No man is fit to rule over another, right?

Perhaps that depends on who you ask.

While the Framers of the Constitution of the United States were adamantly opposed to the traditional notion of an individual sovereign, they did weave some threads of executive authority into the fabric of what this country attempts to achieve in the form of balanced powers of government.

Their intent was that this Executive Branch was to implement the will of a responsible citizenry through their elected representatives. It was to lead, yet remain accountable to the collective voice of the people.

This was to be accomplished through the Electoral process in the several state legislatures, rather than by popular vote—a process proven to be easily corrupted. The Electoral College was thought to be the most equitable approach for rendering the unified will of the people under a single mechanism.

It’s no secret that most of our nation’s founders regarded the only legitimate source of authority to flow from God Himself, through His people, to those whom His people elect. Hence, our system of self-governance was designed to keep this chain of sovereignty unobstructed, because history has demonstrated that when that flow of authority is interrupted, the Lord will indeed let the chips fall where they may.

The fool has always argued that true freedom makes no provision for any form of moral authority. But there’s a wealth of documentation from the eighteenth century confirming that the Framers established The United States Constitution with the understanding that it could effectively serve only a society bound to a legitimate code of moral conduct.

Some reliable sources even claim that our system of balanced powers was based upon [or at least be inspired by] verses in the Scriptures;

“For the Lord is our judge [Judicial Branch],

The Lord is our lawgiver [Legislative Branch],

The Lord is our king [Executive Branch];

He will save us“ [Isa. 33:22] [parenthesis mine]

I can’t verify the accuracy of this claim, but I certainly accept that it’s plausible.

The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with examples of how a nation refused, time after time, to govern itself by the standards of its Sovereign, that is, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As such, the reality of human liberty is seldom as it seems. It’s subject to the stumbling blocks of temptation on a daily basis.

And even a righteous government can’t help the man content to live in bondage.

But God’s design and establishment of the nation of Israel provided the world with a paradigm for personal freedom and just ruling among His people. It was a system virtually unheard of in that day.

The principle that personal freedom had only One Legitimate Source was as evident then as it is today. Many brilliant men have attempted to improve upon this system, asserting that freedom is a right granted unconditionally from our Creator with no strings attached.

However, without the moral clarity demonstrated by personal repentance and submission to the only Righteous King, Jesus Christ, real freedom is only a pipe dream for even the most determined citizen.

So, can a disciple of Jesus Christ truly be a patriot as well?

The answer to that might depend upon my understanding of the two terms. It seems that the man who truly appropriates and discharges the expected functions of both could readily bear the title of the one as well as the other.

But if the ideals of one ever conflict with the other, then choices need to be made. History confirms that such circumstances existed.

The life in complete surrender to the Righteous King is a life bound up together with Him. 

And there’s no end to the freedom.

The Lord’s Revelation to His apostle John is translated into plain English.

But can the untrained disciple really understand the allegorical references to the events preceding Jesus Christ’s return? Should he try to read it without some level of qualified assistance?

Maybe that shouldn’t be his goal.

Many would readily surrender this task to the professional scholar or clergyman, suggesting that the art of reading between the lines requires certain resources connected to formal instruction. As a result, the escatalogical flowcharts abound. We can pick and choose.

But, while the metaphors are certainly relevant to Biblical prophesy, they’re clearly secondary to the theme of the first three chapters of the book known as ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ⸀ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ, or Revelation of John.

By focusing on the introduction, I can discover two important reasons about why it was written:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants [δοῦλος: a slave, bond servant], the things which must soon take place. And He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one reading and those who are hearing the words of the prophecy, and heeding the things which are written in it, for the time is near.” [Rev. 1:1-3] [my emphasis]

If indeed I consider myself to be a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and I’m reading, hearing and heeding the words of Biblical prophecy, I could eventually determine how to apply these verbs to John’s visions of multi-headed dragons, seals and bowls.

On the other hand, I could discover that the first three chapters of the Revelation of John are explicitly prophetic as the Biblical definition of prophecy goes—that is, that it’s not always about predicting the future. And, if I chose to re-read them, I’d also realize that they’re remarkably straightforward and coherent. I wouldn’t need study guides, commentaries or puzzling diagrams to understand them.

[προφητεία: (prô-fā-tāy’-ah) prophesy, preaching the message of God, the gift of preaching the message of God, an inspired message or utterance, intelligible preaching; sometimes proclaiming the future as a warning to preparedness and continued obedience]

Embedded in each passage of prophesy spoken to the seven churches in these first three chapters is the assurance of future rewards and honor in Christ’s presence for “overcoming,” or being a“victor” over the power of sin in this age.

[νικάω: (nǐ-kâh’-ōh) to conquer, overcome; win the verdict]

For example: “He who is overcoming, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” [Rev. 3:21 ]

Not only that, each instance was followed with a common charge, expressed in the Greek Imperative Mood, making it a statement of force rather than a suggestion:

“The one having an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” [Rev. 3:22]

One dog in me wants to dwell on the mystery of prophetical visions.

The other one just wants to eat what’s set before him.

It certainly sounds like something I should have.

And, at the time of Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry, it was the most highly sought after state of existence. It was the ultimate ambition of every man, woman and child of the ancient Jewish and early Christian Church culture of the First Century.

The Synoptic Gospel accounts even describe two separate instances where Jesus was directly questioned concerning the exact qualifications and conditions necessary for either “inheriting” or “having” something referred to as eternal life [ζωή αἰώνιος]. And these are only what was recorded. [see; Matt. 19:16, Mk. 10:17, Lk. 18:18, 10:25]

So how can I get it?

If I consider myself to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, perhaps the first thing I’d want to establish is what it actually is.

The Hebrew word “עֹלָם” [(ōlâm): long duration, antiquity, futurity] was commonly translated as “everlasting” throughout the Old Testament. The parallel Greek New Testament term “αἰώνιος” [eye-ówn-ee-ôs] is defined as “eternal, unending, everlasting,” but in a context of quality rather than time.

And given the breadth of their meanings, it’s not easy to bring the full realm of definition across in any translation. Even so, the serious Bible student would do well to recognize the word “eternal” from a perspective of value rather than duration.

For example, in a closing sentence, Jesus confirmed the future consequences for those who would fail to act upon His commands, and those who would not:

“These will go away into eternal punishment [κόλασις: correction, punishment], but the righteous into eternal life.” [Matt. 25:46] [my emphasis]

The reader can clearly recognize the contrast between the two different outcomes modified with the adjective αἰώνιος [eternal]. The nouns “punishment” and “life” are expressed in diametric opposition to each other. But the force of “eternal” is identical in both instances. As a modifier of each of the nouns, its presence as an adjective attaches a condition of quality to each outcome. The quality of one outcome was good, the other— not so much.

But even if I’m able to “go away into” eternal life someday, what does that mean to me here and now?

The meaning of ζωή αἰώνιος is exhaustive in its ability to defy the presence of time. Biblical scholars have long noted that both עֹלָם and αἰώνιος have always carried a semantical connection to something not completely in view or comprehensible. Their dimensions extend both into the past as well as the future, perhaps reinforcing the idea that the Creator of their meanings was—and is, unrestricted by the constraints of time.

So, for Christ’s disciple, perhaps the real essence of “eternal life” can best be understood in the apostle John’s first letter:

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.” [1Jn. 1:1-4] [my emphasis]

The Source of eternal life had been revealed to John, and He manifested Himself in the bond of fellowship. The implication is clear. Through belief, Christ’s disciple’s lives were bound up together with that of the Source’s, that is, Jesus Christ:

“If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himseif is in the Light, we have feliowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” [1 Jn.1:6-7]

It would seem to me that any life in genuine cohesion with the Lord would have to be a life that experiences quality, not just duration.

And by definition, it’s clearly a process:

“And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who is possessing the Son possesses the life. He who is not possessing the Son of God does not possess the life.” [1Jn. 5:11-12] [my emphasis]

It’s worth noting that the Greek verb ἔχω [(echō): to have, to hold, to possess] had a very broad semantical range to include the the characteristics of compliance as well as association. It was a very inclusive word often used to suggest the presence of an obedient heart.

John’s words here are fairly straightforward. Though God had given the life, the potential for its actualization was realized through possession of the Son. ζωή αἰώνιος [eternal life] was the gemstone of the disciples of Jesus Christ and His Church.

It was a precious pearl they sought.

So, if I perceive eternal life as nothing more than a gift in perpetuity at my resurrection, then I’ve clearly misinterpreted its meaning. On the other hand, the full dimension of what eternal life actually is can only be realized by being raised from the dead [or transformed] and sharing in Jesus Christ’s glory and inheritance when He returns to inaugurate His kingdom. [see: ICor. 15]

My capacity to take hold of eternal life in the present day seems to parallel the sanctification process taking place in me, because any desire I have to overcome the world by living in faithful obedience to Him can never be demonstrated in a life lacking quality.

If my perspective of eternal life is focused only on the future, I might never experience it in the completeness that God intended for me to.

What kinda life would that be?

There are unintended consequences to the conduct of passive men.

Today’s culture often champions this absence of virility in the human male temperament, even going so far as to venerate a man who’s willing to humble himself in the face of danger or revolting behavior.

Ironically, this submissive behavior is somehow revered by the same ones who desperately seek his guidance or protection in their lives—often at a moment’s notice. And for many years, I too assumed such a passive role, not just as a man, but also as the spiritual leader and guardian of my family.

Yet, I clung tenaciously to my “Christian” identity.

As a result, the irregular pieces of life’s puzzles would rarely fit together.

However, at some point, it became evident to me that, if a man claims to belong to Jesus Christ, his concept of moral bravery should align itself with that of the apostle Paul’s:

“.. and put on the new self, which according to [the likeness of] God, has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity.” [Eph.4:24-27] [my emphasis] [written to the saints who (were) at Ephesus and who (were) faithful in Christ Jesus]

Because the effects of male passivity are far more devastating than many might realize. The repercussions are generational. One need only look around to witness the catastrophic outcome of uninvolved [or absent] fathers existing in the family structure of our culture today. The combined effect of individual males abandoning their roles as leaders, teachers and protectors cripples the proper functions of a civilized society.

Everyone is affected.

In the same way, the Body of Christ is greatly influenced and sustained by the presence and leadership of it’s men, being the intention of God’s purposes. Paul charged both men and women in the Church at Ephesus to be submissive, but each in the way that reflected his/her proper glory:

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church. He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, in this manner also, the wives [ought to be] to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives. Just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word…” (Eph. 5:25-26) [my emphasis]

But along with this obligation he has to his family, a man who claims to belong to Jesus Christ is also responsible for establishing Biblical integrity in his local congregation—assuming, of course, that he has “put on the new self, which according to [the likeness of] God, has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.” [see: Eph.4:24-27 above] Perhaps he could consider any such authority to be “in the likeness” of his Firstborn Brother, Jesus Christ, when He scattered the money-changers from the temple. [Jn.2:14-15]

The apostle Paul’s letters to Timothy posited the qualifications and responsibilities of local church leadership through the selection of Deacons and Overseers—a pattern still followed today.

But what if they aren’t leading the flock in a Biblical manner during worship?

For example, many men who claim to belong to Christ find nothing unscriptural about a woman leading both men and women in corporate prayer and worship. This seems to be a pattern in many local assemblies today, but the prudent man would strongly object to such an oversight based on the context of Paul’s words concerning the order of worship:

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” [1 Cor. 14:34-35] [my emphasis] [written to the church of God which [was] at Corinth, to those who [had] been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place [called] on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.]

“Give me a break!” you say, “This was written two-thousand years ago!”

That’s true. But the word of God remains unchanged. Paul was actually addressing the proper method for engaging in the Divine phenomenon of speaking in tongues. These two sentences above exist as only a single strand of a common thread found throughout the Scriptures concerning God’s distinct functions for men and women.

[What’s a“common thread?” see: Common Threads are Common]

And, the reason Paul wrote that women should never speak while they’re in church was not that they were never to open their mouths during group worship. In context, he was simply stating that the responsibility for leading BOTH men and women in worship and prayer was clearly reserved for the men. Because just like some men, many women have the gift of teaching and discipling other women as well as children. This is a critical function in Christ’s Body that cannot be effectively discharged by any man.

Earlier in the letter, in an attempt to clarify the importance [in this case] of a woman’s appearance during worship, Paul also established the “headship” of men as well as the Divine rationale behind it:

“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, Just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God Is the head of Christ.” [1 Cor. 11 ;2-3] [my emphasis]

“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man; for also man was not created on account of woman, but woman on account of man.” [Cor. 11:7-9] [my emphasis]  [ see also: Gen. 2:18-25]

Even later, when sharing a “mystery” to the readers concerning the coming resurrection of the dead, Paul affirmed that there are indeed different types of glory, or magnificence. [ICor. 15:40-41]

The ability for Christ’s Body to reflect God’s image and majesty is subject to His unique device of sexual distinction. The inherent attributes of the human male include leading, protecting, teaching, earning a living and, of course, mating. It seems that a man is properly reflecting God’s glory when he sustains these distinct male characteristics with a worldview conducive to His standards of human conduct.

And, from a Biblical perspective, the task of maintaining the integrity of the order of worship for a local congregation of God’s people is clearly placed upon the shoulders of its male members—especially its elders and teachers.

The innate character of a woman is grounded primarily in caregiving, nurturing of children, gathering and teaching as well. In the same way, a woman reflects the honor [or glory] of her husband—and therefore to the Lord—by discharging her unique traits of womanhood in a manner pleasing to God. [see again: Eph. 5:24]

I’m convinced that Christ’s disciple would do well to embrace the obvious:

Both men and women were created in the Image of God. Jesus Christ’s position as the “bridegroom” of His Church is a paradigm for man in his relationship with his wife. The role of Christ’s Church as His “bride” is a paradigm for a woman in her relationship with her husband.

Christ gave His life for His Church. His Church submits to His leadership.

The roles of the men and women who belong to Him are equal in essence, but different in function. 

I’m a believer.

“The glory of young men is their strength, and the honor of old men is their gray hair.”  [Prov. 20:29-30]

“Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she smiles at the future.  She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue…”  [Prov. 31:25-26]

“Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates.”  [Prov. 31:30-31]

Trying to identify the differences between two closely related principles can be confusing.

If a correct definition of either isn’t identified, any contrast between the two can be blurred. This could create an illusion of similarity rather than distinction.

It’s no different when it comes to understanding the differences between certain Biblical terms. And the inductive study process revealed to me what the New Testament apostolic authors actually meant by the words they used, and why they considered their redemption [or what we often call being “saved” today] to be a different issue than their inheritance.

To try to equate the two is like comparing apples to oranges. While both terms define separate concepts, they are related, like fruit being of a common genus. However, they’re not synonymous.

The introduction of the apostle Paul’s letter to the saints who [were] at Ephesus and who [were] faithful in Christ Jesus is a good example of how he understood these two words to be different things:

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Whom we have redemption [ἀπολύτρωσις: setting free, deliverance, release] through His blood, the forgiveness [ἄφεσις: forgiveness, cancellation, release] of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us.” [vss. 1:1-8] [my emphasis]

The context here clearly defines Paul’s perception of redemption. God’s quitting authority is what pardons sin and is wholly the result of His good will and nothing else. His Supreme Prerogative to cancel the debt of a man’s specific sin releases him from its liability only because of Christ’s blood having been shed.

In the verses that follow, the readers at Ephesus were able to understand that the two different terms were indeed connected by a process but weren’t the same thing:

“In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Whom also we were assigned by lot [or chosen to inherit], having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that, we, who were the first to hope in Christ, would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed [σφραγίζω: seal, secure with a seal; mark with a seal, set apart by a seal] in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the pledge [ἀρραβών: pledge, guarantee, down payment] of our inheritance [κληρονομία: property, possession(s), what is promised or given by God to his people, God’s blessings, share, part] for the intention of the deliverance [ἀπολύτρωσις: setting free, deliverance, release] of that possession, to the praise of His glory.” [vss. 1:8-14] [my emphasis]

As a result of their belief, the saints at Ephesus had been set apart and “sealed” in Christ. This concept was also understood as having been “purchased” by God. [see: Acts 20:28, Rev. 5:9] The pledge [or promise] was the sole means of their redemption through the Holy Spirit, the Messiah Himself having fulfilled the promise. [see: Gal. 3:13-14]

It seems God’s redemptive measures described here are unique, as nothing in the text suggests there to be a provision for the Buyer to renege, thereby forfeiting His pledge.

So what God redeems for Himself and seals with His name stays that way.

His “purchases” shall be “delivered” to the Buyer and paid back based on productivity. [see: Matt. 25:14-30] God’s redeeming authority was a current reality for the saints at Ephesus. In that sense, they were indeed “saved” from any obligation to consider themselves powerless to the influence of sin.

It was easy for them to see that both redemption and inheritance were based on faith.

Redemption was accomplished by believing in Jesus Christ’s authority to compensate for one’s transgressions against the Lord. But the hope of receiving an inheritance was also conditional to belief, that is, belief validated by a redeemed individual’s desire to demonstrate that belief through obedience to Christ’s commands.

The result of being redeemed by belief is to belong to Christ.

The reward of inheriting with Christ would result in emerging from this present age with sufficient spiritual maturity and forbearance to accomplish the necessary role of sharing in His reign of the coming kingdom on Earth.

Different fruit?

Yeah, but they’re both sweet.