Faith | Freedom | Family

NO HIDING: Finding Faith & Freedom to walk out an authentic relationship with God, His Family, and His Word. Through: Biblical Studies | Stories | Scholarship

Search This Blog

Monday, March 31, 2025

Authoritarian Pastor, a case study in spiritual abuse and un-Christlike authority claims by Pentecostal circles.

 

* This paper began as an assignment for a class but took on a deeper meaning for me as I processed a deeply traumatic experience and exit from a church. It wasn't the only traumatic exit from a church to that point, nor was it the last, several would come after. But due to my emotional vulnerability in 2003-2005, this incident had the longest and deepest impact on me. This church experience because one of many reasons I left Churchianity as a whole, though I sometimes visit new buildings hoping to find something more genuine. If I ever join or start a church or parachurch organization, this type of authoritarian abuse of power will be in the back of my mind as we plan to build systems and cultures to ensure we avoid it. Without further ado... 

FINAL PAPER: CASE STUDY

Authoritarian Pastor

 by Darrell Wolfe

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the course Foundations of Psychological Science: On Being Human: PF501

Winter 2025

Professors Amy Drennan, Kutter Callaway

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

 

CASE STUDY

I was the son of an alcoholic pastor who later became an atheist crack-addict psychologist. While he was emotionally absent, he was never authoritarian. His style was far more laissez-faire, when not uninvolved entirely. I was 19 years old in 1999 when my father left the house to follow his addiction to the streets. Simultaneously, I grew up within a Cessationist tradition while I myself had profound spiritual experiences which that tradition gave no framework to understand. This led me to wonder if anyone else had experiences similar to those of the Prophets and Apostles. My father’s pastor-atheist transition and my own experiences compared to my tradition of origin, gave me cognitive dissonance. In the following years, I set out to various churches and Christian traditions looking for something, but I couldn’t quite verbalize what it was at the time. I would now call it ‘Truth’ that I was seeking; something and/or someone true, which led me to the Pentecostals. When I was 23 years old (2003), I joined a Pentecostal church in Palm Desert, CA. Pastor Joe (not his real name) was a charismatic man, a lifelong musician, and the ‘spiritual son’ of Pastor Rod Parsley of Ohio fame.

The incident described in this case study occurred around 2005. It was both a single incident, but also the type of thing he said often. But this one moment, toward the end of my time there, stood out to me as one of the reasons I decided to leave that ministry. I would later learn to call the feeling that it left me a ‘boundary violation’.[1] On this occasion, Pastor Joe was literally preaching to the choir, at a choir and band rehearsal. He had recently asked someone (me, maybe, I can’t recall) to assist with some volunteer activity, and they responded with ‘I’ll pray about it’, to which he gave the following response:

"If I come to you and tell you God told me to have you do something, you don't respond with 'I'll pray about that pastor'. I'm your Man of God. I'm the prophet God called you to submit to. I already prayed. I got the word from the mountain. You don't need to pray about it, you need to do it."

It was often like this, the entire structure of the environment was built around the idea that the pastor of any church should be considered a Prophetic voice, an Elijah or Elisha or Moses. We should respond as the Israelites should have responded to those voices. On this occasion, I remember feeling violated, offended, and ready to fight. “Who does this guy think he is…” probably came out of my mouth when my wife and I both got home. Pastor Joe had a hard time keeping any volunteers, and those who stayed for any length of time were more like abuse victims than willing participants. Eventually, even his elders left (with much eye rolling when we would happen to mention our days in his ministry, and it was “his” ministry, not ours, and not God’s). In my search for answers, I ended up with several more ministries just like this one, all different flavors and styles, but the same root error “the Man of God has the answers, do what he says, don’t question.”

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS

Bowen Family Systems Theory (BSFT)

Using a Bowen Family Systems Theory (BSFT) approach gives us some tools to discuss the scenario. Creech uses BSFT to analyze congregational life noting, “When human beings work or live together, an emotional system forms. This means that we unconsciously monitor those around us and automatically react or respond without thinking, as anxiety makes its way around the system.”[2] As humans develop in their family of origin, we fall into familiar patterns. Creech’s use of BFST attempts to take the patterns common to many families and reimagine how those roles and patterns play out in larger post-family environments (churches, parachurches, organizations, and workplaces). He notes that “everyone has a part to play in this drama” and we often act out these roles “below the level of awareness,” which means it takes care to recognize and address the patterns.[3] When anxiety is high, the “system pulls its members into a common center to conform to common thinking, to agree to common practices, to speak a common language, even if that means compromising principles or values espoused by individuals. This pressure can be unbearably strong at times.”[4] For the purposes of this Case Study, I would like to review two components of the BFST as presented by Creech, The Scale of Differentiation and the Family Emotional Process.

The Scale of Differentiation

Differentiation describes a person’s ability to maintain a separate sense of self while remaining connected to others within the system. An undifferentiated individual or system can fall into extremes on either side of a continuum (either disconnected entirely, or, overly connected and enmeshed). Differentiation, then, is the balance between separation and connection. Creech said that when systems become agitated through anxiety the system (and leaders within the system) tend to respond on a scale between undifferentiated, “fused with others and more reactive to their environment and to people around them” to differentiated “capacity for a person to balance emotion and intellect.”[5] Speaking of the ability to differentiate, Balswick, King, and Reimer call an undifferentiated person or group “enmeshed” having “fusion between persons” where individuals have “given over their identity to the group.”[6] Specifically, they note that “Less extreme forms of congregational enmeshment can be seen in high-demand or abusive congregations, where blind obedience is given to a leader by followers.”[7] They also note that “there is little interdependence in the enmeshed church since all members are dependent on the leader. A constant barrage of authoritarian commands and demands maintains dependence.”[8] In contrast, they say that a differentiated church body has their primary identity rooted not in the leader but in Jesus, and that each member retains their full autonomy while living “by a mutual reinforcing and supporting of each other” and that “healthy differentiation is characterized by members experiencing unity in their connectedness with the congregation and their separation from the congregation as a whole.”[9]

In the Case Study scenario, Pastor Joe provided an enmeshed undifferentiated culture. Rather than autonomous humans with their own right to hear and respond to God, they were to become extensions of Joe’s will. This system not only fails to honor the individual’s relationship with God, but it fails to train the individual to hear and respond to God on their own, making them dependent upon the pastor rather than on God. In the concept of a “Maturity Continuum” one moves from “Dependence, to Independence, to Interdependence.”[10] In this case, Pastor Joe was encouraging regression to dependence rather than progression to a fully interdependent, mutually submitted, model.

Family Emotional Process (aka – System Anxiety Response)

Family systems have a group dynamic when responding to stress or anxiety. “Our repertoire is small: we fight, we flee, we overfunction or underfunction, or we engage emotional triangles.”[11] Modern psychology sometimes refers to this as the “Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Fawn” response.[12] This is related to the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and the autonomic nervous system (ANS), which one study shows to have physiological responses to social stress.[13] Drawing from BFST, Shitama says that “an effective leader is a non-anxious presence,” which he contrasts to a “non-anxious, non-presence” (someone who is disconnected, like my father was) and also to an “anxious presence” which is “someone who can't help but let [his/or] her anxiety spew into the system” (like Pastor Joe was doing).[14]

In this Case Study, Pastor Joe self-selected his people through intimidation behaviors. If Fight or Flight is activated, these members will self-select and exclude themselves from the group. Freeze may cause inaction temporarily, but this Case Study is not just a one-time event but rather a culture; that culture is one of intimidation. Thus, it is more likely to result in Fight, Flight, or Fawn. In the case of Fawn, the pastor’s ideal response for those who stay, the fawner is “immediately acting to try to please to avoid any conflict.”[15] Rather than being a non-anxious presence, he increased the anxiety of the group to force a SNS/ANS response to either remove non-compliant participants or ensure the compliance of those who remain. This system-anxiety was crucial to achieve compliance among the members who stayed within the system.

Multigenerational Transmission Process

It might also be interesting to note that the Multigenerational Transmission Process tells us how the culture is passed down and perpetuates long after the original group is gone. As new members enter a family or organization, they enter a culture that is already established. From the elder members, the newbies learn and grow into the culture and then pass it down to other newcomers behind them. As there are multiple generations of participants at different stages of this progression, the culture is perpetuated long past the time the original participants are dead and gone. Creech called this transmission process a “rotating door of people entering and leaving the system.”[16] Studying the history of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, and their origins with Charles Fox Parham, gave me a new understanding of just how long this culture of giving the pastoral leader far too much authority may have been developing (at least since 1901), predating Pastor Joe specifically.[17]

THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS

It seems a major key theological issue here is one of authority. It is a misuse of authority to think of oneself as the very essence of God’s authority over another human being. Even Moses, for all his unique displays of God’s authority among the Israelites, is portrayed by the biblical authors as afraid to handle that kind of authority too loosely.[18] Moses was not a perfect leader and his example shows us that one should be cautious speaking and acting for God too hastily.[19] While Moses hesitated to accept the mantle of authority, Pastor Joe claimed it outright.

Further, Moses (whether a literary or literal character) had a context, a specific context of a people leaving physical slavery and entering a wilderness to be tested before entering a promised land. While we can see loose analogies between this story and our own sense of calling in the modern era, taking the story and concept of divine authority too literally, at the level this pastor did, at the level the Pentecostal movement often does, is a sign of poor Bible reading, in addition to poor shepherding.

Throughout the Tanakh, we see recurring themes. In Genesis, we see the garden of God had two trees. In US-American Churchianity, we often speak of ‘sin’ in terms of doing ‘good’ or doing ‘bad’. But as Bob Hamp notes a few times in his Foundations of Freedom lectures, the Knowledge of Good and the Knowledge of Bad comes from the same tree.[20] We try to get people to overcome the knowledge of bad by a better doing of the knowledge of good, and this fails because it comes from the same tree. Pastor Joe’s misuse and abuse of scriptural narratives to paint his own authority as stronger than is warranted, reminds me of this misuse of knowledge. We also see that Genesis 4-12 reflect how poorly things go when humankind builds empires for themselves. Throughout the Tanakh, Egypt, Babylon and even Jerusalem are rebuked for the tendencies of empire. In my view, Pastor Joe was building his own kingdom, his own empire, rather than Gods. Thus, when a leader seeks to dominate and control, they are employing the tools of Empire not the tools of Yahwehism.

Jesus said that whoever wants to become the greatest would become servant of all.[21] We call these ‘servant leaders’ in modern leadership vernacular. As Jesus so often laid his needs aside for the people, as Paul so often put himself in danger for people, ‘leaders’ in The Way of Yeshua are servants first. They do not build for themselves a kingdom, but they build it for God. This reminds me of David, who having set out first to build a house for Yahweh, then received a house for himself.[22] This reversal was made possible because David did not seek to build his own kingdom, but Yahweh’s. Too often, we look to build for ourselves a kingdom. This is the error of many pastors, and a root issue at the heart of Pastor Joe’s abuse of authority.

WHAT COULD BE DIFFERENT…?

Strawn and Brown noted that “No one is Christian (or “spiritual”) entirely on their own. Rather, it is the body of Christ (your church, hopefully) that establishes, nourishes, and enhances Christian life.”[23] They noted that when we co-regulate together, we extend our capacity.[24] Creech said the same by comparing group-anxiety to the contents of a cup, “An eight-ounce cup can contain only eight ounces of coffee before it spills over the edge. A sixteen-ounce cup can easily handle several ounces more without a mess. Systems with more emotionally mature members (capacity) can manage more anxiety (content) before producing a symptom.”[25] So if we can develop a healthier system, then it can withstand individual differences and even failures more readily.

            If I was in that church today, what might I do differently? Unfortunately, I do not believe I could do anything other than to leave earlier. In my decades since, I’ve come across this same leader in churches, workplaces, and organizations. The name and face changes, the root-issues do not. I find myself working for someone similar today. Though the specific issues and attitudes are slightly different, the same root error, “I am building my own kingdom” is at the heart of it. I have found that leaders like this are rarely capable of listening or accepting correction, especially from someone “under” them. The solution is usually to leave or replace the leader. In my current role, my predecessors attempted to replace the leader and failed, which is why I have my resume floating today.

            What could we do at a systemic level? Cultural changes often happen because ideas spread. The books, media, phrases, and sayings of a group make up their culture. Apple, Nike, Audi, Subaru, Stetson and other brands develop a following of similarly minded people by striking a conversation around a set of ideas and cultural narratives. Seth Goden says that one of the internalized messages people take away from being involved in these brands is “people like us do things like this.”[26] As schools, pastors, leaders, and organizations begin the process of saying “Followers of Jesus do things like this…” it sets the tone for the rest. Stragglers may take a while to catch up, but if enough of us refuse to accept the old paradigms, and set new examples to follow, we can begin to shift the narrative and thus the culture.

McBride observed that “Oppression happens to the body… through the interpersonal lived experiences...”[27] In her text, she spoke of individual physical bodies. But I think the truth she observed extends to the corporate body in both directions. If we (as an organization) embody abuse through lived experiences, we perpetuate it. If we (as an organization, or interconnected group of organizations) re-embody healthier expressions, we perpetuate those. Pastor Joe was living the model he learned from his ‘spiritual father’, what if he had learned a healthier model? Some pastors of larger organizations have noticed, and they are turning the tide.[28] As we all do our part to make our respective spheres of influence healthier, we can shift the larger cultural narrative. When enough of us catch up, it hits a tipping point. Most people no longer believe the earth revolves around the sun (it should be zero).

Societies reach tipping points. When enough of us shift the narrative, the tipping point spills into most other groups. This is why there are more churches today with guitars, drums, and soundboard technicians (things my pastor-father fought for in the 1980-90s), than there are organs and hymnals. Culture reached a tipping point on the presentation of music, and people followed the shift. It starts with those of us who see the problem, it is our responsibility to shift the narrative.

The solution is a healthier culture through leaders who have bought into the new paradigms and who cultivate that healthier perspective throughout the systems within their circle(s) of influence. We could also set up a series of checks and balances, looking for red and green flags of healthy culture, always monitoring for abuses and adjusting the measures as cultures shift. In my case, I had very little power in the system. I would like to have sat down with him and found a way to describe the problem and give Pastor Joe an opportunity to join me in fixing it. I suspect that he would decline the opportunity, and I would still have had to move on. But at least I could have said I’d tried. In the future, however, I can enter new (imperfect) systems looking for the green flags that they are attempting to cultivate an emotionally and mentally healthy/safe community. In those spaces, I imagine anything I observe might be safe to bring forward. Ultimately, I wonder if I am called to start such a community myself. I do not see that as a possibility in this season of life, but maybe in the future the winds of opportunity may blow my way, and maybe a group of us can start something in our area, an idea worth spreading.

 


 

WORKS CITED OR REFERENCED

 

Brown, Warren, and Brad Strawn. Enhancing Christian Life: How Extended Cognition Augments Religious Community. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020.

Cloud, Henry, and John Sims Townsend. Boundaries: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control of Your Life. Updated and Expanded [edition]. Boundaries. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017.

Creech, Robert. Family Systems and Congregational Life: A Map for Ministry. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fuller/detail.action?docID=5660416.

Darrell G. Wolfe. “INTERPRETATION OF 2 SAMUEL 7.1-17.” Introduction to Old Testament: OT500. Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 2024. https://www.academia.edu/126053128/INTERPRETATION_OF_2_SAMUEL_7_1_17.

Jack O. Balswick, Kevin S. Reimer, and Pamela E. King. The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective. Second Edition. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2016. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fuller/detail.action?docID=4622971.

McBride, Hillary L. The Wisdom of Your Body: Finding Healing, Wholeness, and Connection through Embodied Living. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021.

Olivia Guy-Evans. “Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Fawn: How We Respond to Threats.” Scholarly Blog. Simply Psychology, 9 November 2023. https://www.simplypsychology.org/fight-flight-freeze-fawn.html.

Ryken, Philip Graham, and R. Kent Hughes. Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory. Preaching the Word. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005.

Scazzero, Peter. Emotionally Healthy Spirituality: It’s Impossible to Be Spiritually Mature, While Remaining Emotionally Immature. Zondervan, 2014. https://www.amazon.com/Emotionally-Healthy-Spirituality-Impossible-Spiritually/dp/B08SHX5632/ref=sr_1_6?crid=30T0P57ZF972Q&keywords=The+Emotionally+Healthy+church&qid=1643520881&s=books&sprefix=the+emotionally+healthy+churc%2Cstripbooks%2C221&sr=1-6.

———. The Emotionally Healthy Church, Updated and Expanded Edition: A Strategy for Discipleship That Actually Changes Lives. Zondervan, 2015. https://www.amazon.com/Emotionally-Healthy-Spirituality-Impossible-Spiritually/dp/B08SHX5632/ref=sr_1_6?crid=30T0P57ZF972Q&keywords=The+Emotionally+Healthy+church&qid=1643520881&s=books&sprefix=the+emotionally+healthy+churc%2Cstripbooks%2C221&sr=1-6.

———. The Emotionally Healthy Leader: How Transforming Your Inner Life Will Deeply Transform Your Church, Team, and the World. Zondervan, 2015. https://www.amazon.com/Emotionally-Healthy-Leader-Transforming-Transform/dp/0310525365/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=.

Seth Godin. “How to Get Your Ideas to Spread” presented at the Nordic Business Forum, 10 March 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04pdq5IppL8.

Shitama, Jack. Anxious Church, Anxious People: How to Lead Change in an Age of Anxiety. Earleville, Maryland: Claris Works Inc, 2018. https://fuller.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1085365353.

Sinusoid, Darya. “7 Habits: Dependence, Independence, Interdependence.” Shortform Books, 9 December 2021. https://www.shortform.com/blog/dependence-independence-interdependence-7-habits/.

Vinson Synan. The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971. https://www.logos.com/product/37509/the-holiness-pentecostal-tradition-charismatic-movements-in-the-twentieth-century.

Weissman, David G., and Wendy Berry Mendes. “Correlation of Sympathetic and Parasympathetic Nervous System Activity during Rest and Acute Stress Tasks.” Int. J. Psychophysiol. Off. J. Int. Organ. Psychophysiol. 162 (2021): 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.01.015, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987796/.

Foundations of Freedom Classes. Gateway Church, Southlake Texas: Freedom Ministries, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F52B8EC7E050087.

The Lexham English Bible (LEB), Fourth Edition. Logo Bible Software. Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010. http://www.lexhampress.com.

 

 

END NOTES


[1] Henry Cloud and John Sims Townsend, Boundaries: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control of Your Life, Updated and expanded [edition]., Boundaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), n. Townsend and Cloud became a major part of my early recovery from spiritual abuse.

[2] Robert Creech, Family Systems and Congregational Life: A Map for Ministry (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 15, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fuller/detail.action?docID=5660416.

[3] Creech, Family Systems and Congregational Life: A Map for Ministry, 16.

[4] Creech, Family Systems and Congregational Life: A Map for Ministry, 16.

[5] Creech, Family Systems and Congregational Life: A Map for Ministry, 20.

[6] Jack O. Balswick, Kevin S. Reimer, and Pamela E. King, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, Second Edition. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2016), 342, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fuller/detail.action?docID=4622971.

[7] Jack O. Balswick, Kevin S. Reimer, and Pamela E. King, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, 342.

[8] Jack O. Balswick, Kevin S. Reimer, and Pamela E. King, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, 342–43.

[9] Jack O. Balswick, Kevin S. Reimer, and Pamela E. King, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, 343.

[10] Darya Sinusoid, “7 Habits: Dependence, Independence, Interdependence,” Shortform Books, 9 December 2021, https://www.shortform.com/blog/dependence-independence-interdependence-7-habits/.

[11] Creech, Family Systems and Congregational Life: A Map for Ministry, 21.

[12] Olivia Guy-Evans, “Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Fawn: How We Respond to Threats,” Scholarly Blog, Simply Psychology, 9 November 2023, https://www.simplypsychology.org/fight-flight-freeze-fawn.html.

[13] David G. Weissman and Wendy Berry Mendes, “Correlation of Sympathetic and Parasympathetic Nervous System Activity during Rest and Acute Stress Tasks,” Int. J. Psychophysiol. Off. J. Int. Organ. Psychophysiol. 162 (2021): 60–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.01.015, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987796/.

[14] Jack Shitama, Anxious Church, Anxious People: How to Lead Change in an Age of Anxiety (Earleville, Maryland: Claris Works Inc, 2018), 12, https://fuller.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1085365353.

[15] Olivia Guy-Evans, “Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Fawn.”

[16] Creech, Family Systems and Congregational Life: A Map for Ministry, 23.

[17] Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), §Kindle Locations 948-949, https://www.logos.com/product/37509/the-holiness-pentecostal-tradition-charismatic-movements-in-the-twentieth-century.

[18] Philip Graham Ryken and R. Kent Hughes, Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory, Preaching the Word (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005), 122-"By God’s authority and with God’s assistance—symbolized by the mighty staff—he went back to Egypt to rescue the children of Israel. Moses proved to be a great leader, of course, but his reluctance to answer God’s call is a reminder that there is only one perfect Savior. God promised that one day he would send his people a prophet “like Moses.”".

[19] The Lexham English Bible (LEB), Fourth Edition, Logo Bible Software., Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.) (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), v. Numbers 20:1-13, Note: Moses got results from God, like Pastor Bob got real results, but that didn’t make his actions godly., http://www.lexhampress.com.

[20] Foundations of Freedom Classes (Gateway Church, Southlake Texas: Freedom Ministries, 2011), https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F52B8EC7E050087.

[21] LEB, v. Matthew 20:26–28.

[22] Darrell G. Wolfe, “INTERPRETATION OF 2 SAMUEL 7.1-17,” in Introduction to Old Testament: OT500 (Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 2024), https://www.academia.edu/126053128/INTERPRETATION_OF_2_SAMUEL_7_1_17.

[23] Warren Brown and Brad Strawn, Enhancing Christian Life: How Extended Cognition Augments Religious Community (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020), 12.

[24] Brown and Strawn, Enhancing Christian Life: How Extended Cognition Augments Religious Community, 18.

[25] Creech, Family Systems and Congregational Life: A Map for Ministry, 18–19.

[26] Seth Godin, “How to Get Your Ideas to Spread,” 10 March 2020, sc.See timestamp 43:56, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04pdq5IppL8.

[27] Hillary L. McBride, The Wisdom of Your Body: Finding Healing, Wholeness, and Connection through Embodied Living (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021), 159.

[28] Peter Scazzero, Emotionally Healthy Spirituality: It’s Impossible to Be Spiritually Mature, While Remaining Emotionally Immature (Zondervan, 2014), https://www.amazon.com/Emotionally-Healthy-Spirituality-Impossible-Spiritually/dp/B08SHX5632/ref=sr_1_6?crid=30T0P57ZF972Q&keywords=The+Emotionally+Healthy+church&qid=1643520881&s=books&sprefix=the+emotionally+healthy+churc%2Cstripbooks%2C221&sr=1-6; Peter Scazzero, The Emotionally Healthy Church, Updated and Expanded Edition: A Strategy for Discipleship That Actually Changes Lives (Zondervan, 2015), https://www.amazon.com/Emotionally-Healthy-Spirituality-Impossible-Spiritually/dp/B08SHX5632/ref=sr_1_6?crid=30T0P57ZF972Q&keywords=The+Emotionally+Healthy+church&qid=1643520881&s=books&sprefix=the+emotionally+healthy+churc%2Cstripbooks%2C221&sr=1-6; Peter Scazzero, The Emotionally Healthy Leader: How Transforming Your Inner Life Will Deeply Transform Your Church, Team, and the World (Zondervan, 2015), https://www.amazon.com/Emotionally-Healthy-Leader-Transforming-Transform/dp/0310525365/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=.



Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o


Saturday, March 8, 2025

Irreverent Theology

The following is a ChatGPT summary of a thought exploration I had with the AI:

Irreverent Theology — I love this concept. It strikes at the heart of a tension that runs through most religious traditions: the difference between Awe and Reverence as modes of engaging with the sacred.

Core Thesis:

Awe is an open posture — it fosters curiosity, exploration, and discovery.

Reverence is a protective posture — it treats the sacred as fragile, untouchable, and in need of defense rather than exploration.

Awe invites engagement; Reverence demands separation.


The problem is that modern religious traditions (especially post-Enlightenment Western Christianity) have disproportionately leaned toward Reverence as the default posture toward Scripture, God, and religious experience. This creates a brittle faith — one that cannot handle critical questions, historical context, or human complexity without cracking.

Key Ideas:

1. Irreverence as a Path to Awe
Irreverence doesn't mean disrespect; it means a willingness to engage with the sacred without fear of breaking it.

Looking at Genesis through the lens of Ugaritic and Akkadian mythology doesn’t reduce its meaning — it expands it.

Asking, “Did the flood story borrow from the Epic of Gilgamesh?” isn’t an attack on the Bible; it’s a way of uncovering the depth of human longing encoded in the text.

Viewing the Bible as a human document inspired by God rather than a "magic book" allows for a deeper engagement with its complexity.



2. Sacred Texts as Living, Not Fragile
Reverence often places the Bible on a pedestal where it can't be questioned — as if faith depends on its factual accuracy or historical reliability.

Treating the Bible like an ancient artifact to be preserved rather than a dynamic text to be engaged with limits our ability to hear what it's actually saying.

The biblical authors were not writing systematic theology; they were wrestling with existential questions through poetry, narrative, and lament.

The Gospels, for example, contradict each other at times. That’s not a flaw; that’s a sign of human engagement with the divine mystery.



3. Curiosity as Worship
The impulse to understand God and Scripture more deeply is itself an act of worship.

Looking at the Genesis creation stories through the lens of Ancient Near Eastern cosmology doesn’t reduce their theological power — it enhances it.

Questioning the authorship of Isaiah or the historical reliability of the Exodus isn’t an attack on Scripture — it’s an attempt to understand how God speaks through human history.

Jesus himself asked hard questions and challenged assumptions; why should his followers feel the need to protect God from honest inquiry?



4. A Theology of the Scars
The Bible is full of contradictions, tensions, and uncomfortable human realities. That’s not a flaw — it’s a feature.

The story of Israel is one of wrestling with God (Jacob’s new name, Israel, means “He struggles with God”).

The psalms include not just praise but lament and rage.

The New Testament reflects a diversity of voices and theological perspectives — James and Paul have major disagreements, for example.



5. Permission to Laugh
The Bible is full of humor and irony — Jonah is basically a satire, and the disciples in the Gospels are often portrayed as clueless and missing the point.

Humor breaks the tension that reverence creates.

Taking God seriously but not taking ourselves seriously is a form of humility that opens the door to deeper understanding.

Jesus himself used hyperbole and playful exaggeration — why do we think faith has to be serious all the time?




Potential Structure for a Book or Series:

1. The Problem of Reverence — How modern Christianity became protective and fragile.


2. Awe vs. Reverence — Why curiosity is a more faithful posture than defensiveness.


3. The Sacred as Human and Divine — How understanding the Bible’s historical and literary context deepens its meaning.


4. Permission to Be Wrong — Why theological uncertainty is a form of faith.


5. Wrestling with God — Recovering the Jewish roots of biblical engagement.


6. Laughing with God — Finding humor, irony, and playfulness in sacred texts.


7. Irreverence as Worship — Why breaking down walls between sacred and secular can deepen spiritual experience.



The Power of Irreverent Theology:

Faith that can't survive questioning isn’t faith — it’s fear.

The Bible’s human fingerprints are not evidence of weakness but evidence of incarnation — the divine working through human experience.

A posture of irreverence is not rejection of the sacred — it’s recognition that the sacred is strong enough to withstand scrutiny.

Awe emerges when we stop protecting the text and start wrestling with it.


This could be a fascinating book or even a podcast series. It aligns with Michael Heiser’s approach to Scripture (viewing the Bible through the lens of Ancient Near Eastern context) but pushes it further into the territory of faith practice — how we engage with the sacred in daily life.

What’s exciting here is that this liberates people from the pressure to have all the answers. Faith as exploration rather than defense. A God who invites wrestling rather than submission.


Saturday, February 15, 2025

Is the "Bible is Sufficient" a valid phrase?

Names removed for anonymity, but this is worth sharing! 

To those who say, "The Bible is Sufficient" and therefore shun (1) academic study of the Bible using other non-biblical texts, (2) modern psychology, (3) modern science, (4) and are just generally anti-intellectual or pseudo intellectual... My classmate asks:

"I guess those leaders would happily undergo surgery by a doctor who used the all-sufficient Bible as their only textbook in medical school? And I guess their mother's favorite apple pie recipe was found somewhere in Leviticus?"

Worth asking one of these "Bible is Sufficient" types if you run into them.











Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o


Saturday, February 8, 2025

What is Paradise? Who ascended? Recontextualizing John 3:13 and Luke 23:43

Question: How can we explain Jesus’s response to the man on the cross “today you will be with me in paradise” whereas Jesus himself says in John 3:13 No one has ever gone into Heaven except the one who came from Heaven? What paradise does Jesus talk about?

 

Thoughts:

  1. We should start by asking what each gospel author is doing separately before we start combining the narratives. Each gospel author has specific things they are highlighting and themes they are drawing upon. These are not merely historical records of events, they are theological works. Each gospel author should be taken on their own first.
  2. The author of the gospel of John never mentions the interaction of the thief. In John 3:13, Jesus is speaking with his fellow rabbi/colleague, Nicodemus. The interaction begins by Nico being confused by Jesus' claims. Jesus responds by asserting his authority to speak of the things of God's domain. "And no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man." Any reference to the Son of Man is a reference to a human+divine figure from the Hebrew Bible (specifically Daniel). This sentence is asking Rabbi Nico to reflect on the passage(s) around this figure and this figure's ascent to heaven. Jesus is making a play on very old ideas around who this figure might be. He's claiming to be this figure, and Nico as a Rabbi would have understood this. Further, this conversation takes place before the cross event.
  3. The author of the gospel of Luke tells a longer story about the cross event, and he is the one who mentions the paradise. Jesus turns to the thief and says, "today you will be with me in paradise" Lk 23:43. This term, paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)] has also has a long history of use in Second Temple Judaism. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (aka The Septuagint, LXX), "Eden" in Genesis 3 is translated from Hebrew to Greek as paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)]. The "garden of God" is a well establish motif in Ancient Near East literature, and in the Hebrew Bible specifically. Gardens and Mountains were poetic motifs of God's space or sacred spaces. To a Jewish audience living in the first century AD, Jesus telling the thief he would be together in paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)] is to say that they will be together in Yahweh's domain, Eden, The Garden of God, the Mountain of God. All of these are thematic and poetic references to the same concept. We call this "Heaven" in English, though our English word carries frieght that may not be in their worldview. It's close enough for understanding what is meant by paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)]. 

 

Conclusion:

Jesus told Nico that only the one who came from God's domain (paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)], heaven, Eden, etc.) could then ascend to this same space. That is pre-cross. At the cross, he announces that he is taking people with him on his return. 

Recontextualizing our English terms (loaded with medieval theologians' ideas) with the Jewish worldview of the first century helps clarify almost every confusing statement in the New Testament. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For further reading, copy this somewhere and check out these resources and themes:


See further explanations > 

 

From: D. L. Bock, “Son of Man,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 894.

SON OF MAN

According to the Gospels, “Son of Man” is Jesus’ favorite self-designation. It is used eighty-six times in the NT (Synoptics 69×, John 13×, elsewhere 4×). In the NT it is never presented as a confessional term from someone in the early church. However, Jesus does use it alongside confessional titles, such as “Messiah,” that others raise (e.g., Mk 8:29–31; 14:61–62). The phrase in its various lexical constructions is almost exclusively confined to the Gospels, except at Acts 7:56; Hebrews 2:6 (where Ps 8:4 is cited); Revelation 1:13; 14:14. In the Gospels only Jesus uses the term, except at John 12:34, where what he has said is cited by others. The term is written in Greek as “the son of the man” (ho huios tou anthrōpou), except for John 5:27; Hebrews 2:6; Revelation 1:13; 14:14 (huios anthrōpou). The phrase in a few Gospel passages (Mt 24:30 // Mk 13:26 // Lk 21:27; Mt 26:64 // Mk 14:62 // Lk 22:69) is related directly to language from Daniel 7:13–14 and, as was noted above, is associated in Hebrews 2:6 with Psalm 8, where it carries its common meaning of “human being,” as a “son of man” is a descendant of a man and thus a human.
The expression also has a rich background in the Scripture of Second Temple Judaism as well as in traditions derived from it. So we proceed by examining its usage and background in this Jewish context before considering its NT use.
Finally, the expression in Aramaic is idiomatic (bar ʾĕnāš). It is not a title, just as it is not a title but rather a description (“one like a son of man”) in its original use in Daniel 7:13–14. This means that it can function as an expression on its own without evoking any biblical associations, although the power of the description makes it a candidate to become a title or at least a clear designation of a distinct figure. This type of usage feeds into its development in Second Temple Judaism and in the NT.

///

2. Usage in Second Temple Judaism

Besides a linguistic context for the use of “son of man,” there also is a tradition rooted in Scripture and reflected on in Second Temple Judaism that is sometimes reflected in this phrase. Two texts are of great significance, while others show the context in which such hope operated. The idea of the vindicated, rejected righteous has roots in the Psalter (Pss 22; 69) and is presented in the picture of vindicated, rejected wisdom in Wisdom 2 and 5. The influence of the latter passage on some “son of man” passages is traced by G. Nickelsburg. These set a context that Daniel 7 also reflects: the vindication of the righteous. This Danielic text is by far the most important scriptural context for the expression “son of man” when it is linked to Scripture.
2.1. Daniel 7. This text is an overview of the historical movement toward God’s deliverance of his people. It moves through four world dynasties pictured as aberrant animals (lion with eagle’s wings, bear with a human mind, leopard with four birdlike wings, dreadful beast with two rows of iron teeth). In contrast comes “one like a son of man,” a human, who rides the clouds to the Ancient of Days to receive ruling authority (Dan 7:13–14). In Daniel 7:27 this authority and the identification of the figure are tied to the saints of the Most High. But the dynasties of Daniel 7 are also tied to kings who lead them. So, although Daniel’s interpretation points to the corporate beneficiaries of this new thing that God will do, the idea of a figure to lead it is not far away. This idea is suggested by the statement in Daniel 7:27 that all will serve and obey him. The term translated as “serve” (plḥ) here carries the meaning of “worship” (Dan 3:12, 14, 18, 28; 6:17, 21; 7:14, 27 [parallel to sgd in Dan 3:18]), something not done of a nation. The Son of Man is pictured as a singular human figure with transcendent qualities, as his riding of the clouds indicates. In the OT it is deity that rides the clouds (Ex 14:20; 34:5; Num 10:34; Ps 104:3; Is 19:1). So this image is of a human being who also has heavenly qualities. The emphasis in the text is that he receives authority in response to the suffering of God’s people. It is the feature of human-heavenly elements and authority that are important in the usage picked up in the NT. The interpretation of this figure in Daniel is disputed as being either corporate for Israel, an angelic figure (perhaps Michael or Gabriel), or involving an eschatological figure (either a messiah or another eschatological deliverer). What is indisputable is that in Second Temple Judaism an individual with authority to deliver and judge developed from this image, as our two other key Second Temple texts show.
2.2. 1 Enoch 37–71.The book of 1 Enoch is a composite Jewish book, probably made up of five parts stitched together over time. The earliest part comes from two centuries before the time of Jesus. The last section added includes material that refers to the Son of Man. These key chapters probably go back to the Herodian era of the late first century B.C. and early first century A.D., since they contain allusions to the Parthian conflict in the forties B.C. (Bock and Charlesworth). This date is likely despite the fact this section was missing from Enoch texts found at Qumran (Esther too was not found there, and we know it predates the community) (see Dead Sea Scrolls). The book of 1 Enoch has an eschatological hero in Enoch, and this would counter the hero of Qumran, the Teacher of Righteousness. This important section 1 Enoch 37–71 is known as the Similitudes or Parables of Enoch. In it there is a key figure who goes by a variety of names: “righteous one,” “chosen one,” “anointed one,” and this or that “son of man.” He functions as a judge and is preexistent (1 En. 46; 62–63). Nickelsburg speaks of a conflation of images in this portrait, drawing on Wisdom 2; 5 (preexistent like wisdom) and the one who vindicates in Isaiah 52–53. Some discount any connections between Jesus as the Son of Man and the ideas expressed in 1 Enoch because of the preexistence of the Enoch figure, which is not like the NT usage, and because there is no mention of the Son of Man “coming” as in the NT (Burkett). Others argue in response that the point is the function of this figure as judge and his transcendent quality. In any case, 1 Enoch shows that imagery associated with a Son of Man figure was in play and under development in the Second Temple period.
2.3. 4 Ezra 11–13. This text is the least important of the three, in part because this material postdates our period. However, its picture of an eschatological judge who has royal characteristics while appealing to the imagery of Daniel 7 confirms that imagery associated with a Son of Man concept was current during the period.
As a group, these texts show that a transcendent judge-deliverer was associated with a figure who was called Son of Man. The notion that a “Son of Man” title existed in this period is sometimes challenged, but the presence of a specific title is not the key point. Rather, the point is that there existed in some Jewish thought a figure associated with heaven who judges. The portrait occurs in various forms, but this figure is called, among other names, Son of Man.

 

From: W. Hall Harris III et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Lk 23:39–44.

39 And one of the criminals who were hanged there reviled him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself—and us!” 40 But the other answered and rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, because you are undergoing the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for what we have done. But this man has done nothing wrong!” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!” 43 And he said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” 

 

 

From: Benjamin M. Austin, “Afterlife,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

παράδεισος (paradeisos). n. masc. paradise. Refers to the place where the blessed or righteous dead go after death. The place where the righteous dead enjoy a blessed afterlife is sometimes called paradise (paradeisos) in the NT. In Luke 23:43, Jesus tells the thief who had faith that he would be with him in paradise (paradeisos). In 2 Corinthians 12:1–4, Paul refers to heaven as paradise (paradeisos). Revelation 2:7 also seems to refer to heaven as the “paradise (paradeisos) of God.”

 

From: Justin W. Bass, “Paradise,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

PARADISE (παράδεισος, paradeisos). A loanword from ancient Persian pairi-daeza which can mean “an enclosed space,” “park,” or “garden.” Associated with heaven, New Jerusalem, and Christ’s dwelling place.

Paradise in the Ancient World
The earliest attestation for “paradise” (παράδεισος, paradeisos) in ancient literature is found in the Septuagint (LXX), in Gen 2 and 3. It is likely a loanword from ancient Persia dating back to the sixth century BC. It comes from the Persian word pairi-daeza which can mean “an enclosed space,” “park,” or “garden” (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.2, 7; 2.4, 14; Aristides, Roman, 26, 99).

Paradise in the Septuagint (LXX)
Alexandrian Jews translated the Hebrew words פַּרְדֵּס (pardes), גַּן (gan), and עֵדֶן (eden) (once) with the Greek word “paradise” (παράδεισος, paradeisos). פַּרְדֵּס (pardes) is used in the book of Nehemiah to describe a forest (Neh 2:8), in Song of Songs to depict an orchard (Song 4:13), and in Ecclesiastes to describe Solomon’s campaigns to create gardens and parks (Eccl 2:5). The Prophets first gave this word its eschatological connotations, beginning with Isa 51:3. Isaiah promises that the eschatological Jerusalem will be like the Garden of Eden—paradise redivivus. Within the Hebrew (and LXX) Scriptures:

  •      God planted paradise for His people (Gen 2).
  •      Paradise was taken away as a result of sin (Gen 3).
  •      Paradise will be restored for His people in the messianic age (Isa 51:3; Ezek 47:1–12; Rev 22:1–2).

Paradise in Second Temple Literature
During the Second Temple period, paradise was one of the primary locales for the righteous in the afterlife. The Testament of Levi presents the Messiah opening the “gates of paradise” for the saints (T. Levi 18.10–11). This is the earliest example of a religious use of “paradise” outside of the Old Testament (Jeremias, TDNT, 5.765). Paradise is the dwelling place of the righteous dead in the afterlife. Paradise may have been:

  •      The Underworld (1 En. 22; 4 Ezra 4:7–8; 7:37, 38; compare Josephus, Antiquities 18.14–15).
  •      In the earth (Jubilees 3.12; 4.26; 8.16, 19; compare Origen, First Principles 2.11.6).
  •      In heaven (1 En. 60.8; 65.2; 70.3; 89.52; Ps. Sol. 14.2–3; 2 En. 8–9; L.A.E. 37.5).

Paradise in the New Testament
The word “paradise” only occurs in the New Testament three times (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7). In Paul’s writings, paradise is presented as synonymous with the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2, 4). In Revelation, it is synonymous with the New Jerusalem (Rev 2:7; 21:2). This shows the transferable nature of the term παράδεισος (paradeisos) in the New Testament. Paradise is clearly distinguished from “heaven” (τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, tou ouranou) in Rev 21:2, but Paul equates paradise and heaven (2 Cor 12:2, 4).
The book of Luke presents Jesus stating that he will see the man crucified next to Him in paradise, that day (Luke 23:43), but it also includes Peter’s statement that Christ’s soul dwelt in Hades between His death and resurrection (Acts 2:27, 31). This may suggest that Luke considered paradise to be the abode of the righteous in the Underworld (compare 1 En. 22; 4 Ezra 4:7–8; 7:37, 38; Josephus, Antiquities 18.14–15). Paradise could also be a transferable locale in the New Testament because the presence of Christ is what makes the reality paradise.

  •      The criminal was with Christ in paradise in the Underworld on Good Friday.
  •      Paul visited paradise in the third heaven where Christ currently dwells (2 Cor 12:2, 4; Phil 1:21–26; 3:20).
  •      The saints enter paradise in the New Jerusalem because the Lamb (Christ) will dwell there forever and ever (Rev 2:7; 21:22; 22:1–5, 14).

Bibliography
  Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. H. Marshall and D. A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
  Jeremias, J. “παράδεισος (paradeisos).” Pages 765–73 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 5. Edited by G. Kittel, G. Freidrich, and G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76.
  MacCulloch, J. A. The Harrowing of Hell: A Comparative Study of an Early Christian Doctrine. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930.
  Weisengoff, J. P. “Paradise and St. Luke 23:43.” American Ecclesiastical Review 103 (1940): 163–68.

JUSTIN W. BASS

 



Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o


Friday, February 7, 2025

The Church As Family System & Attachment Theory

The Church As Family System & Attachment Theory

In our group discussion tonight, our break-out group, we discussed how unmet childhood needs just tend to come back up over and over again as we interact with other humans or try to understand our own reactions to life events. The ways we interact with "needs" and with other humans are generally established in pre-verbal stages in our lives, before 10-Years Old, mostly before 5-Years old. 

We bring these pre-verbal unmet needs with us as we grow through life, and then circle back to those dynamics when we enter marriages, friendships, and organizations (churches, jobs, even hobby groups). 


Family Systems 

The Family Systems approach takes the ways families develop into roles and applies that to organizations (churches, jobs, etc.). This demonstrates the people re-living the roles of their upbringing in new situations with new people. For more on this see:

  • Book: Friedman, Edwin H. Generation to Generation : Family Process in Church and Synagogue. New York : The Guilford Press, 1985.


Attachment Theory


I was saying that if you bring "Attachment Theory" into the equation, it becomes a second key to unlocking what's happening in a group dynamic. Whether it is the pastor, boss, group leader, volunteer baseball coach, or Dungeon Master (DM for DnD), the same childhood things work themselves out over and over. 

So, if I find myself confused or agitated in a group, I can ask myself (1) what role in the family system and what attachment style am I bringing to this, and (2) what role and attachment style are the people I'm in conflict with bringing to this? 

Attachment Theory was new to a few, so I said I would provide some links that I found helpful when learning about it:

  • Book (and website assessment): Yerkovich, Milan, and Kay Yerkovich. How We Love: Discover Your Love Style, Enhance Your Marriage. Expanded Edition. Colorado Springs, Colorado: WaterBrook, 2017. https://howwelove.com/.
  • My Google Photos album of images I found that help talk about the concept "Attachment Theory..." This was especially helpful because most models use "Secure, Anxious, and Avoidant", but the fourth style gets a lot of names, depending on who's working their version of the model! 

 

Attachment Styles



Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o


Saturday, February 1, 2025

Jesus: Human and Divine

Class Discussion Question: Why did God send Jesus Christ to Earth with perfect humanity and perfect divinity?


My Thoughts…

Nowhere is the practice of diving into the biblical author’s worldview more fascinating than the role of Jesus as the Human-God/God-Human.

 

Portraits in Tanakh

Throughout the Tankah (Hebrew Bible), the writers painted portraits of the relationship between YHWH and Israel (and humanity). All the portraits of the Tanakh tell the stories of Yahweh’s attempts to co-reign with his human imagers. At core, that is the singular message of the biblical authors. God. With. Us. It is what Genesis 1-11 sets up as the prime narrative, and it is the undercurrent in every other narrative.

The Prologue (Gen 1-11) provides poetic symbolism of Yahweh creating a space for humanity and joining His space to humanity’s space, and the separation/exile/death that came as a result of human and lesser elohim rebellions. To be separated, exiled, from Yahweh’s space is to experience death. Physical death is merely the final separation from the spaces where Yahweh’s domain and Earth’s domains overlap. And it is the hope of the later writers that a day would come in which the living and the dead would return to this overlapping space.

But throughout the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Ruth, and so many others, we see portraits of Yahweh “with us” (1 Kings 8:57; 2 Chr 13:12; Isa 7:14, 8:8; Matt 1:23). Yahweh frequently made physical appearances, and sometimes there was a muddying of the invisible and visible Yahweh. But in all cases, the sense was a Yahweh who wanted to be with us. Ezekial played the role of Son of Man, who would intercede for Yahweh among his people. Isaiah say a Yahweh-empowered Israelite who would both suffer and redeem.

 

Each portrait pulled from previous threads but added new facets.

“A number of Jewish writers ca. 516 BC—AD 70 offered opinions as to the identity of the “second Yahweh,” the second power in heaven”[1] Heiser worked this out in detail in his book Unseen Realm where he noted “The startling reality is that long before Jesus and the New Testament, careful readers of the Old Testament would not have been troubled by the notion of, essentially, two Yahwehs—one invisible and in heaven, the other manifest on earth in a variety of visible forms, including that of a man. In some instances the two Yahweh figures are found together in the same scene.”.[2] He also references the earlier work of Segal on the development of this thought in Second Temple literature among the rabbis.[3]

Also during this period, the sages and rabbis of various movements, including the sects at Qumran, were pondering the Tanakh and other writings, and asking what Yahweh might be doing in their day or what kind of expectation they should hold. Some portraits speak of Messiah ben David, “the reigning Kind who will bring peace to the world”; while some portraits speak of Messiah ben Joseph, who is “the Suffering Servant”.[4]

 

Along comes Jesus

Then came a rabbi from Nazareth, a small nothing town in the north. Rabbi Yeshua (English-Jesus / Greek - Iesus) came teaching in much the same way as his intellectual kin, the Pharisees. They did not view him as an outsider, but as an insider. They saw him as worth their time to debate (as debating each other on the finer points of Torah observance was their primary activity). Rabbi Yeshua challenged them but also respected them. Some resisted him, while other (like Nicodemus) followed The Way of Rabbi Yeshua.

Yeshua showed the ways in which these earlier portraits that promised a “God with Us” were being filled-full in his presence among them (Luke 4:21). He went on to say that even the story of Jonah was a means of referring to the larger story Yahweh was working through him (Matt 12:40, Jonah 1:17-2:1). The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels notes that the gospel authors emphasized the ways in which Yeshua did the works that only Yahweh could do.[5]

The gospel writers wrestle with showing Yeshua’s language and claims in portraits. To borrow a paragraph from my own post on this thread about the “I AM” statements of Jesus equating himself with Yahweh while also referring to the Father and Himself as separate individuals:

// The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels makes note of “three instances in Mark’s Gospel where Jesus’ pronouncement of egō eimi belongs to the narrative’s gradual unfolding of his identity (Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62).”[6] John’s gospel goes further by noting Jesus to say, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30).[7] Paul calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:10).[8]//

Yeshua makes the same statements about the Holy Spirit being a person and not just a force, and yet equally Yahweh.

 

So what are we to do with these portraits?

Messianic Judaism has dedicated the largest portion of their scholarship and writing interacting with what they see as errors in both Gentile Christianity and Non-Jesus-Believing modern Judaism. They have taught me to live in the tension, acknowledge the various portraits, and not feel the need to draw arbitrary lines in the sand about them.

Do we need to label these, or can we simply live in the meditative tension of them? If we must label them, “Trinity” or “God-Head” seem like they work well enough for me. But I tend not to use that verbiage, as I prefer to refer people to the portraits. We can analyze a painting, or we can simply soak it in. I think I’m in the soaking phase of my journey.

Shalom, Darrell

 



Notes:


[1] The Lexham Bible Dictionary - Barry, J. D., Bomar, D., Brown, D. R., Klippenstein, R., Mangum, D., Sinclair Wolcott, C., … Widder, W. (Eds.). (2016). In The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. (Billingham, WA: Leham Press, 2016), §Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” SubSection “The Second Power in Heaven/Second Yahweh,” LexhamPress.com.

[2] Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 134–135 > Notes > The startling reality is that long before Jesus and the New Testament, careful readers of the Old Testament would not have been troubled by the notion of, essentially, two Yahwehs—one invisible and in heaven, the other manifest on earth in a variety of visible forms, including that of a man. In some instances the two Yahweh figures are found together in the same scene. In this and chapter that follows, we’ll see that the “Word” was just one expression of a visible Yahweh in human form.1 The concept of a Godhead in the Old Testament has many facets and layers.2 After the birth of his promised son, Isaac, Abraham’s spiritual journey includes a divine figure that is integral to Israelite Godhead thinking: the Angel of Yahweh. Although the most telling passages that show this angel as a visible embodiment of the very presence of Yahweh occur later than the time of Abraham, there are early hints of his nature during the lifetimes of Abraham and his sons. 1 The Jewish community that inherited the Old Testament was well aware of this. For centuries Judaism felt no discomfort with the notion of two Yahweh figures. The idea was referred to as the “two powers in heaven” and was endorsed within Judaism until the second century AD. It is important to note that the two powers were both holy. This is not dualism, where two equal deities exist, one good, the other evil. The major work on Judaism’s two-powers teaching was published originally in 1971 by the late Alan Segal. Segal was Jewish and his career focused on Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. His work documents how the two-powers idea became a heresy in Judaism in the second century AD. It was recently reprinted. See Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (reprint, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012). The Old Testament roots of the two-powers doctrine were one of the major focus points of my doctoral dissertation. The logic of the two Yahweh figures in the Old Testament reflects an Israelite adaptation of the Canaanite structuring of the top tier of the Canaanite divine council. See Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2004).  2 The conception of a Godhead in orthodox Israelite thought, interpreted in the context of the wider Canaanite environment, was a focus of my dissertation. That material has been revised and put forth in an article accepted for publication at the time of this writing: Michael S. Heiser, “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism,” (forthcoming in the Bulletin for Biblical Research). I will post that article (presuming permission from BBR) on the companion website when it appears. The data and discussion go considerably beyond what appears in this book.

[3] Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity v. 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1977).

[4] John B. Metzger, Discovering the Mystery of the Unity of God: A Theological Study on the Plurality and Tri-Unity of God in the Hebrew Scriptures (John Metzger, www.Ariel.org, 2010), 846, www.PromisesToIsrael.org,www.Ariel.org, https://www.logos.com/product/8050/discovering-the-mystery-of-the-unity-of-god.

[5] Adams, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP Bible Dictionary), n. G. H. Twelftree, “Miracles and Miracle Stories,”, Pg 594.

[6] Paul Adams, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP Bible Dictionary), IVP Bible Dictionary (Downers Grove: IVP, 2016), §C. H. Williams, “‘I Am’ Sayings,” Pg 396.

[7] LEB, v. John 10:30.

[8] LEB, v. Col 1:10.



Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o