Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology

THE FALSE “GOD” OF POP-CHRISTIANITY

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:32:04 +0000

"When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?" (Psalm 8:3-4, NRS)

Recently, when reading 1 Cor 8:4-6, which comments on false so-called gods and idols that are “nothing,” I recalled a couple of conversations in which people sadly held a false concept of God. The god to which they have been exposed is responsible for all the negative things in their lives and in this world. Of course, some people might try to provide some comfort by saying, “God has a purpose for this event X and will use it for your good” – a misunderstanding of Rom 8:28.¹ Neither concept is biblical. Moreover, this false god turns people away from God, and I do not blame them.

How is this false god constructed? (Note: I have commented on this issue before, but the harm done by Christians presenting a false god moves me to comment again.) This false god comes from accepting a theological definition of “sovereignty” that is an abstract, philosophical concept that proclaims that everything that happens is because God determined it.

What are the biblical corrections? First, the biblical image of God’s sovereignty comes from metaphorical language used by the ancient biblical writers to communicate one facet about the nature of God. The image of God as king, who has a kingdom, who reigns over this universe, is an image from their ancient Near Eastern culture. When using that metaphor, they never would have thought that kings were responsible FOR everything that took place within their rule. Rather, a good king was to be responsible TO what took place within their realm. That is, kings were to bring about righteousness and justice within their domain. Their point is that God is ultimately in charge of righteousness and justice. God, also, has specifically commanded God’s people to work for those goals.

Excursus on theodicy
I know that I have not explain the issue of theodicy, why bad things happen in this world. I cannot, because the Bible does not fully explain it. What it does show us, in the beginning of Genesis, is that God speaks (continually) into chaos and brings order into it so that there can be life. Life as we know it in this cosmos, then, is a delicate balance of chaos and order. Although the Bible does not explicitly state the following conclusion, it appears that this balanced condition not only allows the cosmos freedom to “evolve,” but also gives humans the freedom either to respond to their Creator or to rule their own lives. Neither a controlling weight of chaos nor of order would allow such freedom. Moreover, I trust that the sovereign, righteous God/King will lovingly and rightly treat all those who have perished in one way or another due to the chaos in the world.

Second, and more to the point is another corrective: another biblical image is that God, the Creator, condescends to be with people during their trials. In this life, God does not end chaos (as is promised in the future, new heaven and earth), but neither is God removed from it. Supremely, the witness of the Incarnation is that the true God humiliates God-self to take on human form, to suffer, to be tempted in all ways that people are tempted, and to die on a cross. As Hebrews tells us, this perpetual high priest Jesus sits on a heavenly throne to intercede for people because he understands their trials and their temptations (e.g. Heb 4:14-16). Our Creator cares about us and will lower God-self to the dust and the ashes (the physical nature of humanity, Gen 18:27) to be with us (see Psalm 113:5-7). The “good news” that Christians have to tell people is that Jesus is willing to give them a purposeful and meaningful life and to walk them through all of life’s hardships and sufferings.

This closing thought leads me to the opening text of Psalm 8:3-4 quoted above. When the false god is replaced by the biblical God, I become overwhelmed by the realization that the Creator of the universe is mindful of the earth -- of humanity -- of even me. I am simultaneously brought low in humility and raised up in honor.

Praise be to you, my Lord and God! Amen.
--------------------------
1) See "Predestination: Who Is Called by God? For What?" Tuesday, July 21, 2026.

PREDESTINATION: WHO IS CALLED BY GOD? FOR WHAT?

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:06:13 +0000

Introduction of Thesis
Romans 8:28 is a precious text for many people because of the assurance it gives. Here is a rather literal translation:

For we know that
to those loving God
all things he works into good
to those being called according to purpose.

Many people find comfort in the realization that God works all things into good. However, what I find more important is that the two identity clauses in italics, “those loving God” and “those being called” are in apposition. The result is that the second one renames or explains the first. This is where we see Paul’s understanding of what one might call “predestination language” as it applies to the Christ era: those who are loving God are the ones being called to serve the purposes of God. This observation may conflict with the pop-Christian understanding of predestination in the Bible. My point, which I will develop below, is that one has to see how the Old Testament “predestination process” culminates in Christ, the Called/Chosen One (Luke 9:35), who fulfills God’s promises to Abraham to be a blessing to all people (e.g. Gen 12:1-3). However, the Christ event also creates a new expanded entity of “sons of God” (Jew and Gentile, e.g. Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26), who continue in God’s call to be a blessing to all people. This outreach is no longer through the ancient theocracy of Israel, but through the Kingdom of God/Body of Christ.

Background: A Brief Theological Overview of “Predestination”
In the beginning, God created humanity male and female in His image; that is, they were created to represent God.* They were created to walk and talk in close relationship with God. However, with Adam and Eve’s archetypal disobedience in the garden, we find that a new age began, an age in which people are cut off from the tree of life and from a close walk with God. They become, as Paul would later say, under the reign of sin and death (Rom 5:12-17).
Still, as in God’s initial creation, we know God’s desire is for all people to come back to eternal life (e.g. 1Tim 2:3-4), which is found in a restored relationship with God. So, by God’s foreknowledge and fore-ordination, God put into process a plan for the redemption of humanity; that is, redemption and reconciliation to God are the predestined desired goals. To this end, God specially called Abraham who responded with the model of faith: he obeyed; he entrusted himself to God and God called that “righteousness” (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). That is to say, trusting in God establishes the right relationship that God desires. Abraham was not called to personal salvation, although being pronounced righteous results in restored life with God; but, more than just being blessed, he and his descendants were charged with being a blessing to all families, to all people (e.g. Gen 12:1-3). Through various people within Abraham’s lineage (see Paul’s examples of special selection in Rom 9:6-13) up to the founding of a the nation of Israel as a theocracy, these people were called to the same purpose that Abraham had; that is, of being a blessing to all nations. They were to “be a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation" (Exod 19:3-6; a calling passed on to those in Christ, 1Pet 2:9.) Nations around them were to see that God was with them (e.g. Deut 28:10) and their light was to shine before the nations (Isa 60:1-3).
Obviously, not everyone birthed from those chosen lineages embraced their calling as Abraham did. OT history is littered with negative examples. For example, even though God delivered this specially appointed people from slavery in Egypt, and they entered in to a unique covenant with God, immediately there were many people in the Wilderness events who were so disobedient and unfaithful that God threatened before Mose to give up on them (e.g. Exod 32:9-10). The OT sometimes refer to the other faithful or “true” Israelites as the “faithful remnant” (e.g. 1Kgs 19:18; Isa 10:20-22). Jesus made this same distinction between Israel and the “true Israel” in his parable of the wedding banquet (Matt 22:1-14): many who were invited by the king did not come; the invitation then went out to anyone the servants could find, both good and bad; and closes with the summary, “For many are invited, but few are chosen” (v. 14). Again, Jesus taught this when he told his Jewish audience that they were not true children of Abraham (John 8:39-47). So, too, Paul states, “For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly… but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly“ (Rom. 2:28-29). Not everybody responds to the invitation of God’s presence, grace, and purposes.

Paul’s Use of Predestination Language
Paul’s use of predestination vocabulary is often-misread. A sample text is Ephesians 1:3-14, in which modern believers often wrongfully identify themselves with those who were chosen or predestined. When looked at closely, one can see that the first-person plural pronouns “we” and “us” which apply to those who were chosen and predestined to be adopted as holy and blameless, refer to Jews -- here, Jewish Christians. When Paul shifts his pronoun reference to “you too” (v. 13), he is referring to Gentiles who have come to faith in Christ! [Paul is about to address the new entity (a “new man,” a “holy temple”) created by the unity between Jewish and gentile Christians being in Christ together (see 2:11-22).] That is, when Paul uses this vocabulary here, and in Romans, he is talking about God’s plan for the initial corporate calling of Israelites/Jews to be a blessing and to fulfill God’s promise to Abraham. He is not talking about a process of individuals being called to “be saved.” For Paul, the foreknown, foreordained, predestined plan of God culminated in Christ through whom all people (nations/gentiles) may be blessed and in whom the promises of Abraham are fulfilled as people put their faith in Jesus (Rom 4:9-17). Paul clearly identifies the Gospel of Christ as God’s promise as found in the prophets and holy scriptures, the promise to Abraham and his descendants (Rom 1:1-2; 4:13-14). The calling to continue making God known through Christ to all people now belongs to the Church.

Application Summary
God’s foreordained plan culminated in the individual Jesus, the Christ. Those who now respond in faith to Jesus are called to be holy and blameless, children of God, members of God’s Kingdom, members of the Body of Christ. They have the supreme "predestined" calling of living in Christ who is in the image of God. They, like the past, ancient theocracy of Israel, now serve God’s redemptive purposes to reveal God and God’s grace to the rest of humanity. The ones loving God are called for God’s purposes.

Thank you, Jesus, that in loving you, you call me into a purposeful life of serving others in your Name that they might come to know you. Help me to be faithful to this calling every day. Amen.
----------------
*See my posts “Created in the Image of God: Forgotten Aspects,” February 1, 2024; and “In the Image of God: We Serve,” July 12, 2026.

IN THE IMAGE OF GOD: WE SERVE

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 22:13:21 +0000

Situation
In a prayer request that I received recently, the person wrote about not being able to feel God’s presence and of feeling far from God. I understand that. Due to a time of physical trauma and no sleep for a few days, I went into a cycle of panic attacks for several days. I did not feel God’s presence at that time; I only felt fear. (I am not sure that under those brain-chemistry conditions, one can “feel” God’s presence. Yet, Jesus did not abandon me. There were people close me who have a chemical propensity to panic attacks. They understood. They cared for me, encouraged me, and basically carried me through those days. Jesus was “in” those people. Jesus was with me.

Response
I am reminded of a popular poem, “Footprints in the Sand”:¹

One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with the Lord.
Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky.
In each scene I noticed footprints in the sand.
Sometimes there were two sets of footprints,
other times there were one set of footprints.

This bothered me because I noticed
that during the low periods of my life,
when I was suffering from
anguish, sorrow or defeat,
I could see only one set of footprints.

So I said to the Lord,
“You promised me Lord,
that if I followed you,
you would walk with me always.
But I have noticed that during
the most trying periods of my life
there have only been one
set of footprints in the sand.
Why, when I needed you most,
you have not been there for me?”

The Lord replied,
“The times when you have
seen only one set of footprints,
is when I carried you.”

Theological Application for Ministry
The obvious point of the poem above for the sufferer is that God may well be present in ways that we do not feel or recognize. However, there is an important theological application for ministry to be made. The theological point involves that fact that God made humanity in God’s image (Gen 1:26). We were made to represent God in and to this world. (See my post “Created in the Image of God: Forgotten Aspects,” February 1, 2024.) That, too, is the mission of being participants in the Kingdom of God in this world, of being living-in-the-flesh members of the Body of Christ. When people do not feel close to God, we are here for their sake. When people have panic attacks, we are here for their sake. When people are in need, we are here for their sake. Jesus called his followers to be servants, slaves to others (Mark 10:41-45).

Lord Jesus, I pray for the person who feels far from you. I do pray for the Presence of your Holy Spirit in that person’s life that they would feel you nearby. I also pray that you will surround that person with people created in your image, people who are living in you image, people who will serve and comfort that person in your name. Help me to be such a person. Amen
---------------------
1) I do not know whom to credit for the poem. Authorship has been claimed by a few people, and the poem itself has earlier antecedents.

THE ASCENSION OF JESUS: IT MATTERS (Phil 2:9-11)

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:32:48 +0000

In some of my posts, I have objected to a characteristic of pop-level Christianity that focuses almost exclusively on the death of Jesus (unfortunately as penal substitution) and not on the whole salvific work of Christ. Of course, in worship services, the Resurrection is celebrated as well as Pentecost. But, unless one belongs to a highly liturgical church tradition, Thursday, May 14 of this year passed by without distinction. It was Ascension Day, the day Christians celebrate Jesus’ ascension. It is important. Those who recite the Nicene Creed, affirm it each time: “He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.”

The Ascension
Luke gives us two complementary accounts of Jesus’ ascension. Luke closes his first NT volume, the Gospel of Luke, with a post-Resurrection appearance and with mention of Jesus explaining the Scriptures to his disciples, how preaching in his name would begin in Jerusalem and how the disciples would be clothed with power; and then Luke gives a brief account of Jesus’ ascension (Luke 24:36-49 and vv. 50-52). Luke opens his second NT volume, Acts, with a continuation of those themes and a more detailed account of the Ascension (Acts 1:1-8 and vv. 9-11).
The significance of the Ascension to the early church is alluded to in the long ending to Mark that became canonical (16:9-20): “and he sat down at the right hand of God” (v 19) and is further demonstrated in what is apparently a very early church hymn, Phil. 2:6-11. The first half of this hymn or poem beautifully expresses the Incarnation of Jesus: though possessing the nature of God, he emptied himself, took on human likeness, and was obedient to death (vv. 6-8). The second half expresses the significance of the Ascension, without direct mention of the Resurrection¹:

Therefore, God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:9-11 NRSV)

The metaphorical language of being “highly exalted” and of “being seated (or sitting) at the right hand” communicates that Jesus returned to His position of highest honor with shared power and sovereignty with God the Father. Interestingly, “being seated” can imply not just the power of enthronement but also of a king or a god returning to the throne after an act of creating order or peace. An allusion to the Ascension with this mind is also what the author of Hebrews was thinking when he wrote, “having accomplished purification of sins,² he [the Son] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3b; see too 10:12; 12:2, and Rev. 3:21). Moreover, the author of Hebrews, viewing Jesus also as an eternal high priest seated at the right hand, understands Jesus, still in His humanity, as our perfect intercessor (see the combination of Heb 2:17-18; 5:7-10; 7:23-25; 8:1-2). Also, although the Gospel of John understands Jesus’ glorification to include the Cross, the Resurrection, and the Ascension, it is Jesus’ act of returning to the Father that is mysteriously necessary for the coming of the Holy Spirit who empowers Christians (e.g. John 16: 5-7).

Application
The whole work of Christ matters, from creation (e.g. John 1:3) to being seated at the right of the Father as our High Priest and intercessor. The recognition “Jesus died for me,” although essential, is only one aspect of the much grander work of Christ on our behalf.³ Each aspect of Christ’s work deserves recognition, reflection, gratitude, and praise – including the Ascension.

Jesus, guide me as I reflect on your Ascension. Deepen my comprehension and appreciation. Deepen my love for you. Amen.
---------------------
1) The concept of the Resurrection possibly is implied in the verb hyperupsoō that means literally to “raise up over/beyond/above,” and refers to exalting someone to the position of highest honor. However, this verb is not one of the words used for Jesus being raised in the Resurrection.

2) The author of Hebrews correctly uses the Israelite temple atonement language in which, after God had responded to confession with forgiveness, there was still a need for a sin/purification offering of blood to cleanse the altar or Mercy Seat to remove all impediments between the people and God. See Romans 8:7 where Paul refers to Jesus as that “sin/purification offering.”

3) See the entry, “What Does ‘Jesus Died For Us’ Mean?,” February 10, 2026.

THE POOR YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE WITH YOU (Mark 14:7) IS NOT AN EXCUSE!

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 18:04:15 +0000

This blog post is more a sad reflection to share rather than a devotional. It begins with a story.

I was in a waiting room and struck up a conversation with a man who works with a well-known Christian international charity. He was working on organizing support regarding Ebola, which is wonderful. I asked him if his organization had seen the repercussion of our current administration suddenly cutting resources to USAID, promised resources that were to keep people from dying from starvation and disease. His surprising reply was, “Jesus says, ‘You will always have the poor,’” and then said our country was helping people around the world in ways we do not know. Since his boss is a prominent “Christian nationalist” – a non sequitur¹ – he apparently thought he needed to defend the US.
His reply was both troubling and heart-breaking to me. Here was a brother-in-Christ, who was contributing to a good ministry, using something Jesus said to excuse withdrawing charitable funds, and, as I found out, create a tragedy. Later that day, I looked up what the repercussions had been from cutting off aid through USAID, something that I assume he knew, since he avoided a direct answer. A recent academic study projected that 500,000 children so far have starved to death as a result. Jesus’ statement about the poor does not excuse that!

Background to What Jesus Said

In the well-known story of Mark 14:3-9, a woman poured expensive perfume on Jesus’ head. The sealed jar and perfume might well have represented this woman’s savings for her future. Some people present raised a rhetorical question about wasting the perfume, which was worth 300 denarii [a denari was about a day’s wage], instead of giving money to the poor, and they rebuked her. As readers we have a couple of clues informing us about the various characters’ true attitudes toward charity and money. First, the protestors are unnamed, which though a minor point, can show that they were not to be remembered, a sign of dishonor.² The key contrast made explicit by Jesus, is that the woman’s act, although she is also unnamed, would be remembered and preached throughout the world (v 9). That is, she will be forever honored. The implication of her action is that this woman recognized the significance of the person of Jesus, when others did not; and she, giving away what was of great value and security to herself, poured it on Jesus’ head as if she were a prophet anointing Jesus as king. That is, her action symbolized that she recognized something of Jesus’ messianic significance and made a self-sacrificial act of faith. [Probably tacked on to this story by Mark to create a further contrast, is the story of Judas arranging to betray Jesus for money (vv. 10-11).] Second, the Gospel writers frequently have Jesus’ opponents raising negative questions rhetorically, so we know that their concern for the poor was not sincere. These protestors missed Jesus’ true identity and wrongly criticized the woman for her act of devotion. In response, Jesus’ commanded the protestors to leave her alone and complimented her (v 9).
Jesus’ argument in defense of what the woman did, brings us to our text, his saying about the poor [note that the structure emphasizes a contrast, the first and third lines]:

“For the poor you will always have with you,
and whenever you desire you are able to do good to them,
but me you will not always have” (v 7).

Jesus then uses the woman’s act of devotion as an opportunity to alert people to his upcoming death, saying what she did was preparing for his burial (v 8). To understand Jesus’ argument (v 7) we need to see that he was arguing like a rabbi – as does Paul – by drawing on the Scriptures, particularly the Torah, to support his point. Although this kind of “proof-texting” can take a statement out of context, Jesus’ use did not do so. Jesus was alluding to Deuteronomy 15:11:

“Because the poor will not cease to be in the midst of the land; therefore, I am commanding you, saying, ‘Surely, open your hand [be generous] to your brother, to your poor, and to your needy in your land.’”

A little context is needed. Deut 15:1-11 is establishing for the Israelites in the promised land a righteous way of life that was to promote equity. Every seventh, “sabbath,” year the people of God were to cancel any debts their fellows had (vv. 1-3). God wanted to bless the people; God did not want there to be poor people in the land (vv. 4-6). If there were poor people, then God’s people were to be generous to them and not hard-hearted and guilty of sin. Such generosity resulted in blessing (vv. 7-10). Yet, verse 11 recognizes that God’s desire that there be no poor would not prevail; there would always be poor, and the Israelites were to care for them.

Explanation

Jesus, therefore, did not use the reference to Deut 15:11 about there always being poor people as an excuse to avoid caring for them. He was drawing on a text that commands people to care for them! Rather, in this specific case, Jesus was supporting the woman’s act of faith to honor him and used it to teach about his upcoming death. The protestors did not really have hearts for the poor; they were antagonistic because they missed seeing the act of faith that happened before their eyes.
We know further that Jesus would not use Scripture as a proof-text to get out accountability to God. In Mark 7:9-13, he blasts the hypocritical Pharisees for doing just that. [There were righteous Pharisees; we just do not encounter many in the NT.] One example he gives there is that people were avoiding providing for their parents by claiming that they had dedicated their resources as “Corban,” a gift to God (vv. 10-12).³Personal Application

Our hearts are like those of the hypocritical Pharisees when we abuse Scripture to rationalize our own disobedience. Like those who protested against the woman, when I see greater righteousness practiced than what I display, I fail to see my own flaws and am motivated to look for someone else’s flaws. And, I certainly see in my own life how I sometimes twist and turn to get out from under the hand of God that seeks to move me to righteous obedience. That perverted inclination not to obey is only self-harmful. Obedience brings about a closer walk with Jesus. Disobedience pushes Jesus away.

Jesus I want you close by. I need you close by. Strengthen me to walk faithfully and obediently with you. Help me never to abuse your Word to excuse my failure to obey. Amen.
----------------
1) Since the coming of Jesus, calling any nation or kingdom “Christian” or a theocracy does not make sense biblically. This includes the US as well as the modern, secular state of Israel. A couple of things Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God are quite clear. When Pilate asked Jesus if he were a worldly ruler, a king, Jesus stated that his kingdom, which his coming inaugurated, was not of this world, and that it is not advanced by force (John 18:33-36). Also, Jesus told his followers that they were not to be like rulers and officials who exert dominion and authority over people; rather they were to be servants of people. These qualifications rule out any worldly nation with its human power structures being identified with the Kingdom of God. Christian leaders do not make a nation Christian. Moreover, regulating people through “Christian” laws also cannot make a people Christian or righteous. Just as Paul taught, not all Israelites were counted as righteous before God, because they sought righteousness through works of law/Torah and not through faith (Romans 9:30-32). Therefore, the current pernicious movement of “Christian nationalism” in the US, claiming to “take back our nation for Jesus” and make it a “Christian nation,” only abuses the name of Jesus to promote worldly, political power particularly for the advantage of certain people. We can only bring our nation closer toward Christ by serving people and leading them one-by-one to faith in Jesus.

2) In the parallel text of Matt. 26:6-13, Matthew identifies the protestors as disciples, but Mark, probably Matthew’s source, is vaguer. Whether disciples or not, those protesting were failing to see Jesus’ true nature and the woman’s act of faith.

3) Apparently, this practice of Corban, based on Lev. 27:28, was a way dedicating all of one’s possessions to be willed to the Temple treasury, so that those possessions could not be given away during one’s lifetime for other purposes. The catch was that the person could continue to use those resources for oneself until that time. Such a loophole could be used not only to avoid giving to the poor but also to avoid caring for one’s parents, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:16).

TRUE FAITH VS BELIEF: THE TESTIMONY OF PSALM 73

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Fri, 01 May 2026 14:24:00 +0000

There is a difference between true faith and belief in doctrines about God, even if they are sound doctrines. John Bunyan was advised by Mr. Gifford, his pastor and spiritual mentor, that people needed to be delivered from false tests of sound doctrine.

He told us to pay special heed not to accept any truth just upon blind trust. Instead to cry mightily to God so that God would convince us of the reality of it and immerse us in it by his own Spirit in the holy Word. “For,” he said, “when temptation comes strongly upon you if you have not received these things with evidence from Heaven, you will soon find that you do to have that help and strength to resist that you thought you had” (Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, #117).

The composer of Psalm 73, a wisdom/didactic psalm, give us an early testimony to this experience of true faith. The psalmist struggled with an issue of theodicy, the problem of good people suffering in this life. We hear his testimony about how experiencing God is the foundation of what real faith is. Let’s look at the flow of thought.

Opening to the psalmist’s story (1-3).

Verse 1: The speaker opens with his conclusion, a confession about how God is good to those who are pure in heart.

Verses 2-3: He gives a retrospective observation of what he had struggled with, how he nearly lost his foothold – a metaphor, perhaps referring to beliefs he had been taught about God (v. 2). Why? Because he had envied wicked people who prosper (3). This psalm presents the real-life problem of why good people sometimes suffer and bad people do not.

His initial experience: the unjust lives of the wicked compared to his (4-14)

Verses 4-12: He describes how wicked people become arrogant when they prosper and how they mock the notion of a God who knows and cares.

Verses 13-14: In contrast to the wicked, he began to think that keeping his heart pure had only left him stricken and punished; that is, being pure was worse than without benefit.

Interruption: a post-experience reflective comment (15-16)

At that time, had he spoken his despairing conclusion, it would have been an act of treachery to “the generation of your sons” – probably an idiom for faithful followers. But, at that time, on his own, he could not make sense of what he saw. Why did his perspective change?

Turning point in the speaker’s story (17).

This is the turning point in the speaker’s account. He entered the holy place of God –probably the temple. He does not describe his religious experience. He simply lets us know that he sought God, and that everything changed.

Reflection on his religious experience (18-27)

The speaker now addresses God while teaching the general audience through his testimony. He shares the new perspective he gained, a faith perspective.

Verses 18-20: He realized that the apparent success of the wicked is ephemeral.

Verses 21-22: He realized how uncomprehending and ignorant he had been.

Verses 22-27: Most importantly, he realized that God would be eternally faithful to him. Here the psalmist pushes beyond what one can see about justice in this life to a confidence in God’s grip on him forever. God’s justice and faithful will prevail past the time in which his own flesh will fail, an outcome that stands in contrast to those who are unfaithful.

Verse 28: The speaker makes his confession of faith – he has taken refuge in God – with the attendant result of telling people of all the doings of God, even as he gives this testimony.

The composer of Psalm 73 did not come up with a philosophical answer to why the wicked sometimes prosper while the righteous suffer. Rather, he came to the perspective of genuine faith. In the experience of seeking God (entering the Holy place/temple), he realized that this life’s experience of apparent injustice is a fleeting dream. For him, the real substance of life was knowing that God had an eternal hold on him and that he had taken refuge in a good God. That is the biblical understanding of faith. For us, it is knowing that God is sufficient. For God, it establishes a right relationship, “Abraham entrusted himself to the LORD and He counted it to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

“Faith” [Heb: ’amunah and Greek: pistis] basically means “entrustment.” That is, a person rests upon that which has a convicting or proofing essence about it; it is trustworthy. In this context, it rests on the character and behavior of God whom the psalmist experienced in the temple. The convicting evidence of God’s Presence is why the psalmist [we] know that God holds on to us even after this body fails.

The psalmist’s post-religious experience of faith reminds me of Hebrews 11:1. (See posts, “Faith and the Most Real,” Sept. 13, 2023 and a follow-up on April 23, 2025.) A modern translation of Hebrews 11:1 is:

“Now faith (πίστις, pistis) is confidence (ὑπόστασις, hypostasis) in what we hope for and assurance (ἔλεγχος. elengchos) about what we do not see.” (NIV).

The second and third key terms (in Greek) are rendered above in a personal and subjective sense, which makes sense in the context of faith and hope; however, these words project something more foundational than a person's psychological state. “Faith/entrustment” is grounded on more than belief. The word hypostasis expresses “essence,” “real being,” and elengchos expresses “evidence of truth,” “the proving,” “verification.” These are terms about what is most real. Showing the parallelism of phrases here, although a little awkward in English, a more accurate translation would be:

Now this is faith:
regarding what we look to in the future [it is] essence/reality,
regarding matters not seen [it is] verification.

Paraphrased for smoother English, and picking up the author’s thought in context:

Now this is faith: the reality of what we look to in the future [the promises of God] and the verification of matters not yet seen [of the promises of God].

Application:
Psalm 73 gives us insight into true biblical faith, which is much more than belief in sound doctrines about God and even feelings about God. It is defined well in Hebrews 11:1; faith is experientially grounded on the Most Real. It is why Mr. Gifford told John Bunyan to cry out to God for such certainty. It is what happened in John Wesley’s heart-warming experience when he moved from belief to faith:

I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death. (Journal, May 242, 1738)

To reclaim a word that has been perverted in American politics, it is what was once called “evangelical” faith. It is what happened to me while attending a worship service on May 2, 1972. In the overwhelming Presence of God, I said, “Jesus, I am ruining my life. I give it to you.” Like the psalmist testified, “I have made the Lord God my refuge” (Ps 73:28).

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT (Reflection 7)

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 00:40:00 +0000

Reflection 7: 6^th Petition: And do not let us cross over to temptation, but deliver us from the evil [one]!

[See Feb. 22, 2026 for translation and Reflection 1.]

The first three petitions put us in a right relationship with God. God’s honor and agenda is primary. The second three petitions turn attention toward ourselves, but they still require that we put God first. The 4^th petition is essentially a prayer to grow in faith, to grow in dependence on God and not on the material world. Although in the 5^th petition we seek forgiveness, its focus is more about us desiring to become as merciful as God.

The purpose of the 6^th petition, the third in regard to ourselves, turns from offering ourselves in deeper submission and transformation. Instead, here we imploring our Father for protective help from all that would disrupt our relationship with God.

This intention of this text is difficult to translate accurately because it employs a poetic structure with which we are not familiar. The first clause of this petition is easy to translate literally, “Do not carry/lead us into temptation.” However, that requires clarification. It would be wrong to think that God wants or even causes us to be tempted to sin. [It is true that God tests people, but that is different.¹] What we need to realize is that both the first and second clauses make the same point but dramatically through the use of what is called “antithetical parallelism.” They state a point from the negative perspective and then states it from the positive. For example, without knowingly being poetic, a child might say to a parent, “Don’t abandon me here, but do take me with you.” The first clause has two negatives (“not” and “abandon” – functioning almost like a double negative) that are balanced in the second clause with two positives (“do take” and “with you”). The child is not implying that the parent desires to abandon her, but is emphatically expressing what she desires with a negative and a positive statement. A biblical example would be Prov 10:12:

1^st clause: “Hatred rouses up strife” (negative perspective of hate and strife)
2^nd clause: “But love covers all transgressions” (positive perspective of love and forgiveness)

Our text’s structure is:
1^st clause: “Do not do negative X (tempt)”
2^nd clause “But do positive Y (deliver from evil).”

If one were to rephrase the same sense in simple synonymous parallelism – both statements positive – it would be, “Take us away from temptation, and deliver us from evil!” The translation given above attempts to keep both the positive sense and the dramatic parallel contrast. God’s role is not to bring us across the threshold of temptation, but to deliver us from evil. Our petition is for divine protection.

Our petition to be delivered from “the evil [one]”² means that we must take evil most seriously. The basic Old Testament word for evil, ra, refers to that which is contrary to God’s creational order and will, which is “good” (tov). That which is evil disrupts our relationship with God and brings chaos, sin, and suffering into our lives. In Matthew’s Gospel, the “devil,” “the evil one,” or “Satan” (Hebrew for “adversary”) is the entity that actively seeks to draw Jesus and others into the chaos of a ruptured relationship with God and the suffering that brings. As biblical Christians, we accept both seen and unseen dimensions of reality. Jesus teaches us to ask to be delivered from a spiritual dimension that is adversarial to God. At the same time, it is wise for followers of Jesus to avoid extremes of either discounting the reality of such evil or of holding an unhealthy preoccupation with it. I like the adage, “As an infection is to a cut, so is evil to our normal weaknesses and flaws.” Evil is to be taken seriously.
Jesus faced temptation (Matt 4:1-10). We face temptation. The spiritual battle is real (Eph 6:12). It takes place in the mind in which every thought must be taking captive to obey Christ (2Cor 10:3-5). Otherwise, the temptation gives birth to sin and death (James 1:14-15). For this we need God’s help. We pray.

Journal Reflections

What does temptation mean to you?
How have you learned spiritually to confront temptation?
How can the church teach and help young Christians to be delivered from evil?
During Lent we look at how Jesus in his humanity was tempted as we are (Heb 4:14-15). We also learn from John’s Gospel that when Jesus was “lifted up” (a pun for crucified and glorified) that he drew all people to himself and so defeated “the ruler of this world” (12:30-33). What does this reflection mean to you?

Prayer quote:

Satan dreads nothing but prayer. His one concern is to keep the saints from praying. He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work, prayerless religion. He laughs at our toil, mocks our wisdom, but trembles when we pray. (Samuel Chadwick, source: J. Oswald Sanders, Effective Prayer, p.13.).

Notes:

Admittedly, another translation possibility here is that the Greek word for “temptation” can be used to translate the Hebrew word for “test.” The postive purpose of divine testing is to make known the state of one’s heart. For example, when the Israelites were “tested” in the wilderness, the event revealed the weak state of their faith and served as a call to faithfulness (Deut 8:1-10). However, in the context of our text, “temptation” is negative. The noun and verb forms of this word occur eight times in Matthew. One time the verb is used of an honest test. All other uses are negative, such as religious leaders trying to trap Jesus (e.g. 19:3; 22:18). Most importantly, previously in Matthew 4 it was used twice to refer to the behavior of the devil (4:1, 3).
“Evil” here has the definite article, “the evil” so it is probably used as a personal noun for “the evil one” as in Matt 13:19, 38 and probably Matt. 5:37.

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT (Reflection 6)

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sat, 28 Mar 2026 21:48:00 +0000

Reflection 6: 5^th Petition: And forgive us our debts as even we [ourselves] have forgiven our debtors!

[See Feb. 22, 2026 for translation and Reflection 1.]

The first three petitions put us in a right relationship with God. God’s honor and God’s agenda are primary. The second three petitions turn attention toward ourselves, but they still require that we put God first. The 4^th petition is essentially a prayer to grow in faith, to grow in dependence on God and not on the material world.

The 5^th petition, while for ourselves, effectively transforms us to grow in God’s characteristic of mercy. In the first clause we plead for forgiveness. Now we Methodists, along with Anglicans, Lutherans, and English-speaking Catholics tend to use the sin word “trespasses” rather than “debts” in our translations. This tradition apparently goes back to Tyndale’s translation of 1526, and it is likely that he used “trespasses” because that term fits well with the sin word that follows in Matt 6:14-15, which itself might be better translated, “transgression.”¹ Still, the Greek word here more properly refers to a debt. I prefer to use this term because to me “trespass” or even “transgression” might not communicate well. They miss the concept of sin words and forgiveness words backgrounded in the Old Testament, particularly in the Temple sacrificial system.
       Sin, like a debt, always produces the reality of a negative consequence. We should think of sin as leaving something “tangible” behind. It creates an impediment of chaos in our relationship with God and is often compared to a burden upon us. God forgives, not because one offers a sacrifice but because one remorsefully repents. The main Old Testament term for “forgive” (Hebrew nasa’) communicates that God lifts or bears that burden. The sacrifice that follows symbolizes the removing of the “stain” or “pollution” of sin, showing that a right relationship with God is restored.

Shockingly, whereas the first clause is quite rational from a human perspective – seeking forgiveness – the second clause is not. Here our words impose upon ourselves a condition for receiving our own forgiveness, “as even we have forgiven our debtors.” I do not like saying that. It places a weighty obligation on me. Here is a facile but hopefully helpful illustration. If someone walked up to me and stomped on my foot, I would know that I have the right to stomp back on their foot. To forgive that person, however, I must in a sense bear or lift the weight of their sin. That understanding about forgiveness incredibly amplifies the nature of God’s mercy. God lifts our sins against God’s honor and will.
        More stunningly, Jesus follows the Lord’s prayer by stating that the mercy we receive is conditional on the mercy we give (6:14-15). To my mind that deliberately shocking language is not meant to convey a limitation on God’s mercy; rather, it clarifies what personal submission to God means in our relationship with others as we represent the Kingdom of God on earth. In the second clause of this petition, we are taking on our responsibility as followers of Jesus when we pray that we want to receive the mercy of God in direct relationship to the mercy we show others. That is a difficult petition for me!
       The goal of this petition is really about transformation. Yes, the 5^th petition first does move me to repent and ask forgiveness. However, the main thrust, of this petition is not about me turning to God for forgiveness. It is focused on the “as even we” clause. It is about me and you expressing a desire before the throne of God to be so transformed that we become merciful as God in our ability to forgive others.

Journal Reflections

This petition first confronts us with the need repent and ask forgiveness. Before voicing this petition, you and I might ask the Holy Spirit to show us the matters over which we need to repent.
More deeply this petition challenges us to examine how merciful we are. Just as God’s mercy is offered regardless of whether I repent and accept it, so our hearts should be merciful to others, whether they are sorry or not. Is there anyone toward whom you feel bitter? You might try praying Jesus’ prayer while putting their names in replacement of the first-person pronouns.
During Lent, we look at Jesus on the cross who said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). Moreover, when Peter says, “Who our sins he himself bore in his body on the wood [cross]” (1Pet 2:24), Peter is employing the language of the Old Testament about God lifting/bearing our sins. What does this reflection on Jesus mean to you?

Prayer quote:

The power of prayer has never been tried to its full capacity in any church. If we want to see might wonders of divine power and grace wrought in the place of weakness, failure and disappointment, let the whole church answer God’s standing challenge: ‘Call unto me and I will answer thee, and show thee great and might things, which thou knowest not.’ (J. Hudson Taylor, Royal Exchange, p. 30.)

Note:

In Tyndale’s culture, “debt” might have seemed like too much of a financial transaction, as it might in our culture; however, we can also use it figuratively as something intangible, as even a moral debt. Tyndale’s wording was adopted in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and became traditional.

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT (Reflection 5)

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 14:28:00 +0000

Reflection 5: 4^th Petition: Give us today our bread of the day!

[See Feb. 22, 2026 for translation and Reflection 1.]

The first three petitions put us in a right relationship with God. God’s honor and agenda is primary. The second three petitions turn attention toward ourselves, but they still require that we put God first. Moreover, since these petitions are made corporately, they are not just on behalf of myself as an individual, but for others as well.

The 4^th petition is to rely on God. The precise meaning of the qualification of bread by “of the day” (Greek epiousios) is not known because the word is so rare, but the general sense of this petition is clear. “Bread” generically refers to what is needed for life, and the qualifying Greek word refers to something that is necessary in the present.¹ Therefore, we are to pray just for our immediate needs. This point is developed in Jesus’ teaching that follows: we are not to store up treasures and serve wealth rather than God (6:19-24); we are not to worry about the future necessities of life, because that is a sign lacking faith (6:25-34). In other words, the fourth petition takes deeper into daily reliance on God our Father. Worrying about the future drags us away from listening to Jesus now and obeying now for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

I am reminded of a proverbial saying surely known to Jesus, a prayer of an unknown wise man Agur:

Put far away from me poverty, and do not give me wealth. Give me my allotted portion of bread. Otherwise [if rich] I become self-satisfied and disavow [God] and say, "Who is the LORD?" Or, otherwise I become impoverished and steal and abuse the name of my God (Prov. 30:7-9).

When we focus only on our current need and entrust it to God, we avoid the temptations of the two extremes that Agur prayed to avoid; both wealth and poverty tempt us to forget God. Indeed, these are the two points that Jesus makes in the following teachings of 6:19-24 and 6:25-34.

Once again, this petition is not as simple as it looks at first glance. Spoken before the throne of God, this petition shines the light of Christ on our relationship with the material world. Do we relate to it in such a godly way that we do not need more? Are we content with "only" God? Are our material goods received from God such that our free use of them in turn honors God? Do we pursue material gain, or do we pursue God? Can I pray without material attachments for myself, “Give me my bread of the day”? Can I pray corporately without material attachments, “Give them their bread of the day”? This petition is a prayer of transparency before God. And, it is effectively a prayer for me, for us, to grow in faith, to grow in dependence on God and not on the material world and ourselves.

Journal Reflections

This petition challenges me to look at my attachment to material things, to my so-called “needs.”
For the most part in our American culture we live submersed in wealth and constantly tempted not to rely on God moment by moment. How are you doing with this temptation?
Are there needs of others that you think you should pray for? Do something about?
During Lent, we are to focus on our dependence on God. People often give things up for Lent as a spiritual discipline. Is there any particular material desire/thing that you think Jesus might want you to relinquish for Lent – or longer?

Prayer quote:

There might not always be time to eat, but always He made time to pray. (J. Oswald Sanders, Effective Prayer, p. 60.)

Notes:

The Greek word (epiousios) appears three times: here, in Luke’ version of the prayer (Luke 11:3), and in an early Christian instruction that cites the Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8:2). Attempts to explain it etymologically and/or as a translation of part of a Hebrew or Aramaic phrase suggest it refers to either a need at hand for subsistence or as a time word, something that is for today or tomorrow. As I mentioned above, further teachings on themes from Jesus’ prayer immediately follow (e.g. forgiving, God as Father, putting God first). One such developed theme is that of not worrying about the necessities of tomorrow, including food (6:25-34). Given this context, it makes sense to translate our text as “bread of the day,” understanding “bread” generically as what is needed for life and our qualifying Greek word as referring to something that is immediately pressing. Interestingly, there is a Jewish saying from Rabbi Eliezer, about the time of Jesus, that has a resemblance to what Jesus says in Matt 6:30-31 and that fits the tone of our petition. That text states that a person who has a piece of bread in his basket and still worries about food for tomorrow is “one of little faith” (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 48b).

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT (Reflection 4)

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 21:33:00 +0000

Reflection 4: 3^rd Petition: Your will come to be, as in heaven, even on earth [itself]

[See Feb. 22, 2026 for translation and Reflection 1.]

The first three petitions put us in a right relationship with God. They are made on God’s behalf. Praying them puts us in our rightful place, in submission to God. When prayed consistently, the first petition sets the primary desire of our hearts on seeing the holiness of God revealed to the world. The second petition changes our perspective to see life in terms of spreading the reign of God, God’s kingdom on earth.

The third petition addresses the core of our lives’ expression, what we will, our volition. When we pray for God’s will to be done in our earthly realm, we are subordinating ourselves to God. We are moving from seeing how God might advance God’s kingdom within our sphere of influence – a change of perspective – to actually submitting our hopes, plans, and actions to living out God’s hopes, plans, and actions. Being born again/from above¹ is rather literally taking place in us as this petition moves from our hearts to our lips and is vocalized before the throne of God.

I observe, evaluate, and respond to all of life through the perspective of “me.” From the moment of birth our sense of self, “I,” is embodied in our sensory awareness in distinction from what lies outside of us. Everything we think and do emerges from that embodied sense of self; everything, that is, until we give our lives to Jesus. Then that orientation begins to change. Our identity, indeed our consciousness changes. I find that I often do not just think thoughts to myself, but I am speaking them internally to Jesus. You and I are now embodied in God. God is embodied in us through the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the vine and we are the branches (John 15:5). We are no longer our individually embodied selves. We are organically members of the living Body of Christ. Our identity, our “self,” has a new, broader dimension that shapes our will.

Nowhere do we see more clearly what this exchange of willful identity means than in the Incarnate Jesus, God’s embodied will “as in heaven, even on earth.” And this new self’s will/volition is no more clearly seen than when Jesus is in the Garden of Gethsemane. There Jesus prays to the Father with a self (soul) deeply grieved almost to death (Mark 14:34). He pleads that his pending trial, beating and crucifixion would not take place, that this hour would pass unfulfilled, “Take this cup from me!” But as his breath continues, Jesus adds, “however, not what I will, but what You will” (Mark 14:35-36). In his humanity, Jesus’ first inclination is to demur in the face of crucifixion. That is significant to me. Jesus knew. He was not Superman with bullets bouncing off his chest. Jesus deeply knew what was pending. However, in his completely-submitted-to-God humanity, Jesus willed God’s will. That is the new, willful identity which we are allowing to be molded in us, when we pray, “Your will come to be, as in heaven, even on earth.”

Journal Reflections

My head knowledge of what God desires of me and my heart’s submission are quite at odds. I want God to show me one thing today in which Jesus wants more of me, of my will, my identity. What would that be for you?
As part of Christ’s larger Body, the Church, what form would that submission be in terms of your local church and the role you play?
During Lent, we are reminded that being obedient to death was not a light matter for Jesus. But, Jesus’ obedience to death to advance the Kingdom of God was for you and me. What would you like to say to Jesus?

Prayer quote:

Whether you like it or not, read and pray daily. It is for your life; there is no other way: else you will be a trifler all your days, and a pretty, superficial preacher. (John Wesley, Letter to John Trembath, August 17, 1760; in The Letters of John Wesley, Volume 4, edited by John Telford [Epworth Press, 1931].

Note:

The Greek adverb that is used in Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus in John 3 (verses 3 and 7), which leads up to John 3:16, can have two different meanings “over again” or “from above.” Given that the Gospel of John frequently uses wordplay such as double entendre and puns, it is likely that both nuances were meant to come to mind: to be born again is to be born from above.

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT (Reflection 3)

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sat, 07 Mar 2026 22:05:00 +0000

Reflection 3: 2^nd Petition: Your kingdom come!

[See Feb. 22, 2026 for translation and Reflection 1.]

The first three petitions put us in a right relationship with God. They are made on God’s behalf. Praying them puts us in our rightful place, in submission to God. When prayed consistently, the first petition sets the primary desire of our hearts on seeing the holiness of God revealed to the world through our lives.

The second petition, unfortunately, reveals how the gospel (“good news”) has almost been forgotten in our pop-Christian culture. If I were to ask the average person – maybe even a church-goer – “What was Jesus’ main message?” I imagine most people would say “love.” Maybe some would say “the Beatitudes.” However, in the Gospel of Mark, the first and most important words out of Jesus’ mouth would have been quite shocking to his audience:

The [appointed]¹ time is fulfilled. The Kingdom of God has approached. Repent and believe in the gospel! (Mark 1:15).

The presence of the Kingdom of God is what Jesus proclaimed and what Jesus sent his disciples out to preach.² Moreover, Jesus’ signs and wonders provided the proof that this divinely appointed time had indeed come.

We need to understand the background. Many Jews of Jesus’ day believed theologically that they were living in an imperfect age of chaos but that, at the appointed time, God would begin a new age. This would be an age of God’s perfect rule, the age of the Kingdom of God. Many of them believed that God’s Messiah (Anointed One) would usher in this age in one great, complete movement. Jesus shockingly announced that with his presence, that age had now arrived. However, through his teachings, Jesus taught something different about the coming of this new age. He taught that God’s Kingdom, which was initiated with his presence, would not be fully completed until he died and came again, a message virtually incomprehensible to his disciples.³ Therefore, in his prayer, Jesus instructed his followers to pray for the kingdom, or reign of God to become increasingly realized in the present. That is our second petition. This is to be another consuming desire of our hearts. Once again, though, God turns the onus back on us. This is where “love” comes in. By our love people will know we are Jesus’ disciples (John 13:34-35). Our character will display the marks of the Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-10). We will be practicing righteousness (Matt 25:31-46). Through the Holy Spirit, we will do even greater works than Jesus did (John 14:12). You and I are to reveal God’s reign, God’s Kingdom to the world.⁴ This commission is what we accepting when we pray, “Your kingdom come!”

This petition influences my prayers. Early each day I pray, “Jesus, what are you doing around me today in Your Kingdom? I would like to be a part of it.” I am trying to think and live as a kingdom person. I am slowly learning and slowly being reoriented.
This petition also confronts the Church. The 8^th century prophets in the Old Testament had to warn the people of God about praying for the “Day of the LORD” to come as if God would come to eliminate their so-called ungodly enemies. Rather, the prophets announced that God’s righteous justice would first be applied to the people of God. God would first address their failure to obey, their ungodly behavior. Is the Church ready? Are you and I really ready for the completion of the Kingdom of God when Christ comes again?

Journal Reflections

How does thinking about Jesus’ gospel as the proclamation of the presence of the Kingdom of God influence how you see yourself as a Christian?
Are there aspects of how you approach life that do not fit with proclaiming the Kingdom of God?
This week try praying something like the prayer mentioned above, asking what is happening in the Kingdom of God around you so that you can participate in it and be of service.
During Lent, we are reminded that our King was willing to suffer for us His servants.

Prayer quote:

Is it not strange that in spite of our conviction of its [prayer] privilege and necessity, we are all plagued with a subtle aversion to praying? We do not naturally delight in drawing near to God. We pay lip-service to its value and potency and yet so often fail to pray. ‘When I go to pray,’ confessed on eminent Christian, ‘I find my hear so loath to go to God, and when it is with Him so loath to stay.’ Is it here that self-discipline comes in… Here is an area in which we can avail ourselves of the Spirit’s promised assistance in our weakness. (J. Oswald Sanders, Effective Prayer, pp.8-9)

Notes:

“Appointed” has been added to the translation because the idiom here shows that Jesus is referring to a divinely anticipated event in history.
If you have access to a concordance, you might like to look up the many references to “kingdom” and “gospel” in the Gospels.
For an example, see the “Parable of the Weeds” and its explanation in Matt 13:24-30, 36-43.
Perhaps a note of caution should be added to avoid a misunderstanding that has taken place throughout Christian history. Jesus made it clear before Pilate that his kingdom is in this world but not of it; that is, God’s rule does not come about by human powers or governments. Followers of Jesus do not lord themselves over people; they get under them as servants and care for them (Mark 10:42-45).

Historical note: One reason that our culture may have lost sight of the gospel in terms of the Kingdom of God is because that frame of thinking was particularly Jewish. As Christianity spread to a Gentile audience, that language shifted to that of participating in the eternal of life of God in the present. We can see this shift taking place in John’s presentation of Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus (John 3:1-16).

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT (Reflection 2)

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sun, 01 Mar 2026 02:35:00 +0000

[See Feb. 22, 2026 for translation and Reflection 1.]

1st Petition: Your name be made holy!

The first three petitions put us in a right relationship with God. They are made on God’s behalf. Praying them puts us in our rightful place, in submission to God.

In regard to the first one, interestingly, we often miss the fact that this sentence is a petition in the imperative mood and not a statement about the nature of God. God is holy, of course. However, Jesus is telling us that the primary desire of our hearts is to long for God to be made known as holy. These words are to be the first prayer out of our lips! This is our first petition.

Let’s develop this petition a little more. “Name” in the culture behind the text is easy to grasp. It represented the person. In that world, the spoken word was something vital, almost tangible, because it comes into being by one’s life breath. So, to proclaim one’s name invoked the vital character of that person. For example, if a king’s courtier were to come up to a group of peasants, hold out the king’s signet ring, and say, “In the name of the King, come!” they would jump up and come. The name of God, known to Israel as “YHWH,”¹ references the full character of the one true God.
“Make holy” is a hard concept. Holiness is as hard to grasp as gravity. It refers to the absolute transcendent distinctiveness of God -- One without spot, blemish, imperfection, etc. As such, God is sanctified, that is recognized as set apart as holy. God is totally other than you and me. Isaiah says that as the heavens are higher than the earth, God’s thoughts and ways are not comparable to ours (Isa. 55:8-9). Recognizing the holiness of God, God’s totally pure “otherness,” is the starting point to a right relationship with God. It makes a good first petition.

However, lest we speak this first petition complacently, there is a stunning, astounding twist about it. Throughout Scripture, God puts the responsibility for revealing God’s holiness back on you and me, on God’s people! The disciples knew that. Israel was called to be a blessing to all nations by being God’s holy people. When Isaiah condemns people of Israel for calling evil good and good evil, for calling darkness light and light darkness, the charge is that they are spurning the Holy One of Israel (Isa. 5:20-24). We, the Church, are called to be holy. Over and over, “Be holy! Be holy! Be holy!” (See, for example, Lev 19:2; Matt 5:48 which precedes our text; 1Thes 4:7; 1Pet 1:14-16.)
Like the illustration that pointing a finger at someone points three back at ourselves, we cannot pray, “Your name be made holy” without pointing at ourselves. Jesus calls us to be holy so that others will know the holiness of God. This is an imperative. This is who we are to be as followers of Jesus. I look at myself, my example, and cringe. Still, the Holy One says to us, “For I am YHWH your God, holding you by your right hand, saying to you, ‘Do not be afraid, I will help you’” (Isa. 41:13). The Holy Spirit can work God’s holiness into even me.

Journal Reflections

The primary desire of our hearts is to see God revealed as holy. Is it? What does this say about me, my heart? About you?
What are some ways that you, like me, have become accustomed to unholiness?
If we are to accept the charge to be holy, what is one thing about you today that you need the Holy Spirit to address?
During Lent, we reflect on how the holy life that Jesus lived, how everything he did glorified the Father. What does that reflection mean to you?

Prayer quote:

“He [God] encourages us to ask as freely for the impossible as for the possible, since to him all difficulties are the same size – less than Himself.” (J. Oswald Sanders, Effective Prayer, p. 26.)

Note:

When God gives this name YHWH (from Hebrew) to Moses (Exod 3:14; often spelled “Yahweh” or rendered “LORD”), that answer is a word play on the Hebrew verb for “to be/to exist.” For Moses, who was from a polytheistic cultural setting, it was necessary to know the name of a god in order to know what particular function that god had, as well as to be able invoke it magically. The name God gives in response, in a sense, is no name, because God is no lower-case “god” that is limited and manipulable. God is who God is, the sovereign God. This is what Moses and the people in slavery in Egypt learn as they learn about following the God of Abraham, YHWH.

THE LORD’S PRAYER: REFLECTIONS FOR LENT

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:39:00 +0000

My church asked that I write some reflections on the Lord’s Prayer for Lent. I have provided a translation and seven reflections with questions which can be used for a journal of personal reflections and one’s prayer experience. Below are the translation and Reflection 1. I will post the other six over the following weeks of Lent.
-------

The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13)

Like good disciples, Jesus’ disciples asked their Rabbi Jesus to teach them a prayer that expressed his concerns – just as John the Baptist taught his disciples (Luke 11:1). The prayer that Jesus taught them is the model for all followers of Jesus.

Pray, then, this way!¹
Our Father, who is in heaven,
Your name be made holy!
Your kingdom come!
Your will come to be, as in heaven, even on earth [itself]²!

Give us today our bread of the day!
And forgive us our debts³ as even we [ourselves]⁴ have forgiven our
debtors!
And do not let us cross over to temptation,⁵ but deliver us from the
evil [one]!⁶”

Notes on Translation
This is a new translation to give fresh insights for this series of reflections. You might wish to compare it to your favorite translations. Here it is formatted to show that, after the invocation addressing God, there are three petitions on behalf of God and then three petitions on behalf of ourselves. This basic structure of first God then people roughly parallels the Ten Commandments and the Greatest Commandment (first love God, second love you neighbor).
-----
1. Exclamation marks have been included to show the imperative mood (commands). They are not necessary in a format of petitions but are included here to indicate an emphasis that could be missed.
2. “Itself,” is added, but captures the emphatic phrasing in the Greek.
3. “Debt” rather than “trespasses” is more accurate, since it can refer to a moral debt and better communicates that all sin leaves a negative result as explained in Reflection 6.
4. “Ourselves” is added, but captures the emphatic phrasing in the Greek.
5. A more literal rendering is “do not carry/lead into,” but this is an idiomatic way of asking for help that is explained in Reflection 7.
6. “Evil” here has the definite article, “the evil” so it is probably used as a personal noun for “the evil one” as in Matt 13:19, 38 and probably Matt. 5:37. See Reflection 7.
---------

Reflection 1: The Invocation: Our Father in heaven

It is good to pause on the first word, “our.” Jesus taught his disciples a communal prayer, not a for-me prayer. We come out of the womb focused solely on ourselves, and too often we go to the grave with the same preoccupation. The prayer for Jesus’ followers immediately teaches us we must reach out beyond ourselves. We are called to a new life-orientation. Jesus’ followers serve others (Mark 10:42-45). Being Jesus’ follower is not like participating in an individual sport. We are a team, a corporate identity, like an organic, living body. We care for each other (Hebrews 10:25). We intercede in prayer for each other.
I had a godly grandmother who turned a closet in her house into a prayer closet. She taught me one way to pray the Lord’s Prayer. Whenever she had been hurt by someone or had bad feelings toward someone, she would go into her prayer closest and pray the Lord’s Prayer. However, she would replace the first-person plural pronouns (our, we, us) with the name of that person. After praying it that way, she felt reconciled in her heart to the other person.

“Our Father in heaven,” in distinction from our parents¹ on earth, launches us into the unfathomable depth of God’s desire for intimacy. “In heaven,” is a way of picturing the sovereignty of God spatially. Doing so overwhelms me. I am but a speck in the town of Boone, which is but a speck on Earth, which is but a speck in our solar system (1.3 million Earths would fit in the Sun), which is but a speck in our galaxy, and so on to the ends of the cosmos. Yet, somehow, the Creator of all this desires a family-like relationship with me, with you. I cannot comprehend it. All I can do is worship in response.
This Creator condescends (“comes down”) to us. The Creator humbly seeks to relate to us like an ideal parent to a beloved child. This Creator walks and talks in the Garden of Eden. This Creator encounters people individually. This Creator becomes incarnate in the flesh. This Creator humbles Himself to death on a cross. A “god” like this could not be respected in the pagan world. Such a god was not comprehensible in that world. The pagan world wanted powerful gods on their side, sometimes against others. However, the true God loves me and you. The true God does not loftily remain above the chaos and suffering in our lives. Our Lord and God understands our pain, sorrow, and suffering and willingly enters into it with us. Jesus tells us to say, “Our Father” and realize what that means.

Journal Reflections
1.     What does Jesus’ assumption of praying communally for others mean to you?
2.     Try replacing the first-person pronouns with the name of someone with whom you are having difficulty. Does that help you to be better reconciled to that person and to God?
3.     I get a kind of “brain freeze” when I try to imagine how something so insignificant in time and space as myself can be loved by my Creator. How are you moved when you realize that Jesus tells you to pray to your Creator as “Father”?
4.     During Lent we reflect on the unimaginable humility and compassion of the Creator of all becoming flesh among us. What is your response? How does this impact your prayer life?

Prayer quote:
“What a person is on their knees before God in secret, that is what they will be before people: that much and no more.” (Fred Mitchell, Royal Exchange, p. 24. Edited for gender neutrality.)

Note:
1. I have used “parent(s)” because our culture does not assume the patriarchal/matriarchal distinctions of the original audience. Although the biblical culture had this distinction, the Scriptures also portray God with what they would consider feminine attributes, such as mercy and compassion. Whenever we speak of the undefinable God, we, like the biblical composers can but only use the frail metaphors of our time and place like father or parent.

WHAT DOES “JESUS DIED FOR US” MEAN? Q's and Responses

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:33:00 +0000

My previously posted sermon (Feb. 10, 2026) on the above topic raised some good questions that were directed to me personally. It is likely that others had the same type of questions. This post consists of the questions and my responses. I say "responses" rather than "the answers" because the latter sounds too definitive. I am a finite person with limited understanding, studying the Bible as well as I can. These are my responses. As abbreviated as they are, they are still quite lengthy, but I hope that they are helpful.

Q #1: I really appreciate the distinction between covenant language and atonement language. God's grace again is the driving force. But I don't really understand the transition to the blood sacrifice after genuine repentance. Comments?

Response: Here is an analogy. God is beyond this world and our comprehension (God is super-natural). In a sense, then, we can only speak about God metaphorically, using the language of our world, the natural. Religious ritual is a richer, more dramatic, more complex way about communicating the nature of God and relationship with God. Example: ancient temples and sites divided places into more and less sacred space, something which has carried over the architecture of many churches. The closer one came to a sacred object (altar, inner chamber, image, etc.), the more one was encroaching on the dangerous sacred space of the god and had to be "cleansed," sanctified, and prepared to do so -- often as a priest.

Most of the religious rituals of ancient Israel were picked up from the cultures around them, but the Israelites de-mythologized them, stripping them of their polytheism and literal beliefs in magic meant to encourage or manipulate the gods. The adapted Israelite rituals become dramatized, symbolic acts rather than acts of coercive magic.

In Israel, the Temple symbolized God's dwelling place. Israelites knew God did not literally live there. Moreover, since sin has a real consequence in terms of impeding our relationship with God, sins were dramatically represented as polluting areas of the Temple, such that people would be alienated from God, and God would eventually "leave" (Ezekiel's messages). Note that the emphasis was on sin polluting God's place, not the sinner. The penetrating effect of sin varied: inadvertent sins of the individual did not penetrate into the more sacred areas/parts of the Temple as deeply as deliberate sins of the individual and community. While there are many different offerings and sacrifices, the ones dealing with sin required a ritual that symbolically cleansed the place/object of pollution such as the outer altar, the holy chamber, or the ark of the covenant (Day of Atonement) in the holiest chamber. In these rituals, blood is the main symbol. The polluting effect of sin is uncleanness, chaos, and death. However, blood, particularly that of a “pure” animal without blemish, was a tangible, manipulable symbol of life that is more potent than death. Note, too, that the death of the animal is not focal point; an unblemished animal provided the blood necessary for the cleansing atonement. That "life" sprinkled or poured or wiped on a sin-polluted altar/object of God, symbolized it being cleansed and then reconsecrated, with the result that there was no longer an impediment in one's relationship with God, atonement had occurred.

My point was about how confession (repentance) is what results in God's graceful forgiveness. However, to represent that restored relationship, the sin offering had to be offered and the blood applied to remove symbolically, not magically, the pollution and to return the state of things to normal -- atonement.

The NT authors talk about Jesus bearing/lifting sins just as the Old Testament does about God/Yahweh lifting/bearing sins as a metaphorical expression for forgiveness -- one of many metaphors. I cannot imagine that a trained rabbi like Paul, when using the sacrificial language of the Temple believed in pagan magic of sins being put onto a scapegoat or person who then "pays the price" to fool or appease the gods

Q #2: NT: God has made possible a new covenant in which I am not only forgiven of sin but the way to him has been forever made open through the cleansing blood of the Lamb. But doesn't, in this case, the cleansing come before the confession, repentance, and forgiveness? A new relationship to God has been offered to those who entrust their lives to him. And that new relationship is really new life, a life like the original human life was meant to be and a life that even now we know will go on forever. Jesus' death is more like the passover lamb shed for the covering and freeing of the Israelites in Egypt, but somehow this all fits together.

Response: Great insight, question, and observations. I cannot give a proper reply without giving it the depth it deserves, but superficially I would answer your question about cleansing being first with a qualified "no" that is somewhat covered by your own following comments about a new life.

As an introductory note, your example about the Passover Lamb, referred to in the Gospels at the Last Supper, is not a sin-cleansing ritual, but is an example of “somehow this all fits together.” There are two allusions in those NT texts. First, the Passover event was part of a pre-Mosaic, covenantal act of God, along with the plagues, that revealed to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt God’s sovereign nature and God’s commitment to the Abrahamic covenant by delivering them from Pharaoh. Blood as symbolic of life (mentioned below) protected them from the Angel of Death. Celebrating the Passover recalled that deliverance. Secondly, Jesus refers to his blood as initiating a new covenant (Mark 14:24) such as in the ritual one finds in Gen 15:7-21. Neither allusion is about cleansing from sin. However, the “new covenant” will be viewed by the first Christians as including Gentiles.

To put things into a clearer perspective, we modern Christians need to back up a step from our typical Gentile point of view. Paul thinks about Jesus as the Messiah for the Jews -- those who accept Jesus as Christ are/become the true Israel. To explain PART of the work of Christ, Paul uses atonement language proper, such as Jesus being the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Rom 3:25, the physical "intermediary" between God and the Israelites, often poorly translated metaphorically as "sacrifice" or "propitiation;" but see YLT or NET) and, mixing metaphors, as Jesus being the sin-offering (Rom 8:3; 2Cor 5:21, with the latter sometimes poorly rendered as "sin"). A Jew, of course, would see sacrificial-atonement language as first calling for confession/repentance, a point made in my sermon.

However, two further co-considerations complicate the matter. First, Paul sees the total work of Christ (expressed by "faith/faithfulness of Christ") to have brought about, as you note, a new age and the ultimate expression of the "faith/faithfulness of God" and God’s righteousness (Romans 3). (This is a similar line of thought to the Gospels' presentation of Jesus as inaugurating the Kingdom of God.) For Paul, to be "in Christ" (participatory theology) means that a person is no longer under the reign of sin and death that has ruled since the time of Adam. The one who "believes into Christ" belongs to the reign of the Spirit and life (see Romans 5-8). In this reign, a person is no longer under the guidance of the Law/Torah including sacrificial ritual and the role of the Temple symbolism. (Think of the participatory theology in the Book/Letter of Hebrews.) The full work of Christ -- atonement in the technical sense AND much more -- has brought the believer/entruster into a new life and way of living.

Second, the co-consideration is that the full work of Christ takes us back prior to Moses and the Law to fulfill the promises to Abraham of being a blessing to the nations/Gentiles. It is important to Paul, regarding the inclusion of Gentiles, to explain to Jewish Christians that God receives people as "righteous" (in right relationship) simply by faith (entrusting oneself to God), citing Hab 2:4 (Rom 1:16-17) and alluding to Abraham and Gen 15:6 (see his discussion in Romans 4 and Gal 3:6-14). So, again we see that God offers a covenant relationship to Gentiles, just as with Abraham, prior to any "cleansing." The grace of God is always primary. However, the notion now of "cleansing" is that it has been taken care of once for all for those in Christ who repent. It appears to me that the author of 1 John is thinking the same way when he states, "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, forgiving us our sins AND cleansing us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn 1:9 NET, caps is my addition).

WHAT DOES “JESUS DIED FOR US” MEAN?

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:03:00 +0000

Note: With Lent coming up soon, I decided to post a sermon that I gave to some lay pastors. It covers points found in some previous devotions, but communicates them differently.

Opening:
Text: Romans 5:6-8.

First, let me offer a disclaimer about my false advertising. I could never cover the full meaning of the statement, “Jesus died for us.” What I want to do is address one model of understanding that statement that is popular, but, I believe is non-biblical; and then I want to point us in the right direction for understanding the language about his death.
   I have always warned ALPS students that I am a teacher and not a preacher, so this time will be no different. But, I think it is OK, because thinking more deeply about Jesus is also worshipful and encouraging.
   I have a difficult topic tonight, but one that is important to me. I help my wife teach a 1^st-2^nd grade SS class. (She is the expert.) It caught my attention that a couple of the children would say that Jesus died for their sins, when they had no clue what that meant. I got to thinking about how many adults also probably could not give a good explanation.
   As an OT scholar, I try to look at the words of Jesus or of someone like Paul from a Jewish perspective. I am always pursuing the issue of what the text meant to the original audiences. But, as I finite and fallible person, my conclusions may be wrong. So, please, bear with me, think about it, and particularly seek God about it.

Prayer: “O God, you are aware of my foolish sins; my guilt is not hidden from you. Let none who rely on you be disgraced because of me, O sovereign LORD and king! Let none who seek you be ashamed because of me, O God of Israel! (Ps. 69:5-6, NET)

Overview
I have been thinking about how people look at the atoning work of Jesus. Some of the early Church Fathers drew on concepts from their culture. Anselm in 11th century drew on his model of the feudal system to explain that Jesus was a substitute for us to restore to God the honor he deserves. In the 16^th cent. Martin Luther viewed Jesus as a substitute who bore our punishment for failure under the Law; and, John Calvin, a lawyer, further defined the atonement in terms of criminal law; Jesus bore our criminal penalties. These models seem to me to be straying from what a 1^st century Jewish Christian would have thought.
I want to make two main points. The first is that the contemporary Church, particularly on a pop-level, focuses too much on the death of Jesus to the exclusion of the broader range of the whole work and ministry of Christ. The second is that to better understand the meaning of the statement, “Jesus died for my sins,” we need to try to understand what a good Jew like Paul would have thought.

Focusing on Death to the Exclusion of Jesus' Full Ministry
The first point is simple. There is too much of a focus on the death of Jesus to the exclusion of his whole work. Obviously, we talk about the resurrection, because without it Jesus’ death would be meaningless. I am not minimizing that. I am expanding. There is more. Scripture tells us that through Jesus, the Word of God, all things were created. But, there is more. Jesus emptied himself of his divine status, humbled himself, became incarnate and dwelt among us – the Light of the World in our midst. But, there is more. Jesus pronounced and taught about the newly inaugurated era of the Kingdom of God, in which you and I now participate. God’s rule had begun in a new way. And, Jesus performed signs and wonders that demonstrated that God’s Kingdom was indeed here in his person. But, there is more. He showed himself to be the perfect Adam, the perfect Israel, the perfect offering a new covenant, the perfect sin offering, and the perfect High Priest. But, there is more. His death was followed by the first fruits of the Resurrection, which proved his words, and which demonstrated his victory over death, sin, and Satan. But, there is more. Jesus dwells in believers through the Person of the Holy Spirit, and we dwell in Him as members of His Body. But, there is more. Jesus, in his humanity, having been tested and tempted in all ways, identifies with us in our weaknesses and at this very moment and intercedes for you and me before the throne of God. His goal is that you and I might be made perfect in him and so be prepared for his Second Coming.
A whole year’s worth of sermons could be preached on each of these points and this is a partial list. So, I’m sure you get the point: the whole work and ministry of Jesus must be proclaimed to your congregations.

Better Understanding of “Jesus Died for My Sins”
The second point is to address the statement, “Jesus died for my sins.” Again, we need to look view this wholistically. Through the combined work of Jesus incarnation, his life and ministry, his death and resurrection, etc. Jesus receives a wide variety of titles that use the figurative language of the OT to capture who he is. Jesus is savior, redeemer, one who pays a ransom, one who pronounces forgiveness, the seat of atonement, a sin offering, Passover lamb, perfect sacrifice, high priest, the new Man, the victor over death, victor over this world, victor over Satan and the principalities, etc.
One issue that I repeatedly find in NT studies is that people tend to group most of those titles under the category of “atonement,” but atonement is used in a narrower sense in the OT. The second issue is after having called most of that “atonement” some people try to settle on the mechanism of atonement in a very narrow way, and one that I do not find to be biblical.

Penal Substitution
I want to address this model: Jesus is the penal substitute for my sins. As I mentioned, this model, which has some antecedents that go back to Anselm, was mainly promoted by some leaders in the Reformation. They held a legal notion of atonement that is foreign to the Temple language of atonement. For them, God is a Judge, for whom every infraction against his holiness demands a legal penalty, which, because God is so holy, is the legal penalty of death. In this view, our sins demanded our deaths; they were transferred over to the Son of God; and then God executed justice on Jesus by killing him. As a result, this model holds, we can have a right relationship with God. I understand that this model is supposed to show the grace of God: God is both the executioner and the victim. However, as a scholar who reads the NT through the lens of the OT, my point that is that the NT writers, and particularly Paul, would not have thought about atonement in terms of penal substitution.

Covenant Language Vs. Atonement Language
The first point is that in the OT there is a difference between the language of God offering a covenant relationship and God providing a means of atonement for sin. We must not overlook the language of covenant. We need to separate the two. When God offers a relationship to Abraham, God does not first cleanse him of sin. There is no judicial punishment for his sinfulness. God meets Abraham on his level and offers relationship. It is all about grace. God “cuts a covenant” with him. In Gen. 15, the sacrificial animals are cut in half and placed opposite each other; and God, represented by a smoking fire-pot, passing through the bloody pieces to seal his covenant with Abraham. Jesus, in the Eucharist refers to his blood as the blood of a new covenant. This is not atonement language. Then to keep his promises to Abraham, God later saves/rescues/ransoms/delivers Abraham’s descendants from slavery in Egypt. This is not atonement language. Then, later God offers a covenant relationship to the rescued Hebrew slaves without any punishment of sin, or sacrifices, or cleansing. God lowers himself to their level to offer a relationship with him without precondition. It is all about grace.
This is important: What then made Abraham righteous in God’s sight? It was not some substitutionary sacrifice. We are told clearly in Gen. 15:6 that when Abraham believed God – or better, entrusted himself to God, God counted that as righteousness. This becomes a key point in Paul’s argument about how the Gentiles, the nations, are included. In Romans 3 and Galatians 3, Paul argues that those who are of the faith of Abraham, who entrust themselves to the God who raised Jesus from the dead, are children of Abraham, recipients of the promises. The main point to remember is that God’s offer of relationship is purely by grace and not based on first punishing sins or cleansing someone.

Atonement Language
The second point is that atonement language follows covenant language. Atonement language deals with our failure to be faithful to our relationship with God. It is about restoring our covenant relationship with God when it is damage by our sin. The atonement language of the Temple system was symbolic. Sin is real, but it is not tangible. Sin breaks our rapport with God, but again, it is not material. The symbol system of the Temple was heuristic, educational; it graphically demonstrated the reality of sin. The Temple represented God dwelling in the midst of his people, but God did not literally dwell there. Sin symbolically polluted God’s dwelling place and threatened their relationship with God. So, that pollution, or rot, symbolically had to be cleansed, and that was done through blood because it is the strongest tangible symbol of life. Blood cleanses pollution. The person providing the animal did so as a gesture of wanting to be forgiven and restored. However, the killing of the animal is not the main part. The main part was that first the sinner through public confession repented, having a heart-felt desire for a restored relationship with God. Such repentance was greeted with God’s forgiveness, an act of grace. Still, the Temple had to be cleansed from the pollution of sin to symbolize restored access by the individual or community to the Presence of God. That is where the blood of the sacrifice comes in. The animal was not a substitute being punished by death for the sinner. Rather the pure, lifeblood of an unblemished animal provided the “cleansing agent” that was manipulated on the altar to cleanse away the pollution symbolically. The whole process of forgiveness and a ritual offering communicated publicly and symbolically God’s mercy and grace.
   Let me give an example of another important ritual, that of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, a ritual which is mistakenly taken as a ritual of penal substitution. Apparently, the Israelites borrowed this ritual from someone like the Hittites and changed it. The Hittites believed that a person could magically transfer the sins of a person onto a goat, drive that goat into the desert, and fool the offended god or goddess who went chasing after that goat. But, the Israelites did not believe that. They did not believe that sins were somehow material and could be transferred by magic onto another person. God is against such notions of magic. God cannot not be fooled like demonic “gods.” The Israelites adopted this ritual symbolically but adapted it to communicate the grace of God. Again, repentance expressed by fasting and communal confession of sin was main part of the Day of Atonement. Driving the scapegoat into the wilderness symbolized the removal of those sins to the realm where they belong, a place of chaos and death. And, application of blood to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (the mercy seat) symbolized the cleansing of the impediment of pollution between God and the people.
   In this sermon/teaching, I cannot go into all of the NT passages that speak about the death of Jesus and show how they are based on OT language and concepts, but I want to emphasize the symbolic nature of the language. I am not minimizing sin. Sin is real. Sin has consequences. But, God does not literally forget sins. God does not literally move our sins as far as the east is from the west. God does not literally cast our sins into the sea. God does not literally cover over our sins. God does not literally blot our sins out of the ledger. God does not literally wash away sins. God is not fooled by a goat carrying sins away into the wilderness. This language was meant to help people realize the reality and seriousness of sin, and, most of all, to illustrate the unfathomable grace of God.
   In Isaiah 43, God is mad at Israel for not understanding this, and God say, “I, I myself, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake; your sins I do not remember.” (Isa. 43:25 Duke). God forgives for God’s sake; God’s character is merciful and graceful.
   But, again, sin is seriously burdensome. The main term in the OT that gets translated by the verb “forgive” is nasa. It means to lift, to bear. Our sins weigh us down and God lifts them; God bears them. When Peter states in 1 Pet. 2:24 that Jesus bore our sins on the cross, he is not thinking some kind of magical manipulation of sins for penal substitution. He is using good OT language. [This also takes us into language that is borrowed from the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah. That is another concept. Israel could see how the generation of those who suffered the Babylonian Exile bore the sins and punishment of many generations. Paul picks up on that language as well in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 and Rom. 5. But, I can cover the main concept but not every text.
   I want to come back to some atonement language in the NT and point out how rich the language is that Paul borrows from the Temple system. For instance, in Rom. 3: 25, Paul calls Jesus the hilastarion. Some translators have “expiation” or “propitiation,” but I am convinced that Paul knew the Jewish sacrificial system. He is thinking of the Day of Atonement. The hilastarion in the Greek version of the OT was the lid of the ark of the covenant, call the mercy seat. It was the closest point symbolically connecting God to God’s people. It was where the lifeblood of the sin offering was applied on the Day of Atonement to rid the pollution of the Israelites’ deliberate sin. Paul is calling that hilastarion (mercy seat) Jesus. However, later in Rom 8:3, Paul shifts his metaphorical language and refers to Jesus as the sin offering (hamartia) itself that provided the cleansing blood that was put on the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement. [Depending on the context, hamartia can be translated generically as “sin” in many places, but in sacrificial contexts it was also the technical term for the “sin offering,” which is clearly what Paul means here.] To blend language from John and Paul: Jesus, who is the Life, both provides the perfect, pure, cleansing lifeblood of the sin offering and is the point of mediation between God and humanity, the mercy seat. That is wonderful language of grace.

Summary
Let me summarize the main points. The first simple point is that we need to preach the fullness of the work and ministry of Jesus, the fullness of his identity and roles. Second, when we distinguish between the language of covenant relationship and that of atonement, we see the biblical model that God offers relationship with himself as pure grace. He does not cleanse the person first. There is no judicial punishment. God, in humility condescends to offer himself in communion with us. When people entrust themselves to God in that relationship, that is considered “righteousness.” Third, when we do talk about the NT atonement language borrowed from the OT, we must be careful and ask what it meant to a Jew of that time. When many people outside of the Church hear a pop-cultural, Christian model that everyone’s sins have been transferred to Jesus, who was then executed to exact the price of justice, they do not hear the Good News. They do not hear a God full of grace. The bottom line of what I am saying is that the language of the NT that draws on the sacrificial system in the OT was meant to communicate God’s grace and mercy in Jesus. It is grace from the beginning to the end.

“I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE” (JOHN 11:25-26): TWO CLAIMS

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sun, 04 Jan 2026 23:16:00 +0000

I recently realized when Jesus said that he is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25a) that he was making two, albeit related, claims. My lack of apprehension was because I had taken for granted translations that have Jesus saying in the next verse (26a), “The one who lives and believes in me will never die” (NET, see how NRSV and NIV also say “never”). I had wondered what sense that made, since all people die, unless Jesus was referring to those alive at the Second Coming. However, that concept is not part of the immediate context. I had never looked at the text closely.

Context and Explanation
This text is found in John 11:25-26. Just before Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, Martha affirms her belief that Lazarus would come back to life again at the last day. That is to say she believed in a Jewish concept of a resurrection of the dead at the time of final judgement. However, her belief was not specifically grounded on Jesus. Jesus here directs her to trust in him. Jesus tells her he is (both) the resurrection and the life. This not a hendiadys, a single concept expressed by two nouns. Jesus is making two claims, which he then clarifies. His first statement is,

“The one who is believing into me (= entrusting oneself to) even if he dies will live” (25b).

That is to say that Jesus is the source of all those who will be resurrected at the last day. Jesus is one responsible for resurrection of the dead. That specific claim is then supported by the following sign of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (11:41-44). However, Jesus goes on to say,

“And everyone who is living and believing into me will not die into the ages (eis ton aiona)” (26a).

This is where English translations often simply say, “will never die.” Although this translation is not exactly wrong, it misses the point of the language. “Into the ages,” particularly following a claim of resurrection, has an eschatological meaning. Jesus is making a second claim about himself. The gift of continuing to live forever (“into the ages”) also rests with/in Jesus. Therefore, having said he is the resurrection AND the life, Jesus in verses 25-26, invites Martha to realize that he is both the source of resurrection of the dead and the source of eternal life.

Another implication is significant. One might logically assume that being granted life into the ages is subsequent to being resurrected from the dead. However, since Jesus in both statements uses the present participle (ongoing action) when referring to the “one believing in me” (25b) and “all who are believing in me” (26a), we should understand that the eschatological nature of eternal life begins with the commitment of entrusting oneself to Jesus; that is, it begins in the present. This same point about “into the ages” and the beginning of eternal life helps to clarify John 8:51. There Jesus says, “whoever keeps my word, will not behold death into the ages.” The commitment to Jesus’ word in the present results in a life that lasts into the ages (forever). Whether or not Jesus immediate audience understood it, Jesus was making the eschatological claim of eternal life beginning in the present.

The counterpart, the end result of those not entrusting themselves to Jesus, is implied both here and at 8:51 (see, too, John 6:50-51 and 10:25-30. That is, they apparently do die “into the ages.” They suffer an eschatological death - forever. (See the preceding post about the final judgment being eternal death, the “second death” of Revelation, November 14, 2025.)

Application
Obviously, Jesus’ invitation to Martha applies to me. I am to realize that Jesus is both the source of resurrection of the dead and the source of eternal life. For me, Jesus’ claims here are deeper and more profound than I have realized. I will not again speak of Jesus being the resurrection and the life as glibly as I have before. All power over death and the grave belongs to Jesus. The gift of eternal life belongs to Jesus. All I can do is worship.

ADVENT: INCARNATION: A PARALLEL ACT TO CREATION, John 1:4-5

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:28:00 +0000

John’s prologue to his gospel of Jesus (1:1-5) is set within the theological context of Genesis 1, “In the beginning” (1:1). That context is important for understanding John. (See “Advent: And the Word Was God?” 11/30/25.) John’s narrative proper begins at v. 6 with the introduction of John the Baptist with his announcement of the Incarnation at v 14, when God’s Utterance (the Logos/Word) became flesh. I have been thinking about 1:4-5 in this prologue:

“In Him [referring back to the Utterance] was Life and the Life was the Light of all people. And the Light in the darkness shines, and the darkness did not overcome it.”

It strikes me that with the Utterance becoming flesh a parallel act of creation to that of Genesis 1 has taken place.

Proper context
To explain, I have to set to one side a popular doctrine, that of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). It was important to the early Church Fathers to espouse creation ex nihilo in order to counter a couple of popular notions of their day, that the cosmos was eternal and that there had always been opposing forces of good and bad or spirit and matter. They needed to teach, rightly, about God as the Creator who was sovereign. However, that teaching is not found in the narrative of Genesis 1 and should not be read into it.
Genesis 1 begins with the same starting point as the earlier ancient Near Eastern creation accounts of the Israelites’ culture, accounts which the biblical writers adopted and then adapted to speak the truth about God and reality. Those accounts start with the reality that all humans face, chaos that constantly seeks to overpower life. Illustration: before one can farm land, one must bring order into the physical chaos of the land; and, once one has planted a crop, one constantly has to fight the forces of chaos that would consume the garden. Survival is a struggle against physical forces of chaos as a well moral chaos.
Genesis 1 begins with three elements that are contra life: a topsy-turvy “earth,” that is encased in a watery deep and surrounded in utter darkness (Gen 1:2). However, God speaks, and the Spirit that breaths out the Utterance of God, speaks light into darkness, order into the chaotic watery deep and topsy-turvy earth, and brings forth life. This is what John is thinking about.

Application
John is thinking about Jesus as the God’s Utterance by which all things came into being (1:3). But as John is thinking about how the Utterance (logos) became flesh (1:14), he is recognizing in verse 4-5 how that Utterance will/does function as the Life who is the Light of all people (see, too v. 9). In other words, it seems to me that John is thinking of the Incarnation as a parallel creational act of God.
The reality of life as we face it is full of chaos and darkness, physical and moral, just as the “world” was before God began to speak light, order, and life into that chaos in Genesis 1. In this new beginning work of God, the Incarnation, the Utterance of God became flesh and dwelt with us bringing light, order, and life into our existence which constantly struggles with that which is contra life. Jesus is this Light, and the forces of chaos, darkness, and death cannot overcome the Light. Rather, the Light exposes all that is of darkness and done in darkness so that people do not have to walk in darkness (e.g. 8:12). The Light offers eternal life to those who receive Jesus and entrust themselves (“believe into”) Jesus (1:12). The Utterance become flesh parallels the work of God in Genesis 1.

Lord, before surrendering to Jesus, I walked in darkness. Darkness, chaos, and sin still envelop my world, yet by the Light you guide me. Darkness cannot overcome your Light. Help me to always desire to stay in the Light. Amen.

ADVENT: AND THE WORD WAS GOD? (John 1:1-2)

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sun, 30 Nov 2025 22:51:00 +0000

What was John saying in 1:1-2 about the Word (logos)? I, like others, do not think I can capture the Greek concepts in English. I will try, but what I notice is that many commentators get hung up on the individual word issues and miss the broader cultural understanding of speaking that lies behind John’s imagery.

Issues
“In beginning”: indicating temporality or causality is not as important as the fact that John is thinking of Genesis 1:1.
“Word” (logos): can mean word, speech act, reason or plan, etc. The context of a speech act that alludes to Genesis 1 matters.
“With God”: the preposition pros can have a wide range of nuances; appropriate to the context here is a nuance of extension and an expression of relationship.
“Was God”: 1) Jehovah Witnesses want to translate it as “was a God” because there is no definite article; however, 2) the predicate noun stated first can be definite without the definite article; but more significantly 3) it could be qualitative, as in “fully divine.” [See Net Bible for a discussion.] Again, the context matters.

Cultural Concept
Understanding the cultural concept of the speech act is more important than debating the words individually. In that culture, when someone spoke, that person did so by their very life essence, their spirit or breath (Hebrew: ruach; Greek: pneuma). As a result, the utterance was something real and “tangibly” of the speaker. One can even feel words breathe out of the person’s mouth. This is why words of blessing and words of cursing were taken as real and powerful as the speaker.

In Genesis 1, of which John is thinking, God utters forth creation: “God said … and it came to be.” God’s utterance divides light from darkness. God’s utterance divides order from chaos. God’s utterance brings about life. God’s utterance in creation was understood to be continually efficacious, maintaining the creational order in the presence of chaos. God’s utterance was of the very life essence (Spirit) of God.

Application
John’s parallel to Genesis 1 is identifying Jesus as that creational ordering, efficacious utterance of God that is itself (Himself) inseparably of the essence and person of God.* Through this Utterance, “All things through Him came into being; and apart from Him nothing has come into being” (1:3). Here is a paraphrase, inadequate but maybe helpful, of 1:1-2:
   In the beginning, was God’s Ordering, Life-giving Utterance [the Word].
  And the Ordering Utterance was the extension of God.
  And fully expressing the Divine was the Ordering Utterance.
  This One was from the beginning the extension of God.
As I think about Jesus, I am overwhelmed by the realization that the Divine Utterance became flesh, became a person. This is the Christ. This is the Savior of the world. The world came into being through Him. I came into being through Him. I am moved to worship.
Lord, Jesus, I am yours. Amen.
-------
*Although I am not saying that John was attempting to give a theological metaphor for the Trinity, if I was to put words in John’s mouth, I would use the image of God the Utterer (Father), God the articulating Breath (Spirit), and God the Utterance (Son) – all of the same Godhead, all distinct, all in unity.

I GRIEVE BECAUSE OF CHRISTIANS.

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Fri, 14 Nov 2025 22:32:00 +0000

I grieve that people are not walking with Jesus because of Christians. I am speaking about something much deeper than political division. I have friends who are atheists or agnostics due to their experience with Christians. Today, again, I met another fine man who is an agnostic. He would like to believe in a God, but because Christians have taught him that all non-Christians will “go to hell,” he does not want anything to do with Jesus. That is what grieves me deeply. That is not good biblical theology. Very briefly and without full explanations, this is what I would like to tell such people, if they were open to listening:

1. The basic biblical message is that God wants to be in a close, eternal relationship with those whom God created. God humbles God-self to effect such relationships.

2. Read literally the key biblical texts, such as John 3:16: and Rom 6:23, tell us that there two spiritual options: people either can accept eternal life with God or they will die, not that they will either live eternally with God or live eternally tormented.

a. The popular teaching that everyone has an eternal soul and can never die comes from ancient Greek thought. It is not biblical. It is read into the Bible.

b. In Gen 3, when Adam and Eve seek to become like God, they do die; they are banned from eating from the Tree of Life. The clear implication is that they were created mortal but had the opportunity of living forever removed because of their sin.

c. The popular-level doctrine of “hell” comes from conflating two different concepts: Gehenna, the depository place of dead bodies, and Hades, the holding place until the resurrection of the dead. (The conflation can be seen in 9^th century Anglo-Saxon translations that render both terms by “hel/helle” [underworld].) Revelation calls the final judgement of death, after the resurrection of the dead, the “second death” (20:6,14; 21:8). In the 1^st century AD, mortals (vs. angels) being thrown into a lake fire symbolized the complete destruction of the person.

3. God does not limit the option of life to the “informed” (e.g. Jews or Christians). Paul recognizes in Romans 2 that non-Jews who did not have the law and were not circumcised (a sign of being a member of the covenant community) could have the law “in their hearts” and be spiritually “circumcise” (i.e. belong to the community of faith; see 2:11-16, 26-29). God welcomes people from every nation who totally respect God (Luke 1:50; Acts 10:34-35).

4. The main Christ redemption event was to reveal fully the heart of God who is willing lower God-self and then to “lift up” and remove sin, that is to bring people into a state of forgiveness and reconciliation.

5. The salvific language in the Gospels is that people now can participate in the Kingdom of God (eternal life); they can now become participants in Christ, in God; and that God participates now in them through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

When we do not communicate the biblical message of God’s love accurately or well, we hinder people from walking closely with Jesus. It is not their fault. It is ours, Christians.

Note: I understand that my points above do not conform to popular, Christian “orthodoxy.” My efforts as a biblical scholar – recognizing that I am frail and fallible – are to understand to the best of my ability what the biblical terms and concepts meant to the original Jewish and Christian audiences in their time and culture. Here is an example, although it is centuries later than the New Testament. Probably millions of people in the US every Sunday recite from one of the ancient Christian creeds something to the effect of how they “believe in the resurrection of the dead.” I wonder how many of them realize that they are affirming the belief that at the Second Coming of Jesus the dead will then be resurrected? How many understand the biblical teaching of the resurrection of the dead? Much like Jesus’ teaching on participating in the Kingdom of God now, it is generally a lost concept.

A PRAYER FOR THOUGHTS AND DREAMS

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:40:00 +0000

I have friends struggling with bad dreams. For one person, they go back to his time of service in Vietnam. My friends have memories that have been triggered by recent personal events. I wonder how to pray for my friends. As in their cases, one’s “mind” may be outside of willful control due to the non-conscious release of chemicals that trigger neurological responses. One’s “mind” is deeply embedded. It is not just a matter of brain neurology. Mind is enacted through bodily experiences as well as one’s environmental embeddedness, and, consequently, thoughts and dreams may be triggered by various factors.

I have published earlier posts on basic Christianity, the nature of temptation,and the active mental discipline of rejecting evil thoughts that come to mind (7/10/24, 2/6/25, and 2/17/25). One’s mindset can be on the things of the sinful nature or on the desires of the Spirit (Rom 8:5-6). But my friends’ situations are different. They are not allowing temptations to dwell in their thought lives.

I am reminded though, that the Spirit who searches all things and knows the deep things of God (1Cor 2:10b-11), must fully know the depths of their minds. And, if the Spirit can bring to the disciples’ minds what Jesus taught them (John 14:26), then I imagine that the Spirit can bring fresh and healing thoughts to my friends’ minds even as they sleep. That is my prayer.

Come Holy Spirit. I pray that You, who know the thoughts and memories that come to our minds, will nurture those of my friends even as they sleep. Provide thoughts that are healing, care for the thoughts that need comforting, and turn back any that would cast shadows in their hearts. Amen.

THE “TOO MUCH” JESUS

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Fri, 26 Sep 2025 21:56:00 +0000

At the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry in Luke (4:14-30), Jesus confronts us – me anyway – with too much. (Detailed discussion follows. One might want to skip to the application.)

Problem
In the typical summary of this text, Jesus, having been well received in other synagogues, comes to his home town of Nazareth and reads the prophetic text of that sabbath (14-21), people complement him (22), he rebukes them over a prophet not being accepted in his home town and gentiles being blessed instead (23-27), and the people then try unsuccessfully to kill him (28-30). So, why did Jesus tell them off?

Exegetical Comments
The key to me is that a rather ambiguous text of verse 22 is usually translated with a positive spin when the context calls for a negative interpretation.
Neutral translation:

And all were bearing witness about him and wondering at the-coming-out-of-his-mouth words of grace, and saying, “Is not this the son of Joseph?”

Sample positive translation:

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" (NRSV)

There must be a reason that prompted Jesus to tell them off right after this report of verse 22. He had just a read a messianic, end-time prophetic word to them from Isaiah 61:1-2a:

The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor ( NRSV).

Then, when all eyes were fixed on him, he said these incredible words, “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your ears.” Their response is in verse 22. So, let’s look at the text in context more closely.

1) “Bearing witness about X” does not necessarily mean a positive witness.

2) “Wondering/marveling'” can be in a good or bad sense.

3) “Words of grace” may be an adjectival genitive (“gracious words,” so with NRSV, NIV, NET), but objective genitive also makes sense to me here (“words about/concerning grace/favor” as in Acts 20:32).

a. Since Jesus has just read a messianic, forward-looking text from Isaiah, and with prophetic-like authority then pronounced those words as fulfilled “today” and in their presence (“their ears”) – that is, indicating himself – I think the phrase points to those words and his self-application and not to some gracious manner of speaking.

4) In Luke, Jesus’ opponents sometimes ask rhetorical questions to make a point; and, the question with ouxi (“not”) expects an affirmative response that Jesus is indeed the son of Joseph.

5) It is well recognized that in Luke and Acts that the word “today” points to something new happening in divine activity (see NET translators note at Lk 2:11).

6) Again, most importantly, Jesus has just made an outrageous self-claim of a prophetic promise being fulfilled in their midst; that is, the “words about God’s grace/favor” of Isaiah about a new divine activity in the future applied to himself!

Putting it all together, the sense of the text (v 22) is:

And they all bore witness concerning him and they demurred about the words of [self] favor that came out of his [own] mouth. And they said, "Isn't this [just] Joseph's son?"

Application:
Jesus’ self-claim was too much for them. His home town folk of Nazareth were rejecting him and his claim rather sarcastically in verse 22. I have been thinking about how Jesus’ is too much: the one anointed by God’s Spirit, pronouncing forgiveness of sin as if he were God, calming a storm, claiming to be life and light, saying that we must abide in him, etc. It is too much. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, Jesus was either an egomaniacal lunatic, or Jesus was an authoritarian con-man, or – well, it’s too much. If it is true, my worldview must change. I must give myself over to his claims. I must submit to them, to him.

Jesus, I accept your claims. Please open my eyes and heart to fully accept your claims and respond obediently to them just as fully. Amen.

SERVANT GOD: IT’S DISTURBING

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:59:00 +0000

God is an unusual God, shockingly, disturbingly so. In Jesus’ parable of the watchful servants (Luke 12:35-40), the master’s servants are to be dressed to serve with lamps burning, alert and ready attend to their master at any time he might return home. However, should the master return and find them thus ready, he turns their world upside down. The master prepares his clothing to serve, has them recline at the table, and attends to them! How shocked Jesus’ disciples must have felt about this anomalous, backward, and unthinkable behavior of the master.

Although this parable is told in the context of disciples of Jesus needing to be prepared for his return, this inconceivable divine behavior is consistent with the character of God. Starting with the creation, unlike ancient Near Eastern stories in which the gods create subservient humans, Yahweh (the Israelite personal name of God) plants a garden of fruitful trees, even a tree of life; and, Yahweh is present to walk and talk in intimate relationship (Gen 2). Jumping ahead to the covenant the people made with Yahweh: Were a people to make a covenant with the Creator and break it, that should be the end. Not so with Yahweh, despite repeated violations, God remains faithful to the covenant. Unthinkable!

In all honesty, I do not fathom God’s upheaval of what is right and just in order to condescend to care for me. It is disturbing. But in my sinfulness, it is not as disturbing as it should be. I should be on my face weeping. Quite obviously, mentally I cannot wrap my arms around this stunning behavior of my Creator.

Lord, may your astonishing grace sink ever deeper into my realization of who You are and what I am in your sight. I am an ungrateful blind man who has been given sight. Keep me disturbed. I do want to be faithful to You. Amen.

SPIRITUAL GIFTS: A SIGN OF WEAKNESS

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Mon, 04 Aug 2025 15:25:00 +0000

My devotions today were basically about how what I have to offer God is not my strengths but my weaknesses. My strengths tend to lead me to relying on myself. My weaknesses move me to rely on God. I find an analogy to this truth in regard to spiritual gifts.

In my church-life experiences, I have found two stultifying attitudes toward spiritual gifts. There are those people who are proud of themselves and their churches for their abundant use of spiritual gifts. And, there are people and their churches who are proud that they are not like those “holy-roller” churches.

Ironically, both attitudes are wrong. Neither the presence nor the absence of spiritual gifts makes room for pride. In their godly use, spiritual gifts are a sign of weakness – a good sign of weakness. To the first group, as Paul says in his discussion of proper and improper use of spiritual gifts (1Corinthians 12-14), such gifts are not of ourselves. They are undeserved “graces” (charisma). They are not for us, but for the common good (12:7). Spiritual gifts are the means through which God can bless others through me in ways that I could not have done through my own strengths. The Presence of spiritual gifts in me is directly related to my weakness. To the second group Paul commands, “earnestly desire spiritual gifts!” (14:1).* Why? Because Paul’s whole corrective to the proper use of spiritual gifts is that they are to be enveloped and enfolded by that which never fails, love (Ch13, esp. v. 8-10). If one is abiding in God, God’s love abides in that person, and that person will desire spiritual gifts in order to serve others.

Lord, help me to run to you in my poverty and to offer you my weaknesses, so that I might better love and serve others. Amen.
-------
*The reason Paul gives for putting prophecy about other gifts, particularly tongues, is because it is so other-directed, building them up, encouraging them, and comforting them (14:3-4)

TESTS OF FAITH: ABRAHAM AND GENESIS 22

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Sat, 02 Aug 2025 14:11:00 +0000

Main point: God’s so-called “tests of faith” are not for the purpose of revealing a person’s heart to God, and they are not ill intended. They reveal to oneself (or to a narrative audience) the status of one’s heart so that one can be encouraged in a faithful walk.

The “Test” of Abraham
The key story in Genesis 22, often called “The Sacrifice of Isaac” or “The Binding of Isaac” (Hebrew “Akedah Yitzhak”), is perhaps the most misread story in the Old Testament. Many people decry the presentation of God there as a “moral monster.” (This modern ethical reading has particularly been influenced by Kant.) The interpretive problems fall away when one: 1) reads it within the narrative cycles of Abraham, 2) is aware of a cultural motif of superiors testing their faithful servants for fealty, 3) understands the perspective of the intended Israelite audience, 4) reads it properly as narrative, and 5) avoids questioning the psychology of the story characters.

Following the narrative cycles
What did Abraham think about God’s command to sacrifice Isaac?
If the audience is familiar with the stories of Abraham that being in Genesis 12, the audience knows that by the time God “tests” Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham has grown in his knowledge and trust of God. As a result, Abraham does not believe that Isaac will perish. He explicitly tells his servant lads – and the narrative audience! – that both he and Isaac would return after worshiping (v. 5). And, when Isaac asks about the missing animal for the offering, Abraham replies, “God will see to it” (= “God will provide”, but picks up on a repeated motif about “seeing” the things of God).

Tasks of fealty*
Would Abraham have taken the command literally?
Yes and no. A cultural feature of the ancient world was that rulers would sometimes command faithful servants to do an extreme task as a test of fealty. The servant would respond by loyally pledging to do so. If the ruler really had no ill will toward the servant, the servant would be relieved of the task. (Note to the contrary how Saul, wanting David to die, requires 100 Philistine foreskins as a bride price in 1Sam 18:25). Abraham, trusting that God was not malicious, walks in the path of loyalty confident that Isaac would somehow return with him.

Intended Israelite audience
Would the Israelite audience have believed that child sacrifice or abuse was acceptable?
No. The intended audience knew better. Scholars date both the origin of Torah (the Law) and the date of the canonical (final) form of Genesis 22 with quite varied conclusions. However, none of whom I am aware date the final form of Genesis 22 before the origin of Torah. That means the intended audience of Genesis 22 would have known that child-sacrifice was forbidden (see Lev 18:21; 20:3; Deut 12:30–31). Also, depending on the date of the intended audience, they might have also known the prophetic voices that condemned such practices. God did not want or accept such a practice.

Reading narrative properly
Could the Israelite audience have believed this story defended child sacrifice of abuse?
No. One aspect of reading a narrative properly is that the audience is invited to enter the narrative world and its perspective in order to understand it. An Israelite audience, then, would have been expected to imagine Abraham living in a pre-Torah setting in which child-sacrifice had not yet been forbidden. AT the same time, the Israelite audience, as would any audience, would have been expected to evaluate the story from their own setting. They would have known from their later setting of Torah commands (and possibly prophetic voices) that such abuse was forbidden and could not be a legitimate interpretation of the story. That is to say, they would have interpreted the story canonically.

Excessive psychoanalyzing
Still, one might ask, “How did Isaac feel?”
This may be a reasonable modern question to bring to the text, but it presents a sidetrack to the narrative’s focus. Biblical narrators can report what a character is thinking when it is important to the point of focus (see Gen 18:10-15). However, here, Isaac and his feelings simply are not the focus in this story. In this story, his character is one-dimensional. The narrator wanted the audience to focus on Abraham’s confidence in God and God’s faithfulness to provide. (In fact, they were also expected to know how this story led to the place name “Yahweh will Provide,” as the narrator indicates in verse 14.)

Testing
Some commentators wrongly claim that God needed to know if Abraham would be faithful; that is, that God wanted to know Abraham’s heart. Again, reading the story in its canonical context and narrative cycles, reveals that God knows the hearts and thoughts of people. God does not lack this knowledge about Abraham. Rather, the “test” experientially reveals Abraham’s loyalty.
As an “outside” audience to this story, contemporary readers need to understand the concept of God’s testing in the Old Testament. A better translation for the Hebrew word nissah, often translated in 22:1 as “test” would be “prove.” The term is sometimes used in overlapping contexts with other terms that are used in metallurgy for “proving” the purity or genuineness of metal. (In English idiom one might say, “The comedian X is also a proven dramatic actor.”)
When God tested the Israelites in the wilderness, it was a form of educational discipline, revealing their often-unfaithful hearts while showing that God would faithfully take care of them (Deut 8:2-5). An illustration from classroom teaching fits well. Before I give a test to a student, I might already know a given student’s learning status even better than that student. The test, however, brings the level of learning out to be recognized so that the student and I can address it. In Genesis 22, God’s testing/proving of Abraham revealed his faithful heart and God’s provision, even memorializing the event in a place name “Yahweh Will Provide” (v. 14).
Note: The Angel of the Lord’s pronouncement, “Now I know that you revere God,” might seem contradictory to the claim that God already knew Abraham’s heart. However, the term for “to know” here most often refers not to internal “head knowledge” but to experiential, publicly available knowledge. This language fits the theme of “proving” of Abraham’s character openly.

Instructional purpose
The main instructional function of this story for its intended Israelite audience was to present the Israelites’ founding patriarch as one who had grown to trust God completely. He was to be their role model of faith. He serves as a model to the community of faith still.

Applications
The first application of this “devotional” is a practical one about biblical interpretation: we need to learn to focus on what the text was meant to communicate to the original audience and not read into it our own perspectives and questions.
The spiritual lesson for me, though, is that I need to know that God’s testing is never negative. It is to bring to the surface either something that is positive or something that needs to be addressed further in my life by the Holy Spirit. In an earlier devotional, I shared my understanding that Jesus also “tested” people in the same way (11/17/23). Jesus already knew their hearts (see Mark 2:8; John 2:24-25), but the test brought into the open the condition of their hearts. So, God, in God’s faithfulness to us, tests/proves us.

Lord, help me to see clearly the state of my heart, to see my state of faithfulness to you and where I am lacking. As you “test” me, help me to apprehend where I need to be more surrendered to you. Amen.
------------
*See the key work an ancient tasks of fealty: Morschauser, Scott N. “‘Seeing You Have Not Withheld Your Son’: An Overlooked Motif in Genesis 22?” JSOT 45, no. 3 (2021):388–406.

LESSONS FROM JONATHAN

noreply@blogger.com (Rodney Duke's Devotional Bible and Theology) — Fri, 18 Jul 2025 13:07:00 +0000

If people know anything about Jonathan, the son of King Saul, they probably know that he was a faithful friend to David. I learned two more important things about Jonathan recently. First, he would have made a wonderful king. Second, he was very sensitive to what God was doing in God's Kingdom.

Jonathan as King
In the past, I have thought of Saul as a foil to David, the poor king versus the good king. That may be true, but the biblical narrator presents Jonathan in contrast to Saul in 1 Sam 13-14. In these chapters we get a negative portrayal of Saul. He does not seek the will of God (e.g. 14:18-19) but tries to coerce God's favor (e.g. 13:12) and, consequentially, loses his right to a dynasty (13:13-14). (See the previous devotional on religious ritual and Saul). His men are not confident behind him. They are trembling and fleeing before the Philistines (13:6-7, 11).
Our portrait of Jonathan in 14:1-15 is quite different. He trusts God and seeks God’s will. He goes out against a Philistine outpost with just his armor-bearer, confident that God could deliver by few or by many. His attack leaves the Philistines trembling and fleeing. Jonathan had the unwavering support of his armor-bearer (14:7) and gained the support of Saul's army who recognized that God had brought about deliverance from the Philistines through Jonathan (14:45). Jonathan would have made a great king.

Jonathan as Discerner of God’s Will
We receive another portrait of Jonathan in 18:1-4. In the previous two chapters we learn that God has now chosen David to be Saul’s successor and God’s Spirit has passed from Saul to David (Ch 16, see verses 13-14); and, we watch David’s faith in God in action as he faces Goliath in battle (Ch 17). Jonathan was a witness to the latter event. However, the narrator has left Jonathan out of the scenes about Saul’s dynasty ending (13:13-14) and about David’s anointing to become the next king (Ch 16). As the audience, we know this about Saul and David. Jonathan does not have this knowledge. He, as the first-born son of Saul and second in command of Saul’s army, was the prince who was next in line for the throne. As we follow the narrative, we are set up to wonder, “How will Jonathan respond to David, the man who threatens to take away his whole future?” In 18:1-4 we learn the answer. Jonathan becomes one in spirit with David, makes a covenant with him, and gives him his robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt. What is happening here is most significant. Jonathan gives what would be his royal robe to David, a symbol of passing on his role to David. We are told that when the prophet Elijah was about to die, he gave his mantle to Elisha who would be his successor (1Kgs 19:19). We also have a text in Isaiah 22:19-22 in which a person is deposed from office by his robe being taken from him and given to another person. So without telling us directly, the narrator reveals Jonathan's heart, spiritual discernment, and submission to God. Jonathan perceives the will of God. Jonathan recognizes David as the successor to the throne and voluntarily yields to him!

Application:
Jonathan, who would have a made a good, faithful king, gave up all royal power and authority he would have gained to submit to the leading of God. The overall challenge to me is to examine what pursuits I have that I need to give up in order to be in line with God’s Kingdom. I think those matters tend to be clear – there is the conviction of the Holy Spirit – but they may still be difficult to surrender. The daily challenge Jonathan’s story presents to me is to ask, “What is God doing around me that I am not recognizing because I am focused on matters that profit me?” I start my day praying, “Jesus, what are you up to today? I would like to be included.” However, I do not get too far into my day before I become self-absorbed and insensitive to the things of God.

Lord, it is meaningless for me to pursue anything that is not in line with Your will and Your Kingdom. Help me to become increasingly sensitive to my straying away from that focus. Call me back by Your Spirit. Rebuke me and turn me around. Amen.