History and Bible: Do They Align?

To begin, it is significant that when Jesus and the authors of the NT referred to their sacred writings as “God-breathed,” they were referring to the writings that had been handed down to them. So too, the text that the Church has always confessed to be “God-breathed” has been the canon she received. Never has the “God-breathed” nature of the text been affixed to oral or written versions of the biblical material that preceded the written text. For this and other reasons, I find that the “God-breathed” status and divine authority of Scripture attaches to its final canonical form. This alone is the text we are called to wrestle with, with the ultimate goal of discerning how any given passage bears witness to the faithful and merciful covenantal God who was definitively revealed in Christ.

This means, among other things, that our estimation of a passage’s “God-breathed” nature and/or its divine authority should not hinge upon anything like historical-critical considerations. While source and redaction criticism may at times shed light on the pre-history of a text that may be relevant to its exegesis, neither these nor any other branch of biblical criticism should ever be allowed to affect our estimation of the final form of a passage. The fact that a portion of Scripture may have had a different meaning before it assumed the form it has within the canon is largely irrelevant to the contemporary theological task of hearing God speak through the final form of Scripture.

Moreover, to affirm that the canonical form of a text is “God breathed” is to affirm that its authority as well as its interpretation for the Church is not contingent upon how it does or does not conform to so-called “objective history” (historisch) – viz. to any particular scholarly reconstruction of “what actually happened.”

I am persuaded that we are called to embrace the faith conviction that each passage is trustworthy for the divine purposes for which it was “breathed.” If one happens to be led by the available evidence to the conviction that a particular passage does not correspond to “what actually happened,” then, in my view, this simply indicates that corresponding to “objective history” must not have been part of the theological purpose that God intended for that passage.

We are failing to read biblical narratives as they were originally intended to be read when we read them through the grid of how they do or do not cohere with “objective history.” For in this case we are importing into our reading of the narrative modern concerns that are alien to the text, rather than allowing the text to communicate its concerns to us. To read Scripture faithfully, we must read it with the assumption that the meaning of the canonical passage is found in the text, not outside of it in the way it relates to (someone’s reconstructed version of) “objective history.”

To be sure, I grant that attempting to demonstrate a correlation between biblical accounts and “objective history” may sometimes be highly significant for apologetic purposes. Most importantly, I am convinced that the intellectual plausibility of the Christian faith hangs, to a significant degree, on our ability to demonstrate the general historical reliability of the Gospel portraits of Jesus, which I, along with Paul Eddy, argue for in The Jesus Legend. But as it concerns the call for Jesus-followers to hear and obey God’s voice through Scripture, it’s my conviction that all that matters is the narrative in its final canonical form.

I should add that, while I believe it is important for apologetic purposes to anchor the Gospel portraits of Jesus in verifiable history, I have become convinced that it is apologetically unwise, to say the least, to leverage the credibility of the Christian faith as a whole on the historical veracity of the biblical narrative as a whole. There is no reason the credibility of the faith should be leveraged on a conservative evaluation of historical evidence for every aspect of the biblical narrative, and, in any event, the conservative perspective is, in some instances, very hard to defend in light of the archeological evidence. The more important point for our present purposes, however, is that there is absolutely no reason to tether the traditional faith-affirmation that all canonical texts are “God-breathed” to a particular way of relating any or all of these texts to a scholarly reconstruction of actual history.

- Greg Boyd

How to Lose Your Zeal for Christ

Are you zealous for Christ? Do you have a genuine zeal to life for him and to advance his cause in the world? Or have you lost the zeal that once marked you? Here, courtesy of Joel Beeke and James La Belle are 9 ways you may lose your zeal.
Major in speculative religion. Speculative religion is religion whose primary concern is that which is theoretical or conjectural. Look to the pastoral epistles and you will often find Paul warning Timothy and Titus that they must avoid anything like this—anything vain and unprofitable, anything obsessed with fables and genealogies (see 1 Timothy 4:2, 2 Timothy 2:14, Titus 3:9, etc). Christianity is meant to be an experiential religion, one that is meant to reach the heart and the will and to work itself out in action. “Christian faith begins with an experiential renovation of the heart and progresses by an experiential relationship that impacts all of life.”

Love the world. “How can we be zealous for heaven when our hearts are wrapped up in earthly things? How can we lift our spirits heavenward when our minds are weighed down with the cares of this life? How can we be zealous for God when our love is divided between Him and this world? Worldly mindedness will starve our zeal.” Jesus promised us that we can serve only one master; our zeal will diminish when our loyalties are torn between God and mammon, God and this world.

Be spiritually presumptuous. Some people start out in the Christian faith, but then assume that they have nothing more to do. They presume upon the riches and grace of Christ, but invest little effort in battling sin and putting sin to death. Some take an opposite view and claim that they are no longer sinful, that they have attained perfection. In either case, these people are dangerously presumptuous and will necessarily see their zeal decline and disappear.

Neglect the means of grace. “When we presume that we no longer need to gird up our loins (1 Peter. 1:13), lay aside every weight and every besetting sin, and run the race set before us (Heb. 12:1-2), we will naturally neglect those means that God has appointed to keep our zeal burning. Zeal will grow so cold that it will inevitably die out. To neglect the means of grace is to neglect the fuel that feeds this spiritual fire. We must be aware of neglecting anything that God has given us to help us grow in Christ-likeness.”

Remain impenitent. We know that we ought to confess and repent of the most significant sins, but can grow lax in confessing and repenting of the smaller sins. But be warned: “Impenitence with regard to any known sin will surely quench all zeal for God.”

Indulge in any known sin. “When we indulge ourselves in any known sin, or absolve ourselves of any known duty, how can we avoid the charge of hypocrisy in condemning the sins and failings of others? Do we think God is pleased with our crying down the sins of others while we commit the same sins? Do we imagine that God is pleased when we accuse others of failure, while we excuse ourselves from the very same duties? Sacred zeal reaches to all of God’s commandments and all of Christian duty. If we would keep a fire in our heart for God, we must take caution not to indulge in any known sin, or neglect any known duty.”

Be indifferent or unbelieving. “It is not enough to have an interest in religious questions, an understanding of basic religious doctrine, or even a small stock of memorized Scripture verses, if all this fails to touch the heart, because out of the heart, as Solomon says, flow the issues of life (Prov. 4:23). An unmoved, indifferent heart will not give rise to zeal. Light in the head must be matched by warmth in the heart.”

Remain ignorant. “How can we be zealous for the things of God if we dwell in the darkness of ignorance about divine truth? If we persist in ignorance of ‘the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord’ (2 Pet. 1:2), our comfort must speedily diminish, and our zeal will soon give way to indifference of heart and langour of spirit.”


Be a coward. We cannot advance God’s cause in the world if we fail to be bold for Him. Sin will comfortably abide in our churches unless it is put out by great boldness. Hypocritical professors will continue to bring shame to the name of Christ unless exposed by great boldness.”

The Old Testament Is NOT on the Same Plane as the New Testament

Paul taught that unbelievers are blinded by “the god of this age” when they read the OT such that “their minds are made dull” and a “veil covers their hearts…when the old covenant is read” (2 Cor. 4:4; 3:14-15). This is why they are unable to see “the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). The implication of Paul’s teaching is that the ultimate revelation of the OT, which can only be seen when a person “turns to the Lord” and “the veil is taken away” (2 Cor. 3:16), is the divine glory that is revealed in Christ.

This demonstrates that, from a distinctly Christian perspective, the revelation of God in Christ can’t be said to add to the revelation given in the OT, as though these two sources of revelation were on the same plane. Rather, when we turn to the Lord and have the veil removed, we are empowered to discern that the revelation of “God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ” actually constitutes the true revelatory content of the OT. Hence, I don’t believe it would be going too far to say that, not only are these “two sources” of revelation not on the same plane, but when the former is read in light of the latter, we can no longer legitimately speak of “two” distinct sources. In the words of the twelfth-century Augustinian, Hugh of St. Victor, when read in light of Christ, we can see that “the whole of scripture is one book, and that one book is Christ.”

This isn’t to in any way depreciate the indispensability of the OT. It is utterly impossible to understand either Jesus or the NT except against the backdrop of the OT. Those who have attempted to divorce Jesus and the Gospel from the OT have ended up with nothing that remotely resembles the real Jesus and the real Gospel. Yet, as indispensible as the OT is for providing the framework within which Jesus and the kingdom movement he launched must be understood, it is evident that the NT generally doesn’t see it as providing a revelation of God that is distinct from Jesus.

As a matter of fact, there are several points in the NT when the unprecedented authority of Jesus to reveal God is stressed to a degree that it almost seems to eclipse the OT altogether. For example, at one point Jesus made the astounding claim that “[a]ll things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27). It seems to me we have to interpret this teaching somewhat hyperbolically since a literal interpretation of “no one” would imply that none of the authors of the OT knew God, a conclusion that runs up against Jesus’ own use of the OT.

At the same time, it seems undeniable that Jesus was at least claiming that his knowledge of the Father, and his revelation of the Father, dwarfs in significance all previous revelations. While God may have committed small and imperfect disclosures of himself to previous spokespeople, he committed “all things” to Jesus, including the sole capacity to fully and perfectly make him known.
This is illustrated by the encounter Jesus had with Moses and Elijah. According to Church tradition and many contemporary scholars, a similar point may be discerned in the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ transfiguration. While in prayer, Peter, John and James beheld Jesus’ “glory” and then witnessed Moses and Elijah talking to Jesus about “his departure which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem” (Lk 9:29-32). As Peter tried to persuade Jesus to let them make “three shelters” for him and his two companions, a cloud enveloped them and a voice from heaven said; “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” When the cloud lifted, “they found that Jesus was alone” (33-36).

While there are a number of things going on in this fascinating passage, it seems that a central part of its message is that, while the law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah) testify to Jesus, Jesus’ own disciples are to take their marching orders directly from him. This explains why Moses and Elijah talk to Jesus about the fulfillment of his mission in this vision. Their significance is centered on him. It also arguably explains why the cloud appeared as Peter was lobbying to build a permanent place for Moses and Elijah alongside Jesus. The law and the prophets are fulfilled in Jesus but are not to rival his authority.

This point is further stressed in the fact that the radiance of Moses and Elijah is outshined and outlasted by the radiance of Jesus, as well as by the fact that Moses and Elijah disappear while Jesus remains. And, most importantly, the unrivaled supremacy of Jesus over and against the OT is clearly driven home when, just after Moses and Elijah disappear, the three disciples stand before Jesus and hear a voice from heaven telling them to “listen to him.” If the law and the prophets have anything to say to followers of Jesus, this vision suggests, it is only because they point toward, and agree with, Jesus. When anything in the law or prophets does not agree with Jesus, however, the implication is that we should keep our eyes fixed on Jesus.

The OT isn’t viewed by Paul and other NT writers as revealing truths alongside the revelation of God we find in Jesus. It’s rather viewed as containing the same revelation – the same gospel message – but in an inchoate form. Hence, it is as a vague “shadow” that points to the reality, which is Jesus Christ. In the words of Graeme Goldsworthy, “Jesus and the apostles regarded the whole of the Old Testament as testimony to the Christ; it is all about Jesus” (emphasis original). For them, “there is no dimension of the Old Testament message that does not in some way foreshadow Christ.”

- Greg Boyd

Something to Think About

HOW DID THEY EVER DO IT WITHOUT THE BIBLE?

"Those that have turned the world upside down, have come here also."

I wonder...how many prophets in OT times had a Bible to prophesy from....mmmmm right, a big fat ZERO! But, they had the "Word of God".

I wonder...how many teachers and preachers in NT times had a Bible to preach from...mmmmm right on, a big fat ZERO! But they had the "Word of God" and were charged with turning the world "upside down" for God.

I wonder...what is the number of OT scriptures that make reference to the Bible...let me think, oh yea, a big fat ZERO!

I wonder...how many OT scriptures point to Christ...mmmmm, just about all of them!

I wonder...how many NT scriptures point to Christ...mmmmm, just about all of them!

I wonder...how many books out of the 66 books that make up the Bible did the OT people used...let me think, yes it was a total of 5, how interesting, that makes up for a little over 7% of the whole Bible.

I wonder...how many different Bible versions are in use today...the one source that I checked lists 96. Whatever version different denominations use they claim it to be the "Word of God". Isn't it odd that the different denominations that use the same version interpret it differently to substantiate the basis for the segregated denominational barns to feed the flock in.

That causes me to ponder...if the Bible is divinely inspired, without error in its translation and perfectly without error, there is only ONE CORRECT context, interpretation and understanding. Then in all that is godly, why does every denomination have a different understanding of what they claim to be the truth of the Bible?

One truth that I see in the Bible is that Christ desires UNITY of His Body, He even prayed to His Father for Unity in that His people  would be ONE as He and His Father are ONE. Now let me ask. Do you think that the Father and His Son differs, even minutely, in areas of the plan of God for the Community of the Redeemed in the Community of Humanity? Do you think the unified godhead has arguments and disagreements over spiritual matters? Do you think that the godhead would ever condone, agree with segregation of His people into denominational name-tagged buildings called churches?

It seems to me the Bible...because it is misused, abused and interpreted by fallible humanoids...is the source of the greatest religious DECEPTION-IZED mess and the greatest DISUNITY of the Body of Christ that was ever known. Yet, the Bible is accepted as the infallible error-less  "Word of God".

If it is, are not the people using it to valid man-made-doctrines and rituals and to form and follow different religious denominations are deception-ized by demonized untruths that brings more disrespect to the Bible and the Gospel of Christ than people who regard the Boible as a work of fiction...even though it may not be a work of fiction?

God's Love Letter to Humanity should NOT BE MISUSED OR ABUSED!

How did they do it without a Bible...Their TRUST was in the "LIVING WORD"...not the written word...Could it be that that is the reason for a graceless gospel-less world?

- Glenn Regular

Morning Prayer 6th February 2011

Reflecting on the Lord's Prayer

Jesus begins the instruction on prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) by telling his disciples to pray for the Father’s name to be “hallowed,” for his kingdom to come, and for his will to be established on earth as it is in heaven. He is, in effect, telling them to pray for the fulfillment of everything his ministry, and their ministry, is about—glorifying the Father by bringing about the rule and will of God on earth. Such a prayer assumes, however, that the will of God is not being carried out in this present world.

This prayer, then, is a prayer for change, and the change involves moving from a world in which the Father’s name is not honored, his will is not done, and his rule not established, into a world in which these things are as they should be.

This petition is in essence a petition for the arrival of the eschaton, and it has decisive warfare overtones. Jesus is telling his disciples to pray that God’s eschatological reign, effected by the final overthrowing of his cosmic foes, the present world rulers, will be accomplished now.

The same eschatological and warfare significance is found in the petition of the Father to “give us this day our daily bread.” This passage may be implying that the disciples are to rely utterly upon the Father and to trust him for their daily bread as they work to bring about his kingdom rule. However the word “daily” is better translated “tomorrow.” The disciples are being told to pray for the “bread of tomorrow,” referring to the banquet feast planned for the eschaton. It is another way of asking for God’s rule to be established now.

Two points need to be made concerning the next clause, the teaching that we are to ask the Father: “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” First this is not a type of quid pro quo declaration. Jesus is reminding the disciples of their need to forgive in the light of the Father’s forgiveness. He is not teaching the disciples to ask God to condition and proportion his forgiveness on theirs.

Second, the petition is a request that looks ahead to the final judgment. The fatherhood of God in the New Testament is associated with the willingness to forgive, and the full manifestation of this fatherhood, and thus of God’s forgiveness, is understood eschatologically.

The eschatological warfare theme comes out in an especially strong way in the final petition of the prayer: “do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.” The word “trial” speaks not of moral “temptation” (cf. NIV) but of trials and hardships. The disciples are not, therefore asking God not to play the role of “the tempter,” something God could never be suspected of doing. They are, rather, asking God to protect them from hardships that accompany their kingdom work.
From whom would they expect such hardships? The closing line of the prayer makes it explicit: “rescue us from the evil one.” Jesus knew that carrying out the Father’s kingdom work would evoke attacks from Satan and his army.

We must understand Jesus to be teaching his disciples to pray not just for protection from satanically inspired trials and hardships in general, but even more fundamentally for deliverance from the fiery end-time trial, or at least for aid in remaining faithful during its terror.

—Adapted from God at War, pages 218-220

I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel

Romans 1:16; "I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation of everyone who believes - first for the Jew and then for the Gentile".

Now people have got this wrong - they say that Paul was saying; "I am not ashamed of the gospel" and by that they say that he meant he was willing to go out in the street and tell people about the gospel because he was not ashamed of it. Well that's good to tell people about the gospel in the street - but that's not the context of what Paul was saying. Paul was speaking in the context of a society that was dominated by a Judaic moralism with the very idea of someone claiming to be righteous apart from their behaviour or their morality - it was almost blasphemy and sentenced to death!

Even though you fall and make mistakes yet you still claim you are righteous - despite my shortcomings and my failures and the things I am still struggling with - because Paul had not arrived - he said "I still press on ... not that I have attained yet" - so even this great apostle was not totally holy in all his behaviour and attitudes! He was a work in progress! Before he was saved - he said that under law he was a murderer, a violent man and a blasphemer. That's what the law did to him - it stirred up sin in him. Then he meets Christ on the Damascus Road, delivered, set free and saved and he believes he is righteous by faith and faith alone! Even when he can't see that his behaviour is always righteous, faith is the evidence of things not seen - so in his spirit he is saying; "I know that I am righteous" and in a society dominated by hypocrisy, Pharisees, bigots, moralists - in a society where it's practically blasphemous to claim you are righteous apart from your works and behaviour - he says; "I am not afraid or ashamed" in that society to say; "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation".

That word "salvation" is "soterio" - "sozo" - it means; "Peace, prosperity, protection, preservation". Now he gives us the revelation where the power for this gospel comes from. Where does the power for miracles - the power for life-transformation - the power of "soterio" - he tells us in the next verse. Let's read it: (v17);

"For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed".

I want to say to you again - this is a righteousness from God. FROM God. It is not a righteousness from man or from the law or from your obedience or from your holy morality and good efforts. It is a righteousness from God that is revealed in the gospel! Revealed means that it was previously hidden and then revealed. Revelation is an invitation to a supernatural encounter with God's glory. The Holy Spirit has to come to our hearts and supernaturally bypass the head and to your inner spirit reveal to you that you have in Christ a righteousness not from your holiness, your amount of praying, your fasting, your good things - it is not based on how much you sin or don't sin - it has got NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU! It is a righteousness FROM God and that has to be revealed supernaturally until you believe it. Until it's revealed you don't believe it because the grid of your head won't allow it - most education systems, most parenting, most society bases everything on your life on your performance - on what you have earnt and what you deserve.

So when it comes to this - it has to be revealed to you that God's righteousness is what the power of God for salvation comes to you. The more you believe this that is revealed to you, the more God's power comes on you to live this life."

- Rob Rufus sermon excerpt from The Struggle For The Authentic

Our Problem is Not Our Sinning

"So many people think our sinning is the problem but our problem is not our sinning; our problem is a death condition in first Adam’s disobedience that we were ignorant of and unaware of. The means God used to make us aware of this was to increase our sinning. God used the law, which increased our sinning, to make us aware of that. The Law was added to expose the condition of the first Adam that had been transferred to all mankind. Which is the condition of trying to grasp equality with God through the law. (Self-righteousness, a result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.)

The Law was added because of the unbelief in the goodness and grace of God. Galatians 3:12 says the Law is not based on faith. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please God. The power of sin increased when the Law came.

What is unbelief? Unbelief is a consciousness that attempts to govern the earth without heaven's influence. So unbelief actively RESISTS the power of God. Because the power of God brings heaven in. Unbelief is partnership with Satan not wanting heavens influence into the world. Why doesn't he want heaven's influence in the earth? Because he was Lucifer, the covering cherub in heaven and iniquity and selfish ambition was found in his heart and he wanted to rule over God.

Selfish ambition is the origin of unbelief - that is where unbelief comes from. It is all about me. Satan found selfish ambition (which James 3 calls "earthly wisdom". There is a wisdom from heaven and a wisdom from earth. James says where there is selfish ambition, there you will find every kind of evil for earthly wisdom is both sensual and devilish). Earthly reasoning outside of heaven's influence is demonic. It is the origin of unbelief."

( paraphrase of a Rob Rufus sermon)

God, You've Got the Wrong Guy

So much of what life brings is beyond my skills, beyond my experience, beyond my comfort zone. In many ways I could tell the story of my life through the times I have been forced into action, forced to confront my fears, forced to do things that make my natural disposition scream out in fear. Left on my own and living by my own preferences, my life would look very different than it does today. This is true in my character, my home, my church, and pretty well everywhere else.

One of my great comforts and challenges has been a funny, often-overlooked little passage from the book of Exodus. God has told Moses that he will lead the people out of Egypt. God has told Moses that he, Moses, is to serve as God’s voice to both Israel and Egypt. And Moses is none too pleased.
Moses takes it upon himself to remind God why he obviously isn’t the man for the job. “But Moses said to the LORD, ‘Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue’.” You’ve got the wrong guy, can’t you see that?

But God has not made a mistake. God hasn’t chosen Moses because of his abilities, but for reasons that are all his own. Far more likely, God has chosen Moses precisely because he has no natural abilities. God looks for people who are so weak that they will have to depend fully upon him. “Then the LORD said to him, ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak’ ” (Exodus 4:10-12).

God’s answer is simple: That mouth you’re worried about—just think for one moment about who made it. It’s not your mouth, it’s my mouth. It may be on your face, but I made it and it belongs to me. If I made it, I can use it. Just trust me with it, and you’ll be amazed at what I can do. Moses had it all wrong. Moses wanted to serve God out of his strength, but God wanted Moses to serve out of his weakness.

At so many times and in so many ways—from the dinner table to the elders’ meeting to the conference podium—I have wanted to run away from opportunities and responsibilities. Many times I have, in one way or another. I have wanted to remind God that he’s got the wrong guy—I’m not able to lead this family, I’m not able to make decisions on behalf of this church, I’m not able to speak truth into this situation, I’m not able to stand up there and speak. I am quite certain that you have found yourself battling similar fears.


But think of Moses, and think of God’s patient response, and believe that the God who calls is the God who equips. Right there you will find your comfort and your confidence.

What Are the “Keys to the Kingdom”?

And I tell you that you are Peter [petros = rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. —Mt 16:18-19

Several points are crucial to note in this important teaching. First, “Hades” was the standard term for the underworld, the realm of darkness and death, in Hellenistic culture. In using it here, Jesus was probably referring to the whole of the Satanic kingdom.

Second, the phrase “gates of Hades” is clearly a metaphorical reference to the fortified walls of the Satanic fortress. They are closed to keep opposing forces out. Hence they need to be overcome. Jesus may also be referring to the center of power of the Satanic kingdom with this phrase, inasmuch as the gates of a city in the ancient world were usually where the officials resided and important military decisions were made.

Third, Jesus says that these gates will not be able to “prevail against” the church. This translation of katischyo is preferable to the NIV’s “overcome,” for “gates” are defensive structures that keep an enemy out, not offensive weapons used to “overcome” an enemy. Jesus is here portraying the church as being on the offensive and Satan’s kingdom as being on the defensive.

Jesus is saying that he is going to build his church on the rock of his divinity—the confession that he is “the Son of the living God”—and the way this church is going to be built will be by bashing down the gates of Satan’s fortress. In other words, the church is to be involved in the very same warfare work that Jesus himself was involved in throughout his ministry. Based squarely on the “rock,” ministering in his authority and his accomplished victory, the church is to storm the fortress of Hades and bash down its gates.

Jesus also gives to all who confess his divine sonship “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” so that whatever they bind and loose on earth will be (or will have been) bound and loosed in heaven. While the exact meaning of this phrase is disputed, it is clear that it is an essential part of kingdom-building activity the church is to be a part of. Having been given “the keys” to the kingdom, Jesus is saying, whatever the church locks up when it bashed down the gates of Hades will be locked up in heaven, and whatever it unlocks and sets free will be set free in heaven. Understood in the light of Jesus’ overall healing and exorcism ministry, I can only read this as referring to the church’s authority to bind up demonic forces and to set people free.

This teaching provides a blueprint of what the body of Christ is to be about. It is to be about what Jesus was about: aggressively breaking down Satanic fortresses wherever we find them. In people’s lives, in families, in churches and society at large, the church is to expand the rule of God on the authority of Christ by binding evil and setting people free. In a word, our charter is to live out a theology of revolt, throwing all we are and all we have into guerrilla warfare against the occupying army, the tyrannizing powers of darkness. When the church opts instead for a theology of resignation and thus attempts to accept as from God what Jesus fought as coming from Satan, the church exists in radical contradiction to its defining vocation.

—Adapted from God at War, 216-218

Why Did Jesus Curse the Fig Tree?

One of the strangest episodes recorded in the Gospels is Jesus cursing a fig tree because he was hungry and it didn’t have any figs (Mk 11:12-14; Mt 21:18-19).  It’s the only destructive miracle found in the New Testament. What’s particularly puzzling is that Mark tells us the reason the fig tree had no figs was because it wasn’t the season for figs.

On the surface, it might look as if Jesus simply lost his temper and used his supernatural power to punish a poor tree whose only crime was being in the wrong place during the wrong season. Most commentators argue that the fig tree represented Israel and Jesus was symbolically warning that judgment was coming if it didn’t start bearing fruit. This is probably correct, but I don’t think it addresses the most profound significance of this event. If we understand this episode against the background of the apocalyptic thought of Jesus’ day, we can discern another layer of meaning.

Famine was widely believed to be the work of the devil in apocalyptic thought, and barren or infected fig trees became symbols of this fact (Mk 13:8; Rom. 8:35). What is more, many Jews of this time believed the Messiah would free nature from Satan’s grip, thus putting an end to things like famines. When we interpret Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree in this light, it seems evident he was proclaiming that he was the Messiah by “cursing the curse.”  And in doing so, he symbolized that he was the long awaited one who would “destroy the devil’s work” (I Jn 3:8) and restore creation.

More generally, Jesus was thus demonstrating that, where God reigns, the demonic corruption of nature will be in the process of being overcome. And he was showing that, when the Kingdom is fully manifested, the whole cosmos will be delivered from the oppressive Powers. There will then be no more famine, droughts or hunger. Nature shall produce abundant vegetation and fruit, as it was always intended to do.

Something similar could be said of other “natural miracles” performed by Jesus. When Jesus miraculously fed the multitudes (Mk 6:30-44; 8:1-10) and brought about a miraculous catch of fish (Lk 5:3-10; cf. Jn 21:1-8), we can understand him to be enacting the truth that when the future Kingdom comes, humans will be reinstated in their proper place of authority, exercising dominion over nature. Consequently, there will no longer be any shortages of food.

So too, when Jesus raised people from the dead, and when he himself was raised from the dead, he was revolting against the reign of death and the one who holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14). And in doing this, he was pointing to a time when “the last enemy” would be utterly destroyed and death would be no more (I Cor. 15:26.)

So, Jesus cursing of the fig tree wasn’t the result of a temper tantrum. Jesus was cursing the curse and revealing himself to be the long awaited Messiah who would eventually free creation from the bondage of Satan.

- Greg Boyd