There’s a lie that flies in the face of Biblical literacy.

It insists that the Lord God has yet to somehow restore His nation Israel, complete with a physical temple, housing what is already a defunct Levitical priesthood in order to re-establish an insufficient practice of animal sacrifices—all of which either challenge or seriously distort the veracity of a new covenant our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ has made with the world and died for to bring to fruition.

That’s not to say God has no plan to deal with His people through whom He first chose to reveal Himself. [see: Rom. 11] But if anyone claims to be overly enlightened about the details, I’d grab the salt shaker.

Because salvation and inheritance have always been about belief—not lineage. [see: Gal. 3; Heb. 8:7-13]

So the best line of defense against false teaching is to study the Bible inductively. Because, If I’m doing that, I force myself to focus on the texts which accurately convey what the good news is actually all about and who it applies to.

And, in the process, I’m able to recognize a phrase that confirms God’s need to establish a new covenant. The apostle Peter said:

“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” [Ac. 2:39] [my emphasis

And, using the exact same word in his letter to the congregations in Ephesus, the apostle Paul described exactly how Jesus Christ eliminated every distinction between Jews and Gentiles when He fulfilled that promise originally given to Abraham:

“…remember that you were, at that time, separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, you who formerly were far off, have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” [Eph.2:12-16] [my emphasis]

[μακράν: (mâ-crân’) far, far off, at some distance]

The Greek adverb μακράν was idiomatic in the sense that it was clearly inclusive, having a non-exhaustive time frame, and referring not just to all people then, but also to all people even now. It defined a new creation— a distinct category of people for whom the promise has been made available to with further clarification about to whom it was originally made. [see: Rom. 2:28-29]

Today, we live in a time “far off” from that of ancient Palestine.

Yet Scripture is clear. The Lord God’s New Covenant places everyone on an equal footing before Him. There’s no longer a distinction:

“There is not Jew nor Greek, there is not slave nor free [man], there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are [the] seed of Abraham—heirs according to promise.” [Gal. 3:28-29]

If I insist that our nation was formed upon Biblical principles, I’m defining history accurately.

But when its moral fabric continues to unravel, it’s tempting to try to tighten the tourniquet to stop the bleeding at any cost. And the most proven method of trying to force moral clarity on a man is to raise his bar for acceptable conduct while, at the same time, suppress his inherent need to make choices for himself.

And that’s when a theocracy begins.

[theocracy: a system of government in which priests [or jurisdictions] rule in the name of God or a god.]

We tend to envision the bondage of theocracies with women in burkas or mandated prayer sessions five time a day. But the ramifications transcend borders and ideology.

Because we might also establish theological hurdles in our congregations, denying “membership” in the Christ’s ecclesia [Body] without signatures or public declarations of belief and compliance. Or perhaps we welcome contractual partnerships [like 501C-3’s] with unlawful taxing authorities to ease the burden of compliance.

We might even demand the observance of corporate prayer in public institutions rather than encourage willful participation.

But wherever theocracies are enforced, eventually, we somehow arrive at the ridiculous conclusion that righteousness [through Jesus Christ, for example] cannot lawfully exist in the absence of some form of jurisdictional allegiance. And that’s when the framework of genuine faith begins to collapse.

Because freedom is lost when faith is regulated.

The foundation of any serious relationship with Jesus Christ is formed upon the principle of choice. For without having the latitude of free will, the result of any decision made lacks both substance and sustainability.

When that inherent desire to self-determine is either surrendered or preempted, its value is severely compromised—if not squandered completely.

If the wheels of choice fall off the wagon of faith, relational pretense litters the trail.

That’s a loaded question for sure.

Because many are quick to point out, of course, that “salvation” isn’t earned but freely given. But then, after the ground rules for its definition are established, it becomes very clear that a few things have to happen first. [see: Eph.1:13-14]

And one of the most profound examples of what it actually takes to “be saved” can be found in a Bible passage that’s often referred to as “The Thief On the Cross.” [Lk. 23:33-43]

A synopsis is as follows: Two criminals were crucified with Jesus. One says, “C’mon Jesus! You’re the man! Save Yourself!” The other one says, “Knock it off. He didn’t actually do anything wrong. We’re the only one’s that should be here.”

But here’s where it gets interesting.

It’s probable neither were practicing Jews, having any extensive knowledge or anticipation of being resurrected from the predicament of death in the future based on the Jewish Writings and Prophesy. But perhaps they’d heard bits and pieces of a rumor, because, while one mocked the idea, the other one bought it—lock, stock and barrel.

It’s likely also that, in the minds of the Rabbinical Priesthood or other factions of the “religious” ruling class, he didn’t have the necessary credentials to inherit the promise given to Abraham in order to be included in any form of their redemptive remedy. He also probably wasn’t a duly baptized “member” of any congregation.

But he believed Jesus. And he pleaded for mercy:

“…Jesus, remember me whenever You might come into Your kingdom!” [Lk. 23:42]

He didn’t know when and where that might be. And, apparently, he didn’t care. But Jesus did assure him that he would be with Him when that happened.

“Truly I say to you this day: You shall be with Me in paradise.” [Lk. 23:43]

[παράδεισος: (pâ-râ’-day-sôs) a place of blessedness, from the base meaning of garden]

I can’t logically import any traditional, preconceived premise into the interpretive process of any text—Biblical or otherwise.

And, in the same way, I can’t bring anything to the cross except my belief.

Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” [Matt. 5:9]  

So how do I square this sentence with passages that appear to contradict it?  For example:

“Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth?  I tell you, no, but rather division.  For from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.  They will be divided, father against son, and son against father, mother against daughter, and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”  [Lk. 12:51-53]

Perhaps the previous sentence spoken to His disciples provides a clue to the reader about the refining nature of division:

“I came to pour fire upon the Earth, and how I wish it were already set on fire!  And I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!”  [Lk. 12:49-50]

It’s very possible some of His disciples had no idea what He was talking about here.  But, a 21st Century inductive Bible student understands His words “fire upon the Earth” not as a direct reference to His second coming, but rather, completely in the context of human spiritual purification.

If he doesn’t, then he might unwittingly diminish the impact of what Jesus said.

Fire isn’t just an agent of extermination.  It’s also critical to the refining process of metals, something most ancient Palestinians were familiar with.  Placing raw metal ore into a fire was the only way to separate the pure metal from the impurities which contaminated it. In the same manner also, through the man, Jesus Christ, the Spirit Himself proliferates the fire by which the Lord’s people are purified [or refined] even to this day.

So…it appears that He really did mean exactly what He said.

The refining process isn’t always a pleasant thing, but it’s always a good thing. Just like a piece of iron ore, it breaks me down and separates me from my impurities. And I’d like to think it brings people together in faith more often than it separates them.

Because Jesus taught His disciples that “peace,” in its authentic sense, is realized only through a committed lifestyle conducive to God’s vision of purity in conduct.  If I attempt to make peace without a clear understanding of what that actually means, I’m probably just fanning the flames of pride and ignorance.

If I’m really a Biblical peacemaker, I’ll welcome the refining process.

No language brings across the nature of continuity better than the Biblical Greek Present Active Participle.

There are countless examples of this in the Greek New Testament. A verb recorded in the Present Active Tense alone suggests some degree of progressive action, but the participle drives the nail down flush.

Unfortunately, most English translations don’t always reflect the continuous verbal aspect the Biblical authors intended by using participles, often leaving the reader no option but to speculate about the full meaning.

For example, the NASB Translation reads:

“He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” [Jn. 14:21]  [emphasis mine]

Literally translated in light of verbal aspect, this passage reads:

“The one having My commandments and is keeping them—that one is the one continuously loving Me. And the one loving Me shall be loved by My Father, and I shall love him and shall reveal Myself to him.”   [emphasis mine]

Am I splitting hairs? Maybe a little.

But the author—the disciple Jesus loved—was trying to illustrate how genuine love is demonstrated by an unbroken flow of willful obedience, driven by a spirit of gratefulness. He leaves no room to suggest that the action of “loving” could have been a one-time event.

The good news is I don’t have to spend years learning Koine Greek grammar and vocabulary to spot participles. Bible software is available which can allow the reader to instantly determine the true aspect of any verb.

But there’s more.

I can’t think of anyone I’d prefer to reveal Himself to me more than the One who saved me from myself.

“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who continues to remain in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.” [Jn. 15:5]

What does the Bible actually tell us about angels?

If I read closely, I might be scratching my head. Because tradition has historically depicted these created beings with graphics and narratives that don’t always jibe with the texts.

Probably the most popular but bizarre portrayal of angels today is illustrated in images having feminine physical features and characteristics. There are any number of reasons for this. But, in the original languages, the term “angel” is always recorded as a Masculine noun, confirming the dominion the Lord has designated to masculine authority.

[Greek: ἄγγελος, (ân-gê-lôs) angel, messenger, one who is sent] [Hebrew: מַלְאָךְ (mâ-lâk) a messenger]

I’d also do well to remember that, when cornered by the Sadducees, Jesus reminded them that, for those worthy of “attaining ” to the coming age by being raised from the dead, marriage would no longer be a thing because they’d also be “like the angels.”

So, the reader can safely assume that sexual distinction probably won’t exist either. [Lk. 20:34-36]

Perhaps the Letter to the Hebrews reveals the most about the character and authority of messengers. The very first sentence explains that the Lord God spoke to “the fathers” at many times and in many ways. As the author continues to convince the reader that our current High Priest, Jesus Christ, provides us a much better intermediary to the Father, I can begin to understand how critical a role God’s messengers had originally played in conveying His plan for salvation to the world.

But they’re also spiritual guardians in His agency.

They’re warriors. The ones who didn’t follow the Great Deceiver are critical to the scope of our Lord’s Master Plan. They inform. [Gen. 18:1-5] They protect. [Dan. 12:1] They prophesy [Dan. 12:2-13] They fight. [Dan. 10:13] And the saints of Christ’s ἐκκλησία shall judge them. [1Cor. 6:3]

Most of all, they’re still around. And they have a mission, They’re “ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation.” [Heb. 1:13-14]

Will you inherit?