The preposition “in” is a term we don’t often give much thought.

And the semantic range of the Greek word ἐν [meaning in, on or among] was extensive in the minds of the apostolic authors of the First Century. But most uses weren’t critical to understanding Jesus Christ’s good news about God’s kingdom.

However, when it was recorded to describe a position of close affiliation and structured grammatically as a conditional sentence, the implications were crucial for the Biblical reader to grasp.

For example, what does it actually mean to be “in Christ?”

In the seventh chapter of the apostle Paul’s letter to all who [were] beloved of God in Rome, called as saints, he illustrated the complex nature of the struggle between the flesh and the spiritual Law embedded in every man or woman called to obedience in the Lord Jesus Christ:

“For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, having been sold into bondage to sin.” [Rom. 7; 14]

And in Paul’s mind, this conflict between the will of the flesh and a man’s desire to live righteously had only one solution:

“Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” [Rom. 7:24-8:1] [my emphasis]

This is an interesting statement.

Because ἐν was always expressed in the Dative case, typically suggesting proximity, both spatially as well as in the context of association. And it seems highly unlikely that I could realistically reflect the character of anybody I wasn’t actually close to.

So, is being “in Christ” just an issue of semantics?

You bet it is. Any serious relationship requires a lot of hard work. It takes a commitment of time and effort to get to know someone well—even Jesus. His death unshackled me from the bondage of my sin, but my resulting relationship with Him won’t mean much if it’s only sought as an occasional necessity.

To be “in Christ” demands a healthy extent of personal, determined involvement in what the text of the Scriptures confirms were His priorities.

In order to do that, I’ve gotta be all in.

“…but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him.” [1Jn. 2:5]

.

Taking up your cross is the choice that keeps on shelling out.

That’s why Jesus encouraged His disciples to do it. But I think too many of us are deceiving ourselves about what it really takes to lay down our lives for His sake.

“...If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life [ψυχή: soul, being, life] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? [ψυχή: soul, being, life] Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father—with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.” [Matt. 16:24-27] [my emphasis or additions]

I didn’t notice any instructions here to join a congregation and lend a hand once in a while.

Of course, becoming part of a congregation is a natural consequence of the Spirit at work in each of us. Fellowship and generosity are a vital part of the marrow existing inside the bones of His Body. Without them, that Body would be severely compromised.

On the other hand though, Jesus never suggested that discipleship is demonstrated predominately through charitable behavior.

Giving is easy—especially if I have something to spare.

For what man is denying himself who finds some time to show up and help out when convenience permits? It might even be that he doesn’t have to start driving an older vehicle or sell all his toys. But, if he truly wants to examine what he might be willing to give up in exchange for his life, perhaps he should reevaluate the significance of what he continues to treasure in his bubble of privacy.

I didn’t used to realize that I’d never reap the precious life I thought was already mine until I actually practiced what Jesus and His disciples spoke about.

So reaping rewards from Jesus Christ when He returns used to be irrelevant to me because I had no understanding about how His good news about God’s kingdom was connected to reaping. [see: Matt. 16:27; Gal. 6:7-8]

There will be reapers and there will be weepers.

The call to discipleship is the opportunity to reap. But the greatest stumbling block to God’s people for reaping abundantly in Christ’s kingdom won’t be for their lack of generosity.

It’ll be their lack of tenacity.

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]

The myth of human immortality is nothing new.

The Bible contains an account of the creation of the first man and woman, and the ancient Book of Genesis describes the Lord’s directive to His created man and what would happen if he disobeyed Him:

“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.” [Gen. 2:7-8]

“Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.  The Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.’” [Gen.2:15-17] [my emphasis]

The narrative continues, revealing the pursuasive strategy of a Deceiver, expressed in diametric opposition to the Spoken Truth:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.  And he said to the woman, ‘Indeed, has God said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?’  The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat, but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’  The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’” [Gen. 3:1-5] [my emphasis]

You know the rest of the story. The lie that peddled immortality was victorious over the unbelieving spirit. The serpent of the text of Genesis got his foot in the door of the heart vacillating between the fidelity of God’s personally spoken commands and its inherent wicked nature. [Jer. 17:9-10]

So, have you ever wondered why this promise about human immortality continues to be embraced by many of God’s people throughout the ages?

Me too. But not any more.

It’s very likely that if Adam and Eve had chosen to believe [and thus obeyed] God’s commands, they would have secured some form of everlasting presence in the paradise of Eden. But the lie spoken in the creation story convinced our ancestors that unbelief was not a barrier to human death.

Even today, unbelief has proven to be the most difficult obstacle for God’s people to overcome.

And provoking sin through unbelief is still the serpent’s most effective tool for separating God’s people from Him. Not only that, it’s one sure way to prevent them from co-inheriting in the coming kingdom of the next age along with their Firstborn Brother, Christ Jesus. [see: Rom. 8:12-17]

But any deception about death should never mislead His people, because the obedient heart and the discerning mind cannot be easily hoodwinked.

Death is real.  If it isn’t, then there’s no need for a solution to it.