The Traditional Jesus Story

Based upon traditional Christian Scripture, community creedal statements, and non-canonized historical writings of the Christian Church Fathers, primitive Christianity taught that Jesus of Nazareth (also known as Jesus Christ) was/is the Son of God who, fulfilling centuries–old Jewish prophecies of a coming Messiah to set God’s people free from bondage, was paradoxically incarnated as a fully-human being, living a sinless life in order to become the perfect sacrifice to reconcile all humanity to Yahweh, the Jewish creator God. In Jesus’ earthly mission, he ministered to the spiritually and physically hurting people of Israel (and nearby regions), he promoted a purist, personal faith based upon absolute love of God and neighbor, and he challenged the corruption/oppression of the political and religious elite.

Socially, this led to controversy and conflict with the ruling powers in Jerusalem, Judea, and Roman demesnes. Eventually, Jesus was arrested, tried, and convicted by the Sanhedrin under Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest, and for treason in the Roman courts under Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea (although Jesus’ Jewish enemies wanted him convicted of blasphemy). Ironically, in both instances, the trial of Jesus violated traditional, official Jewish and Roman jurisprudence for capital crimes, procedures, and protocol, ending with an unlawful sentence and subsequent execution by crucifixion, which was carried out by Roman soldiers on what later came to be called, “Good Friday.”

According to multiple eyewitness testimonies in the region (as detailed in the Gospels and the Epistles), through a supernatural resurrection by God, Jesus—miraculously alive and well—appeared to a variety of people, having perfectly performed his father’s mission on earth. Somewhat ironic considering the Patriarchy of the era, Jesus’ first appearance was to a woman—Mary Magdalene—who immediately ran and told the other Disciples about what she had seen and heard. Later encounters of Jesus included Mary, the mother of James; Salome; Joanna; James, the half-brother of Jesus; the lead Disciple Peter and eventually all the remaining eleven Disciples (except for Judas who had committed suicide, earlier); and the Apostle Paul (formerly known as Saul of Tarsus) who would be later so instrumental in establishing Christianity in Europe.

In fact, in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, he records that over five hundred people saw Jesus, the risen Christ, all at the same time, although some of them had already died by the time he wrote his second letter to Corinth (1 Cor 15:6). Other Disciples and Apostles shared their own divinely guided experiences and understandings of the Good News of Jesus Christ for all churches and all peoples.

After a forty-day period of visitation and confirmation that he had indeed risen from the dead as he said he would, Jesus left the earthly realm and ascended into Heaven, sending the Holy Spirit to guide and empower them, having already prepared and called his disciples to be teachers, guides, and proclaimers of a fulfilled Messianic promise of God’s loving plan for salvation that was to be shared from Judea to all the known Gentile (non-Jewish) world.

The Early Christian Movement

With the command of Jesus to Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt 28:19–20), the followers of Jesus began sharing the good news of the resurrected Messiah (the Christ, gr.)—along with Jesus’ earlier ethical admonishments of perfect love of God and neighbor. 

 Although the Pharisees and Jewish leaders considered the dangerous influence of Jesus to be quelled with his execution (especially with the threat/warning of crucifixion for embracing such beliefs), the Christian message continued to be as appealing and inviting as ever, and the movement grew, exponentially. Moreover, whereas oppressive and politically controlling leaders of Judaism continued in their reactionary ways, the early Christians offered inclusivity and freedom to those who wished to join in “The Way” (as the movement was sometimes called).

In this period of great economic and social hardship, the Gospel writer, Luke, records in his church history work, the Acts of the Apostles,

All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:44–47).

Not surprisingly, as the number of Jesus disciples rose, the Jewish leaders who had earlier been threatened by Jesus’ message and influence upon a society which they wanted full hegemony, worried the Jesus movement could reignite, and turned their criticisms and persecutions upon Jesus’ disciples and followers, many of whom fled the area to safer, more receptive areas (at least, initially). 

Still, many early Christian leaders bravely stayed in Jerusalem and Judea to speak their message of Christian love and salvation, leading to public abuse by authorities determined to extinguish this dangerous sect of Messianic Judaism. The Apostle Luke records, “. . . They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. . . Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah” (Acts 5: 40, 42).

Who is Jesus Christ?

In Matthew 28:19–20, Jesus of Nazareth commands His Disciples,

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." 

They obeyed their Master, and the followers of the Jesus movement began sharing the good news of the resurrected Messiah (the Christ, Gr.)—along with Jesus’ earlier ethical admonishments of perfect love of God and neighbor. As Roger Olsen writes, “The apostles were men and women of early Christianity with tremendous prestige and power.”

Although the Pharisees and Jewish leaders considered the dangerous influence of Jesus to be quelled with his execution (especially with the threat/warning of crucifixion for embracing such beliefs), the Christian message continued to be as appealing and inviting as ever, and the movement grew, exponentially. Moreover, whereas oppressive and politically controlling leaders of Judaism continued in their reactionary ways, the early Christians offered inclusivity and freedom to those who wished to join in “The Way” (as the movement was sometimes called).

In this period of great economic and social hardship, the Gospel writer, Luke, records in his church history work, the Acts of the Apostles,

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:44–47).

Not surprisingly, as the number of Jesus disciples rose, the Jewish leaders who had earlier been threatened by Jesus’ message and influence upon a society which they wanted full hegemony, worried the Jesus movement could reignite, and turned their criticisms and persecutions upon Jesus’ disciples and followers, many of whom fled the area to safer, more receptive areas (at least, initially). N. T. Wright states, “The motivating force behind the early Christian mission, as revealed in the stories that fan out across the spectrum of first-century Christianity, is found in the central belief and hope of Judaism interpreted in the light of Jesus.”

Still, many early Christian leaders bravely stayed in Jerusalem and Judea to speak their message of Christian love and salvation, leading to public abuse by authorities determined to extinguish this dangerous sect of Messianic Judaism. The Apostle Luke records,

"They called the Apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. . . Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah" (Acts 5: 40, 42).

The idea and understanding of the Messiah, the “Anointed One” or “Christos,” is found in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures as well as in the Apocrypha. Although many “messiah” stories were presented in the scriptures (Moses, David, Elijah), only one character, “The Messiah,” was depicted as the absolute, eternal deliverer from Jewish/human persecutions and threats. Over three hundred prophecies in the Old Testament point to this divine figure, suggesting (among other things) that he would have priestly and kingly roles, he would come out of Judah, that he would be a “Latter-day Moses,” and that he would battle with Satan (the Serpent) and win. Ultimately, what was made wrong by human agency would be made perfectly right by God’s ordained divine servant.  

More specifically, in the books of prophetical writers, the Messiah is said to be the final Judge at the end of human existence (Psalms); he would be born miraculously to a virgin or young woman (Isaiah); he would come out of Egypt (Hosea); he would bring salvation to the Gentiles and the Jews (Joel); he would bring peace to believers, but a sword to nonbelievers (Psalms); he would bear the sins of many and/or the world (Zechariah); he would redeem the people of God (Job); he would usher in an eternal era of peace and tranquility (Daniel); and that he would reign on David’s throne forever (Ezekiel).

Perhaps no other Hebrew scripture presents a clearer picture of the Messiah than Isaiah 49, with at least fifteen references to the divine “Servant of the Lord” (v. 5). More importantly, these verses (and the hundreds of others in the Old Testament) seem to be fulfilled numerous times in Greek scriptures like 1 Timothy 2:4–6, Matthew 1:20–21, Luke 1:30–31, John 5;22–29, Acts 13:47–48, and Revelation 2:12–16 (among others). Devout Jews, upset and hopeless with the Roman oppression upon and around them, read and saw in the prophecies impossible connections to a simple carpenter from Nazareth. Many others could not help but see in Jesus deliverance that they so desperately needed. As the Disciple Peter says in Matthew 16:16, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”  

A movement began of first-century Jews who saw direct and convincing evidence in Jesus’ amazing words, actions, and sacrificial life that he was the promised Messiah who would “bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself” (v. 6). More than that, Jesus was the Christ, the Deliverer, who would open the door even for the Gentiles, so that God’s great loving offer of salvation would reach to every corner of the earth. As D. A. Carson notes, “This Son-centered revelation is found not only in the person of Jesus but also in his deeds. Not only in his teaching, preaching, and healing, but supremely in the cross of resurrection Jesus reveals God and accomplishes the divine plan of redemption.” Thus, Jesus is the Savior of all and the sole Source of our salvation (Soteriology) because only God can rescue humanity from the wrath of our sins—past, present, and future.

Once a small, Messianic Jewish sect, by the fourth century, CE, Christianity dominated all other religions in Greco-Roman society and spread throughout the Roman Empire—even as far north as ancient Britain and possibly as far east as India. Unlike other Gnostic movements of the era, the Christian message was meant to be openly and honestly shared to anyone who would hear it—regardless of race, gender, economic, or social status. 

The Faithful Researcher

Fortunately, across the country, faithful Christian researchers continue to embrace a biblical and robust worldview in their vocational pursuits. With the aforementioned in mind, an accompanying goal of this article is to help readers make heads and tails of research methodology—from Above—utilizing a biblical perspective. No doubt, some will challenge this theological approach as immediately invalidating, but everyone has a biblical perspective that is either affirming or denying. To say that a person’s religious beliefs invalidate proper scientific scrutiny is a self-condemning position for all human beings, logically; however, it is important to be self-aware of personal biases, to be intellectually honest in one’s appraisals, and to follow proper scientific methodology—even (or especially) as a conscientious caring Christian.

Approaching Research from Above requires three things: 1) utilizing scientific evidence and facts, 2) resting upon biblical evidence and facts, and 3) applying the Christian worldview virtues of truth and love. If one does this faithfully, useful and beneficial analyses are sure to follow. Of course, a Research from Above mentality embraces one immutable idea: God is the great transcendent Scientist, affirmed and buttressed by Scripture and Christian testimonies. Here are some examples in real life (in no particular order):

Dr. Paul Hoffman, PhD

Your credentials and Vocational History

I was raised outside of Portland, Maine. I came to saving faith and received my call to ministry when I was a Sophomore in High School.

I am a graduate of Gordon College (BA, Biblical and Theological Studies), Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (Master of Divinity), and the University of Manchester, UK (Doctor of Philosophy in Practical Theology and Urban Missiology). I am the author/coauthor of three books: Reconciling Places (Cascade, 2020), Preaching to a Divided Nation (Baker Academic, 2022), and AI Shepherds and Electric Sheep (Baker Academic, 2025). My areas of research include Practical Theology, particularly in the areas of Homiletics and Ecclesiology (leadership, discipleship, and evangelism), Missiology (trinitarian and urban), Reconciliation (theology and practice), and the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.   

Presently, I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies and Director of the Preministerial Scholars Program at Samford University. Prior to that, for eighteen years, I served as the senior pastor of Evangelical Friends Church of Newport, Rhode Island.

How I Integrate Faith with my scientific methodology

As I pastor and academically trained practical theologian, my first approach is the Biblical-Theological. I ask, “What do the Holy Scriptures say about this topic? What do scholars and historians think about this topic? This has been called “Normative Theology” and includes “the creeds, official church teaching, and liturgies.”[1]

My second approach is Ecclesiological. Here I ask, “How is this concept or principle comprehended and applied in Christian communities?” This has been called “Operant Theology” which is defined as “the theology embedded within the actual practices of the group.”[2] Concrete action is how most people inhabit the world. In fact, oftentimes, we don’t know what people believe until we observe their habits and practices and trace them back to their sources.

Critique of postmodern scientific methodology

In my experience, some postmodern methodologies swing toward one of two poles. The first is that many are excessively phenomenological.  I am thinking of pockets of sociology or anthropology. The emphasis is on lived experience and describing first person perspective and narration. This preferences subjectivity and centers humans as the locus of epistemological endeavors.

On the other end of this spectrum are the overly rationalistic and detached approaches, represented by the hard sciences or STEM. In these lines of inquiry, there is a pursuit of objectivity and detachment. Humans must be fully outside a “thing” to fully and properly comprehend it.

Both methodologies can fail to grasp that much of humanity’s pursuit of knowledge involves a constant and dynamic interplay, a never-ending dialogue between the internal and the external, the subjective and the objective, between immersion and separation. In a Christian anthropology, no human can be, to use a literary term, third-person omniscient, the all-knowing narrator. Only the triune God occupies this post. All homo sapiens, to use the words of the Apostle Paul, “see through a glass, darkly…[and] know in part” (1 Cor. 13:12, King James Version).

Suggestions to make academia a more healthy, scientific community

I believe academia would be healthier if it were intentional in incorporating a telos centered on the flourishing of creation. In Genesis 1, creation is described seven times as being “good” (Hebrew, tov). That word means “beautiful, bountiful, pleasant.”[3] The triune God’s craftsmanship is lovely to behold, deeply satisfying to encounter, and stands coherent and complete. Further, God places human beings in the Garden of Eden to “work it and take care of it” (Gen. 2:15). The Hebrew verb (shamar) translated “take care,” conveys the idea of “to serve, to till”[4] the environment for the benefit and growth of the sentient and non-sentient lives inhabiting it. If scholars can keep this panoramic perspective at the forefront of their endeavors, they will honor God’s plan for the created order.

Additionally, as often as possible, the most robust scholarship will seek to be cross disciplinary and thus more holistic. This may look like art dialoguing with law, theology with biology and psychology, history with economics, and more. The aim is to help scholars avoid the myopia and echo chambers that academic disciplines naturally propagate. Otherwise, specialty can breed a stifling specificity disconnected from broader reality.

[1] Helen Cameron, et al. Talking About God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical Theology  (London: SCM Press, 2010), 54.

[2] Cameron, et al. Talking About God in Practice, 54.

[3] James Strong, The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 380.

[4] Strong, The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, 466.

Mr. Shija Shilunga Lucas, MA, MS

Your credentials and Vocational History

I am an evangelist and a master student at Barclay College, KS, Havilland, pursuing a Master of Arts in Bible Translation and expecting to graduate in May 2026. I hold another Master's in Life Sciences, majoring in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management. I also have a Bachelor of Science degree in Education, specializing in Biology and Geography. I did some additional courses in Agriculture and have worked in the Agricultural sector for five years, and have written several papers aiming to help farmers, policymakers, and stakeholders make informed decisions in agriculture.

The Integration of Your Faith with Scientific Methodology

Inasmuch as all researchers search for solutions based on scientific investigations, understanding that God is sovereign over all things is essential. This belief suggests thinking of how one’s methodologies align with God’s moral values and natural laws. It calls for an inquiry into how the research methodologies contradict God’s moral values and natural laws or align with them. This has been my archetype criterion and rule system whenever I embark on any research project. I always think of God first and how my methodology is ethical in the light of God’s word.

Your Critique of Postmodern Scientific Methodology

Most methodologies in the postmodern world contradict God’s moral values and natural laws. They are centered on personal pursuit and politics without necessarily considering that they contradict God’s moral values and natural laws. Such methodologies are evident in many fields such as Health, Information Technology, and Agriculture, a few areas to mention. Research is being done to please those in power for fame and material gain. How I wish that research would align with God’s moral values and natural laws.

Helping Academia Become a More Healthy, Scientific Community

One of my roles as a researcher is to encourage other researchers and people in Academia to remain faithful to their roles by embracing the process. This is because naturality is getting lost in Academia due to the role played by emerging technologies. People want to see the work done quickly without minding the process. This on the one hand affects the health of the Academia community and the future of research. As a researcher, I raise my voice to the world calling researchers and Academicians to return to the basics and use all innovations wisely without contradicting the natural laws.

Dr. Benjamin Wood, PhD

Your Credentials and Vocational History

I am an entrepreneur in the higher education field. I have my PhD in Applied Organizational Psychology and have been focused on creating systems and procedures that best facilitate learning for individual learners. For over a decade, I have taught online and residentially at several Universities. From those experiences, I have crafted a current vocational journey that is primarily focused on landing students jobs and in utilizing AI to help others gain vocational competency.

The Integration of Your Faith with Scientific Methodology

Inquiry in any form has a starting point. For me, it is my Christian-Judeo faith. I believe that all searching and questioning fits into the overall framework of God as creator and sustainer of faith, with things working out according to his purposes and for his Glory. This framework sets the groundwork for what is true and what is not, for what is good and what is evil, and from that framework, I ask questions and pursue the specificity of knowledge that fits into the meta-narrative of God’s creation. 

Your Critique of Postmodern Scientific Methodology

When you have a starting point, you can deduce truth. When you do not have a starting point (and can make it up), then you can induce anything you want. In postmodernity, scientific methodology is wrapped up around inducing evidence for any socially/politically accepted viewpoint or position. The academy has made its position that “science” must be politically correct rather than just factually correct. Science will always be better when it is deductive rather than inductive, and when it is rooted in discovering “the Truth”—not “a truth.”

Helping Academia Become a More Healthy, Scientific Community

I am actively engaged in closing one of the current major gaps in academic: the B-to-B pipeline (the touchpoints that all potential students move through in education). The academy should all be about vocational training and upskilling learners to be contributors in the workforce. I am leveraging AI to help students learn proficiency— both in core and then job-related competencies—to pipeline those students directly to hiring organizations. This AI tool is facilitated by an AI bot, which both teaches and then assesses proficiency in learning goals and activities related to employment. This tool does not replace human activity but rather helps enhance the learning experience and directs students to employment like educators have never been able to do before.

Mr. Quinn Weinzapfel, BS, MDiv

Your Credentials and Vocational History

I have known the author since 2019. I serve on staff with the International Mission Board as a data analyst and researcher. Additionally, I serve as board president for Speak for the Unborn, a pro-life ministry that equips churches in having gracious gospel conversations with abortion-minded men and women. I completed my BS in Criminal Justice at Liberty University, and I am currently pursuing a MDiv at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I love expository preaching, biblical counseling, systematic theology, craft coffee, and chess. 

The Integration of Your Faith with Scientific Methodology

Most of my work, regardless of organizational affiliation, centers around fusing the art and science of data analytics with Christian theology. Contrary to popular beliefs, these fields exist in harmony and do not require fission. I view faith and science as equally required for academic practice. 

It saddens me that with new, maturing believers, the concept of a divided mind between faith and science has been thrust upon them by slightly older, still unknowing victims. An unfortunate byproduct of the Enlightenment, new believers are too often called to cull their spiritual lives in pursuit of scientific practice. Thus, the ouroboros of science-sacrificing-faith spins on quietly killing the faith of young students. If Christians concede to such an artificial division, we quickly lose our assurance in both. As such, Christians must reunite their scientific practice with their spiritual state.

Your Critique of Postmodern Scientific Methodology

I hold that the postmodern world is essentially dead. Yes, there are bitter clingers who still twist secular humanism into a Frankenstein’s neo-atheism, but the younger generation is abandoning the atheism and liberal philosophy of their elders. Why? Mainly because the worldview is unsustainable. If there is no faith in things unseen, why conduct science? All personal, scientific, or social advancement becomes moot under the humanist boot. Without a sufficiently strong theological structure to order the world, there is no reason for anything. The immense idolatrous faith in humankind required for atheism to flourish leads its worshipers ever closer to the sleeping leviathan of nihilism at the bottom of secular humanism.

Helping Academia Become a More Healthy, Scientific Community

The marriage of scientific practice and faith can be a happy one, but like every marriage, it requires something from both spouses. Truly, everyone is a theologian at heart, with their worldview forming their scientific theories and practice. Moreover, there is no such thing as a perfectly independent researcher. Owning one’s theological worldview is the first step in becoming a better scholar. Being a good student of theology (and its impact on one’s life) informs and shapes one’s scholarly work.

Furthermore, our studies and scientific practice challenge and inform our beliefs about the world. This means we should grow in our scientific practice to expand our theological practice. One of the significant errors within modern scholarship is the incessant and unnecessary requirement for alignment with(in) a humanistic framework. The best part of theology and science is that it is bigger than us. We study the world for things that are bigger than ourselves. Trace this thread long enough, and you’ll find someone worth worshiping at the end of it.

Dr. Jeffery Childress, D.Min.

Your Credentials and Vocational History

I have a Doctor of Ministry degree (Expository Teaching and Preaching) and a master’s degree in Christian Apologetics, both from Liberty University. I am the host of a Christian podcast, and I am the Charlotte Chapter Director of Reasonable Faith. I am bi-vocational, so while I have a Christian parachurch ministry, I have over 30 years of experience as a technology leader in the financial services industry as well.

The Integration of Your Faith with Scientific Methodology

Truth, by definition, is exclusive. If God exists, the pursuit of science is simply discovering, not inventing or creating, the wonders of physics, biology, cosmology, psychology, all functioning in the integrated framework of God’s creation. Science itself, as a professional and academic discipline, was initiated as a formal strategy to seek evidence of the fingerprints of God on the universe. This is why the researcher, faithfully grounded in the truth of Christianity, will never be intimidated by the pursuit of science. However, one must also understand the limits of science. Science is indeed a tool to understand the language of creation, but it is limited to the exploration of the material, the repeatable, and the demonstrable. I believe it is critical to any faithful researcher, in any discipline, to free their minds from the shackles of convention that some scientists force on the creation. Instead, we should boldly unleash our minds to better understand the Creator, as evidenced through the second book that He created for us, that being, the book of nature.

Your Critique of Postmodern Scientific Methodology

The phrase "postmodern scientific methodology" is a contradiction in terms. Scientific methodology is a strategy for understanding natural science by obtaining data through research. While one may start with a rational assumption (in scientific terms, a hypothesis), the scientific process explores based on where the evidence leads, dispassionately and without prejudice. On the other hand, postmodernism is a philosophy that rejects objective truth and embraces relativism. Combining these two endeavors is bound to fail. One can see the detrimental impact postmodernism has had on evidence-based medicine today. An attempt to manipulate the scientific method into being informed by socio-political ideologies instead of unbiased evidence is simply a house built on shifting sand.

Helping Academia Become a More Healthy, Scientific Community

My Christian apologetics-based podcast aims to explore the intersection of various disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and other areas of scientific research with principles of Christian theology. We interview subject matter experts from academia, mass media, and the church to find ways to combat the deterioration within modern universities and re-establish their mission to teach students how to think, rather than what to think. We must continue to address this contagion by bringing awareness to its harmful and intrusive goals. The classroom should not strive to create a hive-mind; rather, its focus should be on preparing individuals to contribute effectively to society, and by doing so, allowing the dispassionate search for truth to reclaim its position at the top of the educational virtue hierarchy.

Dr. Holley Swanson Clough, DMin, PCC

Your Credentials and Vocational History

Throughout my career in education, I have focused on coaching within the field of higher education. I have a Doctorate in Ministry and a Professional Certification in Life Coaching from the International Coach Federation.  The professional focus has been on creating a seamless coaching model, supporting a system to recruit and retain students throughout their time in their educational journey.  For over thirty years as a Christian higher education administrator and professor of online and traditional courses, my focus has been to resonate my faith through creatively helping students of all levels discern and develop their God given potential. This career journey has had impact within Christian higher education and the work of the Global Church.

The Integration of Your Faith with Scientific Methodology

Upon a career of observation of student growth and receptivity to learning, research has indicated there is an improved way to allow adult students to progress through the learning process. God gives humans strengths, gifts and values from which to engage with the created world.  It is in learning to use these God ordained assets and experiential learning that students engage with the world around them for the betterment of the Kingdom.  Life coaching is based on Adult Learning Theory, which calls on these assets and learning to provide reflection and perception change as noted in Mezirow’s Adult Learning Theory and Kolb’s Theory of Experiential Learning. In addition, Christian advisors using a coaching model find God as the life coach and the Holy Spirit leads and guides in advising students in their learning and perception shift into transformation. Specifically, I am actively engaged in increasing the wellbeing of students through addressing Neuroscience and Coaching in looking at how students learn through utilizing coaching.  These techniques can speak to current students, as well as pastors or leaders in midlife looking to transition to another phase in life. Coaching toward transition involves understanding how the brain and neuroscience impacts health, as well as learning and perception change.

Fundamental differences from period of modernity

It has been discovered through research a gap exists in allowing adults to transition from an active career on into later years in life, commonly called retirement, which impacts adult students. (Edwards Thesis, 2025)  Entering into mid-life, adults can flounder in the question of what the next aspiration may be in life.  An active adult transitioning through the midlife, currently has been immersed in a world that was shifting to Postmodernity Modernity impacted the time between 1850 to 1950, focusing on reason, objectivity and universal truths.  Specifically, adult students struggle with having been raised by parents that were clearly in Modernity, yet living in a Post-Modern world facing globalization, fragmentation leading to complexities such as varying identities and lifestyles.

Your Critique of Postmodern Scientific Methodology

When you have a starting point of Post-Modernism that has been impacting society since 1950 focusing on skepticism, subjective truths and rejection of universal truths (AI Overview on 5/5/25)  The objectivity and truth of Modernity allowed solid ground on which to build a career in the world around one, mainly found in one community with one, maybe two jobs during a career.  In the post-modern context created a career trajectory of globalization where the viewpoint is changing and subjective, questioned with skepticism and not built on universal truths.  One universal truth being, Christ as the “Way, the Truth and the Life.” Humans consider themselves  all knowing with the aide of globalization and technology, which is increasing at a fast rate with AI.  Postmodernity is fragmented, transient and less founded on consistent unchanging values, social structures are changing.

Helping Academia Become a More Healthy Scientific Community

I am actively engaged in increasing the wellbeing of students through addressing Neuroscience and Coaching.  These techniques can speak to current students, as well as pastors or leaders in midlife looking to transition to another phase in life. Coaching toward transition involves understanding how the brain and neuroscience impacts health. By studying these techniques, an educator can reach out to coach toward change of perspectives based on concrete values. Neuroscience of Coaching is based on these core tenets:

·      Manage personal biases and distractions, staying focused on the client’s goals and objectives.

  • Understand the relationship between body signals and decision-making, leading clients to more informed choices.

  • Integrate different aspects of the client’s being, paving the way for holistic personal growth.

  • Uncover deeper emotional responses and thought patterns, allowing clients to understand and manage their reactions.

  • Grasp the brain's functions and use that knowledge to improve interactions and relationships with clients. (https://www.coaching.com/neuroscience/program/)

Through using the above mentioned techniques, students can be guided into a new ways of thinking through reflection and writing. It is through this process that the mind predicts reactions, emotions and behaviors. Often there is a perception gap between anticipation of actions and actual responses. By developing emotional acuteness and balancing perceptions and biases with unexpected thoughts and actions, situations unfold naturally, causing significant transformation. This transformation happens through the change of perception gained through these neuroscience techniques.

The British Detective Novel

Classic Literature Considered

Collins, The Moonstone 197-246

1. She is blissfully unaware of how hypocritical, sanctimonious, and supercilious she comes across when explaining how things are in society and in this particular situation.  I think Collins is trying to show the arrogance and ignorance of the “haves” in English society, and trying to show how absurd they come across. Of course, I doubt any readers with the same attitude as Clack would even be aware that her behavior and attitude is wrong. Her name is also ironic because it sounds like the clanging cymbal fake-love mentioned in 1 Corinthians in the Bible.

2. Clearly, referring to her town as “Patmos” means she feels herself exiled there, like the Apostle John, because of her piety and good moral living whilst everyone else apparently are “evil Catholics” (thus, “popery”).  She appears to look down at the poor masses outside her town in England, many of whom were Catholics and not true believers. She shows her snobbery and perhaps a hint of the economic/social gulf between the classes at that time.

4. Clack’s view offers a significantly different aspect of this story, albeit superficial, of the events that led to the theft of the diamond, and who might be to blame, and to what ends. In the end, however, her testimony comes across preachy, fakey, and slightly delusional when it comes to Godfrey, especially. She sees what she wants to see in him and her surroundings and interpret things in ways that support herself and her culture.

5. Even though I did not completely trust anyone in the beginning of the novel (after all, one always looks for hints as to whom the villain might be), my opinion of Godfrey has become worse and worse as the story as gone along, although I find him more pathetic and manipulative than evil and villainous. His background sounds more insecure than criminal, but I will have to see.

6. My opinion of Rachel has not changed much, but mainly because her voice has not been voiced as loudly as the other characters.  She seems to live a careful life and her motivation is therefore fully unknown.  She may be protecting herself or others. Plus, she comes across as somewhat superior and elitist.

5. I think the paragraph on page 205 in Chapter One in the Second Period presents the Imperialist’s attitude well. In it, Clack states, “Ordinary people might have hesitated before setting aside their own engagements to suit the convenience of a stranger. The Christian Hero never hesitates where good is to be done.” These two sentences show the superior position and incentives of the Englishman in this woman’s mind. Good, extraordinary Englishmen are there to help others; in fact, their key obligation is to help wherever there is need.  The final three sentences tie this in with Imperialism when Clack remarks, “He noticed two unusual things on entering the room. One of them was a faint odour or musk and camphor. The other was an ancient Oriental manuscript, richly illuminated with Indian figures and devices, that lay open to inspection on a table.”  Clack presents several ideas in this paragraph—the ethical, the Englishmen, the enigmatic, and the exotic.

(Copyright by John S. Knox, 2025)

Late Victorians, 1635-1637

Classic Literature Considered

Wilde, 1686-1687; The Importance of Being Earnest, 1698; Gilbert, 1534; “When I, Good Friends…” 1534; “If You’re Anxious…”, 1535

1. This play starts out in Act 1, Scene 1 with that notion— “Jack. …When one is placed in the position of guardian, one has to adopt a very high moral tone on all subjects. It’s one’s duty to do so. And as a high moral tone can hardly be said to conduce very much to either one’s health or one’s happiness, in order to get up to town I have always pretended to have a younger brother of the name of Ernest, who lives in the Albany, and gets into the most dreadful scrapes. That, my dear Algy, is the whole truth pure and simple.”  Jack (Ernest) is lying to protect those around him, so by being untruthful, he is being moral. 

Further on, in Act 2, Jack is advised by Lady Bracknell, “I would strongly advise you, Mr. Worthing, to try and acquire some relations as soon as possible, and to make a definite effort to produce at any rate one parent, of either sex, before the season is quite over.” This is a ridiculous request that relies only on superficiality and façade. One truly cannot choose one’s parents, but Jack needs to improve his social standing.

2. This play has multiple moments wherein marriage is contemplated, valued, criticized, lauded, etc.  This happens from the bachelor’s point of view, from the established guardians’ view, and even from the servants’ view.  My favorite scene is in Act 2, Part 2, with the dialogue, “Algernon. Oh, I don’t care about Jack. I don’t care for anybody in the whole world but you. I love you, Cecily. You will marry me, won’t you? Cecily. You silly boy! Of course. Why, we have been engaged for the last three months. Algernon. For the last three months? Cecily. Yes, it will be exactly three months on Thursday. Algernon. But how did we become engaged?” I find this very charming even though Cecily is slightly daft, but love makes everyone “twitterpated” doesn’t it?...=) 

3. I think the statement in Act I, Scene 1 that goes, “Algernon. I really don’t see anything romantic in proposing. It is very romantic to be in love. But there is nothing romantic about a definite proposal. Why, one may be accepted. One usually is, I believe. Then the excitement is all over. The very essence of romance is uncertainty. If ever I get married, I’ll certainly try to forget the fact” says a lot about the notion of romantic love in English culture. We read of this in Lord Byron’s and Keat’s poetry about mysterious women and the allure they have. Marriage, in the Victorian Age, was normally a matter of reason, political alliance, and economic betterment. Wilde suggests (ironic considering his name) that true love is natural, undialogued, and liberal.

4. I love the character of Lane who plays the part of the “stupid, uncaring servant,” but Lane knows what is going on in high society and carefully mocks it when he plays along in the rich man’s game—“Algernon. Why is it that at a bachelor’s establishment the servants invariably drink the champagne? I ask merely for information. Lane. I attribute it to the superior quality of the wine, sir. I have often observed that in married households the champagne is rarely of a first-rate brand.”  Wilde is definitely critiquing the differences between the classes and the fantasy of the rich being more moral than the poor.

5. I really enjoyed the witty banter and quick retorts. It reminds me of Archie Goodwin in the Nero Wolfe novels who always had a snappy comeback to a stupid statement or comment. Of course, Wilde probably spent hours and hours figuring out the clever responses of his characters; nevertheless, it is pleasant to dream that we readers can do the same. For example, in Act 2, Part 2, the dialogue goes, “Miss Prism. Memory, my dear Cecily, is the diary that we all carry about with us. Cecily. Yes, but it usually chronicles the things that have never happened, and couldn’t possibly have happened.” I love it—a sarcastic, cynical swipe at an overused platitude, which was/is common in high society, no doubt.

Empire and National Identity, 1607-1634

Classic Literature Considered

Kipling, 1793-1794; “The Widow at Windsor,” 1819; “Recessional,” 1820;“The White Man’s Burden,” 1821

1. Chamberlain: His views on the English Empire can be summed up in the fourth paragraph of his speech. In it, he rationalizes the presence of the English abroad in their colonies by the “kinship” that has now be established between the countries.  They share common blood despite different parentage or ancestry; now they love each other. Moreover, he states, our rule over these territories can only be justified if we can show that it adds to the happiness and prosperity of the people, and I maintain that our rule does, and has, brought security and peace and comparative prosperity to countries that never knew these blessings before.”  These non-English countries need England and the benefits of higher civilization they bring them.

Hobson: He seems to take a more realistic yet stark, oppressive approach to the subject of Imperialism. He states, “As one nation after another enters the machine economy and adopts advanced industrial methods, it becomes more difficult for its manufacturers, merchants, and financiers to dispose profitably of their economic resources, and they are tempted more and more to use their Governments in order to secure for their particular use some distant undeveloped country by annexation and protection.”  Clearly, exploitation and bureaucracy go hand-in-hand with Imperialism because of the economic dependency that evolves between the parent country and the adopted child country.  Parents want things for their children that sometimes children do not want and resist, incurring punishment and negative reinforcement. 

2. How do the readings on empire (perhaps in particular the ones you summarized) affect the way you think about some of the texts we have read? List some specific connections.  As with any historical or cultural writings, they provide depth and nuance to the readings that might have been lost without them. Too often, people read and assume that how life/culture is for them is how it is/was for everyone else.  Reading primary source documents, especially non-fiction ones, helps understand the potential rationality, response, or reaction to what was going on in that particular society.  Thus, the movie, Avatar, presents certain assumptions and judgments that might not have been present or realized 125 years ago.

3. I think “The White Man’s Burden” aptly demonstrates the stereotypical assumptions of Imperialism.  In the first stanza, it talks about the goal(s) and charge of the superior English concerning the indigenous people they have encountered abroad.  The English are the “best. . . breed” who are on foreign soil to help the non-English who are in captivity, are fluttered and wild, and “Half-devil and half-child. Later on, the poem states that the Englishmen are abroad to “Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease.” Yet, despite these supposedly good intentions, Kipling warns that “The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.” If they are there to help the indigenous peoples, then they need to do just that and “Have done with childish days.” 

Kipling has seen this first hand whilst in England. He has seen soldiers doing good things and bad things. He has got his fingers dirty and rubbed elbows with the natives so he understands their plight as well. This is manifested in a lot of his poetry, although some people still find his depictions racist and superior.

Textual Analyses and Theological Reverberations of the book of Genesis (Excerpt from God in the Details, Kendall-Hunt, 2017)

The Book of Genesis does not give a complete picture of the religious beliefs and practices of Abraham and his people, but there is enough information that readers can get a general idea of their daily religious practices. Scholars know that Abraham engaged with (and later ran contrary to) the religious culture that surrounded him, which included a huge pantheon of deities and superstitious beliefs. As Halley points out, “Ur was in Babylonia; and Babylonians had many gods and goddesses.”[1] Therefore, the religion of God’s people in Genesis displayed crucial differentiating characteristics.

First, it is a religion that went from polytheism to monotheism. This is observed in the religious life of Abraham and his people as they change their focus to the worship of one God. In Joshua 24:2, it clearly says that Abraham came to his faith in the Lord from a life of polytheism—“Joshua said to the people, This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worship other gods” So, Abraham embraced the religious culture that surrounded him until God appeared, chose him out of many, and then promised to be with him, forever. This is the case with the Patriarchs (and the Matriarchs), to all of whom God appeared, chose them, and promised to be with them. All of them also included a divine call.

In Genesis 12:1–3, one can read about God choosing, and calling Abraham. It states, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through you.” An outline of the text establishes the demands religion had of the lives of the patriarchs.

They are to leave their old ways, and to move to a mysterious place where God calls them to go. It is not known where that would be, but regardless, they must follow God’s leading and trust him. This blind following establishes the foundation of their newfound religion. It is based on faith, commitment, and obedience as necessary pillars upon which they are to build. This pattern becomes more evident in later books.

When the people of God trusted and obeyed him, he led them and they followed, although often while complaining (but still hoping). Another benefit of following God is his promise that he will bless them and make their name great. Yet, it is not clear until later what God specifically intends or what they understood him to mean when he says, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you. I will bless those who curse you, and who curses you I will curse; and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (vs. 12:2–3). The call also included an evangelistic purpose. They will be a blessing to those who bless them. They are to be the missionary message to other nations. People and nations alike that trust in the God of Abraham and of Isaac, will be under the same protection and blessing bless.

God is known and identified by His people. Each patriarch that followed, in turn, chose God, and his family worshipped him. God became known and identified as “the God of Abraham” (v. 24:12), “the God of Isaac” (v. 28:13), and “the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6). This describes the very personal nature between God and His people. They no longer worship an aloof god, but a personal God who communicates with them, protects and saves them, and is very involved in their life.

God initiates the relationship between Himself and His People. In Genesis 15, we read about the covenant that God enters with Abraham. He blesses him with a son (v. 15:4), and he assures him that he will take possession of the land (v. 15:18). It is partially described, it includes the oaths that are binding God for both Abraham and his people, and vice versa (vs. 15:7–21).

A religion associated with both people and place, and Judaism also included prayer.[2] A very clear distinction is seen in the faith of the Israelites. The gods of the Canaanites were associated with a very specific place, building, and formal style of worship. “As the myths of ancient Ugarit indicate, the religion of the Canaanite peoples was a crude and debased form of ritual polytheism.”[3] The God of Abraham was personal in nature and was associated primarily with persons. This is a unique way of worshipping God, and that fact the God promised to be with them is very practical. There is not much detail about the Patriarchs’ institutional and liturgical[4] practice worship (if there was one).

Moreover, scholars do know have biblical evidence that the prayer is part of this practical monotheistic religion. In Genesis 25:21, it states, “Isaac prayed for the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife, Rebekah, became pregnant.” They build altars and made sacrifices (v. 12:7)—“But the Lord appeared to Abraham and said ‘to your offspring I will give this land.’ So, he built an altar there to the Lord, who had appeared to him” (Genesis 21:7). This personal faith did not include a special place and official priesthood, initially. Worship, for them, was more a matter of personal relationship between God and human beings than only a rigid format of liturgical ceremony. Another important contribution of the life of the Patriarchs was their theological understandings of God and his expectation for them.

The Jewish religion depended on God’s election (his spiritual calling and commission of people before and throughout history). The redemptive history of the Patriarchal period within the Book of Genesis introduces readers to the theological idea of election. The act of God selecting a person from among his people (vs. 12:1–3) sets the pattern of the rest of the story in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. For example, in Jeremiah 1:4–5, it states, “The word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’” When God’s people call for help, he seeks out and finds a faithful man or woman, and calls them to assist in helping or leading his people during that time of need. The judges, the kings, the prophets, and others were all called by God to do the specific task that was required of them at the time.

Their righteousness is based on personal faith (trust and commitment). The account of Abraham’s calling as seen in Genesis 12 is a very radical shift in the way of the nomadic life of the time. Abraham is called to abandon his father’s home, his way of life, his land to faithfully obey and follow God. In Genesis 15:6, readers learn that “Abraham believed the Lord, and he credited to him as righteousness.”

A high point of Abraham’s faith is also seen in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac. It is not a story about child sacrifices, but rather of testing Abraham’s faith to God. Abraham does meet the test and becomes the example of faith of which future generations aspire. Faith is such an important theological foundation of the religion of the Israelites, and the example of Abraham so important, that even the New Testament writers write about it. Hebrews 11:8 states, “By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.”

Their faith in God is guaranteed by his covenant—a binding agreement between two or more invested parties.Throughout the panoramic theological spectrum within the Bible, the covenant plays a very important role in the life of the Hebrews and later the followers of Jesus. It is this agreement that describes the relationship and arrangements between God and his people—“You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6), and it also governs their relationship with others under the same covenant. However, it is not limited in these two relationships, alone. While they are living out their covenantal ideals, it influences their nearby neighbors and nations.

As God continues his relationship with Israel, his blessings many times over cover and touch others. Similarly, for those who oppose and attack Israel, God is bound by this covenant (v. 12:3) to protect Israel and to keep them safe. This reality will be evident in the rest of the Hebrew scriptures, and will also follow within the Greek scriptures (and beyond).

[1] Henry Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1965), 95.

[2] William Lansor, David Hubbard, and Frederic Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 111.

[3] “The Religion of the Canaanites,” Quartz Hill School of Theology; online: http://www.theology.edu/canaan.htm.

[4] Liturgy is the repeated expression of details and rules regarding religious services, activities, and ceremonies in public and private settings.

Women in the Old Testament  (Excerpt from God in the Details, Kendall-Hunt, 2017)

The relationship of gender and religion has long been a controversial subject in Christianity and Judaism (and perhaps in most other faiths, too). The advent of feminism and postmodernism has offered many new and provocative interpretations, goals, and conclusions to this important topic, but the Bible, also, has provided its own suppositions and judgments on the value and role of women in humanity. Yet, perhaps no higher goals are promoted in the scriptures than those of truth, love, affirmation, and submission. Therefore, a careful examination and analysis of women in the Old Testament (and the New) must begin and end with these quintessential pillars of the faith.

Historically and globally, governmental and community powers have traditionally rested in the hands of men. There are exceptions in history, of course—Deborah the Judge, Queen Cleopatra of Egypt, Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, etc. are all famous examples of fine and proficient rulers in their times and regions. Generally speaking, in Patriarchal societies, women have held secondary roles in governance and held gender-specific assigned duties. This is not just a Christian or Jewish reality; most cultures from Asia to Africa to the Americas embraced or promoted a male-dominated society, at least superficially. Tetlow remarks, “Judaism in the first century had emerged from the oriental patriarchal tradition in which women were considered the property of men with no rights, no role in society except childbearing, and no education.”

Yet, in human existence, women have never been without important influence or power within their homes, their cultures, and their nations. Biblically, there is no Genesis story without Eve; there is no Patriarch promise without Sarah; there is no Sisera defeat without Deborah and Jael; there is no eternal throne of David without Bathsheba; and there is no virgin birth without Mary, to name a few. Women have played, and continue to play crucial, invaluable roles in the story of God and his people. Still, there are biological realities to consider when it comes to men and women.

Though very much alike in ability and value, our bodies have different strengths; parts of our minds are wired differently; often, our social bonding is based on different priorities, and so on—all leading to biological consequences and limitations for both men and women. Genesis 3:16 speaks of these truths when God explains to rebellious Eve, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor, you will give birth to children, your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Somewhat telling of the eternal connection between man and woman, God also says to Adam, “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life; it will produce thorns and thistles for you; and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground; since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Gen 3:17–19).

Although egalitarian in human hardship and obligations, many from both sides of the subject point to both gender-restrictions and gender-failures. Some masculinists rigidly appeal to biblical traditions and specific scriptural verses to justify the limitation of women’s roles in greater society and the church. Women are weaker (they say)—physically, mentally, and spiritually, which is why God created men to dominate them. Grenz explains, “Proponents of this view believe that certain Scripture references clearly show that the female cannot bear the divine image to the same degree as the male (e.g. 1 Cor 11:7).”

Piper adds, “To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order.” Evangelist and teacher Paul Washer writes, “One of the problems we have is the church is so busy doing the work of the mother and of the wife. If women were to dedicate themselves to the ministry of their husbands and dedicate themselves to raising up a godly heritage unto the Lord, it would free the church to do more work in evangelizing the lost and spreading revival.”

Countering this, some feminists condemn the bible as a solely flawed and biased product of masculine political domination. Scholz states, “The Bible as the sacred text of Christianity and Judaism provides central clues about the cultural, political, economic, social, and religious dynamics of past and present gender oppression.”[5] The Bible, written and translated by men, is unfair and inaccurate in its interpretations, judgments, and applications of/for women.

Radical philosopher Mary Daly (post-Christian) writes, “If God is male, then male is god,” and Bible scholar Phyllis Trible states, “The Bible was born and bred in a land of patriarchy; it abounds in male imagery and language. For centuries, interpreters have exploited this androcentrism to articulate theology, to define the church . . . and to instruct human beings, female and male, in who they are, what roles they should play and how they should behave.”

Despite any motivation for doctrinal reverence or social justice, the extreme nature of such inflexible masculinism and feminism, the lack of conclusive scriptural evidence, and advocates’ unwillingness to consider the holistic context of the Bible and its stories reveal the dangers of both positions. Genesis begins with Adam and Eve being partners in human existence. “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

This simple verse and later Genesis 2:18, where God reflects, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable helper for him,” contain much significance, relationally. They speak of the first couple’s unity in each other, of their closeness and their oneness, of their complementary natures and abilities, and of their equality of human frailty and failings. Adam and Eve, like all men and women in loving relationships, are made for each other in that they are both imperfect beings who need each other, perfectly.

Women have had pivotal roles in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. They are instigators for both positive and negative events and actions; the demonstrate Godly/admirable personal qualities and are even at times the villain; they have definite and critical roles in the great plans of God; they have the capacity to follow and to lead or instigate; regardless, the biblical stories often and regularly revolve around the lives and needs of women of whom God cares about, eternally.

This reality can be seen in the dramatic Old Testament stories of Deborah—a prophetess, judge, and military leader, Ruth—a brave, compassionate widow in a foreign land, Sarah and Hagar—the matriarchs of two faiths, Rachel, Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah—the original mothers of the twelve tribes of Israel, Dinah and Tamar—victims of rape and abuse, Rahab—the virtuous and merciful prostitute, Jezebel—the scheming, murderous priestess of Baal, and Esther—who saves Israel with her courage, her wits, and her beauty. The same drama and noteworthiness holds true for women in the New Testament like the blessed virgin Mary, the Samaritan Woman, the Syrophoenician woman, Mary Magdalene, Joann, Susanna, Lazarus’ sisters—Mary and Martha, Lydia, Prisca, Junia, and Phoebe.

These women are outstanding and provide spiritual edification for the biblical readers. They are not incidental to the Bible; they are essential. The influence of the role of women such as these is perhaps best seen in Paul’s concluding chapter in Romans. He states,

 

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house . . .Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was . . . Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord . . . Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other brothers and sisters with them. Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the Lord’s people who are with them. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings. I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (Romans 16:1–17).

           

This same Godly spirit of service and devotion can be found in the lives of early Christians like martyrs Perpetua, Felicitas, Blandina; in the lives of Desert Mothers like St. Marcella, Egeria, Melanie the Elder and Melanie the Younger, and in Macrina, a “Teacher” and guide of Orthodoxy to the Cappadocian Fathers. As Grenz notes,

 

The ebb and flow of women’s participation in leadership does not merely fluctuate according to changes in biblical exegesis or the reigning interpretation of particular passages of Scripture. Rather, the pattern can also be traced to institutionalization of the church (the development of organizational structures), influences from the surrounding culture and the theology of leadership at work in the church.

 

Based on a straightforward interpretation of scripture found in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, women can be disciples, can be apostles, can be church leaders, can be prophets, can be judges, can be deacons, can be military strategists, are to be honored, are to be respected, are not second-class citizens, and are just as valued to God as are men. As Tsohantardis states, “in God’s divine plan, all people are valued equally, and that God can use all people to do His will.”

MacHaffie remarks, “The Bible contains a great deal of material that treats women as subordinate and inferior to men. At the same time, there is a built-in judgment or critique of the degradation of women running through the Old and New Testaments which challenges the commands of silence and subordination.” In fact, all people are children of God; his love is not limited or shaped by our genders but by his perfect and holy nature.

What then should be the goal for God’s children? Simply, Christians are to reflect God’s kind and truthful standards in the treatment of every individual in the community. Rather than striving for a system that pushes down one gender in order to step up to a higher position, the Scriptures suggest a humble partnership of men and women, willing to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21), understanding that peace and love are central to the fulfillment of God’s design for human relationships. Real power, real nobility, real righteousness comes from self-restraint, not from visceral domination or exploitation.

As Jesus says in Luke 22, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves” (vs. 25–26). Thus, based on biblical precedent, gender empowerment should not be the ultimate goal; servanthood should be the main objective for all men and women who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ.

Textual Analyses and Theological Implications of the Pentateuch (Excerpt from God in the Details, Kendall-Hunt, 2017)

Textual Analyses and Theological Implications 

All five of the books of the Torah have an identifiable story line, purpose, and are connected by elements of the redemptive story of the Israelites. Each book contributes to the story, and these contributions make the story complete. These elements are specific to each book and yet often overlap with each other. They are large theological ideas that unite the books as part of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants. Specifically, they include the following: history, election, promise, deliverance, law, and land.

The God of Israel is active and participates in their history. They are ancient tales and narratives, which are often mixed with religious themes and practices (that may or may not have a specific historical identity). Some scholars consider the early accounts in Genesis 1–11 to be myths, while others consider them as actual historical events. As Dillard and Longman conclude, “While ignorance of the historical context of the Bible threatens a correct understanding of the Bible, a second major danger confronts the reader. This danger is the imposition of contemporary, Western values on the historical writings of the Old Testament.”[1] And yet, still others describe them as theological truths about historical events, and real people, living in an ancient time, but written in largely symbolic language.

That does not mean these early stories are not historical; something can be symbolic and historical at the same time. However, many pastors, theologians, and scholars value them more as stories of long ago, whose value affirms fundamental truths about God’s active involvement in creation, special divine involvement in the creation of the first man and woman, the incredible beauty and goodness of all creation, his desire to be in a relationship with humanity. It further tells of God giving free will to humans, which leads to sin and separation. God’s justice and mercy is then displayed in the punishment of sin and the beginning of the redemptive story.

The value is in the details, which describe the original intent of God, to be in relationship with man and woman. However, the choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God, and thus are removed from Paradise. This separation from God brings into their experience the horror of sin, calling out for God’s justice and punishment for disobedience. Yet, after several events such as the flood, the creation of nations, and the tower of Babel, biblical readers can see the shift from God’s justice to the balance of his justice and mercy.

Starting in Genesis 12, the justice of God is found in the call of Abraham to a relationship with him. “The focus of God’s plan of blessing and redemption for the human race now shifts to one man from the line of Shem—Abram.”[2]This starts the redemptive activity of God, where he reaches out to humanity, calls them into a relationship with him, and promises to be with them, and leads them into the promised land, where peace will ultimately prevail. This leads to the second religious theme of commissioning, which unites the Pentateuch.

The religion of the Israelites is based on God’s election or appointment. Starting with Abraham (and following with the other Patriarchs), God calls people to a relationship with Him. They are to leave their old religious ways and follow him (vs. 12:1–3). This process of election is for both salvation and deliverance and governing of the people. We read about these election stories in Judges, Kings, and Prophets. God elects people to faith in him, he calls them lead, teach, protect, guide and bring back to the practical responsibilities as people of the covenant who are experience peace and worship God. Election is when God finds, chooses, and calls a person from among his people. This election is initiated by God, (v. 12:1), but it also requires individuals or groups to respond in accepting God’s offer, and obeying the details of the call.

Israel’s healthy relationship depends on a binding Covenant.  In the account of Noah (Genesis 9), Abraham (Genesis 15 and 17), and others, there is a formal agreement. First, God elects a specific individual for a specific task. In the agreement are legal and binding details. These agreements are contracts between two people. They can be between two equals, between a ruler and subject, or a god and a person.

The agreement has the following outline. It names the person offering the contract, the history between the two parties, the person being offered the contract, the details of the contract, the blessings of obeying the contract, and the consequences of disobeying the contract. For example, in the covenant between God and Noah in Genesis 6–9, the two parties are God and Noah. God establishes himself as the creator, and sad about the sinful conditions of the world. He then describes the details of the covenant, which include details of the building of the Ark, and the people and animals which must go in to be saved from the flood. The blessing is found in the obedience of Noah, and thus the survival of Noah and his family. The consequences would have been the drowning of Noah (and his family) if he chose not to build the ark. This pattern is found in all of covenants.

God vows to always be with them. God promised Abraham that He will bring his descendants to the land. Along the way, they suffered, they were enslaved, and were attacked by their enemies, but they were never destroyed. In Exodus, we see this play out in the protection of the Israelites in the journey through the desert. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are encamped outside of the land. The change of leadership from Moses to Joshua takes place and plans are to go and take the land. The fulfillment of the promise is not always as people want or desire it, but God always delivered on His promises.

The ethical and moral code for Israel is based on the law. The relationship between God and his people had ethical responsibilities. These include how to maintain and protect the proper relationship between God and people. Among people there are details of how to honor, love, and behave with others in ways that honor and please God. An example of these details is to respect and honor other peoples’ ideas, bodies, and possessions (something that would have made even more since considering their former life as slaves in Egypt). It also describes relationships between people and those above them.

The law code was given to Moses for the people of Israel in the desert of Sinai. The details and explanations are found in Exodus 19–21. The book of Numbers and Deuteronomy clarify and describe these ethical and moral standards in specific categories of family codes, business codes, government and people codes, proper worship codes, being a good neighbor and others. As Birch et al state, “The law does not stand alone. Rather, the law is integrated with the ongoing story of Israel’s journey from slavery in Egypt to new life in the promised land.”[3]

Later in Israel’s history, the prophet Amos[4] is credited by some scholars as being the first biblical leader to have “introduced ethical monotheism—the concept that there was only one God, who demanded ethical behavior.”[5] Of course, others suggest that this concept can also be found in other books and stories in the Old Testament, such as in Genesis 18:19, when God states, “For I have chosen him [Abraham], so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” Still, now such righteousness is official and comprehensive.

God shows his love for Israel by keeping his word regarding their deliverance to the promise land. In Genesis 12, God asked Abraham to leave his home his parents and his land and follow God. He also promised that he and his descendants will go to the land that has for them and he will protect them along the way. As Geisler points out, “In the midst of their suffering, God wrought a great deliverance for their chosen nation through Moses. The theme of Exodus is the story of their redemption from bondage.”[6] The enslavement of the Israelites by Egypt, the subsequent deliverance from slavery, to the forty years of wondering in the desert, to the plains of Moab, is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham and his people.

These themes of history, election, promise law, deliverance, and the gift of the land are the very heart of the religion and theology of the Pentateuch.[7]Upon these themes is the enduring hope of Israel. Moreover, upon these themes is the hope of the Christian faith. The specific details may differ, but the biblical foundation of election, promise, law, deliverance, and eternal life are at the core of God’s redemptive plan for all humanity.


[1] Dillard and Longman, 21.

[2] Geisler, 45.

[3] Birch, et al., 131.

[4] See “Minor Prophetical Literature,” chapter seven, for more information.

[5] William Lansor, et al., Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 323.

[6] Geisler, 53.

[7] Lansor, et al., 57.

Dr. Tim Tsohantaridis, George Fox University

The Ten Commandments (Excerpt from God in the Details, Kendall-Hunt, 2017)

“I am YHWH your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slaves.” (Exodus 20:2)

These opening words are essential to a proper understanding of what follows, but they almost never appear in artistic representations of the Ten Commandments. Most paintings and stone monuments begin with the command not to worship other gods. Why is this a problem? Divorced from their narrative context, the Ten Commandments portray Israel’s God as demanding and Israel’s faith as legalistic. This is a distortion of the biblical witness. Obedience to the law was never a prerequisite for a relationship with YHWH. God rescued Israel from slavery before giving them the instructions at Sinai. The dramatic deliverance of the Exodus is the necessary backdrop to the Ten Commandments. YHWH’s first words to Israel at Sinai are a reminder of their special covenant status (see Exodus 19:4–6). Furthermore, the stipulations that follow outline a life of freedom. Slaves no more, they enter freely into a reciprocal relationship with YHWH, marked by loyal devotion.

This special status as YHWH’s treasured possession is showcased in the command not to “take” YHWH’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7). English readers typically understand this as a prohibition against using God’s name as a swear word. In fact, the meaning is much broader than that. The word usually translated “take” or “misuse” is the Hebrew word nasa’, which most often means “to bear or carry.” At Sinai, Israel was invited to enter into a covenant relationship with God. YHWH claimed Israel as belonging to him. By means of the priestly blessing, YHWH’s name was placed on Israel as a verbal brand (Numbers 6:24–27). It is as though they wore God’s personal name on their foreheads (see Deuteronomy 28:9–10). We get a concrete picture of this concept in the Israelite high priest, who literally wore YHWH’s name on a gold plate across his forehead (Exodus 28:36), and “bore the names” of Israel’s tribes engraved on gemstones worn on his shoulders and across his chest (Exodus 28:29).

As the covenant people, represented by the high priest, Israel also bore YHWH’s name. This command warned the Israelites not to bear that name in vain. That is, they must not claim to belong to YHWH while engaging in behavior that betrayed other loyalties. Surrounding nations would be watching Israel to find out what YHWH was like. God’s reputation was bound up with Israel’s.

This single example illustrates why the Ten Commandments cannot be considered a universal, moral ethic. They were addressed to YHWH’s covenant people and therefore do not pertain to those who have not yet been rescued by God’s grace. Posting the Ten Commandments in the public square—especially without the narrative context of redemption and covenant—runs the risk of missing the point entirely.

--

See Jan Milič Lochman, Signposts to Freedom: The Ten Commandments and Christian Ethics (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1982); Carmen Joy Imes, Bearing YHWH’s Name at Sinai: A Re-Examination of the Name Command of the Decalogue, BBRSup 19 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).

Dr. Carmen Joy Imes, Biola University

Godly Character (Excerpt from God in the Details, Kendall-Hunt, 2017)

            Which is more important, to do what God says or to be like Christ? It shouldn’t take serious Bible readers long to say that both are essential. The God of the Bible is a commanding God, and not just in Torah (“The Law”). God commands his people through the prophets, through New Testament letters, and most especially through Messiah Jesus.

            In the New Testament, believers are instructed often to imitate Jesus. We are to copy Jesus’ humility (Philippians 2), we are to fix our eyes on Jesus as we run our race (Hebrews 12), and most of all we are to love as Jesus loved (John 17 and many other passages). The New Testament often tells us what to do or not do, but even more frequently it tells us of Christian virtues: joyfulness, peace-ableness, patience, kindness, generosity, and especially love.

            A Bible reader might be tempted to conclude that the Old Testament is about Godly behavior, while the New Testament is about Godly character, but the story of Joseph in Egypt upsets such a generalization. First, one can see vices: Joseph’s brothers, exhibiting jealousy, sold him into slavery in Egypt. Potiphar’s wife displayed lust when she tried to seduce Joseph; when he resisted, Joseph was put in prison. While in prison, Joseph correctly predicted that Pharaoh would restore the “butler” (or “cup-bearer”) to his position at court, but the butler neglected to speak up for Joseph until much time had passed.

In contrast, consider the aspects of Godly character that readers can see in this story:

1.      Joseph practiced self-control when tempted by Potiphar’s wife.

2.     Joseph demonstrated wisdom, both by interpreting dreams and governing justly.

3.     Joseph forgave his brothers, practicing reconciliation. Yes, they intended him evil, but he gave glory to God for turning it to good.

            Now, not everything read in the stories of Old Testament “heroes” should be imitated. Some of the “greatest” figures of the Bible are morally flawed. The only perfect example is Jesus. Nevertheless, it is instructive to see how a character like Joseph exemplifies various aspects of Christ-like character.

Dr. Phil Smith, George Fox University

The Authority of Scripture (Excerpt from God in the Details, Kendall-Hunt, 2017)

One of the most intriguing books in Christian literature of the past half century is Francis Schaeffer’s classic, He is There, and He is not Silent. God exists, and He has spoken! Integral to the Christian Worldview is the concept that God has communicated absolute propositional truth about Himself, creation, and humanity.  This communication is possible because God created people in His own image, Gen. 1:26 (rational, self-aware, self-active, and moral).

While God has revealed certain general truths about Himself in nature (natural revelation), He has communicated more specific truths via spoken and written words (special revelation). God chose certain men to convey His words and provided attestation to His messengers through miraculous signs (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4).  We know these men as the Prophets and Apostles (2 Peter 3:2). The prophetic formula was “Thus says the LORD.” The apostolic formula was “Thus says the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 Peter 1:12; Rev. 3:22). The messages of both Prophet and Apostle, in both spoken and written form, were identified as the very Word of God, and the miraculous signs attested to this bold yet genuine claim. 

Uniquely embedded in God’s special revelation about Himself, creation, and mankind is revelation about this special revelation itself. In 2 Tim. 3:16, we read that “All Scripture is God-breathed.” In 1 Peter 1:21, we read that “No prophecy was of private interpretation, but men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”  In 2 Peter 3:15-16, we find that Paul’s writings were considered “Scripture.” These passages teach that all of the prophetic and apostolic writings were ultimately of divine origin. While God spoke through men and utilized their intellects and unique personalities, at the same time, He also ensured that what His messengers spoke and wrote was exactly and precisely what He wanted to be communicated—extending even to the very words (Matt. 22:31-32; Mark 12:35-37; Gal. 3:16). Theologians refer to this divine superintendence as the “Inspiration of Scripture.” Because Scripture is verbally (every word) and plenary (every portion) inspired, it is infallible (cannot err) and is therefore inerrant (does not err).

The Inspiration of Scripture is foundational to the Authority of Scripture. If God (infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth) has indeed addressed a particular subject, then it follows that such information must be considered ultimate, final, and absolute. In Scripture, God addresses morality, sin, salvation, and eternal life. But He also addresses science and history.  Whenever God speaks, the result is ultimate, final, and absolute truth. The authority of Scripture has as its very basis the authority of God Himself. Put simply, “What God says, goes!”

Obviously, many books claim to be authoritative revelation from God. What makes the Bible so different? Many things! The Bible was written over a period of about 1500 years by almost forty different authors, yet has one central overarching theme: the redemption of sinners through the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Bible contains hundreds of predictive prophecies (there are over 300 Messianic prophecies alone), which are fulfilled in minute detail hundreds, and sometimes, thousands of years from the original prophecy.  The multiple typologies presented in the Old Testament all find their complete fulfillment thousands of years later in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The public (and therefore indisputable) miracles performed by the prophets and apostles as God’s messengers attest to the divine origin of their message.  Jesus, as the Great Prophet, taught that the writings of the Old Testament were divine in origin (Matt. 5:17-18; John 10:35) and His resurrection attests to the truth of this teaching. This same resurrected Jesus promised that His commissioned Apostles would be directed and taught by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13-15). Lastly, the martyrdom of the Apostles is a strong testimony to the integrity and authenticity of their writings as God’s messengers.

God has not left us in the dark as to which book He has authored.  Indeed, its authority stems from its Author.

 

John H. McDonald, B.A., M.A., Th.D. currently serves as the Director of The North American               Reformed Seminary in Sumter, SC and previously taught Biblical and Worldview Studies                                         at Chamberlain-Hunt Military Academy in Port Gibson, MS.