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.

It’s obvious that King David of Israel possessed a deep desire for intimacy with his Lord based on what he wrote.

And after reading his Psalms over many times, I couldn’t help but notice there were some notable consistencies in his thoughts.

There were frequent expressions of awe and fear [respect] before God, in the hope of being protected from the onslaught of his enemies. There were also regular expressions of thanksgiving for the Lord’s many temporal blessings throughout his life.

But there was another one—one I didn’t catch until the second or third round: David was inescapably aware of his fate. That is to say, to the same degree that he was willing to accept the consequences of his actions, so was he also keenly aware of the inevitable plight of his death. He and the other authors of the Psalms were never subtle about contemplating what they surmised to be the wretched state of existence connected to dying:

“And my soul is greatly dismayed, but You, O Lord—how long? Return, O Lord, rescue my soul. Save me because of Your lovingkindness. For there is no mention of You in death. In Sheol [or the grave], who will give You thanks?” [Psa. 6:5]

“For Your righteousness, O God, reaches to the heavens. You who have done great things, O God, who is like You? You who have shown me many troubles and distresses will revive me again, and will bring me up again from the depths of the earth.” [Psa. 71:19-20]

“Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul! I will praise the Lord while I live. I will sing praises to my God while I have my being. Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. His spirit [or breath] departs, he returns to the earth. In that very day his thoughts perish.” [Psa. 146:1-4] [my emphasis all]

So, somewhere along the line, a light bulb came on.

Based upon the Biblical texts, I simply could not believe that some realm of continuity existed after death in the mind of an ancient Jew.

These passages are but a few examples of what their theology was—and continues to be to this day.  Their hope has always been to be resurrected from the dead. It was never about existing in some immaterial form anywhere. Their beliefs were grounded in the prophecy of the Old Testament, spoken and recorded long before any pagan Greek myths peddling human immortality infiltrated Christ’s church sometime in the third century.

The Biblical patriarchs and ancient prophets hoped for the same Medium of salvation as the authors and disciples of the New Testament. Even Job lamented over his dismal future with an humble expectation of deliverance in the end. [Job 14:7-15, 19:25-27]

So, not until I fully realized what they actually hoped for could I begin to grasp why they did. It’s the same hope that any serious disciple of Jesus Christ should have today. That hope is realized in an opportunity to be included in the promise given by God to the Gentile Abraham to inherit the covenanted land on the Earth, and how that promise has been fulfilled by Him raising Jesus Christ from the dead, so that the righteous dead—that is, those whose lives were spent suffering in His name, might also be resurrected [or transformed] at Christ’s return to the Earth, and share in His inheritance commensurate to the fruit they’ve produced. [see: Isa. 14:1; Eph. 2:17-22, 3:1-6; Gal. 3:13- 14, 27-29; ICor. 15:50-52; Rom. 8:16-17]

[see: It’s All About Also.]

The sting of death is real and imminent, forcing the concept of time into the consciousness of the living. But it holds no such authority over the dead.

[see: Bridging the common gap of fear.]

So how can I be like David—a servant after the Lord’s own heart?

The original Greek language of the New Testament uses several different words that are translated as “servant.” The more common usages include διάκονος [servant, helper, minister, deacon] and παίς [servant, child, boy]

But a more significant form, usually translated as “slave” or “bondservant,” often designating voluntary servitude is recorded as δοῦλος [slave, servant]. The Gospel accounts of Christ’s parables and His direct communications to His disciples often make use of this word. The New Testament apostolic authors had the same Jewish mindset of their ancestors when it came to understanding this term:

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. If he comes alone, he shall go out alone. If he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out as a free man, then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him permanently.” [Exo.21:2-6] [my emphasis]

Based on what he wrote and what’s written about him, it seems that the fabric of David’s character was secured by his enduring belief in the One he trusted unequivocally.

His hope of a glorious future regeneration of human life in the next age was undoubtedly the foundation on which his servitude was built. His service reflected a persistent desire to actualize his Master’s will through what He taught him.

So I’m going out on a limb here and speculate that the man after God’s own heart had it right.

Oh, how I used to dread the down time.

I hated waiting. And it’s no wonder. Waiting breeds apprehension by opening the floodgates of the imagination, and apprehension is a block bully roaming the neighborhood of mental inventions.

So, I adopted a convenient habit of suppressing my ability to think rationally when forced to deal with what I perceived to be confusing information. I followed the path of least resistance.

As a young boy, I’d sometimes lie in bed at night, poring over the scenario of my life’s conclusion.  I knew where I was headed.  I’d been to a funeral or two.  There was no way around what seemed to be an inevitable state of unchanging idleness experienced in a grave of darkness and isolation even though I’d been assured that the restraint of death was only temporary.  Still, the thought was intolerable.

You know, the down time.

As a young adult though, I’d been taught that if I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, there was no cause for concern, for under the guardianship of our Lord’s grace, my “soul” would ascend peaceably into His Presence in heaven if I died.  

The reward of heaven was indeed a popular form of theology in my world.  But something was telling me that I’d have to wait to get there, just like the people who’d already died and were lying in a box underground.  Nevertheless, I conceded to the notion that my unseen soul would never perish when I accepted Christ.

I was out of the woods.

But eventually, the awkward suspicion that I and my soul could somehow separate became utterly unreconcilable, not just to my intuition, but to God’s written word as well.  

[Do I have a soul? see: Everybody’s Got One] 

Because the authors of the Old and New Testaments shared a common perception about the basic human makeup which was clearly inspired by the Author of Life Himself.  For example, the words of the Psalmists confirmed that conscious human thought is an impossibility in death:

“Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
His spirit [breath] departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.
How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Whose hope is in the Lord his God…” [Psa. 146:3-5]

“Return, O Lord, rescue my soul [life];
Save me because of Your lovingkindness.
For there is no remembrance of You in death;
In Sheol [the grave] who will give You thanks? ” [Psa. 6:4-5]  [parenthesis mine]

And they often chose to use the word “sleep” as an euphemism for death to describe what they perceived as a condition having similar attributes of normal sleep patterns.  The Biblical texts provide plenty of examples to support this claim.  For instance, Job’s words in  Job 14:12, Bathsheba speaking to David in 1Kg. 1:21, and the Lord’s messenger in Dan. 12:2 are only three of many.

But perhaps what our Lord Jesus said to His disciples before heading to see Martha and Mary and their brother could confirm this:

“Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep.”  [Jn. 11:11]

The inference clearly defines the dead as being wholly captive to an expired state of existence.

And it made sense.

When I go to sleep, I’m unconscious—totally oblivious to my surroundings and every aspect of my life.  And unless I dream, I’m not aware of, nor can I fear anything—even time.  And a corpse cannot dream, for the brain cannot function short of being animated by the life-given breath from the Lord.  [see: Gen. 2:7] 

Not only that, in his letter to those who [had] received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the apostle Peter corroborated the words of Moses in Psa. 90:4, suggesting to the reader that time is a created phenomenon and that, outside of the realm of conscious human cognition, it simply doesn’t exist:

“But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.”  [2Pet. 3:8]

Given these Biblical perspectives of time, when consciousness fades away, time flies indeed.

As I grew in my belief and understanding about being a disciple of Jesus Christ, nothing provided me more encouragement and solace about the future more than coming to terms with the reality of death, because I’d learned that I didn’t need to fear the “down time” anymore.

I had effectively bridged that gap of time in question that had haunted me since I was a child. But I hadn’t just stumbled across a sweeter solution. I began taking the Divinely inspired authors of the Bible at their word.

And when truth is allowed to flourish, confidence abounds.

However, I had embraced a doctrine suggesting that human consciousness is experienced in perpetuity. So I had to ask myself why none of the Biblical authors ever even suggested such a thing, but rather anticipated the future in the hope of new life, in a new age, by way of a raising of the dead, based on the Jewish writings of prophets such as Daniel and Ezekiel.  [see: Dan. 12:2; Ezek. 36:24-27, 37:13-14; 1Cor. 15]  

I also had to question why this future resurrection was such a big deal to them.  [see Acts 2:14-39; 24:14-15]  

And I learned that it was all about a promise given to their ancestor Abraham. 

[Promise? What promise? see: Common Threads are Common, It’s All About Also]

But wouldn’t it have also signified a miraculous emergence of conscious, animated human beings, unshackled from a protracted period of “sleep?” That would be amazing in itself! So, wouldn’t it make sense that the real impact of this very extraordinary event of our Lord’s unscheduled plan to give life back to the dead is wholly irrelevant if some part of me never really dies?

For without the barrier of death, any form of resurrection makes no sense.

And one thing is for sure, every ingredient of the Christian hope is built around this miracle. It depends upon it. 

So, it seems to me that, whatever conviction they hold dear, any fear of actually being separated from the love of God should never consume God’s people:

“For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”  [Rom. 8:38-39 the apostle Paul’s words written to the Saints in Rome]

Freedom from the bondage of the fear of death emerges out of various forms of opinion.  

But it probably should make sense as well.