Podcasts about Christology

We refuse to have a notion of God theologically independent of Christ. Christology is to come to an understanding of God as Christ and Christ as God. If we do not know the God that Jesus came to reveal, exclusively through the lens of Jesus, then we are in danger of adopting notions about God from areas that are inferior to the life of Christ.   The Homestead Mobile - September 12th, 2025

Continuing the thought from the morning services on What We Believe About Jesus Christ

What does it mean to worship God “with reverence and awe” (Heb. 12:28)? In this episode of Christ the Center, Dr. Camden Bucey speaks with Dr. David Hall and Dr. Carlton Wynne about the upcoming Reformation Worship Conference at Midway PCA (October 16–19, 2025). Together, they reflect on the regulative principle of worship, the unchanging truth of Scripture, and the ways God uses ordinary means of grace to sanctify his people. Dr. Hall shares his journey into Reformed worship, highlighting how worship flows from every doctrinal locus—Christology, pneumatology, anthropology, and beyond. The discussion encourages believers to treasure reverence, resist shallow entertainment-driven services, and see worship as the very heart of discipleship.  00:07 Introduction   06:51 Confessing Unchanging Truth   13:57 Dr. Hall's Background   20:48 Dr. Wynne's Background   25:43 The Regulative Principle of Worship   33:58 Worship Offering a Sanctifying Influence   42:11 Trends in Worship Practices   46:46 The Directory for Public Worship   52:26 The Influence of the Wider Culture on the Church   59:21 Conclusion   This is Christ the Center episode 927 (https://www.reformedforum.org/ctc927)

BioPhil Allen, Jr., PhD is a theologian and ethicist whose research and writings include the intersections of social structure, race, culture, and theology and ethics of justice. He has authored two books: Open Wounds: A Story of Racial Tragedy, Trauma, and Redemption and The Prophetic Lens: The Camera and Black Moral Agency From MLK to Darnella Frazier. He is an affiliate assistant professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, a poet, and documentary filmmaker. Dr. Allen is also founder of the nonprofit Racial Solidarity Project based in Pasadena, CA. As a former Division 1 college basketball player, he has enjoyed opportunities as a guest chaplain for college and professional sports teams.Phil Allen Jr., PhDAffiliate Assistant Professor | Fuller Theological SeminaryPresident: Racial Solidarity Project (RSP)Philallenjr.com | openwoundsdoc.comInstagram: @philallenjrig | @the_rspThreads: @philallenjrigFacebook: Phil Allen, Jr.Substack: @philallenjrLinkedIn: @philallenjrWelcome to the Arise podcast, conversations in Reality centered on our same themes, faith, race, justice, gender in the church. So happy to welcome my buddy and a colleague, just a phenomenal human being. Dr. Phil Allen, Jr. He has a PhD. He's a theologian and an ethicist whose research and writings include intersections of social structure, race, culture, and theology, and the ethics of justice. He has also authored two books, open Wounds, A Story of Racial Tragedy, trauma and Redemption, and the Prophetic Lens, the Camera and the Black Moral Agency from MLK to Dan Darnell Frazier. He's an affiliate assistant professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, a poet and a documentary filmmaker. Dr. Allen is also founder of the nonprofit Racial Solidarity Project based in Pasadena, California as a former division one college basketball player. Yes, he has enjoyed opportunities as a guest chaplain for college and professional sports. Hey, you're not going to be disappointed. You're going to find questions, curiosity ways to interact with the material here. Please just open up your mindset and your heart to what is shared today, and I encourage you to share and spread the word. Hey, Phil. Here we find ourselves back again talking about similar subjects.Danielle (00:18):Welcome to the Arise podcast, conversations in Reality centered on our same themes, faith, race, justice, gender in the church. So happy to welcome my buddy and a colleague, just a phenomenal human being. Dr. Phil Allen, Jr. He has a PhD. He's a theologian and an ethicist whose research and writings include intersections of social structure, race, culture, and theology, and the ethics of justice. He has also authored two books, open Wounds, A Story of Racial Tragedy, trauma and Redemption, and the Prophetic Lens, the Camera and the Black Moral Agency from MLK to Dan Darnell Frazier. He's an affiliate assistant professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, a poet and a documentary filmmaker. Dr. Allen is also founder of the nonprofit Racial Solidarity Project based in Pasadena, California as a former division one college basketball player. Yes, he has enjoyed opportunities as a guest chaplain for college and professional sports. Hey, you're not going to be disappointed. You're going to find questions, curiosity ways to interact with the material here. Please just open up your mindset and your heart to what is shared today, and I encourage you to share and spread the word. Hey, Phil. Here we find ourselves back again talking about similar subjects.Unfortunately. Well, how are you coming in today? How is your body? How's your mind? How are you coming in? Just first of all,Phil Allen Jr. (01:51):I am coming in probably in one of the best places, spaces in a long time. The last two days have been very, very encouraging and uplifting, having nothing to do with what's happening in the world. I turned 52, I told you I turned 52 yesterday. So whenever I see the happy birthdays and the messages, text messages, social media messages, literally it just lifts me up. But in that, I also had two people share something that I preached. Oh, 10 years ago, what? And one other person, it was 17 years ago, something I taught that came full circle. One person used it in a message for a group of people, and the other person was just saying, 10 years ago, about 10 years ago, you preached a message that was, it impacted me seriously. He didn't know who I was, and he the dots, and he realized, oh, that's the guy that preached when we went to that. And so that, to me, it was so encouraging to hear thoseBecause you never know where your messages land, how impactful they are, and for people to bring that up. That just had me light. Then I did 20 miles, so physically 20I feel great after that. I'm not sore. I'm not tired. I could go run right now, another 10, but I'm not. Okay. Okay, good. Today is rest day good? Yes, I did a crim community resiliency model present workshop.I dunno if you're familiar with, are you familiar with crim?Crim was developed by Trauma Resource Institute here in Claremont, California by Elaine Miller Carra, and they go around the world. They have trainees and people around the world that go into places that just experienced traumatic eventsThe tsunami in Indonesia to school shootings around the country. So here, obviously we had the fires from January, and so we did a workshop to help. What it is is helping people develop the skills, practical skills. There are six skills to regulate the nervous systems, even in the moments. I was certified in 2020 to do that, and so I did a co-led presentation. It was great, very well received. I had fun doing it. So empowering to give people these skills. I use them every day, resourcing, just like when you asked me, how are you in your body? So for a moment, I have to track, I have to notice what's going on with my body. That's the firstSo we teach people those skills and it is just the last few days, Monday, Tuesday, and today already. I just feel light and it's no coincidence I didn't watch the news at all yesterday.Okay. Even on social media, there's no coincidence. I feel light not having engaged those things. So I feel good coming in this morning.Danielle (05:32):Okay, I like that. Well, I know I texted you, I texted you a couple months ago. I was like, let's record a podcast. And then as you alluded to, the world's kept moving at a rapid pace and we connected. And I've been doing a lot of thinking for a long time, and I know you and I have had conversations about what does it look like to stay in our bodies, be in our bodies in this time, and I've been thinking about it, how does that form our reality? And as you and I have talked about faith, I guess I'm coming back to that for you, for how you think about faith and how it informs your reality, how you're in reality, how you're grounding yourself, especially as you alluded to. We do know we can't be involved every second with what's happening, but we do know that things are happening. So yeah, just curious, just open up the conversation like that.Phil Allen Jr. (06:28):Yeah, I think I'm going to go back to your first question. I think your first question you asked me sets the tone for everything. And I actually answered this similarly to someone yesterday when you said, how are you in your body? And for me, that's the first I've learned, and a lot of it has to do with community resiliency model that I just talked about, to pay attention to what's going on in my body. That tells me a lot. That tells me if I'm good, I can't fake it. You can fake how you feel. You can fake and perform what you think, but you can't with the sensations and the response of your body to different circumstances, that's going to be as real, as tangible. So I pay attention first to that. That tells me how much I'm going to engage a subject matter. It tells me how much I want to stay in that space, whether it's the news, whether it's conversation with someone. My body tells me a lot now, and I don't separate that from my faith. We can go through biblical narrative and we can see where things that are going on physically with someone is addressed or is at least acknowledged. It is just not in the forefront emphasized. So we don't think that paying attention to what's going on in your body matters,When you have that dualistic approach to faith where the soul is all that matters. Your body is just this flesh thing. No, God created all of it. Therefore, all of it's valuable and we need to pay attention to all of it. So that's the first place I start. And then in terms of faith, I'm a realist. I'm a Christian realist, so I put things in perspective. The love ethic of Jesus is an ideal. Scripture is an ideal. It's telling us when you look at Christ, Jesus is the son of God. Jesus is also called the son of man. And from my understanding and my learnings, son of man refers to the human one, the ideal human one, right? He is divinity, but he's deity, but he's also a human, and he's the human that we look to for the ideal way to live. And so this perfect ideal of love, the love ethic of Jesus, I believe it's unattainable on this side of heaven. I think we should always strive to love our enemies. But how many people actually love their enemies? Bless them. I saw what Eric, I think his name, first name is Erica Kirk forgave theOkay? I'm not here to judge whether that's real or if she felt obligated because I know some Christians, they wrestle because they feel obligated to forgive almost immediately. I don't feel that obligation if my body is not in a place where I can just say, I forgive you. I need to get to a place where I can forgive. But let's just say it's very real. She is. I forgive this young man. How many people can do that? We admire it. How many Christians will just say, I forgive, genuinely say, I forgive the person who killed my children's father. So it's not that it can't be done, but sustained. There are few people who could do what in terms of relative to how many people in the world, what Mother Teresa did. There are few people who can do that. There are few people who could do what Martin Luther King did who could practice non-violence, risk, jail and life and limb for an extended period of time. So I'm not saying it can't be done, but sustained by many or the most of us. I just don't believe that's realistic. I believe it's always something we aspire to. And we're always challenged throughout life to live up to that ideal. But we're going to fall short probably more often than we want to admit.(11:12):So I don't try to put the pressure on myself to be this perfect Christian. I try to understand where I am in my maturity in this particular area. There's some things I can do better than others, and then I go from there. So I look at what's happening in the world through that lens. How would I really respond? There are people I don't want to deal with. They are toxic and harmful to me because here's the other part, there's also wisdom. That's faith too.Holy Spirit, when the Holy Spirit comes, the Holy Spirit shall come upon you, shall lead you in. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but the Holy Spirit shall lead you. No, the spirit of wisdom is what I'm trying to get to in John. This Holy Spirit is called the spirit of wisdom. Holy Spirit is going to lead you into all truth, but it's also called the spirit of wisdom.Is faith too. And it is there no one way of doing things.It's where I feel the most settled, even if I don't want to do something.I went through a divorce separated 10 years ago, divorce finalized a couple of years later. And I wanted so badly to share my story through people at my former church, family, friends. I wanted to tell, let me tell what happened. I never had peace about that in my body. My body never felt settled.Settled, okay.Because I knew I was doing it from a place of wanting to get vindication, maybe revenge. It wasn't just as innocent as, let me tell my side of the story, if I'm honest.It was, I'm going to throw you under the bus.But in that moment, I didn't because I didn't feel settled in my spirit. People say settled in my spirit. Really, it is also my body that I should do that wisdom says, let God handle it. Let God bring it to the surface. In due time, people will know who need to know. You don't have to take revenge. When they go low, you go high. In that moment, that's what I felt at peace to do. And I don't regret it to this day. I don't regret it. I'm glad I didn't because it would just been even more messy.I have conversations with my grandmother who's no longer with us, or I recall conversations we had. So when I was young, and I tell people unapologetically, I'm a mama's boy and a grandmama's boy. Women played a significant role raising me. So I'm close to mom, grandma, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, my sisters, and I'm the oldest of all my siblings, but women. So my grandmother, rather than going out to parties a lot, I would prefer to go to her house. I lived in high school with one grandmother, but sometimes I would go to my other grandmother's house and just sit and she would have a glass of wine, and we would just talk for hours. And she would tell me stories When she was young,Would ask her questions. I miss, and I loved those times. An external resource, if this can be an external no longer here, but she's a person. She was a real person. I think about what if I'm having a conversation with her, and she would never really be impulsive with me. She would just pause and just think, well, and I know she's going to drop some wisdom, right?So that's one of my sources. My grandmother, both of them to a degree, but my mom's mom for sure is I would say her feet. So I'd have these conversations. I still don't want to embarrass them. I don't want to make them look bad. I want them to be proud of me toDay. So that helps me make decisions. It helps me a lot of times on how I respond in the same way we believe that God is ever present and omniscient and knowing what we're doing and what we're thinking and feeling and watching, not watching in a surveillance type of way, but watching over us like a parent. If we believe that in those moments, I pretend because I don't know, but I pretend that my grandmother is, she's in heaven and she's watching over all right now, and I'm not offering a theological position that when they die and go to heaven, they're still present with us omnipresent. Now, I'm not saying any of that, just in my mind. I tell myself, grandma could be watching me. What will grandma do? Type of thing. So that becomes an external resource for me as well as mentors that I've had in my life. Even if I can't get in touch with them, I would recall conversations we've had, and they're still alive. I recall conversations we've had and how would they guide me in this? And so I remember their words. I remember more than I even realized.Danielle (17:59):And that feels so lovely and so profound that those roots, those, I want to say ancestors, but family, family connections, that they're resourcing us before they even know they're resourcing us.So they're not unfamiliar with suffering and pain and love and joy. So they may not know exactly what we're going through in this moment, 2025, but they do know what it is to suffer. They do know what it is to walk through life. It's heavy sometimes.Phil Allen Jr. (18:43):Yes, yes, yes. They prepared me and my siblings well, and my mom is the encourager. My mom is the person that just says it's going to be okay. It's going to work out. And sometimes I don't want to hear that, but my grandparents would say a little bit more, they were more sagacious in their words, and they would share that wisdom from their life, 80 plus years. And even with my mom, sometimes I'll look back and be like, she was right. I knew she was right. I knew she was right because she'd been through so much and it is going to be okay. It's going to be okay. It always is. And so I don't take that lightly either.Danielle (19:40):When you come to this current moment with your ancestors, your faith, those kinds of things with you, how then do you form a picture of where we are at, maybe as a faith, and I'm speaking specifically to the United States, and you might speak more specifically to your own cultural context. I know for Latino, for Latinx folks, there was some belief that was fairly strong, especially among immigrant men. I would say that to vote for particular party could mean hope and access to power. And so now there's a backtrack of grappling with this has actually meant pain and hate and dissolve of my family. And so what did that mean for my faith? So I think we're having a different experience, but I'm wondering from your experience, how then are you forming a picture of today?Phil Allen Jr. (20:47):I knew where we were headed. Nothing surprises me because my faith teaches me to look at core underlying causes, root causes in an individual. When we talk about character, what are the patterns of this person that's going to tell us a lot about who this person is, they're in leadership, where they're going to lead us, what are the patterns of a particular group, the patterns that a lot of people don't pay attention to or are unaware of? What are those patterns? And even then, you may have to take a genealogical approach, historical approach, and track those patterns going back generations and coming to the current time to tell us where we'reAnd then do the same thing broadly with the United States. And if you pay attention to patterns, I'm a patterns person. If you pay attention to patterns, it'll tell you where you're going. It'll tell you where you're headed. So my faith has taught me to pay attention to even the scripture that says from the heart, the mouth speaks. So if I want to know a person, I just pay attention to what they're saying. I'm just going to listen. And if I listen intently, carefully, what they've said over time tells me how they will lead us, tells me how they will respond. It tells me everything about their ethics, their morality. It tells me what I need to know. If I pay attention, nothing surprises me where we are, the term MAGA is not just a campaign slogan, it's a vision statement. Make America great again. Each of these words, carry weight again, tells me, and it's not even a vision statement, it's nostalgic. It's not creative. It's not taking us into a new future with a new, something new and fresh. It is looking backwards. Again, let's take what we did. It might look a little differently. Let's take what we did and we're going to bring that to 2025. Great. What is great? That's a relative statement. That's a relative word.(23:36):I always ask people, give me one decade. In the last 400 plus years since Europeans encountered, 500 years since Europeans encountered indigenous people, give me one decade of greatness, moral greatness. Not just economic or militarily, but moral greatness where the society was just equitable, fair and loving. I can't find one.Because the first 127 years with interaction with indigenous people was massacre violence, conquest of land, beginning with a narrative that said that they were savages. Then you got 246 years of slavery,Years of reconstruction. And from 1877 to 19 68, 91 years of Jim Crow. So you can't start until you get to 1970.And then you got mass incarceration, the prison industrial complex and racial profiling. So for black folks, especially seventies, and you had the crack of it, the war on drugs was really a war on the communities because it wasn't the same response of the opioid addiction just a few years ago in the suburbs, in the white suburbs, it was a war, whereas this was called a health crisis. So people were in prison, it was violence industry. So now we're in 1990s, and we still can start talking about police brutality, excessive force. And since 1989, you, it's been revealed 50 plus percent of exonerations are African-Americans. So that means throughout the seventies, eighties, and nineties, people who have been put in prison, who unjustly. And that affects an entire community that affects families. And you got school shootings starting with Columbine and mass shootings. So tell me one decade of America greatness.So if I pay attention to the patterns, I should not be surprised with where we are. Make America great. Again, that's a vision statement, but it's nostalgic. It's not innovative. It's taking us back to a time when it was great for people, certain people, and also it was telegraphed. These ice raids were telegraphed.2015, the campaign started with they're sending their rapists and their murder. So the narrative began to create a threat out of brown bodies. From the beginning, he told us,Yeah, right. So project 2025, if you actually paid attention to it, said exactly what they were wanting to do. Nothing surprises me. Go back to the response to Obama as president first, black president, white supremacist group, hate groups rose and still cause more violence than any other group in the country. But they have an ally in the office. So nothing surprises me. My faith tells me, pay attention to the underlying, pay attention to the root causes. Pay attention to the patterns of what people ignore and what they don't pay attention to. And it'll tell you where you're headed. So nothing surprises me,Danielle (27:39):Phil, you'll know this better than me, but Matthew five, that's the beatitudes, right? And I think that's where Jesus hits on this, right? He's like, you said this and I'm saying this. He's saying, pay attention to what's underneath the surface. Don't just say you love someone. What will you do for them? What will you do for your enemy? What will you do for your neighbor? And the reward is opposite. So a lot of times I've been talking with friends and I'm like, it's almost, I love Marvel movies. And you know how they time travel to try to get all the reality stones back and endgame? IA lot of movies. Okay, well, they time travel.Following you. Yeah. They time travel. And I feel like we're in an alternate time, like an alternate, alternate time zone where Jesus is back, he's facing temptations with Satan. And instead of saying no, he's like, bring it on. Give me the world. And we're living in an alternate space where faith, where we're seeing a faith played out with the name of Jesus, but the Jesus being worshiped is this person that would've said yes to the devil that would've said, yes, give me all the kingdoms of the world. Let rule everything. Yes, I'm going to jump. I know you're going to catch me. I can be reckless with my power and my resources. That's what I feel like all the bread I want. Of course I'm hungry. I'm going to take it all for myself. I feel like we're living in that era. It just feels like there's this timeline where this is the Jesus that's being worshiped. Jesus.That's how I feel. And so it's hard for me, and it's good for me to hear you talk about body. It's hard for me to then mix that reality. Because when I talk to someone, I'm like, man, I love Jesus. I love the faith you're talking about. And when I'm out there, I feel such bristle, such bristle and such angst in my body, anxiety like fear when I hear the name of Jesus, that Jesus, does that make sense?Phil Allen Jr. (30:05):Yes. Yeah. And that's so good. And I would you make me think about white Jesus?Like the aesthetics of Jesus. And that was intentional. And so my question for you real quick, how do you feel? What do you sense happening in your body when you see a brown Jesus, when you see an unattractive Palestinian, maybe even Moroccan Ethiopian looking, Jesus, brown skin, darker skin, any shade of brown to depict what Jesus, let's say, someone trying to depict what Jesus might've looked like. I've seen some images that said Jesus would've looked like this. And I don't know if that's true or not, but he was brown. Very different than the European. Jesus with blue eyes, brought blonde hair. What do you sense in, have you ever seen a picture, an image like that? And what do you remember about your response, your bodily response to that?Danielle (31:14):Well, it makes me feel like crying, just to hear you talk about it. I feel relief. I think I feel like I could settle. I would be calm. Some sort of deep resonance. It's interesting you say, I lived in Morocco for two years with my husband, and he's Mexican. Mexican, born there Mexican. And everybody thought he was Moroccan or Egyptian or they were like, who are you? And then they would find out he was Mexican. And they're like, oh man, we're brothers. That's literally an Arabic. They was like, we're brothers. We're brothers. Like, oh yeah, that's the feeling I have. We would be welcomed in.Phil Allen Jr. (32:00):Wow. I asked that question because whenever I've taught, I used teach in my discipleship group a class before they were put into small mentoring groups. I'd have a six, seven week class that I taught on just foundational doctrine and stuff like that. And when I talked about the doctrine of get into Christology, I would present a black Jesus or a brown Jesus, Palestinian Jesus. And you could feel the tension in the room. And usually somebody would push back speaking on behalf of most of the people in the room would push back. And I would just engage in conversation.(32:52):And usually after I would speak to them about and get them to understand some things, then they would start to settle. When I would get them to think about when was the white Jesus, when was Jesus presented as white and by whom and why? And why would Jesus look this way? Everybody else in that era, that time and that spade, that region would've looked very differently. Why do you think this is okay? And then someone would inevitably say, well, his race doesn't matter. And I heard a professor of mine say it mattered enough to change it. Absolutely. Why not be historically accurate? And that was when the light switch came on for many of them. But initially they were disoriented. They were not settled in their bodies. And that to me tells a lot about that's that alternative. Jesus, the one who would've jumped, the one who would've saved himself, the one who would've fallen into the temptation. I would say that that's the white Jesus, that what we call Christian, lowercase c Christian nationalism or even American conservative evangelicalism, which has also been rooted in white supremacy historically. That's the Jesus that's being worshiped. I've said all along, we worship different gods.(34:30):We perceive Jesus very differently. That's why the debates with people who are far left, right or conservative, the debates are pointless because we worship different gods. We're not talking about the same Jesus. So I think your illustration is dead on. I'm seeing a movie already in my head.Danielle (34:58):I have tried to think, how can I have a picture of our world having been raised by one part of my family that's extremely conservative. And then the other part not how do I find a picture of what's happening, maybe even inside of me, like the invitation to the alternate reality, which we're talking about to what's comfortable, to what's the common narrative and also the reality of like, oh, wait, that's not how it worked for all of my family. It was struggle. It was like, what? So I think, but I do think that our faith, like you said, invites us to wrestle with that. Jesus asks questions all the time.Phil Allen Jr. (35:46):Yes, I am learning more and more to be comfortable setting a table rather than trying to figure out whose table I go to, whether it's in the family, friends, whomever. I'm comfortable setting a table that I believe is invitational, a table of grace as well as standards. I mean, I don't believe in just anything goes either. I'm not swinging a pendulum all the way to the other side, but I do believe it's a table of grace and truly, truly, rather than trying to make people believe and live out that faith the way I think they should, inviting them to a space where hopefully they can meet with God and let God do that work, whatever it is that they need to do. But I'm comfortable creating a table and saying, Hey, I'm going to be at this table that's toxic. That table over there is toxic. That table over there is unhealthy. I'm going to be at this table.Danielle (37:05):How practically do you see that working out? What does that look like in your everyday life or maybe in the discipleship settings you're in? How does that look?Phil Allen Jr. (37:16):I'm very careful in the company I keep. I'm very careful in who I give my time to. You might get me one time, you're not going to get me twice if there's toxicity and ignorance. And so for example, I'm in the coffee shop all the time. I rotate, but I have my favorites and I meet people all the time who want to have coffee. And I'm able to just yesterday three hours with someone and I'm able to put my pastoral hat on and just sit and be present with people. That's me creating a table. Had that conversation gone differently, I would say it certainly would not have lasted three hours. And I'm not making space and giving energy to them anymore because I know what they're bringing to do is toxic for me. It's unhealthy for me. Now, if we turned around and we had some conversations and can get on the same page, again, I'm not saying you have to agree with me on everything, but I'm also talking about tone. I'm talking about the energy, the spirit that person carries. I'm talking about their end goal. That's me giving an example. That's an example of me setting a table. The sacred spaces that I create, I'm willing to invite you in. And if we can maintain that peace and that joy, and it can be life-giving, and again, we don't even have to agree and we don't have to be in the same faith.(39:03):I have conversations all the time, people of other faiths or non-faith, and it's been life-giving for me, incredibly life-giving for me, for both of us I think. But I won't do that for, I've also had a couple of times when the person was far right, or in my dms on social media, someone appears to want to have a civil conversation, but really it was a bait. It was debate me into debate. And then next thing you know, insults and I block. And so I block because I'm not giving you space my space anymore. I'm not giving you access to do that to me anymore. So for me, it's creating a table is all the spaces I occupy that are mine, social media spaces, platform, a coffee shop. Where am I attend church,Right now I don't. And my church is in that coffee shop When I have those, when Jesus says with two or more gathered, there I am in the midst. I take that very seriously.When we gather, when me and someone or three of us are sitting and talking, and I'm trusting that God is present, God is in the space between us and it is been life-giving for us. So all that to say, wherever my body is, wherever I'm present, the table is present, the metaphorical table is there, and I'm careful about who I invite into that space because it's sacred for me. My health is at stake,Time and energy is at stake. And so that's how I've been living my life in the last five years or so is again, I don't even accept every invitation to preach anymore because I have to ask myself, I have have to check in my body.Right? No, I don't think this is what I'm supposed to do. And then there's sometimes I'm like, yeah, I want to preach there. I like that space. I trust them. And so that's me sharing a table. I'm going to their location, but I also bring in my table and I'm asking them to join me at the table.Danielle (41:46):I love that you check in with your body. I was even just about to ask you that. What do you notice in your body when you're setting up that table? Phil? What would you recommend? Someone's listening, they're like, these guys are crazy. I've never checked in my body once in my life. Can you share how you started doing that or what it was just at the beginning?Phil Allen Jr. (42:13):So community resiliency model, the first thing we teach is tracking,Noticing and paying attention to the sensations that's going on in your body,They're pleasant or unpleasant or neutral. And for me, one of the things I noticed long before I ever got connected to this was when something didn't feel right for me, I could sometimes feel a knot in my stomach. My heart rate would start increasing, and that's not always bad. So I had to wait. I had to learn to wait and see what that meant. Sometimes it just means nervousness, excitement, but I know God is calling me to it. So I had to wait to make sure it was that. Or was it like, I'm not supposed to do this thing.So we use this term called body literacy, learning to read, paying attention to what's happening in the body. And that could mean sometimes palms get sweaty, your body temperature rises and muscles get tight. Maybe there's some twitching, right? All these little things that we just ignore, our bodies are telling us something. And I don't disconnect that from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit knowing how to reach us, how to speak, not just a word of revelation, but in our bodies. And once I learned that, I trusted that God was in that. So I learned years ago when I was supposed to say something publicly, if I'm in a public space, I knew when I was supposed to say something. It took me a couple of years and I figured it out. And this is before ever learning, tracking and all this stuff.My heart would start racing and it would not stop. And it'd be the sense of urgency, that thing that thought you have, you have to say it now.I'm an introvert. I speak for a living. I present, but I don't like to say anything unless I have to. And I learned I could sit through something and be calm and comfortable and not have to say a word. But then I also learned that there were times when I'm supposed to say something here and I started listening to that. So paying attention to those sensations, those things that we ignore, that's happening in our bodies because our nervous system is activated for some reason.Danielle (44:57):I love to hear you say it. And also it's one of the things I think we naturally want to turn off when we're in a high trauma environment or come from a high trauma background. Or maybe you don't know what to do with the sensations, right?Can you just say a couple things about what moved you over that hump? How did you step into that despite maybe even any kind of, I don't know, reservations or just difficultiesTracking your body?Phil Allen Jr. (45:33):Getting language for what I was already doing, because with crim, one of the things that was revelatory for me was I was like, wait a minute. I already do a lot of these things. So for instance, touch and feel can settle out. Nervous systems, surfaces, you can put your hand, I have my hand on my armrest. It's smooth. If I'm nervous about something, I can literally just rub this smooth surface. It feels really good, and it can settle my nervous system, right? A sip of water, a drink of water can settle your nervous system. These are not just imaginations. This is literally how the body responds. You know this. So when they gave me language for things I had already been doing, so for instance, resourcing. And you had asked me earlier, and I mentioned my grandmother, if you paid attention to my face, I probably had a smile on my face talking about her.Because that resource, it brings up sensations in my body that are pleasant.My heart rate slows down. I could feel the warmth in my cheeks from smiling. So that's something that I tap into. And that's one of the ways that you can understand tracking when you think about a person, place, or thing that is pleasant, and then pay attention to what's going on in your body. And it might be neutral because it takes a while to be able to learn how to identify these things. And when I started doing that and I realized, wait a minute, my body, I feel settled. I feel at peace when I do this or do that. And that's when I said, okay, there's science behind this. And so that's when five years ago is when I started really like, I'm going to continue to do this and share this and practice this. I use it in my nonprofit racial solidarity project because this is how we stay engaged in the conversation about race. We get triggered, we get activated. A nervous system says threat. This person is threat, or this idea is a threat, especially when it disorients what we've been taught all our lives. And we get defensive, we get impulsive, and we argue and then we out.(48:18):So I use this as part of mentoring people to stay engaged by giving them the skills to regulate their nervous system when they're in those conversations, or if they're watching the news and they don't like what they see, they want to turn the news or they want to just shut it off. Some people hear the word critical race theory and it's already triggering for them,Absolutely. And what do you do? You check out, you disengage. You get defensive. Well, that's not necessarily how they feel. It's what they're sensing in their body. Their nervous system is triggered. So if they had the skills to settle that regulate their nervous system, they could probably stay engaged enough to listen to what's actually being said. It might actually come to, oh, I didn't realize that.Danielle (49:18):It's so good to hear you talk about it though. It's so encouraging. It's like, oh man. Being in our bodies, I think is one way. We know our faith more, and I actually think it's one way we can start to step in and cross and understand one another. But I think if we're not in our bodies, I think if we maintain some sort of rigidity or separation that it's going to be even harder for us to come together.Phil Allen Jr. (49:51):I'm crazy a little bit, but I ran running, taught me how to breathe. No other practice in my faith taught me how to breathe. And I don't mean in a meditative kind of way, religious kind of way. I mean just literally breathing properly.That's healthy.Danielle (50:13):It is healthy. Breathing is great. Yeah.Phil Allen Jr. (50:16):I want to be actually alive. But running forces you to have to pay attention to your body breathing. What type of pain is this in my knee? Is this the type of pain that says stop running? Or is this the type of pain that says this is minor and it's probably going to go away within the next half a mile?Right. Which then teaches us lessons in life. This pain, this emotional pain that I'm feeling, does it say, stop doing the thing that I'm doing, or is this something I have to go through because God is trying to reveal something to me?Running has taught me that. That's why running is a spiritual discipline for me. The spiritual discipline I didn't know I needed.Danielle (51:07):Yep. You're going to have to, yeah, keep going. Keep going.Phil Allen Jr. (51:10):Sorry. I was going to say, it taught me how to pay attention to my body, from my feet to my breathing. It taught me to pay attention to my body. When I dealt with AFib last year is because I pay attention to my body. When my heart wasn't beating the right way, it was like something ain't right. So I didn't try to push through it like I would have 10, 15, 20 years ago, paying attention to my body, said, stop. Go to urgent care. Next thing you know, I'm in an emergency room. I didn't know that with all this stuff attached to me. Next thing you know, I got these diagnoses. Next thing you know, I'm on medication. And fortunately the medication has everything stabilized. I still have some episodes of arrhythmia. I don't know if it's ever going to go away. Hopefully I can get off of these medications. I feel great. Matter of fact, I didn't take my medication this morning. I got to take 'em when we get done, brother. So all that to say, man, paying attention to what's happening in my body has helped me to deal with this current reality. It's helped me to stay grounded, helped me to make wise decisions. I trust that God, that though what I'm reading in my body, that the spirit of God is in that,(52:46):Is knowing how to speak to me, knowing what I'm going to pay attention to, what I'm going to respond to. Oh, that's how you read that. You're going to respond to that. Okay. That I'm going to urge you and prompt you through these bodily sensations, if you will.Danielle (53:10):Yeah. I don't really have a lot to say to answer that. It's just really beautiful and gorgeous. And also, please take your medicine. How can people reach you? How can they find out more about your work? How can they read what you're writing and what you're thinking? Where can they find you?Phil Allen Jr. (53:33):So on social media, everything is Phil Allen Jr. So whether that's Instagram. Instagram is actually Phil Allen Jr. PhD.It. LinkedIn and Facebook. Phil Allen Jr. On Facebook, there's a regular page and there's an author page. I don't really use the author page. I'm trying to figure out how to delete that. But the regular page, Phil Allen, Jr. Threads, Phil Allen Jr. I don't do X, but LinkedIn, Phil Allen Jr. My book Open Wounds. You can either go to your local bookstore, I want to support local bookstores. You can ask them if they have it, open Wounds, the Story of Racial Trauma, racial Tragedy, trauma and Redemption. And my other book, the Prophetic Lens, the Camera and Black Moral Agency from MLK to Darnella Frazier. You can find those books on Amazon, or you can go to your local bookstore and ask them to order it for you because it supports your local bookstore. Or you can go directly to fortress press.com and order it. It goes directly. You're supporting the publisher that publish my books, which helps, which actually helps me most. But those are three ways you can get those books. And then hopefully in the next year or so, I have three book projects. I'm kind of in different stages of right now that I'm working on, and hopefully one comes out in the next year.Yeah. Year and a half. We'll see.Danielle (55:21):That's exciting. Well, Phil, thank you so much. I'm going to stop recording. As always, thank you for joining us and at the end of the podcast, our notes and resources, and I encourage you to stay connected to those who are loving in your path and in your community. Stay tuned.Kitsap County & Washington State Crisis and Mental Health ResourcesIf you or someone else is in immediate danger, please call 911.This resource list provides crisis and mental health contacts for Kitsap County and across Washington State.Kitsap County / Local ResourcesResourceContact InfoWhat They OfferSalish Regional Crisis Line / Kitsap Mental Health 24/7 Crisis Call LinePhone: 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://www.kitsapmentalhealth.org/crisis-24-7-services/24/7 emotional support for suicide or mental health crises; mobile crisis outreach; connection to services.KMHS Youth Mobile Crisis Outreach TeamEmergencies via Salish Crisis Line: 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://sync.salishbehavioralhealth.org/youth-mobile-crisis-outreach-team/Crisis outreach for minors and youth experiencing behavioral health emergencies.Kitsap Mental Health Services (KMHS)Main: 360‑373‑5031; Toll‑free: 888‑816‑0488; TDD: 360‑478‑2715Website: https://www.kitsapmentalhealth.org/crisis-24-7-services/Outpatient, inpatient, crisis triage, substance use treatment, stabilization, behavioral health services.Kitsap County Suicide Prevention / “Need Help Now”Call the Salish Regional Crisis Line at 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://www.kitsap.gov/hs/Pages/Suicide-Prevention-Website.aspx24/7/365 emotional support; connects people to resources; suicide prevention assistance.Crisis Clinic of the PeninsulasPhone: 360‑479‑3033 or 1‑800‑843‑4793Website: https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/607/Mental-Health-ResourcesLocal crisis intervention services, referrals, and emotional support.NAMI Kitsap CountyWebsite: https://namikitsap.org/Peer support groups, education, and resources for individuals and families affected by mental illness.Statewide & National Crisis ResourcesResourceContact InfoWhat They Offer988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (WA‑988)Call or text 988; Website: https://wa988.org/Free, 24/7 support for suicidal thoughts, emotional distress, relationship problems, and substance concerns.Washington Recovery Help Line1‑866‑789‑1511Website: https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/injury-and-violence-prevention/suicide-prevention/hotline-text-and-chat-resourcesHelp for mental health, substance use, and problem gambling; 24/7 statewide support.WA Warm Line877‑500‑9276Website: https://www.crisisconnections.org/wa-warm-line/Peer-support line for emotional or mental health distress; support outside of crisis moments.Native & Strong Crisis LifelineDial 988 then press 4Website: https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/injury-and-violence-prevention/suicide-prevention/hotline-text-and-chat-resourcesCulturally relevant crisis counseling by Indigenous counselors.Additional Helpful Tools & Tips• Behavioral Health Services Access: Request assessments and access to outpatient, residential, or inpatient care through the Salish Behavioral Health Organization. Website: https://www.kitsap.gov/hs/Pages/SBHO-Get-Behaviroal-Health-Services.aspx• Deaf / Hard of Hearing: Use your preferred relay service (for example dial 711 then the appropriate number) to access crisis services.• Warning Signs & Risk Factors: If someone is talking about harming themselves, giving away possessions, expressing hopelessness, or showing extreme behavior changes, contact crisis resources immediately.Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that. Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

OverviewAdam shares a sideline story from coaching I-9 flag football—including a bold moment of public prayer—and the guys dive into practical Marian devotion for men. Plus: the legendary Catholic Man Show Campout, a hilarious kiddo/arcade saga, and this week's whiskey.In This EpisodeCoaching & Courage: How an I-9 format works for big families, simple plays that win, and leading a team in prayer after a teammate's injury.Being Bold in Public Faith: Why most people respect prayer, overcoming hesitation, and letting charity—not fear—set the tone.Marian Devotion for Men:Mary as Queen Mother and model disciple (why Mariology protects sound Christology).Practical “Marian hacks”: entrusting your prayers to Mary; asking for her heart before Holy Communion; Undoer of Knots novena.Old Testament typology (Jael, Judith, New Eve) and “she will crush your head” (Gen 3:15).Whiskey of the Week: Scotch Malt Whisky Society bottling from Tomatin (Highland), 9-year, charred hogshead, ~59% ABV—hot but opens beautifully with a splash; oak-forward finish.Campout Buzz: Men flying in from across the country; new activities; documentary coming to YouTube.Family & Fun: The token machine misadventure (fire trucks, free passes, and a parental facepalm).Key TakeawaysWhen in doubt, pray anyway—most onlookers receive it as a kind gesture.Daily Rosary is a proven aid against habitual sin (per spiritual masters).Offer your prayers through Mary so she can “clean them up” and present them to Jesus.Consider Total Consecration (St. Louis de Montfort) to root your day-to-day in Marian discipleship.Mentions & ResourcesRosary episode with Dominicans: Fr. Gregory Pine, Fr. Patrick Briscoe, Fr. Joseph Anthony KressSelect International Tours – long-time show sponsor for pilgrimagesDevotions: Our Lady, Undoer of Knots novena; Total Consecration (St. Louis de Montfort); Glories of Mary (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

On our 400th episode, we continue our ongoing exploration of the earliest Trinitarian. This week, we study the massive work written by a Roman Christian named Hermas, titled "The Shepherd." After demonstrating that Hermas believed God to be one person (the Father alone), we attempt to make sense of the work's obscure Christology and Pneumatology. Spoiler alert: the Shepherd of Hermas does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. To view the video version of this episode, go here: https://youtu.be/r9CEwCoy2-4  Visit Amazon to buy your copy of The AI Critical New Testament: https://amzn.to/3VxO8r5   Visit Amazon to buy your copy of my book, Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John: https://amzn.to/4neRGdH  To support this podcast, donate here: https://www.paypal.me/10mintruthtalks   Episode notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14vx9-r5vi47PXGjfna-QmXHlnhEBl8UVQIeIjjMqpF0/edit?usp=sharing  Check out some of my videos on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast       Follow me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/OneGodPodcast 

Your life may not be adversely affected if you do not know much about biology, psychology, or geology. But your understanding of Christology can significantly impact your life now and for eternity. A sound scriptural grasp of the person, nature, and work of Jesus Christ can establish you on safe and firm spiritual ground. How can we develop a solidly Biblical orthodox understanding of this vitally important subject? Tune in as Dr. Donald Barnhouse explains from Romans 8:3 on Dr. Barnhouse and the Bible. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/791/29

[DONATE WITH PAYPAL] "OCIA: The Bridge to Rome" continues by focusing one the main character in the Gospel story: Jesus Christ. Delve into the Incarnation—Jesus as fully divine and human in hypostatic union—and His redemptive mission through life, death, resurrection, and ascension, with insights from Scripture and the Catechism. Greg contrasts Catholic sacramental Christology with evangelical atonement emphases, offering reflection prompts to bridge perspectives. To go deeper, check out these episodes: Snapshot: Christ the King (#156) What is the "Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe?" (#283) Donate with PayPal! Website: https://www.consideringcatholicism.com/ Email: consideringcatholicism@gmail.com

[Up to 7:59, the volume is very low. We apologise for the inconvenience!]

In this solo episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal tackles the concerning theological trend of "Divine Council Theology" and its recent resurgence within Reformed circles. He offers a critical analysis of Michael Heiser's influential work and its problematic popularization by Reformed figures like Doug Van Dorn and John Moffitt. Tony demonstrates how redefining the biblical term "Elohim" to include both God and created spiritual beings in the same ontological category fundamentally undermines the creator-creature distinction essential to Christian orthodoxy. Through careful examination of systematic theological categories, communicable and incommunicable attributes, and implications for Christology, he reveals why this seemingly academic redefinition poses serious threats to biblical monotheism and classical Reformed theology. Key Takeaways Divine Council Theology, popularized by Michael Heiser and now being promoted within Reformed circles, attempts to redefine "Elohim" as a functional category that includes both God and created spiritual beings. This theological trend commits an etymological fallacy by redefining the predominant usage of "Elohim" (which refers to the God of Israel in ~2,300 of 2,600 occurrences) based on minority usages. The approach dangerously blurs the fundamental creator-creature distinction that is essential to Christian monotheism and orthodox theology. Proponents incorrectly classify divine power as a communicable attribute rather than recognizing omnipotence as an incommunicable attribute that cannot be shared with creatures. The theological system makes problematic analogies to the incarnation, showing a confused understanding of the hypostatic union and potentially opening the door to Arian implications. This theology represents a concerning return to concepts the early church fathers fought against when confronting pagan Greek thought, rather than a retrieval of biblical teaching. Departing from the "pattern of sound words" handed down through church history in favor of novel interpretations should raise significant warning flags. Key Concepts The Creator-Creature Distinction The most fundamental division in Christian theology is not between spiritual and material beings, but between the uncreated Creator and everything else that exists. Divine Council Theology dangerously undermines this distinction by placing God and created spiritual beings in the same category of "Elohim." While proponents acknowledge God as the uncreated Creator, they nevertheless insist on categorizing Him alongside angels, demons, and other spiritual entities based on shared attributes of power or function. This categorization system parallels pagan worldviews more than biblical theology, where God exists in a class of one. By defining "Elohim" as a functional category related to spiritual power rather than an ontological one, this approach inadvertently returns to a hierarchical view of spiritual beings with God merely at the "top of the totem pole" rather than in an entirely separate and unique category of existence. This framework subtly but significantly undermines biblical monotheism by suggesting God shares a fundamental nature with His creatures. Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes Divine Council Theology mishandles the traditional theological distinction between God's communicable and incommunicable attributes. In classical Reformed theology, communicable attributes (like love or wisdom) can be shared with creatures in a limited, analogical way, while incommunicable attributes (like omnipotence, eternality, or divine simplicity) belong exclusively to God and cannot be shared without making the creature into God. Proponents of Divine Council Theology erroneously suggest that the power denoted by "Elohim" is a communicable attribute that God shares with spiritual beings, rather than recognizing omnipotence as properly incommunicable. This misclassification creates theological incoherence: if God could truly share His omnipotence with creatures, those creatures would effectively become equal to God in power, creating the logical impossibility of multiple omnipotent beings. This confusion of categories demonstrates how this theological system fails to maintain proper distinctions that are essential for preserving the uniqueness and transcendence of God in Christian theology. Memorable Quotes "Christianity and biblical Judaism—the primary distinction is not between spiritual and matter... The primary distinction when we're talking about the most absolute line is the distinction between the uncreated creator and his creation." "Rather than rely on the safe time-tested words and concepts that have been proven and validated, and attacked and defended and have been victorious for hundreds and thousands of years... Moffitt and Van Dorn think it is smarter and safer to depart from the pattern of sound words rather than to keep the pattern of sound words because they think that they are able to look at the Bible the way basically no one ever has in the 2000 years of the church and find something they haven't." "These teachings are pagan. This is talking about returning to a world populated by spiritual beings, and God is kind of just on the highest part of the totem pole... We're just returning to something that the early church fought hard to get rid of when they came out of their pagan culture." Resources Mentioned Reformed Arsenal article series on Divine Council Theology Full Transcript [00:00:24] Introduction and Episode Setup Tony Arsenal: Welcome to episode 461 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I am Tony, and today it's just me. Hey, brothers and sisters. We had a little bit of a scheduling conflict this week, so Jesse is taking the week off and uh, it gives me an opportunity to talk about something that I've been doing a little bit of research on. [00:00:47] Affirmations and Denials Tony Arsenal: Hopefully the listener has noticed that Jesse and I have been trying to keep our affirmations and denials a little bit tighter so we can get into the meat of the episode a little bit quicker. But occasionally we do run into a denial, usually a denial, but we run into a denial that, uh, we often say this could be an episode of its own. And so today is one of those episodes. So I'm not gonna give you my normal affirmation or denial. I'm just gonna jump into it. Now this is gonna be a little bit off the cuff. I've been doing some research, so I may not have as much of the receipts as the kids say, um, as I normally would. But I am writing a series of articles on this issue over@reformedarsenal.com. I'll make sure to put the link to the first article in the show notes. All of the receipts are there, all of the timestamps for the podcast episodes that I'll be. Discussing your critiquing. Are there citations for research work that I'm doing? All that stuff is there. So if you're interested in digging into the meet and you're the kind of guy who, or girl who likes to nerd out in the footnotes, then head over to uh reformed arsenal.com. You'll find the series pretty quick. [00:01:56] Introduction to Divine Counsel Theology Tony Arsenal: What I wanted to talk about today, and I'm glad we have kind of a whole episode, uh, to talk about it, is a movement, uh, that has some foothold in reformed theology. Uh, it's not new, uh, it didn't start in reformed theology, but for some reason, uh, those who are within our orbits tend to be a little bit enamored by this kind of theology. I'm not exactly sure why. [00:02:19] Michael Heiser's Influence Tony Arsenal: This theology is often called Divine Counsel Theology, and it was really, um, you know, it's not entirely new even with, with this figure, but it was really made popular and sort of, um, spread about and made accessible by the late Michael Heiser. Um, part of this is because he was just a very winsome, uh, guy. He took. Sort of highfalutin academic concepts and was able to bring them down to, uh, to an understandable level, including things like ancient near Eastern context, biblical, you know, ex of Jesus Hebrew language, other ancient near Eastern languages, which of course, that's that kind of stuff is what this podcast is all about, taking difficult, sometimes technical concepts. Talking about them, translating them into kind of the language that everybody else speaks. So that project was fine. The issue is the direction that he goes with a lot of the theology. So Michael Heiser writes a book called Unseen Realms, which is seen as kind of a retrieval of the supernatural mindset and worldview of the Bible. Uh, there's a lot to be commended about that, uh, enterprise, about that intention. I do agree with part of what he has to say when he says that we've lost a lot of the supernatural context of the Bible. Um, but I think where he goes with it is a direction that we really ought not go and we'll dig into it. [00:03:43] Critique of Reformed Fringe Podcast Tony Arsenal: The reason this is coming up now is because recently there's been a series of articles and podcasts put out by a show called The Reformed Fringe. Uh, some if you're in the Telegram chat, which you can join at, uh, t Me slash Reformed Brotherhood. You've already seen some of this stuff. We've already talked about it a little bit. But the Reformed Fringe is a podcast that sort of tries to fill a space that's something like Haunted Cosmos, which we've talked about before. Um, fills sort of looking at the weird fringe kind of things in the world. Ghosts, paranormal activity, trying to explain it through a biblical, uh, lens or worldview. Again, that's a commendable. Effort. There are strange things that happen in our world that are not easily explainable or at all explainable by natural, uh, naturalistic means. And so coming to those things with the Bible as our, uh, rubric to instruct us on how the world works is a commendable thing. But again, this project, which is by and large, um, and we'll get into maybe, but by and large is just an extension of, um, Heiser's project really goes in directions that cause all sorts of problems down the road. So the podcast is, uh, run by a guy named Doug Van Dorn, who most of the audience probably hasn't heard of. I have had run-ins with Doug over the years. Um, the last time I ran into him actually was revolving around similar kinds of issues that I'm gonna be calling out today. Um, and it, it ended up with him kind of having to depart from the reform pub, uh, maybe to put it a little bit politely and, um. You know, he has, he has taken, he's theology, which was not explicitly reformed. Heiser was not a reformed guy. He had no claims to be a Calvinist in many ways. Uh, he was sort of anticon confessional in, in that he opposed not the idea of a faith statement, but he sort of purported to come to the Bible with no biases, with no tradition. He wanted to approach what he called the Naked Bible. That was actually the name of his podcast before he died a few years ago. And so what Doug Van Dorn is, has done who, uh, Doug is a claims to be a 1689 Reformed Baptist. He's a pastor in Colorado, I believe. Um, he has tried to take this divine counsel theology and bring it into the reformed world. So he comes at it with a, a slightly different angle, but for the most part, his conclusions are the same. And in many cases he just straight up steals ER's work and doesn't cite it, doesn't do much to, uh, articulate that this is not his original research. Um, so he's taken that and he's trying to bring it into the reformed world. And Heiser himself was actually quite influential when I was a, an admin in the reform pub. We would run into lots of, lots of young reformed guys. Who were really enamored with this and they really saw, he's project as sort of a return to a pure form of exo Jesus that really got at what the Hebrew was saying. And it tickled, I think, kind of an intellectual, uh, an intellectual itch that a lot of those guys had combined with sort of this desire for the new and novel, um, which is in itself can be pretty dangerous. To sort of make things a little bit more pressing, Heiser has teamed up with John Moffitt, who many of our listeners may know. Uh, he's one of the co-hosts and founders of the podcast, Theo Cast, uh, which otherwise is a perfectly fine podcast. Um, he's also a 1680 or claims to be a 1689 Reform Baptist. He's a pastor. Um, their podcast is sort of what you would get if you had, uh, and I don't mean this to be pejorative, although maybe it is a little pejorative. Theo cast is what you would get if you took r Scott Clark. Uh, you made it much less intellectual and careful, and then made it Baptist. And what I mean by that is Scott's whole project. In large part is to recover and to emphasize the law gospel distinction. Theo cast has taken that and sort of cranked it up to 11. Uh, and they have um, they have sort of moved away from a lot of the classical reform distinctions of the law itself, so they don't full on deny the third use of the law. But in practice they would say that, um, good works is no kind of evidence whatsoever for your, um, for your faith. It's no kind of evidence of your, your salvation, which of course are confessions themselves. Um, say that there is a kind of evidential value to assessing our good works within certain reason and con. So the show is otherwise orthodox. You know, I I, I recall hearing episodes where they were refuting things like EFS, um, but because of that, Moffitt brings with him sort of an air of credibility and an error in orthodoxy that, um, the show itself probably hasn't merited. If Doug just recorded, pushed, play and put it on the. I don't think there would've been too much, uh, too much of a following. He would've probably, you know, grabbed a couple people who heard it and thought it was interesting. But because Moffitt has such a following on Theo cast, he brings with him a large audience, and that makes it particularly dangerous because his name attached to it makes it more widespread. It makes it feel like it's safer. And so I think a lot of people, uh, assume that what he's saying is orthodox and good. And I think what we'll find out is, is that it's not. So I think that's enough ProGo. [00:09:10] Elohim and Its Implications Tony Arsenal: I'm gonna go ahead and, and jump into explaining kind of what the theology that we're talking about is and, and what the problems are. So this all started kicked off, uh, with a series of podcast episodes and the first episode, and again, I don't have the specific titles here. I'll put a bibliography in the show notes on this one just so you have links to all the relevant episodes. Um, this all kind of kicked off with a podcast episode called something like The History of the Word God, or something like that. And, um, basically what Moffitt and Van Dorn want to do is they wanna look at the word Elohim in the Bible, which of course is a plural noun. Uh, in Hebrew, the, the suffix, just like in English, we might add an S or an ES, um, to a word to make it plural. Or in Greek, it's usually, if it's a masculine, uh, noun, it's, it's an oi or an omicron iota that sort of always sound at the end. Um, or when we, we talk about Latin, you have, you have like, um, you add the I at the end, so we say octopi instead of octopuses or something like that. Cacti instead of cactus. Although both of those are kind of pig Latins, um, in, in Hebrew for, uh, for masculine nouns. The suffix that you add to make it plural, is that eam sound. It's a, it's an Im if you transliterate in English. So the word Elohim is a plural of the original noun El which is a proper name for a eury deity. But it came to just be the singular word for, for God. Um, and, and in non-biblical language, we would say in a God. Um, and we do see in English, there are in, in Hebrew, in the Bible, there are places where we see the singular of this. It's kind of an older form, so it doesn't show up as much. Um, but by and large when we see the word Elohim in the Bible. Something like, uh, outta 2,600 references or more than 2,600 references in the Bible. Um, the word Elohim is associated with a single, a singular noun, and it only refers to the God of Israel. What Moffitt and Van Dorn want to do is they want to take this word and they wanna define it based on the abnormal. Uh, use of it. So the vast minority, minority of cases in the Old Testament, the word Elohim refers to the gods or to a non, like what we might say is lower G God, either like the God, Baal, or some sort of collective reference to the gods, the gods of the nation, or something like that. They wanna take the fact that there is this variation in the way the word is used and sort of radically redefine how the Bible uses it. And this, this is what I call and what a lot of people would call an etymological fallacy. So what they're doing is, instead of, uh, looking at the word and defining it based on how it's used in an, in an overwhelming fashion, they're looking at sort of the etymology of the word. And then they're using the fact that there are, uh, some pretty Dr. Dramatically minority cases where the word is used in a different way and they wanna redefine it and say, in, in all or most cases in the Bible actually. This is what the word means. So they look at the word L, which from its root has something to do probably with the, with the word for power or something like that. Um, they wanna look at it. And, you know, if you read someone like Vos in Reformed dogmatics in his volume one, he talks about how when we see the name Elohim for God, it denotes or, or refers to his sort of power, his omnipotence, which is all good and fine, just like we would say Yahweh. Uh, as a proper name refers to God sort of in his covenant role. It's his covenant name, his, his intimate, familial name that he shares, uh, with his people or he reveals to his people. Elohim is a more abstract name and it refers to God's power. Usually we see it in relation to his cre creation. So in Genesis one, um, when it's God created, it's Elohim created, which is also important and relevant for, for later. So what they wanna do is they want to say that Elohim actually. What Act Elohim actually means is it's a reference to a class of beings, spiritual beings, and that that it means sort of any spiritual being that has some type of supernatural power or enhanced power, some sort of spiritual power. They do this by saying that the noun is not an ontological noun, it's actually like a noun of function. Um, so like we would say a, a good example in English would be a painter that's a noun of function. It's a title of function. It any person could be called a painter if they engage in the verbal action of painting. And so what they're saying is that any being that engages in the action of having power. Is, uh, is an Elohim. And so that would include, in narrating at least, it would include angels, demons. Uh, I, you know, I don't know that they've said this explicitly, but I, I think Heiser would've included things like ghosts, disembodied spirits, um, humans in sort of the intermediary state might be considered Elohim humans in the, in the, um, this. Life are called Elohim, uh, in some instances. So, so this is where the Divine Council theology comes from, and that comes from Psalm 82, I think, where there's this council of Elohim that, that Yahweh seems to be speaking to and deliberating with. Or you look at Joe, where the sons of God come and they sort of pulled court in God's heavenly presence. So he would say those are examples where the, the collected Elohim. God being one of the Elohim are somehow gathered in this heavenly divine counsel. Now what this does is just devastating to Christian theology is it takes God who exists in a class of one. The, the, the God of the universe is, is the only uncreated entity in all of of the world. And so when we start to talk, and this is ironic, when we start to talk about the ways to divide up the world, the ancient world, the, the pagan world tended to divide the world between, um. Between spiritual and material. So think of g Gnostics where matter was bad and spirit was good. Or even think of something like, um, the Greek pantheons, the Greek, um, Greek religion, like ancient Greek mythology. You have sort of the spirits and the spiritual world and the gods inhabit a spiritual, have a spiritual existence for the most part. And then you have the physical world where kind of people live, uh, at least while they're alive. Christianity and, and Judaism, at least Biblical Judaism. On the other hand, the, the primary distinction is not between spiritual and matter. There is of course that distinction. There are humans, which are spiritual and material. There are animals which are entirely material, and then there are angels which are entirely spiritual. And so we would say that God is spiritual. So that is a distinction in the world. But the primary distinction when we're talking about the most absolute line is the distinction between the, the uncreated creator and his creation. So what Moffitt, Moffitt and Van Dorn do is instead of observing that biblical distinction, which really all of Christian theology and Christian monotheism rests on, they wanna say that instead, the distinction is between the. Um, is between the Elohim as the sort of spiritual beings and then sort of everything else of the created world, and so they wouldn't deny that God, that Yahweh is. The uncreated creator of all things, but they would say he's an uncreated Elohim and that there is a class of created Elohim. So I don't, I don't think you have to go too far down this road to see what this does. It puts God on the same level as his creatures in at least one way. Um, and I think we'll find out later, uh, as we talk through this, actually it does it in a couple ways that are really, uh, really can be problematic as we go. And so, uh, just let me be clear if all that, if all that Moffitt and Van Dorn were saying, if, if all they said was, um, we can use the word Elohim to describe any creature. Or God that doesn't have a body. Elohim is a synonym for the word spirit. Um, that wouldn't be the wisest way to speak, I don't think. It wouldn't be the, the most, um, felicitous or safe way to talk about the distinction. But it wouldn't be controversial. There'd be nothing wrong with that. It'd just be using a different word. It'd be like if I said, well, instead of the word spirit, I'm gonna use the word bibly bop, you know? So we have. We have God who is bibly bop, and we have the angels who is bibly bop, and humans are biblio bop. And also material, again, not the safest way to talk. There's no reason to use that alternative language when the Bible gives us perfectly legitimate language. Um, but it wouldn't be a problem. But Moffit and Van Dorn go. Way past this and maybe they don't realize it. I've asked them on Twitter, I asked them to clarify. I didn't get a response. So if they are hearing this, which maybe they will, maybe they won't. If they're hearing this, I would really love to get some clarification on some of these questions because I would love nothing more than to be able to say that this was all a big misunderstanding and that actually all they're saying is that there is this spiritual existence. That, um, we can put all things that are spirit without a body or spirit with a body. We can put all those in the same category and call that category Elohim. Again, I don't think that's safe, but if that's all they were doing, that would be fine. But we see in their episodes, and I'm gonna try to grab some quotes, um, from, from some of the articles I've written. But again, go read the articles because this goes way more in depth. It's got timestamps of it. It's got links to their episodes. Don't take my word for it. Go listen to their. Words and, and check, you know, check my math on this. But what they do is they actually start to, in, in an attempt to justify why it's okay to put God in the same category as his creatures. Um, and in at least one way, they start to make some weird statements that have a lot of systematic theology, um, implications that are, are just really, really risky. So, for example, one of the ways that they try to kind of explain this, I'm gonna pull, pull the article that I wrote up here. So, great podcasting. [00:19:34] Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes Tony Arsenal: Um, one of the ways they start to try to do this is again, they, they wanna say they use this distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes, right? So in, in Christian theology, classically speaking, a communicable attribute of God is an attribute that he shares or could share with. A creature and primarily we're talking, you know, we're talking about attributes that he shares with his image bearers. So something like, um, love. Love is a communicable attribute. Our love is different than God's love, but when we say love, we're talking about the same basic category of things God loves differently than we do. But love and in a human sense, and love in a, in a divine sense, are still talking about the same thing. There's a point of contact there. Um, an incommunicable attribute would be something like, um, something like eternity. Right. Eternity is not just an extended infinite sequence of time. If it was, he could share that with us. Um, but eternity or infinity is an entirely different way of existing than a creature could ever, could ever exist in divine Simplicity is another example. Um, God could not make humans simple because simplicity entails all sorts of things like infinity. Um, eternality. Um, you know, omnipresence, omni, potent, all of these things are entailed by simplicity. So God could not make a creature infinite because in order for it to be infinite, it would have to be God. Uh, God could not make a creature simple, uh, in the, in the sense of no composition of parts. Uh, because that would mean that that creature is actually God and has no composer. So, so those would be the classic, uh, incommunicable attributes and omnipotence. Is considered, although it's a little bit weird, it sort of crosses the line in some ways. But omnipotence is considered. An incommunicable attribute. God cannot share his omnipotence with a creature because you can't have two omnipotence. Um, if you have two omnipotence, then those two omnipotence cancel each other out in some sense. If God, and, and, and he has a will, God wills one thing, and then I as a creature, if he shared his omnipotence with me, somehow willed a different thing, then we would no longer be, neither of us would be omnipotent. Where this goes sideways with Moffitt and Vandorn is rather than respect omnipotence as a an incommunicable attribute, they say that the attribute or the word Elohim denotes power or might, and that is a communicable attribute. So God does give us a certain level of power. He allows us a certain level of agency. He grants that to us. Again, I'm not even sure that we would call that an an. A communicable attribute. Um, but in a sense, I guess it is. And so they say here, um, Elohim does not mean omnipotent. It means power. It's not an incommunicable attribute. It's a communicable attribute that all kinds of entities could possess. So they're saying that the word, um, the word Elohim, uh, in the Bible denotes that a. A, an entity possesses a certain kind of power or acts in a certain role of executing a certain kind of power. And that doesn't mean omnipotence. It means it means potence. It means some sort of power. And so that that wielding power attribute that. Uh, being a, being that wields power, that attribute, whatever we want to call it, however we want to phrase it, that is a communicable attribute that God shares. He communicates that attribute to all other beings in the class of Elohim. Now, let's just back that up for a second. Um, this still would mean that God has to be the creator and they don't deny that, but it would still mean that God, prior to creation. Was an Elohim in a category of one, and then somehow he created a class and because he's extended. This attribute of wielding power, say power wielder, to try to make it actually more of an attribute. He's extended this attribute of power wielder to uncreate or to created angels, demons, human spirits, whatever other spiritual entities there might be. They would bring in things like principalities, powers, they have a whole, in other, other contexts, they'll talk about this whole different bifurcation of types of spiritual beings that I think is a little speculative, but not a big deal. He extends this power wielder attribute to these created categories. And instead of this now creating a separate category of power wields who are not God, it now is uh, he expands this category of one to now include all sorts of other things, which again, as you can, you can imagine, just runs into problems. And so the, again, this, this word Elohim appears over 2,600 times, and of these instances, 230 of them refer to the God of Israel. So the idea that that. This word is not used specifically as a reference to the God of Israel, or should not be thought of as uniquely titling or almost exclusively titling God. The God of Israel just doesn't really match the data, but it's also just really poor Exogenic method. So rather than take the predominant usage and look at the context. Understanding that the predominant usage is the predominant usage. Instead, we're gonna go back and say, well, these, these minority, these 300 or so cases outside, and not even all 300 of them are used the same way, but these 300 or so cases of them not referring to the God of Israel, we're gonna use that to redefine the word. Its entirety. It's just poor. It's just poor scholarship. It's overly speculative. Um, I haven't read much of. He's work on this in the primary sources. Um, I, I would venture a guess that Heiser makes a much more robust argument than this. And this is part of the problem. When you take an already speculative, already dangerous theology and you try to pop popularize it when you just don't have the same chops that he did, uh, you end up really making some crass, simplistic arguments that just make you look a little silly. To think we can take 200 or 2,600 instances and redefine 2 20, 300 of them. By the way, it's used 300 of the times Just doesn't make any sense. So it again, if, if all we are saying is that God is spiritual and angels are spiritual and so there is some point of affinity between the two, then that would be okay. That wouldn't be a problem. Again, there's some risk in using the word Elohim in that. Sort of placeholder, but, um, that would be a semantic discussion. What they're doing is far, far deeper and far more problematic than that. [00:26:30] Systematic Theology Concerns Tony Arsenal: And so the, the other thing they do, um, that I think is really dangerous, and I don't have all of the, I haven't finished this article yet, so I don't have all of the timestamps in front of me to, to, to get there, is in attempting to justify this Moffitt, uh, in, in one of the other episodes, he turns to the incarnation as a sort of model. And so he'll say that, you know, the son of God is divine, but he's also human. And the fact that he's human, uh, doesn't therefore mean he's not also uniquely the uncreated creator. I would assume everyone hearing this who listens to this show, uh, which has done many, many episodes on Christology, it's one of our pet projects, is just throwing their listening device across the room because what Moffitt seems to miss entirely is that Christ is not, the sun is not in the category of human. Uh, sort of in a simple sense, Christ is in the category of human because he assumes to himself a second created nature. So what, what the, the analogy he's trying to draw is if the sun can be human without ceasing to be the unique one, uncreated God, then so also can, the whole trinity, I guess, can also be Elohim without ceasing to be the one uncreated God. He even goes so far as to say that there is Uncreated Elohim, and then there is created Elohim, and they're all in the category of Elohim, but because there's this commonality, we should still consider that class. And he draws that distinction or he draws the implication that. Um, there's somehow uncreated humanity in Christ, which is a whole different ball of worms that we won't get into. But in, in drawing this analogy, he sort of shows that he really doesn't understand the hypostatic union. He doesn't understand the incarnation, or if he does, he's really making a poor comparison because in the hypostatic union it's not as though the son, uh, as divinity, the son, as the one uncreated. God simply adds to himself in a raw sense and merges. Uh, he doesn't become part of the category of human without taking on a second nature. And then now we are even getting into some inconsistencies. Is human an ontological category or is that a category of function? Are there other categories of function, uh, other creatures in existence that the category of function human might fit? So I think you can see that this just is not a self consistent. Um, a self-consistent system and it leads to all these weird implications. Um, you know, and then they'll even go on to talk about how the Son is the angel of the Lord. I'm not gonna get into a lot of it here, and I agree with that thesis that the, when we see the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, in the vast majority of cases, we're probably seeing a pre-incarnate appearance of, um, of the second person of the Trinity. They go so far as to say that this is actually a sort of. Incarnation or a sort of hypostatic union of the Elohim nature. So they, they, they draw this distinction, or they draw this parallel between created Elohim and Uncreated Elohim, and they, they argue again, I think implicitly, but in some instances it's almost, it's almost explicit that the son in, in being the angel of the Lord, takes on the uncreated or takes on the created Elohim nature. It's, it's really, um, it's really problematic. So now we have the son who is, uh, sort of hypostatic united to the unc, to the created Elohim nature, and then also is hypostatic united to the human nature. Um, it, it really just gets messy and it confuses categories in a way that is not helpful. And if I'm just being frank, a lot of the younger reformed guys. And when I say younger, I'm talking, maybe I'm projecting back to when I was a younger reform guy, um, I'm talking about people in their mid twenties to maybe early thirties, right? The, the people who were maybe the second or third generation of the young restless reform guys, they didn't necessarily learn, uh, ref young restless reform theology directly from RC Sproul. You know, they weren't the first generation. Um, and, and maybe their pastors weren't the first generation, but, but maybe their pastors were the second generation and now they're learning it from their pastors. So you might think of 'em as like the third generation, to be frank, they don't usually have a great grasp on some of these systematic theology categories as part of why. Jesse and I do this podcast, and part of why we cover the same topic over and over again, part of why we're gonna go through this parable series. But when we're done, we're probably gonna go back and start over with systematic theology. We're gonna go back, we're gonna go through another confession. That's why we spent, we spent like six years going through systematic theology. And almost immediately went back to the Scott's confession and did most of it all over again because these truths need to be taught again and again and again. This is part of what Jude is talking about when he says, we have to contend for the faith. It's not just fighting with people online. It's not just polemics or apologetics. It is reteaching and handing down the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Again, and this is perhaps, and this is the last point I'll make. This is perhaps the most. Telling a reason we should be weary and suspicious of this theology. Paul, in, uh, one of the letters to Timothy, second Timothy, maybe he says, follow the pattern of the sound words that you heard from me. He's not talking about the scriptures. He doesn't say follow the sound words that I'm writing to you. He's referring to a body of doctrine sometimes. The Bible calls it the faith, right? Jude says to contend for the faith. There's this body of doctrine that is the teaching of the apostles, and it is encapsulated in this sort of set pattern of words. Erin A is called it the rule of faith or the regular fide, right? This is where we get things like the Nicean Creed or the Hanian Creed. Why we have creeds and confessions is because we don't need to reinvent the wheel and rather than rely on the safe time-tested words and concepts that have been proven and validated, and attacked and defended and, and um, have been victorious for hundreds and thousands of years, rather than rely on those. Moffitt and Van Doran think it is smarter and safer to depart from the pattern of sound words rather than to keep the pattern of sound words because they think that they are able to look at the Bible the way basically no one ever has in the 2000 years of the church and find something they haven't. I don't wanna be too bombastic. Um, I don't, I don't know either of them. Well, um, from what I can tell, what I've heard of their professions of faith, uh, they're, they're Christian believers. They love the Lord and are very confused. But these teachings are pagan. This is, we're talking about returning to a world of, of populated by spiritual beings. And God is kind of just on the highest part of the totem pole, and maybe there's a firm line between his place on the totem pole and the, the next level down. Maybe there is, um, gets a little bit less firm of a line when we're talking about Jesus, right? So there's some potential Arian implications there that the son, uh, is not the highest deity he is. He's like the father in some ways, but he, you know, in his sort of original form is like creatures in other ways. Um, we're just returning to something that the early church fought hard to get rid of when they came out of their pagan culture. When we started to see Greeks convert to Christianity, they had to figure out how do we come out of our polytheistic culture, and this is where we get the best defenses of monotheism. Jewish Christians didn't have to argue for monotheism because all the Jewish Christians already were monotheists in a biblical sense. The Greek Christians had to fight this stuff. Justin Martyr had to fight this stuff. Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers had to fight this stuff constantly pushing back against the background Greek culture. And Moffitt and Van Dorn wanna point to that and say, see, really, they're just Greeks in disguise and in the reality is Athanasius and the cap oceans, were fighting against the theology that is making a resurgence in this divine council theory. [00:34:55] Conclusion and Call to Action Tony Arsenal: So I think that's enough for now. Please. Again, I'm writing a long series on this. I don't know how long it's gonna take. I think it's gonna be probably 10 or 13, 10 to 13 articles. It's, it's gonna be a pretty extensive project. But go read them. Go look at them, listen to their episodes, read their articles, and then you compare that to the word of God, has what I said made more sense or does what they make more sense. So I'll leave you with that. The dog is losing her mind. And uh, with that honor, everyone love the brotherhood.

The apostle Paul was a Jew. He was born, lived, undertook his apostolic work, and died within the milieu of ancient Judaism. And yet, many readers have found, and continue to find, Paul's thought so radical, so Christian, even so anti-Jewish – despite the fact that it, too, is Jewish through and through. This paradox, and the question how we are to explain it, are the foci of Matthew Novenson's groundbreaking book, Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). The solution, says the author, lies in Paul's particular understanding of time. This too is altogether Jewish, with the twist that Paul sees the end of history as present, not future. In the wake of Christ's resurrection, Jews are perfected in righteousness and – like the angels – enabled to live forever, in fulfilment of God's ancient promises to the patriarchs. What is more, gentiles are included in the same pneumatic existence promised to the Jews. This peculiar combination of ethnicity and eschatology yields something that looks not quite like Judaism or Christianity as we are used to thinking of them. Matthew Novenson is the Helen H. P. Manson Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an honorary fellow in the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, where previously he held the Chair of Biblical Criticism and Biblical Antiquities. His monographs include Christ among the Messiahs (Oxford University Press, 2012), The Grammar of Messianism (Oxford University Press, 2017), Paul, Then and Now (Eerdmans, 2022), and Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The apostle Paul was a Jew. He was born, lived, undertook his apostolic work, and died within the milieu of ancient Judaism. And yet, many readers have found, and continue to find, Paul's thought so radical, so Christian, even so anti-Jewish – despite the fact that it, too, is Jewish through and through. This paradox, and the question how we are to explain it, are the foci of Matthew Novenson's groundbreaking book, Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). The solution, says the author, lies in Paul's particular understanding of time. This too is altogether Jewish, with the twist that Paul sees the end of history as present, not future. In the wake of Christ's resurrection, Jews are perfected in righteousness and – like the angels – enabled to live forever, in fulfilment of God's ancient promises to the patriarchs. What is more, gentiles are included in the same pneumatic existence promised to the Jews. This peculiar combination of ethnicity and eschatology yields something that looks not quite like Judaism or Christianity as we are used to thinking of them. Matthew Novenson is the Helen H. P. Manson Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an honorary fellow in the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, where previously he held the Chair of Biblical Criticism and Biblical Antiquities. His monographs include Christ among the Messiahs (Oxford University Press, 2012), The Grammar of Messianism (Oxford University Press, 2017), Paul, Then and Now (Eerdmans, 2022), and Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

The apostle Paul was a Jew. He was born, lived, undertook his apostolic work, and died within the milieu of ancient Judaism. And yet, many readers have found, and continue to find, Paul's thought so radical, so Christian, even so anti-Jewish – despite the fact that it, too, is Jewish through and through. This paradox, and the question how we are to explain it, are the foci of Matthew Novenson's groundbreaking book, Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). The solution, says the author, lies in Paul's particular understanding of time. This too is altogether Jewish, with the twist that Paul sees the end of history as present, not future. In the wake of Christ's resurrection, Jews are perfected in righteousness and – like the angels – enabled to live forever, in fulfilment of God's ancient promises to the patriarchs. What is more, gentiles are included in the same pneumatic existence promised to the Jews. This peculiar combination of ethnicity and eschatology yields something that looks not quite like Judaism or Christianity as we are used to thinking of them. Matthew Novenson is the Helen H. P. Manson Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an honorary fellow in the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, where previously he held the Chair of Biblical Criticism and Biblical Antiquities. His monographs include Christ among the Messiahs (Oxford University Press, 2012), The Grammar of Messianism (Oxford University Press, 2017), Paul, Then and Now (Eerdmans, 2022), and Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biblical-studies

The apostle Paul was a Jew. He was born, lived, undertook his apostolic work, and died within the milieu of ancient Judaism. And yet, many readers have found, and continue to find, Paul's thought so radical, so Christian, even so anti-Jewish – despite the fact that it, too, is Jewish through and through. This paradox, and the question how we are to explain it, are the foci of Matthew Novenson's groundbreaking book, Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). The solution, says the author, lies in Paul's particular understanding of time. This too is altogether Jewish, with the twist that Paul sees the end of history as present, not future. In the wake of Christ's resurrection, Jews are perfected in righteousness and – like the angels – enabled to live forever, in fulfilment of God's ancient promises to the patriarchs. What is more, gentiles are included in the same pneumatic existence promised to the Jews. This peculiar combination of ethnicity and eschatology yields something that looks not quite like Judaism or Christianity as we are used to thinking of them. Matthew Novenson is the Helen H. P. Manson Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an honorary fellow in the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, where previously he held the Chair of Biblical Criticism and Biblical Antiquities. His monographs include Christ among the Messiahs (Oxford University Press, 2012), The Grammar of Messianism (Oxford University Press, 2017), Paul, Then and Now (Eerdmans, 2022), and Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023).

The apostle Paul was a Jew. He was born, lived, undertook his apostolic work, and died within the milieu of ancient Judaism. And yet, many readers have found, and continue to find, Paul's thought so radical, so Christian, even so anti-Jewish – despite the fact that it, too, is Jewish through and through. This paradox, and the question how we are to explain it, are the foci of Matthew Novenson's groundbreaking book, Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). The solution, says the author, lies in Paul's particular understanding of time. This too is altogether Jewish, with the twist that Paul sees the end of history as present, not future. In the wake of Christ's resurrection, Jews are perfected in righteousness and – like the angels – enabled to live forever, in fulfilment of God's ancient promises to the patriarchs. What is more, gentiles are included in the same pneumatic existence promised to the Jews. This peculiar combination of ethnicity and eschatology yields something that looks not quite like Judaism or Christianity as we are used to thinking of them. Matthew Novenson is the Helen H. P. Manson Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an honorary fellow in the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, where previously he held the Chair of Biblical Criticism and Biblical Antiquities. His monographs include Christ among the Messiahs (Oxford University Press, 2012), The Grammar of Messianism (Oxford University Press, 2017), Paul, Then and Now (Eerdmans, 2022), and Paul and Judaism at the End of History (Cambridge University Press, 2024). Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

Christology is the study of what we believe about Jesus, and it is essential to have a strong foundation in the truth that Jesus is God so that we have a right understanding of the gospel. * 00:00 - Introduction* 10:10 - Why Does Christology Matter?* 28:13 - The Deity of Christ* 48:34 - Final Thoughts This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.danceoflife.com/subscribe

New Testament letters are compared with private, business, and administrative letters of Greco-Roman antiquity and analyzed against this background. More than 11,800 Greek and Latin letters – preserved on papyrus, potsherds, and tablets from Egypt, Israel, Asia Minor, North Africa, Britain, and Switzerland – have been edited so far. Among them are not only short notes by writers with poor writing skills, but also extensive letters and correspondences from highly educated authors. They testify to the literary skills of Paul of Tarsus, who knew how to make excellent use of epistolary formulas and even introduced new variations. They also show that some New Testament letters clearly fall outside the framework of standard epistolography, raising new questions about their authors and their genre. The introductions and discussions offered in this volume reflect the current state of the art and present new research results. Letters and Letter Writing (Brill U Schoningh, 2023) also presents over 130 papyrus and ostracon letters newly translated in their entirety. Peter Arzt-Grabner is Associate Professor and head of the Papyrological Research Unit at the Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastical History at the University of Salzburg. He is the author of Philemon (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003) and 2. Korintherbrief (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) as well as the co-author of More Light from the Ancient Near East: Understanding the New Testament through Papyri (Brill, 2023; with John S. Kloppenborg and Christina M. Kreinecker). He is also a series editor for Papyri and the New Testament (Brill) and Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

New Testament letters are compared with private, business, and administrative letters of Greco-Roman antiquity and analyzed against this background. More than 11,800 Greek and Latin letters – preserved on papyrus, potsherds, and tablets from Egypt, Israel, Asia Minor, North Africa, Britain, and Switzerland – have been edited so far. Among them are not only short notes by writers with poor writing skills, but also extensive letters and correspondences from highly educated authors. They testify to the literary skills of Paul of Tarsus, who knew how to make excellent use of epistolary formulas and even introduced new variations. They also show that some New Testament letters clearly fall outside the framework of standard epistolography, raising new questions about their authors and their genre. The introductions and discussions offered in this volume reflect the current state of the art and present new research results. Letters and Letter Writing (Brill U Schoningh, 2023) also presents over 130 papyrus and ostracon letters newly translated in their entirety. Peter Arzt-Grabner is Associate Professor and head of the Papyrological Research Unit at the Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastical History at the University of Salzburg. He is the author of Philemon (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003) and 2. Korintherbrief (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) as well as the co-author of More Light from the Ancient Near East: Understanding the New Testament through Papyri (Brill, 2023; with John S. Kloppenborg and Christina M. Kreinecker). He is also a series editor for Papyri and the New Testament (Brill) and Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biblical-studies

New Testament letters are compared with private, business, and administrative letters of Greco-Roman antiquity and analyzed against this background. More than 11,800 Greek and Latin letters – preserved on papyrus, potsherds, and tablets from Egypt, Israel, Asia Minor, North Africa, Britain, and Switzerland – have been edited so far. Among them are not only short notes by writers with poor writing skills, but also extensive letters and correspondences from highly educated authors. They testify to the literary skills of Paul of Tarsus, who knew how to make excellent use of epistolary formulas and even introduced new variations. They also show that some New Testament letters clearly fall outside the framework of standard epistolography, raising new questions about their authors and their genre. The introductions and discussions offered in this volume reflect the current state of the art and present new research results. Letters and Letter Writing (Brill U Schoningh, 2023) also presents over 130 papyrus and ostracon letters newly translated in their entirety. Peter Arzt-Grabner is Associate Professor and head of the Papyrological Research Unit at the Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastical History at the University of Salzburg. He is the author of Philemon (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003) and 2. Korintherbrief (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) as well as the co-author of More Light from the Ancient Near East: Understanding the New Testament through Papyri (Brill, 2023; with John S. Kloppenborg and Christina M. Kreinecker). He is also a series editor for Papyri and the New Testament (Brill) and Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

Dr. John Bombaro of St. James Lutheran-Lafayette, IN Christ-Centered Isn't Enough The post Christology – Dr. John Bombaro, 9/11/25 (2541) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

In this episode, Caleb is joined by Randy Johnson (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) Wisdom Head at Scholé Christian Tradition, to discuss how classical Christology entails a compatibilist view of free will. In other words, freedom and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism is a necessary consequence of the teaching about Jesus Christ found in Scripture and affirmed in Christian, historical orthodoxy.Resources: The Christological Case for Compatibilism by Randy JohnsonFreedom of the Will  by Jonathan EdwardsInstitutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis TurretinThe Person of Chrsit: An Introduction by Stephen WellumGod the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

Speaker: Kristian Hernandez     Scripture:  Hebrews 6: 1-3   Acts 2:22-36

In Intergroup Conflict, Recategorization, and Identity Construction in Acts: Breaking the Cycle of Slander, Labeling and Violence (Bloomsbury, 2023) Hyun Ho Park employs social identity to create the first thorough analysis via such methodology of Acts 21:17-23:35, which contains one of the fiercest intergroup conflicts in Acts. Park's assessment allows his readers to rethink, reevaluate, and reimagine Jewish-Christian relations; teaches them how to respond to the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence permeating contemporary public and private spheres; and presents a new hermeneutical cycle and describes how readers may apply it to their own sociopolitical contexts.After surveying previous studies of the text, Park first analyses Paul's welcome, questioning, and arrest, and how slandering and labeling make Paul an outsider. Park then describes how, through defending his Jewish identity and the Way, Paul nuances his public image and re-categorizes himself and the Way as part of the people of God. When Paul identifies himself as a Roman and later a Pharisee, Park examines Luke's ambivalent attitude toward Rome and the Pharisees, and assesses how Paul escapes dangerous situations by claiming different social identities at different times.Finally, he discloses the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence not only against the Way but also against the Jews and challenges the discursive process of identity construction through intergroup conflict with an out-group, especially the proximate “Other.” Furthermore, he demonstrates how the relevance of such scholarship is not limited to Lukan studies or even biblical studies in general; the frequent use of slander, labeling, and violence in the politics of the United States and other polarized countries around the globe demands new ways of looking at intergroup relations, and Park's argument meets the needs of those seeking a new perspective on contemporary political discord. Hyun Ho Park is Associate Pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Yuba City, California and Editor-in-Chief of the Asian American Theological Forum. Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Intergroup Conflict, Recategorization, and Identity Construction in Acts: Breaking the Cycle of Slander, Labeling and Violence (Bloomsbury, 2023) Hyun Ho Park employs social identity to create the first thorough analysis via such methodology of Acts 21:17-23:35, which contains one of the fiercest intergroup conflicts in Acts. Park's assessment allows his readers to rethink, reevaluate, and reimagine Jewish-Christian relations; teaches them how to respond to the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence permeating contemporary public and private spheres; and presents a new hermeneutical cycle and describes how readers may apply it to their own sociopolitical contexts.After surveying previous studies of the text, Park first analyses Paul's welcome, questioning, and arrest, and how slandering and labeling make Paul an outsider. Park then describes how, through defending his Jewish identity and the Way, Paul nuances his public image and re-categorizes himself and the Way as part of the people of God. When Paul identifies himself as a Roman and later a Pharisee, Park examines Luke's ambivalent attitude toward Rome and the Pharisees, and assesses how Paul escapes dangerous situations by claiming different social identities at different times.Finally, he discloses the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence not only against the Way but also against the Jews and challenges the discursive process of identity construction through intergroup conflict with an out-group, especially the proximate “Other.” Furthermore, he demonstrates how the relevance of such scholarship is not limited to Lukan studies or even biblical studies in general; the frequent use of slander, labeling, and violence in the politics of the United States and other polarized countries around the globe demands new ways of looking at intergroup relations, and Park's argument meets the needs of those seeking a new perspective on contemporary political discord. Hyun Ho Park is Associate Pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Yuba City, California and Editor-in-Chief of the Asian American Theological Forum. Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

In Intergroup Conflict, Recategorization, and Identity Construction in Acts: Breaking the Cycle of Slander, Labeling and Violence (Bloomsbury, 2023) Hyun Ho Park employs social identity to create the first thorough analysis via such methodology of Acts 21:17-23:35, which contains one of the fiercest intergroup conflicts in Acts. Park's assessment allows his readers to rethink, reevaluate, and reimagine Jewish-Christian relations; teaches them how to respond to the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence permeating contemporary public and private spheres; and presents a new hermeneutical cycle and describes how readers may apply it to their own sociopolitical contexts.After surveying previous studies of the text, Park first analyses Paul's welcome, questioning, and arrest, and how slandering and labeling make Paul an outsider. Park then describes how, through defending his Jewish identity and the Way, Paul nuances his public image and re-categorizes himself and the Way as part of the people of God. When Paul identifies himself as a Roman and later a Pharisee, Park examines Luke's ambivalent attitude toward Rome and the Pharisees, and assesses how Paul escapes dangerous situations by claiming different social identities at different times.Finally, he discloses the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence not only against the Way but also against the Jews and challenges the discursive process of identity construction through intergroup conflict with an out-group, especially the proximate “Other.” Furthermore, he demonstrates how the relevance of such scholarship is not limited to Lukan studies or even biblical studies in general; the frequent use of slander, labeling, and violence in the politics of the United States and other polarized countries around the globe demands new ways of looking at intergroup relations, and Park's argument meets the needs of those seeking a new perspective on contemporary political discord. Hyun Ho Park is Associate Pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Yuba City, California and Editor-in-Chief of the Asian American Theological Forum. Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

In Intergroup Conflict, Recategorization, and Identity Construction in Acts: Breaking the Cycle of Slander, Labeling and Violence (Bloomsbury, 2023) Hyun Ho Park employs social identity to create the first thorough analysis via such methodology of Acts 21:17-23:35, which contains one of the fiercest intergroup conflicts in Acts. Park's assessment allows his readers to rethink, reevaluate, and reimagine Jewish-Christian relations; teaches them how to respond to the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence permeating contemporary public and private spheres; and presents a new hermeneutical cycle and describes how readers may apply it to their own sociopolitical contexts.After surveying previous studies of the text, Park first analyses Paul's welcome, questioning, and arrest, and how slandering and labeling make Paul an outsider. Park then describes how, through defending his Jewish identity and the Way, Paul nuances his public image and re-categorizes himself and the Way as part of the people of God. When Paul identifies himself as a Roman and later a Pharisee, Park examines Luke's ambivalent attitude toward Rome and the Pharisees, and assesses how Paul escapes dangerous situations by claiming different social identities at different times.Finally, he discloses the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence not only against the Way but also against the Jews and challenges the discursive process of identity construction through intergroup conflict with an out-group, especially the proximate “Other.” Furthermore, he demonstrates how the relevance of such scholarship is not limited to Lukan studies or even biblical studies in general; the frequent use of slander, labeling, and violence in the politics of the United States and other polarized countries around the globe demands new ways of looking at intergroup relations, and Park's argument meets the needs of those seeking a new perspective on contemporary political discord. Hyun Ho Park is Associate Pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Yuba City, California and Editor-in-Chief of the Asian American Theological Forum. Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biblical-studies

In Intergroup Conflict, Recategorization, and Identity Construction in Acts: Breaking the Cycle of Slander, Labeling and Violence (Bloomsbury, 2023) Hyun Ho Park employs social identity to create the first thorough analysis via such methodology of Acts 21:17-23:35, which contains one of the fiercest intergroup conflicts in Acts. Park's assessment allows his readers to rethink, reevaluate, and reimagine Jewish-Christian relations; teaches them how to respond to the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence permeating contemporary public and private spheres; and presents a new hermeneutical cycle and describes how readers may apply it to their own sociopolitical contexts.After surveying previous studies of the text, Park first analyses Paul's welcome, questioning, and arrest, and how slandering and labeling make Paul an outsider. Park then describes how, through defending his Jewish identity and the Way, Paul nuances his public image and re-categorizes himself and the Way as part of the people of God. When Paul identifies himself as a Roman and later a Pharisee, Park examines Luke's ambivalent attitude toward Rome and the Pharisees, and assesses how Paul escapes dangerous situations by claiming different social identities at different times.Finally, he discloses the vicious cycle of slander, labeling, and violence not only against the Way but also against the Jews and challenges the discursive process of identity construction through intergroup conflict with an out-group, especially the proximate “Other.” Furthermore, he demonstrates how the relevance of such scholarship is not limited to Lukan studies or even biblical studies in general; the frequent use of slander, labeling, and violence in the politics of the United States and other polarized countries around the globe demands new ways of looking at intergroup relations, and Park's argument meets the needs of those seeking a new perspective on contemporary political discord. Hyun Ho Park is Associate Pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Yuba City, California and Editor-in-Chief of the Asian American Theological Forum. Jonathon Lookadoo is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

The post Christology – Who is Jesus? – Kyle Dingus appeared first on Fourth Avenue COC.

In this episode of Psyche Podcast, I sit down with theologian David W. Congdon to explore his bold new article, The Polyamorous Christ: On the Sexual Ethics of the Incarnation. We dig into why Christianity has historically treated erotic love with suspicion, how monogamy became the assumed norm, and why it's important to distinguish polyamory from polygamy .David challenges the common move of grounding polyamory in the Trinity and instead turns to Christology and the incarnation as a richer resource. We talk about the logic of noncompetitive abundance—how God's love in Christ shows that love isn't a scarce resource but something that grows the more it's shared .Together, we explore how this vision could reshape Christian sexual ethics, not by mandating polyamory, but by rejecting compulsory monogamy and opening up a “buffet of options” for human relationships rooted in consent and flourishing .This conversation is provocative, challenging, and deeply hopeful. Whether or not you identify as Christian, I think you'll find that David's idea of a polyamorous logic of love opens new ways of thinking about intimacy, community, and what it means to live abundantly.

Listen in to the 150th episode of the Incremental Revival Podcast as Michael and Pastor Eric discuss Christology.

In this episode I discuss how the gospel writers develop both the messianic and divine identity of Jesus, building up from their sources. I discuss my preferred theory to the Synoptic problem, the Farrer Hypothesis. It postulates that Mark was the first written gospel, Matthew used Mark as a source and added his own material, and Luke used both Mark and Matthew as a source. I then explore a recent proposal made by James Barker who argues that John knew the Synoptic gospels. Advocating for the Farrer theory, he explores ‘Synoptic trajectories', showing how each successive evangelist developed their source material, and shows how the line runs through John, which was a creative rewriting of the Synoptics. I apply these theories to the opening verse of each gospel. Mark 1:1 acknowledges that Jesus is Messiah, possibly alludes to Genesis 1-2, and sets the beginning of Jesus' ministry with John the Baptist. Matthew agrees but pushes Jesus' origins back to David through Abraham while narrating the divine conception of Jesus. Luke further develops the divine and messianic Christology of Mark and Matthew, tracing Jesus' lineage back to Adam, boldly affirming his messianic status, and more extensively narrating Jesus' divine conception. John agrees with all of this and takes the final step, showing Jesus participating in creation while retaining his Davidic, Messianic Christology.  Media Referenced:James Barker interview: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-181-how-the-gospel-writers-copied-each-other-with-james-barker/Helen Bond interview: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-167-the-gospels-as-biography-with-helen-bond/Paul and Divine Christology: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-127-paul-believed-that-jesus-was-god-with-chris-bruno/ The Protestant Libertarian Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and a part of the Christians For Liberty Network. The Libertarian Christian Institute can be found at www.libertarianchristians.com.Questions, comments, suggestions? Please reach out to me at theprotestantlibertarian@gmail.com.  You can also follow the podcast on Twitter: @prolibertypod, and YouTube, @ProLibertyPod, where you will get shorts and other exclusive video content. For more about the show, you can go to theprotestantlibertarianpodcast.com. If you like the show and want to support it, you can! Go to libertarianchristians.com, where you can donate to LCI and buy The Protestant Libertarian Podcast Merch! Also, please consider giving me a star rating and leaving me a review, it really helps expand the show's profile! Thanks!

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs, describing what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis. "Law is [indeed] spiritual" as the Apostle Paul wrote.

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs along with what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs, describing what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis. "Law is [indeed] spiritual" as the Apostle Paul wrote.

Adam from the "Adam's Fall" (  @Adams-Fall  ) channel joins me to discuss his personal journey out of atheism and back into his native LDS faith. He then provides a detailed and clarifying overview of LDS Christology, explaining its unique non-Trinitarian framework and its concept of a progressive, developmental divinity for both Christ and humanity.Adam's Channel "Adam's Fall" - https://www.youtube.com/@Adams-FallPastor Paul Vanderklay & The Little Corner (TLC) community, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Murdoch (Adam's ancestor), Rupert Sheldrake, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Gavin Ortuand, Trent Horn, President Russell M. Nelson, Sydney Rigdon, Jacob Faturechi (  @faturechi  ), Moses, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph F. Smith, Orson Whitney, Orson Pratt, C.S. Lewis, Rod Dreher, Beau Branson, The "heliocentric" channel (  @HeliocentricOfficial  )

Biblical scholars Doug Huffman and Paul Gondreau join for me a conversation to explore the historical, theological, and interpretive dimensions of The Chosen. Drawing from their new book "Watching The Chosen: History, Faith, and Interpretation," we discuss how the series portrays Jesus and His followers, where it aligns with the biblical text, where it takes creative liberties, and how viewers can engage with it thoughtfully.Dr. Douglas S. Huffman, the evangelical biblical consultant for the television series The Chosen, is Professor of New Testament and Associate Dean of Biblical and Theological Studies at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University) in California.Paul Gondreau is a professor of theology at Providence College. He teaches and publishes in the area of moral theology with an emphasis on marriage, Christology, and sacraments, with a specialization in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He is also an associate editor of the journal Nova et Vetera and a contributor to Inseparable: Five Perspectives on Sex, Life, and Love in Defense of Humanae Vitae.https://www.ryleyheppner.comhttps://apologeticscanada.com/ryley-heppner/

How should we understand the words, “in him all things were created” in Col 1.16? Although commonly taken to mean Christ created the universe, this view has contextual, structural, and exegetical problems. In what follows I’ll name six problems with old-creation readings before laying out why a new creation approach makes sense. I presented this talk at the 2025 Unitarian Christian Alliance (UCA) conference in Uxbridge, England. Scroll down to see the full-length paper. For those listening to the audio, here’s a quick reference to Colossians 1.15-20 Strophe 1 (Col 1.15-18a) 15a      who is (the) image of the invisible God, 15b      firstborn of all creation 16a      for in him were created all things 16b                  in the heavens and upon the earth, 16c                  the visible and the invisible, 16d                  whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities 16e      all things have been created through him and for him 17a      and he is before all things 17b      and all things hold together in him 18a      and he is the head of the body of the Church,[12] Strophe 2 (Col 1.18b-20) 18b      who is (the) beginning, 18c      firstborn from the dead, 18d                  in order that he may be first in all things, 19        for in him was pleased all the fulness to dwell 20a      and through him to reconcile all things in him, 20b      making peace through the blood of his cross 20c                  whether the things upon the earth 20d                  or the things in the heavens Here’s Randy Leedy’s New Testament Diagram Here are the slides in the original PowerPoint format Download [13.82 MB] Here are the slides converted to PDF Loading... Taking too long? Reload document | Open in new tab Download [3.16 MB] To read the paper, simply scroll down or read it on Academia.edu.   Listen on Spotify   Listen on Apple Podcasts —— Links —— Check out these other papers by Sean Finnegan Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Finnegan on X @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play it out on the air Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Get Finnegan’s book, Kingdom Journey to learn about God’s kingdom coming on earth as well as the story of how Christianity lost this pearl of great price. Get the transcript of this episode Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Below is the paper presented on July 25, 2025 in Uxbridge, England at the 2nd annual UCA UK Conference. Access this paper on Academia.edu to get the pdf. Full text is below, including bibliography and end notes. Colossians 1.16: Old Creation or New Creation? by Sean P. Finnegan Abstract  How should we understand the words, “in him all things were created” in Col 1.16? Although commonly taken to mean Christ created the universe, this view has contextual, structural, and exegetical problems. In what follows, I will explain the difficulties with the various old creation readings of Col 1.16 along with five reasons for a new creation approach. Then I'll provide a new creation reading of Col 1.16 before summarizing my findings in the conclusion. Introduction  Colossians 1.15-20 is a fascinating text of great importance for Christology. Commonly understood to be a hymn, it is fascinating in its cosmic scope and elevated Christology. Although many commentators interpret Paul[1] to say that Christ created the universe in his pre-existent state in Col 1.16, not all scholars see it that way. For example, Edward Schillebeeckx writes, “There is no mention in this text of pre-existence in the Trinitarian sense.”[2] Rather he sees “an eschatological pre-existence, characteristic of wisdom and apocalyptic.”[3] G. B. Caird agreed that Paul's focus in Col. 1.15-20 was not pre-existence (contra Lightfoot), rather, “The main thread of Paul's thought, then, is the manhood of Christ.”[4] In other words, “All that has been said in vv. 15-18 can be said of the historical Jesus.”[5] James Dunn also denied that Paul saw Christ as God's agent in creation in Col 1.15-20, claiming that such an interpretation was “to read imaginative metaphor in a pedantically literal way.”[6] James McGrath argued that “Jesus is the one through whom God's new creation takes place.” [7] Andrew Perriman likewise noted, “There is no reference to the creation of heaven and earth, light and darkness, sea and dry land, lights in the heavens, vegetation, or living creatures,”[8] also preferring a new creation approach.[9] To understand why such a broad range of scholars diverge from the old creation interpretation of Col 1.16, we will examine several contextual, structural, and exegetical problems. While explaining these, I'll also put forward four reasons to interpret Col 1.16 as new creation. Then I'll provide a fifth before giving a new creation reading of Col 1.15-20. But before going any further, let's familiarize ourselves with the text and structure. The Form of Col 1.15-20  To get our bearings, let me begin by providing a translation,[10] carefully structured to show the two strophes.[11] Strophe 1 (Col 1.15-18a) 15a      who is (the) image of the invisible God, 15b      firstborn of all creation 16a      for in him were created all things 16b                  in the heavens and upon the earth, 16c                  the visible and the invisible, 16d                  whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities 16e      all things have been created through him and for him 17a      and he is before all things 17b      and all things hold together in him 18a      and he is the head of the body of the Church,[12] Strophe 2 (Col 1.18b-20) 18b      who is (the) beginning, 18c      firstborn from the dead, 18d                  in order that he may be first in all things, 19        for in him was pleased all the fulness to dwell 20a      and through him to reconcile all things in him, 20b      making peace through the blood of his cross 20c                  whether the things upon the earth 20d                  or the things in the heavens Here I've followed the two-strophe structure (1.15-18a and 18b-20) noted more than a century ago by the classical philologist Eduard Norden[13] and repeated by James Robinson,[14] Edward Lohse,[15] Edward Schweizer,[16] James Dunn,[17] Ben Witherington III,[18] and William Lane[19] among others. By lining up the parallel lines of the two strophes, we can clearly see the poetic form. Strophe 1 15a who is (the) image… 15b firstborn of all creation 16a for in him were created all things… 16e  all things have been created through him… Strophe 2 18b who is (the) beginning, 18c firstborn from the dead … 19 for in him was pleased all… 20a and through him to reconcile all things in him… Such striking repeated language between the two strophes means that we should be careful to maintain the parallels between them and not take a grammatical or exegetical position on a word or phrase that would disconnect it from the parallel line in the other strophe. Some scholars, including F. F. Bruce,[20] Michael Bird,[21] David Pao,[22] among others proposed vv. 17-18a as an independent transitional link between the two strophes. Lohse explained the motivation for this unlikely innovation as follows. Above all, it is curious that at the end of the first, cosmologically oriented strophe, Christ is suddenly referred to as the “head of the body, the church” (1:18a κεφαλή τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας). Considering its content, this statement would have to be connected with the second strophe which is characterized by soteriological statements. The structure of the hymn, however, places it in the first strophe.[23] For interpreters who prefer to think of the first strophe as cosmogony and the second as soteriology, a line about Christ's headship over the church doesn't fit very well. They restructure the form based on their interpretation of the content. Such a policy reverses the order of operations. One should determine the form and then interpret the content in light of structure. Lohse was right to reject the addition of a new transitional bridge between the two strophes. He called it “out of the question” since vv. 17-18a underscore “all things” and “serve as a summary that brings the first strophe to a conclusion.”[24] Now that we've oriented ourselves to some degree, let's consider old creation readings of Col 1.16 and the problems that arise when reading it that way. Old Creation Readings  Within the old creation paradigm for Col 1.16 we can discern three groups: those who see (A) Christ as the agent by whom God created, (B) Wisdom as the agent, and (C) Christ as the purpose of creation. Although space won't allow me to interact with each of these in detail, I will offer a brief critique of these three approaches. As a reminder, here is our text in both Greek and English. Colossians 1.16 16a      ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα 16b                  ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 16c                  τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, 16d                  εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· 16e      τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· 16a      for in him were created all things 16b                  in the heavens and upon the earth, 16c                  the visible and the invisible, 16d                  whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities 16e      all things have been created through him and for him 1. Christ as the Agent of Creation Scot McKnight is representative in his claim that “The emphasis of the first stanza is Christ as the agent of creation … and the second is Christ as the agent of redemption.”[25] This view sees the phrase “in him were created all things” as Christ creating the universe in the beginning. However, this position has six problems with it. Firstly, the context of the poem—both before (vv. 13-14) and after (vv. 21-22)—is clearly soteriological not cosmogonical.[26] By inserting vv. 15-20 into the text after vv. 13-14, Paul connected the two together.[27] V. 15 begins with ὅς ἐστιν (who is), which makes it grammatically dependent on vv. 13-14. “It is widely accepted,” wrote Dunn, “that this passage is a pre-Pauline hymn interpolated and interpreted to greater or less extent by Paul.”[28] By placing the poem into a redemptive frame, Paul indicated how he interpreted it. The fact that God “rescued us from the authority of darkness and transferred (us) into the kingdom of his beloved son” is the controlling context (v. 13).[29] As I will show below, I believe vv. 15-20 are ecclesiology not protology, since ecclesiology naturally flows from soteriology. Rather than remaining in the old domain of darkness, vulnerable to malevolent spiritual powers of this age, Colossian Christians are transferred into the new domain of Christ. The context makes it more natural to interpret the creation language of vv. 15-16 in light of Christ's redemptive work—as references to new creation rather than old creation. Doing so retains the contextual frame rather than jumping back to the beginning of time. A second problem arises when we consider the phrase “image of the invisible God” in v. 15. Although some see a Stoic or Wisdom reference here, I agree with F. F. Bruce who said, “No reader conversant with the OT scriptures, on reading these words of Paul, could fail to be reminded of the statement in Gen. 1:26f., that man was created by God ‘in his own image.'”[30] Immediately after making humanity in his own image, God blessed us with dominion over the earth. Philo also connected humanity's image of God with “the rulership over the earthly realms.”[31] But if the Christ of v. 15 is the pre-existent son prior to his incarnation, as the old creation model posits, “How can he be the ‘image of God,'” asked Eduard Schweizer, since “the one who is thus described here is not the earthly Jesus?”[32] It is precisely by virtue of his humanity that Jesus is the image of God not his pre-existence.[33] Thus, image-of-God language points us to the creation of a new humanity. A third problem is that “firstborn of all creation” prima facia implies that Christ is a member of creation (a partitive genitive). This is how Paul thought about Christ as firstborn in Rom 8.29 when he called Christ “firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” Clearly he saw Christ as a member of the “ἀδελφοῖς” (brothers and sisters). Furthermore, “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως” (firstborn of all creation) in v. 15 parallels “πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν” (firstborn from the dead) v. 18. Although the former (v. 15) can be taken as a genitive of subordination (firstborn over creation) or as a partitive genitive (firstborn of creation), the latter (v. 18) is unambiguously partitive. Because v. 18 includes the word ἐκ (from/out of), instead of a multivalent genitive, it must mean that Jesus was himself a member of the dead prior to his resurrection. Likewise, he was the firstborn member of creation. To take v. 15 as a genitive of subordination and v. 18 in a partitive sense allows theology to drive exegesis over against the clear structural link between v. 15b and v. 18c. In fact, as the BDAG noted, Christ is “the firstborn of a new humanity.”[34] He is chronologically born first and, by virtue of that, also preeminent.[35] Fourthly, the phrase, “ἐν αὐτῷ” (in him), implies soteriology not protology as it does throughout the Pauline corpus. The prepositional phrases “in Christ,” “in the Lord,” “in him,” and others that are similar occur more than a hundred times in Paul's epistles. McKnight elucidated the sense nicely: “This expression, then, is the inaugurated eschatological reality into which the Christian has been placed, and it also evokes the new-creation realities that a person discovers.”[36] Creation in Christ is not likely to refer to Genesis creation. In fact, apart from Col 1.16, there is no text within Paul or the rest of the Bible that speaks of the origin of the universe as something created “in Christ.”[37] Sadly translators routinely obscure this fact by translating “ἐν αὐτῷ” as “by him.”[38] Amazingly, the NASB and ESV render “ἐν αὐτῷ” as “in him” in every other usage apart from Col 1.16![39] For the sake of consistency, it makes better sense to render “ἐν αὐτῷ” as “in him” and let the reader decide how to interpret it. Fifthly, the line, “and he is the head of the body, the Church” (v. 18a) clearly roots the first strophe in redemptive history not creation. Our English translations follow Robert Estienne's verse divisions, which confusingly combine the last line of the first strophe (v. 18a) and the first line of the second (v. 18b), obscuring the native poetic structure. As I made the case above, the structure of the text breaks into two strophes with v. 18a included in the first one. As I mentioned earlier, vv. 15-20 are a pre-existing poem that Paul has modified and incorporated into the text of Colossians. Ralph Martin pointed out that the poem contains “no less than five hapax legomena” and “about ten non-Pauline expressions.”[40] Additionally, there appear to be awkward additions that disrupt the symmetry. These additions are the most explicitly Christian material. It is likely that the original said, “and he is the head of the body” to which Paul appended “the church.” Edward Schillebeeckx commented on this. In Hellenistic terms this must primarily mean that he gives life and existence to the cosmos. Here, however, Colossians drastically corrects the ideas … The correction made by Colossians is to understand ‘body' as a reference to the church, and not the cosmos. This alters the whole perspective of the cultural and religious setting … The cosmic background is reinterpreted in terms of salvation history and ecclesiology. In fact Christ is already exercising his lordship over the world now … however, he is doing this only as the head of the church, his body, to which he gives life and strength. Thus Colossians claims that the church alone, rather than the cosmos, is the body of Christ.[41] If this is true, it shows Paul's careful concern to disallow a strictly old creation or protological reading of the first strophe. For by inserting “of the church,” he has limited the context of the first strophe to the Christ event. “The addition of ‘the church,'” wrote Dunn, “indicates that for Paul at any rate the two strophes were not dealing with two clearly distinct subjects (cosmology and soteriology).”[42] Karl-Joseph Kuschel wrote, “The answer would seem to be he wanted to ‘disturb' a possible cosmological-protological fancy in the confession of Christ … to prevent Christ from becoming a purely mythical heavenly being.”[43] Thus Paul's addition shows us he interpreted the creation of v16 as new creation. Lastly, theological concerns arise when taking Col 1.16 as old creation. The most obvious is that given the partitive genitive of v. 15, we are left affirming the so-called Arian position that God created Christ as the firstborn who, in turn, created everything else. Another thorn in the side of this view is God's insistence elsewhere to be the solo creator (Isa 44.24; cf. 45.18). On the strength of this fact, modalism comes forward to save the day while leaving new problems in its wake. However, recognizing Col 1.15-20 as new creation avoids such theological conundrums. 2. Wisdom as the Agent of Creation Dustin Smith noted, “The christological hymn contains no less than nine characteristics of the wisdom of God (e.g., “image,” “firstborn,” agent of creation, preceding all things, holding all things together) that are reapplied to the figure of Jesus.”[44] Some suggest that Col 1.15-20 is actually a hymn to Wisdom that Paul Christianized.[45] The idea is that God created the universe through his divine Wisdom, which is now embodied or incarnate in Christ. Dunn explained it as follows. If then Christ is what God's power/wisdom came to be recognized as, of Christ it can be said what was said first of wisdom—that ‘in him (the divine wisdom now embodied in Christ) were created all things.' In other words the language may be used here to indicate the continuity between God's creative power and Christ without the implication being intended that Christ himself was active in creation.[46] Before pointing out some problems, I must admit much of this perspective is quite noncontroversial. That Jewish literature identified Wisdom as God's creative agent, that there are linguistic parallels between Col 1.15-20 and Wisdom, and that the historical Jesus uniquely embodied Wisdom to an unprecedented degree are not up for debate. Did Paul expect his readers to pick up on the linguistic parallels? Afterall, he could have just said “in her were created all things” in v. 16, clearly making the connection with the grammatically feminine σοφία (Wisdom). Better yet, he could have said, “in Wisdom were created all things.” Even if the poem was originally to Wisdom, Paul has thoroughly Christianized it, applying to Christ what had been said of Wisdom. However, the most significant defeater for this view is that applying Wisdom vocabulary to Christ only works one way. Wisdom has found her home in Christ. This doesn't mean we can attribute to Christ what Wisdom did before she indwelt him any more than we can attribute to the living descendants of Nazis the horrific deeds of their ancestors. Perriman's critique is correct: “The point is not that the act of creation was Christlike, rather the reverse: recent events have been creation-like. The death and resurrection of Jesus are represented as the profoundly creative event in which the wisdom of God is again dynamically engaged, by which a new world order has come about.”[47] Once again a new creation approach makes better sense of the text. 3. Christ as the Purpose of Creation Another approach is to take ἐν αὐτῷ (in him) in a telic sense. Martha King, a linguist with SIL, said the phrase can mean “in association with Christ everything was created” or “in connection with Christ all things were created.”[48] Lexicographer, Joseph Thayer, sharpened the sense with the translation, “[I]n him resides the cause why all things were originally created.”[49] William MacDonald's translation brought this out even more with the phrase, “because for him everything … was created.”[50] The idea is that God's act of creation in the beginning was with Christ in view. As Eric Chang noted, “Christ is the reason God created all things.”[51] G. B. Caird said, “He is the embodiment of that purpose of God which underlies the whole creation.”[52] The idea is one of predestination not agency.[53] Christ was the goal for which God created all things. A weakness of this view is that purpose is better expressed using εἰς or δία with an accusative than ἐν. Secondly, the parallel line in the second strophe (v. 19) employs “ἐν αὐτῷ” in a clearly locative sense: “in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell.” So even though “ἐν αὐτῷ” could imply purpose, in this context it much more likely refers to location. Lastly, Paul mentioned the sense of purpose at the end of v. 16 with “εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται” (for him has been created), so it would be repetitive to take “ἐν αὐτῷ” that way as well. To sum up, the three positions that see Col 1.16 as a reference to old creation all have significant problems. With these in mind, let us turn our attention to consider a fourth possibility: that Paul has in mind new creation. Reasons for a New Creation Reading I've already provided four reasons why Col 1.15-20 refers to new creation: (1) calling Christ the image of God points to the new humanity begun in Christ as the last Adam;[54] (2) since the firstborn of the old creation was Adam (or, perhaps, Seth), Jesus must be the firstborn of the new creation; (3) saying Jesus is the head of the church, limits the focus for the first strophe to the time following the Christ event; (4) the context of the poem, both before (vv. 13-14) and after (vv. 21-22) is soteriological, making an old creation paradigm awkward, while a new creation view fits perfectly. The Catholic priest and professor, Franz Zeilinger, summarized the situation nicely: “Christ is (through his resurrection from the realm of death) Lord over the possession granted to him, of which he is the ἀρχή (beginning) and archetype, … and head and beginning of the eschatological new creation!”[55] Additionally, a new creation paradigm fits best with Paul's elaboration of what visible and invisible things in heaven and on earth he has in mind. Once again, here's our text. 16a      for in him were created all things 16b                  in the heavens and upon the earth, 16c                  the visible and the invisible, 16d                  whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities 16e      all things have been created through him and for him By specifying thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities, we discern Paul's train of thought. Form critics are quick to point out that v. 16d is Paul's addition to the poem. Without it, the reader may have thought of sky, land, and animals—old creation. However, with v. 16d present, we direct our attention to political realities not God's creative power or engineering genius. Martha King noted the two possible meanings for εἴτε: (1) specifying the “invisible things” or (2) giving examples of “all things.” Taking the second view, we read “in him were created all things, including thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities.”[56] Randy Leedy also presented this position in his sentence diagrams, identifying v. 16d as equivalent to v. 16c and v. 16b, all of which modify τὰ πάντα (all things) at the end of v. 16a. (See Appendix for Leedy's diagram.) Perriman pressed home the point when he wrote: The fact is that any interpretation that takes verse 16 to be a reference to the original creation has to account for the narrow range of created things explicitly listed. … The Colossians verse mentions only the creation of political entities—thrones, lordships, rulers and authorities, visible and invisible—either in the already existing heaven or on the already existing and, presumably, populated earth. What this speaks of is a new governmental order consisting of both invisible-heavenly and visibly-earthly entities.”[57] Understanding v. 16d as equivalent to “all things” in v. 16a nicely coheres with a new-creation paradigm. However, taken the other way—as an elaboration of only the invisible created realities—v. 16d introduces an asymmetrical and clumsy appendix. A New Creation Reading of Col 1.16 Now that we've considered some problems with old creation views and some reasons to read Col 1.16 from a new creation perspective, let's consider how a new creation reading works. New creation is all about the new breaking into the old, the future into the present. G. F. Wessels said, “Paul made clear that there is a present realized aspect of salvation, as well as a future, still outstanding aspect, which will only be realized at the eschaton.”[58] New creation, likewise, has future and present realities. Exiting Old Creation Before becoming part of the new creation, one must exit the old creation. “Our old humanity was co-crucified“ (Rom 6.6). “With Christ you died to the elemental principles of the world” (Col 2.20). “As many as were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death” (Rom 6.3). We were “co-buried with him through baptism into the death … having been united with the likeness of his death” (Rom 6.4-5). Our death with him through baptism kills our allegiance and submission to the old powers and the old way of life “in which you formerly walked according to the zeitgeist of this world, according to the rule of the authority of the air, the spirit which now works in the children of disobedience” (Eph 2.2). Entering New Creation As death is the only way out of the old creation, so resurrection is the only way into the new creation. “You have been co-raised with Christ” (Col 3.1). God “co-made-alive us together with him” (Col 2.13).[59] By virtue of our union with Christ, we ourselves are already “co-raised and co-seated us in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2.6). The result of this is that “we also may walk in newness of life” (Rom 6.4). For those who are “in Christ, (there is) a new creation; the old has passed away, behold (the) new has come into existence” (2 Cor 5.17). “They have been ‘transported,'” wrote Schillebeeckx, “they already dwell above in Christ's heavenly sphere of influence (Col 1.13)—the soma Christou … that is the church!”[60] Community For the people of God, “neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision but a new creation” is what matters (Gal 6.15). Those who “are clothed with the new” are “being renewed in knowledge according to the image of him who created, where there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, (or) free, but Christ (is) all and in all” (Col 3.10-11). Through Christ God has nullified the law “in order that he might create the two into one new humanity in him” (Eph 2.14-15). Thus, within new creation, ethnic identity still exists, but it is relativized, our identity in Christ taking priority ahead of other affiliations and duties. Lifestyle When the lost become saved through faith, they become his creation (ποίημα), “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph 2.10). This means we are to “lay aside the former way of life, the old humanity corrupted according to deceitful desires” and instead be clothed with “the new humanity created according to God in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (Eph 4.22-24). Rather than lying to one another, we must “strip off the old humanity with its way of acting” and “be clothed with the new (humanity), renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it” (Col 3.9-10). “The ones who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts” and instead “walk by the spirit” (Gal 5.24-25). Ultimately, All Creation Although new creation is currently limited to those who voluntarily recognize Jesus as Lord, all “creation is waiting with eager expectation for the unveiling of the children of God” (Rom 8.19). Because of the Christ event, the created order eagerly awaits the day when it will escape “the enslavement of corruption” and gain “the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v. 21). Like a bone out of joint, creation does not function properly. Once Christ sets it right, it will return to its proper order and operation under humanity's wise and capable rulership in the eschaton. Eschatology God predetermined that those who believe will be “conformed to the image of his son, that he be firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Rom 8.29). Thus, the resurrected Christ is the prototype, “the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15.20). Whereas “in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (v. 22). We await Christ's return to “transform the body of our humble station (that it be) shaped to his glorious body according to the energy which makes him able to also to subject all things to himself.” (Phil 3.21). This is the end goal of new creation: resurrected subjects of God's kingdom joyfully living in a renewed world without mourning, crying, and pain forevermore (Isa 65.17-25; Rev 21-22). The Powers Taking Col 1.16 as a new creation text adds key information about the present governing powers to this richly textured picture. In Christ God created thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities. He made these through Christ and for Christ with the result that Christ himself is before all things, and in Christ all things hold together (Col 1.17). He is the head of the body, the Church (Col 1.18). We find very similar language repeated in Ephesians in the context of Christ's exaltation.[61] Ephesians 1.20-23 20 Which [power] he energized in Christ having raised him from the dead and seated (him) on his right (hand) in the heavenlies 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name named, not only in this age but also in the one to come; 22 and he subjected all things under his feet and gave him (as) head over all things in the Church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in all. The parallels are striking. Both speak of Christ's resurrection, Christ's exalted position of authority over all the powers, Christ's role as head of the church, and both mention the fullness. It's easy to miss the connection between these two passages since most think of Eph 1.20-22 as ascension theology and Col 1.15-20 as creation theology. But, if we adjust our thinking to regard Col 1.16 as new creation, we see how the two fit together. In Ephesians we see Christ's ascension to God's right hand as the reason for a cosmic reordering of authorities with the result that all rule, authority, power, and dominion are subjected to him. (Though we may be accustomed to reading these powers in Eph 1.21 as only malevolent owing to Eph 2.2 and 6.12, the list here must be mixed, since only benevolent powers will survive the final judgement and continue into the age to come.) Instead of exaltation, in Colossians Paul employed the language of creation to describe Christ's relation to the powers. Perhaps lesser terms like reassign, reorder, or establish were just too small to adequately express the magnitude of how the Christ event has changed the world—both in heaven and on earth. The only term big enough to convey the new situation was “creation”—the very same word he routinely used elsewhere with the meaning of new creation.[62] We can gain more insight by considering what the powers of Eph 1.21 and Col 1.16 mean. McKnight saw them “as earthly, systemic manifestations of (perhaps fallen) angelic powers—hence, the systemic worldly, sociopolitical manifestations of cosmic/angelic rebellion against God.”[63] I partially agree with McKnight here. He's right to see the powers as both heavenly and earthly, or better, as the heavenly component of the earthly sociopolitical realities, but he has not made room for the new authority structures created in Christ. John Schoenheit helpfully explained it this way: Not only did Jesus create his Church out of Jew and Gentile, he had to create the structure and positions that would allow it to function, both in the spiritual world (positions for the angels that would minister to the Church—see Rev. 1:1, “his angel”) and in the physical world (positions and ministries here on earth—see Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:7-11).[64] We must never forget that Paul has an apocalyptic worldview—a perspective that seeks to unveil the heavenly reality behind the earthly. He believed in powers of darkness and powers of light. In Christ were created thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities (Col 1.16). He is “the head of all rule and authority” (Col 2.10). These new creation realities make progress against the old powers that still hold sway in the world outside the Church. Although the old powers are still at work, those who are in Christ enjoy his protection. With respect to the Church, he has already “disarmed the rulers and authorities” (Col 2.15). We can don “the armor of God that we be able to stand against the methods of the devil” (Eph 6.11) and “subduing everything, to stand” (v. 13). We find glimpses of this heavenly reality scattered in other places in the Bible. Peter mentioned how Christ “is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and power having been subjected to him” (1 Pet 3.22). In John's Revelation, he addressed each of the seven letters to the angels of their respective churches.[65] Although it's hard for us to get details on precisely what happened at Christ's ascension, something major occurred, not just on earth, but also in the spiritual realm. Jesus's last recorded words in Matthew are: “all authority in heaven and upon earth was given to me” (Mat 28.18-20). Presumably such a statement implies that prior to his resurrection Jesus did not have all authority in heaven and earth. It didn't exist until it was created. Similarly, because of his death, resurrection, and ascension, Christ has “become so much better than the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to them” (Heb 1.4). Once again, the text implies that Christ was not already superior to the angels, but “after making purification of the sins, he sat on the right hand of the majesty on high” at which time he became preeminent (Heb 1.3). Perhaps this also explains something about why Christ “proclaimed to the spirits in prison” (1 Pet 3.19). Another possibility is that Christ's ascension (Rev 12.5) triggered a war in heaven (v. 7) with the result that the dragon and his angels suffered defeat (v. 8) and were thrown out of heaven down to the earth (v. 9). Sadly, for most of the history of the church we have missed this Jewish apocalyptic approach that was obvious to Paul, limiting salvation to individual sins and improved morality.[66] Only in the twentieth century did interpreters begin to see the cosmic aspect of new creation. Margaret Thrall wrote the following. The Christ-event is the turning-point of the whole world … This Christ ‘in whom' the believer lives is the last Adam, the inaugurator of the new eschatological humanity. … Paul is saying that if anyone exists ‘in Christ', that person is a newly-created being. … In principle, through the Christ-event and in the person of Christ, the new world and the new age are already objective realities.[67] New creation is, in the words of J. Louis Martyn “categorically cosmic and emphatically apocalyptic.”[68] In fact, “The advent of the Son and of his Spirit is thus the cosmic apocalyptic event.”[69] In Christ is the beginning of a whole new creation, an intersecting community of angelic and human beings spanning heaven and earth. The interlocking of earthly (visible) and heavenly (invisible) authority structures points to Paul's apocalyptic holism. The Church was not on her own to face the ravages of Rome's mad love affair with violence and power. In Christ, people were no longer susceptible to the whims of the gods that have wreaked so much havoc from time immemorial.[70] No, the Church is Christ's body under his direct supervision and protection. As a result, the Church is the eschatological cosmic community. It is not merely a social club; it has prophetic and cosmic dimensions. Prophetically, the Church points to the eschaton when all of humanity will behave then how the Church already strives to live now—by the spirit instead of the flesh (Gal 5.16-25). Cosmically, the Church is not confined to the earth. There is a heavenly dimension with authority structures instantiated under Christ to partner with the earthly assemblies. God's “plan for the fulness of the times” is “to head up all thing in the Christ, the things upon the heavens and the things upon the earth in him” (Eph 1.10). Although this is his eschatological vision, Zeilinger pointed out that it is already happening. [T]he eschatological world given in Christ is realized within the still-existing earthly creation through the inclusion of the human being in Christ, the exalted one, by means of the proclamation of salvation and baptism. The eschaton spreads throughout the world in the kerygma and becomes reality, in that the human being, through baptism, becomes part of Christ—that is, in unity with him, dies to the claim of the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (2.20) and is raised with him to receive his eschatological life. The people thus incorporated into the exalted Christ thereby form, in him and with him, the new creation of the eschaton within the old! The body of Christ is thus recognizable as the expanding Church. In it, heavenly and earthly space form, in a certain sense, a unity.[71] The Church is a counter society, and embassy of the future kingdom shining the light of the age to come into the present in the power of the spirit with the protection of Christ and his heavenly powers over against the powers of darkness, who/which are still quite active—especially in the political realities of our present evil age (Gal 1.4). We bend the knee to the cosmic Christ now in anticipation of the day when “every knee may bend: heavenly and earthly and subterranean” (Phil 2.10) and “every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ (is) Lord” (v. 11). Christ's destiny is to fulfil the original Adamic mandate to multiply, fill, and have dominion over the earth (Gen 1.28). He has already received all authority in heaven and earth (Mat 28.18). God has given him “dominion over the works of your hands and put all things under his feet” as the quintessential man (Ps 8.6). Even so, “Now we do not yet see all things subjected to him” (Heb 2.8), but when he comes “he will reign into the ages of the ages” (Rev 11.15). Until then, he calls the Church to recognize his preeminence and give him total allegiance both in word and deed. Conclusion We began by establishing that the structure of the poetic unit in Col 1.15-20 breaks into two strophes (15-18a and 18b-20). We noted that Paul likely incorporated pre-existing material into Colossians, editing it as he saw fit. Then we considered the problems with the three old creation readings: (A) Christ as the agent of creation, (B) Wisdom as the agent of creation, and (C) Christ as the purpose of creation. In the course of critiquing (A), which is by far most popular, we observed several reasons to think Col 1.16 pertained to new creation, including (1) the image of God language in v. 15a, (2) the firstborn of all creation language in v. 15b, (3) the head of the Church language in v. 18a, and (4) the soteriological context (frame) of the poem (vv. 13-14, 21-22). To this I added a fifth syntactical reason that 16d as an elaboration of “τἀ πάντα” (all things) of 16a. Next, we explored the idea of new creation, especially within Paul's epistles, to find a deep and richly textured paradigm for interpreting God's redemptive and expanding sphere of influence (in Christ) breaking into the hostile world. We saw that new Christians die and rise with Christ, ending their association with the old and beginning again as a part of the new—a community where old racial, legal, and status divisions no longer matter, where members put off the old way of living and instead become clothed with the new humanity, where people look forward to and live in light of the ultimate transformation to be brought about at the coming of Christ. Rather than limiting new creation to the salvation of individuals, or even the sanctifying experience of the community, we saw that it also includes spiritual powers both “in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” (Col 1.16). Reading Col 1.15-20 along with Eph 1.20-23 we connected God's creation of the powers in Christ with his exaltation of Christ to his right hand “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name named, not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph 1.21). The point from both texts is clear: as “the head of the body, the Church” (Col 1.18; Eph 1.22), Christ is “before all things” (Col 1.17), “first in all things” (Col 1.18), and “far above all” (Eph 1.21), since God has “subjected all things under his feet” (Eph 1.22). Christ is preeminent as the firstborn of all new creation, “the new Adam … the starting point where new creation took place.”[72] Although the old powers still hold sway in the world, those in the interlocked heaven-and-earth new creation domain where Christ is the head, enjoy his protection if they remain “in the faith established and steadfast and not shifting away from the hope of the gospel” (Col 1.23). This interpretation has several significant advantages. It fits into Paul's apocalyptic way of thinking about Christ's advent and exaltation. It also holds together the first strophe of the poem as a unit. Additionally, it makes better sense of the context. (The ecclesiology of Col 1.15-18a follows logically from the soteriological context of vv. 13-14.) Lastly, it is compatible with a wide range of Christological options. Appendix Here is Col 1.16 from Leedy's sentence diagrams.[73] Of note is how he equates the τὰ πάντα of 16a with 16c and 16d rather than seeing 16d as an elaboration of τά ὁρατά. Bibliography Bauer, Walter, Frederick William  Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Gingrich, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Viktor Reichmann. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. Bird, Michael F. Colossians and Philemon. A New Covenant Commentary. Cambridge, England: The Lutterworth Press, 2009. Brown, Anna Shoffner. “Nothing ‘Mere’ About a Man in the Image of God.” Paper presented at the Unitarian Christian Alliance, Springfield, OH, Oct 14, 2022. Bruce, E. K. Simpson and F. F. The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Ned B. Stonehouse. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957. Buzzard, Anthony F. Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian. Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship, 2007. Caird, G. B. New Testament Theology. Edited by L. D. Hurst. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 2002. Caird, G. B. Paul’s Letters from Prison. New Clarendon Bible, edited by H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1976. Carden, Robert. One God: The Unfinished Reformation. Revised ed. Naperville, IL: Grace Christian Press, 2016. Chang, Eric H. H. The Only Perfect Man. Edited by Bentley C. F. Chang. 2nd ed. Montreal, QC: Christian Disciples Church Publishers, 2017. Deuble, Jeff. Christ before Creeds. Latham, NY: Living Hope International Ministries, 2021. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. New International Greek Testament Commentary, edited by Gasque Marshall, Hagner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019. King, Martha. An Exegetical Summary of Colossians. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 1992. Kuschel, Karl-Joseph. Born before All Time? Translated by John Bowden. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1992. Originally published as Beforen vor aller Zeit? Lane, William L. The New Testament Page by Page. Open Your Bible Commentary, edited by Martin Manser. Bath, UK: Creative 4 International, 2013. Leedy, Randy A. The Greek New Testament Sentence Diagrams. Norfolk, VA: Bible Works, 2006. Lohse, Edward. Colossians and Philemon. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1971. MacDonald, William Graham. The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament. Norfolk, VA: Bibleworks, 2012. Mark H. Graeser, John A. Lynn, John W. Schoenheit. One God & One Lord. 4th ed. Martinsville, IN: Spirit & Truth Fellowship International, 2010. Martin, Ralph. “An Early Christian Hymn (Col. 1:15-20).” The Evangelical Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1964): 195–205. Martyn, J. Louis. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997. McGrath, James F. The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009. McKnight, Scot. The Letter to the Colossians. New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018. Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen Zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede. 4th ed. Stuttgart, Germany: B. G. Teubner, 1956. Originally published as 1913. Pao, David. Colossians and Philemon. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament, edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2012. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philo. The Works of Philo. The Norwegian Philo Concordance Project. Edited by Kåre Fuglseth Peder Borgen, Roald Skarsten. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005. Robinson, James M. “A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1:15-20.” Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 4 (1957): 270–87. Schillebeeckx, Eduard. Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord. Translated by John Bowden. New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1977. Schoberg, Gerry. Perspectives of Jesus in the Writings of Paul. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013. Schweizer, Eduard. The Letter to the Colossians. Translated by Andrew Chester. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982. Smith, Dustin R. Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2024. Snedeker, Donald R. Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals. Bethesda, MD: International Scholars Publications, 1998. Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Thrall, Margaret. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 1. The International Critical Commentary, edited by C. E. B. Cranfield J. A. Emerton, G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1994. Wachtel, William M. “Colossians 1:15-20–Preexistence or Preeminence?” Paper presented at the 14th Theological Conference, McDonough, GA, 2005. Wessels, G. F. “The Eschatology of Colossians and Ephesians.” Neotestamentica 21, no. 2 (1987): 183–202. Witherington III, Ben The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary of the Captivity Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Yates, Roy. The Epistle to the Colossians. London: Epworth Press, 1993. Zeilinger, Franz. Der Erstgeborene Der Schöpfung. Wien, Österreich: Herder, 1974. Footnotes [1] Since the nineteenth century biblical scholars have been divided over whether Paul wrote Colossians. One of the major reasons for thinking Paul didn't write Colossians is his exalted Christology—the very conclusion this paper seeks to undermine. A second major factor to argue against Pauline authorship is the difference in vocabulary, but this is explainable if Paul used a different amanuensis. The theologically more cosmic emphasis (also evident in Ephesians) is likely due to Paul's time in prison to reflect and expand his understanding of the Christ event. Lastly, the proto-Gnostic hints in Colossians do not require dating the epistle outside of Paul's time. Although Gnosticism flourished at the beginning of the second century, it was likely already beginning to incubate in Paul's time. [2] Eduard Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1977), 185. [3] Schillebeeckx, 185. [4] G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, New Clarendon Bible, ed. H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1976), 177. [5] Caird, 181. [6] James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. Gasque Marshall, Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 91. “[W]hat at first reads as a straightforward assertion of Christ's pre-existenct activity in creation becomes on closer analysis an assertion which is rather more profound—not of Christ as such present with God in the beginning, nor of Christ as identified with a pre-existent hypostasis or divine being (Wisdom) beside God, but of Christ as embodying and expressing (and defining) that power of God which is the manifestation of God in and to his creation.” (Italics in original.) James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 194. [7] James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 46. [8] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 200. [9] In addition, biblical unitarians routinely interpret Col 1.16 as new creation. See Anthony F. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian (Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship, 2007), 189–90, Robert Carden, One God: The Unfinished Reformation, Revised ed. (Naperville, IL: Grace Christian Press, 2016), 197–200, Eric H. H. Chang, The Only Perfect Man, ed. Bentley C. F. Chang, 2nd ed. (Montreal, QC: Christian Disciples Church Publishers, 2017), 151–52, Jeff Deuble, Christ before Creeds (Latham, NY: Living Hope International Ministries, 2021), 163–66, John A. Lynn Mark H. Graeser, John W. Schoenheit, One God & One Lord, 4th ed. (Martinsville, IN: Spirit & Truth Fellowship International, 2010), 493–94, Donald R. Snedeker, Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals (Bethesda, MD: International Scholars Publications, 1998), 291–92, William M. Wachtel, “Colossians 1:15-20–Preexistence or Preeminence?” (paper presented at the 14th Theological Conference, McDonough, GA, 2005), 4. [10] All translations are my own. [11] Stophes are structural divisions drawn from Greek odes akin to stanzas in poetry or verses in music. [12] Throughout I will capitalize Church since that reflects the idea of all Christians collectively not just those in a particular local assembly. [13] Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen Zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: B. G. Teubner, 1956), 250–54. [14] James M. Robinson, “A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1:15-20,” Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 4 (1957): 272–73. [15] Edward Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1971), 44. [16] Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, trans. Andrew Chester (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982), 57. [17] Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 84. [18] Ben  Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary of the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 129. [19] William L. Lane, The New Testament Page by Page, Open Your Bible Commentary, ed. Martin Manser (Bath, UK: Creative 4 International, 2013), 765. [20] E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 65. [21] Michael F. Bird, Colossians and Philemon, A New Covenant Commentary (Cambridge, England: The Lutterworth Press, 2009), 50. [22] David Pao, Colossians and Philemon, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 87. [23] Lohse, 42. [24] Lohse, 43–44. [25] Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018), 144. [26] Col 1.13-14: “who rescued us from the authority of darkness and transferred (us) into the kingdom of his beloved son in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of the sins.” Col 1.21-22: “And you being formerly alienated and hostile in thought in the evil deeds, but now he reconciled (you) in his body of the flesh through the death to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him.” [27] In fact, we can easily skip from vv. 13-14 to vv. 21-22. [28] Dunn, Christology in the Making, 187–88. [29] Sadly, most translations erroneously insert a paragraph between vv. 14 and 15. This produces the visual effect that v. 15 is a new thought unit. [30] Bruce, 193. [31] Moses 2.65: “τὴν ἡγεμονίαν τῶν περιγείων” in Philo, The Works of Philo, The Norwegian Philo Concordance Project (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005). See also Sirach 17.3. [32] Schweizer, 64. [33] For a helpful treatment of how the image of God relates to Christology, see Anna Shoffner Brown, “Nothing ‘Mere’ About a Man in the Image of God” (paper presented at the Unitarian Christian Alliance, Springfield, OH, Oct 14, 2022). [34] Walter Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. “πρωτότοκος,” 2.a. [35] Franz Zeilnger wrote, “Christ is temporally the first of a series that essentially proceeds from him, and at the same time its lord and head.” Franz Zeilinger, Der Erstgeborene Der Schöpfung (Wien, Österreich: Herder, 1974), 182. Original: “als “Wurzel” ist Christus zeitlich der erste einer Reihe, die wesentlich aus ihm hervorgeht, und zugleich ihr Herr und Haupt.” [36] McKnight, 85–86. [37] The closest parallels are 1 Cor 8.6; Heb 1.2; and John 1.3, which employ the preposition δια (through). Upon close examination these three don't teach Christ created the universe either. [38] ESV, CSB, NASB, etc. Notably the NET diverges from the other evangelical translations. Roman Catholic, mainline, and unitarian translations all tend to straightforwardly render “ἐν αὐτῷ” as “in him” in Col 1.16; cf. NABRE, NRSVUE, OGFOMMT, etc. [39] Chang, 150. [40] Ralph Martin, “An Early Christian Hymn (Col. 1:15-20),” The Evangelical Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1964): 198. [41] Schillebeeckx, 186. [42] Dunn, Christology in the Making, 191. [43] Karl-Joseph Kuschel, Born before All Time?, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1992), 336. [44] Dustin R. Smith, Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2024), 5–6. For more on wisdom Christology in Col 1.16 see Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 89, Roy Yates, The Epistle to the Colossians (London: Epworth Press, 1993), 18–19, 23, G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology, ed. L. D. Hurst (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 2002), 46, McGrath, 44, 46. [45] See Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 89. See also Yates, 18–19, 23. [46] Dunn, Christology in the Making, 190. [47] Perriman, 199. [48] Martha King, An Exegetical Summary of Colossians (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 1992), 53. [49] Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), s.v. “ἐν,” 1722. He recognized the cause was both instrumental and final. [50] William Graham MacDonald, The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament (Norfolk, VA: Bibleworks, 2012). [51] Chang, 147. Similarly James McGrath wrote, “[I]f all things were intended by God to find their fulfillment in Christ, then they must have been created “in him” in the very beginning in some undefined sense, since it was axiomatic that the eschatological climax of history would be a restoration of its perfect, original state.” McGrath, 46. [52] Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 172. [53] “God so designed the universe that it was to achieve its proper meaning and unity only under the authority of man (Gen. 128; Ps. 86). But this purpose was not to be implemented at once; it was ‘to be put into effect when the time was ripe' (Eph. 110), when Christ had lived a human life as God intended it, and had become God's image in a measure which was never true of Adam. Only in unity with ‘the proper man' could the universe be brought to its destined coherence. For one who believes in predestination it is but a small step from this to saying that the universe was created in him.” Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 178. [54] See also Paul's Adam Christology in Rom 5.12-21; 1 Cor 15.21-22, 45-49. [55] “Christus ist (durch seine Auferstehung aus dem Todesbereich) Herr über den ihm verliehenen Besitz, dessen ἀρχή und Urbild er ist, … und Haupt und Anfang der eschatologischen Neuschöpfung!” Zeilinger, 188. [56] King, 54. [57] Perriman, 200. [58] G. F. Wessels, “The Eschatology of Colossians and Ephesians,” Neotestamentica 21, no. 2 (1987): 187. [59] I realize my translation is awkward, but I prioritized closely mirroring the Greek over presenting smooth English. The original reads, “συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ.” [60] Schillebeeckx, 187. [61] Scholars who make this connection include Caird, New Testament Theology, 216, Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 177, McGrath, 44, Perriman, 201. [62] In fact, only two of the texts I cited above explicitly say “new creation” (2 Cor 5.17 and Gal 6.15). In all the others, Paul blithely employed creation language, expecting his readers to understand that he was not talking about the creation of the universe, but the creation of the new humanity in Christ—the Church. [63] McKnight, 152. [64] Mark H. Graeser, 493. [65] Rev 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14. [66] See Gerry Schoberg, Perspectives of Jesus in the Writings of Paul (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), 280–81, 83. [67] Margaret Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vol. 1, The International Critical Commentary, ed. C. E. B. Cranfield J. A. Emerton, G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1994), 423, 26–28. [68] J. Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997), 122. [69] Martyn, 121. [70] Whether the old gods actually existed or not is a topic beyond the scope of this paper. Interested readers should consult Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019). [71] “[D]ie in Christus gegebene echatologische Welt verwirkliche sich innerhalb der weiterhin existenten irdischen Schöpfung durch die Einbeziehung des Menschen in Christus, den Erhöhten, mittles Heilsverkündigung und Taufe. Das Eschaton setzt sic him Kerygma wetweit durch und wird Wirklichkeit, indem der Mensch durch die Taufe Christi Teil wird, d. h. in Einheit mit ihm dem Anspruch der στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου stirbt (2, 20) und mit ihm auferweckt sein eschatologisches Leben erhält. Die so dem erhöhten Christus eingegliederten Menschen bilden somit in ihm und mit ihm die neue Schöpfung der Eschata innerhalb der alten! Der Christusleib ist somit als sich weitende Kirche erkennbar. In ihr bildet himmlischer und irdischer Raum gewissermaßen eine Einheit.” Zeilinger, 179. [72] “Der neue Adam … Ausgangsort, in dem sich Neuschöpfung ereignete,” Zeilinger, 199. [73] Randy A. Leedy, The Greek New Testament Sentence Diagrams (Norfolk, VA: Bible Works, 2006). This is now available in Logos Bible Software.

We are working through a book of systematic theology called "Daily Doctrine" by Kevin DeYoung (Crossway). We hope that you will join us and engage with the book as we seek to learn more about the God of heaven, and what the knowledge of him means for his pilgrim people upon earth. The whole video series can be found here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLydzd6kZnPWdDUP1Dj9CIV_hSp42WEeMb&si=ACvRi4lPPuAH1jqx If you are in the UK you can get the book here: https://amzn.to/3ZX4ICu or https://www.icmbooks.co.uk/product/38356/Daily-Doctrine-A-One-Year-Guide-to-Systematic-Theology or https://uk.10ofthose.com/product/9781433572852/daily-doctrine-hardback. If you are in the US you can get the book here: https://amzn.to/3VSrTNq or https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/daily-doctrine-deyoung.html. Direct from Crossway: https://www.crossway.org/books/daily-doctrine-hcj/ Logos users: https://www.logos.com/product/299143/daily-doctrine-a-one-year-guide-to-systematic-theology

Join Pastor Chadwick King for an inspiring message at Promise Center Church in Santa Rosa, California. #christianchurch #santarosachurch #promisecenter

We are working through a book of systematic theology called "Daily Doctrine" by Kevin DeYoung (Crossway). We hope that you will join us and engage with the book as we seek to learn more about the God of heaven, and what the knowledge of him means for his pilgrim people upon earth. The whole video series can be found here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLydzd6kZnPWdDUP1Dj9CIV_hSp42WEeMb&si=ACvRi4lPPuAH1jqx If you are in the UK you can get the book here: https://amzn.to/3ZX4ICu or https://www.icmbooks.co.uk/product/38356/Daily-Doctrine-A-One-Year-Guide-to-Systematic-Theology or https://uk.10ofthose.com/product/9781433572852/daily-doctrine-hardback. If you are in the US you can get the book here: https://amzn.to/3VSrTNq or https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/daily-doctrine-deyoung.html. Direct from Crossway: https://www.crossway.org/books/daily-doctrine-hcj/ Logos users: https://www.logos.com/product/299143/daily-doctrine-a-one-year-guide-to-systematic-theology

A sermon from our Core beliefs series on who is Jesus 

In this conversation, I got to catch up with my friend Jacob Erickson, who's doing some inspiring work at Trinity College Dublin, where they've just launched a new Master's in Theology and Social Justice. What struck me most was how Jake and his colleagues are embodying this broader transformation happening in theological education - moving beyond those traditional disciplinary boundaries to create genuinely interdisciplinary spaces where theology isn't just talking aboutother fields, but actually thinking with scientists, activists, and practitioners. We dug into how this shift has happened over the last couple decades - from philosophers bracketing God to study religion as a phenomenon, to theologians like Tillich doing theology of culture, to the changing student body that's bringing questions that don't fit neatly into traditional confessional boxes. Jake's insights about wisdom versus knowledge really hit home - how religious traditions offer this "porous knowledge" that comes with demands and can't be separated from formation and embodiment. And I loved hearing about his work with plant studies and how hanging out with botanists and mycologists at Harvard is opening up new ways of thinking about everything from Christology to what it means to be entangled with other creatures. It's exactly the kind of risky, playful, boundary-crossing work that makes theology come alive. Dr. Jacob J. Erickson is Assistant Professor of Theological Ethics in the School of Religion, Theology, and Peace Studies at Trinity College Dublin. A constructive theologian and theological ethicist, Erickson writes to evoke an ecotheology of planetary conviviality--the playful and just cherishing of life together--in the midst of current ecological crises, ecological injustice, emerging perspectives in the wake of global warming, and new challenges in energy production. You can WATCH the conversation on YouTube Previous Episodes with Dr. Erickson The Becoming of a Lutheran Queer Eco-Process Theologian from North Dakota a Theopoetics of the Earth Apocalyptic #ProcessParty with Catherine Keller & Jacob Erickson ONLINE SUMMIT:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Democracy in Tension - NAVIGATING THE INTERLOCKING CRISES OF DEMOCRACY AND RELIGION ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Democracy today faces profound challenges – polarization, inequality, populist authoritarianism, and widespread cynicism are eroding the foundations of democratic life. Yet, what if democracy's greatest strength lies not in eliminating these tensions, but in productively embracing them?The summit will navigate the complex terrain between political equality and social justice, liberal freedom and democratic sovereignty, and ethical demands and political action. As always, the class is donation-based, including 0. INFO & Sign-Up at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.HomebrewedClasses.com⁠⁠⁠ ⁠Theology Beer Camp ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠is a unique three-day conference that brings together of theology nerds and craft beer for a blend of intellectual engagement, community building, and fun. Guests this year include John Dominic Crossan, Kelly Brown Douglas, Philip Clayton, Stacey Floyd-Thomas, Jeffery Pugh, Juan Floyd-Thomas, Andy Root, Grace Ji-Sun Kim, Noreen Herzfeld, Reggie Williams, Casper ter Kuile, and more! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Get info and tickets here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. _____________________ This podcast is a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Homebrewed Christianity⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ production. Follow ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠the Homebrewed Christianity⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Theology Nerd Throwdown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, & ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Rise of Bonhoeffer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcasts for more theological goodness for your earbuds. Join over 70,000 other people by joining our⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Substack - Process This!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Get instant access to over 50 classes at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.TheologyClass.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow the podcast, drop a review⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, send ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠feedback/questions⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or become a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠member of the HBC Community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sunday School | July 13, 2025 | Last lesson on Christology - The Restoration of All Things by Church of the Holy Spirit - Roanoke

Christology—the doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ—is foundational to the Christian faith. Today, R.C. Sproul surveys the Bible's revelation of the majesty of Christ from Genesis to Revelation. Request R.C. Sproul's book Everyone's a Theologian, plus lifetime digital access to his 60-message teaching series Foundations and study guide, with your donation of any amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4169/donate   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Get the Everyone's a Theologian ebook and lifetime digital access to the Foundations teaching series and study guide with your gift of any amount: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

Resurrection expert Dr. Gary Habermas returns to discuss Volume 3 of his magnum opus, 'On the Resurrection: Scholarly Perspectives', which includes 500+ scholarly treatments related to the resurrection. From far-left critics to conservative theologians, this collective volume provides a strong overview of everything that has ever been written about the resurrection and includes over 8,000 footnotes!During their conversation, Frank and Gary answer questions like:Why do critical scholars deny miracles but still affirm that Jesus was a miracle worker?Why does Gary think many atheists don't want to say "I do" to Jesus?Is biblical inerrancy a requirement for the Gospel and what about apparent Bible contradictions?What are the 3 things you need in order for Christianity to be true?How do you respond to those who say the deity of God evolved over time?What do creeds teach us about high Christology and how did it get started?What's the best explanation for the rapid growth of early Christianity?If you're looking for the most comprehensive survey of scholarship for and against the resurrection, this is it! Whether you're a skeptic, seeker, or committed believer, this discussion offers rich insight and a reason to take the resurrection seriously. As Gary would say, "It's a bold argument to say that Jesus rose from the dead, but try to get out of it!"Resources mentioned during the episode:PODCAST: Did Jesus REALLY Rise From the Dead? - https://bit.ly/3VnrtiDOn the Resurrection: Evidences (Vol.1) - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1087778603On the Resurrection: Refutations (Vol.2) - https://a.co/d/48jozEvOn the Resurrection: Scholarly Perspectives (Vol.3) - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1087778646Gary's website - https://www.garyhabermas.com/

Patrick explores faith, doctrine, and personal stories through spirited exchanges with callers wrestling with questions about LDS Church teachings, prophetic authority, and Catholic belief on salvation and the afterlife. Unexpected turns arise—a discussion on reenacting the Mass outside its sacred setting, a listener’s worry about heaven, Tibetan singing bowls, and contrasting biblical interpretations of figures like Elijah spark fresh perspectives. Every conversation brings both warmth and challenge, inviting listeners into reflection, honesty, and sometimes, a good laugh. Patrick continues his conversation with Mark from the end of the last hour. The conversation started with Mark saying Patrick gave inaccurate information in an old YouTube video. (00:34) Josephine – I heard you say that we go to heaven with our husbands. I very much disagree. (18:31) Luke - My friend has an obsession with the mass to the point where he recites the whole mass himself and wants me to sit through it. Is this appropriate? (21:10) Jaime - I am a Deacon in formation. Can Patrick recommend a St. Thomas Aquinas book to help understand Christology? (27:25) Jonni (email) – Is it okay to gift someone Tibetan Singing Bells? (38:43) Michael - Is it true that the bible teaches that the dead are only asleep? (40:55)

Jesus is called the Savior. But what do we need Him to save us from? Today, R.C. Sproul unfolds the biblical meaning of salvation, emphasizing our need for deliverance from the righteous judgment of our holy God. Get lifetime digital access to R.C. Sproul's 12-message teaching series Names of Jesus with your donation of any amount. We'll also send you the booklet The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4020/donate   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the digital teaching series and the Christology Statement ebook for your donation of any amount: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Watch The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology: https://youtu.be/Vf8YpU4ZG0Q?si=vhwzvVzL1crpdyHE   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

“In the beginning was the Word.” The opening of John's gospel applies an astonishing title to Jesus. Today, R.C. Sproul teaches that Christ is the eternal Logos: the source, sustainer, and purpose of everything that exists. Get lifetime digital access to R.C. Sproul's 12-message teaching series Names of Jesus with your donation of any amount. We'll also send you the booklet The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4020/donate   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the digital teaching series and the Christology Statement ebook for your donation of any amount: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Watch The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology: https://youtu.be/Vf8YpU4ZG0Q?si=vhwzvVzL1crpdyHE   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

More than any other title, Jesus called Himself the Son of Man. What does it mean? Today, R.C. Sproul explains what this majestic title reveals about Christ's identity, authority, and mission. Get lifetime digital access to R.C. Sproul's 12-message teaching series Names of Jesus with your donation of any amount. We'll also send you the booklet The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4020/donate   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the digital teaching series and the Christology Statement ebook for your donation of any amount: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Watch The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology: https://youtu.be/Vf8YpU4ZG0Q?si=vhwzvVzL1crpdyHE   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts