Task of the church 3
What the task of the church is cannot be captured in a few contributions. This cannot be understood in isolation. It is precisely in fellowship that we can grasp “the breadth and length and depth and height, (…) even the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge” (Eph 3:17-19).
Imagine you have been at home in a church or free church all your life, but have set out on the path to a new understanding, at least inwardly, and are now wondering how a community can be formed. The new understanding may no longer fit in with the community you are part of. Since many people are embarking on the path to a new Christianity in this way, the question arises:
Is it time for a new kind of community? Or: What are the characteristics of a community to which I would like to belong?
Exclusive or inclusive?
What would be the task of the church here? Isn’t it to allow questions, to promote a culture of learning, to create an environment in which honest questions can be discussed openly? By this I do not mean that one should give priority to a special doctrine in a misunderstood tolerance. Rather, it is about honoring the essential questions of the church, of the people, and giving them a suitable space for discussion. In other words, the understanding of the community should not be exclusive, but inclusive.
- In an exclusive understanding, it would be about “only right, nothing wrong”. It is a black-and-white way of thinking in which uniformity is demanded.
- In an inclusive understanding, people and their questions are welcome. It is about growing understanding, promoting community, exchange and learning. Those who ask questions are always welcome.
Identity
If I imagine a community of the future, a church 2.0 so to speak, then it is about questions of identity, with a clear goal in mind. In the sense of what Paul described:
“But if we are true, we should make everything grow in love, into Him who is the head, Christ.”
Eph 4:15
This sentence is still the guiding principle in many communities today. If we imagine what it takes, then I think there are two ways of looking at it:
- The personal identity
The community is a place where everyone comes together for the good of all. - The identity of the community
Carried by Christ, people are accompanied towards Christ.
Here is the challenge:
In some of the communities I was in, people were only looking for a common identity that was binding for everyone in the community. This was at the expense of personal identity and integrity. It is not inviting (inclusive), but expansive (exclusive). This is expressed in comments such as:
“You want to take part in a marriage course even though you’re single? You’re not allowed to.” This is not supportive, but patronizing, unloving and arrogant towards adults. People do not live as a community that travels together, but find security in separation and the justification of supposed authority in paternalism.
Another statement that has stayed with me:
“He’s a gifted musician, but he’s not allowed to play music on stage because he’s unmarried and with a woman”. Both were over 50, came from previous marriages, but obviously didn’t fit in. Then it is excluded. Never mind that their relationship only needed time to develop and even led to a marriage later on (again in line with expectations). The damage was done. Hypocrisy and outward form were obviously more important to the church leadership than genuine, lived holiness.
One last example:
Someone else told me how a gifted writer in the community had ended his own life. After that, no one in this parish was allowed to read his books. This man had not only erased his life out of necessity, but was also erased by the community of which he had been a part all his life. Shocking.
When I hear stories like this, I think, what would Jesus, the apostles and the first churches have done? I also can’t escape the impression that this kind of “community culture” is often just fear-driven. Fear of derailment, of missteps, of “unbiblical” behavior. In the background, there is probably a vengeful God and a threatening message.
Participation
In an inclusive community, people are invited, not because you have secret conversion intentions, but because you are happy to share your own community, your own wealth, with others (2 Corinthians 5:14-21).
I was a member of an English-speaking Reformed congregation in St. Gallen, Switzerland, for many years. The following happened:
One morning, shortly before the start of the service, a drunken man stumbled into the church. He had probably been drinking through the night. Someone picked him up and sat next to him in one of the last rows. After a while he called out loudly through the church, asking if he could do it in German, then he would understand more. They tried to make it clear to him that this service was in English.
A little later, he stood up during the sermon, walked down the center aisle to the front and was caught by the pastor, who spoke to him briefly. He sat down again.
Afterwards, the small congregation met at the front of the church and stood in a circle for bread and wine (communion/eucharist). Pastor and parishioners served each other. It was a shared experience. This drunken man was of course also present, stood in the circle and was of course given bread and wine. He was part of the shared experience and was warmly welcomed.
Neither the identity of the community nor the identity of those present was in danger. Everyone was fine and welcome to celebrate the service together. Weren’t we all perfectly imperfect and in need of God’s grace? In an exclusive understanding, this man’s appearance would be perceived as disruptive. Disruptive in the game called “church”. Here, however, there was an inclusive understanding of the community. It was not a game, but a shared reality in which everyone is aware of the inviting power of God’s grace. I have had several such groundbreaking experiences over the years.
What is the crux of the matter? Community is to be sought not only in teaching, but also in practical community. Faith only becomes effective through love. We can travel with people, even if they are in a different place to us. Of course, the service was celebrated and there was no need to be distracted from it. This identity was not lost. It was also self-evident that this man was welcome. Neither his identity and integrity nor those of the other people present were violated. It was both a human encounter and a shadow of a divine encounter, characterized by grace.
Faith is not only in the mind and personal, but is first lived and learned in the community. A future church should consciously strive for this attitude. Community is formative and necessary for a healthy faith.
Eternity in the heart
Now we can draw the circle a little wider. If it’s not just about the right knowledge, not just about everyone thinking like me, how can you stand in this world?
We could start from this statement from the book of Ecclesiastes:
“He has made everything beautiful in its time; he has also placed eternity in its heart, without man being able to comprehend the work that God has wrought from beginning to end.”
Eccl 3:11
Here the preacher is not talking about believers, and certainly not about a New Testament church of the Pauline model. Here Solomon, the son of David (Ecclesiastes 1:1), speaks about something that God has given to man. This does not affect just a few believers, but simply all people. It is an assessment that could not be more comprehensive.
God has placed eternity (heb. olam) in the heart of man, without man being able to comprehend the work that God has done from beginning to end. In other words, people have received something without automatically understanding everything. He may have an idea, but no knowledge, and certainly no understanding.
This hunch is God-given. We must not underestimate this, but can recognize it as deeply human and at the same time deeply divine. Every person, regardless of origin or faith, and regardless of supposed wisdom or special knowledge, has been given an inkling of what is to come. It is part of the human DNA, so to speak, in a visual language. The Hebrew olam is translated here as “eternity”. In modern Hebrew, it simply stands for “world”. In the context of Scripture, it is often also a reference to the world to come, the age to come, to a time when the misery of this world will be replaced by something better. This is the premonition, as Paul also writes about it:
“For the premonition of creation awaits the unveiling of the sons of God.”
Rom 8:19
The premonition waits and awaits. She longs for the future, so to speak, in the hope that things will get better. You suspect something without knowing exactly what it is. That connects all people. From there, you can continue the conversation without being arrogant.
“For we know that the whole creation groans and travails with us until now. But not only they alone, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For it is for this expectation that we have been saved.”
Rom 8:22-24 CNT
Could this shared foreboding, not knowing or knowing, be a basis for hospitality, for conversation and invitation? Can a Christian community, standing in its own identity, be an inclusive community and meet people honestly and openly? Can we let people with a premonition and their own understanding be part of our community, our meetings and services? Or do they first have to convert and conform to our idea so that they can be properly accepted? Where would you, dear reader, make a difference and why?
Where are the boundaries by which the identity of the community can be measured? These questions about the nature of the community are not yet an answer. Here, each community is called upon to think further. What is the task of the church in this world? Why would that be the case?
Deepening
- Discuss: Do I meet first as a human being or first as a believer? What are the consequences?
- Discuss: Why do I want to experience fellowship with believers?
- Discuss: What if people think differently than I do?
- Discuss: What is the task of the church for you, for believers, for the world?
Task of the church 2
The church has one or more tasks, but what are they? How one sees the church depends on the viewer’s understanding. This idea was developed in the first article in this series. This article provides additional perspectives for your own evaluation.
This world and the hereafter
Some see the task of the church exclusively in this world. This church is then oriented towards this world. Others see the task of the church entirely in saving us from an eternal hell and cultivate the prospect of “a life in heaven”. This understanding is focussed on the hereafter. There are, of course, many shades between the two extremes. It is certainly important how we live today, and it also helps to have an outlook.
If we ask about the task of the church, then the interpretation can be seen as a slider. This slider can be moved freely between the two poles “Now” and “Hereafter”. Some will probably only focus on the hereafter, while others will emphasize living in the here-and-now. That would then be the personal interpretation, the personal understanding or the personal wish.
Where should your ideal community focus, and why?
A construction project
Let’s imagine that the community is a construction project, such as a house. Two thousand years have passed since the first settlement, since the first community. Building methods have changed, wealth has increased and simple houses of that time no longer meet the requirements of today. Apart from that, houses in biblical times were built in a different climate to today’s houses in Western Europe, for example. There are many differences. How do we want to build now?
These differences are neither good nor bad and should not be judged. It’s not that we want to build a house in our latitudes at any price, which was once perfectly suitable for the Middle East. We have to build our own house. If we do this, we are showing common sense.
You can, of course, choose to build a house in the style of a bygone era. This results in a neo-Gothic or neo-classical style, for example. In a Christian environment, people often want to go back to the Bible, back to the beginning. Others prefer a traditional form that was perhaps valid 100 years ago. But is that possible?
Or one longs for a theocratic future, for judgment and the dissolution of the current world order, imagines oneself in the end times and wants to realize the Heavenly Jerusalem. This seems to me to be almost identical to the desire of some radical Islamist groups to establish a caliphate. The content seems to be different, but is it perhaps about similar human mechanisms? For example, the desire to simplify the complexity of our world? Why do many people feel drawn to such ideas?
Back to the idea of a construction project. For a house to be built, it needs the theoretician and the practitioner. It needs an architect, but also talented craftsmen and a builder to ensure that everything is of good quality. Thinking about the church of tomorrow or trying to imagine a vibrant community in 5, 10 or 20 years’ time are visionary steps. This requires visionary thinkers and many small practical steps in implementation.
The first step is to think about what general tasks a church should perform or what tasks it is called to perform. What evidence is there from the Bible itself?
The called out one
In the first article, reference was made to the word for “church” used in the Bible. In terms of etymology, the Greek word ekklesia means “called out ones”. The idea behind this, as mentioned in the last article, is that God calls people to this community. It is not a personal achievement, but a gift that some receive while others do not. It has nothing to do with the doctrine one adheres to or with the community of which I am a part. Not everyone is called, but the church is by definition a “called out one”, a subset of all people.
The seduction now lies in the fact that this idea, which is derived directly from the Bible, is regarded as “exclusivity”. This is by no means the purpose of the term. Those who belong to today’s church are no better than other people, but they have been called. There is a difference, and there are also privileges (compare for example Eph 1:3). Just as Paul describes that God is a savior of all people, but especially of believers (1Tim 4:9-11).
An idea from the first article in this series saw the congregation as a called-out group with its own task. The municipality is not the first group to be called out. Israel, too, was once called out from among the nations and received a commission to do so.
In addition, the following observation can be made: whenever “called out”, i.e. “chosen”, was mentioned in Scripture, it was not as a final goal, but as a calling to a task. Whoever is called should become an instrument and a channel of blessing. If the congregation is now also a “called out one”, one can ask about the actual task of the congregation. Is the church also a tool and a channel of blessing? Then it is not about the question of how I myself stand in this world, but about the task of the church as a whole. It is about the question of what we are called to do as a church.
There are various examples of a vocation for a task:
- Abram
- Israel
- Community today.
An article on the topic of “election” has already been published on this website. It shows that Abram was called out to set out on his journey. He received several promises. One promise concerned the Promised Land. He was to set out and go to the land that God would show him (Gen 12:1). However, another promise concerned all of humanity. Abram was told that all the families of the earth would be blessed through him (Gen 12:3). What Abram himself did was part of a bigger story.
Tasks of the municipality
Paul writes:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Eph 2:8-10
The church is God’s work. Paul also immediately mentions that this calling was for a purpose: “created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them”. This is a clear, this-worldly focus. In the here and now, God himself prepares good works for us to do. That is very liberating. My endeavour is to pay attention, my prayer is for insight and a listening heart (1 Kings 3:9), so that I can only recognize what has already been prepared. I think that makes it stress-free.
Although I can accept this as personal encouragement, Paul describes it in a circular letter (Ephesians) to various churches. It is therefore not a characteristic of personal faith alone, but should also be part of the community. So here we can ask for our understanding of the church: How can we do good and find good works that God has prepared for us?
Is this-worldly orientation the only task?
No. According to Paul, the church has a much greater task. He also describes this in Ephesians:
“He subordinates everything [Gott] to Him, [Christus] under Him, at His feet; and He gives Him as head over everything to the called-out church, which is His body, the completion of Him who completes the universe in everything.”
Eph 1:22-23
The church here is the completion of Christ, who completes everything in everything. That is a distant goal. This means that the church, the body of Christ, is involved in the fulfillment of God’s purposes. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that God’s goal is to one day become all in all. Christ will achieve this, writes Paul. The church, however, is seen as the completion of Christ. The church is “the completion of him who completes the universe in everything”. The body of Christ, the church, therefore not only has a task in the here and now, but also a future task.
What is the future task and how is this future linked to our present experience?
The experience of grace
The apostle Paul describes his understanding of this world and how it touches God’s world. Grace characterizes God’s work in the church (Eph 2:8; Eph 3:2). Grace is especially formative for our time. Let’s keep that in mind. Paul also describes in Ephesians that we have a future task:
“God … He makes us [Juden und Nationen-Gläubige in der Gemeinde] alive together in Christ (in grace you are saved), and He raises us up together and sets us down together in the midst of the heavenly ones in Christ Jesus to in the coming eons the all transcending Riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus To put on display.”
Eph 2:4-7
God’s riches of grace, which He shows us in Christ Jesus, will be on display in the ages to come. This is a future task for the church: displaying grace. Where. In the midst of the supernatural.
It seems strange that it would be necessary to show mercy in heaven. For many, the sky is the place of perfection par excellence. However, this is not the case in the Bible. Consider, for example, the book of Job, which describes how Satan appears in the midst of the sons of God in heaven (Job 1:6; Job 2:1). In Peter we read that even angels are curious about the gospel (1Pet 1:12). The supposedly perfect heavenly beings do not know grace. That is why there is still a task to be completed there before God can actually be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).
If we summarize this, then there are these two tasks for the municipality:
- Here and now
In this eon: Doing good works that God has already prepared - Future
In the eons to come: Displaying God’s grace in the midst of the Supermundane Beings.
If we fulfill our tasks today, we will learn to recognize grace. We experience grace. This experience will also be useful in the future. According to Paul, God will use the church as an example of the effects of grace. We will show mercy.
If we formulate this differently, then Paul takes a pragmatic approach:
There is much good to be done today, and may God open our eyes to the tasks He has already prepared for us to carry out. This is how we can stand positively in this world. Experience in this world, however good or difficult, also teaches us to recognize grace. It is the experience of grace that enriches our lives now, but also prepares us for a still distant future. Then we will put this experienced grace on display and participate in the final goal of God as an extension of Christ. That makes sense and is meaningful.
Deepening
- Describe in your own words what was new to you in this article.
- How would you reset the slider after reading this post?
- What do you want to think next?
- What do you want to do next?
- Discuss Ephesians 4:15-16 in light of present and future tasks of the church.
Task of the church 1
How can we think about the task of the church or congregation? What does a community look like that I enjoy being part of?
Ekklesia
Christian community can be many things. In the New Testament, the word “ekklesia” is used in the basic text to describe the community of believers. Literally translated, this means something like “called out ones”. The congregation or church is the called out one, i.e. a group of people who know they have been called. This calling is from God and not an achievement of our own. Those called out are the recipients. They came to faith and saw themselves and their community as being “called out”. Who called? Christ or God. Paul, for example, describes believers as “called by Jesus Christ” and as “beloved of God, called saints who are in Rome” (Romans 1:6-7).
The term Ekklesia is often used to make it clear that not all people are called. It is a selection that has been called out, not all of humanity. Although the church is to become complete (cf. Romans 11:25, “until the full number of the nations comes in”), this does not mean that all people in the world will then “believe”. Although the church or congregation is open to other people, its nature is not to welcome everyone. This statement will probably offend many, because people often think that the church is there to reach all people. However, this assumption confuses several things.
- No, not all people are called into the church. The congregation is by definition a partial selection, called “the called out ones”. It is God who calls and calls.
- Yes, the church has a task that is greater than itself, even for other people.
Theological challenges
Common challenges in the interpretation of the church are characterized by doctrine:
- One interpretation is that the church or congregation is a lifeboat. This idea arose against the background of the doctrine of hell, according to which all people who have not made a decision for Jesus in this life are “lost”. Whoever believes is saved and then belongs to the church. The church or congregation is not a group of people called by God, but people who have chosen Jesus for themselves and through this “achievement” they escape hell. So whoever believes will be saved and “has achieved it”. Entering the church is also the achievement of the final goal. After that, it’s no longer exciting because you’ve already reached the supposed final destination.
- Another interpretation is that the church or congregation is the kingdom of God on earth. This idea comes from the interpretation that God is establishing his kingdom here and now through the church. God is working and things are not yet as they should be, but we are on the way there. It is the task of the church to bring the kingdom of God into the world and thus contribute to the realization of the kingdom of God. In other words: God needs us so that He can reach His goal. Although this view also seeks support from the Bible, the significance of the church as the “called out ones” is merely the preliminary stage and leads seamlessly to the liberation of all humanity. When this happens, the term “called out ones” naturally no longer has any meaning, because all people should be brought together into this kingdom of God and there is no longer a partial selection (note: here the terms “kingdom” and “church” become confused). This idea was made possible by replacement theology, according to which today’s church replaces the people of Israel. Although this is rarely taught today, this is where the alignment and confusion of the Kingdom of God with the Church comes from. This has far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of the New and Old Testaments.
- There is, of course, a third view. This is the interpretation that the church (“ekklesia” or “called out ones”) has its own task for a certain time, based neither on doctrines of hell nor on replacement theology. The community is formed until the selection is complete. Not all people in the world are called, but a “called out one” is formed who, when ready, has a task to fulfill. In this view, the church is not the final destination, but merely an intermediate goal. The community is something like a tool that is formed today and used in the past. The aim is not to save all people today, nor to establish a theocracy.
According to this third view, the church is one tool among many. Israel is also an instrument and an ekklesia, a called-out multitude, a called-out people. Not all nations are called, but Israel is called. Israel and the church today both have a task. The tasks are not identical and everyone is prepared for their own task.
Community of people
In a completely unspectacular way, the church can also be seen as a simple community of people. Of course, these people have something in common and that may have everything to do with what is mentioned above. Underneath this, however, lies a basic human need: the desire for community. We are geared towards encounters. The church is also, or perhaps above all, a human community.
I meet other people at church or in the community. We work on topics together and learn from each other. You become human in the encounter. The characteristics can be very different based on the teachings of the community, the subculture. You can approve or disapprove of this. However, the basic prerequisite remains that people meet. I assume that people are made for encounters. We meet because we are human.
The community is therefore also something that corresponds to us as human beings. This community is not “divine” because people meet. It is a human characteristic that is good because it is how we function and learn. So if we are called into a community, just as the church as “Ekklesia” is a called-out flock, then this characteristic is desirable because we are human. It could have been completely different, but it isn’t.
The church as a community of people thereby answers essential needs and also creates the opportunity to make a significant difference in the world, in society and for each other. The community is good because we are human. What connects us and perhaps aligns us together is only a second level. I keep these two levels separate so that the human element is not lost. The human aspect of the church is good, and this needs to be mentioned again and again in contrast to overly pious and detached life plans.
If we can see it this way, then it also becomes clear that the original churches did not simply meet “just to study the Bible”, but also had communal manifestations (Acts 2:42). There was also the “fellowship of service” (2 Corinthians 8:4), in which a common task was carried out. People were also used for practical tasks throughout Scripture (Numbers 3; Deuteronomy 1:1-15; Acts 6:1-3). The organization of the community was never “only spiritual”, even if the reason for the community was a common spiritual orientation.
Considering practical things was also Paul’s concern (Phil 4:8-9). The apostle also writes:
“As for these [Wahrheiten], I have decided that you should insist on them, so that those who have believed in God may set their minds on standing up for noble works. This is excellent and useful to people.”
Titus 3:8
Being empathetic is not simply part of good manners, but corresponds to and responds to our humanity:
“We must rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep.”
Rom 12:15
Community as a living space
From the previous considerations, one could also say that the community is a living space. This is where we meet. We could think of other terms for this:
- Workshop of faith
- Practice field
- Common ground
- Travel company
We can control how we see our own community. Some only use biblical terms to think about it. However, if we understand what we are talking about, we become free to use other terms. Words shape our understanding and can also open doors to further understanding. If we find new words, we can also imagine a future that is supported by love and grace and oriented towards God-given humanity. Or would we have to formulate this in a different way?
I have summarized some further thoughts in the following video:
Deepening
Discuss the following assertions and questions:
- (No) Church without Christ
- Faith is human
- What connects us and what divides us?
- Words or deeds?
- I go to church because …
- I no longer go to a church because …
- All it takes is Bible study for me to feel like a Christian.
- My feelings get in the way of my faith
- Faith = feeling?
- Freedom and church do not go together
- What can a community look like where I am happy to be a part of it?
- I need a church building for my faith
- Tradition and ritual are a good thing because …
- What has shaped my understanding of faith the most to this day?
Is Jesus God?
In Romans 9:5 there is a remarkable statement that is often quoted as proof of the deity of Jesus. This biblical passage is therefore an indication of the Trinity as it is taught in many places.
This statement by Paul cannot be represented in one verse. It’s about a longer sentence. It starts like this:
“I speak the truth in Christ (I do not lie, my conscience testifies to me in the Holy Spirit): Great sorrow is in me and unceasing pain in my heart – for I wish to be banished from Christ myself – for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.”
Rom 9:1-3 CNT*
Paul has something on his mind. He is saddened and feels pain. This pain affects his relatives in the flesh, who are Israelites. He feels connected to them. Paul sees himself as having a great treasure, a great experience that he would like to share with his fellow Jews. He says it here indirectly: “for I wish to be banished from Christ myself – for my brothers”. The apostle feels gifted by Christ, but wishes that his fellow Jews could also recognize this. The wealth he has obtained himself is so real to him that his knowledge and desire are no longer secondary. He even wishes that he himself were banished from Christ, if only his fellow Jews could recognize this. He would therefore be prepared to give up his wealth if this wealth were to reach his fellow Israelites.
Then comes the second part:
“My brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites …
to whom belong sonship and glory,
the alliances and legislation,
the divine service and the promises to which the fathers belong
and from whom Christ came according to the flesh,
who is above all, God, blessed for the eons! Amen!”
Rom 9:4-5 KNT
Paul speaks about Israel and about all the riches that the people have already received. He speaks about the whole people, from whom he himself comes, but from whom Christ also comes, who is over all, God, blessed for the eons (ages).
Is Christ God?
The title of this article was: “Is Jesus God”. However, the verse quoted from Romans speaks of Christ and mentions the word God in the same verse. Christ and Jesus are not the same thing. Christ is a function, a title, while Jesus is a name. That is why they are often mentioned together, such as “Jesus Christ” or, in the case of Paul, predominantly “Christ Jesus”. This states that Jesus is the Christ, or more precisely the Messiah. When Paul puts the designation before the name, it is after the resurrection and we should pay careful attention to these small changes because they each appear in their own context.
This letter to the Romans is about Christ, who comes from Israel. Christ means the same as the Hebrew word “Messiah”, but Paul is not explaining the idea of a Messiah as promised to Israel. He speaks to the Romans, to a congregation from all nations who had come to know this Jesus as “Christ”, as the Risen One. Paul writes about Christ from the gospel, as he explained earlier in Romans. This is not about a messianic expectation, but about something completely new, in which this Jewish Messiah became the Risen One, who now had a direct message for the nations outside the intended role of the Jewish prophets. That was new. The prophets thought of salvation being mediated by the people of Israel. Paul explains in these chapters that salvation today comes directly to the nations without mediation via Israel.
So much for the background to these terms.
But now the word “God” is in the sentence. Does this now mean that Jesus is “God Himself”, and from this that He is part of a Trinity? That is probably a little far from the truth. There are two things to consider carefully when looking at the Bible:
- What is written directly
- What is not written.
Let’s start with the last one. There is nothing here about Jesus being “God himself”, nor is there any reference to a Trinity. These two things are superimposed on the text.
But what does it say? It is this: “Christ, who is over all, God”. Both the word “Christ” and the word “God” are not proper names, but general titles and functions. Christ means “anointed one” and kings, prophets and priests were anointed. The anointing was confirmation of the task. The word “God” is also a designation and title. The same word was used in the Old Testament for the almighty God and for idols (Heb. Elohim). People were also called God, for example in Ex 7,1. It is clear from this that this word needs a context so that we can interpret it.
The word “God” is not clearly directed at a person, any more than the word “Messiah” was directed at a person.
God and Messiah
The word “God” is not clearly directed at a person, any more than the word “Messiah” was directed at a person. The fact that Jesus was now recognized as the promised deliverer and saviour and that the term Messiah was assigned to Him (cf. Dan 9:25 and John 1:41) is an insight that cannot be derived from the word itself. It is a realization of the people.
Although it is common among Christ to refer to Jesus as “Christ”, Jews often use other terms. Nathanael, for example, testified: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49). These were the usual designations. The link with the word “Christ” can be traced, but not everywhere in the Old Testament, but only later, as in the prophet Daniel, as well as in the New Testament. Nathanael had obviously not yet jumped on this bandwagon and found other terms that applied just as well.
So in Romans 9:5 we are dealing with two function designations, Christ and God. They are both applied here to the Risen One, Jesus Christ, but this does not make these terms “exclusive designations” or names. The context of the verse is quite clear: “Christ, who is over all, God”.
The doctrine of the Trinity attempts to relate “God” to “Christ” in order to prove the deity of Jesus. However, it is not explicitly written that way. It seems simpler to me if you read it like this: God refers to “he who is above all”. God refers to someone who is above all in one word. What is meant must be clear from the context. An absolute claim cannot be derived from this.
The Greek word for God is “Theos”, derived from the root word “the” or “set”. God is the one who stands above all and assigns everything to its own place or puts it there. God is who is in charge. However, this statement does not mean that God is used “therefore” in an absolute sense, i.e. to denote the Most High. The word God is used in several ways, namely demonstrably for the only God as well as for idols and even for people. That is precisely the point here.
Example:
When Jesus mentioned that God the Father and He were “one”, the Jews carried stones to stone Him for blasphemy. It was wrongly concluded here that the word “God” is only unambiguous, which it is not. Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6, where people are called “God” and “sons of the Most High”. They are ordinary people. It was therefore unnecessary to stone him, because he did not make himself equal to God.
Everything under Christ
When it is testified that Christ “is above all” and therefore God, we learn the following from First Corinthians:
“For He subordinated everything to Him: Under His feet. When He then says “Everything has been subordinated to Him”, it is obvious that God is the one who subordinated the universe to Him. But if the universe is subordinate to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subordinate to Him who subordinated the universe to Him, so that God may be all in all.”
1Cor 15:27-28
Paul teaches that Christ subordinates everything and when this is achieved, the Son will also subordinate himself to God so that God can be “all in all”. This is the goal. We are working towards this goal. Everything is to come under Christ, but this is merely the preliminary stage to Christ subordinating himself to God. The goal is not “Christ all in all”, but “God all in all”.
The letter to the Ephesians says:
“He (God) subordinates everything to Him (Christ), at His feet; and He (Christ) gives Him (God) as head over everything to the called-out church, which is His body, the completion of Him who completes the universe in everything.”
Eph 1:22-23
These are strong indications that Christ “is above all”, which is why the term “God” is correct, but this does not mean that He is God Himself. Submission to Christ is an intermediate goal, not a final goal. It in no way means that Christ is therefore God, because God makes it possible for everything to be subsumed under Christ.
Paul taught very clearly:
“We know that an idol is nothing in the world and it there is no other God but the One. For although there are so-called gods (whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many gods and many lords), for us only One God, the Father, from whom is the universe (and we are turned to Him), and only One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom the universe has become (and we are through Him). But not in all of them is that realization.”
1Cor 8:4-7
Who is God?
There is only one God. This is the father. Neither Jesus nor Christ are God, even if they are called the Son of God or simply God. God is not a proper name or a unique designation. The term God is used for people, idols and also for the One God. It is not an exclusive designation from which exclusive values can be derived. The context shows this, especially the connections that Paul himself gives in his letters.
Does that make me a Unitarian? Well, I don’t think so, because Unitarians often not only speak of God the Father as the only true God, but also define Jesus as a human being. Although this is also explicitly mentioned in the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:5), it leaves other New Testament testimonies untouched (for example Colossians 1:15). The fact that Jesus is neither “deity” nor part of the Trinity does not make Him a creature. So this article did not refute all possible ideas about Jesus, but only wanted to clarify this one aspect: Is Jesus God, and what does that mean?
Bible texts critically examined in favor of a trinity
In Christianity, it is predominantly assumed that God is One, but still Three in an unknown way. No one knows exactly, but many are sure that there is a so-called “Trinity”, even if one does not find any information about it in the Bible. Neither the prophets, nor Jesus, nor the apostles, nor anyone else from biblical times speaks about it.
Various biblical passages are cited to support the teaching. Therefore, you can check this information. This post is about one of those scriptures. The only consideration here is whether this one biblical passage can be interpreted in favor of a Trinity. Maybe she can, maybe she can’t. Maybe at the end you have one argument more, maybe one argument less. That is all that is done here. I share here what I have found to be the best, clearest interpretation. Maybe you have a better interpretation?
The arguments pro-Trinity doctrine divide into two groups:
- Arguments around the number “3
- Arguments around the “deity of all participants
What I have gathered and found in this regard is not a default, but only the result of my personal examination. This article can therefore be seen as only a small part of a much larger argument towards a positive discussion that weighs how we can see and know God. This post, like this website in general, is all about fostering a “learning culture.” It is about topics and questions that have been mentioned as such in countless conversations. That wants to be heard, discussed. Of course, this is demanding, especially when it comes to controversial topics. See also the introductory text on the topic “Who is God?” and on the differences in discussions the contribution “Living with contradiction“.
* Concordant New Testament (German, automatically translated into Dutch and English)
It's nice that Jesus thinks just like me
I am always amazed at the conviction with which people are convinced of the correctness of their own thinking. This attitude frequently leads to strange statements, such as that Jesus sees it exactly as you have just said it yourself. I am speechless for a moment and quickly drop out of the conversation. One would be tempted to shout once again, “Nice that Jesus sees it just like you do!”. Better not to do that.
Not everyone is aware that the cherished view is merely an interpretation attributed to the aura of infallibility. You confuse interpretation with biblical statements and think that the statement must express this or that, namely exactly what you yourself think. It is a religious short-circuit, a projection of one’s own thoughts onto the words of the Bible, which then suddenly become universally valid.
However, I also understand that any shake-up of cherished views is perceived as a threat. That is unsettling. Perhaps one could deduce from this that many people seek a sense of security in their beliefs that they would otherwise not have. Self-reflection led me to this statement.
The search for reliability
My search for God was once a search for reliability. As a teenager, I had discovered that my understanding was limited. At the same time, I realized that this was true for all people. Where can I find reliability? That was the starting signal for me to go in search of God. If there were a God worthy of the name, it would perhaps be without human imperfection and limitations. I wasn’t sure about that, but it would be worth a try to ask.
Security or reliability were important to me and I recognize a similar theme in many other people. Does faith merely conceal one’s own insecurity? Some draw the reverse conclusion, that faith is merely a way of concealing one’s own insecurity in order to discredit faith. However, that would be an almost naïve simplification. People evolve. There are topics of importance in this development. They have to do with ourselves, what makes us tick and what we have experienced so far. Confrontation is part of being human, and all experiences play a role there. There is often a starting signal, an occasion, an initial question to prompt a rethink. In my opinion, this applies to every new direction in life, to every “conversion”.
Insecurity is an issue for many people. This is often concealed with arrogance, narcissism, know-it-all attitude and the like. Jesus, for example, repeatedly had to deal with the self-righteous religious leaders of his time. Even today there are people who think they are better, more right, more sinless and holier than others. They are most likely to be seduced into thinking that “Jesus sees it the same way I do”.
Does Jesus think like me?
Hardly, is the answer. This misjudgment simply shows ignorance. It is an ignorance of both the Bible and one’s own tradition. Anyone who interprets their current knowledge as Jesus’ opinion and final truth has elevated themselves to the status of God. Those who seek absolute knowledge or are led to believe that they have it are under pressure from this expectation. Religious demands can put people in great distress.
If we think about the insecurity that many people struggle with, it is a false sense of security to see oneself or one’s own understanding as the measure of all things. It does not mean that we cannot know anything, but that expecting absolute knowledge is neither realistic nor helpful. Another argument against this is that sectarian and ideological views should never be questioned. Their greatest attraction is their infallibility, their supposed security. In fact, this is merely a projection.
The way out of this trap does not have to be a farewell to faith. As long as we seek security in knowledge, we cannot let go of knowledge. If one can instead place security in God himself, then knowledge does not necessarily have to be part of it. People would be free to adapt their understanding without this affecting their personal understanding of faith.
There is a third way: we accept our existence in this world as God-given and take our human existence as our starting point instead of imposing religious expectations. We are human because God created us that way. We can and may fulfill our humanity because this is the only way we can live here. This is not a religious view, but a pragmatic realization. How we live as human beings in this world is yet another question. It is not the starting point, but the elaboration of the starting point. First of all, it’s about what our lives are anchored in.
These three possibilities speak of the anchoring of our lives:
- Anchored in religious assumptions, as an ideologue (“believing something”)
- Anchoring in God, as a believer (“someone” to trust)
- Anchoring in this world, as a human being (sober starting position).
Many Christians will say that we must follow point 2. We should be anchored in God. I can agree with this, but I think that this can never be the starting position. We are human first, before we can think anything as a human being. Adam also had to be human before God could speak to him.
The order of these points should perhaps be considered in reverse order. We are human beings first, who can only trust, namely believe, as human beings and perfectly imperfectly. Anyone who gets bogged down in juxtapositions such as right and wrong and certain views can become an ideologue.
Perhaps the trick is not to take the last step, but instead to always remain willing to learn. This last step is critical because it gives rise to sectarian attitudes. Whoever is caught up in this does not live from trust, but from the approval of rigid ideas.
Debunking ideologies
Several contributions question self-righteous representations and sect-like imprints. How can you recognize this and find your way out? Some further links:
The stories we believe in
Thank God there are stories. Some believe that God is also just a story. However, I don’t want to write about that here. However, it seems important to write about stories. Because stories are part of our humanity. We tell stories, believe stories and are motivated by stories.
When stories are frowned upon
I experienced this first-hand: stories were frowned upon. Because, they said, only the Bible is truth and everything else is therefore untruth. Stories from outside the Bible are therefore not only not interesting and have no message, but are always less good and valuable than the biblical stories. If I put it a little more negatively: stories outside the Bible are untrue, if not from the devil.
Many Christians have a divided relationship with the truth. The proclamation in our own ranks is often characterized by this juxtaposition of true and false. That is why everything that is not preached from the pulpit seems suspicious. However, because you also have to prove yourself in everyday life, which is obviously not so black and white, there is a tension between life and faith.
Do you recognize that?
Live only in your own interpretation
- In some communities fairy tales are not allowed to be told (unbiblical and dangerous!)
- Only the books of one’s own teachers deserve attention, not others (others are heretics!)
- I reject any person who does not believe what I believe (I have a lease on the truth)
- I can’t have fellowship with people who believe other stories, follow a different church or even a different religion (all devilish views!)
These and other views show that you only live within your own interpretation, your own preferences, like-minded people and your own “bubble”. Anyone who believes in a different guiding story is initially considered suspect. But what if you could open the window and learn to see different types of stories as “stories” in a non-judgmental way? You don’t have to evaluate everything immediately, but first learn to look at things without judgment. You can see and recognize that other people – like myself – are carried by stories. This would allow you to meet other people or meet people differently.
I can also put it in Christian terms: God loves all people. How should I meet other people then? Shouldn’t it be without secret proselytizing and without condemnation? Each one follows its own story. I don’t have to agree with your story if I want to honor it as “your story”. Perhaps I deliberately chose a particular story. Maybe I just grew up within a certain story. All people live according to the stories in their own heads. We have internalized perspectives. The word perception in German also shows well that we accept something as “true”. Our perception is based on a story. What is the other person’s story?
Anyone who wants to leave sect-like structures or has experienced the lack of freedom of fanatical structures may realize that a new story needs to be told. This allows a change of direction to take place.
We tell each other stories
Every teaching or doctrine, every approach to theology, tells a story. So stories are not only the biblical stories themselves, or stories that people tell each other outside the Bible, but they are also stories about the Bible and what it says. We tell each other these stories because they help us in life and give us an outlook.
Stories convey a message. The word “gospel” literally means “good news”. This shows exactly why it works: a story that attracts attention because it is “good”. This contrasts with “bad news”, for example. Whether the gospel or the good news, both ideas come from the Bible. Of course, there are other stories that are told in the Bible.
In this context, it is worth mentioning that God himself speaks. When it says “And God said, ‘Let there be light! And there was light” (Gen 1:3), then this is a speaking God. This statement is also part of a narrated story. This story impressively describes that spoken words create something and the first thing that is created here is light. What can we learn from this?
We can also think of the story of Elisha, in which he tells the following: “And he went up from thence to Bethel; and as he went up by the way, little boys came out of the city, and mocked him, saying to him, “Come up here, baldy! Come up here, baldy!” And he turned and looked at them and cursed them in the name of Yahweh. Then two bears came out of the forest and tore forty-two children from them.” (2Kings 2:23-24). What should we make of such a story? Whatever you think of it, it is a story told. This is not a judgment, but a value-free statement. This would be a first step towards greater understanding. This story is not good by today’s standards, but it remains a narrated story. What aspects can be extracted from this story? Why and for what purpose was the story written down and told? Such questions can be investigated. This applies even, or especially, if it seems a little strange at first glance.
We tell each other stories because we learn through stories. It is easy to create a moralizing interpretation from the story of Elisha above. But maybe it’s about something else. You can think about that. Stories can and should stimulate thought. This also applies to the stories and ideas you hear from the pulpit.
If we leave black-and-white thinking aside for a while, we may be able to recognize that “telling stories” is part of our humanity. Could this be a reason why the Bible also tells stories?
Stories as tools
It is striking how much people enjoy listening to stories. If you have a good story, you can almost always count on an audience. Stories are told in many different ways. Sermons are part of it, books, movies. Each type of art tells a story in its own way. Good stories tell messages that don’t need any further explanation. The explanation is part of the stories. You can work on the topic by engaging with the stories. Stories are tools for promoting understanding.
Even the Bible tells and uses stories that are outside the biblical story. This is how Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This is a parable and is often wrongly used as a description of hell. The whole story is a folk tale, with the self-righteous scribes believing themselves to be in the “bosom of Abraham”, while the people, for whom they are actually responsible, are left to their fate. Jesus reverses the meaning and thus shakes up the self-image of many religious contemporaries. The story is a parable, not a journalistic report from hell. The Bible has several such cultural references, which can in no way be used as “biblical truth”, but are all the more important as a tool to convey a message.
Religion and politics
Religion can also be misused for manipulation. This can happen in politics, for example. Politics itself also lives from the stories we tell each other (the party program). Some people are more open to religion than to politics. Selling politics as religion is nothing more than an ideologization of certain ideas for the purpose of manipulation. American evangelicalism, for example, is strongly characterized by a link between politics and religion. Ideologization has misappropriated religion. Of course, you can argue that this has nothing to do with faith. That’s true, of course. However, this article is about understanding the importance of stories. Stories are human. That is why they function in misappropriated religion and also in politics.
You can ask people what stories shape their lives. They often refer to the church, the party, the religious community, which are seen as providing meaning. But that is not enough of an answer. At this point, you can continue to ask what stories lie behind it. What stories shape the church, the party and the religious community? The question of motives and motivations provides an interesting insight.
It is the stories we tell each other that give us a sense of belonging, identity, outlook and self-image. That’s why many like to belong to a church, but others like to belong to a football club or are completely absorbed in the family. They know similar human mechanisms, even if the situations in which this is experienced are fundamentally different. This can be recognized: Each group cultivates and tells its own story.
Stories can explain to us why or why we believe and do something. Our lives are placed in a larger context. It is helpful to understand which stories we want to believe and what that does to us. I recently saw a movie that impressively demonstrates these mechanisms.
“The fundamentalists in the south”
This year saw the release of the second part of a new film adaptation of “Dune” by Canadian director Denis Villeneuve. The film is based on the cult novel “Dune” by Frank Herbert, which was first published in 1965. There have been several books, now dozens of books, and there have already been various film adaptations. This new series is making cinema history for several reasons.
Why am I telling you this? Cinema is one of many methods of telling a story. It is full of its own aesthetics, philosophy and deals with many aspects of living together. The second part focuses in particular on religion and politics and their links. I can learn something from such stories, even if I don’t believe everything or think I have to follow it. That is the difference to a rejection of everything that is not described in the Bible.
In this film, the main character Paul Atreides is something of a white messiah in a multicultural environment. He is stylized as a projection surface for religious fanatics. They are called the “fundamentalists in the south”. Are they good or not good? This is not answered, but you do gain an insight into how religious models work and how people devote themselves to religious ideas. It is clear that these fundamentalists in the South have a force of faith that unites them. The term “fundamentalist” is not a distinction. It is rather problematic. Politically, however, this group is of considerable size, which makes the manipulation of the fundamentalists particularly valuable. What are the ideas for reaching these people?
There are already many videos about the philosophical aspects of this movie. Some insights:
Tell stories
What this movie shows brilliantly is the ideological and manipulative side of religion and politics. Behind this are much simpler mechanisms such as the hunger for power. In a positive sense, however, it is about more than just fulfilling Hollywood fantasies. Good and evil are themes, but it is outlined as a development in which people have to make ongoing decisions. It touches on countless other topics, such as ecology, religion, politics, power, violence, love and much more.
Because of all these things, the movie is not “good” in the sense of evangelical black-and-white thinking. The movie is too complex for that. But it is extraordinary storytelling. The movie fits into our time, even though the book was written 60 years ago. That alone is astonishing. It is not about theology, but it is about experience, ideas, social structures and a view of the future. There are surprisingly many parallels to theology and faith.
Here is a thought experiment: If we see our life in this world, our tasks to others as stories, how do we want to shape these stories?
Deepening
- What about our own history – from which perspective do you want to perceive your own history?
- What about the history of the people around us – from what perspective do we want to interact with it?
- What kind of stories would you like to tell yourself – and why?
To do or not to do in faith?
How important is it to do things out of faith? Is it a precondition for God’s favor? Is it the logical consequence? There are very different ideas and opinions on this.
In Hamlet, Shakespeare coined the phrase: “To be or not to be, that is the question“. Hamlet mentions this in a speech in which he compares various life experiences. Two opposing ideas (to be or not to be) are mentioned.
This also happens in philosophies. The idea of “Wu wei”, for example, is well known and is found in many Chinese ideas and is often attributed to Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching). “Wu wei” (or “wuwei”) is “not doing”, as the opposite of “doing”. This is often linked to the idea that not doing something is more important than doing something. However, this is a dramatic simplification of this idea and therefore does not correspond to what is meant by it. Wu wei is an expression that allows a natural development to take its course. Letting go in order to thrive instead of trying to influence with extreme energy expenditure. It is not a guide to laziness, but to attentiveness. The aim is to actively improve the situation, whether this takes place in personal or social life.
To do or not to do? Comparisons like these can help to simplify understanding. This juxtaposition creates a tension that can help us to see things more clearly. Biblical accounts and stories speak of doing. Is it important to do things or not to do things? And if it were important to do something, why would it be important and what are we doing it for?
Legal thinking
Legal thinking refers to ideas that you have to do in order to be accepted. These can be rigid social ideas or religious requirements. It can be about the right clothes, the right words to say, the right church or ideas to adhere to. Here is the juxtaposition: legal thinking is not about “doing the right thing”, but about “doing everything right”. But who defines what is right?
Legal thinking is not about “doing the right thing”, but about “doing everything right”. But who defines what is right?
You are, so to speak, demanding alignment with certain ideas more than the solution to an actual problem or a genuinely empathetic response to a difficult situation. The internalized idea of “truth” takes precedence over humanity. Grace ends where the ideas of “right” stop with the community. Legal thinking prevents growth or adequate responses to current challenges because it can only think in one direction and is no longer open to answering new questions.
In a legal mindset, people are often expected to be “pious” in a certain way. They should live out a certain piety, fit in or even subordinate themselves so that they conform to the ideas of the community. Humanity is rewarded less than uniformity. Good things come to those who adapt. Those who do not adapt are bad. Legalistic thinking shows itself in black-and-white thinking, in which believers are allowed to confirm the general rites and ideas, but receive no support for the open-ended solution of their own questions.
Anyone who wakes up in such an environment and asks serious questions will soon have the wind at their back. Changes or even a reorientation are not tolerated. This is not a carte blanche for sectarian behavior, but an examination of questions of life and faith. It is not about special doctrines, but perhaps it is about taking a closer look at the internalized doctrine. Should the 10 Commandments apply today? This is uncritically assumed in places. Do you have to be baptized to be considered a Christian? It is not uncommon for this to be demanded openly or tacitly.
The bottom line is this: Not every faith community is open to a learning culture. Where this is not the case, a legalistic way of thinking often prevails, in which the Christian self-image has been trimmed to black and white.
To do or not to do?
I keep noticing that many Christians have a split relationship with the term “doing”. This probably applies primarily to Protestantism, to which I also count the evangelical world. Although people talk about God’s love, it is less clear how this love is expressed. It is not uncommon for “faith” to get stuck in our heads and mean something like “believing”. People “believe” dogmas and ideas. Accordingly, there are sermons that plead for faith to slide down from the head into the heart. That marks the problem.
On this website, I advocate understanding the word “faith” as “trust”, analogous to its use and meaning in the Bible. Then it is not so much about “what I believe”, but more about “whom I trust” (cf. Acts 27:25). This is a different direction. When I “believe in something”, it really is top-heavy. When I “trust someone”, it is an alignment of the heart. Trust is always active. Trust cannot be imagined without a concrete impact.
How people or faiths define or derive “doing” is shaped by assumptions. Doing comes from thinking. They are interpretations.
Doing comes from thinking.
A thoroughly Jewish view looks at this from a different angle. It invites you to do things so that you can understand. Doing comes before thinking. It is about experience, which, together with thinking, can give direction. The attitude can be formulated as follows: “Don’t you understand? Start doing it so that you learn to understand”.
Understanding comes from doing.
I can understand both points of view and I can see something good in both. This should not be an “either/or” game. It is important to note that Christian thinking in the western world is strongly based on the head and that evangelicals and Protestants in particular often place a rather one-sided emphasis on thinking and understanding before doing. This can be deduced, for example, from the fact that the Bible is very central and that the Reformation churches often perceive themselves as “the intellectuals”. Of course, there is also a variety of counter-designs, from mysticism to bibliodramas (search: bibliodrama). My point is not that many people are well aware of this one-sided tension and might do something about it. This article is more about the value-free identification of different points of view. In doing so, I use a simplification with the aim of clarification.
But there is also another point that deserves attention: doing, in the sense of “works”, has a rather bad reputation in many circles.
When works prevent action
Quite a few people have grown up with the idea that you have to “do” something to please God. There are two extremes:
- Works are a prerequisite for salvation
What you “do” in this life determines whether God “accepts” you at the last judgment. Your own “good works” are something like a currency that you should use to earn a place in heaven. People see it as their duty and task to live in a way that is pleasing to God. That sounds very pious and sensible! In this duty and task, however, there is also an understanding of justice in which human justice must be great enough to find favor with God. God does something and man does something. Together it is enough for a “rescue”. The fact that salvation is a genuine gift and not a consideration from God for my works is not recognized. - Works are an obstacle to salvation
What you “do” in this life is by definition bad, because we are only dependent on God’s grace. This also sounds very pious and sensible! However, “doing” is frowned upon, as if it were a kind of blasphemy. It is particularly difficult to make a positive commitment in this way. Doing is seen as inferior, if not diabolical, just as the body has been devalued over the mind for centuries.
Anyone who is frightened by these ideas is encouraged by the words of Paul:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Eph 2:8-9
With these words, Paul answers both of the points mentioned above. The only one who works to save is God, who gives us salvation as a gift. There is nothing to shake up, nothing to add. God works. He does this so that no one can boast to him about his own achievements. You don’t score points before God with self-righteousness or supposed faultlessness.
The apostle also refutes the second statement. It is not at all about what we do, but about what God does. This is the good news, because it relieves us. So don’t put your own actions at the center. Those who are only concerned with their own shortcomings do not know the grace of God, but are only concerned with themselves. It is a covert form of self-righteousness. So watch out if you want to portray man’s sinfulness as dominating everything (Calvinism sends its regards).
Some will not be satisfied with the passage from Ephesians. One likes to refer to James, for example, who cannot imagine faith without works (James 2:14). This passage is then often played off against statements from Romans, and some may try to reconcile the two letters. This then sounds like a hybrid form in which “a little grace” is supplemented with “a little personal contribution”. Neither meat nor fish and certainly not vegan.
The discrepancy can be resolved in various ways. The simplest way is to recognize that James is not talking about “salvation by works” at all, as Paul clearly preaches “salvation by grace alone”. We need to pay careful attention to the words that are used or not used. James writes for his audience (James 1:1), just as Paul writes to a different audience (Romans 11:13). Both texts have their meaning in their own context and are by no means talking about the same thing.
Weird ideas of what “works” are may prevent committed action. I have named a few disruptive factors in the hope that this will open doors to liberation. For there are good works and joyful actions. However, they are not the precondition for salvation, but the expression of a loved and blessed life.
How it works
Now is the time to dedicate ourselves to doing the right thing. The Bible does say a lot about this. In the New Testament there are some concise statements. They show how it can work properly and in a relaxed manner.
Paul writes, for example:
“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but only faith working through love.”
Gal 5:6
This is “in Christ”. There are believers today. The aim here is to understand this. It is not “in us”, but “in Christ”. There are no differences based on ancestry or personal achievements. Only faith that is effective through love is valid there. Faith is effective through lived love. Faith is not separate from action, but is part of it. Living love as an expression of faith is the clear direction. Is that still too vague? Then listen to what Paul writes to the Philippians:
“By the way, brothers,
everything that is true,
everything respectable,
everything what just,
everything what louder,
everything what friendly,
everything that is melodious,
if there is any virtue
Or if there is any praise,
then take these into consideration.
What you have also learned and received from me, heard and observed in me, put into practice; then the God of peace will be with you.”
Phil 4:8-9
These are the things we can focus on. Paul even presents himself as an example. What we can recognize in him corresponds to this list. We should put his exemplary actions into practice. The promise here is “then the God of peace will be with you”. No doubt this was both his own experience and what he taught the churches.
To summarize: faith leads to actively lived love in everyday life, which can be illustrated by concrete ideas of good things. This is by no means new, but was also the case in the Gospels. When a woman with a twelve-year-old hemorrhage touched Jesus’ cloak, she was healed. Jesus replied to her: “Your faith has healed you!” (Mat 9:22).j However, it was the touch that did it, not an abstract “belief”.
Faith expresses itself in love and leads to active action, as Paul wrote:
“For the love of Christ compels us.”
2Cor 5,14
Paul does not use doing as a precondition for salvation because he recognized that no one is righteous, not even one (Rom 3:10-12). God includes all in unrighteousness so that He may have mercy on all (Rom 11:32, cf. Rom 8:20,21). Those who do, live out the love and grace they receive.
“If then you have been raised together with Christ, seek the place above where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.”
Col 3:1
First Paul outlines the doctrine. This is good news that points away from personal achievement and towards God’s achievement. The gift of grace can then lead to a new life. As a result of the new life, we can now realign our lives. Whoever does something then does it out of gratitude and out of a new realization, not as an achievement with which he wants to earn a place in heaven.
10 years Kernbeisser
February 2024 marks three milestones at once. I would like to put these briefly into context. Regardless if you have been following this page for a longer or shorter period of time: thank you for your feedback, suggestions and support. Nothing can be taken for granted. Everything is a gift.
There are the following milestones this month:
- The kernbeisser.ch website has been around for 10 years
- The interpretation of the letter to the Romans was completed after 5 years
- The hawfinch (german: Kernbeisser) has emigrated!
Kernbeisser.ch
This website has been around for 10 years. A milestone. The first article was published on February 8, 2014:
The website is growing
After the first contribution, more followed. Over 400 contributions are now available in 3 languages. All contributions appear in topic groups, because in my opinion no topic can be done justice with a single contribution. In addition, smaller, focused articles help to ensure that individual aspects of a topic can be better absorbed by the reader.
Last but not least, there are often very specific questions, views or opinions that people have that cannot be addressed with “scientific” work. My aim is to set people free, to encourage them to set out on their own journey. This often works better if you look at topics not only theologically, but also from a human or cultural perspective. No one lives in a sterile environment and no one can escape the spirit of the times.
The name Kernbeisser
The Kernbeisser website has been around for 10 years. However, the name Kernbeisser has been around since 2003, when I wrote my first posts under this pseudonym on the jesus.ch and livenet.ch forums. That is the origin of the name. I chose the name because it sums up what is important to me: Not getting stuck on superficialities, but daring to engage in a real debate. Bite the bullet, so to speak.
When thousands of my posts on jesus.ch disappeared, I realized that having my own platform would make more sense. There I was also able to group topics more easily, realize a sensible structure and add further functions as required. A few professions that I had acquired up to that point stood me in good stead. Although everything remained and remains completely imperfect, progress was finally being made.
Choice of topic
What I write is my choice, limited only by my time and my financial means. Articles and videos are largely produced in spare time. I do this work because it’s important, not because I can make a living from it. That’s why I practise letting go and am happy about other people and websites, through which completely different aspects of faith are taken up and deepened. Time and again, people decide to support the Kernbeisser project financially. This helps in a tangible way and makes us grateful. Because without investment, there is no result. Thank you for your support!
On this website I only share what has become important to me over time. I’m putting myself out there on this website and in the videos because it makes a difference. Because many people are on the way to a better or new understanding. You are looking for. I want them to find something that helps. I share my understanding, as do many others. It seems important to set accents here and there so that we can think about it further.
Believing authentically
Many people, especially those from an evangelical background, are looking for a new approach to faith. They are looking for a different and more critical approach to their own faith culture. They often have specific questions that are not discussed in their own communities – where they are often even taboo. This constricts and excludes. I know this from my own experience and meet people all the time who have had similar experiences.
The question then is how to deal positively with questions of life and faith? If you don’t have the right environment, it’s easy to lose your faith, your trust in God. You turn away from your own community. Churches are emptying out, free churches are feeling the same and are often just something like instantaneous heaters where people appear briefly and then quietly disappear again. There is a lack of authentic reference to faith. This is often perceived as a lack of authentic relevance to life. Being a Christian and being human belong together, otherwise you only adhere to one ideology. If you want to shape your life in a coherent way, if you want to live out congruence, you are looking for suitable forms of expression. If these are no longer found in one’s own tradition, one detaches oneself from it and searches further. In my opinion, this is a normal process, but today it is happening to a particularly large number of people at the same time and previous forms of community are proving to be fragile. We are in a time of upheaval.
Today I describe myself as post-evangelical or even post-denominational. I am no longer bound by previous structures and am wondering specifically how things will continue. Such questions are asked in many places. And if you are already on your way, reorganizing some topics, understanding them anew, what should and may that look like? This requires courageous decisions not only to allow openness and debate, but also to consciously encourage them.
I don’t feel the need to be right, but I do try to explain why I have come to this or that opinion in a comprehensible way. Life and faith processes need to be taken seriously. It is in the exchange and joint learning (not: teaching) that knowledge grows. I therefore advocate an open and curious learning culture and often wish that this had also been an issue in the faith communities in which I was active. Unfortunately, that wasn’t it for me. Others have the same experience, which is regularly reported back to me here on this website.
It’s not about the right doctrine
Some readers may think that I am only interested in preaching “correct doctrine”. Far from it. That is just as one-sidedly wrong as the view of some others that I am a false teacher. This is also just black and white thinking that doesn’t lead anywhere. It is not about “the right doctrine”, as if there were only one selection of “right” views, to be sharply distinguished from all other “wrong” views. This does not help.
Perhaps it is a need to get rid of mental baggage and unhealthy ideas. I can understand that. However, I don’t think that the world is black and white, or that it’s all about a “right doctrine” that you can mentally retire on.
Anyone who pleads for a “correct doctrine” is slipping very close to legal thinking. The latter causes extreme suffering for many people. Every week, people write to me in comment columns, in e-mails or in other ways to denounce me, accuse me of heresy and are not clear about either what they themselves think or what I am saying here. They live in a different world that is often characterized by self-righteousness and exclusion. Such reactions are no longer published. These reactions have nothing to do with what the prophets, Jesus or the apostles taught.
So why does it work? That’s a good question. Paul, for example, prays for the believers that they may know God correctly (Eph 1:17). It is by no means the case that believers “automatically” have a correct understanding. The apostle often refers to practical things, such as the ability to discern, to recognize what is important (Phil 1:9-11), or that we may understand what God’s will is (Col 1:9-11). Paul talks about things as processes, not as a list of laws and requirements. Knowledge is alive. Faith is alive. Aliveness means that it develops, constantly realigns itself, unfolds and deals with the reality of a complex world.
Letter to the Romans
Another milestone is the completion of an interpretation of the letter to the Romans in February 2024. The first article was published in December 2018:
The letter to the Romans provides a foundation for today’s church. The letter was worked through step by step for about 5 years. There is a lot to discover. The interpretation is by no means comprehensive, but it shows Paul’s concerns for the church in Rome. It is the foundation for the church from all nations.
When Paul wrote this letter, it was probably simply read aloud. You won’t have needed more than one evening for this. However, since we live 2000 years later, we are no longer familiar with the context and many terms are no longer known, it is helpful to take a closer look at the letter.
It is a milestone on this website because it provides a coherent building block for an examination of the content of faith. I know that many have adopted this series of interpretations and are also studying through the letter to the Romans.
Emigration
Another milestone concerns myself. The hawfinch (german: Kernbeisser) has emigrated! I moved from Switzerland to the Netherlands in February 2024. This marks the end of an important and long period and also opens a new chapter. It will be a while before I’m set up again. I have high hopes for this step. Among other things, I hope to be able to free up more time for the Kernbeisser project. There are still many topics that have not yet received any attention.
Thank you very much!
The beginning was modest. I am grateful for 10 years in which this work grew steadily and many discussions took place. This work and website will not appeal to everyone. It was created with a very specific target group in mind. It’s what I can contribute. If it has helped you, I’m delighted. All of the topics dealt with here stem from our own disputes. My argument is certainly not your argument. Sometimes, however, there are overlaps and an astonished “What, you too?” in conversation. May it serve as an encouragement to you. Many thanks for any feedback.
The secret gospel
In our series of interpretations of the letter to the Romans, we have now reached the last verses. The letter is closed. He mentions a gospel both at the beginning and at the end of the letter. They are both different. At the beginning, the apostle mentions a well-known gospel that was already promised in the Tenach (the Old Testament). In these last verses, however, he speaks of a secret gospel. This was unknown in the Tenach, but was revealed by Paul here in Romans. Something completely new happened.
In the very last verses of the letter to the Romans, Paul speaks about a gospel that was once hidden. It is a concluding sentence about the special message that Paul was allowed to reveal in his letter to the Romans:
“But to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the heraldic message of Christ Jesus,according to the revelation of a mystery (Eph 6:19),which was concealed in eonian times, but has now been revealed and also made known to all nations through prophetic writings according to the decree of the eonian God, in order to work obedience of faith
– To him, the only wise God, be glory through Christ Jesus for the eons of the eons! Amen!”
Rom 16:25-27
Paul calls this “my gospel”, which in other words is the “heraldic message of Christ Jesus”. He speaks of it as “his gospel” insofar as it concerns his task, which sets him apart from others. He calls it the “heraldic message of Christ Jesus” when he addresses the content.
The Gospel of God
At the beginning of his letter to the Romans, Paul spoke of being set apart as a called apostle for the “gospel of God”. This gospel of God had previously been promised in holy scripture (Romans 1:1-4). It is the good news of God’s righteousness, which comes through faith alone, without works. The first four chapters of the letter to the Romans speak of this. It is based on the story of Abraham. It is therefore already promised in the Scriptures and is only emphasized once again by Paul and explained in connection with Jesus Christ.
Justice is the foundation of God’s actions. That hasn’t changed anywhere. The Gospel of God speaks of God’s own righteousness, as already mentioned in the Old Testament and now emphasized anew as good news due to God’s work in Christ.
The change in the letter to the Romans
From Romans 5 onwards, however, Paul speaks of something that was not previously known. It is a transformative reconciliation that goes further than a covering atonement as described in the Old Testament. Paul uses different words for this. You can find out more in the articles on these verses. None of the prophets spoke of this new kind of reconciliation, as Paul begins to explain in Romans 5.
The new thing that is revealed here was a secret until then, and was kept secret in eonian times. God has not only achieved His righteousness through Christ, but makes it good news in which He turns to people in reconciliation. This is an extra dimension which, although based on God’s justice, also leads to a change in attitude. God is reconciled with you and me. This is the message that Paul re-explains in his letter to the Romans and sums up in other words in 2 Corinthians 5:14-21.
This reconciliation does not only apply to Israel, but also includes the nations. That was also brand new. Although references were also made in the Tenach to the nations, to the non-Jewish nations, there their salvation came through the mediation of Israel. It is quite different with Paul. He just explained that the reconciliation took place entirely without the mediation of Israel and was based on God’s actions alone.
The secret gospel
The gospel, which Paul calls “my gospel” (see Rom 2:16; Rom 16:25), is made known through prophetic writings, such as Paul’s letters. Paul called the gospel “hidden”. It was secret. Now that he is talking about it, it was of course no longer secret, but made public. He referred to the time before his proclamation. He announces what had been hidden until then. The apostle reveals several secrets. He is not being secretive, but revealing something new. This is also the case with the gospel, which he repeatedly calls “my gospel”, in which some things were still unknown before. Not only that: the other apostles were not completely familiar with Paul’s message either. He had to travel to Jerusalem and present his gospel to the other apostles. They reached out to one another as brothers, but recognized that Paul was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as the 12 apostles were entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision (Gal 2:7-9). These are important distinctions with far-reaching consequences. Following these traces in the New Testament can lead the understanding of the church and faith into the distance.
If we look at the entire New Testament from the point of view of “Wherever it says Jesus, it says today’s church”, then we have fallen prey to an ideology.
These statements are particularly important because many Christians are still firmly convinced that there is only one Gospel and that everything in the New Testament therefore (by inference) speaks of the same thing. However, Paul differentiates very clearly. This has been emphasized again and again in this series on the letter to the Romans. There is a development in the New Testament. If we look at the entire New Testament from the point of view of “Wherever it says Jesus, it says today’s church”, then we have fallen prey to an ideology. The New Testament is much more differentiated. A clear view of what is gradually changing provides a great deal of understanding of the times then and now.
The aim of Paul’s preaching is to bring about obedience of faith. This was already a theme in the first chapter (Rom 1:5). So some things remain the same in both gospels (the gospel of God and the secret gospel), but the content of the gospel has been expanded. This now brings about praise in Paul, with which he concludes: To him, the only wise God (who has kept his wisdom in secret and has now revealed it), be glory through Christ Jesus for the eons of the eons.
Paul concludes his letter to the Romans. What stands out is his trust in God, who holds everything in his hands. Confidence characterizes Paul’s attitude. Confidence is what he gives the congregation in Rome in these last words.
“If God is for us, who will be against us?”
Rom 8:32
Greetings from Paul & Co.
Romans 16:21-24 contains the last greetings to the church in Rome. The greetings conclude the letter. This is followed only by blessings, but these contain important explanations. It is therefore worth writing a separate article about the last verses of this letter and only mentioning the personal greetings here for the time being.
“Timothy, my coworker, and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my relatives, greet you. I, Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, my host and the host of the whole assembly, greets you. Erastus, the town’s rentmaster, and the brother Quartus greet you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all! Amen.”
Rom 16:21-24
Surprisingly, Paul is not mentioned anywhere. His name appears at the beginning of the letter (Romans 1:1). Further employees are named here. First and foremost, Timothy, “my coworker” is mentioned. This is immediately followed by three of Paul’s relatives, “Lucius and Jason and Gaius”. Bear in mind that Paul was not born in Israel, but in Tarsus, in what is now Turkey (Acts 9:9; Acts 21:39; Acts 22:3). This city was located at the mouth of a river and it is obvious that his relatives, like Paul, were also traveling on the Mediterranean.
Tertius, who wrote the letter for Paul, is mentioned next. Paul had dictated the letter and presumably other letters of his. The profession of scribe was common and Paul had miserable vision. He could write and was a learned man, but he had trouble with his eyes. This can be deduced from the following passage:
“For I bear you witness that if it were possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.”
Gal 4:15
However, Paul signed all his letters with a greeting, as attested here:
“The greeting with my, Paul’s, hand, which is the sign in every letter; this is how I write.”
2Thess 3,17
While Paul was dictating his letters, he wrote a personal greeting, from which the authenticity of the letter should be deduced. We find this similarly in 1 Corinthians 16:21 and Colossians 4:18. How and whether this was the case in Romans cannot, in my opinion, be directly deduced anywhere. However, there is some evidence that Paul handled it the same way in all his letters.
Grace be with you
“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all! Amen.”
Rom 16:24
Paul had already used the expression “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” a few verses earlier (Rom 16:20). In 2 Corinthians, Paul describes this as follows:
“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that when he was rich, he became poor for your sakes, so that you through his poverty might become rich.”
2Cor 8,9
Greetings are concluded with a wish for grace and confirmed by an “Amen“. In Hebrew, the word amen means “faithful”. It is the confirmation of what was said before.
You can also find wishes of mercy like these in other letters. Verse 24 is not found in all manuscripts, however. For this reason, it is omitted from the Concordant New Testament.
Warning of discord
The greetings in the last chapter of the letter to the Romans are extensive. The last post was about greetings to the community. Paul now warns against strife in the church. While the apostle personally greeted many people in Rome, he obviously had other people in mind who did not have the welfare of others on their own banner. He is now warning against them.
“But I urge you, brethren, to watch out for those who cause dissensions and snares apart from the teaching you have learned; avoid them. For such do not serve our Lord Christ, but are enslaved to their own bodies; and by kind words and blessings they completely deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.”
Rom 16:17-18 (CNT)
You might think that simply saying hello is enough. However, the well-being of people is important to Paul. That’s why he adds something he hasn’t talked about yet. His focus for most of the letter was on the foundation and sound doctrine. Then, from chapter 12 onwards, he spoke about the way of life in general. Here, however, he is talking about something new that can take place within the community.
A warning against strife
The apostle warns against people who cause strife. He talks about pitfalls because unsuspecting people are easily seduced. Guileless (Greek akakon or “un-evil”) is only used twice in the New Testament: Once here and once in the context of the high priest (Heb 7:26). He who is guileless is not evil-minded, or pure of heart. It shows a certain naivety towards malicious contemporaries. So Paul testifies in the next verse:
“The news of your obedience of faith has reached everyone, so I rejoice over you. But I want you to be wise for good but without malicious inclination to evil.”
Rom 16:19
On the one hand, Paul wants the Romans to be “wise for good” and “without malicious inclination to evil”. On the other hand, however, he does take the reality of human community into account when he warns against avoiding certain people who cause strife and become a trap for unsuspecting people.
It’s worth thinking about this for a moment.
In an evangelical environment, such verses are often misused to silence anyone who does not follow the teachings of the church. I can certainly understand that people want to protect the community against outside influences. I even think that this is the task of church leadership. But beware: not everyone who thinks differently causes strife or tries to bind people to them.
Two features should be noted. These are things that can trigger people in the community:
- Cause strife
- Cause pitfalls.
According to Galatians 5:20, quarrels belong to the “works of the flesh”. It is tempting to “want to be right”, to want to push through “thematic hobbyhorses” or to put yourself in the limelight in other ways. There are also contemporaries like this in the community. How to deal with it?
In communities where a doctrinal culture prevails and the truth is dictated from above by the church leadership, it is not immediately noticeable when other people rebel against this and try to maneuver themselves into a position of power. It feels similar. You can just feel the power struggle and people are quick to try to keep or gain the upper hand. Some people fall unsuspectingly into the power games and take this or that side of the power struggle. That makes little sense. Paul warns against this.
What could an alternative look like? Imagine a community in which a power struggle is discovered more quickly and dealt with differently. It should be a community in which strife has little place. Imagine a community in which a learning culture prevails. It is never about a power struggle, but about the growth of the community and the well-being of all participants. In a learning culture, people also contribute different ideas, but then fade into the background again. They do not have to “win” with their thoughts, but see it as a contribution to a differentiated understanding.
Paul warns against people who laugh in a friendly manner but only pursue their own goals. They cause disputes as power games and often seduce other believers. This leads to fractures in communities. So that we do not get there, Paul emphasizes that we should be “wise for good” and completely “without guileful inclination to evil”. In the next verse he says this again in different words:
“But the God of peace will swiftly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.”
Rom 16:20
Peace in the community
Paul has peace in mind. He wishes the community peace. Because they stand in faith, he points out that God is a “God of peace” (Romans 15:13; Romans 15:33), who will “crush Satan under your feet with swiftness”. He who stands in God’s peace will not quarrel. There is no reason for this. He writes to the Philippians:
“Whatever you have learned and received from me, heard and observed in me, put into practice; then the God of peace will be with you.”
Phil 4:9
To achieve peace, there is the good news of God’s grace. In order for us to remain at peace, we need to make courageous decisions every day. In it, Paul does not say that we have to rebuke, ostracize or convince others of our opinion, but that we should merely “avoid” people who cause discord. It is by no means a question of everyone having to think the same. They don’t have to. Behavior in the congregation should not, however, be geared towards personal gain, but should have the peace of God in mind.
Peace and grace
Paul usually begins his letters with a blessing. He speaks of “grace and peace”. In this section, however, it goes in reverse order. He starts by talking about peace, which is important. Then comes the reference to grace:
“The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.”
Rom 16:20
This wish belongs to the aforementioned “God of peace”. Grace and peace belong together. Those who experience grace and live out grace will stand in God’s peace. He has come to rest in Him. Paul says: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ”. At the beginning of the letter to the Romans, Paul pronounced the benediction “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”. Both grace and peace are important. Both come from God and the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a single package, so to speak. This belongs together. If in Romans 16 he first emphasizes the “God of peace”, this is now supplemented with the “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ”. The point of this section is not to emphasize anything as being different. The same things are always mentioned together.
The “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” is something like the summary of the gospel of grace. Paul often uses this formula. You can think of this verse, for example:
“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that when he was rich, he became poor for your sakes, so that you through his poverty might become rich.”
2Cor 8,9
Grace makes a difference. Grace is always active. That is why Paul’s blessing fits in a passage in which he urgently recommends actively avoiding certain people. We need His grace to see clearly what is at stake, what is important. Experiencing grace and actively living out grace is the key to peace in the community. Be gracious with yourself and with others because you have experienced grace. Be courageous in decisions and bring clarity to the community, also out of the experience of grace.
Why does God allow this?
When the world seems unfair, what do we think? The question “Why does God allow this?” is asked in various situations.
It is not always immediately obvious why people think and believe this way and not differently. I have already experienced various situations with this question. Here are some possibilities.
The denial of God
However you define the concept of God, there will always be someone who disagrees with it. However, it seems strange to me when someone who explicitly does not want to believe in God refers to the suffering in the world and hypocritically asks: “Why does God allow this?”. It’s not a serious question, but rather a defense. It begins with the emotion that God does not exist and then looks for a reason to make this somehow plausible for others (and perhaps for itself). Anyone who asks in this way is not asking a question, but merely making a defense. An answer is not necessary because you are not looking for an answer. People actually think that there can’t be a God, because otherwise everything in the world would be different. Perhaps you are resigned, disappointed, bitter, or speaking from certain experiences.
Two things emerge from this:
- People talk about God, but they don’t mean Him (that doesn’t seem very productive to me)
- People have a certain image of God, who obviously does not do what is demanded of Him.
The second reason is strongly reminiscent of the question of theodicy: “If God is love and is omnipotent, why doesn’t He change the suffering in the world?”. These are of course important questions, but they also speak of a certain attitude, of a certain understanding on the part of the questioner, who measures God against his own understanding. Such questions are not neutral.
Perhaps someone only asks such a question in the presence of Christians who apparently believe in this “lame” God. Then the question would even be a kind of dumbing down of the audience. I myself never feel affected by this, because the question says more about the questioner than about the God who is supposedly not ticking properly. It would not be a direct rejection, a frontal attack, but rather a form of passive aggression.
Suffering in the world
However, the same question can also be asked sincerely. With the best knowledge one has of this God, it seems inexplicable why there is suffering in the world. It may be that your current life is falling apart. There are enough difficult things to experience in this world. The loss of family and friends, for example, or the experience of illness, burn-out, psychological problems, limitations in old age, loss of work, relationship problems, abuse, existential hardship, the consequences of natural disasters, war, persecution and much more. These are all huge challenges that could turn our world upside down.
Then you’ve heard about this God that you trust, and you don’t understand the world, that all these things happen that make life infinitely difficult. So the question could also be: “Why does everything have to be so difficult?”.
This is also about an internalized image of God, from which the question stems. You think you know that God is only good and that it is His job, so to speak, to plant flowers everywhere and keep people happy. It may be helpful here to critically question your own theology. Such an attitude can be found in the preaching of a “prosperity gospel” and in some charismatic circles.
Why does God allow this?
You could also interpret this question as a question to yourself. Something like: “Why do I think God has to solve the misery in this world?”. Then the question speaks of me and asks about my image of God. Then I myself am at the center of the question. It’s about my thoughts and motivations. If you ask the question in this way, it is easy to recognize that God is someone else. The way I function and think is not the way He has to function and think. It’s about my expectation, more than about what and who God actually is. This is a helpful realization because I can then differentiate between my thoughts and His. If I only know myself and do not know God, then I can – like Job once did – come to a new realization:
“By hearsay (with the hearing of the ear) I had heard of you, but now my eye has seen you.”
Job 42:5
If you first focus the question on your own understanding, understanding can grow. Everything else is perhaps just distraction and projection. However, when it comes to your own understanding of God and your own understanding of this world, you can and must be honest with yourself. It is not enough to condemn God. I have to deal with myself.
World view, image of God, image of man
The question “Why does God allow this?” speaks first of our own understanding. Although the dismay at the suffering and death in this world is real and must be taken seriously, the idea that God must “fix” the misery seems to prevail. This is a clear expectation and projection to the outside world. You should be aware of this if you are seriously looking for an answer to the question.
Our world view, image of God and image of man are connected. There are these three points and if you change the settings for one of these points, the settings for the other two points also change automatically. So if you expect God to fix the world (immediately and now and actually since yesterday), you are swimming in a certain understanding of God, the world and yourself. Now you can’t avoid this fact, but you can deal with it more consciously and realize that you could see the world, yourself or even God differently.
For example, many people think that “God is only good”. Jesus formulated it in a different way in a conversation and said:
“What do you call me good? No one is good but one, God.”
Luke 18:19
There is a difference between God being “only good” and “only God” being good. Because God is not only good in the Bible. He even created evil, we read in Isaiah (Isa 45:7). We cannot therefore assume that God is only good and therefore obliged to do good. This is not the case. The idea that God only has good things to do is perhaps a little naive?
A God who deserves this name is one thing above all: God. He is above everything and does what He likes. He does not need our consent. He acts as He wills. Just as Paul describes God:
“Who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”
Eph 1:11
Image of God
Anyone reading this for the first time may find the idea uncomfortable. Some people draw the short conclusion that God “is therefore arbitrary”. That is not the case. The mistake lies in our thinking, which declares God to be “exclusively good”, although the Bible speaks about this in a much more differentiated way. Is it hard to believe what Paul wrote in Ephesians?
World view
The world, they say, “must be good”. Expectations of the world and of life also play a major role in understanding. Anyone who perceives suffering naturally wants it to stop. The sick want to be healed, the poor want to have enough to live on, justice should prevail. These are all things that play a role in the ideas of the messianic kingdom, for example. We wish for a better world and the prophets of the Old Testament outline such a better world. You long for it. However, this situation has not yet materialized. You should stand still here: Someone who cultivates hope and expectation is in a different place than someone who wants everything to be better here and now and immediately. This is the difference:
- Anyone who lives now and expects change now is in a conflict that cannot be resolved. It is the starting point for a rebellion. Sobriety shows: The world is not fair, everyone will die, with all the consequences, and much remains unresolved.
- Those who live out of an expectation feel the same suffering, but stand in it with an expectation and an outlook. This can help to overcome the current hardship.
Image of man
In both cases, the world will not change, but how we stand in it will change. How we perceive and understand the world is a way of life, perhaps even an attitude of faith.
Those who live from expectation have a positive image of humanity, not from experienced reality, but from the anticipated reality of the future. This does not refer to a vague afterlife, but to a power that can also unfold in the present time (“Therefore be of good cheer, you men! For I trust God that it will be as it was spoken to me.” Acts 27:25). That is why people who cultivate a living faith are resilient in the most difficult circumstances. This is not limited to a particular piety, denomination or even religion. You will find this all over the world. This also applies when I consciously recognize my understanding of the Bible as the best view.
The point is this: perhaps “truth” (“I believe right and you are wrong”) is not the only criterion for a Bible study. Perhaps the Bible itself speaks more about what inspires us here and now. This means that the Bible speaks out of today’s time and need, but outlines an attitude to life and faith that is characterized by confidence and grace.
Rethinking faith
The Bible can be sober and remain anchored in this world, while the message looks beyond it and speaks of a God who acts in time, but not necessarily today.
If I can look at it this way, God remains Himself and I also keep both feet on the ground. This world may be perfectly imperfect, but it is also God’s world. Many things are not perfect today, but that doesn’t mean anything is out of hand. I can start to rethink faith.
But then the Good News takes on meaning because it is both anchored in this world and speaks of God’s work. Then everything makes sense. If I then live from this joyfully and gratefully, but also realistically and with an outlook, I experience grace in this time.
Greetings to the community in Rome
In this series of reflections on the letter to the Romans, we now come to the 16th and final chapter. Here you will find concluding remarks, personal greetings and the like.
There are two more parts to the structure of the letter:
- Rom 16:1-23 Greetings (extended)
- 16:1-16(to the church in Rome)
- 16:17-23(from Paul and coworkers)
- Rom 16:25-27 Gospel: Reconciliation (secret)
Personal greetings
Paul greets a particularly large number of people in Rome. Although he had never been to Rome (Rom 1:9-13), it is obvious from these last greetings that he was acquainted with many in the church. We don’t know much about all people. But some are mentioned repeatedly in the New Testament. This article deals with the passage Romans 16:1-16.
When Paul greets people, this reveals something important. He was connected to people. His preaching was not merely theoretical, even though he himself was a theologian (rabbi). He lived with people, spoke to people, had experiences with people and shared his faith with them. These are not social media friends that you click together quickly. These are people with whom the apostle had to deal in everyday life. He was in prison with some of them. He was traveling with others. He calls some “coworkers” or “lovers”. Paul is not superficial or aloof. He writes to real people and describes real situations. What he says has hands and feet, and he knows some of these hands and feet personally.
Phoebe
“But I recommend Phoebe, our sister, who is a servant of the assembly in Kenchreä.”
Rom 16:1
Phoebe was a “servant of the assembly in Kenchraea”. Kenchraea (Acts 18:18) was a harbor town about 9 km from Corinth in modern-day Greece. The port city was important for the eastern Mediterranean region and a church there could be a sister church of the church in Corinth. Paul does not greet Phoebe, but “recommends” Phoebe. The apostle does this first, before any people are named in Rome. She is introduced as a “sister” and part of the assembly in Kenchraea. It seems that she was entrusted with the delivery of the letter. Phoebe would therefore have been traveling from Greece, possibly from Corinth, as Paul’s letter carrier to Rome.
We don’t know much more about Phoebe. What is remarkable, however, is that she is mentioned alone as a woman. She may have been a widow. Not only did she work for the church in Kenchraea, but Paul also speaks highly of her:
“That you may receive her in the Lord, worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever matter she has need of you, for she has also been a help to many, including myself.”
Rom 16:2
Priska and Aquila
“Greet Priska and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, (who have given their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the assemblies of the nations) and the assembly in their house.”
Rom 16:3-5
Priska and Aquila describe Paul as “co-workers in Christ Jesus”. Paul got to know both of them in Corinth:
“And after this he departed from Athens and came to Corinth. And when he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy, and Priscilla his wife (because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome), he went to them, and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers at their trade.”
Acts 18:1-3
They work in faith towards the same goal as Paul and at times accompanied Paul on his travels (Acts 18:18). From the account of the first meeting, we learn that Aquila and Priska (Priscilla = diminutive of Priska) had just arrived from Italy. You obviously had business there or were connected to Italy in some other way. It is therefore not surprising that they are in Rome and that Paul greets them.
Aquila and Priska are mentioned repeatedly. Acts 18 reports this, but we also find references in the letters:
“Greetings from the assemblies of Asia. Aquila and Priscilla greet you many times in the Lord, together with the assembly in their house.”
1Cor 16,19
Paul also mentions them in his second letter to Timothy (which is probably in Ephesus). They appear to be diligent travelers and were together with Paul in Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19). Since Priska and Aquila are not mentioned again later in the journey, I think it is possible that they stayed in Ephesus while Paul continued on to Jerusalem.
“Say hello to Priska and Aquila and the House of Onesiphorus.”
2Tim 4,19
Epenetus
“Greet Epänetus, my beloved, who is the firstfruits of Asia for Christ.”
Rom 16:5
Paul mentions Epänetus, with whom he has a common history. The apostle grew fond of him. The name Epänetus means “praise”. Paul calls him “my beloved”, which speaks of his high esteem for him. He was “the firstborn of Asia for Christ”, i.e. the first to come to faith in Christ in what was then Asia Minor (today’s Turkey). Imagine that Paul was traveling alone or with others and, as an evangelist, he told people everywhere about the good news in Christ. This message was not accepted everywhere. Epänetus, however, was the first to respond to this message with his life. This must have been a great encouragement for Paul.
Mary
“Say hello to Maria, who has worked hard for you.”
Rom 16:6
Various women in the New Testament are called Mary. The Hebrew name suggests that this woman may have been of Jewish descent. There were believers of Jewish descent in many churches and Paul also repeatedly addressed this group of believers in the church in Rome, which can be traced throughout the entire letter to the Romans.
This Mary was obviously very committed to the church in Rome, which even came to the attention of Paul, who had never been to Rome (Romans 1:10-11).
Andronicus and Junia(s)
“Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives and my fellow prisoners, who are distinguished among the apostles who were also in Christ before me.”
Rom 16:7
Neither person is mentioned further. The name Junias can be masculine or feminine (Junia). Paul describes them as “relatives” and “fellow prisoners”. The term “relatives” can indicate that you belong to the Jewish people in general (cf. Rom 9:3) or more direct relatives of your own family (cf. John 18:26). In these greetings, Paul mentions relatives several times, for example in Rom 16:7, Rom 16:11, Rom 16:21.
Paul mentions these two quite early in his greetings, which is perhaps why they are of greater significance. Paul not only recognized that they were “relatives”, but they were also “fellow prisoners”. He himself was often imprisoned (2 Corinthians 11:23). Several times he mentions names of people who were imprisoned with him (Phm 1:23, Col 4:10). It must have been the same with Andronicus and Junia(s). They share a common history.
The esteem of the apostle is there, but Paul mentions the esteem of others and writes: “Who are distinguished among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me”. They are distinguished among the apostles, which can mean two things: a) They were valued by the apostles in Jerusalem. This is possible because Paul describes that they were in Christ before him and the twelve apostles remained in Jerusalem. b) Andronicus and Junias were apostles themselves, namely “envoys”. There are the special apostles, like the Twelve and Paul, but many others were apostles in the general sense, as messengers with a message. Andronicus and Junias would have a special place among these general ambassadors. Consider Phoebe (Rom 16:1), for example, who is recommended to the Romans by Paul and was therefore presumably the bearer (apostle) of his letter.
Amplias
“Greet Amplias, my beloved in the Lord.”
Rom 16:8
Amplias (or: Ampliatus) was a “beloved in the Lord”. This heartfelt expression needs to be understood. The addition “in the Lord” points to the way of life (cf. Eph 4:1). In these greetings, Paul repeats the expression in various places: Rom 16:11, Rom 16:12, Rom 16:13, Rom 16:22. In those days, only slaves had a master. Paul saw himself as a “slave of Jesus Christ” (Rom 1:1) and therefore did not belong to himself, but to his Lord (2 Cor 5:15, cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20).
Elsewhere Paul writes:
“For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but he that commendeth the Lord.”
2Cor 10:18
The expression “beloved in the Lord” refers to the same attitude to life that recognizes itself as dependent on Christ.
Urbanus, Stachys, Appelles and those of Aristobulus
“Greet Urbanus, our coworker in Christ, and Stachys, my beloved. Greet Appelles, the tried and tested in Christ. Say hello to those from Aristobulus’ house.”
Rom 16:9-10
This is followed by personal greetings to various people, other coworkers (Urbanus), beloved believers (Stachys) and those whom Paul describes as “tried and tested in Christ”. He also greets the entire Aristobulus household.
From these various greetings we can see that although Paul was never in Rome, he knew many in the church. Rome was, of course, the capital of the Roman Empire at the time. Therefore, the city has an important function and travelers visited the city. This is probably how various messages came from and to Rome. However, when Paul speaks of coworkers and loved ones, he probably knew these people personally.
Paul already testified in the first verses of the letter:
“First of all, I thank my God through Jesus Christ, that your faith is proclaimed in all the world.”
Rom 1:8
The faith of the people from the church in Rome was known far and wide. They were in a particularly delicate situation in Rome. There, the emperor was worshipped as a god. The Roman community was the closest to this. This first period is also known as the time of the early Christians. The emperor initially regarded Christians as an internal Jewish sect. Christians therefore enjoyed limited freedoms in the Roman Empire. However, this is increasingly changing. Those who lived out their faith credibly and in the attitude of Christ in these times needed wisdom and perseverance.
The Jewish religion was first banned under Claudius in the year 38. Afterwards, Claudius and a little later Nero made various statements against followers of “Chrestus”. If this refers to Christ, we are talking about the persecution of Christians. They are trying to adapt to the difficult situation. Paul, for example, wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.”
Rom 12:14
Such statements take on particular significance in the context of the time.
“Repay no one evil for evil; be provident for what is honorable before all men. If possible, as much as is in you, live in peace with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord. If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; for if you do this, you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Rom 12:17-21
So when Paul speaks of “those proven in Christ”, this has a strong meaning in the context of the time.
Other believers are mentioned
“Greet Rufus, the chosen one in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers with them. Greet Philologus and Julias, Nereus and his sister and Olympas and all the saints with them.”
Rom 16:13-15
The apostle now mentions many more names. Of Rufus, the chosen one in the Lord, he mentions “his mother and mine”. He is acquainted and familiar with the family and regards the woman as his own mother. Rufus (“red”) was a common name for a slave. The other names only appear in these verses. However, Paul also mentions “the brothers with them”, which refers to a small assembly or community of faith.
In the last verse, some names are mentioned again, some of them common names of slaves, “and all the saints with them”. It is clear from this that the people Paul mentions have something to do with each other and that other believers (“saints”) are in fellowship with each other.
In this passage, Paul personally greeted believers in Rome. It shows that his work is not simply theological in nature. The apostle does not entrench himself in scholarship, but cultivates extensive relationships. It also shows which people are being addressed by his letter. They are not other theologians, not other scholars, but often simple people, slaves. His life is linked to these people.
The letter to the Romans is meant for ordinary people. Today, Paul is regarded as a theologian. He certainly is. However, it does not exist in a vacuum. His ideas had to prove themselves in practice. As an apostle, he took concrete care of people. He was in conversation with them, was sometimes in prison with these people. Paul knew their situations and lived with them. What Paul wrote was for the building up of the church. Gospel proclamation and practical life support were both taken into account in this letter.
What appears to be “difficult or incomprehensible” today is probably also because our time is very different. However, we cannot and must not draw conclusions about the Bible from ourselves. This Bible was never written for our time, but for another time. We can therefore only approach, read carefully and discover that there are whole stories behind simple greetings. We can approach these and then better understand the issue.
Let’s do what Paul did and get personal. In this way, we can learn to read the Bible with new eyes.
The hostel in Bethlehem
Christmas without Bethlehem? You can’t. But why Bethlehem? Bethlehem (“House of Bread”) was the place where Rachel, the wife of Jacob, died giving birth to her son (Gen 35:16-19; Gen 48:7). Bethlehem was “on the way to Ephrat”. It was a transit point in the region of Judah. The town was therefore often called Bethlehem-Judah because it was located in Judah (Judges 17:7 and others).
Bethlehem and Ephrat
Bethlehem is also called Ephrat:
“Ephrath, that’s Bethlehem.”
Gen 48,7, compare Ruth 4,11
Ephrat is also said to have been the father of Bethlehem:
“Pnuel, the father of Gedor; and Ezer, the father of Husha. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem.”
1 Chronicles 4:4
Bethlehem is Ephrath, but also on the way to Ephrath (Gen 35,16). Bethlehem lies between Jerusalem and Ephrath. History suggests that at least some of Ephrat’s descendants lived in Bethlehem. The two names could be mentioned in the same breath:
“And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too small to be among the thousands of Judah, out of you will come forth for me who is to be ruler over Israel; and his goings forth are from ancient times, from the days of eternity.”
Mi 5,1
The additional letter “a” in Ephrata is said by some to mean “to/after”. In context, therefore, “after Ephrat”. Bethlehem-Ephrata is then “Bethlehem, which is on the way to Ephrat”. There is also the place Caleb-Ephrata (1 Chronicles 2:24). As there is only one mention of it in the Bible and no further details, it remains a place of secondary importance. This probably has nothing to do with Bethlehem-Ephratha.
King David and Bethlehem
Bethlehem was inconspicuous in size. But it was here that David was born, who was later to be king over Israel:
“Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse, and who had eight sons.”
1Sam 17:12
It does not end with David, because there is a messianic promise:
“And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too small to be among the thousands of Judah, out of you will come forth for me who is to be ruler over Israel; and his goings forth are from ancient times, from the days of eternity.”
Micah 5:1
According to the New Testament, this was fulfilled at the birth of Jesus:
“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi came from the east to Jerusalem, saying: Where is the King of the Jews who has been born? For we have seen his star in the Orient and have come to pay him homage. And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him: and he gathered together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, and inquired of them where the Christ should be born. And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:
“And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means the least among the princes of Judah, for out of you will come a leader who will shepherd my people Israel.”
Mt 2:1-6
The Messiah was to be in the lineage of David (Jer 23:5). He was even to be like King David (Jer 30:9).
Old caravan routes
Bethlehem, although inconspicuous, was located in an important place, between Jerusalem and Egypt. Anyone traveling from Jerusalem or coming from Egypt passed by Bethlehem. Travelers came via various routes. One path followed the coast. Another connection was a little further inland, but parallel to the coast. This road ran from Hebron to Jerusalem and then passed Bethlehem.
The book of Jeremiah mentions an inn in Bethlehem:
“And they departed, and stopped at the inn of Kimham, which is near Bethlehem, to depart, that they might come into Egypt.”
Jer 41:17
Kimham served David and may have been given Bethlehem or at least a place to stay there (2 Sam 19:37-40). It could later have been converted into a hostel or caravanserai. That would be the “Kimham’s hostel”.
The word for hostel is usually described as a traveler’s hostel, even a caravanserai. Imagine that caravans often traveled thousands of kilometers along ancient routes. There were caravanserais at distances of about a day’s march (20-25 km) where people could find shelter, water and rest. Such routes can be found throughout Israel and the entire Middle East. Of course, there was also other accommodation. However, those who came from Egypt and spent the night in Bethlehem could walk the last 5-6 km to Jerusalem the next day and arrive there fresh.
Was Jesus born in a stable?
In the Gospels we read how Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:4ff). It also says:
“And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”
Luke 2:7
No room in the hostel, but in the manger. This is why, according to tradition, Jesus was born in a stable. The word for hostel can also refer to a guest room. There is no mention of a stable. Consider that simple houses and caravanserais provided accommodation for both humans and animals. This has the advantage that the animals warm the house on cold days. The part for the people was usually a little higher. Between the part for people and animals was the manger. It is easy to place Jesus in the manger from the place or room they stayed, which was right next to the animals. No one had to go to an external stable for this. Everything took place under one roof.
Inconspicuous
The stories about Bethlehem are amazing. A small village becomes the birthplace of a legendary king of Israel. It is also said to be the birthplace of the Messiah. That is special. When special things happen, they do not require special circumstances in the biblical narrative. There is room for the inconspicuous in particular. The reason for this is obvious: nothing could happen here through our own efforts. God’s actions, however, turn inconspicuous places into the birthplaces of kings and saviors. The crucial point here is that God himself acts.
Much later, Paul writes about today’s church:
“Look at your calling, brethren; there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but the foolish things of the world God chooses to put to shame the wise, and the weak things of the world God chooses to put to shame the things which are strong. God chooses the lowly things of the world and those rejected by it, even the things that are of no value in it, to put to shame the things that are of value in it, so that no flesh may boast in the sight of God.”
1Cor 1,26-29
No pious hypocrisy, no outstanding characteristics are required for something to be chosen by God. The inconspicuous is chosen by God so that He can make something out of the inconspicuous. This is the basis.
Paul's travel plans
Paul writes to the church in Rome about his plans:
“That’s why I was prevented from coming to you many times. But now, since I no longer have room in these landscapes, but have been longing for many years to come to you as soon as I should go to Spain, I expect to see you as I pass through and to be equipped by you and sent on to you when I have first had some refreshment from you.
First of all, I am now going to Jerusalem to serve the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia approved of giving a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They approve of this because they are their debtors; for if the nations partake of their spiritual goods, they are also obliged to make a contribution to the carnal.
Therefore, as soon as I have completed this service and sealed this fruit for them, I will pass through you and then go to Spain. But I know that I will come (when I come to you) in the fullness of Christ’s blessing.
But I promise you, my brothers, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit, to wrestle with me in prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be protected from the rebellious in Judea and that my service to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and find rest with you. But the God of peace be with you all! Amen!”
Romans 15:22-33
Travel plans
This passage tells of Paul’s travel plans. What are the areas and places that Paul hopes to go to next? In order of mention:
- Rome, Italy (Rom 15:22, cf. Rom 1:7-9)
- Spain (Rom 15:23, as hope)
- Jerusalem (Rom 15:25)
- Judea (Rom 15:31)
Paul writes from Corinth
When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he was staying in Corinth for a few months. The fact that he is in Corinth can be deduced from various clues.
- The mention of Phoebe from Kenchraea in Rom 16:1 is one such reference. Kenchraea is the port of Corinth.
- The mention of Prisca and Aquilla is also a clue. These had recently come from Rome to Corinth (Rom 16:3, cf. Acts 18:1-2). They were tentmakers by trade, as was Paul (Acts 18:3), and both later accompanied Paul on his travels (Acts 18:18).
- The journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 19,21 is taken as the goal, so that the letter was written beforehand. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke writes of this decision as a conclusion:“When this was fully accomplished, Paul resolved in spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem. He said: “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.”
Acts 19:21
A turning point in Paul’s ministry
This verse is a turning point in Paul’s ministry. Up to this point, he has brought justification by faith to the nations in line with the messianic expectation. The nations were “debtors” of Israel (Rom 15:25-27). This statement is noteworthy because Paul never speaks of this dependency again later, but rather comes to the conclusion at the end of his life that the nations are now full members of the family of faith, and not guests of the covenant promise (to Israel). See Ephesians 2:13-18.
The New Testament is not a one-size-fits-all pulp. A development is taking place. We should learn to understand and appreciate this development, because we as a church from all nations are somewhere in this development. Where.
The Acts of the Apostles describes this development. At the beginning it is about the kingdom for Israel (Acts 1:6-8), while at the end salvation is to be brought to the nations because Israel once again rejects salvation (Acts 28:28). Peter is central at the beginning, while Paul is central from chapter 13 onwards. These and other elements can be found in the Acts of the Apostles.
Paul in the Acts of the Apostles and in his letters
What develops in the Acts of the Apostles is also reflected in the letters. In Romans, for example, Paul mentions two complementary realities that can only be interpreted as a development:
- Rom 1:1-2: The gospel of God
The Gospel of God was previously promised through His prophets in holy scriptures. The topic was justification by faith. - Rom 16:25-26: My gospel
The gospel, which Paul calls “my gospel”, is based on the revelation of a mystery (i.e. it was not previously known). It was first made known through prophetic writings such as the letter to the Romans.
The journey to Jerusalem
Once again, the journey goes to Jerusalem, where Paul is later arrested. On the way there, he is warned several times by the brothers not to go up to Jerusalem.
In Tyre:
“They told Paul in the spirit not to go up to Jerusalem”
Acts 21:4
In Caesarea:
“A prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. He came to us, took Paul’s belt, bound his feet and hands with it and said, ‘Thus says the Holy Spirit, “The man to whom this belt belongs will be bound like this by the Jews in Jerusalem and delivered into the hands of the nations. When we heard this, we spoke to him, as did those in the town, not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul took the floor and said: “Why do you make my heart so heavy with your complaining? For I am ready not only to be bound in Jerusalem, but also to die for the name of the Lord Jesus”. Since he could not be persuaded, we were silent about it and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”
Acts 21:10-14
The journey that Paul mentions in Romans 15 will be different than he thought. He does indeed come to Rome, but much later and as a prisoner. His wish to go to Spain was probably never fulfilled.
The church in Jerusalem
The church in Jerusalem is the church that is waiting for the Messiah and has the establishment of the Messianic kingdom as its prospect. There were in Jerusalem
“Tens of thousands among the Jews who have become believers, and they all belong to the zealots for the law”.
Acts 21:20
For Paul, this means conflict. Not with the Twelve Apostles (Gal 2:7-9), but with some who did not want to know anything about the nations. He asks the Romans for prayer:
“To wrestle with me in prayers to God for me, that I may be protected from the rebellious in Judea and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there.”
Rom 15:31
The apostle wants to carry out a ministry for the saints in Jerusalem, but at the same time feels resistance from some. This resistance is directed against the gospel of grace as proclaimed by Paul among the nations. However, they could also be Jews who neither belong to the church nor have anything to do with the good news for other nations.
From this journey onwards, a lot will change and develop in the letters of the Apostle Paul. It is a significant period of his travels. In “these landscapes” (today Turkey, Greece), he said, he has “no more room” (Rom 15:23). Hence the travel plans and the intention to travel to Spain via Rome. However, some things will develop in a more differentiated way. It is not yet known where we stand today. Believers from the nations are still “attached” to Israel. But that is about to change. Today we have free access to the Father (Eph 2:18), but Paul only writes about this in his last letters.
Bridge over the Tiber River in Rome.
© Licensed via Envato
The Bible tells stories
Much of the discussion of the Bible in evangelical circles revolves around the terms “true” or “not true”. You conjure up a situation that does not exist in the Bible.
The Bible tells stories
One characteristic of the Bible is that its stories are anchored in history. As a result, they take place in our world. It has to do with us, or at least with human history. This is precious and needs to be considered. Because the Bible is anchored in history, some conclude that “therefore” everything must be something like journalistic reporting. One concludes that “therefore” everything took place “literally”, to the exclusion of other possible explanations. This is problematic.
The Bible tells stories, not because of the story, but so that a message can be conveyed. This message is never “being literal true”. It’s about something else. If something actually is factual true, it supports the message, but factuality cannot replace the message. Those who base their understanding of the Bible on “literalness” may have a hard time with this assessment. If there is an outcry now, it is usually because the reverse conclusion is immediately drawn that “therefore” nothing is true anymore. But that is not the case.
When it comes to interpretation, many assume that the Bible is reliable. However, this reliability is often only seen in one aspect, namely “literalness”. But that is a narrow view that does not do justice to the text. It is assumed a priori that “divinity” arises from “literalness”. The doctrine of verbal inspiration then contributed to the fact that people listened more to the letter than to the spirit. This was already a problem in the days of Paul (2 Corinthians 3:6).
The Bible tells stories that take place in history. But can this also happen for reasons other than “literalness”?
All stories are true
Here is the differentiation: All stories are true, even if parts of the story are not “objectively verified facts”. Take the creation story in the first verses of the Bible, for example. Anyone who says on the basis of this story that the world was created in 6 days, and sees this as days of 24 hours, stands in a tradition of “literalness”. However, no human being was present at the creation. God also asked Job this directly: “Where were you when I founded the earth? Make it known, if you have insight!” (Job 38:4).
Nobody was there. No one can prove this. Now ask yourself how Moses comes to this story, which we find in the first chapter of the Bible? It is not journalistic reporting. Nor is it a scientific explanation of all the details. I can hold on to that without stress, even if I say at the same time: “The Bible is reliable and true”.
The point is this: stories are written with a purpose. All the books of the Bible were written with one goal in mind. The goal is already described in the first verse of the Bible:
“In a beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Gen 1,1
God has something to do with this world. If we read the chapter in full, the creation of this world is described in such a way that a connection is made between this world, on which we walk, and God, who created this world. The world is our home, and God has something to do with it. This is how history speaks to us. It is not journalistic reporting, nor is it a scientific treatise.
Everything in this story is true, within the framework of the story and in accordance with the purpose for which this story is written. The questions “why” and “what for” are essential for understanding. “Literalness”, on the other hand, does not give light because it fulfills neither a goal nor a task.
Literalness is not always so clear. The Bible mentions numbers, for example. Some numbers seem to be accurately counted, for example in this report:
“And the silver of those who were mustered of the congregation amounted to a hundred talents and 1775 shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.”
Ex 38,25
Other numbers may have a more symbolic meaning:
“And the Syrians fled from Israel, and David killed seven hundred of the Syrians’ charioteers and forty thousand horsemen.”
2Sam 10:18
The fact that exactly 700 chariot fighters and exactly 40,000 horsemen were killed in the battle seems implausible. It cannot be ruled out, but it would be equally acceptable for these figures to be estimates. We understand this without giving it much thought. Language has this possibility. To this day, the numbers of victims in armed conflicts are initially estimated and rarely absolute or even verified. It would be “about” 700 and 40000. This is an indication of history, even if it is not an absolute and historically ratified figure. Maybe there were a few less, maybe a few more. This does not detract from the story. Figures are also presented in a simplified form using figurative language:
“What man among you, having 100 sheep and having lost one of them, does not leave the 99 in the wilderness and go after the lost one until he finds it?”
Luke 15:4
The reference to “100 sheep” is symbolic. The simple figure supports the visual language. Of course, everyone understands straight away that this story is not dependent on a historically proven and exact figure.
True or not true?
These few examples can illustrate that the Bible remains true if it is understood as a story told in a lively way that pursues a goal in its message. But it is precisely the goal of biblical stories that is often left out of consideration.
The challenge now lies here: If we assume for the time being that “literalness” is the only criterion, then the view of the Bible’s purpose remains largely hidden from us. It’s like when you see a car in front of you but just want to check whether the mudguard on the front wheel is actually made of sheet metal. This ignores the fact that the car is bigger than the mudguard and that the material of the front mudguard is not really important for the function of the vehicle.
I can already hear another outcry that I supposedly think the truth is irrelevant. This has often happened to me in conversation. A differentiation is appropriate. When I read the Bible and want to know “why and for what purpose” it was written, I don’t end up with a literalism. I end up with the message of why and for what purpose these stories were told. I can understand that people want to exclude the Bible to be just “fairy tales”, but literalism alone is not enough. I still fail to see why it is in the Bible.
However, if you adjust your own perspective so that you first question the text with curiosity, the text can begin to speak for itself. This text was first written in its own context. This context is not our current understanding. The context of the text is to be sought in the time and situation in which the text was written. This context, if we learn to read carefully, is contained in the biblical text. This is not always immediately clear to us. We can at least become aware of this.
Other things, however, are understood to be historically proven. For example, the resurrection. Of course, there are different opinions on this. Not everyone believes in a resurrection. In the story of the New Testament, however, the resurrection becomes the core of the message. Whatever I think of the Bible, I can accept that words and events in the biblical narrative have meaning. Before the resurrection, resurrection was not an issue. After that, however, yes. This can be investigated. It was firmly assumed that the resurrection of Jesus had taken place, and Paul takes the doubts of some as an opportunity to hold on to the resurrection and the making alive of Jesus precisely as the basis of the gospel and as the foundation stone for the work of God (1 Corinthians 15). If this does not agree with my own understanding, it can still stand on its own as a testimony. I can then deal with that.
Interpretation and meaning
We find meaning in our lives and in this world through interpretation. People in the Bible have interpreted and therefore found meaning. We too are called upon to interpret our lives, often out of inner necessity. The Bible can help us to find meaning. It doesn’t work without interpretation. However, we can try to let the text speak for itself without trying to impose our own thoughts on the foreground.
If literalness was not a concern of the biblical stories (check the context), the story is still true. She wants to help us recognize something. If this succeeds, the truth is recognized. This is not a task of literalness or truth, but the recognition of the task of the text.
That is why you can always take the text seriously if you ask what the aim of these statements is. Like the Beroeans, one can also examine the Scriptures daily “to see whether these things are so” (Acts 17:10-11). Anyone who does this examines whether the stories are coherent in themselves. This shapes your own understanding, outlook and confidence. You are in a place where the Bible is taken seriously. One examines whether it proves itself in the context of Scripture (whether the proclamation is correct) and can then draw valuable insights from it for one’s own life and that of the community. It is read, interpreted and then given meaning.
All stories are true, even if they didn’t happen. This is the case when the goal of the story is not “literalness”, but fulfills a purpose. The message is true and remains true, even if it contains imagery, oriental storytelling or time-bound aspects. Anyone who sweeps all this off the table with the assertion that “the Bible is eternal truth because everything is literal” is cordially invited to learn to read the Bible in its own light.
How much of a believer are you?
How do you see yourself? Super pious? Unbelieving? Or are you somewhere between these two extremes? It does matter what we think and why we think it.
How we think shapes our understanding of this world. Those who are religious have found a way of expressing their own understanding. That is why there are religious Christians, Jews, Muslims and many other people who are each “religious” in their own way. Those who see themselves more as atheists are also “believers”, because everything revolves around God, albeit “in denial”. That is not neutral.
I dare say that no human being is neutral in this life. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we live with a simplification of this world. It is our understanding. I see it as a human ability to be able to imagine something according to which you organize your life. This is a neutral statement. However, how we use this ability and what we fill our understanding with is something completely different.
Am I a believer?
If I relate this question to myself and pay attention to what other people say about me, then I am
- Too believing for some, not believing enough for others
- Too evangelical for some, not evangelical enough for others
- too Bible-oriented for some, too little Bible-oriented for others
- too theological for some, not theological enough for others
- right-thinking for some, wrong-thinking for others.
It’s good that you can’t and don’t have to please everyone. Anyone who tries to do that has already lost. Those who merely try to fulfill the demands of others are not free.
However, I regularly talk to people who seriously ask themselves whether they believe “enough”. They get this idea from the communities and contacts they are part of. There, agreement with certain doctrines is seen as a measure of faith. Anyone who does not agree with this “cannot” be a believer. I often hear from people that they are deeply unsure whether they are believers or not.
Many people have already denied me my faith, accused me of demonic possession just because I don’t subscribe to certain ideas. Such statements tell me more about those who condemn than about myself.
If I could give encouragement, I would tell everyone to set out on a positive path in life. What you believe is nourished and made possible by many things. Therefore, what you feed yourself with, especially mentally, has a strong effect on what you think and believe (Psalm 1 shows what this could look like).
Self-righteousness
Some get caught up in orthodoxy, that is, in certain assumptions about how and what to believe. Jesus confronted the self-righteous of his time. Today, of course, this self-righteousness also exists. They are people who condemn and denounce others without delay. They set rules, define what is right and what is wrong, and encourage other people to follow them.
Self-righteousness is a way of life. It is not tied to specific churches or free churches. It’s about the overconfidence of some people. I have encountered self-righteous evangelicals, but also arrogant theologians. What all these people have in common is the belief that they are supposedly in the right and think they can look down on others. They are the greatest impediments to genuine community and contagious faith.
The reality is much simpler: we all don’t know. None of us has an overview of all the issues. This also applies to faith. We can only look back on our experience or share the answers we have found ourselves. We can share these insights in the community. However, we cannot derive a claim to absoluteness for our knowledge.
Characteristics of a healthy faith
Those who are healthy in their faith will release others into the freedom of Christ and not bind them to themselves. People are led to Christ. This is the simplest test. Paul describes this in Ephesians as follows:
“But if we are true, we should make everything grow in love, into Him who is the head, Christ.”
Eph 4:15-16
Truth is recognized from an attitude of service that has only one thing in mind: To help people grow. The direction of this growth does not lie in the acceptance of certain dogmas, but is “into Him who is the head, Christ”. It is towards a person and into the understanding of Christ. We can deduce what this means from Paul’s concerns as recorded in his letters.
The attitude of service should be evident in all those who wish to be actively involved in the community of believers. Paul writes at length about these things in his letters to Timothy. The apostle spoke to Timothy about the requirements for spiritual tasks in the churches. Like this:
“Credible is the word: If anyone desires an overseer’s office, he desires an ideal job.”
1Tim 3,1
Servants should “keep the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience”. In addition, Paul says, they should first prove themselves:
“But let these also prove themselves first, and then let them serve if they are blameless.”
1Tim 3:9-10
This service probation is something completely different from completing an apprenticeship, a degree or a course. It has nothing to do with whether someone has a high opinion of themselves, a high level of education or supposedly overflows with charismatic special effects. None of these things qualify for service. On the other hand, those who can keep the mystery of faith in a clear conscience, who prove themselves in service, have shown themselves to be tried and tested “ministers” who are “fit” for service in the church.
Do not rule over the faith of others
Those who stand in the community with an attitude of service, who try to help others to grow, fulfill an important task. At no time is it about certain doctrines, about an understanding of faith characterized by rules, but it is always about the person who is allowed to continue. Paul is aware of his servant attitude when he writes:
“Not that we have dominion over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, because you have stood firm in the faith.”
2Cor 1,24
As noted earlier, it doesn’t matter what we believe or why we believe it. An open learning culture is needed so that a healthy attitude of faith can be mutually promoted in the community. It is worth working towards this. “How much” we believe, whether we are doing everything “right”, is not for us to judge. Judging yourself based on the assumptions and projections of others is disastrous. Let us support each other in promoting our trust in God in freedom, always keeping Christ before our eyes.
The former ministry of the Apostle Paul
A new passage in the letter to the Romans. Having described the way of life as a logical service to God (Rom 12:1 – Rom 15:7), Paul now turns to his own everyday work for the churches.
From the structure of the letter, which has already been shown several times, Paul speaks twice about his ministry:
- Rom 1:14-17 Earlier ministry as an evangelist
- Rom 15:8-21 Former service as a priest
This is what he calls this priestly service in this passage:
“That I may be the minister of Christ Jesus to the nations, working as a priest of the gospel of God.”
Rom 15:16
The gospel of God was that for which he was set apart by God, according to the first verse of the letter to the Romans (Romans 1:1). It is for this that Paul works. He “works as a priest”. It does not say here that he is a priest, as a function, but only a verb is mentioned here – “to work as a priest”, namely to perform a priestly service (Greek hierourgeo, only here). So it’s not about a function, but about what it does. The emphasis is on the activity.
At the same time, this section once again clearly points out the different target groups for whom Christ and Paul worked. When Jesus walked the earth, his focus was on the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24). Paul confirms this once again in the next verses. Paul, however, was not called for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but as a representative for all nations. The time and the task had changed. As a slave of Christ Jesus (Romans 1:1), Paul does not have the same task to fulfill as Jesus in the Gospels. This cannot be emphasized and recognized enough.
The truthfulness of God
Let us now read the following passage 15:8-12 from this perspective.
“For I say thatChrist became the minister of the circumcision for the truthfulness of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers.
But the nations will glorify God for His mercy, just as it is written:
-
- Therefore I will worship you among the nations and sing praises to your name (Ps 18:50).
- Elsewhere again it says: “Rejoice, you nations, with His people! (Deut 32,43)
- And again it says: “Praise the Lord, all nations! Let all peoples praise Him!” (Ps 117:1)
Rom 15:8-12
Israel first, but also the nations. These two groups are both mentioned by Paul. Christ on earth, as we read in the Gospels, was a servant of the circumcision. His ministry was to Israel because of the truthfulness of God, who promised many things to this people. These promises were confirmed by Christ. The confirmation also shows that God is reliable and He is true. He does what He says. God stands by His word.
In the same breath, however, Paul goes on to write that the nations are also included in the promises. He quotes three passages from the Old Testament, from which it emerges that God also wants to live among the nations. Paul links Israel and the nations here from this perspective of the promises. But we should not draw the short-circuit here that Paul “therefore” writes exactly what the prophets meant. This is not the case. The gospel, which Paul calls “his gospel” (Rom 2:16), was a mystery and not known to the prophets (Rom 16:25-26). If Paul makes a comparison here, then only as a concept, not as a fulfillment.
He spoke at length in chapters 9-11 about the fact that God does not reject His people, even though they have rejected His Messiah. God’s view goes beyond the rejection of people. We recognize this in Israel, in ourselves, and can therefore understand that it affects all people (1 Timothy 4:9-11).
Neither the people nor the nations today fully accept the grace of God. Today it’s about individual people. They are “called out” and end up in the church (Greek ekklesia or “called out ones”). It is also not about implementing it in the here and now. For the prophets, it was the future. Paul describes it in a certain context: it is already true in the church that God is praised among the nations. They experience that God is true and that His promises are fulfilled.
“But the nations will glorify God for His mercy.”
Rom 15:9
The God of confidence
Since Paul has confirmed God’s truthfulness, he can now call Him the “God of confidence”:
“May the God of confidence fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may overflow with confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Rom 15:13
This is the teaching that Paul extracts from these stories and promises. He recognizes that God is confidently and truly working towards a goal. This God of confidence should now fill us with joy and peace in faith. For when this happens, we also overflow with confidence, with the power of the Holy Spirit. Confidence in His actions follows from the knowledge of God.
Confidence and task of the apostle
In the next section, Paul describes his ministry. It is exciting to see how positively he writes about the Romans.
“I myself also am convinced, as for you, my brothers, that you yourselves are also enlarged by goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. Nevertheless, I have written to you (sometimes boldly) to remind you again, for the sake of the grace given to me by God, that I may be the minister of Christ Jesus to the nations, ministering as a priest of the gospel of God, that the offering of the nations may be acceptable, sanctified in the Holy Spirit.”
Rom 15:14
The seriousness and determination with which he repeatedly took a stand was aimed at only one goal: “so that the offering of the nationsmay be acceptable”. Paul sees a church before him, a goal in which faith is alive and effective. The result is an “offering of the nations”, a fruit, so to speak, that is considered an offering before God. He had already pointed this out at the beginning of the letter:
“Nor will I leave you in ignorance, my brothers, that I have often set myself to come to you (until now I have been denied), so that you may have some fruit among you as well as among the rest of the nations.”
Rom 1:13
He has now advocated this effect in his letter. That is his goal. It is not about himself, but about Christ and the cause of God:
“In my service for the cause of God, therefore, I have boasting only in Christ Jesus. For I would not dare to speak of anything that Christ has not done through me to lead the nations to obedience of faith by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit of God.”
Rom 15:17-19
Signs and wonders
The fact that Paul speaks of signs and wonders that explicitly point to the messianic kingdom in the Gospels (Mt 10:5-7; Mt 11:2-6; Heb 6:5) can only be duly appreciated if we see that Paul’s ministry also knows a development. His signs and wonders, as known from his first period of ministry, exceeded the powers done by the Twelve Apostles. However, they all disappeared in his later years (we read nothing more about them). It was a good change. His message became deeper. Christ became greater. Salvation became more comprehensive. The view became even more impressive. Grace became more alive. No more signs and wonders, but more spiritual riches.
Paul continues to report on these journeys:
“So that from Jerusalem all around as far as Illyria I have fully established the gospel of Christ. I have therefore set my honor not to preach the gospel where Christ is already named, so that I may not build on another’s foundation, but as it is written: To those who have not heard about Him, they will see; and those who have not heard will understand.” (Is 52:15)
Rom 15:19-21
Paul worked harder than all the other apostles, he himself writes (1 Corinthians 15:10). This is probably a reference to his extensive travels and his work at many different churches. Paul would never build on the work of another apostle, for example. Rome was also not founded by Peter, because Peter was never in Rome as far as the Bible reports. The church was there, but it had probably been established by travelers who had brought the gospel with them. Paul was now able to carry out his ministry here, although he did not found the church in Rome either.
Confidence for the church in Rome
The confidence that Paul has for the church is also present in the church in Rome itself.
“But I myself also, my brethren, am persuaded concerning you, that you yourselves also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able also to admonish one another.”
Rom 15:14
Faith is never something that you only have within yourself. Faith arises and flourishes in community. It is crucial that we give each other faith and confidence. When Paul speaks of His confidence and task, it does not stop there. He is writing to the church in Rome and does not forget to confirm these people in their faith.
Deepening
- When was the last time you confirmed someone else in their faith?
- Do you understand your task in this world?
- Confidence and outlook arise from the Gospel. Outline why it works.
- What goal does Paul have in mind when he writes this (Rom 15:7-21)?
Do near-death experiences provide insight into an afterlife?
People regularly ask me about near-death experiences. They have had such experiences themselves, read about them, or find adventurous videos on YouTube. You ask yourself how these experiences and reports should be classified.
No afterlife experiences
Near-death experiences are just that: “near-death experiences”. They are experiences of this world, not experiences of the hereafter. The experience of a tunnel, for example, is also well known. Everyone knows that you are “on the other side” when you walk through this tunnel. After that, there is no turning back. This explains that you are still in this world and by no means “dead”.
Experiences are real
You never have to underestimate people’s experiences. The experience is there. However, how these experiences are interpreted and named is something else. For example, if someone has a near-death experience that they describe as “heaven” or “hell”, this is an interpretation. The interpretation often depends on one’s religious beliefs. People look for familiar words with which they can categorize the experience. That is understandable, but it does not “prove” anything.
On YouTube and in books, people sometimes try to prove ideas about hell or heaven with the help of such extraordinary experiences. That is pointless, because firstly they are experiences of this world and secondly they are interpretations. Such interpretations exist all over the world, and are colored locally.
In his book “Endless Consciousness”, Dutch doctor Pim van Lommel describes these phenomena. He carefully examined the available studies and came to the conclusion that around 25% of all people have an experience at least once in their lives that can be attributed to near-death experiences. He himself had no such experience when he wrote this book. It was only later that he had such an experience.
The experiences are real. Many people experience such things. What this means is a topic in itself and not necessarily what people themselves describe. There are several attempts to explain these unusual perceptions. In his book, Pim van Lommel takes a methodical approach and gradually examines various scientific explanations for the experiences. Much can be recognized, but not everything can be fully explained. This is also quite normal from a scientific point of view. However, this does not mean that inexplicable things are “therefore” of divine origin.
The visible and invisible world
When Christians write to me, it is often because they are unsure what these things mean. What is dramatically narrated and possibly even presented as a video seems authentic and therefore “true” to many. However, from a sober point of view, one must also keep open the possibility of presenting interpretation as objective truth.
If you look it up in the Bible and see how you can classify it, you might find the following:
Creation consisted of visible and invisible things. Both the visible and the invisible are real and part of creation:
“He [Jesus, the Son of His love. Col 1:13] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creation.
For in Him the universe is created:
the one in the sky and the one on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
be it thrones or dominions, principalities or authorities.
The universe is created through Him and for Him and He is above all,
and the universe exists together in Him.”
Col 1:15-17
So what about near-death experiences, extrasensory perceptions, déjà vu, astral travel, thoughts of reincarnation and more? These are all extraordinary experiences that are not normally visible. Anyone who experiences this has perhaps only glimpsed the invisible world, which is also part of creation. Likewise, occult perceptions and special abilities can simply be attributed to this invisible part of creation. There is no reason not to accept this. But you don’t have to run after these phenomena.
Invisible is not “divine” just because they are special experiences. Those who lose themselves in this, as if it were the ultimate wisdom, lose themselves in creation and therefore do not know the Creator any better. Some derive their insights from anti-divine, i.e. satanic, origins. You can also think such things. In fact, I have met several people who I have asked specifically where they got their powers from. Some things were “just there”, while for other things they had to tap into “invisible forces and powers”.
Perhaps it would be more sober to say that people can have these experiences because they are part of this world. When Taoists or yogis have such experiences after decades of meditation, but certain drugs immediately lead to similar results, one may wonder what exactly is happening. Is it particularly spiritual to pay attention to these things, or have you simply lost focus on God Himself and become lost in creation instead of seeing the Creator?
Time and again I get the impression that people are impressed by these experiences and even derive a change in attitude to life from them. I’m happy to leave it at that. It is therefore not of a spiritual or divine nature when this happens. You may just have experienced something that you never thought possible before, but which is part of this world. It doesn’t have to be “higher”, “more important” or “better” than what you usually experience. It is perhaps just a variant, an extension, of perception.
The importance attached to such experiences is often greater than what they actually are. But that also has to do with how we have seen the world up to that point. Perhaps we only recognized the visible in this world until we suddenly also experienced the invisible. This should not surprise us, because both are part of the creation in which we stand.
In my opinion, occult powers, extrasensory perceptions and many phenomena can be easily assigned to this invisible realm of creation. They are thus suddenly demystified.
Classification of experience
Some people are particularly proud of what they have experienced. However, if I want to categorize such experiences, I personally like to follow the Bible. It does not exclude such experiences, but sees them as part of the world. For example here:
“[when He, God] raised Him [Christus] from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the midst of the heavenly ones, exalted above every principality and authority, power and dominion, even above every name that is named not only in this eon but also in the one to come. He subordinates everything to Him, at His feet.”
Eph 1:20-22
Paul recognizes many spiritual realities here, which he calls principalities, authorities, powers and dominions. Christ, however, has been given a position far above this. Everything is subordinated to Him.
When I want to categorize extraordinary experiences, I think of these verses and understand that Christ is enthroned above all these invisible elements. I can also ask myself: why should I bother with intermediate stages, as if this were the highest experience, when I am already blessed “in Christ” (Eph 1:3), who is above all?
Experiences of the dead
Dead people do not live. This is the sober realization that can be found in the Bible. Those who are dead are not alive, and an afterlife as a “place of the living dead” is not described in the Bible. Neither on earth (“Zombies”) nor in a fictitious afterlife (“Kingdom of the Dead”). The testimony of Lazarus, who was dead for a whole 4 days (1 day longer than Jesus!) is therefore impressive. We read about this in John 11:
“When He [Jesus] had said this, He cried out with a loud voice: “Lazarus, come out!”. Then the deceased came out, his feet and hands wrapped in burial cloths and his face covered with a shroud. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him and let him go!”
John 11:43-44
We learn nothing more. Lazarus reports nothing from these four days, as he was dead. We do not read anything in the Bible about him or other resurrected persons from the dead, according to which they would be in an “afterlife”. They were not. They were simply dead. They had no experience to report on. Today, these people would have been asked immediately about experiences in the afterlife. But that was not an issue there. It is not an issue in the Bible. If you want to justify this from the Bible, you first have to project it carefully into the Bible before you can read it out. There are no reports in the Bible about an alleged afterlife and YouTube videos don’t convince me. I like to remain sober and let the statements in the Bible stand in their own context.
Near-death experiences are so called because people assume they are about to die. That may be a possibility. Anyone who has already suffered brain death, no longer has a heartbeat and sees themselves hovering over the operating table and can hear every word the doctors are saying and has had these statements confirmed later by the same doctors (I have such first-hand reports), is having a very special experience. However, this person was not dead. However, it was “close to death” and perhaps the situation could not be explained medically in every respect. That’s OK. However, it is pointless to speculate wildly about what happened.
Do near-death experiences provide insight into an afterlife? No. The consolation of the Bible is real, but does not lie in projections onto an alleged afterlife. In the Bible, we are comforted by the resurrection, as with Lazarus (John 11:23-27).
The battle for truth
Everyone has the right to their own aberrations. However, those who think very strongly in a right-or-wrong scheme will want to stick firmly to their own truth. It is too dangerous to get at the concept of “truth”. People are all too quick to point out that Jesus said: “I am the truth” (John 14:6), as if this could nip any debate about the concept of truth in the bud.
What is truth?
When Jesus appeared before Pilate and was questioned by Pilate, Jesus responded with the simple remark “You say so”, with the emphasis on “you”. Pilate responds with the rhetorical question “What is truth?”. There is already an article on this statement on this website, which I am happy to recommend for reading here.
However, there are other aspects to the popular understanding of truth. There are philosophical assumptions that truth can only be personal and is never absolute. Much can be said against this, especially as no community or society can exist without generally accepted values. But that is a different discussion. I would just like to point out that some people see truth as subjective. Although there is subjectivity, the reverse conclusion is drawn here that “therefore” there is no absolute truth.
Others, however, insist on “absolute” truth, which usually only means their own understanding. This also applies in particular when reference is made to the Bible. “What is true is what I myself or what my community justifies with the Bible.” This is a limited understanding, from which general validity is assumed, which was first projected onto it. That is a circular argument.
Literally true?
As a result of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, it is often claimed that the Bible is to be read “literally” and is “literally” true. That’s nonsense, because it often doesn’t work at all. You project this view onto the Bible and then think that this is confirmed by the text. However, it does not, which is easy to see.
In Judges 9 a parable of trees is told. It is Jotam’s parable:
“And it was reported to Jotam. So he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and he lifted up his voice and called out and said to them: Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, and God will listen to you!
Once the trees went to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, “Be king over us! And the olive tree said to them, “Should I give up my fatness, which gods and men praise in me, and go to hover over the trees? Then the trees said to the fig tree, “Come, be king over us! And the fig tree said to them, “Should I give up my sweetness and my good fruit and go to hover over the trees? Then the trees said to the vine, “Come, be king over us! And the vine said to them, “Should I give up my must, which delights gods and men, and go to hover over the trees? Then all the trees said to the briar: “Come, be king over us! And the briar said to the trees, “If you will anoint me king over you in truth, come, entrust yourselves to my shadow; but if not, let fire come out of the briar and consume the cedars of Lebanon.”
Judges 9:7-15
The question now is what the truth is. Do trees talk? Does this story from the Bible have to be read “literally”, as if the plant kingdom is being correctly described here? Hardly. These and many other stories use imagery to convey a truth, but the image is never the subject. This is an example of how truth can only ever be described in words. It is not about the letter, but about the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6). If we cannot even interpret language, how can we understand the statement?
Truth is touched by language, but must not be confused by language, just as truth must not be confused by my personal understanding. What is needed here is healthy differentiation and modesty. This can be developed in a shared learning culture.
False security
There is often a desire for reliability. Those who believe want security. At least that’s how I know it from myself. But I had to learn to think about it. It is not uncommon to fight for a false sense of security. People talk about truth, but they mean security. It is an unholy combination of longing for security and a supposedly absolute truth. I can understand that, but the two things are different.
Truth in an absolute sense does not have to be “what I myself believe to be true”. Then truth would simply be the function of my brain. One characteristic of truth, however, would be universality, which is not dependent on agreement. However, this universality is beyond me. I am part of reality, not “the” reality. My insight is at best a fraction and therefore subjective. This does not invalidate the idea of absolute truth and reliability, but my understanding is fragmentary.
If I confuse my limited understanding with absolute truth, I have a problem. This also applies when I present the Bible as absolute truth and defend it with fire and the sword. This is an evasive maneuver. Here I merely conceal my lack of understanding of the Bible and claim that the Bible is absolute and therefore my assessment is correct. It’s like constantly shouting “The Lord says! The Lord says!” when he hasn’t said anything and you’re just covering up your own insecurity – super piously disguised.
It can be very threatening to become aware of your limitations in understanding. Only those who have the courage to look will learn from it. That is called humility. It is the courage not to place oneself and one’s own understanding in the center as absolute truth, but to allow oneself honest and open questions for a better understanding.
Here is the real security: do not allow yourself to know everything and at the same time experience yourself as loved by God. Perhaps in something like the way Paul describes it:
“Rejoice in the Lord always! Once again I want to emphasize: Rejoice! Let your joy be known to all people: The Lord is near! Be anxious for nothing, but in everything let your requests be made known to God in prayer and thanksgiving. Then the peace of God, which is superior to all reasoning, will keep your hearts and minds as in a fortress in Christ Jesus.”
Phil 4:4-7
With this invitation, Paul testifies to what he understands. It is very practical because it starts with thinking. His attitude to life is the attitude of faith with which he moves forward. It is not that he classifies everything as “safe”, but he has confidence in God that He will do it. Security comes from the relationship, not from a false certainty. It is an understanding with which He moves forward, not a list of absolute facts in which He stops. There is even a promise in these words, namely that the peace of God, which is superior to all thinking, keeps our hearts and minds as in a fortress in Christ Jesus. This is an understanding that everything depends on God and His Christ.
We recognize here what Paul is talking about: a positive orientation of faith, supported by God and His Christ, not by the supposed superiority of one’s own knowledge.
Belief is always subjective
Faith is trust and therefore personal and subjective. My understanding is fragmented, even if reality is not. Differentiation is the way out of the mess of false securities. Discover what is right for you today, knowing that your understanding will take you further in this world and that the truth behind all things is never affected.
You can let the Bible accompany you on this path, you can reach out for more biblical understanding and draw valuable insights from it day by day. “The truth” is what you are examining, but one’s own understanding is not to be confused with it, as if one could encompass everything oneself. If I could do that, I would be like God. Therefore: modesty is the order of the day. I am subjective in my understanding. God is not affected by this, whatever you think you understand about God.
That’s why you can confidently leave any misconceptions behind. You’ve just learned something new. Reflection helps you to recognize why you are moving on. You can let go of the old without having to throw the Bible, God or Jesus overboard. The book is simply what it is: a testimony. The understanding of God and the understanding of who Jesus is is our personal understanding or the understanding of the community in which I stand. These are human insights. They are completely imperfect.
Living forward
You can take further steps in this life without losing “truth”, because it will always be there. However, you can revise “your own understanding” once you have recognized the limitations and found a better version of the limitations.
Frankly, I can’t claim to know everything either. But I want to be curious and ready to learn in this world. I burned my fingers on absolute ideas. I try to avoid this experience today, even though I see myself in this competition day after day and stretch myself to see what lies ahead. Just as Paul describes it:
“Brothers, I do not yet consider myself to have grasped it. But I do one thing: I forget what lies behind me and reach out for what lies ahead. In this way I pursue the goal, the battle prize of God’s calling in Christ Jesus. Let all of us then who are mature be intent on this; and if you are of a different mind about anything, God will reveal this to you also. However, in what we overtake others, we should be of the same mind, to follow the basic rules according to the same standard.”
Phil 3:13-16