Oneness or Modalist doctrine that says Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share the same divine essence.

It also contains some of the most well-known verses in all of Scripture, such as:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” — John 3:16 (NKJV)

And:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” — John 14:6 (NKJV)

The Gospel’s Unique Focus

While the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke primarily emphasize Jesus’s teachings, parables, and public ministry, John gives us another window into Christ through some of His longest, deepest, most intense, and most intimate conversations.

Conversations like John 6, where Jesus teaches about being the Bread of Life, or John 5, where He lays out the fourfold witness that testifies to who He is.

The Apostle John also records more of Jesus’s public prayers than the other Gospel writers, including Christ’s longest recorded prayer in John 17.

And of course, the Gospel of John gives us some of the most beloved and unforgettable stories in Scripture: the wedding at Cana in Galilee (John 2), the woman caught in adultery (John 8), and the death and resurrection of Lazarus (John 11).

Attention to People

The other Gospels mainly focus on the more prominent figures within Jesus’s inner circle—Peter, John himself, and his brother James. But John’s Gospel also gives us meaningful insight into more peripheral figures like Thomas Didymus, Philip, Nathanael, and the sisters Martha and Mary.

I think that reflects a certain perceptiveness—an attentiveness to other people that is necessary for any meaningful relationship. Nobody wants to be around someone who is self-absorbed.

Transformation: Sons of Thunder to Apostle of Love

Jesus nicknamed John and his brother James “Boanerges,” meaning “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), for wanting to call down fire from heaven upon the Samaritan villages (Luke 9:54). Yet this same John eventually became known as the apostle of love because of how profoundly he wrote about love in 1 John.

I think that transformation beautifully highlights the power of the Gospel—that a man who once wanted to destroy people would later write:

“Whoever hates his brother is a murderer…” — 1 John 3:15 (NKJV)

In his second epistle, John also displays a warmth, tenderness, and pastoral affection that most people would want in any close relationship.

These—and many more—are why John is my favorite apostle and the one I’d most like to hang out with.

Your Turn

Who’s yours?

Your answer doesn’t have to be as long as mine—it could be as simple as one reason or one thing you admire about a particular apostle. Feel free to share in the comments.

Next Episode Preview

In the next part, I want us to weigh in on the dispute between Barnabas and Paul. Whose side are you on, or who do you think was right? Stay tuned.

Share

Leave a comment

Jesus loved Lazarus. So why did He wait until he died? John 11 confronts the tension between divine love, human suffering, delayed answers, and wounded faith.

Let me begin with an apology. I had planned to begin my new series on the apostles today. However, I believe the Holy Spirit wanted me to continue the Grace in Action series with Part 7, which is what this post is. I’ll begin the new series next week.

The story of Lazarus’ death in John 11 is a classic illustration of the tension—and even apparent contradiction—between God’s love and human suffering. This age-old tension compels us to ask how a loving God could, or would, allow suffering in the lives of His people.

It is as much Martha and Mary’s story as it is Lazarus’—perhaps even more so. In Martha and Mary, we see the pain and the agony of loss, and feelings of disappointment. On the other hand, we also see divine love and divine response.

Much could be said about this story, but it stands as yet another example of grace in action. Let’s dive into it.

The Story Begins

The story unfolds with a message from Lazarus’ sisters to Jesus that he was sick. They said:

“...Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.”
— v.3

Notice the word “love,” because it captures the tension I mentioned earlier. Jesus’ love for Lazarus is further underscored when Scripture says:

“Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”
— v.5

Yet what did Jesus do? He did not depart immediately for Bethany, but stayed two more days. Here lies the tension. We often expect God, who loves us, to deliver us the moment trouble comes. Sometimes He does. Other times, He doesn’t, because His plans are different from ours. Even in suffering, God is working toward His purposes.

Jesus finally departed two days later, but by then Lazarus had died—v.14–15.

God had not lost control, nor was He caught off guard. This had been part of the plan all along. He already knew how it would play out and that death would not be the end. Earlier, Jesus had said:

“...This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”
— v.4 NIV

Jesus was about to do something that had never been done before. Lazarus’ case was different and unique because, although Jesus had raised others back to life, He had never raised someone who had been dead for four days.

When Jesus arrived at Bethany, Martha met Him first, then Mary. Both said the same thing to Him:

“...Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.”
— v.21, 32

I believe Martha said it out of anger. She blamed Jesus. In her mind, if He had come immediately, Lazarus would not have died.

Mary, on the other hand, spoke out of brokenness—the kind that struggles to reconcile suffering with the love of God.

Neither Martha—v.24, v.39—nor the people—v.37—could see any possibility of recovery from death. In their minds, death was the end—a finality.

Yet, Jesus went on to bring Lazarus back to life — v.44 — just like He told Martha “...Your brother will rise again.” — v.23. And there are several lessons we can learn from this story.

Lessons from the Story

1. Grace does not show up according to your timing, your schedule, or your expectations—but it will show up. Martha and Mary wanted Jesus to come immediately, but He did not. He acted according to His own timeline.

2. Grace does not wait for you to believe first. It acts even when your faith is weak. Martha did not truly believe Jesus when He told her:

“...Your brother will rise again.”
— v.23

If you read the dialogue that follows in verses 23–27, it may seem as though she believed Him, but she didn’t. We know this because in verse 39, when Jesus commanded them to take away the stone, Martha objected, saying:

“...Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”
— v.39

Then Jesus reminded her:

“Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?”
— v.40

Grace acts even when your faith is imperfect, and it does not wait for your faith to catch up.

3. Grace does not care how long your problem has lasted, because nothing is impossible with God. Lazarus had been dead for four days, which, in their minds, was final. Up to this point, Jesus had never raised anyone who had been dead that long.

The length of your problem is no obstacle to the power of God. It does not matter how long you have been in a situation when grace intervenes.

Perhaps the reason the answer to your prayer has been delayed, or your situation prolonged, is because God is about to do something unprecedented for you—just as He did when He raised Lazarus after four days.

4. Grace gives more than you expect, even when you have stopped expecting altogether. Lazarus had been dead for four days. Martha, Mary, and everyone else believed the opportunity for intervention had passed. To them, death was final. Nothing more could be done.

Yet grace brought Lazarus back to life, even when no one expected it.

5. Grace does not condemn you when you struggle with God’s love. Mary—and especially Martha—must have wrestled with doubts about it. Remember, they appealed to Jesus on the basis of His love—v.3—yet He delayed coming.

God understands when your doubt is the language of disappointment.

6. Grace also does not condemn you when your faith in God’s faithfulness is shaken. Sometimes doubt is not the absence of faith, but wounded faith. Both sisters expressed it in the exact same statement—v.21 and v.32.

Yet Jesus did not condemn them. He raised Lazarus anyway. Know also that God does not condemn you for your wounded faith.

I’m excited to start my new series on the apostles next week. I hope you’ll engage with me and share your thoughts on the topics I’ll be raising. Stay tuned.

Share

Leave a comment

Last week, I concluded the six-part series Grace In Action. If you missed any part of it, or would like to read the full collection, you can find it on my Substack under the tab Grace In Action.

I’ll now be starting a new series on the Bible’s apostles. This is not intended to be an exposé, but rather a fun and lighthearted series meant to encourage thought and discussion about how much we really know of the apostles.

I’ll be focusing on these apostles: Peter, John, Paul, Barnabas, James, and Jude — mostly the men who wrote the pastoral letters included in the biblical canon.

Along the way, I’ll be asking questions such as:

• Who is your favorite apostle, and why?

• Who’s the apostle you’re most likely to get along with and why? I may ask the reverse - Which apostle do you think you’d be least likely to get along with

  and why?

• In the dispute between Barnabas and Paul, who do you think was right, and why?

• In the dispute between Peter and Paul, who do you think was right, and why?

I will add more questions as the series progresses.

I do not intend this to be a teaching but an interactive and collaborative effort where we can learn together. I don’t believe I know enough, nor do I think Scripture gives us enough information for an expose. Still, if the Holy Spirit directs, I may eventually do a deeper study on one or two of the apostles.

I hope you’ll join me in this adventure and share your thoughts and answers through comments on my Substack or Facebook page — however you normally interact with my posts.

I hope you find the series both enlivening and enlightening.

Stay tuned.

A reflection on how grace enters the human condition—without explanation, qualification, or delay—and redefines the life, the present, and the future.

The story of the blind man in Gospel of John 9 deserves our attention—not only because it spans an entire chapter, but because it touches on several theological themes that remain relevant today. These include questions of sin and suffering, spiritual blindness and sight, and the identity of Jesus as the Son of Man.

Unlike the man at the pool of Bethesda in Jesus Asked an Unusual Question, he at least knew Jesus’ name (v.11). Yet like the woman at the center of that quintessential story of grace in Grace Knows Your Name, he remains unnamed.

The religious establishment reacted with scrutiny, disbelief, and growing opposition to his healing. His story stands out for several reasons, which I’ll unpack below.

The Question of Sin and Suffering

His story begins with an encounter with Jesus, followed by a question from His disciples:

“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
— John 9:1

To understand the weight of that question, you have to understand the theological environment that produced it. There was a prevailing assumption in rabbinical teaching that suffering was tied to sin—that suffering is the direct result of sin. We even see this echoed in the blind man’s response to the Jewish council’s disparaging remarks about Jesus (v.29). He sort of defends Him, saying:

“Now we know that God does not hear sinners…”
— v.31

The man is essentially saying that Jesus could not be a sinner if God used Him to heal his blindness.

To this first question, Jesus responds:

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned…”
— v.3

This answer challenges the rabbinical assumption. It doesn’t tell us exactly why bad things happen, but it does tell us that it is not always because of sin.

Bad things do happen to good people. As Christians, we may not always understand why we suffer, but it is often not because of sin. If you’re suffering right now, don’t let Satan—the accuser of the brethren—convince you otherwise. And if what you’re going through is because of sin, God will make that clear to you.

Jesus then goes on to heal the man’s blindness—a healing without precedent, as the man himself later points out:

“Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind.”
— v.32

What follows next is where the controversy in the text becomes relevant for non-believing Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups today.

The Son of Man Question

Although it was debated among the religious establishment, this wasn’t a question they asked Jesus. It was Jesus Himself who asked the man who had been healed:

“…Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
— v.35 ESV

Jesus often referred to Himself as the Son of Man, echoing Daniel’s prophecy:

“I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.”
— Daniel 7:13

Daniel is describing the Son of Man coming to receive final dominion and authority. “Son of Man” speaks of Jesus’ humanity and it’s His Messianic title, closely tied to the Hebrew concept of the Messiah and the Greek “Christ.”

Whether someone believes that Jesus is the Christ—the Messiah—remains the defining question. It determines every person’s ultimate destination: heaven or hell. It is the singular question on which the fate of humanity rests. Jesus said:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”
— John 6:47

Jesus is the only giver of eternal life. He is the only way to God (John 14:6). He is the only Savior of the world, as it is written:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
— John 3:16

The Theology of Grace

Now we come to the most significant aspect of this man’s story. It is a story of grace in action. Here, we see that grace is not transactional. It asks nothing of us upfront. It is freely given.

Jesus’s full answer to the original question—who sinned—gives a rich picture of what grace looks like:

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
— John 9:2 NIV

Notice the phrase, “this happened.” It does not mean God caused his blindness—as in fatalism—so that His works could be displayed. Rather, it points to the encounter itself, as something divinely arranged.

Jesus is not making a judgment about why the man was born blind, but His answer is loaded. It reveals how grace operates—and, more broadly, what grace is:

Grace doesn’t ask if you sinned.

Grace doesn’t ask who your parents are—or whether they sinned.

Grace doesn’t ask you to prove your righteousness or your worthiness.

Grace doesn’t care about your past.

Grace doesn’t need a reason for God to heal you.

Grace doesn’t need a reason for God to bless you.

Grace doesn’t ask if you believe in Christ—the Messiah—first.

Grace isn’t limited by how long your condition has lasted.

Grace doesn’t wait for a specific time, date, or occasion to show up.

Grace meets you where you are.

Grace meets you at the moment you need it.

This is the theology of grace. Anything short of this is not grace.

Share

Leave a comment

Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz stand at the center of a line that shapes history—where divine destiny and human choice collide, and everything hinges on choices made in fear and faith.

In this installment of my series Divine Grace in Action, I explore how the lives of three individuals intersect to reveal the outworking of God’s grace. The book of Book of Ruth is where their stories unfold, with an ensemble cast of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz.

I broadly outline the book as follows:

Chapter 1 introduces the women—their past, their pain, and their loss.
Chapter 2 shows Boaz meeting Ruth and recognizing her as a woman of character—loyal, diligent, and faithful.
Chapter 3 is where we see each playing their part in the outworking of divine providence.
Chapter 4 is where destiny finds its fulfillment.

Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz

The story begins with Naomi, whose name means “pleasant.” Ten years earlier (v.4), because of famine, she moved with her husband, Elimelech, to Moab (v.1). We meet her as she prepares to return to Israel after hearing that God had visited His people (v.6). In those ten years, she lost her husband and her two sons (v.3–5)—a devastating blow.

When she arrived in Bethlehem, she said:

“Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the Lord has brought me home again empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?”
— Ruth 1:20–21

Mara means “bitter,” reflecting her bitterness toward God.

Next, we meet Ruth. Although the book bears her name, her story would not have been possible without the other characters. When Naomi tried to dissuade her from returning to Israel, she said:

“Entreat me not to leave you,
Or to turn back from following after you;
For wherever you go, I will go;
And wherever you lodge, I will lodge;
Your people shall be my people,
And your God, my God.”
— Ruth 1:16

Ruth, one of Naomi’s two daughters-in-law, had come to believe in the God of Israel during her marriage to Naomi’s son, Mahlon (Ruth 4:10).

Then comes Boaz, a wealthy man and relative of Naomi (Ruth 2:1), who brings the next movement of the story into focus and later marries Ruth (Ruth 4:13). One notable detail is that Boaz’s mother was Rahab (Ruth 4:21; Matt. 1:5), whom I discussed in Part 3, The Unexpected Name in Jesus’ Genealogy. She is one of the three Gentile women listed there.

In terms of timeline, these events take place during the period of the Judges (Ruth 1:1), likely early in Israel’s settlement in the promised land, given that Rahab was Boaz’s mother.

Divine Destiny and Human Choice

Earlier, I mentioned the concept of destiny. We all have roles and outcomes that God has chosen and determined for our lives. God told Jeremiah:

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
— Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV)

Ruth and Boaz both had roles to play in Jesus’ genealogy. The ending of the book makes this clear:

“Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.”
— Ruth 4:21

The line of David is the line through which Jesus came. Naomi functions as the link that brings this Davidic chain into motion. Each person had a part to play, but each also had to make the right choices. If any of them had declined or failed to step into their role, God, who is sovereign, would have worked it out another way—but they would have missed out.

Naomi had to choose to return home. She could have remained in Moab, since her faith in the God of Israel had already been deeply shaken. Instead, she chose to return to the land of her God.

Ruth had to return with Naomi. She had the option to stay in Moab like her sister-in-law, Orpah (Ruth 1:15), but she clung to Naomi even under pressure to turn back.

Boaz had to fulfill his role as a kinsman-redeemer. He could have declined, like the nearer kinsman did in Ruth 4:6. That man hesitated out of concern that his inheritance would be jeopardized. He assumed that any child born through Ruth would carry Mahlon’s name, but it didn’t ultimately play out that way.

God, by His grace, chose them for these roles—it was undeserved. Naomi was struggling in faith, Ruth was a Moabite, and Boaz, apart from being a man of character and wealth, there was nothing else remarkable about him. Yet they still had to make the right choices within what was set before them.

Faith and Human Response

Similarly, there are destinies God has chosen for us, and we still have to make the right choices within them.

Naomi chose to return to the land in spite of her bitterness and her declining faith in the God of Israel.

Ruth chose the God of Israel over the gods of Moab, and chose uncertainty living among a foreign people over the comfort of her own.

Boaz chose faith over fear (Ruth 3:13). He did not know how marrying Ruth would affect his wealth or inheritance, but he did it anyway.

Faith is not the absence of fear but action in spite of it. All great men and women of God had fears, but they did not allow those fears to stop them. This is where grace intersects with destiny in human life.

Final Takeaways

Our inadequacies are where grace mostly intersects with God’s purposes. We are all inadequate in one way or another. Which of these characters do you most identify with?

Maybe you’re like Naomi—someone who has lost much, whose faith has grown weak and unsteady. God has not forgotten you. He is about to change your story and turn your bitterness into pleasantness again.

Or perhaps you’re like Ruth, living in uncertainty. You’ve left your past and relationships behind, and stepped out in faith, unsure of what lies ahead. God is about to give you the stability you need and desire.

Or you’re like Boaz. He was secure financially and materially, yet he had no wife and children—an emptiness he longed to fill, one that led him to risk everything. He put it all on the line, uncertain of the outcome. God is about to reward your faith and give you what has been missing.

Share

Leave a comment

An unnamed woman, caught in sin, meets Jesus and discovers a grace that forgives, confronts, and transforms.

A Beloved Story of Grace

The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most beloved in the Bible—a vivid picture of grace in action.

Many women are named in Scripture. Rahab, as I mentioned in my last post—The Unexpected Name in Jesus’ Genealogy. Mary Magdalene, from whom Jesus cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2). Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus (John 11). And yet this woman, at the center of a story so quintessential, remains unnamed.

It is as if God, in His wisdom, left it that way so that anyone in need of the kind of grace she received could step into her place. Grace knows your name.

But this story is also considered controversial. Some argue it was a later addition, noting that it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. The Critical Text is a scholarly reconstruction of the Greek manuscript tradition. Translations like the ESV and NIV are based on this tradition but even they have included it—wisely and rightly—with explanatory footnotes.

Recently, I read someone claiming authority as a Bible expert say that it should not be taught as Scripture. Later addition or not, the story is widely regarded as an early and authentic tradition about Jesus—an actual account preserved for us. I say: praise God that we have it.

The Accusation and the Trap

It was in John chapter 8 that her story unfolds. Very early in the morning, we’re told, the scribes and Pharisees brought this woman to Jesus at the temple and said:

“...Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.”
— v.4

Notice the phrase “in the very act.” In American parlance, it’s what we’d call “the smoking gun.” This wasn’t hearsay or an accusation that needed proving—she was caught doing the deed. Her guilt wasn’t in question; even Jesus didn’t contest it.

The scribes and Pharisees then reminded Jesus what the Law said—as if He needed reminding:

“Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned...”
— v.5

And then they asked Him:

“...But what do You say?”

They not only wanted this woman stoned, they also intended to accuse Jesus (v.6). If He had said not to stone her, they’d accuse Him of contradicting Moses, discredit Him as a false prophet, and undermine Him in the public eye. If He had said to stone her, they’d report Him to the Roman authorities, because only they could authorize capital punishment.

They were playing a zero-sum game; in their minds, Jesus loses no matter what He says.

But they miscalculated. They didn’t realize they were dealing with the Son of God.

Jesus didn’t take the bait. Instead, He stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger (v.6), seemingly ignoring them. But they kept pressing Him. Finally, He straightened up and delivered one of the most famous lines ever spoken:

“...He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”
— v.7

Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground.

Jesus had just thrown them a curveball they never saw coming. They had no answer. And being convicted by their own conscience (v.9), they began to leave quietly, the older ones first.

A Quick Aside on Human Nature

A quick aside: the order of their departure reveals something about human nature. The text notes that the older ones left first. With age often comes a clearer awareness of one’s own moral failings and a quickness to recognize conviction. The younger, by contrast, are often more idealistic and confident of their own rightness. It is a reminder that self-awareness tends to deepen with time and experience.

After they had all left, Jesus straightened up again and asked the woman:

“...Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
— v.10

She replied, “No one,” and Jesus said to her:

“...Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
— v.11

In that moment, condemnation was gone—but so was permission to remain the same. Grace met her where she was, and then called her to a different life.

The Dimensions of Grace

Unlike Rahab’s story, where we see grace primarily from her point of view, here we see grace displayed more in terms of how God Himself dispenses it.

First, God’s grace ensures justice. In a world often marked by injustice, it is powerful to see that grace sometimes balances the scales of justice.

The accusation against her wasn’t false, but it was unfairly applied. According to Deuteronomy 22:22, both the man and the woman caught in adultery were to be stoned, yet only she was brought forward. I believe this is part of why Jesus responded the way He did:

“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”
— v.7

But let this not be misunderstood. Jesus was not defending her sin or suggesting adultery is acceptable—adultery is never okay. There is no framing that makes it right. Rather, He was exposing the double standard and hypocrisy of her accusers.

Second, God forgives sin because of His grace. This is what Jesus extends to us all. He says:

“Neither do I condemn you…”
— v.10

And Scripture affirms this contrast:

“For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
— John 1:17

The law represents judgment and condemnation; grace in Christ brings forgiveness and justification.

Third, God’s grace frees us from the consequences of sin. Jesus saved this woman from death, the penalty prescribed by the law. Though her accusers were applying the law selectively and hypocritically, apart from Jesus’ intervention, she would have been stoned.

But it is important to understand that grace does not erase every consequence in life. This is not a question of God’s power—He is sovereign—but of how the world operates under justice and accountability. God’s forgiveness does not automatically remove criminal or civil consequences. There are many forgiven people who still sit in prison.

This matters for those who claim to follow Christ while continuing in sin. God will forgive when we ask Him, but society and justice may not.

Fourth, notice something easy to miss: grace does not remove accountability. The woman did not deny her sin or attempt to justify it.

The text is silent on her posture, but she is clearly not arguing or rationalizing, unlike how some people often respond when caught. She remained silent until Jesus spoke. I suspect fear of death and shame over her actions left her without words.

Scripture says:

“He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy.”
— Proverbs 28:13

We must acknowledge sin without qualification. If we desire grace, we must come before God with humility and sincerity.

Lastly, God’s grace demands transformation. Jesus tells her plainly:

“...go and sin no more.”
— John 8:11

God does not condemn us for our past, but He calls us not to remain in it. Grace is never a license to sin—it is the power to leave it behind.

Share

Leave a comment