Scottish pastor Robert Murray M’Cheyne (1813–1843) is often quoted as saying, “The greatest need of my people is my own holiness.”¹ Or as the Apostle Paul commanded Timothy, “Set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity … Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim 4:12, 16 NIV).

But what does personal holiness look like when we are going through a spiritually dry season?

Anyone who has been pastoring for any length of time can relate to this question. We want to bring zeal to the pulpit. When we meet with people, we want to be in tune with God’s Spirit. We want to have wisdom to offer. When we lead meetings, we want to know the joy of the Lord and facilitate them with gladness and confidence.

But we don’t always feel this way. When we pray, we feel nothing. When we read Scripture, it feels like a dead letter, mere words on a page. As we preach, we look out and sense a dullness in the room. We sense something’s not landing. We teach faith and yet appear to lack it ourselves.

So what does it look like to have faith and minister God’s grace when our own lives are spiritually dry?

What is spiritual dryness?

Spiritual dryness is not quite the same as experiencing desolation while facing a trial. Each is difficult and meant to bring us to the foot of the Cross, but they are not the same.

The Puritans had terms for such periods of dryness. They called them “dark nights of the soul” or “spiritual desertions.” As Peter Lewis explains, by this the Puritans “did not mean that God had truly deserted the elect soul but describe the experience … in which the ‘lively’ sense of God’s presence and favorable share or ‘interest’ in it was denied to the Christian.”²

How to minister while spiritually dry

We might immediately think, Of course, this happens to normal church members, but surely not to pastors? Isn’t the whole point of our calling to remind people of God’s love through Jesus Christ? Surely, pastors must be precisely those who experience God’s presence in their daily lives.

When we experience periods of dryness, we may doubt our vocation and wonder whether we should either resign or do something radical until we once again experience the joy and peace of God in our daily lives.

To answer that, I offer the following thoughts and remedies:

1. Perceive that seasons of dryness are normal

Times of spiritual dryness or doubt are a normal part of the pilgrimage for many leaders in Scripture:

• Job was the most righteous man of his time, and yet he endured thirty-eight chapters of desolation and suffering before God answered.
• David cried out to God in the Psalms, “How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?” (Ps 13:1; cf. Ps 42, 43, 73, 77, 88).
• Elijah fled in despair after his victory on Mt. Carmel before God came to him in a “still small voice” (1 Kgs 19:12 KJV).
• Paul experienced periods of great anxiety and weakness (2 Cor).
• Ecclesiastes and Lamentations are entire books devoted to the subject of faith in the face of doubt and despair.
• Even the Lord Jesus, in his human flesh, experienced God’s absence at Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–42) and on the cross (Mark 15:34).

The first thing to do when you experience an extended period of dryness is to recognize that what you are going through is not without precedent in Scripture. If you have these seasons, it does not mean you are crazy or disqualified from ministry or necessarily doing anything wrong. It means you are normal.

2. Prize them as part of God’s sanctifying process

One of the dangers we face when we are “on fire” spiritually is that we can become arrogant and, in effect, preach our own experience rather than the unchanging grace of God. When we describe our close intimacy with God and all our answered prayers, we can end up discouraging those who are struggling—or worse, point them to ourselves rather than to Christ.

But when we go through periods of dryness, it humbles us. It causes us to seek a renewed relationship with God himself rather than his felt blessings. As one Puritan put it,

God is a tender father, and he would have all the love of his children. He would not have his children to love their nurse more than himself: our joy and peace and comfort is but the nurse of our graces. Now when God sees that his children fall in love more with the nurse than with himself, then he removes the nurse, and causes their peace to be suspended and interrupted.³

In this way, we see that under God’s sovereign care, times of spiritual dryness can be just as sanctifying as times of bliss. To paraphrase another Puritan, for our good we are sometimes given strong communications of God’s presence, and for our good at other times we are denied them. All things work out together for good (Rom 8:28)—and that includes seasons of dryness.

3. Preach Jesus, not yourself

But how do we keep ministering to God’s people when our own tanks are empty? This is not the article to remind leaders to be mindful of their own spiritual health—to take Sabbaths, to stay in the Word and prayer and close fellowship. But say you are doing all those things and still coming up empty? How do you keep ministering to others?

I have one simple remedy: Preach Jesus, not yourself (cf. 2 Cor 4:5).

Evangelicals in particular can sometimes struggle with this since we strongly emphasize the need for individual faith, for everyone to have a personal encounter with Christ. But this can sometimes lead us to make that personal experience central rather than Christ himself. We forget what Peter wrote in his letter to the Christians of Asia Minor:

Though you have not seen [Jesus], you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (1 Pet 1:8–9 NIV)

None of these believers had seen Jesus, and yet they still loved him. In the same way, when we don’t “see Jesus” through our felt experiences of him, we are still to love him. Our ultimate hope has not changed. We are still receiving the goal of our faith, the salvation of our souls.

This is one reason why Paul rebuked the Corinthians for prizing strong leaders who excelled in their speaking skills and other visible spiritual gifts. Paul reminds us instead to “fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen” (2 Cor 4:18 NIV).

In ministry, this means focusing, not on our own experience, but on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is the one who saves us by his grace, and nothing can separate us from his love (Rom 8:31–39), including our own lack of felt spiritual experience.

This is one reason why the sacraments (or ordinances) of Christ are so powerful and helpful. As I have often told my colleagues, I can mess up a sermon, I can mess up the liturgy, and I can misspeak after worship. But I cannot mess up the Lord’s Supper, because it is Christ himself being offered in the bread and wine. When it is celebrated, Christ is present—always. Preach Christ.

4. Persevere in Christ

Finally, as Winston Churchill famously said in a speech to his old school, “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never.”⁴ Or to quote the book of Hebrews,

Do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. … we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls. (Heb 10:35–36, 39 RSV)

Periods of spiritual dryness are those periods when we most show our faith, precisely because we do not feel the benefit of it. As C. S. Lewis reminds us in The Screwtape Letters, “the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please [God] best.”⁵ In these times, we learn to set our minds on things above, not things below (Col 3:2). We declare God to be good and true, simply because he says he is.

That is faith. And as they say, that’ll preach.

Share your thoughts

How can one minister while spiritually dry? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Christopher Hutchinson recommended resources

• Lewis, Peter. The Genius of Puritanism. Carey Publications, 1977.
• Rosenbladt, Rod. “The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church.” 1517 (blog), February 2, 2017.
• Keller, Timothy. Walking with God Through Pain and Suffering. Penguin Books, 2015.

Work Of The Pastor

Regular price: $5.99

Add to cart

The Bruised Reed (Audio)

Regular price: $19.95

Add to cart

In Christ Alone: Living the Gospel-Centered Life

Regular price: $10.99

Add to cart

Rediscovering Humility: Why the Way Up is Down

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

Additional resources for further encouragement

Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cures

Regular price: $7.99

Add to cart

Overcoming the Darkness: Biblical Help for Spiritual Depression

Regular price: $7.79

Add to cart

The Case and Cure of a Deserted Soul

Regular price: $11.99

Add to cart

A Lifting Up for the Downcast (Audio)

Regular price: $24.95

Add to cart

When the Darkness Will Not Lift: Doing What We Can While We Wait for God—And Joy

Regular price: $5.99

Add to cart

Dark Clouds, Deep Mercy: Discovering the Grace of Lament

Regular price: $10.99

Add to cart

Good News at Rock Bottom: Finding God When the Pain Goes Deep and Hope Seems Lost

Regular price: $13.99

Add to cart

When God Seems Distant: Surprising Ways God Deepens Our Faith and Draws Us Near

Regular price: $21.99

Add to cart

Related articles

• 5 Ways to Prevent Pastoral Burnout
• Pastor, Sharpen Your Axe: Why & How to Take a Sabbatical
• Don’t Go Alone: Why Ministry Leaders Need a Good Shepherd Too
• Faithful Ministry Begins with Attending to One’s Soul
• What Is Friendship—and Can Pastors Find It in the Church?

I remain convinced that it is more important than ever for local congregations in the same city to partner together in meaningful ways.⁶ In this short article, I’d like to go to Scripture to make a case for this claim, and then suggest a few practical ways for churches and their leaders to start working for closer local partnerships.

Why build and maintain local church partnerships?

Scripture gives us both a theological foundation and apostolic model for partnering with other local churches.

Our union together in Christ

Church partnerships begin with the recognition that there is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. By this we don’t mean the Roman Catholic Church or any particular denomination. Instead, we acknowledge, in the words of Ephesians 4,

there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Eph 4:4–6 NIV)

Unless you think that your local congregation is the only true church in town, then you have to acknowledge this reality: Your brothers and sisters in the Baptist or Presbyterian or Bible church down the road are part of the same body of Christ. Assuming that they believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and proclaim that faithfully, we have a deeper unity with fellow churches in our area than we often realize. You share a profound unity and union with them because you are all joined to the risen and reigning Messiah Jesus.

This is no small thing. You share a closer union with the church in your town that may have different music, liturgy, and even language than with any of your own family members who may not know Jesus. Our profound union together in Christ is the foundation for our partnership with other local congregations. Once we see this objective unity, we should be compelled to flesh this out in local relationships.

Paul’s Jerusalem collection

But Scripture doesn’t just give us the theological foundation for church partnerships. It gives us a model. Paul’s ministry is an example of churches partnering to serve one another. Beginning with the agreement among the apostles to “remember the poor” (Gal 2:10), Paul organized a collection from the churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and beyond to help provide for the needy in the Church of Jerusalem.⁷

In 2 Corinthians 8, we get a window into the theological foundations and practical outworking of this partnership. Again, the foundation of this partnership is Jesus himself and the grace of God given in him (2 Cor 8:9). On the basis of their shared union in Christ, there is an opportunity for shared participation in the ministry to the saints (2 Cor 8:4). Paul encouraged the churches to band together to help address the needs of the poor saints in Jerusalem. He reminded the Church of Corinth how churches in Macedonia had made significant sacrifices to contribute to this collection, and he encouraged them toward the same giving (2 Cor 8:2–3).

Shortly before he finally traveled to Jerusalem to deliver this collection from the churches, Paul wrote to the Church of Rome, asking them to pray for his work and telling them that he was going to deliver this gift from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. He says of this partnership, “They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them” (Rom 15:27 NIV). The bottom line is that when we understand the reality of our union together, our partnership with fellow churches is both a joy and an obligation.

Once we recognize this, the question becomes, How can we do this well?

How to build and maintain local church partnerships

Many pastors have encouraged their congregations to “become who you already are,” that is, to live into the reality of your union with Christ. A similar encouragement applies to pastors within the same region: Become who you already are—together. Live out your union with each other in Christ.

Now, most pastors and church leaders won’t deny that it is a good thing to partner together with at least some churches. Some might even say they have a desire for this! But we don’t always know how to get these kinds of partnerships going.

1. Pray for other churches

Before he reminded them of the collection for Jerusalem, Paul assured the Church of Corinth that they participated in and helped his ministry by their prayers (2 Cor 1:11).

The first way to start partnering with other churches is to pray for them. Before you ever meet anyone at the church across town, you can partner with them by praying for them! So if you are serious about partnering with other churches, begin by regularly praying for them, both privately and publicly.

2. Pursue relationships

Even though you can partner with other churches simply by praying for them, it’s difficult to know the best ways to pray without knowing them. And it will be even harder to build significant partnerships without that relationship. You cannot partner with someone whom you don’t trust. But in order to build that trust, you’re going to need to spend time together.

So if you are a pastor and you don’t currently have significant relationships with other pastors in your community, make this your starting point. If there’s a pastors’ fellowship in your area, prioritize attending. If there isn’t, consider starting one. Beyond that, invite other pastors to lunch or coffee. Have dinner with their families. Build friendships beyond a quarterly pastors fellowship.

As pastors and church leaders spend more time together, they will often be able to invite their congregations into those relationships. If you have a special service, you can invite pastors and other key leaders to attend and get to know others in your church. For example, during Holy Week, our church has services on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. We often invite pastors from other churches, especially to the Thursday and Saturday services. At our Easter Vigil this year, we had pastors from at least four other churches present! Through these services, we’ve seen not just friendships build between pastors, but even now friendships among other church members are starting to grow.

3. Pay attention to opportunities

As you build trusting and long-term relationships with other pastors and churches, you will likely start to see missional needs in your community. Most fruitful and lasting church partnerships don’t begin with the partnership itself. Rather, they grow out of an already-existing relationship.

Recently, the Hawaiian island of Oahu, where I live, experienced its worst flooding in over two decades. We got hit with back-to-back “Kona low” storms, which is basically a storm that comes from the opposite side of the island. The wind normally blows and can often bring a lot of lingering rain and wind. The North Shore of Oahu was hit especially hard. One of my friends up there told me that most of the houses in his neighborhood flooded, yet most of the people did not have flood insurance because they’re not in a flood zone. Except when they are. After the news cycle moved on and the flood waters receded, we were left with the clean up.

As the clean up began, I had a phone call with a pastor on the North Shore who was looking for help. The next day, he sent out a text to a handful of pastors coordinating clean up. I drove up to see how our church and local pastors network could help, and I ran into friends from five or six other churches who showed up on the North Shore ready to help clean up flood damage. Over the next week, we saw churches across the island partner together to help their brothers and sisters on the North Shore.

After over a decade of friendship and ministry on the same island, many of us already knew each other. We had seen both the importance of connections across churches and the need we have for each other. Because of this, we were prepared to partner together to help meet some of these needs when they arose.

4. Prioritize the gospel

Over the years, I have seen church partnerships come and go. Some of these partnerships ran their course because they met whatever need brought them together. Others have fallen apart in less-than-ideal ways. Partnering together is not always easy or simple. Theological differences surface. Different philosophies of ministry or church polities cause friction. Personalities clash. Sinners sin against other sinners.

Let’s not be naive. There are going to be relational problems. The complications of working together will be just that: complicated.

However, if we enter into these relationships with the commitment to keep the gospel central in our partnerships with other churches and not let our secondary differences drive us apart, they will have a greater chance of long-term success. As problems arise, run back to the gospel and remember the foundation for these relationships.

Even when partnerships come to an end, if we remember that we are united in Christ and hold on to that, the door will remain open for new partnerships in the future.

Share your thoughts

How can nearby churches build partnerships? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Chris Bruno’s suggested resources

• Jensen, Peter. “The Partnership of All Believers.” Churchman 133, no. 2 (2019): 99–106.
• Sweeney, Michael L. “The Pauline Collection, Church Partnerships, and the Mission of the Church in the 21st Century.” Missiology 48 (2020): 142–53.

Churches Partnering Together: Biblical Strategies for Fellowship, Evangelism, and Compassion

Regular price: $9.59

Add to cart

Stronger Together: Seven Partnership Virtues and the Vices that Subvert Them

Regular price: $7.99

Add to cart

Related articles

• One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic: The 4 Marks Explained
• What Is Friendship—& Can Pastors Find It in the Church?
• 5 Steps to Starting a Prayer Ministry in Your Church
• Want to Build a Pastoral Internship? 4 Steps

Jonathan Akin joins Kirk E. Miller on What in the Word? to discuss one of the Bible’s most infamous passages: Elisha’s curse that led to two she-bears mauling forty-two “youths” in 2 Kings 2:23–24.

Was Elisha simply an irritable old man who couldn’t take a joke? How old were these “youths”? And what exactly does their jeer, “Go up, baldhead!” mean? This episode examines these matters and more, exploring the passage’s meaning and significance even for today.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. 

See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: Jonathan Akin

Dr. Jonathan Akin serves as the vice president for Church Relations and Campus Ministries and is a professor of Old Testament at Carson-Newman University, a Christian institution in East Tennessee. He also serves as an adjunct professor of Old Testament and Preaching at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

Dr. Akin is the author of books like Preaching Christ from Proverbs, Exalting Jesus in Proverbs, Exalting Jesus in Ecclesiastes, Exalting Jesus in Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and the forthcoming Exalting Jesus in Numbers. He is also a contributor to Louie Giglio’s The Jesus Bible and R. Albert Mohler’s The Grace and Truth Study Bible.

He has served as a pastor of churches in Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, and North Carolina. He and his wife Ashley have been married for twenty years and have three children: Maddy, Emma Grace, and Judson.

• Facebook
• X
• Instagram

Episode synopsis

Why this passage disturbs many

Elisha is traveling toward Bethel when a group described in many English translations as “young boys” comes out and mocks him, calling him “bald head.” Elisha calls down a curse upon them, and two she-bears maul forty-two of them.

Walter Kaiser summarizes the common reaction:

The way many read this text, a mild personal offense by some innocent little children was turned into a federal case by a crotchety old prophet as short on hair as he was on humor. Put in its sharpest form, the complaint goes: How can I believe in a God who would send bears to devour little children for innocently teasing an old man whose appearance probably was unusual even for that day?⁸

The punishment, according to this surface-level reading, is grotesquely disproportionate to the crime.

Beyond the ethical questions posed by the passage, others may express skepticism toward the supernatural idea of a prophet’s curse conjuring bears.

Passing the baton from Elijah to Elisha

Second Kings 2:23–24 comes at the end of the narrative recounting the transfer of prophetic authority from Elijah to Elisha (2 Kgs 2:1–22). Elijah has been caught up into heaven, leaving a double portion of spirit upon Elisha (2 Kgs 2:9–12, 15), who is to carry on his work. The baton is now in Elisha’s hands. What follows, including the bears episode, must be read in light of this transition.

Dr. Jonathan Akin draws a parallel: a man of God whose mission on earth is finished ascends into heaven and leaves his spirit with his follower to continue that mission. The similarities to Christ’s ascension and pouring out his Spirit on his disciples at Pentecost are hard to miss.

Who are these “young boys”?

Elisha goes up to Bethel and there encounters a large group of youths. Most editions translate their designation as something like “small boys” or even “little children” (KJV). In English, this type of language suggests prepubescent children, the kind of little boys you’d expect to find in an elementary classroom. If so, Elisha’s response and the ensuing judgment seem especially over-the-top.

But the Hebrew words used, נַ֫עַר and יֶ֫לֶד, can have a broader range of meaning than the impression left by these translations. They can refer to small children, yes, but they are also used elsewhere to describe young men and older adolescents. For instance, 1 Kings 12:14 uses יֶ֫לֶד to refer to Rehoboam’s peers who gave him the disastrous advice that split the kingdom. These were not children but adult men.

Jonathan suggests that these youths were most likely teenagers or young adults, not toddlers or little boys. The context, as we are about to see, indicates the likelihood of this reading.

Bethel as center of idolatrous worship

Geographical markers in biblical narrative are not incidental details. The mention of Bethel, therefore, is not unimportant. Bethel is where King Jeroboam set up a golden calf as an alternative worship center when the kingdom split. From its very founding, the Northern Kingdom was built on idolatry, with Bethel its geographical center.

Thus, when Elisha arrives at Bethel, he is walking into a stronghold of the very idolatry that God had sent him and Elijah to confront. The youths who come out to mock him grew up in that environment. Some interpreters even suggest they might be connected to the apostate priesthood in Bethel, essentially students of that idolatrous system. But whether or not they have a formal connection to the cult, they at least represent the fruit of a community that has systematically rejected the God of Israel and, by extension, his prophet.

This ought to inform how we read both their mockery of Elisha, God’s prophet, and their judgment that quickly follows. These youths are the product—representatives—of a community that has sustained systematic idolatry for generations.

The significance of their insult

The words “Go up, you baldhead!” at first glance may seem to indicate that these youths are simply making fun of Elisha’s physical appearance. On the one hand, maybe Elisha was physically bald, and these youths were simply mocking that fact.

Alternatively, though, Akin points out that earlier in the chapter, as Elijah and Elisha travel together, the sons of the prophets repeatedly say to Elisha, “Do you know that today the Lord will take away your master from over you?” (2 Kgs 2:3, 5)—or more literally, “from over your head [רֹאשׁ].” In other words, by taking Elijah, the Lord was taking Elisha’s head, i.e., his leader, authority, and mentor. When God takes Elijah up in the whirlwind, God takes Elisha’s “head,” leaving him, in this sense, “bald.” Thus, when these youths shout “Go up, baldhead,” they may be taunting Elisha with the fact that his mentor has been taken away, leaving him by himself.

Likewise, the verb translated “go up” is the same used moments earlier to describe when Elijah “went up” into heaven (2 Kgs 2:11). Thus, the youths may effectively mean, As Elijah went up and away, now you get out of here, as well. We don’t want you, either!

Accordingly, the insult is not a joke about Elisha’s hairline (in fact, he may not even have been physically bald). Rather, it’s a rejection of Elisha, and inasmuch as Elisha is God’s prophet, it’s a rejection of God. Even if Elisha was physically bald, and that physical baldness was the object of scorn, the taunt should nonetheless be understood within this context of idolatry and the rejection of Elisha as a prophet. The mockery was not a mere poking fun at an old man’s appearance.

The ensuing judgment, bears from the woods, among other things serves to demonstrate that Elijah’s mantle has indeed passed on to Elisha. He’s not without God’s power and backing.

Covenant curses foreshadowed

God had warned Israel centuries earlier that covenant rebellion would bring covenant curses. Among those curses, in Leviticus 26:22 God says, “I will let loose the wild beasts against you, which shall bereave you of your children.” This, as we see, is quite literally what transpires in 2 Kings 2:23–24, as two wild beasts (bears) maul these youths. These bears are an installment of the covenant curses that God had promised would come if Israel rejected him.

They are also a warning. If the lesson is not learned, the curses will escalate. The final curse, as both Leviticus and Deuteronomy make clear, is national exile. Interestingly, the nations that eventually devour and scatter Israel are described in places like Psalm 80:13 and Daniel 7 as beasts. In this way, the inflicted curse in the form of these literal beasts foreshadows the beastly nations that are to come if Israel fails to repent. In 722 BC, God uses Assyria to drag the Northern Kingdom into exile.

Elisha as a new Joshua—and Jesus as a new Elisha

The route Elijah and Elisha take in 2 Kings 2 seems to be an intentional parallel to the exodus and conquest narratives, a replay of those events. Namely, Elijah and Elisha’s journey from Gilgal to Bethel to Jericho to the Jordan River, where God parts the waters and Elijah ascends east of the promised land (2 Kgs 2:1–12). This geographical sequence is the exodus and conquest in reverse.

Following the exodus, Edom denies Israel entrance to pass through (Num 20:14–21), so they are forced to go around and enter from the east of the Jordan (Num 21:4; Deut 2:1–8). Moses dies east of the Jordan and never enters the land (Deut 34:1–8). Before he dies, he commissions Joshua, who receives the spirit (Deut 31:7–8; 34:9). Joshua then leads Israel across the Jordan (Josh 3), after which they go first to Jericho (Josh 6), then toward Ai near Bethel (Josh 7–8). The purpose of this conquest is to rid the land of idolatry and establish the true worship of God (Deut 7:1–5; 12:1–4).

Second Kings 2, thus, presents Elisha as a new Joshua figure, pointing to the need for a new conquest to rid the land of idolatry, because the Northern Kingdom has become what Canaan once was. Elisha’s name even parallels Joshua’s: Joshua means “the Lord saves”; Elisha means “my God is savior.”

And just as 2 Kings 2 points backward to Joshua, it also points forward. John the Baptist, identified in the New Testament as the new Elijah (Mark 9:11–13; cf. Mal 4:5), baptizes east of the Jordan (Mark 1:4–5; John 1:28). Jesus (which means Joshua) crosses over, receives the Spirit (Mark 1:9–12), and begins a ministry of judgment and salvation (Mark 1:14–15). Like Elisha, Jesus will multiply bread (Mark 6:30–44; cf. 2 Kgs 4:42–44), heal lepers (Mark 1:40–45; cf. 2 Kgs 5:1–14), and raise dead children (Mark 5:35–43; cf. 2 Kgs 4:32–37). But he will also cleanse the temple (Mark 11:15–19), cast out unclean spirits (Mark 1:21–28), and confront the corrupt (Mark 12:38–40).

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Share your thoughts

How do you make sense of Elisha’s response and the ensuing judgment? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Jonathan Akin’s suggested 1–2 Kings commentaries

1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible | BTC)

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings (Christ-Centered Exposition Commentary | CCE)

Regular price: $11.99

Add to cart

Additional commentaries on 1–2 Kings

Best 1-2 Kings Commentaries (7 vols.)

Regular price: $173.99

Add to cart

1-2 Kings Commentaries: Apply (5 vols.)

Regular price: $65.99

Add to cart

1-2 Kings Commentaries: Exposit (5 vols.)

Regular price: $132.99

Add to cart

1-2 Kings Commentaries: Exegete (5 vols.)

Regular price: $180.99

Add to cart

1, 2 Kings (The New American Commentary | NAC)

Regular price: $25.99

Add to cart

1 & 2 Kings (Understanding the Bible Commentary | UBC)

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

1 & 2 Kings (Apollos Old Testament Commentary | AOT)

Regular price: $28.99

Add to cart

1 and 2 Kings (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries | TOTC)

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

1 Kings: The Wisdom and the Folly (Focus on the Bible Commentaries | FB)

Regular price: $13.99

Add to cart

2 Kings: The Power and the Fury (Focus on the Bible Commentaries | FB)

Regular price: $13.99

Add to cart

Related content

• Did God Command Genocide? | Tremper Longman on the Canaanite Conquest
• Every Exorcism Is Eschatological: The Words of Demons in the Presence of Jesus
• Why Couldn’t Moses Enter the Promised Land? | Michael Morales on Numbers 20
• Does the Bible Condone Slavery? | Rebecca McLaughlin

Getting started is hard. Staying consistent is harder. This update makes both a little easier—for brand-new and longtime users alike.

Also, we’re updating our community this week, so if you’re used to interacting with our team or reporting bugs on our community, you may see that it’s temporarily in read-only mode. Feel free to report issues to our team via our support team or join the conversation on Facebook.

Watch the update

Prefer a video walkthrough? Product manager and longtime Logos user Mark Barnes will share everything you need to know about this update in a live session. There’s even time for a Q&A at the end, so stick around with your burning questions.

Sign up for the video walkthrough on June 4 or catch the replay.

Highlights at a glance

1. Study Assistant in your layouts: Find your AI Bible study companion now alongside your Bible and other tools.
2. Reading plan creation wizard on mobile: Build a personalized reading plan easily from your phone.
3. A reading plan button that keeps you on track: See where you stand the moment you open your Bible or book.

Note: Due to standard review processes, users may experience slight delays before receiving this update on mobile.

1. Enjoy a new reason to love layouts

Layouts in Logos keep you from needing to open multiple books or tools one by one—for example, your favorite translation, study Bible, commentary, and notes. Layouts are especially capable in the desktop app, followed by the web app.

Logos comes with several prebuilt layouts for you to use. You’ll now find Study Assistant in these several layouts, wherever it makes sense. (For instance, try opening a Personal study from Get Started on your Dashboard.) Now, when you have questions as you read and study, you can easily ask them in Study Assistant from within your current Layout.

If you’ve never given layouts a try (especially if you’re new to Logos), open one today. Choose from our prebuilt list of Quickstart Layouts or even create your own. You don’t need to hunt around in Logos for tools or books. Simply jump in and study.

Those not subscribed will get a limited number of Study Assistant uses per month.

2. Easily build a reading plan from your phone

The much-improved reading plan creation wizard came to desktop and web a few weeks ago. Whether you’ve been wanting to read the Bible more or books about the Bible more (or both), you have custom reading plans—built by you for your life—in the same place you study.

Now you can also create personalized plans on mobile. Build a custom reading plan for your Bible or book wherever you are. Waiting for coffee. Sitting in the carpool line. Five quiet minutes before the day starts. No problem!

The wizard walks you step by step:

• Choose your content: A specific Bible passage range or any book from your Logos library
• Set your pace: “15 minutes a day,” a finish date you’re working toward, or an open-ended plan that’s flexible and waits on you

No more “I meant to read that.” Just start a plan—anytime you want, from your phone. To see how easy it is:

1. Sign in to your Logos account.
2. Give the new experience a try.

3. See subtle reading-plan reminders in your Bible and books

It’s a small thing that actually works.

When you open a book that has a reading plan attached to it, a reminder button now appears in the toolbar at the top of the panel—a quiet cue that your reading is waiting.

A colored dot tells you where you stand:

• Green dot: Plan on track. Today’s reading is ready.
• Red dot: Plan behind. (No guilt—just a nudge.)
• No dot: You’re on an open-ended plan, reading at your own pace.
• No reminder button or dot: You’re caught up—or this book isn’t part of a plan yet.

Click the icon and Logos will take you to your next reading. A ribbon in the margin now marks where your reading starts and ends, so there’s no guessing.

More updates

Want to see all the under-the-hood updates and bug fixes? Take a look at the technical release notes. Reach out to our support team if you need help, or join the conversation on our Facebook page.

We want to hear from you!

Have ideas for how we can build a product you’ll love? Share your suggestion and you might see it in a future update!

Connect with us

Join 500K+ others and connect with us to be first to know about the latest releases and promotions from Logos:

• Logos community forum
• Facebook
• Instagram
• YouTube
• X
• Threads
• LinkedIn
• Bluesky

We’d love to host you for free live training and show you how you can get the most out of Logos.

Subscribe to stay in the know about future updates.

In the end, God will make a new heaven and a new earth, the inheritance of his people.

But to understand Scripture’s end, we must return to its beginning. Leading up to that end lies the whole sweep of Scripture’s story in which God creates and restores a place for his people.

The garden of Eden as God’s original sacred space

In Genesis 1–2, we face the inescapable reality that God made all material things (Gen 1:1), including place. Place matters, because God made it (Gen 2:8). And place is good, because what God made is good (Gen 1:31).

God made the world, forming and filling a material creation (Gen 1:1–2:3). He divided waters (Gen 1:6–7), brought forth land (Gen 1:9–10), and in his climactic work of creation, he made image-bearers (Gen 1:26–27).

After reporting the acts of creation, the biblical author tells us that God rested on the seventh day (Gen 2:1–3). Lacking the “evening” and “morning” language used for the earlier six days, the report about the seventh day suggests that God has continued to rule over the creation he has made. He is the enthroned Maker who sustains all things, and he is guiding all things toward an appointed rest. God created his image-bearers so that they might enter into his rest, living under his joyful reign and his righteous dominion.

This grand purpose is glimpsed in the events of Genesis 2. The man and woman dwelled in the world God had made, and, more specifically, they lived in the garden God had planted: “The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed” (Gen 2:8).⁹ God put the man in the garden “to work it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). This pair of verbs is used later in the Pentateuch to describe the tasks of priests (e.g., Num 3:7–8), so it is plausible to see Adam as a proto-priest, a guardian of a special place, a sacred space. Eden was like a sanctuary, a place where God was present with his people (Gen 3:8).

While God had made all of the material world, not all places were alike. Imagine concentric circles: The garden was within Eden but did not encompass all of it, and Eden itself occupied only a portion of the earth. The man and woman were later exiled from Eden (Gen 3:24), confirming that the garden was a unique and sacred territory within the larger region of Eden, which itself was a special area distinct from the rest of the earth.

The Lord made Eve from Adam (Gen 2:21–23), and the two image-bearers were called to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the land (Gen 1:26–28). The fruitful couple corresponded to the fruitful land. The Lord blessed and nourished his people by providing them a place of abundant plants and trees (Gen 1:29–30; 2:9).

Looking at Genesis 1–2 as a whole, we conclude that God made people to dwell with him in a place. He made a habitable world, one that was—and is—remarkably fine-tuned for life to exist and thrive. God’s purpose of creating a place was to populate it with people.

The fall and the curse on the land

But after the events in Genesis 3, thriving in God’s world is no longer easy.

The problem of sin and death now permeates God’s creation and his image-bearers. Adam and Eve sinned in the sacred space. The man blamed the woman (Gen 3:12), and the woman blamed the serpent (Gen 3:13).

The Lord pronounced consequences that the man and woman—and their posterity—would experience (Gen 3:16–19). The ground would now resist being cultivated. The Lord told the man, “Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Gen 3:17). Work itself is not a consequence of sin, but the toilsome nature of work certainly is. The image of resistance is evident in Genesis 3:18: “thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.” The thorns and thistles represent the curse upon the ground. They signal the opposite of flourishing and fruitfulness.

God told Adam, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19). God’s image-bearers were to exercise dominion over creation (Gen 1:28). But now their dominion wouldn’t last forever. In the end, the ground would prevail over them. The dust would receive their bodies. The dust was both their origin (Gen 2:7) and destiny (Gen 3:19).

No matter how much Adam worked, he would not live forever (Gen 5:5). And no matter how much we toil, we will not circumvent death either. There will always be more thorns and thistles. There will always be more work that needs to be done. The fall disrupts creation’s intended rest. Creation “was subjected to futility” by God (Rom 8:20). As we age and as we work, we face the unbending truth of toilsome labor, and we continue headlong down the path toward the grave. We know, deep down, that the dust awaits.

Living outside of Eden was exile for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:24), and it’s exile for all of us, too. We have only known life outside of paradise. We have only known ground that is cursed. We have only known work that is threatened by the futilities and toilsomeness of life under the sun. As people who were made to dwell in a place with God, we cannot return to Eden but will certainly return to the dust.

But God spoke a hopeful word in the garden of Eden: One day, a son will be born who will accomplish a great victory, and this victory will impact the place God had made.

Genesis 3:15 and the curse’s promised reversal

God told the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). According to that promise, a future victor would descend from Eve. The biblical author doesn’t specify when, yet the foundation of messianic hope is laid here. But what would this victor accomplish? In Genesis 3:15, the prophecy emphasizes the serpent’s defeat, which will be a defeat accomplished through the promised son’s suffering.

Generations after Adam, a man (Lamech) would call his son Noah, a name which means “rest.” The biblical author tells us the father’s reasoning: “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands” (Gen 5:29). Notice the connections between Genesis 5:29 and Genesis 3:15. Not only does Genesis 3:15 envision a future son who is victorious over the serpent, Lamech understands the future figure’s victory will impact the cursed ground, the place of painful toil.

The land is cursed, but the early chapters of Genesis promise a reversal of the curse. Since part of the curse involves the open mouth of the dust receiving the bodies of image-bearers, the reversal of the curse will impact the problem of death, as well. Though neither Genesis 3 nor Genesis 5 specify a resurrection from the dead, the reversal of the curse sets the trajectory for resurrection hope.

As Paul puts it, “Creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God” (Rom 8:19). At the appointed time,

Creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Rom 8:21–22)

Creation groans for the reversal of the curse. Land and place are impacted by the corruption of a fallen world.

But this is a temporary problem. God’s creation has a bright future of liberation and glory, and the seeds of this hope were sown in the opening chapters of Genesis. Blessing will overcome the curse, through the promised son.

Search your library for answers with Logos’s Study Assistant.
Try it today!

The Abrahamic covenant and the promised land

The echoes of Eden reverberate in God’s calling of Abraham. The Lord tells the Mesopotamian man,

Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Gen 12:1–3)

Here again we have the threat of curse and the promise of blessing, and the aim of God’s blessing is “all the families of the earth” (Gen 12:3).

Abraham had been given precious promises about a land that would belong to him and to his offspring (Gen 12:7) This “land that I will show you” (Gen 12:1) is the land of Canaan. Abraham traveled to the place and surveyed it as he journeyed through it (Gen 12:4–9). The Jordan River was its eastern border, and the Mediterranean Sea was its western border.

Though no longer in Eden, God’s people will now have a land that has been set apart for them. The promised land was an echo of Eden because God would place his people there to dwell with him through the tabernacle and eventually the temple. This gift of sacred space signaled that God had not trashed his plan to dwell with his covenant people in a special place. This land would be flowing with milk and honey (Exod 3:8)—a blessed land, a space brimming with vitality and fruitfulness.

Abraham’s descendants would not receive this land immediately, however. They would dwell in Egypt for generations, after which the Lord would eventually bring them to the promised land (Gen 15:13–16). For a period, they would be a people waiting for the promise to be kept. The covenant promises, first given to Abraham and then passed to his descendants, included this land promise, so the covenant people could count on Yahweh to fulfill what he had said.

According to the author of Hebrews, the patriarchs did not receive the promised land; they died looking for it by faith. In fact, the patriarchs knew that the promised land, while a part of God’s covenant promise, was not their final and ultimate inheritance. Speaking of Abraham,

By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. (Heb 11:9–10)

Of the patriarchal family, the writer says,

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. (Heb 11:13–16)

The patriarchs saw—by faith—that the promised land was not the fullness of their inheritance. A greater land awaited them. A heavenly reality would be theirs, and they desired it, for it was “a better country,” a “city” God had prepared for them. Until that day of heavenly inheritance, the patriarchs would wait in faith.

The Exodus and its aim toward the promised land

When the book of Exodus opens, the people of Israel are captives in a foreign land. They are not a people at rest in God’s promised place. Instead, ruthless taskmasters subjugate them (Exod 1:8–14). The event of the exodus serves God’s larger goal of bringing his people to the appointed place he swore to their forefathers (Exod 3:7–8; 6:6–8).

Leaving unrest in Egypt for rest in the promised land, the people fled with dead lambs in their wake (Exod 12:12–13; 21–23). Deliverance and rest will be achieved through substitutionary sacrifice. Rest is tied to redemption, and redemption happens through blood.

After the exodus from Egypt, God led the Israelites to Sinai (Exod 19:1–2). To prepare his people for life in the promised land, God gave them the law and made with them a covenant (Exod 19–24). The Sinai covenant includes the Ten Commandments, which directed their lives to rest on the seventh (Sabbath) day (Exod 20:8–11). They will rest, remembering that the Creator made all things and that he is leading his people toward the ultimate rest which sin and death cannot spoil. In other words, covenant rest is a shadow of things to come.

In due time, Abraham’s descendants reached the promised land. The imminent problem, however, was that the promised land was occupied by the Canaanites.

The Canaanite conquest and possession of the land

The time of the land’s inheritance coincided with Yahweh’s exercise of dominion over his enemies. By Yahweh’s strength, and in light of his promises, the Israelites would overcome the Canaanites. Inheritance and rest would come by way of conquest (Josh 1:6, 13–14).

God’s law had instructed the Israelites to engage in the conquest of the promised land (Deut 7:1–2). They were to subdue Yahweh’s enemies, disrupting and destroying the idol worship in the land (Deut 20:16–18). False worship had defiled Canaan (Lev 18:24–25). The unclean practices of the Canaanites meant that the land was an unclean place (Lev 18:27–28). The conquest was purgation, purification.

Through Moses, the Lord said,

When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places. And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it. (Num 33:51–53)

Destroying and driving out—these actions comprise the gist of the conquest commands. They represent what should have happened in Eden under Adam’s leadership. The creeping serpent should have been subdued and driven out of the sacred space (Gen 2:15). Instead, however, the woman heeded the serpent’s lies, and Adam followed suit (Gen 3:1–7). Centuries later, the Israelites were to go into the land of Canaan and drive out the seed of the serpent (Gen 3:15). The falsehood and abominable practices in the land of Canaan must not abide. The conquest was holy warfare that set apart the land for God’s glory and name.

Moses would not lead this warfare, however. He died on the border of the new sacred space (Deut 34). His successor, Joshua, readied and rallied the Israelites for battle (Josh 1). Despite being constantly outnumbered and outgunned, the Israelites experienced the delivering hand of Yahweh, the Divine Warrior. Through battles in the southern and northern parts of the land, the Israelites prevailed over their enemies (Josh 11–12). “And the land had rest from war” (Josh 11:23; emphasis added).

The Israelites were like a corporate Adam, subduing the threats in their sacred space. They were exercising dominion, unlike what the first Adam did to the serpent in the garden. The conquest was the corporate exercise of dominion over the God-dishonoring practices and inhabitants of the promised land.

Idolatry, exile, and Israel’s loss of the land

Although the Israelites inherited the land, they could not keep it. After the book of Joshua, the Bible traces their path that leads them into exile.

When Joshua died, the land was filled with cycles of idolatry, adversaries, judges, and deliverances (Judg 2:11–3:6). Though the Israelites had subdued the land overall, problems abounded within certain regions. Residual idolaters and idol-places became thorns and snares for the covenant people. And soon, the Israelites themselves defiled the very land they were supposed to purge and guard.

Not even the monarchy could save Israel. Solomon’s son Rehoboam provoked a rebellion, and the land divided into a Northern Kingdom and a Southern Kingdom (1 Kgs 12). Though some of the Southern Kingdom’s rulers were righteous, most were not. And all of the Northern Kingdom’s rulers were wicked. Corruption in the monarchy and priesthood continued to plunge the nation into ruin and mayhem.

Rather than a land flowing with milk and honey, the land was flowing with false worship and transgression. The Israelites shamelessly violated their covenant. They imitated the idolatry of the nations around them, becoming stiff-necked like the immovable idols they praised. The covenant community ignored Yahweh’s law and rejected the true prophets whom God raised up to warn and exhort them.

Just as the Lord exiled the first Adam in Genesis 3, the Lord exiled the corporate Adam in 2 Kings 25. The Southern Kingdom fell to Babylon, and the foreign army invaded and destroyed the sanctuary. If the promised land was meant to be an echo of Eden, then the exile of Israel into Babylonian captivity was like a replay of the fall. Adam went east of Eden (Gen 3:24), and the Israelites went east to Babylon.

This loss of land was not only distressing for the nation to experience, it was also confusing with regard to their covenant promises. In Genesis 12, God had promised the land of Canaan to Abraham’s offspring. The exile meant that Abraham’s offspring were displaced into a foreign land and under captivity. This was a reversal of the Exodus and its redemption (Hos 9:3), a new captivity in a new “Egypt” (Deut 28:68; Hos 9:3). From the outside, the scene looked like God’s revocation of his promise to the Abrahamic line. Did the exile from the promised land depict the failure of God’s covenant words?

The return from exile and its incomplete restoration

By no means! When we study Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, we find that exile to a foreign adversary was actually the outworking of covenant curses—curses which God himself promised and warned would happen to a covenant-rejecting and idol-loving people.

The exile from the promised land was only temporary, however. After approximately seventy years, the people returned (Jer 25, 29). Through the Prophet Ezekiel, God promised that he would raise Israel from the corporate grave of exile. Their restoration to the promised land would be like a resurrection from the dead. God told the prophet,

Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the Lord. (Ezek 37:12–14)

Under the leadership of Cyrus the Persian (2 Chron 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4), the Israelites were permitted to return to the promised land (Ezra 2:1–2), and there they began to rebuild the temple (Ezra 3:8–13). Stalling for years (Hag 1:2–4), the covenant people eventually completed this second temple (see Ezra 1–6; Hag 1).

Despite the restoration of the right people to the right land, the covenant community did not maintain right worship. We know from the ministries of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi that the postexilic state of the land was still characterized by disobedience. There was idolatry, waywardness, intermarriage with idolaters, laxity on sacrificial protocols, and many other sins.

The covenant community polluted the promised land with their many sins. They were the most important people living in the most important land, yet they seemed numb and complacent to their important vocation (Exod 19:5–6). Malachi warned that the Lord might “strike the land with a decree of utter destruction” (Mal 4:6). Given the history of the people, which included a devastating defeat and exile under a foreign adversary, Malachi’s words about future judgment—“utter destruction”—were terrifying and sobering.

Israel’s problems with the land were symptoms of a deeper and spiritual problem within the covenant people.

Jesus and the fulfillment of the land promise

The Lord Jesus’s ministry was the fulfillment of these earlier hopes and promises (2 Cor 1:20). Jesus is like a new Adam, except this Adam would succeed and be faithful (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:45; Matt 4:1–11). Jesus was like a new Israel, except this Israel would be steadfast and obedient.

Nothing Jesus did would bring defilement or pollution. Rather, he came with the power to restore, cleanse, and transform. As the greater Joshua, Jesus ministered in the southern and northern parts of the land, engaging in a greater conquest. He exercised dominion and subdued: He combatted spiritual powers; he healed diseases; he performed miracles in nature; he pronounced forgiveness and delivered demoniacs; he taught with unprecedented authority; and he even overthrew death on multiple occasions. No matter what good things the promised land had experienced over the centuries, never had there been someone like Jesus upon its soil. He was a shining light on the land of Israel, and light shone wherever he went (Matt 4:13–16).

Some of the most well-known teachings of Jesus are the Beatitudes. And one of these Beatitudes evokes the notion of land. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matt 5:5). As we’ve seen, inheritance is an Old Testament concept associated with the land, and here Jesus applies it to more than just the promised land. He didn’t say, “The meek shall inherit the promised land.” Rather, he identifies what the promised land was meant to typify and foreshadow. The promised land pointed to a new creation, a renewed and transformed world. The meek will inherit the earth, because that’s what the previous sacred spaces—like Eden and the promised land—had anticipated all along.

As in the first exodus, so in this greater exodus, deliverance unto rest is achieved by substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus dies on a cross for our sins and is raised from death, inaugurating the new creation. In this way, Jesus is the promised seed of Abraham through whom God brings blessing to the nations (Gal 3:16; cf. Gen 12:2–3). He takes Adam and Israel’s curse (Gal 3:13) so that we might receive God’s promised, covenant blessings (Gal 3:14). The New Testament describes this salvation in language that echoes the promised land: inheritance (Gal 3:18, 29; 4:7; cf. Acts 20:32; Eph 1:14, 18; Heb 11:8; 1 Pet 1:4). Jesus, thus, invites all people to come to him to find that long-awaited rest (Matt 11:28–30), and he guides us into that Rest which is to come (Heb 3:7–4:13).

New creation and the promised land’s consummation

The final destination of land promises and land shadows is the new creation. The meek will inherit the earth (Matt 5:5), and Abraham was “heir of the world” (Rom 4:13). Such a vast inheritance far exceeds what the covenant community enjoyed in the Old Testament.

The return of Christ will bring about the liberation of creation. This thorn-ridden world “will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:21). The children of God will have the glory of their own resurrection, and this “revealing of the sons of God” (Rom 8:19) is the signal for creation’s own renewal and transformation.

In Revelation 21, John tells us what he saw:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” (Rev 21:1–3)

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is a story of God’s dwelling with his people. From Eden to the New Jerusalem, God is seeking to establish a place of glory and peace and rest for his image-bearers. Through Christ, blessing triumphs over the cosmic curse. Christ is the greater Noah who will actually bring rest from the toil of our hands and will reverse the curse upon the ground. God will, at last, dwell with his people in a renewed and glorified state.

All things will become new (Rev 21:5; cf. Isa 65:17). Though the garden was only part of Eden, and though the promised land was only part of the territory in the ancient Near East, the new heaven and new earth have no such boundaries.

Conclusion

The topic of land is a lens through which you can see the whole storyline of Scripture. As the last Adam and true Israel, the Lord Jesus has come to lead us into perfect rest, a state of such blessing and grace that the end of all things is better than its initial sinless garden setting. As our new Moses and greater Joshua, Jesus leads us into a new creation flowing with milk and honey, as well as mercy and holiness. Because Christ is ours, the eternal and incorruptible new creation is ours.

This new creation is the “better country” that the patriarchs desired (Heb 11:16). It is our true and lasting home. Our final salvation is called our inheritance for good reason. For now, we see this fairer land from afar, by faith.

This new creation will abide under the joyful rule of the messianic king. His glory will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea (Num 14:21; Ps 72:19; Isa 11:9; Hab 2:14).

Resources for further study

Bound for the Promised Land: The Land Promise in God’s Redemptive Plan (New Studies in Biblical Theology)

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

From Land to Lands, from Eden to the Renewed Earth: A Christ-Centered Biblical Theology of the Promised Land

Regular price: $39.99

Add to cart

The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament

Regular price: $32.99

Add to cart

Related content

• What’s Typology? Patterns of Creation in Redemptive History
• What Is the New Heaven and the New Earth? 8 Metaphors to Know
• What Does It Mean That All of Creation Groans?
• Heaven Invades Earth: Understanding the Symbolism & Purpose of the Tabernacle
• How the Great Commission Echoes the Old Testament

If the Bible teaches that human beings are made in the image of God, why does the Bible seem to allow their enslavement? It’s a question that often troubles believers and serves as an objection for skeptics. Kirk E. Miller sits down with author and apologist Rebecca McLaughlin to work through the issue historically, biblically, and theologically. As we’ll see, those passages that often seem like roadblocks to faith, when read carefully and in context, turn out to be signposts pointing toward it.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. 

See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: Rebecca McLaughlin

Rebecca McLaughlin holds a PhD in Renaissance literature from Cambridge University and a theology degree from Oak Hill College in London. She lives in Cambridge, MA, with her husband, Bryan, their three children, and their wider church family. Rebecca is the author of several books, including:

• Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion (2019), which was named book of the year by Christianity Today
• 10 Questions Every Teen Should Ask (and Answer) About Christianity (2021)
• The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims (2021)
• Is Christmas Unbelievable? Four Questions Everyone Should Ask About the World’s Most Famous Story (2021)
• Jesus Through the Eyes of Women: How the First Female Disciples Help Us Know and Love the Lord (2022)
• No Greater Love: A Biblical Vision for Friendship (2023)
• Does the Bible Affirm Same-Sex Relationships? (2024)

• Instagram
• YouTube
• Instagram
• Link

Episode synopsis

Delineating the difficulty

Contemporary Westerners approach the topic of slavery with imaginations shaped by the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade and the evils of slavery in the Antebellum South. Moreover, many Christians actively used the Bible to justify this enslavement of African peoples. For instance, many appealed to a so-called “curse of Ham” to justify the enslavement of African people. Such misuse of Scripture understandably weighs heavily on us as we approach the matter of slavery in the Scriptures. (As McLaughlin points out, though, that weight can sometimes cloud rather than clarify what the Bible is actually saying.)

Historian Mark Noll has described the Civil War as, among other things, a theological crisis: Christians on both sides of the debate over slavery appealed to the Bible.¹⁰ Underneath the political conflict, one discovered a conflict of hermeneutics. This prompts questions: Why do we now side with the abolitionists? Is it simply that the Bible is ambiguous enough to support either interpretation, or is there a more principled case for the abolitionist reading?

The nature of slavery in the Bible

A crucial step toward rightly understanding the Bible’s teaching on slavery is to disentangle it from assumptions we bring based on slavery’s modern expressions. Ancient slavery, whether under Old Testament law or within the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament, was not the chattel-based institution of the Antebellum South. It was not based on racial identity, and many had a realistic routes to freedom. There were many paths into slavery, including conquest, poverty, being born to slave parents, and debt—the latter being the most common by far. In fact, you might sell yourself into a form of service that functioned much like employment. Moreover, slavery was far more variegated than the single image that tends to dominate our imagination. Some slaves held significant social status, managed households, and exercised authority over others.

What does the Bible say about slavery?
Use Logos’s Factbook to start your study.

God gives Israel laws to guarantee the proper treatment of slaves and to protect them from abuse (Exod 21). These regulations should not read as permissions for everything the law doesn’t explicitly prohibit. These laws set limits on the worst behaviors, but they don’t define the ceiling of acceptable conduct.

God repeatedly ties these commands to Israel’s own experience of slavery: “Remember that you were slaves in Egypt” (e.g., Deut 5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22). Israel’s national identity and relationship with God began with emancipation: God had redeemed them out of slavery in Egypt. That collective memory was to shape how Israelites treated those in vulnerable positions, including slaves. The Sabbath and Jubilee years extended this logic further: People who had been sold into servitude were to be released and restored, their debts forgiven (Lev 25). The structure of Israel’s social economy included mechanisms designed to prevent permanent, hereditary poverty and bondage, reflecting the emancipatory aims of the Exodus itself.

God’s concern for the enslaved

Yet even before the giving of the law, the Bible’s narrative portrays God as one who sees and dignifies enslaved people.

For example, when Sarah expels Hagar, her Egyptian servant, leaving her destitute in the wilderness, God meets her and makes promises to her that parallel those he made to Abraham (Gen 16). Hagar becomes the first person in the entire Bible to give God a name: El Roi, “the God who sees” (Gen 16:13). This is who God is, a God who sees and concerns himself with the plight of mistreated slaves.

Some generations later, the Israelites themselves become slaves under the Egyptians (the roles reversed). So again, God attends to the cries of those enslaved and oppressed:

Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israel—and God knew. (Exod 2:23–25)

God identifies himself throughout the Old Testament as the one who brought Israel out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. As the Black church tradition has often emphasized, the Exodus became the paradigm for understanding God’s redemption.

Jesus’s inversion of greatness

Immediately after Jesus foretells of his death, his disciples begin arguing about which of them will be the greatest (Mark 10:32–41). Yet Jesus teaches that, in contrast to the world’s norms in which superiors lord their power over others (Mark 10:42), “whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43–44; emphasis added). They must follow in his footsteps, who “came not to be served but to serve” (Mark 10:45).

Likewise, the night before his arrest, Jesus strips down to a slave’s clothing and washes his disciples’ feet (John 13). They are horrified. This is the Lord, performing a task assigned to slaves. He then tells us to do likewise by serving one another (John 13:13–15).

Philippians 2 captures this arc: The one who is in very nature God took the form of a slave, even humbled himself to a slave’s death: crucifixion. We likely struggle to grasp how scandalous this truly is. To a Greco-Roman audience, the cross was not a religious symbol worn around the neck or a decoration for our sanctuaries. It was a shameful execution assigned to disgraced slaves. This is the extent of God’s humiliation for us.

And this is what Jesus demands of all his people: that we follow in his footsteps by taking up our cross (Mark 8:34–35; 9:30–31) and making ourselves slaves of others (Mark 9:33–37). Christ’s kingdom inverts our constructed hierarchies. Slavery, instead of belonging to the lowest, becomes an obligation of all. In fact, those with the most authority in the Christian community are the ones most obligated to conduct themselves as servants. Servitude, rather than a diminishment, is the defining posture of greatness. In this way, Christianity doesn’t abolish slavery by saying no one is a slave but by declaring everyone is a slave.

Christianity’s subversion of slavery

Paul’s letter to Philemon is, as Rebecca puts it, the most brilliantly passive-aggressive piece of ancient literature. Paul is sending Onesimus, a slave who apparently ran away, back to his master Philemon. On the surface, it may seem Paul endorses and supports his slavery—until you read the letter. Paul does not just ask for clemency. Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus back as he would receive Paul himself, as an honored guest—this in a society where a runaway slave could face severe punishment.

From a Christian standpoint, we are all slaves to Christ and to one another, including masters (e.g., Philemon) to their slaves (e.g., Onesimus). Moreover, the category of “my slave” is replaced with “my brother.” We are brothers and sisters. As Paul says elsewhere, in the church “there is neither … slave nor free … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28; emphasis added). Interestingly in Colossians, whereas Paul refers to all his other colleagues as “fellow slaves,” he conspicuously refrains from that language when describing Onesimus, the one man who actually was, legally, a slave. Rather, Paul calls him simply “our faithful and beloved brother” (Col 4:9). The exception seems intentional.

We can sometimes approach the Bible as if we possess independent moral criteria by which to judge its treatment of slavery. Yet values such as human equality, inherent dignity, and universal rights did not emerge out of thin air. We may take them for granted nowadays, but they are not self-evident and cannot simply be assumed. Human rights cannot derive from atheistic materialism; secular humanism employs them as borrowed capital. Thus, we end up critiquing the Bible with moral resources we’ve (perhaps unknowingly) derived from the Bible, cutting off the branch on which we sit.

The Bible teaches that every human being exists as the image of God. That conviction, worked out across the Christian tradition, is what eventually dismantled the institution of slavery. What at first may seem like roadblocks to Christianity turn out to be signposts pointing to it.

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Let us know what you think

What insights would you add regarding how the Bible treats slavery? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Related resources from Rebecca McLaughlin

• Rebecca McLaughlin, “Should Christians Reject Slavery and Affirm Same-Sex Marriage?”

Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims

Regular price: $12.99

Add to cart

Additional resources on slavery and the Bible

Is Christianity the White Man’s Religion? How the Bible Is Good News for People of Color

Regular price: $13.19

Add to cart

Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God

Regular price: $16.99

Add to cart

Is God a Vindictive Bully? Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments

Regular price: $27.99

Add to cart

Ancient Slavery and Its New Testament Contexts

Regular price: $25.99

Add to cart

Old Testament Ethics for the People of God

Regular price: $31.99

Add to cart

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed.

Regular price: $36.99

Add to cart

Related content

• What Is Christian Ethics? How Scripture Shapes Our Moral Lives
• What Does It Mean to Be Human? Theological Anthropology
• What Is the Curse of Ham? | Chad Bird on Genesis 9:18–29
• Black Political Theology: An Anti-oppression Faith
• Servant-Leadership: How Jesus Redefines Greatness

Disciples are followers of God’s Word. So why do we so often wonder what to do with the Bible? Making sense of the words is one thing. Applying them to my life is another. What must I do to behave “biblically”? Does it require a rigid step-by-step method?

There are entire books that try to clarify what application is, but it is not as complicated as we might think.

What does it mean to apply the Bible?

The word application was first used as a hermeneutical concept by Pietists. It was seen as the next step after understanding and interpretation. For the Pietists, hermeneutics involved not only our thoughts but also our affections. The right affections resulted in holy living.¹¹ Thus, the preacher’s task, for instance, was not merely to convey the meaning of the Scriptures, but to plant it into the souls of listeners.

Nowadays, application is not less emphasized. Yet it has become less significant and less affective. For scholars, application may be an optional step after exegesis. For pastors, it may be the last-minute point at the end of an expositional sermon. At the same time, lay Christians may either apply without constraints or become discouraged by overly complex methods. Yet, in fact, application is essential and accessible in our ordinary life.

The question of how to apply it rightly is unavoidable. Application happens in our daily reading and devotion, in our weekly preaching and Bible study, and everywhere in our ordinary life. We are applying the Bible when we choose to apologize to our spouse after a fight, or when we pray for the annoying driver who repeatedly blocks our way. Daily life is filled with applications.

There will be many struggles, confusions, and failures when we try to live “biblically.” But when we repeatedly open ourselves to be challenged and transformed by its stories, teachings, and testimonies, we will gradually discover a pattern of decision making—biblically grounded discernment and judgment—forming in our hearts. Application makes biblical teachings our way of life, our way of being before God and neighbors.

If we understand what “apply” means in ordinary language, we may already know how to do it more than we realize. To apply the Bible means to:

1. Use it faithfully,
2. relate it to our situation fittingly, and
3. devote ourselves to it fervently, with our head, heart, and hands.

These three senses are inseparable aspects of the whole process of application. Each aspect involves the other two.

Why should we apply the Bible?

God is speaking to us through the Bible. God’s Word is not only informative but also normative and formative, and thus demands our response (Matt 7:24, 26; Jas 1:22–25). Application, therefore, is not an optional postscript. It is demanded by the meaning of the biblical text.

Interpretation without application is like the following child:

Mom: “Listen, it’s time to practice the piano.”

Child: “I hear you, Mom.”

(Ten minutes later, the child is still watching cartoons.)

Mom: “Did you hear what I said? Do you understand what I mean?”

Child: “Of course I understood. You told me to play the piano.”

Mom: “Then why are you still sitting there?”

We intuitively know from this example that to truly grasp the meaning of the mother’s words is to apply them. So too the meaning of the biblical text—the divine author’s communicative intent—is not simply to provide us with information about the past. A failure to apply the Bible is actually a failure to reckon with its meaning. The Bible is not a mere database of raw material from which to develop abstract doctrines. It is God’s authoritative address, and it demands our obedient response.

Integrate application into your Bible study with Logos’s Workflows.
Start a free trial!

How do we apply the Bible?

Popular textbooks on hermeneutics devote entire chapters to application, but in doing so they often employ differing concepts.

• Grant Osborne speaks of contextualization, the way to make an ancient text relevant today.¹²¹³
• Kevin Vanhoozer employs the idea of theatrical or musical performance, an external enactment of biblical truth in daily living.¹⁴
• Jeannine Brown differentiates between movement and participation models of application among scholars.¹⁵

We may feel overwhelmed by so many different names for and models of application. Yet we can eliminate much confusion by clarifying the underlying concept.

Aspects of application

The ordinary use of the word apply has multiple possible meanings. We can apply ointment or paint, for example. We can apply a technique we’ve learned to a task. We can apply for a job or apply the law to a particular case. But when apply is used in hermeneutics, it generally means:

1. Use = make functional (i.e., I apply the Word of God to my life)
2. Relate = make relevant (i.e., I apply the Word of God to my current situation)
3. Devote = attend to with diligence (i.e., I apply myself to the Word of God)

Thus, when scholars disagree over the concept of application, sometimes it is because they may be using application in one of these different ways. For example, Scholar A says, “Application must happen after interpretation.” Scholar B says, “No! Application is already happening in interpretation.” Scholar A is right if application means use, because we can only apply (i.e., use) something (i.e., meaning) if we first have it. Scholar B is right if application means relate, because we have to apply (i.e., relate) the text to our own context to know the correct meaning of the text. I have to apply (i.e., relate) Paul’s command for women to cover their heads (1 Cor 11:6) to our modern context to determine whether the command is culturally specific or universally binding.

Though scholars categorize application in different ways, these categories often follow a shared pattern resembling the three aspects above:

1. use,
2. relevance, and
3. devotion.

John Frame, for instance, defines theology as the application of the Word of God to all areas of life by persons. Such theology is tri-perspectival:

1. It is the application of Scripture (normative perspective)
2. to situations (situational perspective)
3. by persons (existential perspective).¹⁶

Daniel Doriani’s book Putting Truth to Work (2001), which might be the only comprehensive book specifically on application, matches Frame’s categories as he identifies different aspects of application:

1. Duty (or norms) that governs the choices we should make
2. Discernment and goal that help us decide when and where to apply which norms
3. Character or the transformation of the person¹⁷

So too we can describe these three aspects of application in terms of Vanhoozer’s performance model of textual understanding:

1. The canon is the authoritative holy script that establishes the norms for Christian life and thought.
2. The cultural context is the stage on which the holy script is performed in situationally fitting ways.
3. The actors are the interpreters who fervently devote themselves to the task of faithfully performing the normative text in new situations.

In applying the Bible, then, we can focus on each of these aspects as three strands that make up a unified cord of understanding:

1. Use: If our focus is textual meaning, then our application will be normative use (i.e., we use the text as an authority for Christian living).
2. Relevance: If our focus is on the present situation, then our application will be situational relevance (think: case law). We make a contextually appropriate specification of the text’s communicative intention.
3. Devotion: If our focus is on our own subjectivity, then our application will be existential devotion. We expose ourselves to the light of the text.

Criteria for application

Following these three aspects of application, allow me to suggest three criteria for right application:

1. Faithful use: We apply (use) the text as a norm in a way that is faithful to the canonical text and to the history of its orthodox reception in Christian tradition.
2. Fitting relevance: We apply (relate) it to our present situations and make judgments that are fitting to new cultural contexts.
3. Fervent devotion: We apply (devote) ourselves fervently to participate in the text’s world—God’s kingdom—and let it transform our whole person.

To what do we apply the Bible?

Application ideally unfolds in three stages and involves three domains of the person.

1. First, we contextualize the meaning of the text and discern its relevance within our present context. This is application in the cognitive domain (“head”), where we do theoretical theology or practical theology by relating the meaning to ourselves and new contexts.
2. Second, we internalize this relevance so that it transforms our affections, dispositions, and will. This is application in the affective domain (“heart”), where we personalize the general relevance and allow it to change us.
3. Finally, we enact what has been internalized through concrete patterns of life and practice (performance). This is application in the behavioral domain (“hands”), where we actualize the relevance of the text in practice. This is the outward realization of what has been formed in our heart.

Application is ultimately about the renewal of the whole person, including the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. Too often our idea of application stops at the cognitive domain. Yet application involves not just the head, but also the heart and hands. Likewise, merely to perform the text without inner transformation is shallow. That is why scholars consider other terms besides “application” to better capture its scope.

Conclusion

The fruit of application takes time and hard work. Application is so rich that one verse is enough for us to repeatedly meditate and apply for a whole year. Yet application is also simple enough that everyone can understand and do it every day of their lives.

Yes, we must be faithful and treat God’s words with fear. But in another sense, we do not need to fear. Application is simply about trust and obedience: We find out what God is doing with these words and then apply them by responding obediently.

When God is declaring, we believe.

When God is promising, we hope.

When God is commanding, we obey.

When God is warning, we repent.

When God is calling, we follow.

Share your thoughts

What hermeneutical principles should guide application? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Resources for further study

Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology (Counterpoints)

Regular price: $22.99

Add to cart

Putting the Truth to Work: The Theory and Practice of Biblical Application

Regular price: $12.99

Add to cart

Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology)

Regular price: $23.99

Add to cart

NIV Application Commentary | NIVAC: Old and New Testaments, 44 vols.

Regular price: $1,199.99

Add to cart

The NIV Application Commentary on the Bible: One-Volume Edition

Regular price: $39.99

Add to cart

The Life Application Bible Commentary (17 vols.)

Regular price: $125.99

Add to cart

Life Application Study Bible Notes

Regular price: $24.99

Add to cart

ESV Gospel Transformation Study Bible: Notes

Regular price: $49.99

Add to cart

Related content

• What Is Hermeneutics? | Kevin Vanhoozer
• All about Hermeneutics: A Guide to Interpreting God’s Word Faithfully
• What Is Exegesis & Why Is It Important? Plus, How to Start
• Legalism, License & the Tightrope of Bible Application
• On Expository Preaching | David Helm

For many abuse survivors, the Bible has been used as a weapon rather than as a source of healing. Yet Scripture reveals a God who aims to bring shalom and is fiercely concerned for the oppressed. In this episode of Logos Live, Kirk E. Miller sits down with Dr. Steven Tracy to tackle the sobering reality of how Scripture is often misused in contexts of abuse and how we can reclaim it as a source of protection and healing for survivors. Together they explore important hermeneutical principles for using and applying Scripture as a medicine rather than a poison.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more

Episode guest: Steven Tracy

Steven Tracy is the President and International Director of Mending the Soul Ministries. Steve and his wife, Celestia, founded Mending the Soul in 2003 to create best-practice Christian resources for understanding and responding to abuse. Steve earned his PhD in biblical studies from the University of Sheffield in England and taught theology and ethics at Phoenix Seminary for 30 years. Before coming on staff with MTS, Steve pastored for 15 years in three different churches.

• Link

Episode synopsis

Christians turn to Scripture as a source of comfort and guidance. Yet, as Steven Tracy observes, the Bible is not always used as intended: as a source of life. For many survivors of abuse, the very Word of God, which God gave for healing and renewal, has been weaponized to excuse, justify, or even afflict abuse.

How do we know what constitutes health or harm?

To make assessments of “harmful” uses of Scripture, are we just imposing an outside standard to determine whether we deem it good or damaging?

To the contrary, Scripture serves as its own standard for understanding its proper use to heal or misuse to harm. The Bible’s grand story is one of restoring shalom (peace, wholeness, flourishing). It is an account of God’s ultimate healing which culminates in the new heavens and the new earth. So we look to God’s design in creation and his work of redemption to define what health and healing look like. It is the world as God intended it to be, where the image of God (imago dei) in every person is respected and nurtured.

Conversely, harm is defined as anything that attacks this original design or hinders a person from becoming who God intended them to be. Abuse is a direct assault on the image of God.

What’s at stake in misusing Scripture in cases of abuse?

Just because one appeals to the Bible does not make that use of the Bible “biblical.” The devil quotes Scripture, too (Matt 4:1–11)! This misuse of God’s Word is as old as the garden of Eden: “Did God really say … ?” (Gen 3:1). So 2 Peter 3:16 speaks of those who twist Scripture. This twisting is not a benign error. As Peter says, it leads to “destruction.”

To misuse Scripture with abuse victims is to poison the very well from which God intends to renew them. When God’s Word is used to harm or justify and excuse harm, abuse survivors can unfortunately associate God’s Word with its abusive misuse, making it hard to engage Scripture as a source of healing and goodness. When the Bible is misused in cases of abuse, this can cause individuals to doubt the goodness of Scripture. Inasmuch as God’s Word represents God himself, Scripture’s misuse misrepresents God’s character to the abused.

Moreover, when someone uses Scripture to defend, excuse, or perpetrate abuse, they are engaging in spiritual abuse, the misuse of God’s authority to do harm. As Steven Tracy helpfully put it,

While any type of abuse can be extremely damaging, we have found that spiritual abuse is often some of the most damaging due to the way it shatters the very resources we need for health and healing.¹⁸

How can we use Scripture well, to heal and not harm?

How can we avoid abusing Scripture when applying it to cases of abuse? Steven highlights two fundamental rules for anyone handling the Word:

1. Attend to Scripture’s context. Perhaps the most common mistake is ignoring the context of a passage. We must recognize and honor the specific setting of a text. When we take words out of their context, we can make the Bible teach just about anything—which is a frightening prospect.
2. Interpret Scripture with Scripture. Be wary of building an entire moral model on a single, isolated passage. We can easily go astray when we treat one verse as if it is all God has to say on a subject.

Kirk E. Miller describes such misuses as reductionistic interpretations. This approach involves taking complex ideas from Scripture and distilling them into overly simplistic, one-dimensional directives that ignore the overall teaching of Scripture and the reality of a survivor’s experience. By stripping Scripture of its required nuance, reductionistic readings can transform Scriptures into a blunt instrument of condemnation and, frankly, bad counsel.

What is God’s heart for the abused?

Perhaps because the ancient text of Scripture does not utilize our modern terminology, we sometimes mistakenly assume the Bible does not say much, if anything, about abuse.

However, the Bible is saturated with accounts of abuse, from the fatal domestic violence of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 to the widespread violence that grieved God’s heart in Genesis 6. Rather than sanitizing the text, the Bible is brutally honest about human depravity’s tendency toward abuse. Moreover, the fact that Scripture frequently includes these accounts—such as the sexual assault of Tamar (Gen 38) or the horrific atrocities against women at the end of the book of Judges (Judg 19–21)—demonstrates a concern for abuse. God is neither silent nor indifferent. He intentionally highlights the plight of the oppressed against the wickedness of their abusers.

Scripture also testifies directly to God’s heart for the oppressed. For example, in Exodus 3:7–8, the text explicitly states that God saw the affliction of the Israelites, heard their cries, was concerned about their suffering, and came down to deliver them. Likewise, Jesus expresses his fierce intolerance for abuse. For those who cause any of his “little ones” to sin, he declares it would have been far better had they been drowned in the sea with a massive millstone attached to their neck (Matt 18:6). That would have been a better fate than what he has in store for them! This is how seriously Christ takes the abuse of his people.

Jesus: abused for the abused

Many still grapple with the “why” of abuse. Although our attempts at an answer often feel unsatisfying, Steven points us to the person and work of Jesus Christ. The cross is the ultimate evidence of God’s care. Does God truly care for the abused? The cross resounds with a loud, “Yes!”

God took on flesh and allowed himself to be abused in the most horrific manner imaginable. He did this to defeat evil and eventually put an end to all our suffering. We may not have a full answer for the problem of evil. But we do know how God has answered evil through the work of Christ.

Scripture reveals a God who is highly attuned to the cries of the broken and who is actively working a plan of redemption that will one day end all tears (Rev 7:17; 21:4; Isa 25:8).

Share your thoughts

Why is the abuse of the Bible so harmful, especially for the abused? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Steven Tracy’s suggested resources

To Heal or Harm: Scripture’s Use as Poison or Medicine for Abuse Survivors

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

To Heal or Harm: Scripture’s Use as Poison or Medicine for Abuse Survivors (Audio)

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

Mending the Soul, Second Edition: Understanding and Healing Abuse

Regular price: $14.49

Add to cart

Mending the Soul, Second Edition: Understanding and Healing Abuse (Audio)

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church

Regular price: $12.09

Add to cart

Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church (audio)

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing (audio)

Regular price: $19.95

Add to cart

Related content

• What Does the Bible Say About Abuse? Probably More Than You Think
• On Spiritual Abuse | Michael Kruger
• Recovering from Spiritual Abuse: A Practical Pathway Toward Healing
• Ministering to Trauma Survivors: 3 Lessons from the Book of Job
• What Does the Bible Say About Church Hurt? 5 Lessons

Luke records that the early Jesus followers in Jerusalem “held everything in common” (Acts 2:44–45; 4:32–37). Does this mean the early church abolished private property and embraced a sort of communalism? Luke-Acts scholar Darrell L. Bock joins Kirk E. Miller on this episode of What in the Word? to discuss these texts and what they might mean for us today.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. 

See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: Darrell Bock

Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, as well as Executive Director of Cultural Engagement for the Hendricks Center there. He is also a New York Times bestselling author. The author of around forty books, his special fields of study involve hermeneutics, the use of the Old Testament in the New, Luke-Acts, the historical Jesus, Gospel studies, and the integration of theology and culture. He is a graduate of the University of Texas (BA), Dallas Theological Seminary (ThM), and the University of Aberdeen (PhD). He is married to Sally and has two daughters (both married), a son, three grandsons, and a granddaughter.

• Facebook
• Link

Episode synopsis

Did the early church abolish private property?

Immediately following the events of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–41), Luke describes the early Jerusalem church as selling possessions and distributing the proceeds “as anyone had need” (Acts 2:42–47). Acts 4:32–37 revisits the same pattern in greater detail: Owners of land and houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds to the apostles’ feet, so that “there was no one needy among them.”

To many today, this portrait resembles ideas within modern communism. It raises anxious questions about economic obligations or unrealistic idealism. To others, the text is simply glossed over or so heavily caveated that its entire force is nearly lost.

Yet Luke presents these descriptions as positive profiles of the primitive Christian community. He includes no hint of critique. So what is going on with this text, and what are we to do with it?

Luke’s positive portrayals of the early church

As Dr. Darrell Bock points out, Luke offers six positive traits of this early Jerusalem church (Acts 2:42–47):

1. The apostolic teaching
2. Fellowship and relationship with one another
3. The breaking of bread (hospitality and the Lord’s Table)
4. Prayer and engagement with God
5. Ministry to those outside the community, testified by signs and wonders
6. A family-like unity, displayed by even selling possessions to meet each other’s material needs

The placement of this description (Acts 2:42–47) immediately follows the pouring out of the Spirit on this people at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–41). In other words, Luke is detailing the transformation that occurs when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in a community. This passage provides an answer to the question, What does a Spirit-filled people look like?

So too, Luke’s description in Acts 4:32–37 follows the church’s prayer for boldness (Acts 4:23–31) after Peter and John’s arrest and release (Acts 3:1–4:22). Darrell regards this prayer as one of the most striking moments in Acts. Faced with their first persecution, the believers do not pray for the hostility to stop or for judgment on their enemies. Instead, they pray for boldness to keep preaching and serving. Thus, the “signs and wonders” they ask for are not mere displays of power but instruments of care, ways of demonstrating God’s goodness to a hostile audience.

Following this prayer, the church is again “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:31), which sets the frame for the profile that follows (Acts 4:32–37): The “full number” of believers were of “one heart and soul,” no one regarded their possessions as their own, and they held all in common, such that “there was not a needy person among them.” Those who owned land and real estate sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles so it could be distributed as needed. They held their material possessions with open hands, as resources with which to meet the needs of others (so also Acts 6:1–7). Luke identifies Barnabas as a specific exemplar (Acts 4:36–37).

In direct contrast to Barnabas, Luke follows this with a negative example of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11). The latter sold a piece of property, kept a portion of the proceeds for themselves, yet presented the remainder as though it were the full amount. They were both struck dead.

Key exegetical details that clarify

Peter’s rebuke of Ananias and Sapphira, however, makes clear that this sacrificial giving was voluntary; no one was required to sell their possessions and give away the proceeds. As Peter says to Ananias and Sapphira, “Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal?” (Acts 5:4). The issue wasn’t simply that Ananias and Sapphira had kept “part of the proceeds from the sale of the land” (Acts 5:3). The property was theirs. The money from the sale was theirs. Rather, their sin was lying, offering a portion of the proceeds as if it were the entirety of the proceeds (Acts 5:1–11). In other words, they wanted the reputation of a Barnabas without the sacrifices of a Barnabas. They pretended to be generous without actually practicing generosity, and so lied to the Holy Spirit.

This episode, however, makes clear that the sharing of possessions in Acts was entirely voluntary. No one was compelled to sell their possessions or hand over what they owned. No one was required to surrender private property as a condition of membership, such as in the Qumran community. Rather, this giving was an expression of genuine, sacrificial, Spirit-empowered care, not a community rule or an economic policy.

Additionally, the verbs Luke uses in Greek to describe this practice are in the imperfect. The imperfect presents a verb’s action, not as a once-for-all snapshot like the aorist, but as something ongoing. As Darrell maintains, the imperfects here seem to have an iterative function, meaning this selling and giving was a habitual pattern within the community, not a single complete act in which everyone liquidated all their assets. Rather, this sort of generosity arose again and again as needs appeared.

Use the Grammar section in Logos’s Exegetical Guide to locate comments on your passage within Greek and Hebrew Grammars.

For instance, later in Acts 12:12, immediately after God miraculously freed him from prison, Peter goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where many believers are gathered and praying. We see here that Mary clearly still owns her house; she has not sold it. This indicates that not everyone in this early Jesus community had sold all their property. That said, we do see Mary using her house sacrificially, opening it up to the believers. Her hospitality is then another mode of the generosity the Spirit produces—using what one has in service to others, rather than clinging to it as merely one’s own.

Descriptive—not prescriptive—yet commended

Some point out that the Jerusalem church’s generosity apparently left it financially depleted, requiring Paul later to organize a collection from gentile churches on its behalf (2 Corinthians 8). On this reading, the early community’s radical giving was admirable but ultimately unsustainable, a cautionary tale rather than a model.

Yet, as Darrell points out, the picture Luke paints of this early community is unqualifiedly positive. He provides this portrait to show what Spirit-filled generosity looks like in practice. In fact, as Kirk E. Miller points out, Luke’s phrase “there was no one needy among them” seems to be a deliberate allusion to Deuteronomy 15, which speaks of the sabbatical year and its intent that “there will be no poor among you” (Deut 15:4). In other words, this new covenant community is becoming what God always intended his people, Israel, to be. The Spirit is realizing what the law of Moses had always aimed toward.

When interpreting the Bible, we ought to distinguish between what is descriptive vs. prescriptive: Just because the Bible describes (recounts) something, does not mean it prescribes (commands) that thing. In fact, the Bible describes many things (e.g., murder, stealing, assault) we ought not repeat. So Acts, as narrative, describes what happened in the early church without necessarily prescribing such things as normative or things we are meant to replicate.

Yet this distinction does not mean the Bible’s narratives are neutral, without an implicit message for us. In the case of Acts 2:44–45 and Acts 4:32–37, although the specific actions recounted here are not prescribed, they are nonetheless commended as exemplary of the type of generosity that ought to characterize Christian communities. They aim to stir the reader.

As Darrell points out, this fits how ancient biography functioned: You observe virtues and vices such that you are persuaded, even if not commanded. Narrative teaches, among other things, by example.

Additionally, the early church’s generosity was an outworking of Jesus’s teaching.

• Jesus taught, “Sell your possessions, and give to the needy” (Luke 12:33).
• So Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything (Luke 18:18–30).
• Jesus commended Zacchaeus for giving half of his possessions to the poor and restoring fourfold what he had stolen (Luke 19:1–10).
• On the other hand, Jesus told a parable of a man who built bigger barns to store his material riches yet was not “rich” toward God (Luke 12:13–21).

Thus, the Jerusalem believers may well have understood themselves as simply doing what Jesus said. In this way, Acts 2:44–45 and Acts 4:32–37 present a descriptive account of a prescriptive ethic already taught by Jesus himself.

The practical significance

As these passages exemplify, we are ultimately stewards, not owners, of what we possess. We should ask ourselves, How can I use what God has entrusted to me to serve others? As Galatians 6:10 says, “As we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” See also 1 Timothy 6:6–10, 17–19, which provides some of the New Testament’s most direct teaching on the Christian’s use of wealth.

Within the church, this means treating fellow believers as genuine family, people whose material needs are your concern. This finds visible expression in things like the church’s care for its widows (1 Timothy 5:9–16; see also Acts 6:1–7), the kind of coordinated giving Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 8, or a church’s well-funded, actively used benevolence ministry, where the church has decided to set resources aside to care for the needs of its members as they may arise. These things translate the spirit of Acts 2:44–45 and Acts 4:32–37 into the ordinary life of a congregation.

Advice for those teaching or preaching

Clearly explain the text, noting the voluntary nature of its giving. Yet do not so hedge the text (it’s not communalism; it was voluntary; it’s descriptive not prescriptive) that you drain the text of its intended force. Caveats are necessary, but they are not the point. Rather, the text’s point centers on the exceptional, exemplary nature of this Spirit-filled community’s life together. Don’t lose that point in the midst of your qualifications.

So allow the passage be challenging. Allow the congregation to squirm under its conviction as needed. The passage presses us to ask, Am I attentive to the needs of those around me? Do I see my finances and possessions as existing for myself? Or do I hold my resources loosely enough that I am free to serve others with them—even at great cost to myself? As C.S. Lewis said,

I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them.¹⁹

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Let us know what you think

What might it look like to practice the spirit of Acts 2 and 4 in our churches today? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Darrell Bock’s recommended resources on Luke-Acts

Luke, Volume 1 & Volume 2 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament | BECNT)

Regular price: $134.99

Add to cart

Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament | BECNT)

Regular price: $64.99

Add to cart

Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (4 vols.)

Regular price: $269.99

Add to cart

A Theology of Luke and Acts: God’s Promised Program, Realized for All Nations (Biblical Theology of the New Testament | BTNT)

Regular price: $42.99

Add to cart

Additional suggested resources on Acts

The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks Today | BST)

Regular price: $15.99

Add to cart

The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary | PNTC)

Regular price: $75.99

Add to cart

Acts (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament | ZECNT)

Regular price: $59.99

Add to cart

Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (IVP Bible Dictionary)

Regular price: $49.99

Add to cart

Mobile Ed: Darrell Bock Luke and Acts Bundle (3 courses)

Regular price: $559.99

Add to cart

Mobile Ed: NT211 Introducing the Gospels and Acts: Their Background, Nature, and Purpose (6 hour course)

Regular price: $229.99

Add to cart

Related articles

• Is It Wrong to Want to Be Rich? | Malcolm Foley on 1 Timothy 6:6–10
• To Have or to Hold? What the Bible Says About Money
• Baptism of the Holy Spirit: What It Means & How We Get It Wrong
• Acts of Persuasion: Why Did Gentiles Convert to Christianity?
• Women in Acts: Women’s Role in the Birth of the Church

If you want to go deeper into Scripture, one tool helps more than almost any other: a great study Bible. That’s why many pastors and teachers recommend that every Christian own at least one.

The Bible was written by dozens of authors in several languages across thousands of years. The books of the Bible emerged in cultures very different from each other—and all very different from our culture today. A good study Bible helps bridge the gap between us and the original writers (and readers) of the Bible. It explains historical background, literary context, and theological connections that might be easy for us to miss on our own. Whether you’re new to studying the Bible or looking to go deeper, the right study Bible can become one of the most valuable tools in your spiritual life.

But there’s one problem.

There are dozens of excellent study Bible options out there. Some focus on theology. Others emphasize archaeology, application, or biblical languages. With so many choices, finding the best study Bible for your needs can feel overwhelming.

Table of contents

In this guide, we’ll consider:

• What are study Bibles?
• Why use a study Bible?
• What are different types of study Bibles?
• What makes a good study Bible?
• What are the best study Bibles?
• FAQs
• Conclusion

What are study Bibles?

A standard Bible contains only the biblical text. A study Bible, however, includes additional tools designed to help you better understand Scripture. These often include:

• Verse-by-verse explanatory notes
• Historical background
• Detailed charts and maps
• Book introductions
• Articles on theology or biblical themes

In most study Bibles, the main text of Scripture appears at the top of the page, and the study notes appear below it. These notes are written by scholars who explain the historical, literary, and theological context of what you are reading.

In short, a study Bible is a miniature library of biblical scholarship placed next to the text of Scripture.

How do study Bible notes get written and reviewed?

Most major study Bibles are written by teams of biblical scholars. For example, the widely respected ESV Study Bible involved over ninety scholars and editors.

The process typically includes:

• Study notes written by subject experts
• Editorial review
• Theological review
• Final proofreading and revisions

This collaborative process helps ensure accuracy and clarity.

Are study Bibles biased toward certain interpretations?

Yes, at least to some degree. Every study Bible reflects the theological perspective of its contributors. Some lean Reformed. Others are Pentecostal. Many study Bibles are developed exclusively by scholars from a specific tradition (e.g., evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox).

That’s not necessarily a problem. But it’s wise to read the notes thoughtfully and remember they represent interpretations, not inspired Scripture.

Why use a study Bible?

The Bible was written long ago in cultures very different from our own. Without help, some passages can be difficult to understand. A good study Bible helps you:

• Understand historical context
• Recognize literary structure
• See connections between passages
• Grasp theological themes
• Apply Scripture to life

In other words, it helps you read the Bible more thoughtfully and accurately.

Do study Bibles help with understanding difficult passages?

Absolutely. A good study Bible can explain:

• Confusing Old Testament laws
• Difficult prophetic imagery
• Uncommon cultural practices
• Divisive theological topics

Instead of guessing what a passage means, you gain insight from scholars who have spent years studying the text.

What are the advantages of a digital study Bible?

Digital tools make study even easier. Platforms like the Logos Bible app allow you to:

• Conveniently access and open up your study Bible right to your passage (using tools like Logos’s Factbook and Insights).
• Open and compare multiple study Bibles at once.
• Sync your study Bibles with your Bible as you study and scroll.
• Quickly search your study Bibles’ comments or use Logos’s AI-powered Study Assistant to find answers from your resources, including your study Bibles.
• Easily record and save your own personal insights.
• Take your resources and study tools with you wherever you go.

Instead of flipping through several physical books, you can explore multiple digital resources in seconds, dramatically accelerating study. And alongside your study Bibles, Logos allows you to quickly compare translations, access original language tools, get answers to your theological questions, and more—empowering study for serious Bible readers.

Your Bible study resources are more powerful in Logos.
Try for yourself—for free!

What are different types of study Bibles?

Not all study Bibles aim to do the same thing. Understanding the main categories can help you choose the right one.

Commentary-based study Bibles

This is the most common type. These study Bibles explain the text verse by verse, much like a commentary. They contain detailed explanatory notes, theological articles, and historical background. For many readers, these are among the best study Bibles for serious study.

Devotional study Bibles

Some study Bibles focus primarily on application and spiritual growth, with notes that help readers ask practical questions about how the passage can shape their lives. For many believers, these are the best sort of study Bible for personal devotions.

Archaeological and historical study Bibles

Some study Bibles focus on the world behind the text. They immerse you in the geography, archaeology, and culture of the Bible. If you want to visualize the places where biblical events occurred, this type of study Bible can be incredibly helpful.

Topical study Bibles

Some study Bibles focus on specific themes or perspectives. Examples include chronological Bibles that arrange events historically. Others might focus on a specific denominational or theological perspective.

Academic study Bibles

There are a handful of study Bibles designed primarily for classroom and scholarly study rather than devotional reading. The notes tend to focus on historical background, literary structure, textual criticism, and scholarly debates about the biblical text. For readers who enjoy digging deeply into the academic study of Scripture, they provide a fascinating window into the world of biblical scholarship.

What makes a good study Bible?

Before choosing a study Bible, it helps to know what to look for. The best study Bibles typically include:

1. Clear explanatory notes. The notes should illuminate the text without overwhelming it.
2. Strong scholarship. Trusted contributors and editors matter.
3. Helpful cross-references. These reveal how Scripture interprets Scripture.
4. Book introductions. These provide historical and literary context.
5. Visual resources. Maps, charts, timelines, and diagrams improve engagement and comprehension.
6. Theological articles. Many study Bibles include essays on major doctrines and other theological topics.

What are the best study Bibles?

Here are several widely respected study Bibles used by pastors, teachers, and everyday Bible readers. I provide them in the order of the various types listed above.

1. ESV Study Bible

If you ask pastors and serious Bible students to name the best study Bible available today, the ESV Study Bible almost always makes the list. It’s incredibly thorough.

The notes lean theological and explanatory, helping you see how passages connect across the whole story of Scripture. It can feel a little dense at times, but that depth is exactly why so many keep coming back to it.

ESV Study Bible (Notes only)

Regular price: $39.99

Add to cart

ESV Study Bible (Bible and Notes)

Regular price: $44.99

Add to cart

2. NIV Study Bible

The NIV Study Bible has been helping Christians understand the Bible for decades, and for good reason. It strikes a really nice balance between clarity and depth. The notes explain historical context, cultural details, and tricky passages without overwhelming the reader.

For many people (myself included), this was the first study Bible that showed us how much more there was to discover in Scripture.

NIV Study Bible: Notes (Fully Revised Edition)

Regular price: $43.99

Add to cart

3. CSB Study Bible

The CSB Study Bible is a great all-around option that combines solid scholarship with an approachable tone. It doesn’t feel quite as dense as some academic study Bibles, but it still gives you meaningful insight into the text. I often recommend it to people who want a serious study Bible that still feels readable enough for everyday use.

CSB Study Bible (notes only)

Regular price: $23.99

Add to cart

CSB Study Bible (Bible and Notes)

Regular price: $31.99

Add to cart

4. Life Application Study Bible

The Life Application Study Bible (available in NLT, NIV, NKJV, and KJV) takes a slightly different approach. Instead of focusing mainly on historical explanations, its notes are designed to help you apply Scripture to everyday life. As you read, the notes constantly ask, “What does this mean for the way you live?” That makes it one of the most helpful study Bibles for personal devotions or for people who want to connect Bible reading directly to spiritual growth.

Life Application Study Bible Notes

Regular price: $24.99

Add to cart

5. NIV Application Bible

The NIV Application Bible is built around the idea that understanding Scripture happens in three movements:

1. what the text meant originally,
2. what theological principles it teaches, and
3. how those truths apply today.

The notes follow that pattern, guiding you step-by-step from the ancient world of the Bible to your own life.

This Bible uses study notes drawn from the longstanding NIV Application Commentary series. It’s thoughtful without being overwhelming, which makes it especially helpful for readers who want to grow both intellectually and spiritually.

NIV Application Bible Notes: Bringing the Ancient Message of the Bible into Your World (NIV Application Commentary Resources)

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

6. Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible

One of the most eye-opening ways to understand the Bible better is to learn more about the ancient world it came from. That’s exactly what the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible does.

Available in the NIV, NKJV, NRSV, and RVR (Spanish), it focuses heavily on the customs, beliefs, and daily life of the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman worlds. Reading the Bible with this kind of cultural insight often makes familiar passages feel brand new.

Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible Notes

Regular price: $39.99

Add to cart

7. CSB Holy Land Illustrated Study Bible

The CSB Holy Land Illustrated Bible is one of the most visually engaging study Bibles you’ll find. It’s filled with photographs, maps, and illustrations that help you picture the places where biblical events happened.

If you’ve ever wished you could walk through the geography of the Bible or see the landscapes where these stories unfolded, this Bible does a fantastic job bringing that world to life.

CSB Holy Land Illustrated Bible Notes

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

8. NET Full Notes Edition

The NET Full Notes Edition is truly unique among study Bibles. Instead of traditional commentary-style notes, it includes over sixty-thousand notes from the translators of the New English Translation (NET). These notes explain why the translation team made specific decisions when moving from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English.

If you’re curious about how Bible translation works, or you enjoy digging into textual details, this Bible is a treasure trove.

The NET Bible: Full Notes Edition (2nd ed.)

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

The NET Bible, Second Edition (NET) with Reverse Interlinear

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

The NET Bible: Full Notes Edition (1st ed.)

Regular price: $9.99

Add to cart

9. New Interpreter’s Study Bible

The New Interpreter’s Study Bible is a thoughtful option for readers who want to engage Scripture alongside serious academic scholarship. This Bible features the NRSV translation (with Apocrypha) and is based on a twelve-volume commentary series from a diverse team of biblical scholars. The tone feels more like a seminary classroom than a devotional guide, which can be helpful if you want to wrestle deeply with the biblical text and see how scholars approach difficult passages.

10. The New Oxford Annotated Bible

The New Oxford Annotated Bible has long been one of the most widely used study Bibles in academic settings. It’s the kind of Bible you’ll often see assigned in university or seminary courses. The notes focus heavily on historical context, literary structure, and scholarly interpretation.

If you’re curious about how biblical scholars analyze the text and its ancient context, this study Bible gives you a front-row seat to that conversation.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible: An Ecumenical Study Bible, Third Edition

Regular price: $14.99

Add to cart

11. SBL Study Bible

The SBL Study Bible is one of the newer entries in the study Bible world, and it reflects the work of the Society of Biblical Literature. It’s designed with academic study in mind, offering insights drawn from contemporary biblical scholarship and research.

What I appreciate about this one is that it helps readers see how modern scholars approach the Bible’s history, languages, and literary forms, making it a great resource for readers who want to explore Scripture through a more contemporary scholarly lens.

FAQs

Which is the best study Bible for beginners?

Many beginners benefit from the NIV Application Bible or the Life Application Study Bible. These study Bibles offer clear explanations, helpful introductions, and practical insights. They provide guidance without overwhelming new readers.

Which is the best study Bible for serious Bible study?

Readers looking for deeper scholarship often choose the ESV Study Bible or the NET Full Notes Edition. These resources provide extensive explanatory notes and detailed translation insights. They are particularly helpful for pastors, teachers, and advanced students.

Which is the best study Bible for historical and cultural context?

Two excellent options include the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (available in multiple translations) or the CSB Holy Land Illustrated Bible. These Bibles highlight archaeological discoveries, cultural practices, and historical settings that can greatly enrich your understanding of the biblical world.

How can I get the most from my study Bible?

Once you choose a study Bible, the next step is to learn to use it. Here are three simple habits.

1. Develop consistency

Consistency matters more than intensity. Choose a regular time and place to read. A mere fifteen to twenty minutes a day can lead to remarkable growth over time.

2. Read actively

Don’t just skim. Engage the text. Highlight or underline things that stand out. Write down questions that come to mind. Spend time journaling your insights. Active reading helps the truth stick.

3. Discuss what you learn

One of the best ways to deepen understanding is conversation. Talk with your spouse or a friend. Ask your pastor about your questions. Share with your small group. Scripture often becomes clearer when we process it together.

Conclusion

So which is the best study Bible? The “best” ultimately depends on your goals. Do you want theological depth, historical context, devotional guidance, or translation insight? Here are the best by category:

• Best overall: ESV Study Bible
• Best for beginners: NIV Study Bible
• Best for application: Life Application Study Bible
• Best for historical context: Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible
• Best for translation insight: NET Bible Full Notes Edition
• Best for academics: New Oxford Annotated Bible

That said, the best study Bible is the one you actually use, the one that helps you read and understand Scripture consistently.

Christians today have access to extraordinary study tools. But the goal is not simply to collect resources. The goal is to know God through his Word. A great study Bible can serve that goal by guiding you into deeper understanding, richer theology, and stronger faith.

So, choose one that fits your needs. Open it often. And let it guide you deeper into the story of Scripture.

Share your thoughts

Which study Bible is your favorite? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Related articles

• 3 Things You Should Look for in a Good Study Bible
• 10 Grievances about Study Bibles (& Which Are Best)
• 10 Single-Volume Commentaries, Suggested by Logos Users
• Bible Dictionaries: What They Are & Why They Matter
• The Definitive Guide to Bible Commentaries: Types, Perspectives, and Use

What do all Christians have in common?

When browsing social media, you might think Christians have little in common—besides our ongoing disagreements over politics, modes of baptism, proper use of spiritual gifts, interpreting the end times, models of Trinitarianism, and much more. Understandably, we may identify ourselves as Christians, but we tend to add specific denominational or theological modifiers (e.g., evangelical, Reformed, Pentecostal, Arminian, dispensational, etc.). It’s become like introducing oneself: “Hi, I’m so-and-so, and I’m a [fill in the blank].”

Yet despite our theological and denominational differences,²⁰ Christians share a common identity: Above all else, we are all disciples of Jesus Christ.

But what exactly is a disciple, and what is discipleship?

What is a disciple and discipleship?

Sometimes a word or phrase becomes overused to the point that we use it without clearly explaining or agreeing on its meaning. For instance, we might throw around “gospel-centered” without clearly defining what the gospel is (and isn’t)—or what it actually means for our ministries to be “centered” around it.²¹ The same is true for the words “disciple” and “discipleship.”

Simply put, a disciple of Jesus is a Christian (see Acts 11:26).²² As Peter Morden says, “All disciples of Jesus are Christians and all Christians are disciples.”²³

The word disciple refers to “an adherent, pupil, apprentice, or follower. More specifically, a ‘disciple’ is regularly defined in the realm of knowledge and learning. … A disciple is thus someone who learns, who understands, who gains wisdom.”²⁴ Thus, disciples of Jesus are not just believers in Jesus. We are followers, learners, imitators, and students of our Master Teacher, Jesus. Disciples are believers who believe, followers who follow, learners who learn.

Discipleship, then, is the process of learning from Jesus, following his ways and words, and teaching others to do likewise.²⁵ Paul models this approach of discipleship in Philippians 4:9. By helping others become more like Christ through instruction and imitation, he tells the Philippians to “do” (CSB) or “put into practice” (NIV) what they’ve “learned,” “received,” “heard,” and “seen” in him.²⁶

In discipleship, what we do (following Jesus) reflects who we are (followers of Jesus; Matt 16:24; 28:19–20; John 8:31–32; 15:8). Being a disciple involves both our identity and our actions—who we are and what we do.

Your books are smarter and more powerful in Logos.
Start your free trial today!

5 notable books on discipleship

Of course, grasping the meaning of discipleship is one thing. Living it out is another.

So if you’re looking to go deeper, the following books are among the most helpful I’ve found.

1. Theology as Discipleship, by Keith L. Johnson

Sometimes we divide Christians into two groups: intellectual theology nerds and practical Jesus followers. You either have academic interests (a thinker) or you’re into practical application (a doer).

As Keith Johnson’s students often ask him, “What difference does theology actually make for our lives?” and “Shouldn’t we just focus on following Jesus?”²⁷ Those are valid questions, especially as we consider what discipleship entails.

Johnson contends that believers ought not to choose between theology and discipleship, since the two should inform one another: The way to live out discipleship is through the discipline of theology.²⁸ If learning is central to being a disciple (see above), we follow Jesus by studying his Word (theology), which then guides our actions (application).

In other words, studying theology is part of discipleship: Teachers and pastors teach others to discipline the mind through theological study. This then guides the heart to obey Jesus and equips us to help others do the same through his Word.

Theology is not secondary to discipleship. Theology informs discipleship.

Theology as Discipleship

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

2. Deep Discipleship: How the Church Can Make Whole Disciples of Jesus, by J. T. English

English’s central insight is that everyone is being discipled—shaped, formed, or influenced—either by the world or by the church.²⁹ Two key takeaways from this stand out:

1. Deep discipleship means churches need more Bible, theology, spiritual disciplines, gospel, and Christ, not less.
2. The goal of deep discipleship focuses on God, not on church growth or church programs.³⁰

Also helpful: While churches often choose between Sunday school and small groups, English recognizes the value of both contexts for discipleship. Disciples benefit from being mentored in theological instruction (Sunday school) and imitation (small groups).³¹

Church leaders will find this book especially useful for understanding how to cultivate followers of Jesus across various settings: church services, Sunday school, small groups, and even theological training programs or Bible institutes. Deep discipleship means more theology and more Jesus, not less.

Deep Discipleship: How the Church Can Make Whole Disciples of Jesus

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

3. Discipling: How to Help Others Follow Jesus, by Mark Dever

For those seeking a straightforward introduction, Mark Dever’s book covers the key parts of discipling:

• the what (the nature of discipleship)
• the where (the place of discipleship)
• the how (the process of discipleship)

Yet Dever first clarifies that being a “disciple of Christ … does not begin with something we do. It begins with something Christ did.”³² We become disciples not by first acting but by believing in Christ’s perfect obedience on our behalf. Christians become followers of Jesus, but we don’t become Christians by following Jesus: Our acceptance precedes our obedience (Eph 2:8–10; Titus 3:4–8).

Dever keeps it simple: Discipleship according to Scripture is about following Christ and teaching others to do the same. It involves obeying Jesus by loving God and neighbor, demonstrated through teaching God’s Word and modeled within the local church. While individual believers are to make other disciples, Dever argues that the local church is the primary discipler of believers.³³

Further, discipling isn’t just about mentoring other believers. It also involves helping non-Christians come to know Christ. In other words, discipling includes evangelism (Matt 28:19–20).³⁴

Discipling: How to Help Others Follow Jesus (9Marks Building Healthy Churches Series)

Regular price: $9.99

Add to cart

4. Hearers and Doers: A Pastor’s Guide to Making Disciples Through Scripture and Doctrine, by Kevin J. Vanhoozer

This book is intended for pastors, and its title draws on James 1:22–25 and Jesus’s call for how true disciples respond to him: by hearing and doing (Matt 7:24). Vanhoozer’s big idea is that true disciples are those who hear and do Christ’s word, and the job of the pastor is to make disciples of Christ by training them toward that end.³⁵

For Vanhoozer, then, pastors make disciples by teaching and training believers to read the Bible properly, namely, to be hearers and doers, spiritually fit for godliness (1 Cor 11:1; Eph 4:11–12; 1 Tim 4:12; Titus 2:7; 1 Pet 5:3).³⁶ This is what truly shapes people into disciples who imitate Christ (Luke 8:21; 11:28).

Finally, this very pattern should be reflected in pastors, who themselves listen to and live by Scripture and doctrine (Matt 4:4; 1 Tim 4:6, 15–16). Pastors disciple others through preaching and practice—by their own hearing and doing.

Hearers and Doers: A Pastor’s Guide to Making Disciples Through Scripture and Doctrine

Regular price: $13.99

Add to cart

5. The Imperfect Disciple: Grace for People Who Can’t Get Their Act Together, by Jared C. Wilson

Wilson loves to write books that consistently remind his readers to know, love, and follow Jesus above everything else.

So here, Wilson writes with raw honesty and transparency, not to those who have it all together or have everything figured out, but to those who may have encountered discipleship books with unrealistic expectations. His book is for everyday disciples—those like me and possibly you—who struggle to pursue discipleship.³⁷

While other books on discipleship helpfully outline how to disciple and be discipled, Wilson warns that following such programs can often lead to disappointment, discouragement, and despair, particularly when we find ourselves thinking we can become better disciples by focusing on discipleship itself—rather than on Jesus (Matt 11:28–30; Heb 12:2–3).³⁸ But following Jesus is not primarily about doing but about being with him. It is not primarily about behaving but about beholding, with behaving flowing from that beholding (2 Cor 3:18). Only by his grace can we believe, behold, and behave.

The Imperfect Disciple: Grace for People Who Can’t Get Their Act Together

Regular price: $11.00

Add to cart

Share your thoughts

What books on discipleship might you add? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Additional resources on discipleship

Mobile Ed: Discipleship Training Bundle (3 courses)

Regular price: $499.99

Add to cart

Bill Hull Discipleship Collection (4 vols.)

Regular price: $59.99

Add to cart

Design for Discipleship Collection (8 vols.)

Regular price: $49.99

Add to cart

Transforming Discipleship: Making Disciples a Few at a Time

Regular price: $7.99

Add to cart

Discipleship (Reader’s Edition)

Regular price: $9.99

Add to cart

Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament

Regular price: $33.99

Add to cart

A Long Obedience in the Same Direction: Discipleship in an Instant Society, Commemorative Edition

Regular price: $13.99

Add to cart

“Here Are Your Gods”: Faithful Discipleship in Idolatrous Times

Regular price: $15.99

Add to cart

Related content

• How the Bible Defines Discipleship: 12 Core Elements
• Does Your Church Have a Discipleship Culture? How to Cultivate It
• Deep Discipleship in a Digital Age: Rethinking Church, Ministry, and Life Together in an Online World
• Family Discipleship: 5 Easy Things You Can Do with Your Kids
• Why Theology Is for Everyone & How the Church Can Provide Training

Before Jesus ascended to heaven, he gave one final command: Make disciples.

From Abraham who was called to leave his country for an unknown land (Gen 12:1–3) to the Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20), the Lord’s command to all believers is to follow him in humble faith and obedience. It’s a charge that most Christians recognize and affirm as their own.

Yet in our modern world, the language of discipleship has waned—along with a clear grasp of what it truly means. The very image can feel distant and antiquated to us: a band of rugged fishermen trailing behind a rabbi. The image does not translate easily into contemporary life.

While the language feels foreign in today’s world, the concept of discipleship remains relevant and integral to modern Christian life. And for those of us in ministry, understanding the Bible’s description of discipleship is vital if we are to disciple others.

To walk this path faithfully, let’s first consider what Scripture means by the word “disciple.”

What is a “disciple”?

The English word disciple traces back to the Latin discipulus and the Greek μαθητής. Both derive from verbs meaning “to learn.” By the time of the New Testament, the term had deepened.³⁹ Learning remained central, but true discipleship required conformity to the master’s whole way of life, as well.

In the Gospels, disciple is the primary term used to describe a follower of Jesus. Likewise, Luke informs us that in the early church the word also meant believer. Luke uses the two words interchangeably (Acts 4:32; 5:14; 6:1–2, 7; 9:25–26; 10:45; 14:21–22). Acts 11:26 shows us the terms Christian and disciple were also synonymous.⁴⁰

This language of discipleship then conveys both learning from Christ and imitating his life. But this leads us to another important question: What does discipleship actually look like in practice, according to the Bible?

What does discipleship look like in practice?

To this end, let’s consider twelve core traits of discipleship as presented in Scripture.

1. Discipleship begins with a call

The picture of discipleship painted in the Gospels is remarkably simple, yet strikingly demanding. Jesus calls individuals to follow him. They drop everything and obey (e.g., Matt 4:18–22; Luke 5:27–28).

Such immediate obedience has only one explanation: the absolute authority of Jesus. As Bonhoeffer observes, “It is Jesus who calls, and because it is Jesus, Levi follows at once. This encounter is a testimony to the absolute, direct, and unaccountable authority of Jesus.”⁴¹

This same authority continues after Jesus’s ascension, as the apostles become his appointed witnesses and mouthpieces. The call to follow Christ is now proclaimed through the apostles—and it still resounds today. It is a call we are invited not only to answer but also to proclaim (Rom 10:14–17).

2. Discipleship is rooted in grace

The call and response of discipleship are rooted in God’s grace. God’s saving grace is not only the starting point but also that which sustains and enables us at every stage of discipleship. He not only forgives us of our sins but grants us further grace to overcome the flesh and grow spiritually.

This grace was costly: “You were bought with a price” (1 Cor 6:20). Bonhoeffer warned us against cheap grace—this idea of “grace” without discipleship.⁴² Thus we depend on that grace, knowing that apart from Christ, we can do nothing (John 15:5).

3. Discipleship exists by faith

Discipleship does not follow conversion, as if it were a second stage in the Christian life. Conversion initiates discipleship and is synonymous with the Christian life. All true believers are disciples. We follow Jesus at each step in our journey of faith.

True faith is not passive: It is active, responsive, and enduring.

With Logos’s Smart Search, search the Bible for passages on discipleship and get a summary of its findings. Start your free trial.

4. Discipleship ignites spiritual growth

Discipleship entails an inside-out transformation inspired by the indwelling, empowering presence of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15–17; Gal 5:22–23). The Spirit produces growth, shaping both character and conduct.

As we abide in him, Jesus promises, “you will bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples” (John 15:8). Growth is not self-generated. It is Spirit-empowered and Christ-centered.

5. Discipleship informs our ethical life

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus depicts this obedience in a significantly deeper way than the Jewish leaders of his day were espousing: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). External obedience is not enough. Jesus took the law further, to its implications. Thoughts and motives are as important as actions (Matt 5:21–28). Love is to be the primary theme of a disciple’s life (Matt 5:43–45).

Responding to Jesus’s call requires obedience. His disciples are known by their good fruit and will be accountable before the Lord (Matt 7:15–20, 21–23).

6. Discipleship immerses us into community

Central to the early church’s discipleship was integration into its community (e.g., Acts 2:41–47). The basis of this fellowship was a shared union with Christ. Luke employs the term ὁμοθυμαδόν (“one accord” or “together”) to emphasize the unity of the early church (e.g., Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 15:25).

Shared life is not incidental to discipleship. It is essential. Following Christ was never meant to be an individual pursuit. To be united to Christ is to be united to his people. Through daily habits of reading and teaching Scripture, offering prayer, and gathering for table fellowship, early believers were progressively formed as disciples of Jesus.

7. Discipleship pursues truth

The apostles’ teaching anchored the community of believers in truth (“they were devoted to the apostles teaching”; Acts 2:42). As eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life and ministry, the apostles provided doctrinal clarity and practical instruction.

Yet discipleship was not just about gaining knowledge but also about transformed living. True belief and righteous living are inseparable (see Titus 1:1).

8. Discipleship depends on prayer

Prayer was central to the life of the early church, indicating their dependence on the Holy Spirit. Growth in discipleship cannot be a self-reliant effort. The early disciples’ daily presence in the temple reflected this devotion (Acts 2:46), following the pattern of Jesus himself (Luke 19:47; 21:37; 22:52–53).

As believers in the early church gathered in unity, their prayers aligned their hearts with God’s will and empowered their witness (Acts 4:23–31).

9. Discipleship multiplies

Discipleship is never meant to stop with us. Followers of Jesus are called to bear witness and invite others into the same journey of following him.

The Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20; see also Acts 1:8) makes this call abundantly clear. Our witness is empowered by the Holy Spirit and extends outward to neighbors and to the nations.

10. Discipleship comes at a cost

At times, the Gospels present us with a shocking picture of what Jesus requires of those who wish to follow him. A disciple must “count the cost” (Luke 14:28). “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34).

This may be a far cry from what many consider it must mean to be a Christian. But Scripture is clear: Discipleship is not merely about belief—it is about participation. To belong to Christ is to be united with him in his death. Paul boldly asserts that we have “been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20).

Yet, death is not the end—it is the pathway to life (see Rom 6:4). The cost of discipleship is indeed great, but the reward is infinitely greater.

11. Discipleship endures suffering

As Jesus’s mission becomes clearer—that he did not come to establish an earthly kingdom—the crowds eventually call for his crucifixion. Even his closest followers struggle to understand. Their faith is tested. Chapters earlier, when Jesus began teaching his disciples that he would suffer, Peter rebuked him (Matt 16:22–23). Why? As Bonhoeffer observes, the idea of a suffering Messiah “was a scandal.”⁴³

Yet those who follow a suffering savior should expect to experience suffering as well. As Jesus explains, “You will be hated by all for my name’s sake,” for “a disciple is not above his teacher” (Matt 10:16–25).

The feeding of the five thousand marks a turning point in Jesus’s ministry. After the crowds turn away from Jesus (John 6:60, 66; cf. John 6:22–59), Jesus asks the twelve if they, too, will leave. Peter replies: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68–69). This kind of absolute trust and abandonment to Christ marks true discipleship.

12. Discipleship is marked by love

Love is the greatest command. We are called to love God above all and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:37–40).

These words are familiar and easily recited but far more difficult to embody. The brokenness around us testifies to this. We must fervently pray and encourage one another to live out of the self-giving love of Christ, so that, as Jesus indicated, all people will know that we are his disciples (John 13:34–35).

Conclusion

These elements are not exhaustive, but they provide a framework to help us understand and faithfully live out discipleship today. Discipleship is not a program or system but a dynamic and relational way of life.

As we walk in faithful dependence on our Master, may the Holy Spirit transform us into his very image (2 Cor 3:18).

Share your thoughts

How would you define discipleship? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Jeanette Pifer’s recommended resources on discipleship

• Goodrich, John K., and Mark L. Strauss, eds. Following Jesus Christ: The New Testament Message of Discipleship for Today. Kregel Academic, 2019.

Discipleship (Reader’s Edition)

Regular price: $9.99

Add to cart

Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament

Regular price: $33.99

Add to cart

Following the Master: A Biblical Theology of Discipleship

Regular price: $15.99

Add to cart

The Great Omission: Reclaiming Jesus’s Essential Teachings on Discipleship

Regular price: $13.99

Add to cart

The Kingdom Life: A Practical Theology of Discipleship and Spiritual Formation

Regular price: $10.99

Add to cart

Related content

• Does Your Church Have a Discipleship Culture? How to Cultivate It
• Deep Discipleship in a Digital Age: Rethinking Church, Ministry & Life Together in an Online World
• Family Discipleship: 5 Easy Things You Can Do with Your Kids
• What Is Sanctification? A Biblical Definition
• How the Great Commission Echoes the Old Testament

My motivation was partly personal. At the time I began my research, I suffered from a complicated relationship with Christianity. I wanted to better understand both how I related to it and how Christians related to me. For many years, I had been part of a statistical cohort that showed a pronounced negative correlation between autism and Christian practice.

To put it simply, autistic people are less likely to be Christian than their non-autistic counterparts, and far less likely if they live in more secular areas (when you control for other factors).

I was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome at age sixteen. I then deconverted from conservative evangelicalism at nineteen during my second year of military college. Eventually, I made my way back to Christianity after ten strange and meandering years. But for a very long time, I, like many autistic men my age, directly attributed my lack of religious belief to my autism.

I’ve now spent the past twelve years researching the intersection of a belief in a normative orthodox understanding of Christianity and Level 1 autism (ASD 1).⁴⁴ I’ve sampled and surveyed around 26,000 online Level 1 autistics. The findings have been illuminating—but bleak, and they should be of concern to all Christians. When it comes to Christianity, many of us are falling through the cracks.

But the good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way.

Is autism incompatible with Christianity?

The exact reasons why we are less likely to be Christian are complicated and would take an entire book to litigate. But the summary is this: The necessary work of translating Christian ideas into forms that autistic people can more readily grasp has often not been done.

This stems mostly from the fact that within many Christian circles, autism in all its forms remains little understood. Autistic ways of thinking and processing are often construed by pastors and clergy as problems to fix, rather than as different ways of understanding.

A foreign language

Consider the distinction many Christians draw between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge.” In many Christian circles, intellectual knowledge is seen as “nice to have,” while the truest expression of the Christian faith is associated with the “heart.” This poses a fundamental distinction that most autistic Christians simply do not make and often do not understand. For many of us, systematized analysis and intellectual rigor are our heart language, the mother tongue to which we most naturally respond. Pastors often fail to understand this, and so send us searching for a “heart knowledge” that is simply not compatible with the way we process reality.

Another example that routinely comes up in my research is the concept of a “personal relationship with Jesus.” I’ve conducted around 640 long-form interviews with autistic Christians and ex-Christians about their understanding and experiences with Christianity. One finding that often surprises people is that 85 percent of autistic practicing Christians are confused by—or unsure what is meant by—this concept. This is less surprising when you consider that autism is characterized by the DSM as involving social and communication deficits affecting social-emotional reciprocity, non-verbal communication, and developing relationships.

Other common forms of Christian expression—like spontaneous verbal prayer, ecstatic emotional expression, and emotional spontaneity—are foreign and confusing to most of us and often difficult to naturally express.

A failure to translate

Unfortunately, we often fail to work with these quirks in cognitive styles that process the world in very different ways. Instead, we try to fit the square peg of autism into the round hole of a form of Christianity that was not built for people who think like us.

One of the most common sentiments expressed by autistic people online is: “Christianity is a religion by neurotypicals for neurotypicals.” While I disagree with this, I understand why they say it. Often, when pastors preach, when Christian authors write books, when we build guides for mentoring Christians, the assumption is almost always that the target person does not have autism.

This is a reasonable assumption—we make up at most 3 percent of the population. But it often creates a situation in which our needs are not met, our concerns go unaddressed, and the particularities of people with our condition are treated like a burden. While I don’t think the church should change everything it does to suit our needs, a very good case exists for reasonable accommodation.

Contextualizing Christianity for autistics

The good news is that there is no need to force the square peg into the round hole. Christianity is a very rich and diverse tradition. There are plenty of square holes in every Christian denomination for us to slot into, if we learn where to look.

There is nothing about autism that makes us inherently less likely to be Christian. The problem, rather, is that we have simply not heard a form of Christianity that makes sense to us. That, or we’ve tried to force an incompatible expression of Christianity through a brain that couldn’t comprehend it.

Christianity and contextualization

In 1 Corinthians 12:12–27, Paul uses the body as a metaphor for the diversity of the church and those in it.

He rightfully asks, “If all were a single member, where would the body be?” (1 Cor 12:19). In many ways we have forgotten Paul’s words. Instead of letting our autistic brothers and sisters be a different part of the body—one that functions differently, processes differently, and interprets the world differently—we try to force them to be a body part they are not. Or because they are different, we treat them as outsiders with no use to the body of Christ.

In Acts 17:16–34, the Apostle Paul speaks in the Areopagus to the gathered Athenians after noticing an altar dedicated to “the Unknown God.” In this speech, Paul presents the gospel in ways his hearers would understand, using their own philosophy, context, and cultural concepts. Instead of expecting the Athenians to adapt to him in order to hear the gospel, he accommodates to the concepts and language they understand in order to explain what Christ had done for them.

Christians have been following Paul’s example ever since. For the next two thousand years, Christian missionaries would bring the gospel to countless different cultures and shape its message into terms and concepts that local peoples could more intuitively understand. This process of shaping the gospel message into terms more readily understood by a host culture, without compromising its essential nature, is called contextualization. It is widely seen as a necessary precondition for evangelization.

This work has taken many interesting forms. One of my favorites is the Heliand, a ninth-century work written to explain the gospel to a resistant population of Saxons. It retells the Gospels using language, context, and concepts familiar to a Germanic warrior society; that is, it retells the gospel narrative as a Germanic epic poem, with the Scriptures reimagined as “secret runes” and Jesus as a “warrior–chieftain” who, powerful in divine knowledge, defied “Fate” (i.e., Death) and won, proving himself mightier than even the likes of Odin and Thor.

But not all examples of contextualizing are cross-cultural. Many Christian writers have taken up the great work of contextualizing Christianity to their own (often Christianized) cultures. For example, C. S. Lewis is one of the great contextualizers of the twentieth century, as most of his writing is best understood as contextualizing Christianity for a secularizing Britain. Every act of translating the Bible into the vernacular is another example of contextualization.

The animating motivation behind contextualization is the belief that Christianity should be accessible to everyone, and that making it accessible requires translating it into people’s mother tongue.

Autism and contextualization

To be autistic often feels like you were born on the wrong planet. In fact, one of the earliest autism internet forums was named Wrong Planet. Most people seem foreign to you. The way they act is confusing, the way they talk doesn’t make sense, their social expectations seem arbitrary, their rules are not intuitive, and nothing you say or do ever seems quite right.

Another common way autistic people describe their experiences is to compare it to constantly speaking in a second, learned language and never your mother tongue. Autistics often describe feeling lost in translation. For many autistic people, their experience with Christianity is no exception.

If we want to ensure that autistic people don’t fall through the cracks, apostatize, or reject the messages we try to deliver, we need to take seriously the work of contextualization for the autistic population. The good news is that Christianity has been doing this for a long time. We don’t need to reinvent anything. We simply need to borrow from this past.

How do we do this? 5 practical takeaways

While there is no single solution, several initial principles can guide this work.

1. Commit to the work

One challenge is that autism is a very heterogeneous condition: The accommodations needed and the way each person will think and process things differ greatly between individuals. As a result, contextualizing Christianity for autistic people will not be as simple as producing a new translation. It will require a long and continuous process of shaping and refining how we communicate to autistics who are wrestling with Christianity. There will be no silver bullets when it comes to translating Christian concepts into a form more easily understood by Level 1 autistic people.

That said, translation is possible. For example, while around 85 percent of autistic Christians are confused by or unsure about the term “personal relationship with Jesus,” only around 7 percent struggle with “discipleship.” Doing something as simple as changing conversations about a personal relationship with Jesus to ones about discipleship can significantly reduce confusion without changing much, if any, theological or biblical teaching.

2. Don’t mistake difference for sin

Autistic people will see things differently; they will process information differently; and they will interpret relationships and social dynamics differently.

Christians often interpret these differences as sin, disobedience, defiance, or a lack of spiritual fruit, when in fact they are simply differences in neurodevelopment. While autistic people are undoubtedly imperfect and sin like everyone else, differences that are often benign are treated as matters of spiritual failure.

One very common example: As part of their spiritual development, autistic people will want to “get to the bottom” of a question. This typically involves asking many questions, pointing out inconsistencies, and debating in order to work through their problem. This often gets misread as combativeness or challenging authority. Often the autistic person is completely unaware of how they are coming across and gets confused when they receive correction. For example, many an autistic person gets into hot water for engaging their group Bible study less like a cordial discussion and more like a debate to uncover the truth.

3. Expect varied fruit

Because people are different, the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22–23) will often express themselves differently in an autistic person than a non-autistic person. What love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control look like in someone without autism will often be quite different from what they look like in an autistic person.

We know that these qualities take different forms across different genders, ages, and cultures. Yet for some reason, we fail to extend that same expectation to differences in neurodevelopment. We unfortunately expect these fruits to appear identical. But fruit looks different when it grows on different trees.

For an autistic Christian, joy can look like sharing long, monotone monologues about a book by an obscure Dutch theologian. It might not look like ecstatic emotional expression, or much emotional expression at all. In fact, trying to force them to fit that mold can actually make them less likely to genuinely possess that fruit.

4. Be flexible

Autistic people can be a bit odd. Your conventional approaches may not work as expected. Even as someone who has autism, studied autistic Christians for twelve years now, and spent the better part of five years working to translate Christianity to autistics, I still don’t know what will work with a specific person.

Go into your engagements with an open mind and be willing to change course. As they say, throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. Don’t be afraid to try things, explain things, or move on when something clearly isn’t working.

5. Entertain questions

Autistic people will have questions—hundreds, maybe thousands. Many will seem very odd. Most won’t be of the type you could anticipate. Their level of specificity might be startling. But even if you don’t understand why a question is being asked, or even if you think it strange, take it seriously. Your rule: There is no such thing as a dumb question. Those with autism often need the full picture before we can commit to something. The gist often doesn’t cut it.

I sometimes jest that the autistic love language is intellectual engagement—but it’s a joke that isn’t far from the truth. A very concerned young man once came to me with a question about the inspiration of Scripture. While I thought his question would be about Bible contradictions or historicity, he was much more concerned with figuring out timelines. He had brought a diagram with him containing two columns: “If Paul wrote Timothy” and “If someone else wrote Timothy.” He had read 2 Timothy 3:16–17 and concluded that its referents excluded “scriptures” not yet written at the time. So he was trying to figure out which books of the Bible were “God-breathed” based on the dating of 2 Timothy. Answering his question took around five hours of discussion about canonicity, followed by many more hours of follow-up questions.

Conclusion

So is Christianity a religion by neurotypicals and for neurotypicals?

My response: That might feel true. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Share your thoughts

How can Christians work to embrace autistic ways of understanding within their churches and relationships? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Resources for further reflection

Autism Spectrum Disorder: Meeting Challenges with Hope

Regular price: $4.99

Add to cart

On the Spectrum: Autism, Faith, and the Gifts of Neurodiversity

Regular price: $11.99

Add to cart

Disability and the Church: A Vision for Diversity and Inclusion

Regular price: $14.99

Add to cart

Jesus and Disability: A Guide to Creating an Inclusive Church

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

Belonging: Accessibility, Inclusion, and Christian Community (LifeGuide Bible Studies)

Regular price: $8.99

Add to cart

Uncomfortable: The Awkward and Essential Challenge of Christian Community

Regular price: $11.99

Add to cart

Related content

• What Does It Mean to Be Human? Theological Anthropology
• When Autism Comes to Church: Practical Advice for Parents & Pastors
• Is Your Church Truly Healthy? Look to Love, Not Metrics
• Mental Illness and Ministry: A “Whole-Person” Pastoral Approach
• Who Sinned? Maybe No One: Mental Health & Broken Embodiment

The baptism and subsequent temptation of Jesus not only stand at the outset of Jesus’s public ministry, but as a pair of events they also seem to set the terms for it. In his baptism, Jesus is anointed for his mission, even as his subsequent temptation in the wilderness seeks to draw him away from it. Together, these events help us to understand all that follows, revealing Jesus’s relationship to the Father and the devil’s place as his primary antagonist.

The Synoptic Gospels record three distinct accounts of Jesus’s temptation (Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). All three bear common witness to the fact that, after his baptism by John in the Jordan, Jesus went into the wilderness for forty days. Matthew and Luke note that he spent this period fasting. Towards the end of the period, he was tempted by the devil (named Satan in Mark’s account), after which he was ministered to by angels (in Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts).

But what exactly was at stake in each of these temptations, and what do they reveal about the work of Christ?

Old Testament background: the last Adam, a faithful Israel

Jesus’s time in the wilderness recalls several Old Testament events. In 1 Kings, Elijah fasted for forty days and nights in the wilderness (1 Kgs 19:8), after which he was commissioned for a series of tasks by the Lord. Elsewhere, in 1 Samuel, the great giant Goliath stood against Israel for forty days (1 Sam 17:16) before the newly anointed David crushed his head with a stone from his sling.

However, the events that provide a more prominent backdrop for the temptation of Jesus are the fall of Genesis 3 and Israel’s forty years of testing in the wilderness during the Exodus. The serpent tempted Eve in Eden and humanity fell by eating the forbidden fruit. The devil’s tempting of Jesus in the wilderness, especially the first temptation, provides a stark contrast: The last Adam proves faithful in much harsher conditions than those in which our first father fell.

After Israel refused to enter the promised land, they were condemned to wander until forty years had passed. Most members of the Exodus generation died out. A chief purpose of the wilderness was to teach Israel trust and obedience in God through trial. As God’s “firstborn son” (cf. Exod 4:22), Israel proved unfaithful. Yet through the bitter consequences of their failures, God taught them many lessons.

Toward the end of the forty years, Moses reminded the children of Israel of these lessons in a series of addresses recorded in the book of Deuteronomy. It is noteworthy that, as Jesus answers the temptations of the devil, he quotes from this teaching in Deuteronomy (Matt 4:4, 7, 10; cf. Deut 8:3; 6:13, 16).

Matthew’s Gospel, in particular, presents Jesus as recapitulating the story of Israel. He undergoes the same tests and experiences yet proves faithful where they had failed. The baptism of Jesus recalls the Red Sea crossing, after which Jesus was “led up by the Spirit into the wilderness” (Matt 4:1), much as Israel had been led by the pillar of cloud and fire. The story of Jesus’s temptation echoes Israel’s wilderness experience, but with a Son who is obedient to his Father.

Matthew’s placing of the temptation on the high mountain—where Jesus is shown his inheritance of the kingdoms of the world—as the final in the sequence (but the second in Luke’s account) might also remind the reader of Deuteronomy 34. Like Moses on Mount Nebo, Jesus must die before he can enter the promise.

The Spirit’s role: distinct portrayals

The Spirit’s role is one of several differences between the Gospels’ accounts of the temptations. For instance, while each of the accounts tells us that Jesus went into the wilderness by the instigation of the Spirit, this fact is recorded in sharply contrasting ways.

In Matthew’s account, Jesus was “led up by the Spirit into the wilderness” (Matt 4:1). This wording recalls descriptions of the Exodus (e.g., Exod 13:18; Jer 2:6; Amos 2:10).

In Mark, the Spirit “drove him out into the wilderness” (Mark 1:12), the language of expulsion and exile. Considering Mark’s focus upon Jesus as the Son of God, the one anointed to be king, we might consider David fleeing from Saul’s court and being tested in the wilderness, where he faithfully resisted the temptation to avenge himself or to seize the kingdom before God’s appointed time (e.g., 1 Sam 24–26). Jesus, David’s greater son, is similarly tested.

Luke’s description contrasts with both: “And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit … was led by [or brought in by] the Spirit into the wilderness” (Luke 4:1). This wording is not unlike descriptions of prophetic visionary journeys, such as that related in Ezekiel 37:1: “The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley.” Luke’s account of Jesus’s baptism (Luke 3:21–23) already recalls the start of Ezekiel, where, in the thirtieth year by the river, the prophet saw the heavens opened and God descending (Ezek 1:1).

Satan’s 3 temptations

1. To turn stones into bread

Following Matthew’s ordering, the first temptation is to turn stones into bread. In the context, which mentions Jesus’s hunger, this temptation appeals to Jesus’s natural desire for food after forty days of fasting. While this would seem to be an entirely reasonable thing for Jesus to do under the circumstances, as he is being led by the Spirit in his fast, doing so would prioritize satisfying his intense physical hunger over pursuing his mission.

Jesus responds to the devil by quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, where Moses reminded the Israelites of the way that God taught that obedience and dependence through their hunger and his miraculous provision of the manna. Jesus was in a similar situation, and he entrusted himself to God’s care.

2. To cast himself from the temple

The second temptation, for Jesus to cast himself down from the “wing” of the temple, is a difficult one to interpret. Some commentators understand it as the temptation to perform a dramatic sign, causing people to believe in him. Attractive as this interpretation might be, I think it more likely relates to the temple as the symbol of the realm of God’s special presence amidst his people.

The temptation was a temptation to abandon the house, and Israel with it. Quoting from Psalm 91, the devil assured Jesus that God would protect him if he did so. Had Jesus not resisted it, he could have abandoned Israel and his mission of salvation. God would have protected him, and he would have saved his own skin (much as Moses could have allowed God to destroy the children of Israel and start again with him alone in Exodus 32:10), but God’s house would have been surrendered to the devil along with the people whom he was meant to save from destruction.

Deuteronomy 6:16, which Jesus quoted in response, reminded Israel of Massah, where they had questioned God’s good purpose for and presence with them. Israel had rebelled against God’s leading of them into the difficulties of the wilderness, but God’s presence is to be known in the path of his leading. Rejecting that path in order to avoid its difficulties put God to the test.

3. To receive the kingdoms of the world

Like the second, the third temptation, to receive all the kingdoms of the world by submitting to the devil, offered Jesus an alternative to the cross. Instead of the way of the cross, Jesus could simply bow to the devil, receiving rule without suffering, gaining the good end of the kingdom through satanic means. We could compare this to David’s temptation to gain the kingdom by assassinating Saul in 1 Samuel 24 and 26: While he was to receive the kingdom, he had faithfully to endure suffering to do so.

Get answers to your Bible questions from reliable resources with Logos’s Study Assistant. Start your free trial.

Jesus’s rejection in Nazareth: the temptation’s sequel

Luke’s account of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is followed by his rejection in Nazareth. It is illuminating to read it alongside Luke’s ordering of the temptations (where Matthew’s second and third temptations are reversed in their ordering), as there are parallels with each.

After Jesus declares the words of Isaiah 61:1–2 from the scroll, the people marveled “at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth” (Luke 4:22). When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in response to his first temptation in Luke’s account, the second half of the verse (“but … by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord”) was missing, but the description of the people’s response recalls it.

As Jesus declares his mission from the words of the scroll, he is showing what it means for him to live by the word of God.⁴⁵ Jesus’s food is to do the will of God, to perform the mission he is given (John 4:31–34). Like Ezekiel, Jesus has “eaten” the scroll. The words of Isaiah 61:1–2 are not mere lifeless words on a text but words that come forth from his very self.

Luke’s second temptation, to bow to the devil in order to receive the kingdoms of the world, is mirrored in the temptation the people of Nazareth would present: to serve them and the interests of his hometown over God. The Nazareth episode ended with the people trying to cast Jesus down from a cliff on the edge of their town, once again presenting him with the temptation to abandon the people he had come to save.

Luke’s account of the temptation concludes by telling the reader that Satan “departed from him until an opportune time” (Luke 4:13). It seems reasonable to connect this to the passion narrative. In Gethsemane, Jesus is once again tempted to live by something other than the Word of God. He could have refused to drink the cup and avoided his suffering, yet he faithfully drinks it (Luke 22:42). He could have sought the rule of the kingdoms of the world through fleshly or satanic means, striking those who came to arrest him with the sword (Luke 22:49–53). He faced the third temptation again when, on the cross, he was mocked and told to come down and save himself (Luke 23:35–39). He could have done so, but in the process would have abandoned us.

What do we learn?

Each of the things held out to Jesus in his temptation were good things—satisfaction for his hunger, God’s protection, and the inheritance of the kingdoms of the world—but Jesus refused to seize them, as Adam had seized the forbidden fruit, outside of God’s will. Unlike our first father, he committed himself as a righteous Son to the path of obedience, firmly setting in its opening episode the course that his entire public ministry would follow.

Jesus’s three temptations are guises of the temptations of the flesh (hunger), the world (to save ourselves from the pain, persecution, and rejection that come in the path of faithfulness), and the devil (to gain power by serving something or someone other than God).

We all face temptations from these same sources, and our Savior’s example in resisting them can assure us that, by his Spirit, we can resist temptation, too. He can sympathize with our weaknesses—having encountered them in a far more pronounced form than we ever could—yet also enable us to overcome them (Heb 4:15–16; 1 Cor 10:13).

In Jesus’s responses to his temptations, he demonstrated the importance of knowledge of God’s Word as a sword with which to repel Satan’s accusations and attacks. Those who live by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord have the resources they need to answer the devil’s lies and distortions.

In resisting the devil, we do not follow uncharted paths. We walk in the way of Jesus, who, as the Angel of the Lord went before Israel, can similarly lead us into—and through—our personal wildernesses of testing, and finally to enjoyment of the glorious promises that are laid up for us beyond them.

Share your thoughts

How does Jesus’s temptation shape your understanding of his mission? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Resources for further reflection

The Work of Christ: What the Events of Jesus’ Life Mean for You

Regular price: $11.39

Add to cart

Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ

Regular price: $12.99

Add to cart

The Ache for Meaning: How the Temptations of Christ Reveal Who We Are and What We’re Seeking

Regular price: $10.19

Add to cart

The Truth about Lies: The Unlikely Role of Temptation in Who You Will Become

Regular price: $9.74

Add to cart

The Last Adam

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity (Library of New Testament Studies | LNTS/JSNTS)

Regular price: $21.99

Add to cart

Related content

• How to Read the Gospels: Moving Beyond Individual Stories
• 1 Jesus, 4 Portraits: Why You Need Each Gospel’s Narrative Theology
• How Jesus’s Death Resolves 6 Key Themes in Luke
• What’s Typology? Patterns of Creation in Redemptive History
• The Christological Character of Typological Reading

When Paul says that gentiles “do what the law requires” (Rom 2:14) and have “the work of the law written on their hearts” (Rom 2:15), is he describing morally conscious pagans who have God’s natural law or believing gentiles who experience the inward transformation of the new covenant? And how does this inform our reading of Paul’s teachings on judgment according to works just prior (Rom 2:6–11)? On this episode of What in the Word?, Kirk E. Miller sits down with Dr. Jarvis Williams to work through the interpretive issues.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. 

See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: Jarvis Williams

Dr. Jarvis J. Williams serves as Professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, having taught at Southern Seminary since 2013. His primary research interests focus on Pauline theology, Pauline soteriology, Romans, Galatians, and soteriology in Second Temple Judaism. He is the author of numerous books on Paul’s letters, Pauline theology, and a biblical theology of the people of God, including:

• Paul’s Gospel in Romans: Vertical, Horizontal, and Cosmic Dimensions
• Galatians (New Covenant Commentary Series)
• The Spirit, Ethics, and Eternal Life: Paul’s Vision for the Christian Life in Galatians
• Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ from the Curse of the Law: A Jewish Martyrological Reading of Galatians 3:13 (Library of New Testament Studies)
• Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and Their Jewish Martyrological Background
• Redemptive Kingdom Diversity: A Biblical Theology of the People of God
• One New Man: The Cross and Racial Reconciliation in Pauline Theology
• Colossians & Philemon, New Word Biblical Themes (Forthcoming)

Episode synopsis:

Setting the stage: Romans 1:18–3:20

In Romans 1:18–3:20, Paul presents a unified argument with a unified aim: to establish that both Jews and gentiles stand guilty before God.

Paul opens by emphasizing gentile transgression, cataloguing the kinds of vices that Jewish readers of his day would readily condemn (Rom 1:18–32). But Paul will soon extend that indictment beyond the gentiles. Already, Paul’s reference to “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of humanity” suggests Jews are included. By the time we reach Romans 2, this implication becomes explicit.

God is impartial, Paul insists (Rom 2:11), judging on the basis of obedience, not ethnic identity or covenant privilege. Whereas the gospel is God’s power to save believers, “the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16), God’s standard of judgment is the same, “to the Jew first and also the Greek” (Rom 2:9). Merely possessing the law is of no advantage if one does not obey it (Rom 2:25). It is the doers, not the hearers, of the law who will be justified in God’s eschatological judgment (Rom 2:12–13).

Jewish privileges are real, no doubt, including being entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom 3:1–2). But they do not thereby have an automatic advantage in God’s final judgment (Rom 3:9). All—Jews and gentiles alike—are under the power and condemnation of sin (Rom 3:9–18). Thus, no one—Jew or gentile—will be justified by means of works of the law (Rom 3:19–20).

It’s within this broader argument that we encounter Romans 2:14–15 where Paul speaks of gentiles who do obey the law.

What makes Romans 2 so difficult?

At the heart of the debate over Romans 2:14–15 is the question, Who are these gentiles who obey the law from the heart? Paul speaks of gentiles—those who do not possess the Mosaic law—nonetheless doing what the law requires. Is Paul talking about non-Christian pagans merely operating out of a common, God-given sense of morality? Or is Paul describing gentile believers who partake of the new covenant’s inward transformation?

Beyond this question, Dr. Jarvis Williams enumerates six additional difficulties of Romans 2:

1. Who is Paul’s target in Romans 2 specifically: Jews, gentiles, or both?
2. How can Paul say doers of the law will be justified in Romans 2:13, when in Romans 3:20 he insists that no one is justified by works of the law?
3. Who are the “doers of the law” in Romans 2:13? Are they faithful Jews, morally serious pagans, non-Christians who respond savingly to general revelation, mere hypothetical perfect law-keepers, or Spirit-empowered believers whose hearts are circumcised?
4. Is Paul writing primarily to gentiles or to a mixed Jewish–gentile congregation? If the former, is Romans 2 only relevant to gentiles?
5. Is Paul presenting his own views in Romans 1:18–3:20 or is he presenting the views of another, which he intends to critique?
6. In Romans 2:17, when Paul addresses someone “who calls himself a Jew,” is he addressing an idealized Jewish teacher or a gentile proselyte who wants to be identified as Jewish?

These questions don’t stand in isolation. Your answer to one affects your answer to the others. This episode, though, focuses specifically on the identity of those mentioned in Romans 2:14–15.

View 1: Moral pagans with consciences

One traditional view takes Paul to refer to moral pagan (non-Christian) gentiles. According to this interpretation, Paul observes how even people who never received Sinai’s revelation nonetheless, by nature of their God-given conscience, exhibit a degree of instinctive alignment with the law’s moral norms and requirements. In this view, Paul’s description here fits what has been traditionally called natural law.

Jarvis outlines five arguments for this perspective:

1. “By nature” (Rom 2:14) is taken to modify doing what the law requires. So most translations: “gentiles … do by nature” (KJV; NIV; NET; see also ESV; NRSVue); “gentiles … instinctively perform” (NASB2020; see also NLT). Gentiles do the things of the law by nature, meaning through moral intuition rather than divine revelation, and will be judged accordingly.
2. Paul refers to “the work of the law written on the heart” (Rom 2:15; emphasis added) rather than the new covenant’s promise of the law of God written on the heart (Jer 31:33). This, along with the phrase, “the things of the law” (Rom 2:14), are taken to refer to norms of the law that gentiles carry out according to their innate moral intuitions.
3. Paul says these gentiles are “a law to themselves” (Rom 2:14). This is taken to mean that gentiles have a natural witness to God’s moral norms within themselves (i.e., the conscience).
4. This view holds that the reference to “consciences” in Romans 2:15 explains the immediately preceding reference to “the work of the law written on the heart.” The latter does not refer to the promise of the new covenant, but the conscience.
5. The presence of both accusing and excusing thoughts in Romans 2:15 suggests Paul is describing someone with an afflicted conscience, not the believer.

View 2: Regenerate gentile believers

An alternative view, which Jarvis favors, maintains that Romans 2:14–15 describes regenerate gentiles who have experienced the promised transformation of the new covenant. Jarvis offers five arguments in support:

1. The connecting word “for” at the beginning of Romans 2:14–15 connects it to Romans 2:13, meaning Paul is explaining the “doers of the law who will be justified” (believers), not introducing a different, tangential subject.
2. The “work of the law written on the heart” is a clear allusion to the new covenant (Jer 31:33). So too the Old Testament anticipated a circumcision of the heart (see Deut 10:16; 30:6, Jer 4:4; contrast with Jer 9:25–26) and God’s Spirit causing obedience (Ezek 36:25–27). Paul refers to both these things in Romans 2:25–29, increasing the likelihood that Romans 2:14–15 is in fact an allusion to the new covenant.
3. Paul never clearly invokes the idea of “natural law,” which he presumably could have done if that was his intended meaning.
4. The phrase “by nature” should be connected to having the law, not doing it. According to this translation, gentiles did not receive the law by birth (as Jews did), and yet they now genuinely do the things it requires. This matches the use of “nature” in Romans 2:27, where Paul speaks of Jews who are “naturally” circumcised. He uses “nature” in both cases to matters that are tied to Jewishness, not “natural law.”
5. Jarvis takes Romans 2:15 to describe two groups, not one. In the final judgment (see Rom 2:16), there will be those whose thoughts condemn them and others whose consciences clear them. In other words, here Paul identifies two eschatological outcomes rather than one experience of ambivalence.

Paul’s argument in Romans 2:25–29 is particularly important, functioning as an interpretive lens for what he’s already said in Romans 2:14–15. Paul says the uncircumcised gentile who keeps the law’s righteous requirements will have their uncircumcision reckoned as circumcision in the eschatological judgment (Rom 2:26)—this despite the fact that uncircumcision itself is a failure to keep the Mosaic law! In contrast, Jews who do not observe the law will have their circumcision regarded as uncircumcision (Rom 2:25), i.e., they will be considered part of God’s people. Notice how this overlaps with Romans 2:12–16, where Paul says that the law’s doers—not its mere hearers—will be justified on “that day” (i.e., the day of the LORD) (Rom 2:12–16).

So in Romans 2:25–29, Paul identifies the “doers of the law” from Romans 2:12–16 as “inward Jews”: those who possess the Holy Spirit and whose heart has been circumcised. Further supporting this is Romans 8:1–9, where Paul also talks of the work of the Spirit fulfilling the law’s requirements among believers (Rom 8:4).

Use Logos to search for concepts, like heart circumcision, across Scripture.
Start your free trial!

Judgment according to works (Rom 2:6–11)?

How does this reading of Romans 2:12–16 inform our understanding of Romans 2:6–11, where Paul speaks of a final judgment according to works? Here Paul says that those who do good will receive eternal life, while those who do evil will meet God’s wrath.

Some interpret Paul as presenting a hypothetical based on a genuine principle of justice. According to this view, Paul describes what would happen for anyone who perfectly kept the law, knowing full well that no one does. Paul discloses God’s standard of judgment (i.e., obedience to the law) only to show us that it leaves us all condemned. So Paul concludes in Romans 3:20, “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

A second view, held by Jarvis, maintains that Romans 2:6–11 describes a genuine eschatological reality. The obedience Paul describes here is that which results from the Spirit-wrought heart circumcision of Romans 2:25–29. These are the “doers of the law who will be justified” in Romans 2:13. These include those gentiles who have “the work of the law … written on their hearts,” so causing them to obey the law (Rom 2:14–25).

Jarvis emphatically insists, we are justified by faith alone apart from our works. He is not arguing that this obedience earns justification. Nonetheless, in the eschatological judgment, believers will display evidence that the verdict of “not guilty” is true. The Spirit fulfills the righteous requirement of the law within them (Rom 8:4). They fulfill the law by loving God and loving neighbor (Rom 13:8–10). This transformation is entirely owing to God’s grace in Christ.

The rhetorical and practical function of Romans 2

Romans 2 contributes to Paul’s overall argument in Romans 1:18–3:20, establishing that Jew and gentile alike stand condemned before God and in need of salvation. This “bad news” must be heard and felt before the good news can land with its proper weight.

Mere possession of the law, or ancestral membership in God’s covenant people, provides no shelter from God’s judgment. God demands real obedience, and the only path to real obedience runs through the heart-transforming work of the Spirit, available in Christ alone. So we must yield our lives to Christ by faith alone in light of this coming judgment.

Paul’s epistle also seems intended to resolve tensions in the Roman community between “weak” and “strong” Christians (see Rom 14:1–15:13). If Jewish–gentile differences in some measure stand behind these conflicts, Paul’s argument in Romans 2 prepares for his forthcoming exhortation: Since God himself judges and saves without partiality, we too must receive one another across ethnic and cultural lines.

Advice for preaching and teaching

For those preparing to preach or teach Romans 2:14–15, consider the following practical advice:

1. Be honest about the difficulty. Good, careful scholars differ on this text. Be humble. Acknowledge the debate, yet don’t let it paralyze your exposition.
2. Don’t isolate Romans 2:14–15 from its larger argument. This passage only makes sense when read as part of the sustained argument that runs through Romans 2:1–29. Jumping straight to Paul’s mention of the conscience, for instance, without tracing his appeal to the new covenant will produce a tunnel-visioned interpretation.
3. Keep the eschatological stakes in view. Paul is consistently focused on the eschatological day of judgment in this section: Who will be condemned, who will be exonerated, and on what basis? The whole argument is oriented toward that horizon.
4. Preach the transformative nature of the gospel. What is impossible for dead hearts, i.e., striving to keep external commands, God fulfills in us through Christ. The age of the Messiah has arrived, the Spirit has been poured out, and the obedience that the law always demanded is now a living reality for those who belong to Jesus, Jew and gentile alike.

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Let us know what you think

Which interpretation of Romans 2:14–15 do you find most persuasive? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Jarvis Williams’ suggested resources on Romans

Romans, Second Edition (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament | BECNT)

Regular price: $69.99

Add to cart

Romans: Text, Readers, and the History of Interpretation

Regular price: $49.99

Add to cart

The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed. (New International Commentary on the New Testament | NICNT)

Regular price: $89.99

Add to cart

Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary | PNTC)

Regular price: $58.99

Add to cart

Paul’s Gospel in Romans: Vertical, Horizontal, and Cosmic Dimensions

Regular price: $22.99

Add to cart

Related content

• What Does It Mean to Work Out Our Salvation? | Lynn Cohick on Philippians 2:12–13
• Is Paul Describing a Believer or Non-Believer? | Joseph Dodson on Romans 7
• What Is Justification? | Stephen Westerholm
• Finding (& Sharing) Jesus on the Romans Road to Salvation
• What Romans Teaches Us about Church Unity

Protestants—particularly perhaps North American Protestants—sometimes struggle with the notion that “tradition” has a positive role in biblical interpretation. For modern exegetes to take their cues from the Church Fathers and Mothers, for example, might strike some as a betrayal of sola scriptura or “Scripture alone,” a bedrock principle of the sixteenth-century Reformation and Protestant identity ever since. If we begin from the assumption that biblical authority and exegetical tradition are at odds, then the recent conversations about “Reformed catholicity” can only strike us as misguided at best, or even as a contradiction in terms.⁴⁶

My aim in this article is to explore how the catholic tradition’s “exegetical lore” (to borrow a phrase from the late David Steinmetz) can in fact deepen our understanding of the Bible without threatening its unique authority in the church’s life and ministry.⁴⁷ I offer two historical case studies from the Reformation period that feature well-known Protestant theologians drawing upon patristic sources to untie difficult interpretive “knots” in the biblical text.

1. John Calvin (1509–1564) dialoguing intently with a single Church Father over a famous crux in 1 Corinthians 15:18–19.
2. A controversial passage in a Pauline Epistle (Rom 8:19–22), around which Martin Bucer (1491–1551) assembles a roundtable of early Christian voices.

Either approach can serve as a model for theologians and homilists today.

John Calvin: patristic writers as dialogue partners

The Church Fathers and Mothers can serve as dialogue partners in the work of biblical exegesis. I use the term “dialogue” advisedly. While early Protestant interpreters often presented a catalog of patristic views before offering up their own solution to a tricky passage (see the example of Bucer, below), they would also sometimes choose a single figure from the early church and build their interpretation around points of agreement and disagreement.

A helpful model for this “conversational” approach can be found in John Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546).⁴⁸ Calvin cites or alludes to many early Christian writers in this expansive work. However, one voice clearly rises above the rest: John Chrysostom (c. 347–407).⁴⁹

His engagement with the famous “golden-mouthed” (Greek chrysostomos) preacher bore fruitful results when it came to 1 Corinthians 15:18–19. These verses appear in the Apostle Paul’s reply to those who claimed that “there is no resurrection of the dead” at the end of time (1 Cor 15:12). In that case, Paul retorted, Christians were “of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19). Without the resurrection, the faithful dead were simply dead and had no hope.

Paul’s argument raises a number of vexing questions. Interpreters down the centuries have noted the potential problem it poses for traditional Christian notions of the afterlife. It looked as if Paul had overlooked a third possibility besides resurrection and annihilation. Even if their bodies were not raised, what if Christians experienced a spiritual afterlife as souls in heaven? Such a disembodied salvation might even have resonated with the Hellenistic Corinthians, as modern commentators have noted.⁵⁰

Calvin’s contemporary Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) wanted the Apostle Paul at least to acknowledge that possibility, and he was irked when he did not. While affirming his own orthodox belief in the bodily resurrection, Vermigli went so far as to fault Paul for shoddy reasoning in this passage. After all, “even if the resurrection of the dead were false, could not our souls still be more blessed than those of the impious?”⁵¹ For Vermigli, the answer was obviously yes, meaning that Paul’s words, if taken too literally, ran the risk of undercutting belief in an immortal soul.

Calvin, for his part, agreed that the apostolic logic appeared flawed—at first glance. “If we concede the soul’s essence to be immortal, this argument, prima facie, appears to be weak,” he conceded.⁵² Yet Calvin was convinced that the seeming hole in Paul’s reasoning was in fact a doorway to a deeper truth. This was the point where his dialogue with Chrysostom proved crucial. It is also where he can serve as an exemplar for interpreters using patristic sources today.

Calvin argued that the Scripture intentionally omitted any mention of the immortal soul to establish an important principle for both Christian anthropology and eschatology. Human beings were not just souls. They indeed had souls, but from a biblical perspective, the human being was incomplete, not fully realized in God’s image, except as a union of soul and body. A disembodied afterlife for souls in heaven would therefore leave us maimed and imperfect creatures. Instead, our eschatological redemption had to take the form of resurrection, just as the apostle had said.

Calvin had found this very conclusion in Chrysostom’s homilies on 1 Corinthians. The Reformer deliberately echoed the preacher’s language in his Commentary. “All [the Christian’s] happiness and consolation hang on the resurrection alone,” Calvin insisted, which simply expanded Chrysostom’s remark that “all things hang on the resurrection.”⁵³ Calvin’s dialogue with this voice from the Christian past had arguably given him greater insight into the biblical text than Vermigli, who (in this instance, at least) had limited himself to a rhetorical and linguistic analysis.

That is not to say that Calvin always agreed with Chrysostom. He had earlier declared a particular opinion of the preacher (on 1 Cor 1:11) downright “absurd.”⁵⁴ However, these moments of dissension do not invalidate the model I am proposing but are essential to it. Calvin did not esteem Chrysostom (or any of the Church Fathers and Mothers) as infallible authorities. They were instead partners in a common enterprise. They were the trustworthy faces across the table from you with a Bible open between. Calvin’s commitment to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura did not necessitate reading Scripture solo.

Faithful interpreters could and should weigh views from the church’s past. Exegetes who wish to emulate Calvin’s “conversational” use of Chrysostom today might frame a sermon or essay around a dialogue with a specific patristic writer. Focusing on that one source, they could list out points of agreement and disagreement on the biblical passage at hand. The finished exposition could then be framed explicitly around this exchange, or else it could hold its conclusions and insights in the background (ideally acknowledging the patristic source in the notes). Either approach would be consonant to the way early Protestants utilized the Church Fathers and Mothers in their exegesis.

Martin Bucer: patristic writers in roundtable

A second example from the sixteenth century shows how a patristic dialogue could be expanded into something like a roundtable discussion.

The Strasbourg Reformer Martin Bucer influenced many streams of Protestant thought, including mentoring a young Calvin and contributing to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.⁵⁵ Bucer was a pioneering Hebraist and produced lengthy commentaries on the Psalms and the Prophets.⁵⁶ He also modeled for his many pupils how the Protestant commitment to “Scripture alone” could still maintain a robust connection to the Church Fathers and Mothers, as well as the catholic tradition more broadly. His massive Metaphrasis on Romans (1536) painstakingly works through each verse of the epistle, often pausing to register relevant patristic and medieval opinions along the way.⁵⁷ Nowhere were the benefits of his roundtable approach more evident than in the ever-controversial Romans 8:19–22.

Scholars continue to debate the identity of the “creation” (Greek κτίσις, Latin creatura) that Paul describes as “groaning together in the pains of childbirth” (Rom 8:22) and “longing for the revealing of the children of God” (Rom 8:19). In the ancient church, Augustine of Hippo (c. 354–430) had argued that “creation” referred only to human beings, emphatically denying any reference to nonhuman creatures such as “trees, vegetation, stones or other creatures of this sort.”⁵⁸ This anthropocentric line had been largely adopted by Western interpreters through the Middle Ages. Thomas Aquinas had cited Augustine to argue that earthly creatures (humans excepted) would vanish completely in the eschaton.⁵⁹ This view was also fiercely defended by Roman Catholic thinkers in the sixteenth century as the “teaching of the church.”⁶⁰ By this time, the notion that “creation” in Romans 8 meant “humanity” was so ingrained that it had become simply common sense: part of the exegetical lore passed down by generations of Western commentators.

Bucer went a different way, guided by patristic figures who stood outside the Western consensus. He knew well that “Blessed Augustine … understands this to mean ‘we ourselves,’ [i.e. humans], whom he supposes the Apostle to have called ‘all creation.’”⁶¹ He also recognized that Aquinas and other scholastic doctors had endorsed this reading.⁶² All the same, Bucer declared the “reasoning” (ratio) behind this weighty tradition to be “not firm” (firma non est).⁶³ He then brought forth a catalog of Church Fathers, including Origen of Alexandria, Ambrosiaster, and Chrysostom, all of whom had argued that “creation” in this passage signified, well, creation: the entire cosmos that God had made. With this support, Bucer concluded that the Apostle Paul was in fact promising the redemption of the whole physical world in Romans 8. He even ventured the opinion that plants, animals, and the earth itself would share in some sense in the final resurrection, though he did not wish Christians to divide over this point.⁶⁴

Bucer had defied over a millennium of exegetical common sense. In the process, he helped to birth something of a new Protestant tradition. His pupil Calvin also adopted his “cosmic” interpretation of the text, as would later figures like John Wesley (1703–1791).⁶⁵ You can arguably hear echoes of Bucer in modern conversations about eschatology and the “new creation” sparked by writers such as N. T. Wright.⁶⁶ And it all began with Bucer laying out patristic views on a particular Scripture and recognizing that many ancient voices contradicted the received wisdom of the mid-1500s.

Bucer no less than Calvin refused to raise the Church Fathers and Mothers to the level of infallibility: Scripture alone held that status. However, by assembling a roundtable of patristic perspectives, Bucer was able to see beyond the limits of his own intellectual setting. The pre-Augustinian Fathers showed him possibilities that might never have occurred to him otherwise.

Interpreters today might employ the roundtable approach similarly. Every moment in church history suffers from intellectual and cultural blind spots. The present is no exception. Taking the time to gather a “cloud of witnesses” (cf. Heb 12:1) from the Christian past helps us to glimpse new interpretive horizons and view even familiar landmarks in the Bible from new angles. Even if we end up sticking with the current consensus (whatever that might be), we will have benefited from the conversation. If nothing else, we will have learned that wise and pious eyes can see differently from ours.

Takeaways

Calvin and Bucer were not unique among the Reformers for revering the Church Fathers and Mothers and drawing on their insights for biblical interpretation. The early Protestant reception of “exegetical lore” from the patristic and medieval eras is in fact a vibrant subfield within Reformation studies. I have listed a few works below that will help interested readers delve more deeply.

Today’s students and ministers who wish to follow the Reformers’ lead might begin (where possible) by building their library of premodern commentary literature. The Reformers themselves often labored to edit and publish new editions of patristic works in the sixteenth century. Alongside modern historical-critical commentaries (which also surely have a place), pastors might avail themselves of resources, such as InterVarsity’s Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series (1998–2010), which represent a patristic roundtable in the Bucerian mold. This in turn might lead to a deeper connection with a specific figure from the early church. Translated collections of Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others have been and continue to be published. These two belong in your church library.

Once more, the goal of such ressourcement is not to replace biblical authority but to deepen our appreciation of it. The interpreters of the past (including the Reformers!) were not infallible. Bucer might find Augustine’s reasoning on a particular issue “not firm” and Calvin might occasionally deem Chrysostom “absurd,” yet neither would think to abandon their conversation with the tradition. Sola scriptura was never a call to “go it alone” in the work of biblical exegesis. Rather, we join hands with the Fathers and Mothers who have gone before us in the common task of proclaiming God’s divine Word to his people.

Share your thoughts

Are sola scriptura and exegetical tradition at odds? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Steven Tyra’s recommended resources

• Steinmetz, David C. Luther in Context. Baker Academic, 2002.
• ———. Calvin in Context. Second edition. Oxford University Press, 2010.

The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Regular price: $25.99

Add to cart

The Reformation of the Literal: Prophecy and the Senses of Scripture in Early Modern Europe (T&T Clark Studies in Historical Theology)

Regular price: $91.99

Add to cart

Reading the Bible with the Dead: What You Can Learn from the History of Exegesis that You Can’t Learn from Exegesis Alone

Regular price: $34.99

Add to cart

John Calvin as Biblical Commentator: An Investigation into Calvin’s Use of John Chrysostom as an Exegetical Tutor

Regular price: $20.99

Add to cart

Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation

Regular price: $21.99

Add to cart

Surprised by Hope

Regular price: $18.99

Add to cart

Related articles

• If the Reformers Believed in Sola Scriptura, Why Quote the Church Fathers?
• What Is the Great Tradition? Is it Too Great to Be True?
• What Is Theological Retrieval? A Primer
• Reformed Bible Study: Its History & How to Do It
• What Is the Protestant Reformation? Everything You Need to Know

Pastoring has always been difficult—and yet it has unique difficulties today.

The last decade has seen a lot of cultural disruption and convulsion. This convulsion has produced paradoxical results: ministry in our moment has become both increasingly precarious and increasingly opportune. In some ways, ministry is more difficult now, but we also see unique opportunities because of the tensions.

While some pastors are burning out from exhaustion and others are burning it all down with theological compromises or moral failures, many pastors are faithfully pushing forward. Many pastors are doing biblically-driven, gospel-centered, and mission-focused ministry. If that’s you, then you’re on the right track. And if you’ve drifted, there’s no better time to realign your priorities than now.

I also want to encourage Christians and church members to evaluate faithfulness in their pastors (and themselves) by a big-picture, long view of faithfulness. We should use the lens of Scripture, the gospel, and the mission as our reference. If these things are in order, many other matters fall into place, no matter what our preferences might be.

These three characteristics are all related, but each has a unique role in the ministry and calling of pastors. Let’s look at each one more closely.

Table of contents

1. Faithful pastors are driven by the Bible more than the culture
2. Faithful pastors are centered on the gospel more than partisan politics
3. Faithful pastors are focused on the mission more than the moment

1. Faithful pastors are driven by the Bible more than the culture

Christian ministry should be deeply rooted in the inerrant Word of God. Pastors should be trained in the Bible, and in turn we should be training and discipling people in the Bible. This is the heartbeat of pastoral and Christian leadership:

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; correct, rebuke, and encourage with great patience and teaching. (2 Tim 4:2)

For many pastors, this looks like formal theological education. I love all of our Bible-driven seminaries and schools of Christian higher education, like the Talbot School of Theology, where I’m the dean. Talbot and many others take the Bible seriously. That’s a nonnegotiable. But whether or not we do formal education, we must be students of the Word. “Bring the books” (2 Tim 4:13), Paul asked when in prison.

We must be biblically driven as pastors and church leaders. Pastors are not to be commentary machines, offering their opinion on every single issue. In fact, pastors should not comment on every single thing. As a pastor, I want the Bible to shape what I’m communicating. Then when some things do rise to the level of needing attention, we let the Bible drive the discussion.

Being driven by the Bible more than the culture doesn’t mean we don’t engage culture. Just the opposite. We engage the culture—and we let the Bible set the agenda.

My calling—and yours—is to teach and lead from Scripture. Tools like Logos (which means “Word” in Greek!) have long been used by pastors to engage deep study of God’s Word—and Logos is now more accessible than ever. I’m really glad about that, as more pastors and Christians can dig deeply into serious study of the Bible.

2. Faithful pastors are centered on the gospel more than partisan politics

At the core of the work of pastoral ministry is the work of discipleship: growing Christians in maturity by preaching Jesus.

We proclaim him, warning and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ. (Col 1:28)

However, many pastors have run into opposition here from Christians being discipled by cable news and shaped by social media more than the Bible.

The influence of these things forms—or deforms—people in many ways. Discussions on these platforms quickly become quite toxic, amplifying our worst impulses through anonymous accounts. We have even seen pastors exposed for using anonymous accounts to divide their Christian brothers and sisters. We show our captivity as our lives are increasingly oriented around partisan politics. Our politics have taken on religious importance in our culture, a trend that has in turn made our politics, and our culture, less healthy.

Our political discourse casts all issues as either “Right” or “Left.” But pastors and Christians should interpret everything in light of the gospel, not partisan wedge issues. This gospel-centrality will put us at odds with both sides of the political debate at different points.

I’m ultimately more concerned with how people view the gospel than how they view my political opinions. The gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16) and the “most important” thing (1 Cor 15:3). So, we should never betray our gospel focus for political influence or partisan lobbying.

3. Faithful pastors are focused on the mission more than the moment

We’re in a disrupted, precarious, and opportune time. We see all kinds of division and fragmentation in churches, evangelical groups, and more. We get pressure from all sides. The disruption presents both danger and opportunity, confronting us with the key question, “Will the church stay focused on the mission or get sidetracked?”

Although these pressures are not unique to this moment, our moment presents several notable temptations that can sidetrack pastors from the mission.

A. Our moment tempts us to compromise theologically

As Jesus told us, “No one can serve two masters” (Matt 6:24). We’ve seen some pastors walk away, deconstruct, and reject biblical truth. On the other hand, some have turned their churches from discipleship and biblical teaching into pockets of partisan political activism. When we lose the truth, we lose the mission of showing and sharing the truth.

B. Our moment tempts us to give up in exhaustion and discouragement

Some pastors have seen tremendous growth and fruit in recent years, but many others have been exhausted since COVID, feeling the stinging arrows of discouragement repeatedly. But the fruit of the moment doesn’t dictate the calling of our mission. We are on the mission Jesus has given us, and the results are ultimately up to him. So, as Galatians 6:9 says, “Let us not get tired of doing good, for we will reap at the proper time if we don’t give up.”

C. Our moment tempts us toward moral failure and sin

We’ve seen the fall of more prominent Christian leaders in just the last several months. Such massive and catastrophic failures start with small compromises. So we must guard our hearts and continue to seek the holiness of God. We’re all sinners in need of grace, but as saved sinners, our lives must increasingly match the magnitude of our message and mission. As we’re reminded, “Pay close attention to your life and your teaching; persevere in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16).

Our moment has challenges, but it also provides us with opportunities for the gospel—if we stay focused on the mission more than the moment.

Conclusion

I remain encouraged. I’ve read the end of the book: Jesus wins. Jesus has already won the victory. The kingdom has broken into the world (Mark 1:15). And Jesus will complete that victory when he returns: “For he must reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25).

Jesus has won. Jesus wins. Jesus will win.

So, Christians, pray for your pastors to stick with the Bible, the gospel, and the mission. Look at them through the lens of these characteristics.

And pastors, let’s stay where God has called us, biblically-driven, gospel-centered, mission-focused, not settling for less important things.

Share your thoughts

What traits do you believe are most vital for pastoral endurance today? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Resources from Ed Stetzer

Ed Stetzer Study Bundle

Regular price: $89.99

Add to cart

Breaking the Missional Code: Your Church Can Become a Missionary in Your Community

Regular price: $13.99

Add to cart

Transformational Church: Creating a New Scorecard for Congregations

Regular price: $9.74

Add to cart

Christians in the Age of Outrage: How to Bring Our Best When the World Is at Its Worst

Regular price: $10.19

Add to cart

Related content

• Faithful Ministry Begins with Attending to One’s Soul
• Jesus Is Trending: How to Take Advantage of the Vibe Shift
• Questions Every Pastor on Social Media Should Ask Themselves
• Leading with Repentance: On Pastoring Between Pew and Politics
• 5 Steps to Align Your Church’s Theology & Ministry Philosophy

I could tell this conversation would be difficult.

A church elder—I’ll call him John—had called, complaining about a young woman my wife and I were assisting. John was certain her reports of childhood abuse were greatly exaggerated, that she was inventing problems to injure her “fine” family. John didn’t trust secular psychology, which he believed had made me harmfully alarmist. In his view, abuse was exceedingly rare, not a prevalent problem.

The irony is that John belonged to a church that was doggedly committed to the authority of Scripture. The tragedy is that he, like countless other church leaders, was blind to all that Scripture says about abuse.

Yet as a young pastor, I was no different. I’ve since discovered hundreds of passages in Scripture about abuse. Abuse is woven throughout Scripture, offering rich teaching on what abuse is, how it affects us, and how God responds to it.

What is abuse?

Abuse is a dark topic. But it can only be rightly understood against a positive backdrop: Abuse, at its core, involves the diabolical corruption of God’s very good creation.

Genesis 1–2 recounts the magnificent way God made humans, male and female, in his image and likeness. That image gives us innate dignity and worth. Abuse attacks and distorts—though it does not eliminate—this. It strikes at the very essence of who we are as image bearers.

Abuse is also always a misuse of our God-given power. In the creation account, the second command given to the man and woman involves having dominion over all of creation (Gen 1:28). God entrusts his image bearers with power—physical, relational, sexual, economic, etc.—to be used positively for others and the world around us. Abuse inverts this: Power is used to exploit and harm. As the writer of Ecclesiastes observes, “power was on the side of their oppressor” (Eccl 4:1; cf. Mic 2:1).

That Scripture addresses abuse so repeatedly and forthrightly is itself significant. It tells us that in a fallen world, it is a frequent and tragic reality which the people of God must reckon with and address.

1. Sexual

Sexual abuse is essentially any nonconsensual sexual activity.⁶⁷

Scripture addresses sexual abuse in dozens of passages—and harshly condemns it without exception.⁶⁸ For example, under Mosaic law, rape was a capital offense: The rapist was to be put to death, while the victim faced no penalty since she “has committed no sin” (Deut 22:25–26). Scripture recounts and condemns attempted homosexual rape (Gen 19:4–5), incestuous rape (2 Sam 13:11, 14), fatal gang rape (Judg 19), and rape as a weapon of war (Lam 5:11; Zech 14:2).

Most often, rape in Scripture involves brute physical force (e.g., 2 Sam 13:11, 14). But in other instances, it appears to involve different forms of power (political, spiritual, etc.) used to coerce and compel someone into unwanted sexual relations. Bathsheba’s “power rape” is the classic example (2 Sam 11).⁶⁹ David was king when he sent soldiers to bring Bathsheba to him. She had no choice. Eli’s two evil sons’ sexual relations with women serving in the temple likely fit this same category of spiritually coercive abuse (1 Sam 2:22; 3:13).

2. Physical

Physical abuse is the use of physical violence against another person. Physical abuse can also involve the threat of violence, a common tactic among abusers (1 Kgs 19:1–2; Ps 73:6, 8; Acts 4:21).

Scripture documents hundreds of instances of physical abuse, again suggesting how tragically common it is and how seriously God takes it. It is instructive that the first instance of fatal physical abuse, the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Gen 4:8), appears immediately after the fall. By Genesis 4:23, we have the first recorded act of domestic violence: Lamech threatens his two wives, “Adah and Zillah, listen to me … I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.” Then just two chapters later, God declares, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence” (Gen 6:11).

Throughout the rest of Scripture, physical abuse is described and condemned. It’s perpetrated by professing believers (2 Sam 11:14–25), pagans (Exod 2:11), political leaders (1 Sam 22:11–19), powerful men and women (Matt 14:1–11), and spiritual leaders (Jer 26:8; Hos 6:9; Matt 23:31–35).

3. Neglectful

Neglect is the failure of a parent or guardian to provide for the needs of those under their care (minors or vulnerable adults).

In the creation account, God gives humans the privilege and responsibility to cultivate the ground and care for the plants and animals he created (Gen 1:28; 2:5). How much more essential is it for parents to care properly for the children God has entrusted to them (cf. Ps 127:3)?

This explains why God’s condemnation of neglectful parents is so severe, declaring they have denied the faith and are worse than pagans (1 Tim 5:8).

4. Spiritual

Spiritual abuse involves the misuse of spiritual authority (leadership, the church, traditions, Scripture) against others. It typically involves forcing people to do that which does not align with Scripture, illegitimately elevating human rules on a par with it (Mark 7:6–13). But spiritual abuse is not only seen in the demands that are made, but also in how they are made. Thus, Scripture admonishes elders to not “lord it over” the flock entrusted to them (1 Pet 5:3).

Scripture is replete with examples of spiritual abuse. Old Testament priests were often condemned for misusing their spiritual power to take advantage of the people (Ezek 34:2–4; Zeph 3:3–4). The most notable spiritual abusers in the New Testament were the scribes and Pharisees who created human traditions which violated Scripture (Mark 7:8; cf. Jer 5:31). They crushed the people through their harsh, domineering exercise of authority (Matt 23:4; John 9:13–34). The early church also experienced abusive spiritual leaders who delighted in arrogantly weaponizing their authority over others (3 John 9–10).

5. Verbal

Verbal abuse involves using words to manipulate, belittle, deceive, or attack others (Pss 10:3–10; 64:2–5; Prov 26:28).

This is one of the most well attested forms of abuse in Scripture. It can also be just as harmful as other types of abuse. Reckless words can cut like a sword (Prov 12:18). A perverse tongue crushes the spirit (Prov 15:4). Abusive speech is like a hellish conflagration which destroys everything in its path (Jas 3:6). It is worth noting that of the seven sins listed as those God particularly hates, almost half are verbal (a lying tongue, a false witness, one who spreads dissension among brothers; Prov 6:16–19).

Verbal abuse often co-occurs with one or more other forms of abuse (Ps 140:1–5; Isa 59:2–4; Jer 9:3–8).

How does abuse affect us?

The psalmist states that abusers’ victims “are crushed, they collapse; they fall under his strength” (Ps 10:10). Since abuse strikes at the core of who we are as image bearers, it’s not surprising that abuse proves exceedingly harmful.

Scripture attests to its wide range of devastating effects.

1. Body

Modern scientific research reveals a robust biological basis for the effects of trauma.⁷⁰ Yet, despite being written in a pre-scientific age, it is striking how so many of Scripture’s descriptions of abuse’s impact are also somatic (bodily), harmonious with current scientific findings. These descriptions include: heart palpitations, muscle trembling, quivering lips (Hab 3:16; Nah 2:10), nightmares and shaking (Job 4:13–14), reduced blood flow resulting in pale skin (Dan 5:6; Nah 2:10), and muscle weakness and dry mouth (Ps 22:15).

2. Mind

Abuse often causes great psychological harm, including an overwhelming sense of grief and loss (2 Sam 13:16–19; Lam 1:1–2, 12), hopelessness and depression (Lam 1:16; 3:4–7; Ps 88:8–18), and crushing fear and anxiety (Ps 55:2–5).

3. Relationships

The triune God created us in his image as relational beings (Gen 1:26–27). We are made for relationship with God and each other. Thus, some of the most devastating effects of abuse are often relational.

Abuse creates distrust and fear of others (Ps 116:3, 11). It often estranges us from our community (2 Sam 13:20). Because of the abuse he suffered, the psalmist complains,

I am the utter contempt of my neighbors and an object of dread to my closest friends—those who see me on the street flee from me. I am forgotten as though I were dead. (Ps 31:11–12)

4. Shame

One of the most common and destructive effects of abuse is toxic shame, an overwhelming sense that one is irredeemably defective, dirty, and broken. David prayerfully articulates this shame:

You know how I am scorned, disgraced and shamed; all my enemies are before you. Scorn has broken my heart and has left me helpless; I looked for sympathy, but there was none, for comforters, but I found none. (Ps 69:19–20)

Tragically, abuse victims typically feel the shame that in fact is due their abusers (2 Sam 13:11–19).

Use scripture to heal, not harm. Watch or listen to Steven Tracey’s interview on Logos Live.

What is God’s response to abuse?

Given its devastating impact, this picture of abuse so far is quite bleak. So we must place abuse into its larger redemptive context. Throughout Scripture, God declares not only that he will heal and redeem abuse, but in the greatest of all ironies, he will use abuse as the ultimate means of redemption and cosmic restoration (1 Cor 1:18–25).

Throughout Scripture, God redeems that which is evil. God used the abuse and suffering of Joseph as the means of saving his family and the future Jewish nation (Gen 50:20). God transformed Saul, one of the most aggressive persecutors of the early church, into its greatest evangelist and theologian. God chose to use Paul’s own sufferings, especially at the hands of his abusers, as a means to spread the gospel (Acts 9:15–16).

But the quintessential way God has used evil to conquer evil is the abuse of Jesus, namely, his death leading to resurrection. Crucifixion in the ancient Roman world was far more than a hideous form of torture. It was the ultimate form of humiliation and permanent shame. But God chose to use this most extreme form of degrading abuse to break the power of death, destroy Satan, and to redeem humanity (Isa 53:1–12; Col 2:13–15; Heb 2:14–15). Abuse is hideously destructive—but evil doesn’t have the last word!

Since abuse victims often feel that God has abandoned them or, at best, has failed to see and address their suffering (Pss 10:1; 44:23–24), let’s briefly consider how Scripture describes God’s response to abuse.

Want to explore what Scripture says on topics like abuse? Try Logos’s Smart Search today.

1. God sees abuse

In contrast to the church’s and society’s all-too-frequent denial of abuse stands Scripture’s emphasis on God’s recognition of abuse.

Abusers carry out their abuse as if God doesn’t see or care (Ps 10:11; Ezek 9:9). However, nothing escapes his sight (Ps 10:14). God sees every instance of abuse and hears every survivor’s painful cry (Exod 3:7). Furthermore, he compassionately grieves over human suffering (Exod 3:7; Isa 63:9; Hos 11:8).

2. God hates abuse

God detests abuse and unrepentant abusers (Pss 5:6; 11:5). For instance, Ezekiel 18:10–13 states that physical violence as well as oppression against the poor are “abominations.” They are so odious to God, he declares that those who do these things are to be put to death. It is worth noting that some of Jesus’s harshest words were directed at those who harm children:

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. (Matt 18:6)

Yet God desires that abusers turn from their evil ways. He desires that they repent and find life (Ezek 18:23).

3. God will judge abuse

Sadly, many abusers do not repent but continue with seeming impunity to harm others. This travesty of justice will be rectified.

There are many accounts in Scripture of God judging abusers within the scope of biblical history (Ezek 22:27–31; Nah 3:1–7). But the ultimate judgment of abuse is still future, as Scripture repeatedly testifies to God’s final judgment of the unrepentant. God promises one day to bring complete justice to this unjust, broken world (Rev 21:1–4; 22:1–5, 15).

4. God heals abuse

Not only will God judge unrepentant abusers, but he delights in healing every evil they have perpetrated. Jesus came to “bind up the brokenhearted,” to “comfort all who mourn,” and replace ashes with beauty (Isa 61:1–3). In our several decades of service to abuse survivors, we have repeatedly seen God heal and redeem the worst abuses imaginable.

We take great comfort in Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians that God “comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (2 Cor 1:4). This is a magnificent promise. God wants to comfort us so that we can extend his comfort to others experiencing similar pain.

Only the God of the resurrection could bring healing and redemption out of evil—and he delights in doing this.

A word of hope

God cares deeply about abuse because he is a God of justice and mercy. Thus, Scripture has robust teachings on the nature and effects of abuse. Thankfully, Scripture unequivocally declares not just God’s hatred of abuse but his commitment to bring justice and to heal and redeem. As followers of the crucified and risen Jesus, we can offer God’s hope filled response to abuse to a world in desperate need of healing.

Share your thoughts

How does it shape your perspective to know that God’s Word is not silent on abuse? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts?

Steven Tracy’s suggested resources on abuse

To Heal or Harm: Scripture’s Use as Poison or Medicine for Abuse Survivors

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

Mending the Soul, Second Edition: Understanding and Healing Abuse

Regular price: $14.49

Add to cart

What Is a Girl Worth? My Story of Breaking the Silence and Exposing the Truth about Larry Nassar and USA Gymnastics

Regular price: $11.39

Add to cart

Is It My Fault? Hope and Healing for Those Suffering Domestic Violence.

Regular price: $8.44

Add to cart

Suffering and the Heart of God: How Trauma Destroys and Christ Restores

Regular price: $20.99

Add to cart

A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

On Guard: Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse at Church

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused

Regular price: $46.99

Add to cart

Related content

• Recovering from Spiritual Abuse: A Practical Pathway Toward Healing
• On Spiritual Abuse | Michael Kruger
• Spiritual Authority: How to Use It, Not Abuse It
• What Does the Bible Say About Church Hurt? 5 Lesson
• Ministering to Trauma Survivors: 3 Lessons from the Book of Job

The landscape of global Anglicanism can be confusing, even for those well acquainted with it. In a single US city, one can find Anglican churches from two or three different dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), along with other congregations connected to the Anglican Province of America, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, the Anglican Catholic Church, the United Episcopal Church of North America, and The Episcopal Church.

All present themselves as Anglican. Yet even a little casual digging reveals more than minor differences in worship expression and ethos, including some major variance in doctrine and even disparate definitions of what constitutes the gospel. Matters become more confusing when the Anglican Church in North American and The Episcopal Church both claim to be part of the Anglican Communion while denying that status to the other.

Who are all these groups, and how does a church belong to the Anglican Communion, if such a thing exists?

What is a communion?

Anglicans don’t prefer the term “denomination” to describe their groups, since essentially all Anglicans would say there’s only one Anglican “denomination,” to which all belong. Instead, Anglicans prefer to speak of communions. A better way to understand the Anglican landscape, then, is to consider which of its groups are in communion with each other.

But first, we need to clarify what is meant by a communion.

Communion among congregations

In the ancient and medieval church, communion had two primary referents. On a local level, it referred to individual Christians being in good standing with a Christian community, signified by participation in the Lord’s Supper. The loss of good standing due to unrepentance of notorious sins could result in ex communicatio, or removal from church fellowship signified by the pastor’s refusing to admit the unrepentant person into participation in the Lord’s Supper.

Extending from this local understanding, the second use of communion referred to relationship between congregations. These relationships included groups of congregations under a single bishop (eventually called a diocese), as well as of a diocese to the wider church of that region whose leadership periodically assembled for a synod.

The good standing of a congregation with its bishop was signified by the bishop from time to time presiding at the Lord’s Supper among them. They took communion together. Likewise, the mutual fellowship and goodwill of the diocese with the wider church was signified by their bishop’s participation in the Lord’s Supper at a regional synod or council. Bishops represented their dioceses and stood “in communion” together—in mutual acknowledgement, respect, and affirmation of faithfulness to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). In cases where a congregation or a diocese violated the region’s norms of doctrine, worship, or behavior, correction was exercised by refusing participation in the Supper, effecting an excommunication. The offending parties were “out of communion.”

Communion among Protestants

With similar assumptions, Reformation churches struggled to establish new Communions, or broad coalitions of churches linked by agreement on doctrine and practice. Famously, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli failed to agree on a doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, preventing a unification of German-speaking Protestants and resulting in fragmented Communions. By the end of the sixteenth century, Protestants fell roughly into three Communions:

• Lutherans, who believed in a real presence of Christ located in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper, with grace conveyed by eating the sanctified elements
• The Reformed, who believed in a spiritual presence of Christ in believers of the gathered body, with grace conveyed through the act of faithful reception of the signs of the body and blood of Christ
• Zwinglians, who saw the Lord’s Supper as only a memorial meal intended to stir up faith among the participants

Agreement on these eucharistic theologies allowed for a Communion between like-minded churches. In the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (5:8), Richard Hooker situated the Church of England’s eucharistic theology among the Reformed, distinguishing it from the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwinglian. As such, pastors from Basel or Strasbourg or Geneva could not only receive communion in English churches but could also be installed as Church of England pastors.

Emergence of an Anglican Communion

How then did multiple churches come into Communion from the Church of England?

British colonial expansion

While the term Ecclesia Anglicanae had long been used to refer simply to the Church of the English people, meaning simply the church on the island of Britain, the modern English adjective “Anglican” first came into common use in the nineteenth century. By this time, the Church of England had become the authorized state denomination, standing among tolerated dissenting denominations and sects including Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Quakers, and more extreme radicals.

Before British colonial expansion, there was also no Anglican Communion. There was simply the Church of England. When colonists began chartering lands overseas, they brought the Church of England alongside overseas English settlers and merchant communities. At different rates, churches of non-English people multiplied through mission efforts. These colonial churches were extensions of the Church of England, and their bishops received letters patent from the crown, which granted them the right of office, even if they were elected by the colonial church.

As things stood in 1850, it could be said that there were three independent Anglican churches in communion together:

• England (including Ireland until 1869), the mother church with high, low, and broad expressions of worship, whose dependents were scattered around the world in British colonies
• Scotland, a high church expression in extreme minority next to the dominant Presbyterian Church of Scotland
• United States, a broad church expression with mixed high and low church influences and persisting as one denomination among many

The term “Anglican Communion” first appeared in 1851 and was used officially at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867.⁷¹ The title and the conference where it became official resulted from the spread of the church in overseas territories of the English.

The Colenso controversy and its consequences

The first Lambeth Conference (1867) and its articulation of an Anglican Communion was prompted by a problem in the colonial church of South Africa. The English Bishop of Natal, John W. Colenso, was charged by his archbishop Robert Gray with teaching heresy by denying the reliability and authority of the Bible.⁷² Though found guilty and inhibited, Colenso appealed the church’s decision to the secular court of the Privy Council. The Communion-altering ruling stated,

The Church of England, in places where there is no Church established by law, is in the same situation with any other religious bodies, in no better but in no worse position, and the members may adopt rules for enforcing discipline within their own body.⁷³

This verdict legally disestablished every colonial Anglican church. Every church that had been founded through mission efforts by the Church of England had then to reconstitute itself as a new Anglican church in the colony. The heretic escaped, as the court ruled Colenso held his position by letters patent from the queen and could not be removed by the church in South Africa.

The first Lambeth Conference (1867)

In the wake of the case, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles Longley, called a meeting at Lambeth Palace of all the colonial bishops, plus those of America and Scotland, to consider how the colonial churches could maintain formal relationship with the Church of England that had founded them. The Lambeth Conference of 1867 determined that since rules of governance—called canons—could now not transcend national boundaries, there was a canonical impossibility of authority over foreign churches issuing from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Church of England. They formally resolved,

That, in order to the binding of the Churches of our Colonial Empire and the Missionary Churches beyond them in the closest union with the Mother Church, it is necessary that they receive and maintain without alteration the standards of Faith and Doctrine as now in use in that Church. That, nevertheless, each Province should have the right to make such adaptations and additions to the services of the Church as its peculiar circumstances may require. (Resolution 8)

The result of the first Lambeth Conference was an Anglican Communion in which authority over doctrine and discipline rested in autonomous national churches and in which Lambeth conferences every ten years would provide a venue for counsel and consideration of common issues, producing non-binding resolutions. Not even the doctrinal statement of the Church of England, the Thirty-Nine Articles, was held as legally binding on national churches. In fact, the Episcopal Church of the United States had never required clergy to subscribe to them.

The Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888)

If not by formal governance or doctrine, then how could an Anglican Communion be recognized?

The next Lambeth conference produced a resolution, the Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 (so-called because it was first proposed at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Chicago two years earlier). It began as an effort to invite reunification with non-Anglican bodies but became a cipher for interpreting Anglicanism.

The first three minimal requirements for establishing communion were basic principles of Protestant Christianity, specifying that churches must hold to:

1. “The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as ‘containing all things necessary to salvation,’ and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.”
2. “The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.”
3. “The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself—Baptism and the Supper of the Lord—ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.”

The fourth principle, which flagged the Anglican church as continuously connected to antiquity, was distinct among Protestant denominations:

1. “The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.”

In practice, the quadrilateral located Anglican identity in the fourth distinctive. While the great majority of Anglicans from the Reformation to the nineteenth century had seen bishops as not a necessary feature of a true church but as providing the best governance, the quadrilateral made bishops in the historic succession an innovative key criterion of legitimate Anglicanism.

Recognition and advisory bodies

Following Lambeth 1888, official recognition of a national church’s belonging to the Anglican Communion largely fell to the Archbishop of Canterbury, by means of his invitation to Lambeth Conferences. Those churches in communion with the Church of England, as seen by the invitation, were recognized by all as part of the Anglican Communion.

Subsequently, two other advisory bodies were formed to further strengthen cooperation amongst the Communion: the Anglican Consultative Council (formed in 1971) and the Primates’ Council (formed in 1991).

Interested in more on Christian traditions?
See our full series on denominations.

Realignment of the Anglican Communion

With no overarching governance nor binding theological commitments, what counted as an Anglican church or Anglicanism became increasingly murky.⁷⁴

Independent Anglican bodies

Networks of churches in both England and the United States that became dismayed by theological drift within the Church of England or The Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century hived off and formed independent Anglican bodies—beginning with the Free Church of England (1841) and the Reformed Episcopal Church (1873) in America,⁷⁵ both of which formed from evangelical opposition to the perceived Roman Catholicizing of the national church.

Other organizations of Anglican churches seeking to hold on to certain threatened convictions branched off to form independent structures. Several groups of Continuing churches, named as such for their claim to continue the faithful stream of The Episcopal Church while the majority abandoned the traditional faith, formed during the 1960s and 1970s. Of these Continuing groups, the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), Anglican Province of America (APA), Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK), Holy Catholic Church—Anglican Rite, and Anglican Church in America (ACA) tend to be Anglo-Catholic in doctrine and practice, while the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA) is Reformed and the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) is evangelical and charismatic. All of these organizations accepted the Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral and have long been recognized as valid Anglican churches, yet not part of the Anglican Communion defined by participation at Lambeth conferences.

Additionally, churches that use the Book of Common Prayer for worship or adhere to the Thirty-Nine Articles might also claim to be Anglican. Such churches are often seen as Anglican in style but not ecclesiology.

Doctrinal crisis within the communion

A more dramatic and thorough realignment of the Anglican Communion itself resulted from a failure of the inherited structure to maintain the foundational principle of the Lambeth Quadrilateral: The Holy Scriptures as the revealed Word of God. When American bishops explicitly denied biblical authority, along with pushing for rites to bless same-sex marriages, many leaders of the Anglican Communion began to doubt the basic Christianity of Western bishops and to consider how correction could be effected. At the Lambeth Conference of 1998, the gathered representatives passed Resolution I.10, which affirmed the traditional Christian view of marriage as between one man and one woman, and called for pastoral care for those experiencing same-sex orientation without blessing same-sex unions.

When dioceses in the United States, Canada, and England subsequently elected bishops in homosexual relationships, member provinces of the Anglican Communion were pushed to determine whether and how the church could hold together. After the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, invited the offending bishops of the United States, Canada, and England to the Lambeth Conference of 2008, conservative bishops across the Communion organized an alternative meeting in 2008, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem, to consider how the Anglican Communion could remain in relationship when communion had been broken.

Emerging from the conference, the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008 provided “the basis for the fellowship,” essentially restating the guiding norms of the English Reformation. The conference established a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans identifiable by adherence to the Jerusalem Declaration. Finally, the gathering called for the formation of new structures to facilitate the Anglican Communion without reference to the instruments that had failed to bring discipline or maintain doctrinal unity, specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Anglican Church in North America was also formally initiated by a resolution of GAFCON 2008.

Competing Anglican communions

Since 2008, two different narratives have claimed to speak authoritatively about what the Anglican Communion is.

The Anglican Communion, Canterbury

Centered on Canterbury, an office called The Anglican Communion maintains that inclusion in the Anglican Communion follows the colonial-era “instruments of unity”—the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council, and Primates’ Council.

This explanation is unapologetically institutional, continuing to lack doctrinal or worship standards while resting communion on recognition by the Church of England. On this account, The Episcopal Church, which has departed from historical Christian teaching on Scripture’s authority, is part of the Anglican Communion while the Anglican Church in North America, which holds to the historic doctrine, is not.

Global South Fellowship of Anglicans

The next two groups reject the colonial-era instruments as sufficient for communion and representing the vast majority of Anglicans globally. They have proposed approaches to communion that prioritize doctrinal and worship standards.

The first is the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA). GSFA has worked toward a covenantal structure that maintains provincial autonomy together with voluntary submission to an Anglican Covenant.

Some national churches of the GSFA have been reluctant to break communion with Canterbury and the Church of England, while acknowledging the insufficiency of those institutions to maintain unity. Thus, the GSFA approach holds to the traditional structures while shifting leadership to the Global South.

The Global Anglican Communion

The second is the Global Anglican Communion, a global Anglican structure established at a conference of bishops in Abuja, Nigeria, in March 2026. This Anglican structure emerged from the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) which put forward the Jerusalem Declaration and sought to return to the original vision of Anglican unity expressed at the first Lambeth Conference. It draws together all Anglicans who wish to hold to the doctrinal and liturgical inheritance of Anglicanism.

Because inclusion requires only consent to the Jerusalem Declaration, the large majority of the Global Anglican Communion churches are also part of the GSFA. In fact, most leaders of the Global Anglican Communion leadership council are also part of the GSFA leadership.

The Global Anglican Communion definitively rejects Canterbury as the focal point for Anglican identity, instead locating the Communion in the Bible, creeds, and historic formularies of the Anglican Church. It is a traditional and doctrinal proposal rather than an institutional one. This move realigns the Anglican Communion to a shared heritage issuing from the Church of England, through global mission, and ever bounded by biblical authority.

Conclusion

Anglicanism is in the midst of a watershed moment. Many leaders hope that the fragmentary impulse, so common to Protestantism and resulting in denominations, can be reversed by a broad inclusion under basic doctrines and standards of the Anglican tradition. Rather than end up with unrelated denominations, communion can be held together and even expanded as churches in the Anglican tradition hold fast to the historic faith.

Share your thoughts

How would you describe Anglicanism’s “denominations”? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Benjamin Fischer’s recommended resources

• Fischer, Benjamin. Confessional Anglicanism. Anglican House, 2026.
• Chapman, Mark D., and Jeremy Bonner, eds. Costly Communion: Ecumenical Initiative and Sacramental Strife in the Anglican Communion. Anglican-Episcopal Theology and History. Brill, 2019.

Reformation Anglicanism: A Vision for Today’s Global Communion (The Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library, vol. 1)

Regular price: $24.99

Add to cart

Reformation Anglican Worship: Experiencing Grace, Expressing Gratitude (The Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library, vol. 4)

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

Additional resources on Anglicanism

Crossway Anglican Theology Collection (5 vols.)

Regular price: $99.99

Add to cart

T&T Clark Anglican Studies Collection (12 vols.)

Regular price: $161.99

Add to cart

SPCK Anglican Studies Collection (6 vols.)

Regular price: $99.99

Add to cart

The Works of That Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker (3 vols.)

Regular price: $27.99

Add to cart

Related content

• What Is Anglicanism? Its History, Beliefs & Practices
• Anglican History: Reformed, Catholic, or Confused?
• Are Anglicans & Episcopalians the Same? Understanding Their Similarities & Differences
• Anglican Bible Study: The Major Books, Thinkers, and Principles
• 10 Anglican Books You Should Know

Join Kirk E. Miller and Old Testament scholar Chad Bird as they discuss the so-called “Curse of Ham” in one of the Bible’s most cryptic and infamously abused passages: Genesis 9:18–29. Discover the different views on the nature of Ham’s sin, why Noah curses his son Canaan instead of Ham, and how to properly interpret and apply this passage.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. 

See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: Chad Bird

Dr. Chad Bird is a scholar in residence at 1517. He has served as a pastor, professor, and guest lecturer in Old Testament and Hebrew. He holds master’s degrees from Concordia Theological Seminary and Hebrew Union College. Bird has contributed articles to Christianity Today, The Gospel Coalition, Modern Reformation, The Federalist, Lutheran Forum, and other journals and websites. He is also the author of several books, including The Christ Key: Unlocking the Centrality of Christ in the Old Testament (1517, 2001) and Limping with God: Jacob & the Old Testament Guide to Messy Discipleship (1517, 2022).

• Facebook
• Instagram
• X
• TikTok
• Link

Episode synopsis: Curse of Ham

Noah as a new Adam in a renewed creation

As we approach Genesis 9:18–29 within the wider flood narrative, we see how Noah plays the role of a “new Adam.”

• Through the flood, it was as if the earth reverted to its watery formless state at creation (Gen 1:2).
• At creation, God’s Spirit (רוּחַ) was over the face of the waters (Gen 1:2). So, too, the wind (same word: רוּחַ) blew over the waters at the flood (Gen 8:1).
• As the Spirit hovered like a bird (רחף) over those creation waters (Gen 1:2), so Noah sends out a dove from the ark (Gen 8:8–12).
• When Noah and his family emerge from the ark, God blesses them and commands them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 9:1, 7), repeating the creation mandate given to the first family (Gen 1:26–28).
• As Adam received dominion over all living creatures and every green plant to eat (Gen 1:26–30), so Noah and his family receive authority over the animals—now to eat them—along with every plant for food (Gen 9:2–3).
• The idea of the image of God is repeated (Gen 1:26–27; 9:6).

The flood, then, is like a de-creation and then re-creation, with Noah emerging as a new Adam. Through the flood, creation goes back to its formless start. Emerging out of the flood, God gives his creation a “restart.”

A new fall narrative

Yet this restart comes with an implicit question: Will things go differently this time? Has the flood eradicated the problem of sin?

Any hope that the flood has fixed humanity’s problem quickly fades. As Genesis quickly shows, the problem was not the outside order, but the disorder of the human heart (cf. Gen 6:5 with Gen 8:21). Even after renewal and judgment, the human condition still calls for redemption.

Genesis 9:18–29, which immediately follows the flood narrative, serves to demonstrate this. According to Chad Bird, it functions as one of Genesis’s “fall narratives,” recapitulating Genesis 3. Noah, like Adam, fails. The hope that Noah might be the one to reverse the curse (Gen 5:28–29) proves misplaced. Just as Adam sinned in a garden setting, Noah sins in a vineyard: He plants, harvests, and becomes drunk, ultimately lying uncovered in his tent.

This moment of vulnerability sets the stage for Ham’s actions and subsequent events.

What did Ham actually do?

Central to the difficulty of Genesis 9:18–29 is the cryptic nature of Ham’s sin: What exactly did Ham do? The text says Ham “saw the nakedness of his father” and told his brothers. But what exactly does this mean, especially in light of Noah’s severe response?

One of the main reasons this passage is so difficult is its brevity and “elliptical” nature: The narrative provides minimal detail and significant gaps in explanation. The narrative raises more questions than it answers.

Bird surveys several common interpretations:

First, older rabbinic sources suggest that Ham castrated Noah. Adherents point to the fact that Noah didn’t have any children from this point on, which castration could explain. Chad finds this interpretation rather speculative and weakly supported by the text.

Second, some maintain that Ham sexually violated Noah. This view draws on parallels from Leviticus 20:17–21, where “see” (ראה) and “nakedness” (עֶרְוָה) (the same words used in Gen 9:22) function as a euphemism for sexual activity. Proponents argue that such an act would explain Noah’s intense response.

However, although the combination of “see” and “nakedness” can function euphemistically (e.g., Lev 20), they need not always do so. In many cases they do not. In fact, apart from the possibility of Genesis 9:22, this pairing of words never has this sense in Genesis (e.g., Gen 42:9, 12). Instead, Genesis consistently uses language like “he went into her” (Gen 16:4; 29:21) and “he knew her” (Gen 4:1, 17) to describe sexual activity.

Secondly, “see nakedness” in Leviticus 20 is a euphemism for heterosexual activity, whereas Genesis 9, according to this view, describes homosexual activity. Apart from the possibility of the text in question (Gen 9:22), “see nakedness” is never used to refer to same-sex sexual activity. Instead, when referring to homosexual sex, Leviticus 20 uses “lie with a male as with a woman” (Lev 20:13).

Third, some suggest Ham slept with Noah’s wife (Ham’s own mother). This view also appeals to the euphemistic possibility of “see nakedness”—and so suffers from some of its same critiques. However, this argument relies on connections between “seeing nakedness” and “uncovering nakedness,” where uncovering a man’s nakedness can refer to relations with that man’s wife. Thus, for Ham to “see the nakedness” of Noah is for him to have sexual relations with Noah’s wife (Ham’s mother). According to this view, Canaan would be the product of this illicit union, giving reason why Canaan is cursed—something other interpretations struggle to explain.

Chad recognizes that “see nakedness” in Genesis 9:22 could have a sexual meaning. Genesis does contain numerous narratives involving sex, including the “sons of God” (Gen 6:1–4), Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:1–11), Judah and Tamar (Gen 38), and Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39). However, a major weakness of these views is the very next verse: Shem and Japheth walk backward to cover their father’s nakedness (same word), making sure they avoid seeing it (Gen 9:23). This description strongly suggests that “seeing nakedness” in the passage as a whole refers to literal sight of literal nakedness, rather than a euphemism.

Thus, Chad slightly favors a fourth view, that Ham literally saw Noah’s nakedness. Ham dishonors his father by exposing his shame rather than covering it, as his brothers did (Gen 9:23). Instead of acting with respect and discretion, he broadcasts his father’s vulnerability to his brothers (Gen 9:22). In a culture that placed a high value on honoring one’s parents, this would have been a serious offense.

But why is Canaan cursed?

Interestingly, the narrator wants us to know at the outset that Canaan is Ham’s son. Both times Canaan is introduced, the text goes out of its way to specify that he is “the father of Canaan” (Gen 9:18, 22)—this even before Canaan himself enters the narrative.

This is to prepare us for what follows: When Noah awakes and somehow recognizes what Ham has done, he pronounces a curse. Yet not on Ham, but on Canaan (Gen 9:25).

But why? The text isn’t clear. Kirk further notes that Scripture elsewhere prohibits punishing children for their fathers’ sins (e.g., Ezek 18:20; Deut 24:16), increasing the difficulty of Noah’s actions.

Some propose that the curse is indeed meant for Ham. Maybe we are meant to read it as an ellipsis: “Cursed be [Ham, the father of] Canaan.” Or maybe Canaan is mentioned as representative of Ham.

Others suggest Canaan was somehow involved in Ham’s sin, although the text doesn’t explicitly say so. But this would explain why Canaan is cursed.

Chad’s preferred explanation is that Noah’s words function as a prophetic pronouncement. Rather than merely reacting to a personal offense, Noah speaks about the future of Ham’s descendants, specifically the line of Canaan. In this sense, the curse is less about immediate punishment and more about forecasting the historical relationship between the descendants of Canaan and Shem (see Gen 9:26), especially Israel. This curse then finds its fulfillment in the broader narrative of the Old Testament, where the Canaanites become Israel’s primary adversaries and are eventually judged during Israel’s conquest of Canaan (Deut 7:1–5, 16–26).

Racist readings of the so-called “curse of Ham”

Kirk raises how this so-called “curse of Ham” has been used to justify racism and the enslavement of African peoples, particularly in the context of the transatlantic slave trade. According to this interpretation, black Africans, who are seen as the descendants of Ham, are destined for servitude under white Europeans, who are seen as the descendants of Japheth (Gen 9:27).

Chad strongly rejects this interpretation as exegetically absurd.

1. The text does not curse Ham, nor does it curse all his descendants. It specifically curses Canaan.
2. Those specific descendants of Ham who are associated with Northern Africa—Cush, Egypt, and Put (Gen 10:6)—are not cursed.
3. The one whose line is cursed—Canaan—is associated with the land of Canaan in the Near East.

Thus, the attempt to link this curse to African peoples is an ideological abuse of Scripture.

Blessing, curse, and Christ

Kirk draws attention to the appearance of blessing and cursing in this passage. Noah’s pronouncement includes both elements: Canaan is cursed, while the Lord, the God of Shem, is blessed. These themes run throughout Genesis and the rest of Scripture:

• They connect back to Genesis 1–3, where God blesses creation but also pronounces a curse as a result of sin.
• They continue in Genesis 12, where God promises to bless Abraham and make him a blessing to all nations, while also cursing those who oppose him.
• Israel’s history unfolds under covenant blessings and curses (Lev 26; Deut 27–28).
• The prophets later speak of a future when God will reverse the curses and restore blessings.

Ultimately, this trajectory of blessing-in-place-of-cursing finds its resolution in the promised “seed,” who is Christ (Gal 3:16). The New Testament presents Jesus as the one who takes the curse upon himself in order to bring blessing to others (Gal 3:10–14).

Scripture opens with the promise of a “seed” who will defeat the serpent (Gen 3:15). Initially, the identity of this “seed” is broad, applying to the offspring of the woman. But from there, it narrows. Genesis 9 points to the line of Shem, which leads to Abraham, then to Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David—and ultimately to Christ.

Genesis 9:18–29, then, reinforces the need for this promised seed. Noah had been born with hope attached to him, that he might be that seed (Gen 5:28–29). But Genesis 9:18–29 shows that Noah is not that promised deliverer. He proves unable to fulfill the role of a “new Adam” who will bring relief. He too is part of fallen humanity. He himself needs deliverance.

So this passage exposes the persistence of sin and the reality of the curse, while also pointing forward to the hope of future blessing.

Teaching and applying the passage

For those teaching or preaching Genesis 9:18–29, Chad emphasizes the need to handle this text carefully. Rather than focusing on resolving every interpretive question, he suggests using this narrative as a mirror of the human condition. This passage shows the ongoing reality of sin, shame, family brokenness, and the need for redemption.

In this way, teachers and preachers can show how this account points forward to humanity’s need for the true promised seed: the one who brings relief from the curse through his death and resurrection.

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Let us know what you think

Which interpretation do you find most plausible? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Chad Bird’s suggested resources for studying Genesis 9

• 40 Minutes in the Old Testament, Episode 15.

The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17 (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament | NICOT)

Regular price: $56.99

Add to cart

The Book of Genesis, 2 vols. (New International Commentary on the Old Testament | NICOT)

Regular price: $81.99

Add to cart

Genesis 11:27–50:26 (New American Commentary | NAC)

Regular price: $25.99

Add to cart

Genesis, 2 vols. (The New American Commentary | NAC)

Regular price: $27.99

Add to cart

Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary)

Regular price: $47.99

Add to cart

Additional resources on Genesis

Logos Research Commentary: Genesis 1–11

Regular price: $39.99

Add to cart

Genesis Expository Preaching Kit, L

Regular price: $599.99

Add to cart

Genesis, 2 vols. (Word Biblical Commentary | WBC)

Regular price: $69.99

Add to cart

Genesis: A Commentary

Regular price: $39.99

Add to cart

Genesis (NIV Application Commentary | (NIVAC)

Regular price: $52.99

Add to cart

Genesis (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries | TOTC)

Regular price: $12.99

Add to cart

Creation and Blessing

Regular price: $44.99

Add to cart

Related content

• Did God Command Genocide? | Tremper Longman on the Canaanite Conquest
• Who Are the “Sons of God” and Nephilim? | James Hamilton on Genesis 6
• When Did Jesus Preach to Spirits in Prison? | Thomas Schreiner on 1 Peter 3:18–22
• Is the Creation Story Literal? | Vern Poythress on Genesis 1:1–2:3

Despite only appearing in a handful of verses, Nimrod is a legendary character reputed to be the founder of great cities and a mighty hunter.

This article explores who Nimrod was, what the Bible says about him, and why he still matters for Christians today.

Who was Nimrod in the Bible?

Nimrod is an ancient king, a mighty warrior, and one known to be a mighty hunter before the Lord (Gen 10:8–9; 1 Chron 1:10). According to Genesis 10:11–12, he founded many cities: 

The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

Genesis 10:6–8 and 1 Chronicles 1:10 identify Nimrod as the descendant of Cush, from whom the Cushites get their name.⁷⁶ The Cushites lived roughly in modern Ethiopia (Kush) and they play an important role in the Bible’s story. For example, Moses marries a Cushite (Num 12:1). Given this marriage, it seems unlikely that Nimrod’s father, Cush, and the Cushites took a reputation hit for being related to Nimrod.  

Genesis 10:8 further explains, “he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior [גִּבּוֹר].” Of all the names mentioned in the Table of Nations (Gen 10), Nimrod “is the only figure significantly elaborated upon.”⁷⁷

Of the three places where Nimrod is named in the Bible (Gen 10:8–12; 1 Chron 1:10; Mic 5:5–6), Micah best illustrates his ongoing significance in the historical memory of Israel. In Micah 5:5–6, the prophet associates Assyria with the land of Nimrod, which suggests not only a long-term interest in the person of Nimrod but also hints at where ancient Hebrews believed Nimrod built his cities.

What does it mean that Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the LORD”?

The phrase “a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Gen 10:9) seems simple at first glance. Calling Nimrod a hunter may simply describe him as one who hunts for game, for food. Yet its specific meaning is debated.

“Hunter”

Due to Nimrod’s association with Babel, Augustine suggests that the title “hunter” may indicate that Nimrod was “a deceiver, an oppressor, a slayer of earth-born creatures.”⁷⁸ Augustine may be correct, given how negatively Genesis portrays Nimrod. Genesis Rabbah, a Jewish midrash, likewise supports Augustine’s negative view of the title “hunter.” The midrash points to a parallel between Esau and Nimrod and concludes, “just as that one hunted [ensnared] people through their words, so, too, this one hunts [ensnares] people with their words” (Gen Rab 37:2).

Additionally, Genesis 10:9 recasts Nimrod into the image of the mighty men of old, those identified as Nephilim, in the antediluvian age (Gen 6:4). The adjective “mighty” (גִּבּוֹר) is the same word that describes the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4—“the mighty men.” In ancient Greek translations, usually called the Septuagint (LXX), Nimrod is called a “giant” just as the Nephilim are in Genesis 6:4. If we grant this connection, then the description of Nimrod as a “mighty hunter” may take a more sinister tone. Was Nimrod like the Nephilim of old, those mighty men who led to the flood of the earth? And, if so, might the word “mighty” take a negative connotation, as it does in Isaiah 49:25, where it means “tyrant”? If so, the act of hunting may very well represent acts of evil.

Further, since Genesis 10:10 says, “The beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel,” it seems likely that he founded the city of Babylon,⁷⁹ which rebels against God in Genesis 11. That Nimrod founded Babylon furthers the impression that Nimrod, this mighty hunter and founder of cities, is portrayed as a Nephilim. This would also support Augustine’s suggestion that the word “hunter” implies that Nimrod was “an oppressor, a slayer of earth-born creatures.”

“before the LORD”

The next debated word is the preposition “before” (לִפְנֵי).

Historically, authors like Augustine of Hippo believed that this word took on the sense of being “against the Lord.”⁸⁰ Others like Chrysostom took the phrase to imply that Nimrod was “strong and brave.” Chrysostom maintains that “before the Lord” likely means that God created Nimrod, yet wonders if it might mean that God intended to provoke our wonder at his creation of such a legendary figure.⁸¹ Interpreters have gone back and forth on the moral implications of the word “before.” Only contextual factors can ultimately decide the question.

That said, לִפְנֵי only appears three times prior to Genesis 10:9 (Gen 6:11, 13; 7:1), and in each case it takes the sense of “according to the opinion of.”⁸² For example, in Genesis 7:1, the LORD says of Noah, “for I have seen that you are righteous before [לִפְנֵי] me.” If Genesis 10:9 follows this pattern, it may mean that the LORD judges Nimrod to be a mighty hunter. However, the next three uses of לִפְנֵי in Genesis take temporal and spatial senses of “before” (Gen 13:9, 10; 17:1). So we should be slow to conclude one way or the other.

We do, however, know what its object means: the LORD. In English versions of the Old Testament, LORD translates God’s covenantal name Yahweh, not the general term for God, Elohim. Therefore, no matter how Nimrod is before the LORD, Genesis 10:9 tells us Nimrod was a mighty hunter before Yahweh—whether that means in the presence of Yahweh, against Yahweh, or in the opinion of Yahweh. 

Interestingly, a small group of late Greek and Latin witnesses replace LORD with God, perhaps because of the oddness of this phrase. But the majority reading is LORD in Greek (κυρίου) and YHWH in Hebrew (יהוה). This small exception in the manuscript tradition may suggest that scribes were uncomfortable with Nimrod being before the “LORD” and thought it better to say “God.”

Whatever the meaning of this phrase, we can safely conclude that Nimrod was an important figure in the ancient world, not only for his city-building efforts but also because of his connection to Yahweh.

Is Nimrod connected to the Tower of Babel?

Nimrod founded many cities in the land of Shinar, including Babylon, according to Genesis 10:10: “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar.” In the land of Shinar, people built the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:2). It stands to reason that, due to the relationship between the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 and how those nations rebelled against God in Genesis 11:1–9, readers should see Nimrod as a founder of a kingdom that rebelled against God at the Tower of Babel.

The name Nimrod may also hint at his connection to Babel. The Hebrew root מרד (m-r-d), from which the name Nimrod (נִמְרֹ(וֹ)ד) could derive (n-m-r-d), means “to rise in revolt” or “to rebel.”⁸³ While it is not possible to know for sure if readers are meant to hear “rebel” in the name Nimrod, a number of textual clues suggest that this is indeed intended.

First, as noted above, the word “mighty” recalls the mighty men of old from Genesis 6:4, possibly identifying them with the Nephilim.

Second, Genesis 11:1–9 and Genesis 10:8–12 share a number of verbal allusions, which includes vocabulary and phrases such as חלל (“to begin”), בָּבֶל (“Babel”), שִׁנְעָר (“Shinar”), עַל־כֵּן (“therefore”), בנה (“to build”), and the city-building motif culminating in הָעִ֥יר הַגְּדֹלָֽה (“the great city,” 10:12) paralleling עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל (“a city and a tower,” 11:4). Since these terms describe human activity explicitly condemned by YHWH in Genesis 11:1–9, the lexical links cast Nimrod and his empire-building as rebellious.

Third, the simple fact that Nimrod builds empires confirms this interpretation. He builds four cities, one of which, Resen, is called “the great city” (Gen 10:11–12). In the Bible, the empires of man are regular antagonists of the city of God, Jerusalem—or the people of God, Israel (see the next section). Further, Nimrod’s kingdom includes the city of Babel, which—along with the city of Nineveh, which he also builds—stands as the key city that opposes God in Scripture.

In summary, Genesis 10 names Nimrod as an extraordinary figure whose name is associated with the cities of man that rebel against the city of God.

How does Nimrod’s kingdom contrast with the kingdom of God?

Genesis traces two groups of people: those born of the seed of the woman and those born of the seed of the serpent (Gen 3:15). The groups are not marked by biology but by worship and morality. So Cain, as the offspring of the serpent, murders Abel and founds the first city, which he names after his son, Enoch (Gen 4:17). 

While the city has beauty, culture, and science (Gen 4:21–22), its foundation on murder means that it culminates in murder, too. The beautiful, murderous, and vengeful poem of Lamech stands as a testimony to what the city of man can achieve (Gen 4:23–24).

The great cities of Nimrod, including Babel, mark a continuation of Genesis’s critique of the cities of man. The Tower in Babel is what such cities create. By contrast, the Pentateuch speaks about another city, a city that God will build, where he will place his name (e.g., Deut 12:5). 

This city—not made with human hands but whose founder and designer is God—is eventually symbolized by Jerusalem. As the earthly symbol for God’s true city, it symbolizes the Jerusalem above that at the end of time will descend from heaven to wipe out “Babylon the Great” (Heb 11:10, 16; 12:22; 13:14; Rev 18:2; 21:1, 10). Augustine famously applies these themes of two seeds and two cities in his work The City of God.

Applying this biblical theology to Nimrod clarifies that his city-building is not a morally neutral activity, but rather an attempt to build safety and security apart from God in the wasteland of a sin-cursed world.   

What can Nimrod teach us today? 

Nimrod becomes a link between the antediluvian world’s “mighty men” and the postdiluvian’s. Despite the flood, “great ones” still exist.

Nimrod shows how the story of the two seeds (see Gen 3:15) plays out in a postdiluvian world. We learn that it is not biology but sin and rebellion that places one on the side of the seed of the serpent.

Nimrod sets up an archetypal man, a hunter like Esau, who rebels against God. The city of God stands fast against the city of man. 

Christians, therefore, have much to learn from Nimrod. We can learn to avoid his pride, as Babel aimed to build its tower into the heavens. Instead, we need God to descend from heaven. We need a Savior who will come down to us, not us to him.

Even the mighty men and their empires cannot suffice.

Share your thoughts

What else can be known about Nimrod? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Resources for further study

The Book of Jubilees

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

The Unseen Realm: Discovering the Supernatural World of the Bible (Expanded Edition)

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

Babel: Political Rhetoric of a Confused Legacy

Regular price: $30.99

Add to cart

From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11

Regular price: $26.99

Add to cart

The City of God and the Goal of Creation (Short Studies in Biblical Theology)

Regular price: $10.99

Add to cart

The City of God, 2 vols. (The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century)

Regular price: $99.99

Add to cart

Related content

• The Tower of Babel Story: What Really Happened?
• Where Are Giants in the Bible Other Than Goliath?
• Who Are the “Sons of God” and Nephilim? | James Hamilton on Genesis 6
• Does God Change His Mind? | Wyatt Graham on Genesis 6:5–8
• When Did Jesus Preach to Spirits in Prison? | Thomas Schreiner on 1 Peter 3:18–22

Only about 1.8 percent of Americans have a PhD.⁸⁴ Getting a PhD is rare.

If you are considering joining this academic minority, keep reading. What follows is a short guide meant to help you think honestly about the decision. Perhaps I will talk you into it. Perhaps I will talk you out of it. Either way, the goal is clarity.

Let me talk you into a PhD

There are many reasons why people might pursue a PhD. Some are healthy. Some are not. I once had someone tell me he wanted to earn a PhD so no one could ever argue with him again. That confidence would not survive long. He would only need to wait until he published a monograph and received a one-star review from a freshman.

Still, there are good reasons to do the work. Here are five:

1. You have an itch that will take five to seven years to scratch

When I first started asking whether I should pursue a PhD, I talked to a friend who was nearing the end of his thesis. I expected a long speech.

Instead he said, “Only do it if you have an itch you want to scratch for five to seven years.”

A PhD requires a subject you care about deeply enough to live with it for a long time. You will read about it constantly. You will return to the same question again and again as days turn into weeks, weeks into months, and months into years. During my own program, I spent seven Christmas breaks working on my topic!

But this is also the gift of the PhD. It is one of the few seasons in life where you are allowed to examine one idea more carefully than almost anyone else in the world has examined it.

2. You want to produce original research to contribute something unique

In my book A World Without God: The Search for Meaning in a World Overcome by Despair, I describe the digital age as the peak of modernization. We are drowning in information. Everyone is repeating someone else. It becomes exhausting.

What the world actually needs are people who step out of that current and contribute something genuinely thoughtful.

Mortimer Adler wrote in How to Read a Book, “To be informed is to know simply that something is the case.” Much of what passes for expertise today falls into that category. People know facts. They repeat facts. They repeat them loudly. But Adler continues:

To be enlightened is to know, in addition, what it is all about. Why it is the case. What its connections are with other facts. In what respects it is the same and in what respects it is different.⁸⁵

A PhD moves a person from being informed to becoming enlightened, albeit in a narrow area of study. The process pushes you to understand not only what something is but also why it matters and how it connects to everything around it.

3. Your work will be tested by other scholars

One of the most difficult aspects of doctoral work is also one of the most valuable. Your thinking will constantly be examined.

Your supervisor will challenge your claims. Other scholars will question your assumptions. Every argument will be pressed. As a sports fan, I often think of this as full-court pressure that lasts for years.

My own thesis was 180,000 words. My supervisor required me to defend every sentence. Sometimes I would submit a chapter and receive pages of comments in return. At the time it felt exhausting. Later I realized it was a gift. He was preparing me for the final defense. He wanted to make sure I knew my own argument better than anyone else in the room.

When the process is complete, something meaningful happens. Other scholars recognize that your work has been examined and tested. In a world where anyone can start a podcast or self-publish anything they want, peer review still matters. It signals that your work has endured scrutiny.

4. You want to teach in higher education

If your goal is to become a professor, a PhD should be on your radar.

In most universities, especially those accredited by the Association of Theological Schools, doctoral training is required for teaching certain subjects. That means that if you want to teach New Testament, Old Testament, hermeneutics, or theology at the graduate level, the PhD becomes necessary. The degree signals that you have spent years studying the discipline deeply enough to guide others through it.

5. You value the formation that comes through endurance

When someone earns a PhD, it says something about their character.

It means they can commit themselves to a long process. They can develop a method for studying a problem. They have engaged hundreds of books and articles. They wrote something substantial that contributes to an ongoing conversation.

That level of endurance requires discipline, patience, and humility (because you will be corrected often).

The process trains you to think carefully and to persist through long stretches of work that offer little immediate reward. That formation alone can make the experience worthwhile.

Let me talk you out of a PhD

I have also watched many people begin the PhD conversation with great excitement. Then the process stalls before a proposal is ever written.

So here is the other side of the conversation. As the old proverb says, Caveat emptor (“Let the buyer beware!”).

1. There are no shortcuts

A PhD usually takes five to seven years. Sometimes longer.

Certain chapters may take a year or two to complete. You will read books that turn out to be useless and buy expensive monographs that contribute only a single footnote. I once purchased a book for ninety dollars and realized within two minutes that I did not need it.

Your supervisor will return drafts with comments that send you back to work again. At one point, I spent nine months writing my first chapter, only to be told that the structure was wrong and needed to be rewritten.

There is no clever way around the work.

2. It is expensive

Doctoral programs vary widely in cost, but it is common to hear numbers between forty and eighty thousand dollars.

Some programs offer scholarships. Some universities provide funding packages. Those opportunities exist. Still, many people pay a significant portion of the cost out of pocket.

Other pressures tend to accompany the intellectual and financial pressures: tuition payments arrive while chapters are still unfinished, conferences require travel, and books continue to accumulate.

The rewards, if they come, arrive slowly.

3. Mental health can suffer

We need to be honest here: Studies suggest that depression and anxiety are highly prevalent among PhD students.⁸⁶

When people imagine doctoral study, they picture the prestige of the degree, the books they might publish, or the conferences where they will present. What they often overlook is the isolation.

You may spend long stretches working alone. Deadlines will loom constantly. Drafts will return with pages of corrections.

During my own program, I gained forty pounds. My weakness became key lime pie. After long writing sessions, I would sit at my desk and eat an entire one straight from the tin with a fork. I also developed a kind of obsessive attention to detail. Hours disappeared while adjusting footnotes. Parsing through bibliographical entries trained me to fuss over everything in my personal space: the wrinkles in my clothes, the objects in my home, the way my refrigerator was organized. It was misery.

4. The academic job market is tight

The number of full-time faculty positions is shrinking. Many universities have reduced or merged programs in the humanities. Theology departments face similar pressures. Adjunct teaching has increased. Tenure-track positions appear less frequently.

The familiar image of the gray-haired professor lecturing in a tweed jacket in a quiet hall is fading. That does not mean doctoral training is useless. It does mean that those who complete the degree may need an extra dose of creativity to figure out how to use their expertise.

5. You might become unbearable

There is also a social risk.

When you pursue a PhD, you spend years thinking about your thinking. You constantly analyze arguments, evidence, assumptions, and conclusions.

Eventually that habit follows you everywhere. You begin explaining things that no one asked about. Conversations drift toward analysis when they were meant to be casual. Friends may grow weary when ordinary discussions turn into miniature lectures.

It is difficult to notice when this shift happens. It is even harder to stop.

You decide!

The decision to pursue a PhD carries both risks and rewards. The process can shape your mind and open doors that would otherwise remain closed. It can also cost years of effort, a great deal of money, and a fair amount of emotional strain.

Before moving forward, it is wise to discuss the decision with the people closest to you. An informed decision is always the best decision. Whether your answer is yes or no, clarity is a gift.

Share your thoughts

Why should—or shouldn’t—one get a PhD? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Resources for further reflection

Surviving and Thriving in Seminary: An Academic and Spiritual Handbook

Regular price: $12.99

Add to cart

Prepare, Succeed, Advance: A Guidebook for Getting a PhD in Biblical Studies and Beyond, 2nd ed.

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

A Little Exercise for Young Theologians

Regular price: $9.00

Add to cart

A Little Book for New Theologians: Why and How to Study Theology (Little Books)

Regular price: $9.99

Add to cart

From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research

Regular price: $10.99

Add to cart

Mobile Ed: Introduction to Writing Bundle (3 courses)

Regular price: $149.99

Add to cart

Writing Theology Well: A Rhetoric for Theological and Biblical Writers, 2nd ed.

Regular price: $26.99

Add to cart

The Elements of Style

Regular price: $4.99

Add to cart

Related content

• Applying for a Doctoral Program? 7 Essential Tips
• 8 Tips for Finding a Thesis or Dissertation Topic
• 3 Misguided Narratives About Success in Seminary
• The Importance of Theological Education | Albert Mohler

Some of my most spiritually rich and formative years were spent in seminary.

From 2011 to 2014, I had the privilege of studying at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I was equipped for ministry in the classroom, gained practical experience as a member of a wonderful local church, and enjoyed the blessings of deep community life in both settings.

One of the unexpected gifts of those years—and one for which I remain deeply thankful to God—was a few good friends. From Super Bowl parties to fervent prayer gatherings, from March Madness excitement to memorizing Hebrew vocabulary, from tears of joy to tears of sorrow, our shared experiences profoundly shaped me.

In this article, I want to encourage those currently in seminary, or preparing to begin, not to overlook the value of cultivating a few close friendships. To that end, I will explore the why, what, and how of friendships in seminary.⁸⁷

Why pursue friendships in seminary

“Seminary is dangerous.”⁸⁸ I was taken aback the first time I read those words. Seminary is supposed to be a place of growth, learning, and spiritual formation. How could it be dangerous? The warning is against becoming overfed on theological knowledge while becoming undernourished in our heart-level affection for God.

That danger is real and perhaps familiar. Yet others are more subtle:

• Spiritual isolation
• Neglect of the local church
• Academic rivalry
• The temptation to pretend we have everything together when we are struggling

Left unchecked, these dangers can make seminary a lonely and perilous place.

So how do we guard against them? One of the most important ways is to prioritize healthy, authentic friendships during seminary. Friendship is God’s idea and God’s gift—his means of grace to help us persevere and avoid making shipwreck of our faith (1 Tim 1:19). Good friends can help preserve us from unseen spiritual threats and strengthen us to remain spiritually alive.

Easily search the Bible for key passages on friendship with Logos’s Smart Search. Start your free trial.

Proverbs speaks often about the value of wise companions. In Proverbs 13:20, we read, “Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.” These words remind us to choose our friends carefully, because they shape us profoundly—for good or for ill. Wise friends lead us toward spiritual life. Foolish friends can lead us toward spiritual harm.

Especially in the formative years of seminary, then, we should strive to be good friends and to pursue good friends, so that we might sharpen one another to the glory of God.

What good seminary friends provide

Below are four key components of friendship drawn from snapshots of friendship in Scripture. Together, they illustrate the kind of friend we should seek to be—and the kind of friends we should seek to have: The kind of friends who will help us navigate the exciting yet sometimes dangerous crosscurrents of seminary life.

1. Friends support one another

In Exodus 17:8–16, we read a vivid account of Moses interceding on a hill while Joshua was fighting against the Amalekites in a valley. This scene is often highlighted as a model of intercessory prayer, but it also provides a striking picture of friendship. Moses prays for Joshua while he is in the thick of battle—friends intercede for one another. When Moses’s arms grow weary, Aaron and Hur place a stone under him and physically hold up his hands so he can continue.

Friends step in when they see a companion struggling. Throughout seminary, there will be seasons when you need this kind of support, and seasons when you will give it. Good friends support one another.

2. Friends strengthen one another

In 1 Samuel 18–23, we see one of Scripture’s richest portraits of friendship: David and Jonathan. In chapter 23, David is weary, afraid, and hiding in the wilderness while Saul is hunting him down. Into that moment of vulnerability, verse 16 tells us “Saul’s son Jonathan went to David at Horesh and helped him find strength in God.” Jonathan does not wait for David to seek him out: He intentionally moves toward his friend. He encourages him, speaks truth, reminds him of God’s promises, and points him back to the true source of strength: God himself.

This portrait of friendship reminds us that good friends do not merely offer support. They direct us toward God and the strength found in him. Seminary will inevitably bring moments of weariness, discouragement, or spiritual dryness. Good friends help us find fresh strength in God when we need it most, lifting our eyes beyond our circumstances to the One in whom all true strength resides. Good friends strengthen one another.

3. Friends sharpen one another

Proverbs 27:17 tells us, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” The bright edge of our affection for God can grow dull if we approach theology in a purely academic manner. We need friends who will sharpen us spiritually, who will help keep our hearts warm, our minds alert, and our devotion vibrant.

I formed some of my most important theological convictions through hours of discussion, debate, and study with friends who pushed me back to Scripture and encouraged clarity, humility, and consistency in my thinking. Good friends sharpen one another.

4. Friends sacrificially serve one another

Jesus displayed the ultimate act of friendship through his sacrificial death for his people on the cross. In John 15:13, he declares, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” He then applies this astonishing truth to his disciples by saying, “You are my friends” (John 15:14) and again, “I have called you friends” (John 15:15). Jesus speaks of his self‑giving sacrifice as a deep expression of his love for his friends.

This means that the heart of Christian friendship is not just shared affection or shared experience, but Christlike, costly love. As those called to “walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us” (Eph 5:2), Christians are to extend that same sacrificial posture toward one another. True friends will gladly inconvenience themselves, bear one another’s burdens, and seek each other’s greatest spiritual good—even when it comes at some personal cost. Good friends serve one another.

How to pursue friendships in seminary

This can be intimidating, especially for those leaving home for the first time, so it is important to take seriously these points:

1. Intentionally create opportunities for friendships

Recognizing their importance, we should first make time to share our seminary journey with others. This will look different depending on your stage of life, but creating space for coffee breaks, meals, study sessions, or simple moments of rest and relaxation can go a long way toward initiating relationships that may deepen over time. These small, regular rhythms of shared life are the soil in which lasting friendships can grow.

2. Pursue spiritual depth with those with whom you naturally connect

This often means being the one to move the conversation beyond surface‑level topics. Share what God is teaching you through your classes, speak honestly about your struggles and encouragements, and create space to pray together. Over time, these kinds of conversations cultivate trust and foster genuine spiritual friendship.

3. Adopt an attitude of giving and receiving in your friendships

Healthy friendships are mutual. There will be seasons when you need the support and strengthening ministry of a few trusted friends, and other seasons when you will be the one offering support and sharpening to those who need it. In both roles, we learn humility, gratitude, and the joy of walking with others as we all seek to mature in Christ.

Conclusion

The friendships we make at seminary can become gifts that keep giving. Over a decade has passed since my own time at seminary, and I still have regular online calls with those few good friends. Though the years of study were temporary, the bonds forged through shared joys, trials, and prayers have endured far beyond the classroom.

These good friends were—and continue to be—a means of God’s grace. They have shaped my character, strengthened my faith, and helped me to navigate the challenges and pressures that come with pastoral ministry. Even though we are scattered across the world today, our fellowship remains strong as we continue to encourage, challenge, and pray for one another in our respective callings.

Seminary offers many gifts, but few are as enduring, steadying, or life‑giving as the gift of a few wise, godly friends. May those entering or journeying through seminary recognize this gift, pursue it intentionally, and give thanks to God for the friendships that will sustain and enrich them for years to come.

Share your thoughts

What’s the benefit of friendship during seminary? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Resources for further reflection

Iron Sharpens Iron: Friendship and the Grace of God

Regular price: $11.99

Add to cart

How to Stay Christian in Seminary

Regular price: $7.99

Add to cart

Becoming Friends: Worship, Justice, and the Practice of Christian Friendship

Regular price: $20.00

Add to cart

No Greater Love: A Biblical Vision for Friendship

Regular price: $9.99

Add to cart

Why Does Friendship Matter? (Questions for Restless Minds)

Regular price: $6.99

Add to cart

Sacred Companions: The Gift of Spiritual Friendship Direction

Regular price: $19.99

Add to cart

Enduring Friendship: Sticking Together in an Age of Unfriending

Regular price: $4.99

Add to cart

Transformative Friendships: 7 Questions to Deepen Any Relationship (Church-Based Counseling)

Regular price: $13.99

Add to cart

Related content

• What Is Friendship—and Can Pastors Find It in the Church?
• 3 Misguided Narratives About Success in Seminary
• 8 Ways to Gain Ministry Experience While in Seminary
• Learning by Doing: How to Train Seminary Students for Ministry
• Facing Doubt in Seminary: How to Grow Through Uncertainty

In Galatians 4:21–31, the Apostle Paul refers to the story of Sarah and Hagar as an allegory: Hagar corresponds to Mount Sinai and the present Jerusalem, while Sarah corresponds to the Jerusalem above. Is Paul twisting the Old Testament? Is he reading ideas into Genesis that aren’t really there?

Join host Kirk E. Miller and New Testament scholar David deSilva in this episode of What in the Word? as they explore Paul’s use of the Old Testament and how it serves as a sophisticated defense of receiving God’s promises by faith.

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. 

See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: David deSilva

David deSilva is Trustees’ Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, OH, where he has taught since 1995. He has held visiting professorships at the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem, Regent College in Vancouver, and Colombo Theological Seminary in Sri Lanka. He holds degrees from Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Emory University.

He is the author of forty books, including:

• Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (InterVarsity Academic, 2022)
• An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry Formation (InterVarsity Academic, 2018)
• Introducing the Apocrypha (Baker Academic, 2018)
• A Week in the Life of Ephesus (InterVarsity Academic, 2020)
• Archaeology and the Ministry of Paul: A Visual Guide (Baker Academic, 2025)
• Archaeology and the World of Jesus: A Visual Guide (Baker Academic, 2025)
• Archaeology and the Book of Revelation: A Visual Guide (Baker Academic, 2026)

He also has commentaries on:

• Galatians (Eerdmans, 2018)
• Ephesians (Cambridge, 2022)
• Hebrews (Eerdmans, 2000)
• Jude (Baker Academic, 2012)

He has also served as director of traditional music and organist at local churches since 1984. David is married to Donna Jean Heitman deSilva, with whom he shares three adult sons.

Episode synopsis

The pastoral crisis behind Galatians 4:21–31

The churches in Galatia, which Paul and Barnabas had planted, were being influenced by rival teachers who claimed that Paul had not told them the full story. According to these teachers, faith in Christ was not enough by itself. Gentile believers also needed to take up a Torah-observant life and receive circumcision if they wanted to belong fully to the people of God.

The rival teachers’ argument seemingly had some weight. God’s promises were given to Abraham and his descendants via the Abrahamic covenant, and circumcision functioned as the entry rite into that covenant (Gen 17). Surely then, so the rival teachers reasoned, if gentiles were to receive the blessings of the covenant, they had to receive its sign: circumcision. They had to become Jewish.

Paul, however, interprets this as a direct assault on the true gospel.

1. Contrary to these rival teachers who claim Paul’s gospel is insufficient, Paul maintains that his gospel is exactly what he received, first from Christ himself and secondly as approved by the Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1–2).
2. To require circumcision and Torah observance does not complete the gospel. It distorts it. It implies that Christ’s work is insufficient and that the gift of the Spirit is not enough to make gentiles full members of God’s covenant people (Gal 3–6).

That is why the tone of Paul’s letter is so urgent. He is not engaged in an abstract theological debate. He is fighting for the freedom of his converts and for the truth of the gospel which he had delivered to them.

Why this passage perplexes and proves difficult

In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul interprets Hagar and Sarah figuratively, claiming these two women represent things not specifically mentioned in the text of Genesis 16 and 21. Paul describes his interpretation using a word many English translations translate “allegorically” (ἀλληγορέω). For many, allegory suggests an interpretive approach detached from Scripture’s actual meaning, injecting it instead with hidden symbolism. For instance, ancient interpreters like Philo of Alexandria used the Bible’s narratives, like Genesis 16, in ways that moved far from the historical and literary concerns of the text. Hijacking the text in this way strikes many as irresponsible, especially those who want to affirm the authority and clarity of Scripture.

Not only this, but Paul defends the gospel by this interpretation. If Paul’s use of the Old Testament is arbitrary—simply making it say what he wants—then it calls into question whether the gospel is exegetically defensible or if it’s only propped up by illegitimate appeals.

What Paul means by “allegorically”

David deSilva clarifies: We shouldn’t load the Greek word ἀλληγορέω with everything we might associate with the word “allegory” based now on two millennia of allegorical readings of Scripture. At its most basic level, the word means that Paul takes the Genesis account as communicating something beyond a strict recounting of the events themselves. Paul reads the Genesis account figuratively, where Sarah and Hagar are understood to represent other things (e.g., the Mosaic covenant, which did not even exist in Hagar’s time). But to make this move, Paul goes beyond a “literal,” surface-level description of the account.

Importantly, Paul’s reading does not abandon the interests of the Genesis narrative though. Paul’s reading remains concerned with themes like covenant promises, offspring, and inheritance.

How Galatians earlier prepares for Paul’s allegory

Paul’s figurative application of Genesis 16 and 21 comes as the culmination of an argument he had already begun developing earlier in the letter.

The Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant must be distinguished. The law, which came 430 years after the promise, cannot nullify that earlier promise. Thus, inheritance of God’s blessing has always depended on God’s promise, not on what could be acquired by the flesh. The law was never intended to be the basis for receiving the inheritance (Gal 3:15–18).

Rather, the law had an intentionally temporary function: God gave it as a pedagogue leading up to Christ’s arrival (Gal 3:19–24; 4:1–7).

In fact, those who rely on Torah observance, far from receiving the inheritance, receive God’s curse. Those who fail to keep God’s law are cursed, and no one is able to keep it (Gal 3:10–14).

Thus, Abraham’s true children, the heirs of the promises made to him, are identified not by circumcision—not by flesh—but by faith. Those who share Abraham’s trust are his true offspring (Gal 3:7–9, 25–29).

So by the time Paul reaches Galatians 4:21–31, he has already laid the theological groundwork for this figurative application of Genesis 16 and 21. Paul’s “allegory” is not the basis of his argument so much as a climactic, homiletical expression of it.

Ishmael and Isaac represent two ways of pursuing the promise

Paul reads Sarah and Hagar and their production of offspring in Genesis 16 and 21 as representing two different covenantal ways of relating to God.

God’s redemptive promise to Abraham included the promise that God would multiply Abraham greatly and bless the world through Abraham’s offspring (Gen 12:1–3; 15:1–6). Thus, Abraham and Sarah’s childlessness was not merely a matter of an elderly couple’s infertility but a direct challenge to the fulfillment of God’s promise.

Paul appeals to Genesis 16 and 21 to contrast the means of Ishmael’s and Isaac’s births.

• Abraham and Sarah, faced with God’s not-yet-fulfilled promise, tried to secure the promised offspring by their own efforts. Hagar would step in as Sarah’s surrogate. In that sense, Ishmael was born “according to the flesh.” His birth represents a human attempt to bring about God’s purposes through fleshly means.
• Isaac’s birth, by contrast, came through God’s supernatural intervention. Sarah was barren, and she and Abraham were well beyond any natural age for childbearing. Isaac’s existence depended entirely on divine power and promise, not human ability. In that sense, Isaac was born “according to promise.” His birth represents receiving God’s promise through trust.

As Paul reads Genesis 16 and 21, then, he makes his case from this principle genuinely present in the narrative of Genesis itself. He identifies two ways of attempting to secure God’s promise blessing:

1. through fleshly efforts, or
2. through trust in God’s promise.

So too, Paul observes, the offspring of the slave woman (Hagar) are born into slavery, and thus not heirs of the promise, whereas the offspring of the free woman (Sarah) are full children and heirs of the inheritance (children of the promise).

The figural correspondences: covenants and their children

Paul then extrapolates these exegetically derived principles from Genesis and maps them onto other corresponding realities.

Paul compares the birth of Ishmael (“according to the flesh”) to those who rely on Sinai’s law-covenant as a means of attaining the promises. This stands in contrast to the principle behind Isaac’s birth, and with it the Abrahamic covenant, of receiving God’s promises purely by faith.

Paul then makes a shocking move: While the rival teachers certainly would have seen themselves as descendants of Sarah, the matriarch of the Jewish people, Paul maintains that those who rely on Torah observance and circumcision are actually (spiritually speaking) children of Hagar! Hagar corresponds to that covenant that bears children for slavery: Sinai. The path which these rival teachers assumed led to inheritance corresponds, it turns out, to slavery!

Therefore, Paul concludes, to submit to the law as the basis of covenant identity is not a step forward into fuller obedience. It is a step backward into slavery. As Paul has argued earlier, the law supervised God’s people for a time, but that time has ended with the coming of Christ. Those who cling to the Mosaic covenant now that Christ has come are not living in the freedom of God’s final redemptive act.

The Jerusalem above and Paul’s use of Isaiah 54:1

So too the Jerusalem in Paul’s day, as the center of Torah-based religion, corresponds to Hagar and her slavery. In contrast, Sarah’s offspring make up the citizenry of “the Jerusalem above.”

Paul reinforces this point by quoting Isaiah 54:1, a prophecy addressed to Jerusalem depicting a barren woman who will one day have many children. According to Paul, as the gospel goes to the nations, the eschatological Jerusalem receives countless new children. The desolate one is becoming abundantly fruitful.

David deSilva also observes how Isaiah 54:1 immediately follows the famous passage about the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. This likely links the expansion of God’s people among the nations to the saving work of YHWH’s servant. The new family of God is created through the death and resurrection of Christ.

Use the Important Passages section in Logos’s Guides to locate related texts to the one you’re studying. Start a free trial of Logos today.

The practical application of Paul’s allegory

Paul instructs the Galatians to take the words that Sarah spoke to Abraham, “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman” (Gal 4:30), and apply them to these false teachers. They must reject the rival teachers’ message because it threatens to undermine their inheritance in Christ.

Paul wants believers to experience the freedom they have in the Spirit, refusing to adopt a rule-based approach to following Christ. At the same time, Paul insists that this freedom ought not lead to unrighteousness, but to a holiness that arises from the Spirit’s work within us (see Gal 5:13–26).

Advice for teaching and preaching this passage

Kirk E. Miller urges preachers not to rush straight to Paul’s conclusions without helping hearers understand the exegetical logic behind them. If people only hear that Hagar equals Sinai and Sarah equals the Jerusalem above, but fail to understand how Paul arrives there, then the passage’s message will prove less compelling. Instead, teachers should explain the Genesis narrative and show how Paul is drawing his conclusions from it.

David adds that teachers don’t need to use the word “allegory” when preaching this passage. What matters most is helping people see the two contrasting ways of relating to God.

David also recommends teaching the passage in connection with the larger flow of Galatians (lectio continua). Paul’s argument in 4:21–31 carries much more force when readers have already absorbed Paul’s earlier claims about Abraham, promise, law, and inheritance. Approached in context, Galatians 4:21–31 functions less like an isolated proof text and more like a powerful flourish at the climax of Paul’s case.

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Let us know what you think

How do you understand Paul’s use of Genesis? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

David deSilva’s recommended resources on Galatians

The Letter to the Galatians (New International Commentary on the New Testament | NICNT)

Regular price: $61.99

Add to cart

The Epistle to the Galatians (Black’s New Testament Commentary | BNTC)

Regular price: $24.99

Add to cart

Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture | ACCS)

Regular price: $24.99

Add to cart

Galatians (The Story of God Bible Commentary | SGBC)

Regular price: $29.99

Add to cart

Galatians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament | BECNT)

Regular price: $52.99

Add to cart

Galatians through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries | BBC)

Regular price: $52.00

Add to cart

Related content

• Is Law the Path to Blessing? Paul’s Letter to the Galatians
• Describing Diatheke: Covenant in the Bible
• What Is Justification? | Stephen Westerholm
• Missional, Not Marginal: How Women Advance the Bible’s Story
• Who Is Melchizedek? | Madison Pierce on Hebrews 7

Since the release of the annual report of the Association of Theological Schools (ATS), I’ve been reflecting on the present state and future prospects of theological education. I noted three trends in theological education, along with some observations about why some schools are growing.

One critical-yet-frequently-overlooked trait of growing seminaries is that they tend to combine flexible delivery methods with a missionally oriented approach to education, i.e., one shaped by the actual ministry needs of the students. Let’s explore this further.

Flexible modes of delivery

It’s no secret that seminaries (and all schools) provide education in drastically different ways than they used to. Online education is booming, and growing seminaries often have significant online enrollment.

The explosion of online education (over the last fifteen years, especially) is one of the most significant shifts in the history of education, not to mention seminary training. To what extent a program is online (and which programs) varies widely. Some provide fully online programs while others offer hybrid options. Many provide online coursework paired with intensives, regional learning hubs, or modular cohort programs, like Biola’s new Talbot Embedded initiative. These approaches allow students to remain embedded in ministry while receiving theological training.

Online education presents a host of opportunities and challenges. Many students who apply for fully online programs find that relationships with fellow students and faculty develop much more slowly than for those in other formats. For example, students in hybrid programs can have intensives or other in-person meetings to aid in relational cohesion and enrichment of the learning experience.

But whatever a school’s approach to online education, one thing is clear: Online education is not going away any time soon. And with the growing influence of artificial intelligence on the learning process, schools will need to continue to prioritize innovation in this area while retaining academic rigor.

Join Ed Stetzer for an upcoming series presented by Logos on trends in theological education. Get access to exclusive interviews with institutional leaders to learn how to “future-proof” Christian higher ed.

Leaning into the moment

The decline of some schools has been accelerated by resistance to online education. Leaders of these schools explain that when faculty have been resistant and slow to adapt—even when students want to market the online option—the decline came quickly. Talbot’s own late entry into online theological education hurt us. Peer institutions have reported the same, with some citing delayed adoption of online models as a key reason they experienced some decline. Simply put, online education has been the growth engine for most schools, and almost all growing schools have such programs. 

As a long-time SBC “insider,” my mind goes to their large network of seminaries as an example. Some SBC seminary leaders vehemently said they would never do online education. (It’s not hard to find these statements online). Such modes of education were sometimes considered deficient for the kind of serious training ministry leaders need. But after seeing the market shift, the need to pivot became clear to many of these leaders.

And to their credit, they did pivot—and have seen tremendous growth in many cases! Midwestern even announced an online PhD. (I look forward to speaking with Midwestern’s President Jason Allen about their remarkable growth in our upcoming series on the future of higher education.) Observe, for instance, the ten-year growth pattern for the largest schools.

With all of that said, there’s a danger here that needs to be named. When we try to make a program cheap, fast, and accessible by any means necessary, we’ve entered a “race to the bottom.” Accessibility is good. Affordability is good. But if the only competitive advantage a school offers is convenience, the school has lost its way.

Formation requires more than information transfer. The seminaries that are growing through online delivery are doing so because they’ve figured out how to maintain relational depth, mentoring, and spiritual formation even in a digital environment. Those that treat online as merely a cost-saving measure will eventually find themselves in trouble.

From credentialing to equipping

But online learning isn’t the only change in flexible offerings. Instead of focusing primarily on ministry credentialing, many seminaries emphasize equipping students for ministry, even where those students don’t have a vocational ministry objective. Instead of come get a degree so you can be ordained, growing seminaries invite prospective students to come be equipped for leadership and ministry in the mission of God.

That missional framing resonates with church planters, missionaries, marketplace leaders, bivocational pastors, and local church lay persons who are simply looking to deepen their knowledge of the faith. It also explains the growth of programs in areas such as ministry leadership, counseling, apologetics, church planting, and spiritual formation. Training pastors remains a key part of the seminary’s role, but these varied programs often reach a broader range of students than just future pastors.

Does theological education still matter? Dr. Albert Mohler makes the case on Logos Live.

To meet these needs, seminaries have launched non-formal educational pathways, such as certificate programs and on-demand learning. These provide students opportunities for development, even when a full degree isn’t desired. Dallas Theological Seminary stands out as one compelling example among many. It’s the largest non-denominational seminary in the world, yet its reach extends well beyond its accredited education. DTS Global Institute offers free courses to over a million learners worldwide, making it the leading program of its kind and a natural role model for the rest of us.

These changes tend to be led by visionary leaders who meet the moment. Rather than merely maintaining inherited structures, these leaders demonstrate a willingness to stretch boundaries and consider possibilities. They think missionally and act entrepreneurially. From experimenting with new programs to pursuing creative partnerships, they’re reimagining how theological education can best serve the church in the present moment. And—whether training pastors for the Great Commission, equipping church planters, recovering historic Christian theology, or preparing Christian leaders for cultural engagement—they tell stories that draw students in.

Such innovation is essential where many academic institutions may otherwise struggle. Those who prioritize meeting the moment, though, will likely find fruit.

The added benefit is often a broader vision that theological education is for everyone, not just those preparing for vocational ministry. That vision shapes recruitment, marketing, donor engagement, and institutional strategy.

The purpose of theological education

Keeping an institution’s mission front and center catalyzes its leadership, positioning them to help churches grow in effectiveness. (For example, our Talbot Lead the Way tour has encouraged thousands and shown how Talbot can be a resource for those looking to dig even deeper.) When the purpose of theological education is equipping rather than mere credentialing, educational institutions can pursue flexible faithfulness rather than rigid patterns from a previous era.

At Talbot, for instance, we’re trying to balance the best of flexible, missionally oriented approaches to education with robust, time-tested, traditional forms. And it seems to be working, as Talbot is the fastest-growing seminary in terms of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment among similar institutions.⁸⁹

Keeping the “why” front and center helps schools remain rooted in the things that should never change, while adapting when needed. We need to meet the moment, yet the moment we’re in doesn’t change the mission we’re on.

Moving forward together

There are plenty of things to be concerned about with the current state of theological education, but there are plenty of hopeful things happening, too. Many of those hopeful things are found in schools that are remaining faithful to the gospel and the mission while also leaning into the future.

And none of this happens in isolation. As someone relatively new to theological education, I’m personally indebted to many of them. At Wheaton, I pointed my team to Michael Duduit and the Clamp Divinity School at Anderson University as a model. At Talbot, it’s been Dallas and Asbury, specifically their former president, Tim Tennent, who helped us develop Talbot Embedded. Mark Yarbrough, Jason Allen, and David Dockery have all provided me counsel along the way. From Asbury to Westminster, we are, in the truest sense, in this together—partners in the gospel. I celebrate the important work happening across these institutions.

Together, we see that it is possible to lead well while also providing educational excellence. We don’t need to race to the bottom of high-convenience, low-cost, and (too often) lower-value options. Instead, we can remain both faithful and fruitful, trusting God and stewarding what he has entrusted to us. 

Share your thoughts

What does the future of theological education look like? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Related content

• 3 Pivotal Trends in Theological Education: The 2026 ATS Report
• Why Some Seminaries Grow While Others Don’t: 3 Key Traits
• The Importance of Theological Education | Albert Mohler
• 3 Ways This Seminary Embeds Its Core Values in Daily Life
• Developing a Teaching Philosophy: A Guide for Theological Educators

Resources for further reflection

Ecologies of Faith in a Digital Age: Spiritual Growth through Online Education

Regular price: $23.99

Add to cart

Excellence in Online Education: Creating a Christian Community on Mission

Regular price: $14.99

Add to cart

Faith, Life, and Learning Online: Promoting Mission Across Learning Modalities

Regular price: $13.75

Add to cart

Theological Education: Principles and Practices of a Competency-Based Approach

Regular price: $21.99

Add to cart