GraceUncovered

Authors home articles Gracelife

GRACE BLOGS COLLECTION

If a woman can’t be a husband, she can’t be a pastor, right?

by

Aimee Semple McPherson, founder of the Foursquare Gospel Church

What sort of person makes a good pastor?

In his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul lists sixteen desirable qualities (see 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9). Pastors or overseers or elders should not be new converts, he says. Nor should they be money-grubbing alcoholics prone to fits of temper. Ideally, they should be good parents because leading a church is like leading a family.

And apparently pastors should also be men – at least that’s the impression we get when we read things like this:

A church leader must be a man… (1 Tim. 3:2, NLT)

The only problem is, Paul never said this. Not ever.

Despite how his words may appear in your NLT or KJV, Paul never said, “If any man desires the office of a bishop.” He said, “If any one desires the office of a bishop” (1 Tim. 3:1). Since we are all one in Christ, any one may desire the office of pastor, regardless of gender.

“Any one” means any one

When describing the ideal pastor, Paul’s language is remarkably gender neutral. Which is interesting given the patriarchal world he lived in. Rabbis were men. Jewish priests were men. But Christian pastors could be men or women. This was new.

If there was ever place to insist or suggest that pastors or elders must be men, Paul’s list of qualifications was the place. Yet Paul says nothing. Evidently he did not have a problem with women pastors.

However, Paul did have one male-specific word in his list, and that word is husband. Paul said an elder must be the husband of one wife:

For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed you: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife… (Tit. 1:5-6a)

Can a woman be a pastor? Since pastors must be husbands, women can’t be pastors, or so the argument goes. However, the you-must-be-a-husband test falls short for two reasons.

First, Timothy, who was in charge of the Ephesian church, did not pass this test. Nor did Paul. Or Jesus. None of them were married. If managing one’s household well is a prerequisite for being a shepherd, on what basis could Paul or Timothy oversee any church? They didn’t have households to manage. Either Paul was a hypocrite who didn’t keep his own rules, or the husband-of-one-wife requirement does not mean what we think it means.

Second, the husband-of-one-wife rule also applied to deacons (1 Tim. 3:12), yet there were female deacons in the church (Rom. 16:1). If females can be deacons, they can be elders, and in the Bible, they were.

Husband of one 

Paul was a savvy church planter who knew how to recruit pastors. He understood that a shepherd ought to be gentle, peaceable, and all the other things. But why does he have to be a husband of one wife? Because someone who has two or more wives will be a lousy shepherd.

Do you see? Paul was not ruling out divorced people or unmarried people. He was talking about polygamists.

Probably not suitable

In the world that Paul inhabited, it was not uncommon for a man to have several wives. In one of the oldest commentaries on this passage, John Chrysostom said Paul was not saying an overseer must have a wife; he was prohibiting his having more than one. “For even the Jews were allowed to contract second marriages, and even to have two wives at one time.”

That was Jewish men; Gentile men weren’t much better.

Among the Romans, marriage was widely regarded as an inconvenience that interfered with a man’s natural passions. A wife who cheated could be killed with impunity by her husband, but a man who cheated was untouchable. Consequently, Gentile men were often unfaithful. Even if they were monogamous in marriage, they were polygamous in practice.

A man who had multiple wives, or who acted like he had multiple wives, was a faithless man. Such a man could not possibly trusted to care for the bride of Christ. “Don’t make him an elder,” said Paul to Timothy. “Instead, recruit reliable people. Choose those who are faithful, not philandering; steady, not shifty; loyal, not lascivious.”

Paul never says an elder must be male or married; he says he must be the husband of only one wife. It’s the number that counts. “If he’s married, it had better be to one woman only.”

And Paul never says women cannot pastor or shepherd others, for that would contradict everything he believed about the new creation. Paul understood that the Spirit gives gifts to all of us, not half of us. If he met women who felt called to lead or shepherd he would have encouraged them to fan their gift into flame.

Paul was surrounded by capable women leaders, and he praised them in his letters. If he was opposed to women leading, he had ample opportunity to say so. Yet he never did.

Neither should we.

—

Want to promote your grace blog or ministry on Escape to Reality? It’s free!

Are you a teacher? Check out E2R’s treasure trove of teaching resources!

Hang out with Paul on Facebook, Insta and Twitter. Get his weekly emails!

Is the King James Bible sexist?

by

Recently I asked the question, “Is the Bible sexist?” It is and it isn’t. It is in the sense that it records the sexist stories and laws of patriarchal societies. But it isn’t in the sense that it reveals God’s heart for equality and freedom.

Men and women were made equal in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). Sin opened the door to discrimination, domestic violence, trafficking and all the other evils visited upon women. But Jesus showed us that God’s heart has always been to elevate women to their rightful place as co-heirs with him.

The Bible is not a sexist book, but what about specific Bible translations? What about the most famous translation of all?

The most influential book in the world

The King James Version is an incredible book. A literary masterpiece, it introduced into the English language some of our most beautiful words and most memorable aphorisms. But like any Bible translation, it reflects the culture and theology of those who translated it. Which is why the 400 year old KJV seems to exhibit a subtle bias against women.

Consider these examples:

  • In Acts 18:26, the KJV reverses the order of Priscilla and Aquila’s names listing the husband first
  • Paul said a woman should learn in quietness, but the KJV says a woman should learn in silence (1 Tim. 2:11)
  • When Paul introduced Phoebe to the Romans, he called her a deacon, but the KJV introduces her as a servant (Rom. 16:1)
  • The KJV turns Euodia, a female co-worker named by Paul, into a man: Euodias (Php 4:2)

These are relatively minor examples. It probably doesn’t matter whether Priscilla is listed first or second. But what are we to make of this list of elder qualifications:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7, KJV)

In this passage I have underlined ten gender-specific words (man, he, his) that show elders must be men. Guess what. None of them is in the Bible. They have all been added by translators.

“Paul, don’t tell me you’re one of those political correctness freaks who wants to ruin the Bible with inclusive language.”

Not at all. But I do believe a good translation should reflect what the Bible actually says. Translators ought not to change the meaning of words as they seem to have done in the passage above.

Read Paul’s original words or a literal translation of 1 Timothy 3 and you will find that his words are remarkably gender-neutral.

Paul did not say: “If any man desire the office of a bishop”
Paul said: “If any one desire the office of a bishop”

Big difference. In fact, it’s the sort of difference that might cause you to start asking questions about the role of women in the church.

“Whoa, slow down Kemosabe! Next you’ll be telling us that women can be elders.”

Who says they can’t?

“The Bible says!”

But which Bible? The one written by Paul the champion of women’s equality? Or the version published in the name of a king who tortured women for fun?

See the problem?

It’s not about the king

Let me hasten to add that the KJV is one of my favorite translations. I love its beautiful phrases. Its contribution to language and theology is monumental.

And I am not suggesting that the KJV is sexist because King James was a mysoginistic witch hunter. I am sure the churchmen who translated the KJV were good men working with pure motives.

But we must acknowledge that the translation of any Bible will reflect the norms of its time, and this is true of the KJV. Look at how 1 Timothy 3:1 appears in other early translations:

Wycliffe Bible (1382): “If ony man desirith a bishopriche…”
Miles Coverdale Bible (1535): “Yf a ma covet ye office of a Bisshoppe…”
The Great Bible (1539): “If a man desyer the offyce of a Bysshoppe…”
Bishops Bible (1568): “Yf a man desire ye office of a bishop…”
Geneva Bible (1599): “If any man desire the office of a Bishop…”

When King James issued his translators with instructions, he told them to follow existing Bibles as closely as possible, and they did. Why does the 17th-century KJV say “any man” in 1 Timothy 3:1? Because every 16th-century English Bible says it.

The real question to ask is why these old Bibles say “any man” when Paul said “any one.” Their translators were either masculinizing scripture in a way that was consistent with cultural norms, or they understood that any man meant any one. Maybe it wasn’t a big deal to them anymore than the messianic phrase “Son of Man” is no big deal to us.

Old Bibles, modern mindsets

Maybe you have noticed how older Bibles say things like, “let your light shine before men,” while modern Bibles say “let your light shine before people.” Which is better? Either is fine, provided you understand that in older Bibles men implies people. It means anyone and everyone. It does not mean males.

When the angels sang, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men” they weren’t excluding women from the favor of God. In older Bibles, men means people.

Capiche?

It’s important that you get this because those who do not grasp these distinctions can get into serious error. Read an older translation (such as the KJV) with modern eyes and you may come away thinking that women cannot be bishops and Phoebe was nothing more than a delivery girl. You could get a distorted view of what the Bible actually says about women.

You may think that the Bible commands women to be silent in church, when it doesn’t.

And you may think the Bible says women can’t teach and preach when it doesn’t say that either.

Paul never said elders must be men; not once. And why would he? Paul worked with women all the time and he named and praised women leaders in his letters.

To be fair, Paul did include one male-specific word in his list above, and that word is husband, as in elders need to be husbands of one wife. Which makes it sound like elders must be men. It’s actually talking about something else as I will explain in a later article.

If any woman desires the office of elder, she desires a good thing

The idea that only males can shepherd the church of Christ is a malodorous tradition that reeks of Athenian philosophy. God made Adam and Eve equal and commissioned them to rule or lead together. Tremendous harm is done to all when we tell women that they are inferior, unequal, and unable to walk in the calling God has given them.

Is the KJV sexist? Not if you read it with the 17th-century understanding that man and men mean people. But read it with a 21st-century understanding – men means men – and you might think it is very sexist.

I appreciate this may offend those of you who believe the KJV was delivered from heaven on a silver cushion. If so, then you are too easily offended. We ought to be more concerned with the way women have been treated in the church. They have been marginalized, demonized, and burned at the proverbial stake. They’ve been told to remain silent and to endure domestic abuse because it’s God’s will for them to submit. The Bible says so.

These ancient evils have many causes and I’m hardly laying the blame on the KJV. But understanding how Bible translations can perpetuate a distorted view of scripture is a first step towards remedying this injustice.

—

Want more like this? Check out Paul’s ebook Can Women Pastor? available now on Patreon.

Women pastors in the Bible

by

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh, God’s shepherds to Iranian prisons

What is a pastor?

A pastor is a shepherd. That’s what the word literally means. A pastor is someone who tends and guides spiritual sheep.

Can women pastor?

Let me answer that question with a better one: If God has gifted and called a woman to pastor, should we oppose him?

Here’s another: Since God empowered women to lead churches in the New Testament, is there any reason to expect that he has stopped doing that today?

Some may say, “No female pastors are named in the Bible.” Neither are any male pastors named in the Bible. Search the scriptures and you will find no one identified as Pastor So-and-so.

We live in the age of the celebrity pastor, but the early church had no such thing. What it did have were nameless groups of elders or overseers, such as the Ephesian elders who met with Paul, or the elders Paul greeted at the start of his letter to the Philippians.

That said, the Bible identifies at least three females who pastored. It’s time for us to meet these little-known ladies.

Pastor Prisca

Prisca was one of Paul’s closest friends. They were such dear friends that the apostle called her by the diminutive version of her name, Priscilla.

Priscilla and her husband Aquila were Jewish business people who met Paul in Corinth and travelled with him to Ephesus (Acts 18). When Paul left Ephesus, Priscilla and Aquila stayed behind and continued to preach the gospel (1 Cor 16:19). Soon they were hosting a church that met in their house. Later, they went to Rome and planted another church. We know this because of the way Paul greets them in his letter to the Romans:

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house. (Romans 16:3-5a)

This brief mention speaks volumes. Priscilla and her husband weren’t merely homegroup leaders; they were church planters with a multinational legacy. Such was her influence that Paul said the Gentile churches owed Priscilla a debt of gratitude.

What did Priscilla do? To quote Gene Edwards, Priscilla was “Paul’s right-hand man.” Paul considered her his equal and said she had risked her life for him (like a good shepherd).

Priscilla was not just a preacher or teacher. She was a pastor to the apostles. She trained Apollos in Ephesus and had two apostles, Andronicus and Junia, in her church at Rome. Indeed, Priscilla was not merely a pastor; she was a super-pastor who raised giants in the faith. (I guess she never got the memo about women staying silent in church.)

Nympha’s church

At a time when the church only met in people’s homes, several women were recognized as church leaders. Priscilla was one; Nympha was another.

Paul greeted “Nympha and the church that is in her house” (Col 4:15). We know very little about Nympha. Her house was located either in Laodicea or elsewhere in the Lycus Valley. Was she a pastor? Did she lead the church that met in her house? She must have done so, for Paul greets no one else in her church.

Chloe and her people

Chloe is another one of those intriguing people who gets only a single mention in the Bible: “I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you” (1 Cor. 1:11).

We don’t know anything about Chloe other than she lived in Corinth and she had people.

Who were these people? Were they her companions or a church that met in her house? We can’t be sure. But in the same way that “men from James” came to Antioch, “people from Chloe” came to Paul, and he recognized her as a leader within the church community. In short, she was a pastor.

If Paul objected to women pastors, the visit from Chloe’s people would’ve presented him with the perfect opportunity to say so. To quote Tim Fall, Paul might have expressed his concerns like this:

It has come to my attention you have a woman (Chloe) presiding over a group of brothers and sisters. This must not be! Is there not a man among you who could take over? Don’t wait until I am among you to correct this abomination.

Of course, Paul said no such thing because Paul had no problem with women in leadership. Instead of rebuking Chloe’s people for putting a woman in charge, he credited them for drawing his attention to a problem.

Nice job, Chloe’s people.

Many people say women cannot be pastors and they cannot lead churches, yet women did these very things in the Bible. The New Testament church had female pastors, female apostles, female prophets, female evangelists and female teachers, because God has commissioned all of us, men and women, to proclaim the good news. Some say women can’t teach because Eve was deceived. They forget that Jesus redeemed us from whatever mistakes Eve and Adam made, and he proved it by empowering women and including them among his disciples.

“But Paul, you have forgotten that the qualifications for a pastor that Paul gave in 1 Timothy 3 exclude women.”

No I haven’t, and no it doesn’t. Although many churches exclude women from influential positions of leadership, the reasons for this have more to do with tradition than what the Bible says.

I will unpack the treasures of 1 Timothy 3 in a later article. Stay tuned.

Can’t wait? Check out my ebook Can Women Pastor? available now on Patreon.

 

What’s so special about Christ’s right hand?

by

While writing my book Letters from Jesus, I discovered a lot of gems in scripture. Some of these were hidden in the introductions Jesus gives his letters to the seven churches. Consider this introduction from his letter to the church in Ephesus:

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. (Rev 2:1)

This is a truly remarkable picture of Jesus. But what does it mean?

Jesus takes a selfie

If the Bible is an art gallery, the Revelation letters are a special wing containing seven portraits of Jesus. These portraits are found at the beginning of each of the seven letters, and each is a treasure.

For starters, each is a self-portrait painted by Jesus himself. We are not hearing about Jesus second hand, and we are not seeing him through the eyes of another. This is Jesus revealing Jesus using word pictures found nowhere else in the Bible.

In the first portrait, we see Jesus holding seven stars. The seven stars in the Lord’s right hand are the angels or leaders of the seven churches (see Rev. 1:20). In scripture, those who teach the gospel of righteousness are called stars (Dan. 12:3), while false teachers are called wandering stars (Jude 1:13).

Why are the stars in his right hand? What is so special about that hand?

The right hand of God signifies his power and strength. “Your right hand, O Lord, is majestic in power,” sang Moses. “Your right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy” (Ex. 15:6).

Held by the right hand of God

In the Psalms, God’s right hand saves us, holds us, and shelters us (Ps. 17:7, 60:5, 63:8). His right hand is also the place of honor (Acts 2:33–34).

So when Jesus tells the seven stars or pastors that he is holding them in his right hand, he is saying, “You have nothing to fear, for I am holding you with my strong and mighty right hand.”

In truth, Jesus holds all of us in his mighty right hand (see John 10:28). He holds you and me.

So the next time you have some anxiety-inducing thought about whether you might stumble at the final hurdle and be lost, incline your ear to Jesus and hear what he says. He says this:

I’ve got you. You have nothing to fear. No one can snatch you from my strong and mighty right hand.

Amen.

___________

Hang out with Paul on Facebook, Insta and Twitter.

Join the grace revolution. Become a supporter today and get bonus articles, study notes, and draft chapters of forthcoming books!

How to rule and reign here and now

by

Do you know that in Christ you are royal?

Most Christians do not know they are kings. They think that are going to be kings – one day, maybe, after Jesus returns – but they do not know that Jesus has empowered them to rule and reign here and now.

“One day I will be crowned but for now I am merely a humble servant in the courts of the Lord.”

Why are you standing out in the courts when you could be seated in the throne room? This sort of servant talk appeals to our religious pride but it is an abdication of our true calling. We are meant to be priest-kings who rule in the Name of the Great King.

“But I don’t know what a priest-king looks like. I have never heard of one before.”

To the scriptures, Batman!

Did you know the first priest mentioned in the Bible was also a king? It was Melchizedek, “king of Salem and priest of God Most High” (Heb. 7:1).

And what kind of king is Jesus? He is a priest-king, in the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6). In other words, Jesus wears two hats. He is a priest who serves and a king who rules.

You wear two hats

A servant’s heart is appropriate for a priest, but a priest who is not also a king will be powerless to deal with giant-sized problems. A crownless priest will present an emasculated image of Christ. His gospel will be weak and his kingdom will be nothing but talk.

Jesus is the servant-hearted king who served by subduing the enemy. His disciples did the same and as we allow him to express his kingly life through us so will we.

Perhaps you are a bit awed by all this talk of slaying giants and healing the sick. Perhaps you are worried that you may fail the king test and leave the sword in the stone. Don’t panic. If you run instead of rule God won’t reject you. Even David ran.

In truth, there will be times when ruling seems a most unreasonable thing to do. It’s not an easy thing to believe for healing when three doctors and two specialists have given you a negative report. And the sight of wheelchairs at the altar call may tempt even experienced ministers to turn away and look for softer targets.

We celebrate David’s heroics but no one would have thought ill of him if he had fled from the lion, the bear, and the giant. Indeed, he would have been applauded for doing the smart thing.

“Why fight a lion over a few dumb sheep? David, you could have died!”

Run from your lion or bear and no one will think the less of you. You will appear to be a sensible, lion-avoiding person, and God will still love you.

But here’s the thing. Why would you want to?

If your child is sick or your spouse is being attacked by depression, why would you choose to do nothing?

Why walk when you can fly?

The point is not that you have to be a king but that you get to be a king. The same Spirit that enabled David to slay lions and giants empowers you to rule and reign. You have options the unbeliever lacks. You have the Holy Spirit. Given this phenomenal advantage, why would you choose to act like a mere man or woman?

It makes as much sense as Superman riding the bus.

Once upon a time there were two men whose families were attacked by bandits. One man tore his clothes, sat down in the ash heap, and threw himself a pity party. The other man encouraged himself in the Lord, then hunted down and subdued his enemies. Guess which of these two men went on to become Israel’s greatest king?

Job was a superstitious, sacrifice-bringing navel gazer, but David was a priest-king and a man after God’s own heart.

In Christ, you are too.

___________

Help others rise up in their kingly role. Become a supporter today.

Are we entering the Great Tribulation?

by

This has been one of the toughest years in living memory. At the time of writing close to 700,000 people have died from a disease nobody knew about nine months ago. In many cities there have been riots, looting, and other signs of lawlessness. People are suffering. Some fear the imminent emergence of the antichrist.

Not only that, but strange signs have appeared in the sky, such as this rare appearance of Godzilla…

Okay, that last one was a joke.

Seriously though, I am seeing something I have never seen before. In addition to all the usual end times’ hucksters stirring up fear to hawk their products, mainstream news outlets are jumping on the end time’s bandwagon. Outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times have discovered that stories headlined with “apocalypse,” “end times,” and “end of the world,” are hot, hot, hot. Even Fox News has got in on the game. Some outlets are even asking if are on the brink of the Great Tribulation.

I hope you realize that newspaper eschatology will leave you either cynical or fearful, which is not what Jesus wants. But what about the Great Tribulation he spoke of? Is it about to start? Are we close?

Nope. Not by a long shot.

Several years ago I wrote an article entitled “When is the Great Tribulation?” In it I listed the various prophecies Jesus gave in connection with the Great Tribulation, and I explained how all of them were fulfilled by the summer of AD70. The Great Tribulation is past, not future and it will never happen again. It’s not something you need to fear.

At the time, many people welcomed the article, but some were not convinced. I was wrong, they said. Which is fine. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But what was interesting were the reasons why I was wrong. I’ll list these below along with my responses.

I appreciate that you may have little interest in end time’s debates. Fair enough. I totally understand. Come back next week when I promise normal service will resume. However, if you would like to learn more about what Jesus had to say on this subject, check out my Patreon study note, “Ten reasons why you will never experience the Great Tribulation.”

Still here? Okay, let’s set the scene.

Jesus is sitting on top of the Mount of Olives and he’s speaking to four disciples – Peter, James, John, and Andrew – about a coming Great Tribulation (see Matt. 24:21, Mark 13:3). Jesus tells them to watch for several signs. He tells them where (Jerusalem), when (within a generation), and how (swords, embankments, etc.) the Great Tribulation will unfold. Fast forward to AD70 and everything Jesus said happened exactly as he foretold.

And that ought to be the end of the matter.

But it isn’t because many of us have been fed an alternative narrative, one where the Great Tribulation is in our future, not theirs. This alternative narrative mixes up a bunch of other prophecies about the rapture and the return of the Lord. Since those things have not happened, the argument goes, neither has the Great Tribulation.

My strong view is the Great Tribulation happened in the manner Jesus predicted and in the timeframe he specified. The Great Tribulation is past, not future. But not everyone agrees, and those who don’t say things like this:

The Great Tribulation is a future event that will last seven years

Not according to Jesus. He told the disciples the Great Tribulation would happen within a generation and be a short event (Matt 24:22, 34). He was spot on. Judea fell swiftly and the AD70 siege of Jerusalem lasted only 150 days. It was one of the fastest sieges in history.

The Great Tribulation can’t have happened because the antichrist has not been revealed

Different subject. Jesus is the only person to speak at length about the Great Tribulation, yet he said nothing about the antichrist. Not one word.

The Great Tribulation can’t have happened because the sun and moon have not dimmed and the stars have not fallen from the sky

Actually, they have.

The Great Tribulation can’t have happened because we have not been raptured/the final judgment has not happened/Jesus has not returned

Don’t confuse these are separate events. The Great Tribulation has happened; the others have not.

You’re crazy if you think the rapture has happened or Jesus has returned

I don’t. I am looking forward to both the rapture (whatever that is) and the physical return of Jesus (whenever that is).

The Great Tribulation can’t have happened because the Son of Man has not come on the clouds

Indeed, he has. Whenever Jesus is described in scripture as “coming on the clouds”, he is coming to heaven. The phrase comes from Daniel’s vision. It’s the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days. When Jesus spoke (in Matt. 24) about the Son of Man coming on the clouds and the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, he was referring to his imminent ascension and glorious return home. Like the Great Tribulation, this prophecy was fulfilled within a generation, just as Jesus said.

Jesus said the Great Tribulation would be unprecedented, yet many cities have fallen to sieges in history

It is true that many cities have fallen, including Jerusalem on more than one occasion. But the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 was unprecedented in terms of the horrors inflicted and the casualty rate. In a city home to less than 200,000 people, more than a million people died (depending on how much you weight you put on Josephus’s figures). The larger number reflected the Passover pilgrims who had come to Jerusalem from all over the world. All of them died within the city’s walls.

The Roman siege of Jerusalem was the world’s deadliest successful siege. It effectively destroyed the city and the nation. It was so destructive that later visitors to Judea had trouble identifying where Jerusalem once stood.

Yeah, but the Holocaust was worse, so AD70 cannot have been the Great Tribulation

The Holocaust may have been worse in absolute terms, but in relative terms nothing tops the first-century genocide of the Jewish nation. After AD70 Israel essentially ceased to exist. Most of the population had been exterminated or enslaved. Which is why Jesus wept when he saw it coming.

Okay, the Great Tribulation partly happened in AD70, but it will happen again in our future

Jesus said it would happen once and never again (Matt. 24:21), just like the Great Flood.

Why would John write (in Revelation) about a Great Tribulation that had already happened?

To encourage the church. In contrast with Jesus who gives us a play-by-play account of what will happen, John mentions the great tribulation in passing (in Rev. 7:14). Unlike Jesus who was looking into the future, John writes about the Great Tribulation in the past tense. This gives the impression that he was writing about something that was in his past. It had already happened.

The letters to the seven churches were written to prepare them for the Great Tribulation

No they weren’t. Even if you believe Revelation was written before AD70, which I don’t, the seven churches of Asia were hundreds of miles away and largely unaffected by the troubles that fell on Jerusalem and Judea.

You’re nuts! Jesus said he would be returning soon. His return is imminent.

I’m not sure what the return of Jesus has to do with the Great Tribulation. One thing has happened; the other is yet to happen. Incidentally, Jesus never said he was returning soon. That’s a myth.

You must be one of those loopy preterists.

Labelling people to dismiss them is intellectually lazy. I almost wish I was a preterist because the way this group is treated is disgraceful. Please, leave off the personal attacks and stick to the prophecies. My view is that some prophecies have been fulfilled; others are yet to be fulfilled. Jesus told the disciples about a lot of future events, including some they would personally hear about and see. History proves Jesus was right.

I still don’t believe the Great Tribulation happened in AD70

That is a luxury you can afford, but anyone who shared your view in AD70 would have died in AD70. In contrast, those who heeded Jesus fled to the mountains and lived.

If we were better acquainted with scripture and Jewish history, the Great Tribulation would not be a controversial subject. We would not waste time arguing about it and we certainly would not be fretting about it. Instead, we would be marveling at the stunning fulfillment of Christ’s prophecies. Truly they were signs to make us wonder.

His words, which saved the lives of many believers, inspire us to praise him in twenty centuries later.

TLDR: Contrary to what you may have heard, we are not about to enter or experience the Great Tribulation. We never will.

—

Want to dig deeper into Christ’s amazing prophecies? Want to learn more about the Great Tribulation? Check out Paul’s study note, “Ten reasons why you will never experience the Great Tribulation” on Patreon.

Jesus at the door

by

Jesus knows us better than anybody. He speaks our language. He talks to us about things that nobody else cares about. He listens.

And he does all this because he loves us.

This was something I learned again and again while doing research for my book, Letters from Jesus. The letters from Jesus to the seven churches are full of idioms and local references that mean nothing to us. But they meant much to the people who heard them. Consider this well-known verse:

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with me. (Rev. 3:20)

This is Jesus speaking to the smug Laodiceans, and it is one of the most radical pictures of grace you will ever find. In my book it takes a whole chapter to unpack the grace found in this letter, but let me give you a taste by unpacking these few words: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” The following is extracted from my book…

Who’s knocking on the door?

No Roman.

Under Roman law, visiting officials had the power to requisition lodgings for themselves and their entourage. Even though it was an imposition to host, feed, and even pay hungry soldiers, nobody could shut their door. But the Laodiceans weren’t nobody. They were a proud people who, in 40BC, closed their doors to a Roman general called Labienus Parthicus.

On another occasion, a wealthy Laodicean called Polemo came home to find the future emperor Antoninus had billeted himself in his house. An angry Polemo kicked him out. His actions captured the independent Laodicean spirit. “Other, weaker Asian cities may roll out the welcome mat to the Roman oppressors, but we Laodiceans are having none of it.”

The Laodiceans were famous for their locked and closed doors, and this is one of their more appealing traits. Shutting one’s door to a hostile invader is admirable.

But Jesus is no Roman oppressor. Although he is the Ruler of All, he does not impose himself upon us. He does not demand that we open our doors and slay the fatted calf for his benefit. Instead, he gently asks us to open our door so that he may come in and dine with us.

Grace for Laodiceans

In the Gospels, Jesus promises that if we knock the door will be opened (Matt. 7:7). But the Laodiceans aren’t knocking. They’re not the sort of people who do.

“We have need of nothing,” they boasted. They won’t come to Jesus, so the Ruler of Creation comes to them. It is a stunning act of condescension.

The Laodiceans’ religion is offensive, yet Jesus is not offended. Their self-righteousness stinks to high heaven, yet Jesus does not withdraw in a holy huff. Nor does he call down fire from above. Instead, he speaks tenderly with lovingkindness.

Those unacquainted with the grace of God make much of the punishment that Jesus will supposedly inflict on underperforming churches. Yet here is Jesus outside the worst church in the Bible hoping to enter and dine with them.

Was there ever a more breathtaking picture of grace?

By seeking to justify themselves, the Laodiceans had rejected Christ. Yet here is Jesus offering undeserved acceptance. They had spat upon his good name and insulted the Spirit of Grace, and Jesus replies, “Let’s eat.”

Whose door is it?

It is the door of our hearts. The letter is for the church, but the invitation is universal and personal. Jesus said, “If anyone hears my voice.” His invitation is for you and me and everyone besides.

Jesus has not come to the marketplace to address the crowd; he has come to your door and mine to meet each of us where we are at. We all must choose what to do with the Savior outside our door.

In the letter to the Laodiceans we see a radical demonstration of the one-way love that flows from heaven to earth. The Laodiceans are not nice people, but Jesus says he loves them and wants to spend time with them. Jesus does the same for all of us.

“If anyone.”

He loves us just because. Of course, he wants us to respond to his love. There’s no point bringing the wine and bread if we’re not going to open the door.

How do we open the door?

By saying yes to Jesus. That’s it. There are no hoops to jump through, there is no fitness test, no entrance exam. Some worry that they have to believe right or muster sufficient faith to enter the kingdom, but your heavenly Father has made it as easy as possible for you to respond to his love.

What if I don’t have enough faith?

Faith is simply a positive response to Jesus. In the faith conversation, Jesus takes the initiative and we respond. He speaks, we listen. He knocks, we open the door. He enters, we feast.

What does it mean to dine with Jesus?

To dine is to enjoy one another’s company. It’s resting from your labor, leaving the kitchen, and sitting at the feet of Jesus.

It’s the ultimate happy meal.

___________

If you enjoy Escape to Reality, sign up to our email list and we’ll notify you about new articles as soon they come out. No spam, we promise.

If you’d like to see these messages of radical grace reach more people, support us via our Patreon page.

Jesus at the door

by

Jesus knows us better than anybody. He speaks our language. He talks to us about things that nobody else cares about. He listens.

And he does all this because he loves us.

This was something I learned again and again while doing research for my book, Letters from Jesus. The letters from Jesus to the seven churches are full of idioms and local references that mean nothing to us. But they meant much to the people who heard them. Consider this well-known verse:

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with me. (Rev. 3:20)

This is Jesus speaking to the smug Laodiceans, and it is one of the most radical pictures of grace you will ever find. In my book it takes a whole chapter to unpack the grace found in this letter, but let me give you a taste by unpacking these few words: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” The following is extracted from my book…

Who’s knocking on the door?

No Roman.

Under Roman law, visiting officials had the power to requisition lodgings for themselves and their entourage. Even though it was an imposition to host, feed, and even pay hungry soldiers, nobody could shut their door. But the Laodiceans weren’t nobody. They were a proud people who, in 40BC, closed their doors to a Roman general called Labienus Parthicus.

On another occasion, a wealthy Laodicean called Polemo came home to find the future emperor Antoninus had billeted himself in his house. An angry Polemo kicked him out. His actions captured the independent Laodicean spirit. “Other, weaker Asian cities may roll out the welcome mat to the Roman oppressors, but we Laodiceans are having none of it.”

The Laodiceans were famous for their locked and closed doors, and this is one of their more appealing traits. Shutting one’s door to a hostile invader is admirable.

But Jesus is no Roman oppressor. Although he is the Ruler of All, he does not impose himself upon us. He does not demand that we open our doors and slay the fatted calf for his benefit. Instead, he gently asks us to open our door so that he may come in and dine with us.

Grace for Laodiceans

In the Gospels, Jesus promises that if we knock the door will be opened (Matt. 7:7). But the Laodiceans aren’t knocking. They’re not the sort of people who do.

“We have need of nothing,” they boasted. They won’t come to Jesus, so the Ruler of Creation comes to them. It is a stunning act of condescension.

The Laodiceans’ religion is offensive, yet Jesus is not offended. Their self-righteousness stinks to high heaven, yet Jesus does not withdraw in a holy huff. Nor does he call down fire from above. Instead, he speaks tenderly with lovingkindness.

Those unacquainted with the grace of God make much of the punishment that Jesus will supposedly inflict on underperforming churches. Yet here is Jesus outside the worst church in the Bible hoping to enter and dine with them.

Was there ever a more breathtaking picture of grace?

By seeking to justify themselves, the Laodiceans had rejected Christ. Yet here is Jesus offering undeserved acceptance. They had spat upon his good name and insulted the Spirit of Grace, and Jesus replies, “Let’s eat.”

Whose door is it?

It is the door of our hearts. The letter is for the church, but the invitation is universal and personal. Jesus said, “If anyone hears my voice.” His invitation is for you and me and everyone besides.

Jesus has not come to the marketplace to address the crowd; he has come to your door and mine to meet each of us where we are at. We all must choose what to do with the Savior outside our door.

In the letter to the Laodiceans we see a radical demonstration of the one-way love that flows from heaven to earth. The Laodiceans are not nice people, but Jesus says he loves them and wants to spend time with them. Jesus does the same for all of us.

“If anyone.”

He loves us just because. Of course, he wants us to respond to his love. There’s no point bringing the wine and bread if we’re not going to open the door.

How do we open the door?

By saying yes to Jesus. That’s it. There are no hoops to jump through, there is no fitness test, no entrance exam. Some worry that they have to believe right or muster sufficient faith to enter the kingdom, but your heavenly Father has made it as easy as possible for you to respond to his love.

What if I don’t have enough faith?

Faith is simply a positive response to Jesus. In the faith conversation, Jesus takes the initiative and we respond. He speaks, we listen. He knocks, we open the door. He enters, we feast.

What does it mean to dine with Jesus?

To dine is to enjoy one another’s company. It’s resting from your labor, leaving the kitchen, and sitting at the feet of Jesus.

It’s the ultimate happy meal.

___________

If you enjoy Escape to Reality, sign up to our email list and we’ll notify you about new articles as soon they come out. No spam, we promise.

If you’d like to see these messages of radical grace reach more people, support us via our Patreon page.

Faithful unto death?! What if I’m not 

by

Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Revelation 2:10c)

But what if I’m not faithful until death? Jesus remains faithful; you still get a crown.

A mind untouched by grace twists the promises of Jesus into tests that must be passed and commands that must be obeyed. “Jesus was faithful unto death; you’d better be faithful too.”

And in the richest traditions of the old covenant, proper behavior is incentivized with carrots and sticks. “Be faithful and you’ll get a crown. Be unfaithful and you won’t.” This is surely bad news for the saint who stumbles at the eleventh hour.

Others point to the crowns given to champion athletes as though only some win the prize. “You have to be faithful to the end to qualify for the reward.” This, too, is a graceless analogy for it puts the focus on you and your performance instead of Jesus and his.

The temptation to view life as a test comes naturally to those of us who have been raised in a world that glorifies achievement, but Jesus doesn’t speak that language. He does not dispense gold stars or crowns for good performance, but he crowns the undeserving and justifies the sinner.

Many believers worry that they might deny Jesus under pressure. They fear that if someone held a gun to their head and forced them to renounce the name of the Lord, they’d capitulate and be damned for all time. They worry because Jesus said, “Whoever denies me before men, I will deny before my Father in heaven” (Matt. 10:33).

But Jesus wasn’t talking about Christians with guns to their heads; he was talking about those who refuse to confess him as Lord.

For if we died with him, we will also live with him… If we deny him, he also will deny us. If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:11–13)

This verse is contrasting unbelievers (who deny Jesus) with believers (who identify with Christ’s death). Those who refuse salvation shall not have it, but those who have died with Christ will never be cast away. Even if we falter at the last hurdle and prove faithless, he remains faithful. One with the Lord, your future is safe, for he cannot deny himself.

This anxiety that we might fail Christ under pressure and be damned for eternity reveals a fundamental insecurity, a hairline crack in our faith. We repair it by fixing our eyes on Jesus and fortifying our minds with the many promises of his word. “No one can snatch you from my strong right hand,” said Jesus. “I will never let you go.”

What a promise! Even if we let him go, he will never let go of us. This is good news. And if you believe it, you will find the strength to hold on to him no matter what.

But what about this scripture that comes later in John’s book?

He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:7–8)

This scripture has been used to terrorize the saints. “If someone put a gun to your head and said, ‘Deny Jesus,’ would you prove cowardly? If so, you’re going to hell.” God help us. Admissions made under duress carry no weight in a court of law, so why do we think a just God would take them seriously?

The Apostle Paul famously kept the faith, but what if he hadn’t? What if he had fallen at the final hurdle? What if he had folded under Roman pressure and renounced the Lord? He would still get a crown of life! We may disown the Lord, but he will never disown us because he cannot disown himself.

Eternal life is a gift of grace (John 17:2, Rom. 6:23). It is not a reward given to those who pass the torture test.

So why be faithful?

It’s the life-giving choice.

The exhortation to be faithful found at the end of verse 10 is the counterpoint to “do not fear” at the start of that verse. Jesus is offering us a choice. You can be fearful or faithful, and faithful is better.

Fearful is what you get when you lean on your own resources; faithful is what you are when you hold on to Jesus.

Fix your eyes on the source of your suffering and you will fear. But see the Savior who died but lives forevermore, and you will endure.

—-

Want to promote your grace blog or ministry on Escape to Reality? It’s free!

Good books on grace from new authors are coming out every month. Here is the latest crop.

Jesus – pioneer of women’s education

by

These days more women than men enrol in higher education, but it wasn’t always this way. Women did not begin studying at university in Britain until 1869. In the US, the first college to admit women was Oberlin College, in 1837. The University of Bologna in Italy was reputedly the first in the world to teach women. It began conferring degrees upon women in the 13th century. In the history of women’s education, these are significant milestones. Yet Jesus beat them all by a thousand years. Jesus was the first man of influence to empower and elevate women. One of the ways he did that was by accepting them as his disciples. He welcomed them into his circle and he trained them. This would’ve been unthinkable to the rabbis and sages. Teaching women was a waste of time, they said. “It would be better to burn the words of the law than teach them to women,” said Rabbi Eliezer. At the time of Jesus, women were regarded as inferior. Thanks to the Greeks, every educated man knew that women were mentally deficient. They could cook and spin wool, but that was the limit of their abilities. Women belonged in the [...]

Are women more easily deceived?

by

Here’s a great question for your next Bible Study class: Why do female witches outnumber male witches twenty to one? Strange question? King James didn’t think so. When he wasn’t overseeing the production of the Bible that bears his name, James was torturing women he believed were witches. James was obsessed with magic and witchcraft. He even wrote a book about it. In it he explains why most witches are women: As that sex is frailer than man, it is easier for women to be entrapped in these snares of the Devil. This was proved to be true by the Serpent’s deceiving of Eve at the beginning. The devil has been friendlier with that sex ever since. Ah yes. Sweet, gullible women. Was there a more ancient scapegoat? When it came to women, King James was a total wingnut. Sadly, however, his sexist views were hardly unique. Adam blamed Eve for his sin in the Garden, and men have been blaming women ever since. Tertullian, the father of Latin Christianity, had this to say about women: You are the devil’s gateway… you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily [...]

50 fictional fathers

by

For many people around the world, but not me, this Sunday is Fathers’ Day. This gives me an opportunity to do something I enjoy: make a list. Below is a list of 50 fictional fathers. It wasn’t an easy list to make. Initially I wanted to list 50 great dads, men like Atticus Finch and John Walton. But I couldn’t find 50 awesome fathers. To pad out my list of 50 I had to include a few dodgy fathers (eg: Darth Vader, Homer Simpson). And this has given me something to think about. If art mirrors society, where are all the good fathers? Hollywood makes 600 movies a year and a million books are published every year. Finding good fictional fathers should be easy. But it’s not. A few years ago I wrote an article entitled “Fatherless fiction.” In it I shared my observation that many great characters in literature, from Oliver Twist to Batman, grew up without knowing the love of a father. In many children’s stories the moms and dads are either absent or negligent. Parental abandonment is a common trope in children’s literature, and the absence of dads prompted me to write my own children’s story, The [...]

Categories

Recent Posts