Search Biblical Topics

“An Evil Spirit from the LORD”? — Sovereignty, Suffering, and Semitic Idiom Reading 1 Samuel 16:14 Without Blaming God for Evil   Few phrases in the Old Testament unsettle modern readers like this one: “an evil spirit from the LORD.”  Some take it as proof that God directly produces moral evil. Others attempt to soften it until it says almost nothing. Neither approach honors Scripture. The text is meant to sober us, not confuse us, and it is meant to deepen our view of God’s holiness, not diminish it.   First Samuel is showing what happens when a leader rejects God’s word and loses divine favor. Saul’s decline is not random psychological collapse. It is theological consequence. Yet the Bible’s wording is careful, and it uses a kind of speech that is common in Hebrew narrative—speech that attributes ultimate sovereignty to God without making God the author of sin.   If we read this passage with biblical precision, we will not end up with a tame deity who is not truly sovereign, nor with a dark deity who is responsible for evil. We will end up with the God Scripture actually reveals: perfectly holy, utterly sovereign, and fully just.   Biblical Foundation (NASB)   “Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.” (1 Samuel 16:14)   “Then Saul said to his servants, ‘Provide for me now a man who can play well and bring him to me.’” (1 Samuel 16:17)   “So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him.” (1 Samuel 16:23)   “God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5)   “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” (James 1:13)   These texts must be held together. The narrative in Samuel asserts God’s sovereignty over Saul’s judgment, while the New Testament clarifies God’s moral purity and His non-complicity in evil.   Word Study (Hebrew / Greek / LXX) The Hebrew phrase commonly rendered “evil spirit” is rûaḥ rā‘â (רוּחַ רָעָה) . The adjective rā‘ (רַע)  can mean “evil” in a moral sense, but it can also mean “harmful,” “calamitous,” or “distressing,” depending on context. In narrative judgment settings, it often carries the sense of affliction  or disturbance  rather than moral wickedness authored by God.   The Septuagint renders the phrase as πνεῦμα πονηρὸν παρὰ Κυρίου  with the key preposition παρά (para) —“from” or “from beside.” This matters. The phrase naturally communicates source in the sense of allowance or commissioning within God’s rule , not moral production. The Greek wording fits a permissive framework: the distressing spirit comes “from the LORD” in that it occurs under His sovereign judgment and boundary-setting.   This is a consistent biblical pattern. Scripture often speaks this way: God is described as doing what He permits , orders , or hands over  in judgment, because nothing occurs outside His rule.   Historical & Contextual Notes This verse appears immediately after David’s anointing and the Spirit’s empowerment: “the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward.”  The narrator is contrasting two kings not merely in personality but in spiritual condition.   Saul’s earlier empowerment was real. The Spirit came upon him; he prophesied; he was enabled to lead. Yet Saul repeatedly rejected God’s word. When the Spirit departs, Saul does not become neutral. He becomes vulnerable—spiritually, psychologically, and socially. The text portrays this as judgment, not merely mood swing.   The result is “terrorizing,” a word that conveys inward disturbance. Saul becomes tormented, unstable, and increasingly paranoid. This sets up the entire tragedy of Saul’s reign. The king becomes a man with power and no peace.   Misconceptions / Clarifications A careful reading requires rejecting several common errors.   First, this text does not teach that God is morally evil or creates moral wickedness in spiritual beings. Scripture is clear that God is holy, and He does not tempt anyone to sin.   Second, this text does not require the conclusion that Saul is a helpless victim. Saul remains morally responsible. Judgment is not the removal of responsibility; it is the consequence of rejecting God’s word.   Third, this is not merely a primitive attempt to explain mental illness. The biblical world recognized spiritual realities. At the same time, Scripture does not reduce Saul’s torment to one dimension. It is spiritual judgment expressed through real human distress.   Fourth, the phrase “from the LORD” must be read as a sovereignty statement, not an authorship statement. Hebrew narrative often attributes events to God when God is the ultimate governor of what occurs, even when secondary causes are involved.   Theological Reflection This passage forces us to hold two truths together.   God is sovereign over all that happens.   God is not the author of evil.   These are not contradictions. They are the boundaries of biblical theism.   When Scripture says the spirit is “from the LORD,” it is telling us that Saul’s torment is not random. It is a form of judgment—a handing over. Saul has rejected the word of the Lord, and now he experiences what life looks like when divine favor is withdrawn.   This fits a broader biblical pattern. When humans persist in rejection, God’s judgment is often expressed not only through external consequences but through internal collapse. The sinner is handed over to what he has chosen—autonomy, fear, restlessness, and spiritual exposure.   The judgment is not God planting evil in the heart. The judgment is God removing restraint and allowing affliction within His providential boundaries.   Saul wanted kingship without submission. God gives him what that means: power without peace.   Connection to Christ The contrast between Saul and David ultimately drives us toward Christ.   Saul is the image of leadership without obedience: a king who clings to position while losing communion with God.   David, for all his future failures, is initially portrayed as the king empowered by the Spirit, chosen by God, and shaped in hiddenness before exaltation.   But David himself is not the final answer. David points forward to the greater King whose anointing is perfect and permanent.   Jesus is the Spirit-anointed Messiah in the fullest sense. His communion with the Father is unbroken. His authority is righteous. He does not spiral into torment because He never rejects the word of God. Instead, He bears torment for others. At the cross, Jesus enters the darkest judgment not because He deserves it, but because He chooses to carry the curse for sinners.   Saul’s story shows what sin earns: the withdrawal of peace, the collapse of stability, the terrifying weight of separation.   Christ’s story shows what grace gives: reconciliation, restoration, and the Spirit given to God’s people as a permanent seal.   Christ-Centered Conclusion First Samuel does not invite us to accuse God of evil. It invites us to tremble at the cost of rejecting God’s word. Saul is a warning: when leadership becomes self-protective and disobedient, the result is not freedom but torment.   Yet even here, God’s mercy flickers. David is brought in to play, and Saul is refreshed. The rejected king still receives moments of relief through the presence of the one God has chosen. That pattern is not accidental. It points forward to the gospel.   The true King comes not merely to soothe distress with music, but to heal the heart through redemption. In Christ, God does not merely quiet the torment; He removes the guilt. He does not merely lessen fear; He conquers death. And He does not merely visit His people with comfort; He gives His Spirit to dwell within them.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, and 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Goliath’s Height — Setting the Record Straight When the Oldest Evidence Disagrees with the Popular Reading (1 Samuel 17:4)   Opening / Why This Matters Most Christians know the David-and-Goliath story by heart, and many have also heard the traditional detail that Goliath stood “six cubits and a span,” often repeated as nearly ten feet tall. That number has become part of the legend—so familiar that few pause to ask a simple question: is that actually what the oldest biblical evidence says?   This is not a trivial detail. It is a case study in why textual history matters. When modern readers treat one medieval form of the Hebrew text as if it were automatically the earliest and most reliable, they can unintentionally elevate a later scribal tradition above older witnesses. Scripture is not threatened by doing careful textual work. It is clarified by it.   The Bible’s authority does not depend on inflated numbers or mythic exaggeration. The theological point of 1 Samuel 17 is not that David defeated a fairy-tale monster. It is that God delivers His people through faith, not weaponry, and He does it against very real, historically plausible odds.   Biblical Foundation (NASB) “Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.” (1 Samuel 17:4)   “David said to the Philistine, ‘You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted.’” (1 Samuel 17:45)   “All this assembly may know that the LORD does not save by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD’S and He will give you into our hands.” (1 Samuel 17:47)   The theological emphasis is unwavering: God saves. The question is whether the traditional measurement details have been transmitted without distortion.   Textual Foundations: Why the Septuagint Matters Here The Septuagint (LXX)  is a Greek translation of the Old Testament begun centuries before Christ. It predates the medieval Hebrew manuscripts by a wide margin and functioned as the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jewish world and, later, the early Church.   By contrast, the Masoretic Text  tradition—while valuable and carefully preserved—reflects a later standardized Hebrew stream. The Masoretes were medieval Jewish scribes who produced highly precise vocalization and scribal notes to preserve a received consonantal text. Their work was meticulous, but it did not create an early manuscript tradition; it preserved a later one.   That distinction matters. When the LXX and other early witnesses disagree with a later form of the Masoretic tradition, we are obligated to compare evidence rather than assume that the later reading is automatically original.   In 1 Samuel 17:4, that comparison is decisive.   The Oldest Reading: Four Cubits and a Span In the Septuagint, Goliath’s height is given as four cubits and a span , not six. Septuagint Greek (1 Kingdoms / 1 Samuel 17:4 — Goliath’s height) καὶ ἦν τὸ ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς.   English translation “And his height was four cubits and a span.” The LXX reads “four cubits and a span”  (not “six”), a shorter height that aligns with the oldest textual witnesses and preserves Goliath as a terrifying—yet historically plausible—human champion.   That reading is also supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls , which preserve older Hebrew textual forms than the medieval Masoretic manuscripts.   The difference is not subtle. Masoretic reading:  six cubits and a span Older witnesses (LXX + DSS):  four cubits and a span   Using standard cubit estimates, four cubits and a span places Goliath around six feet nine inches —still enormous in the ancient world, still a terrifying warrior, still a “champion,” but not the near-mythic giant many imagine.   This matters historically. The Philistines were a real people. Warfare accounts in Samuel read like history, not folklore. The older height fits the literary and historical environment: Goliath is a fearsome human champion from Gath, not a supernatural creature.   Why Did the Number Grow? The most likely explanation is scribal expansion. Numbers are especially vulnerable in manuscript transmission. A small copying error can quickly become tradition. Additionally, in a story already emphasizing the improbable victory of a young shepherd, later transmitters may have unconsciously intensified the contrast by preserving or adopting an inflated measurement.   None of this is a threat to Scripture. It is a reminder that God’s word has been transmitted through real human processes, and that comparing ancient witnesses helps us recover the earliest attainable text.   The faithfulness of Scripture is not diminished when we acknowledge that copyists were not inspired in the same way the prophets were. Inspiration belongs to the original revelation; textual criticism helps us discern the most likely original reading.   Misconceptions / Clarifications One misconception is that accepting the older reading somehow “shrinks the miracle.” It does not.   A six-foot-nine champion in bronze armor, trained for war, armed with spear and sword, is still an overwhelming threat to an unarmored youth carrying a sling. The point was never that David defeated a cartoon giant. It was that David trusted the living God when everyone else trembled.   Another misconception is that this is “attacking the Bible.” It is the opposite. Treating later readings as automatically superior can create unnecessary confusion and give skeptics ammunition when better evidence is available. The oldest witnesses often make the narrative more coherent, not less.   Theological Reflection: Faith, Not Folklore Even with the older height, the story remains the same.   Saul is tall by Israel’s standards, yet he hides. Israel’s army is armed, yet they fear. David is young, unarmored, and underestimated, yet he speaks with calm certainty because his confidence is not in himself.   The narrative teaches that God’s deliverance is not dependent on visible strength. David’s courage is not denial of danger; it is proper fear of God over fear of man.   “The LORD does not save by sword or by spear.”   That is the center. The details serve that center.   Connection to Christ David’s victory foreshadows the Messiah’s victory.   The true Champion defeats the enemy of God’s people, not by matching his weapons, but by trusting the Father completely. David walks into the valley as Israel’s representative. Christ enters the world as ours.   Goliath stands as the taunting enemy, confident in strength. Sin and death taunt humanity the same way. David’s sling looks foolish to the world. The cross looks foolish as well—yet God chooses what appears weak to display His power.   Christ conquers not by human force but by obedient surrender. Like David, He wins the battle for the people who could not win it themselves.   Christ-Centered Conclusion The older evidence does not diminish Scripture—it clarifies it. Goliath was still a towering champion, and David was still a faithful servant who trusted God rather than weaponry.   When we read with humility and honesty, we see the beauty of Scripture more clearly. God does not need exaggeration to be glorious. The truth is strong enough.   And the truth points us beyond David to the greater Son of David, who entered the valley of death and rose victorious so that the trembling army behind Him could rejoice and follow.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, and 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Armor, Weights, and the Physics of the Valley of Elah Why the Numbers Matter in 1 Samuel 17:5–7 (1 Samuel 17:5–7)   The David and Goliath account is often told like a children’s fable: a tiny boy, a cartoon giant, and a miracle that feels like fantasy. But 1 Samuel does not read like folklore. It reads like war memory—specific names, geography, weapons, weights, and the slow dread of an army watching a champion stride forward day after day.   That detail matters. The Holy Spirit does not inspire random measurements. The text gives weights and materials because it is grounding the story in reality. It wants you to feel the physical intimidation. It also wants you to understand that David’s victory was not luck, not youthful optimism, and not accidental marksmanship. It was faith in God expressed through intelligent courage.   In this article, we are not trying to “scientize” Scripture. We are simply allowing the narrative to be what it is: an ancient battlefield scene with real armor, real physics, and a real theological point—God saves, and He often does so through faith that thinks clearly under pressure.   Biblical Foundation (NASB)   “He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale-armor which weighed five thousand shekels of bronze.” (1 Samuel 17:5)   “He also had bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze javelin slung between his shoulders.” (1 Samuel 17:6)   “The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and the head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron; his shield-carrier also walked before him.” (1 Samuel 17:7)   “David said… ‘I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts…’” (1 Samuel 17:45)   The narrative deliberately pairs two forms of power: physical power and covenant power. Goliath embodies one. David relies on the other.   Historical & Contextual Notes The Valley of Elah is not a mythic stage. It is a real place where armies could face one another across a wadi, using a champion challenge to avoid a costly mass battle. That practice is consistent with the warfare logic of the ancient world: champions represent their peoples, and the outcome can determine morale and momentum.   Goliath’s gear list is not decoration. It signals military technology, class, and intimidation. He is not merely big; he is well-equipped. His armor and weaponry mark him as a professional warrior, the kind of man trained not only to fight, but to dominate psychologically.   The text also notes that he has a shield-carrier. That detail is crucial. Champions in antiquity were not always solitary figures. A shield-bearer could protect against missiles and projectiles as the champion advanced. The Bible is portraying a coordinated combat unit, not a lone brawler.   Word Study and LXX Observations The Hebrew imagery emphasizes Goliath’s armor as something like scales—layered, heavy, protective. The narrative piles bronze upon bronze: helmet, coat, greaves, javelin. Bronze signifies wealth, warfare, and intimidation. He is the visible embodiment of military advantage.   The Septuagint’s phrasing preserves the same effect: it does not soften the scene into legend. It keeps the technical feel. The story is not primarily about giant mythology; it is about the clash between human strength and covenant faithfulness.   This is where earlier textual witnesses matter again. While some numbers in Samuel are difficult across traditions, the thrust is consistent: Goliath is heavily armored and strategically supported.   The Weight of the Armor: The Point of the Numbers The text states Goliath’s scale armor weighed five thousand shekels of bronze , and his spearhead weighed six hundred shekels of iron . Even allowing for some uncertainty in ancient weight estimates, the narrative intent is clear: this is heavy equipment. It is meant to communicate burden, power, and near invulnerability in hand-to-hand combat.   That physical reality is what makes David’s choice so profound.   David refuses Saul’s armor, not because he is rejecting protection, but because he is rejecting a strategy that assumes the only way to win is to fight on the enemy’s terms. Goliath is built for close-quarters dominance. His armor, weapons, and shield-bearer are designed for that.   David’s sling changes the battlefield. It is not a child’s toy. In the ancient world, slingers were real battlefield assets. A trained slinger could strike with speed and precision, launching stones with force that could disable a warrior. David is not naive. He is using a weapon suited for range and mobility, a weapon that bypasses the advantage of heavy armor.   The “physics” of the story are theological. God does not ask David to play Goliath’s game. Faith does not mean pretending the enemy is weak. Faith means trusting God while acting wisely within reality.   Misconceptions / Clarifications One common misconception is that emphasizing weapons and measurements “explains away the miracle.” It does not.   The miracle is not that David discovered ballistics. The miracle is that a young man, facing a terrifying champion, stood firm in covenant confidence when the entire army shook. The miracle is that God’s name was honored, Israel’s fear was broken, and the enemy’s blasphemy was answered.   Another misconception is that David’s skill makes the victory merely human. Scripture does not separate skill from faith. David’s faith is not passivity. He prepares, chooses his stones, approaches the conflict soberly, and acts decisively.   God often works through faith expressed in wise action.   Theological Reflection: Strength That Cannot Save Goliath represents a kind of strength the world still worships: visible power, superior resources, intimidating presence, technological advantage. His armor is not only protection; it is a sermon. It preaches the lie that whoever has more metal wins.   Israel believes that sermon. Saul, the tallest man in Israel, still fears. The army, armed and numerous, still trembles. That is the nature of fear: it turns real threats into ultimate threats.   David sees the same equipment and reaches a different conclusion. He does not deny Goliath’s strength. He denies Goliath’s right to taunt the living God. David’s faith is not irrational bravery; it is theological clarity.   The scene exposes the difference between fear and reverence. Israel fears what they can see. David fears God, and that fear puts everything else in its rightful place.   Connection to Christ David’s strategy—victory without matching the enemy’s weapons—points forward to Christ.   Sin, death, and Satan appear invincible when judged by visible power. Humanity stands like Israel’s army: intimidated, unable, and unwilling. The enemy taunts, and the people shrink back.   Then the true Champion comes.   Jesus does not defeat death by using death’s tools. He defeats death through obedience, humility, and sacrifice. He does not answer violence with violence. He answers it with the cross, and He turns what looks like weakness into victory.   David strikes the giant in a way the giant cannot defend against—through a weapon and a strategy outside the expected category of battle.   Christ defeats the enemy in the same manner. The cross is not the weapon the world expects, and yet it is the instrument of God’s triumph.   Christ-Centered Conclusion The armor of Goliath is real, heavy, terrifying, and impressive. It is meant to be. Scripture wants you to feel the weight of what David faced.   But Scripture also wants you to see that the weight of bronze does not determine the outcome of the battle. The battle belongs to the Lord. God is not impressed by the world’s weapons, and He does not require His servants to win by imitating the enemy.   David’s courage is intelligent faith. It refuses fear, refuses false worship of strength, and refuses to surrender the battlefield to intimidation.   And in David’s victory, we see a shadow of the greater victory to come: the true King, the true Champion, who defeats the enemy not by matching his power, but by overturning it through the wisdom and power of God.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, and 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

“Who’s That Boy?” — Why Saul Doesn’t Recognize David When the Older Text Removes a Problem the Later Text Creates (1 Samuel 17:55–58)   Some textual questions are minor. This is not one of them.   In the plain surface flow of many modern translations, Saul watches David go out against Goliath and then asks Abner, “Whose son is this young man?”  Abner claims not to know. Saul presses again. David returns with the Philistine’s head, and Saul asks David directly.   If that were the only data point, the question could be read as a simple inquiry about lineage. But it is not the only data point. The narrative just told us that Saul already knew David, brought him into his service, was refreshed by his music, “loved him greatly,” and even sent to Jesse to request that David remain in his service. On that basis, the plain reading of Saul’s question becomes difficult to defend as merely curious. It feels like a real seam.   That is why this passage is an ideal example of how the oldest textual witnesses  can clarify what later streams complicate. The issue here is not whether the Bible is true. The issue is whether every later duplication within the manuscript tradition reflects the earliest form of the narrative. In Samuel, that is often not the case.   Biblical Foundation (NASB)   “Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.” (1 Samuel 16:14)   “So David came to Saul and attended him; and Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor bearer.” (1 Samuel 16:21)   “Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, ‘Let David now stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight.’” (1 Samuel 16:22)   “When Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner the commander of the army, ‘Abner, whose son is this young man?’ And Abner said, ‘By your life, O king, I do not know.’” (1 Samuel 17:55)   “Saul said to him, ‘Whose son are you, young man?’ And David answered, ‘I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.’” (1 Samuel 17:58)   Set those passages side by side, and the tension becomes obvious. Saul had already interacted with David and Jesse. The later question, as it stands, appears redundant in a way that strains the story.   Historical & Contextual Notes First Samuel is one of the Old Testament books where textual history is unusually visible. Even careful readers can sense it: repeated introductions, overlapping scenes, and what appear to be multiple angles on the same event. This does not mean the events are fictional. It means the book’s transmission history includes places where earlier and later forms differ more than in many other books.   That is why 1 Samuel frequently becomes a classroom example in textual studies. The manuscript evidence invites comparison. And in several key places—especially in chapters 16–18—the Septuagint tradition often preserves a shorter narrative stream  that reads more coherently.   This is not “editing Scripture to make it work.” It is the disciplined practice of comparing ancient witnesses to discern the earliest attainable form of the text.   Why the Plain Reading Is So Problematic The simplest description is the most honest: in the Masoretic tradition reflected in many translations, the story can appear to say two things at once.   On the one hand, Saul knows David well enough to bring him into court service, love him, and request him formally from Jesse.   On the other hand, Saul later appears not to know who David is or whose son he is, and Abner appears ignorant as well.   Could someone argue that Saul knew David but not his father? They could. But the text itself has already introduced Jesse to Saul as the man from whom Saul requests David’s continued service. That is why the “lineage-only” explanation often sounds like a patch rather than a solution.   The more plausible conclusion is that we are looking at a duplication or conflation  in the later stream: two ways of introducing David have been preserved together in a way that creates the “Saul amnesia” effect.   The Septuagint’s Shorter Stream: The Cleanest Explanation This is where the Septuagint becomes essential.   In this portion of Samuel, the LXX often reflects a shorter narrative form  that reduces duplication and removes the forced tension. The result is a story that reads as a coherent sequence rather than a stitched overlap: David’s entrance into Saul’s orbit is not repeated in a way that makes Saul appear forgetful.   The point is not that the Greek is automatically “better” because it is Greek. The point is that the Septuagint is far older  than the medieval Masoretic manuscripts and often witnesses to an earlier underlying Hebrew tradition. The Masoretic Text tradition is valuable and meticulously preserved, but it represents a later standardized stream. When the older witness preserves coherence and the later stream preserves a seam, the responsible conclusion is not to force harmony, but to recognize the likely direction of development.   This is the same kind of situation as Goliath’s height. The later reading became familiar and dominant, but the older evidence points to a form of the text that is more historically plausible and narratively coherent.   In short, the “Saul doesn’t recognize David” problem is best explained not by Saul’s memory failure, but by textual duplication in the later stream —a duplication the older LXX stream helps us see through.   Misconceptions / Clarifications Some assume that acknowledging a textual seam undermines biblical authority. It does not. It actually strengthens credibility. The Bible has been transmitted through real manuscripts, copied by real scribes. Comparing witnesses is not skepticism; it is stewardship.   Others assume that if there is any textual complexity, then the story is unreliable. That conclusion does not follow. The core event—the defeat of Goliath, the public elevation of David, Saul’s growing instability, and the providential rise of the chosen king—is stable across the tradition. The question is how the narrative introduces and transitions between scenes, and whether later duplications entered the stream.   The textual explanation is both historically responsible and narratively satisfying. It does not require Saul to be irrational. It does not require Abner to be implausibly ignorant. It simply acknowledges that Samuel preserves points where later and earlier forms diverge.   Theological Reflection: Saul Senses What He Cannot Stop Even in the Masoretic form, the theological direction is clear: Saul is losing the story. He is no longer governing events; he is reacting to them.   David’s victory is not merely military success. It is providential unveiling. The shepherd is stepping into national history, and Saul’s house will soon feel that shift.   Whether Saul’s question is preserved as an inquiry about lineage or as a vestige of a duplicated introduction, the effect is the same: David is no longer anonymous, and Saul’s regime is now under quiet judgment. The king who rejected God is now forced to stare at the instrument of God’s next chapter.   Connection to Christ David’s emergence from obscurity into public recognition foreshadows Christ’s unveiling.   Jesus is known in one sense—raised in a town, recognized by face, addressed by name—and yet misunderstood in another. Leaders debate His origin and authority even when the data is in front of them. The question becomes not simply “Who is He?” but “What do we do with Him?”   David’s identity question points forward to the deeper one the Gospels press on every reader: not merely whose son Jesus is, but who He truly is. David is the son of Jesse of Bethlehem. Jesus is the Son of David of Bethlehem—and far more than that.   Christ-Centered Conclusion The “Saul amnesia” tension is real in the later textual stream, and it does not deserve evasive answers. Saul’s earlier relationship to David and Jesse makes the plain surface reading difficult. The cleanest explanation is textual: Samuel preserves evidence of duplication in this section, and the older Septuagint tradition frequently reflects a shorter stream that removes the narrative awkwardness.   As with Goliath’s height, the oldest witnesses do not weaken Scripture. They clarify it. They help the story read like what it is: a historically grounded narrative of God raising a king, humbling the proud, and delivering His people through the one He appoints.   And that story, in the end, points beyond David to the greater King—chosen, anointed, and revealed in God’s timing—whose victory would not merely silence a taunting enemy, but crush sin and death themselves.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, and 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Must Communion Use Real Wine? Some churches insist the Lord’s Supper must be served with fermented wine—anything else is viewed as disobedience, invalid, or at least a compromise. Others insist the opposite: only unfermented grape juice is acceptable, often from a sincere desire to avoid causing a brother to stumble or to honor Christ’s purity. Still others quietly offer both and try to keep the peace.   So what does Scripture actually require?   This is not a trivial question. The Lord’s Supper is a holy proclamation of Christ’s death and a foretaste of His kingdom. But we also must not bind consciences where Scripture does not. The issue is not “Do you prefer wine or juice?” The issue is: Did Jesus command a specific chemical composition—or did He command a covenant sign with clear meaning?   Biblical Foundation At the Last Supper, Jesus took bread and a cup and established a memorial meal that would shape the church until He returns. In Matthew’s account, Jesus says:   “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”  (Matthew 26:29, NASB)   That phrase— “fruit of the vine” —matters. It is deliberately broad language. It identifies the cup’s substance as something derived from the vine (grapes), and it ties the Supper forward to the kingdom feast. But it does not specify fermentation level. The text is not written like a chemistry label.   In John’s Gospel, we also see Jesus fully comfortable in a setting where real wine is served at a wedding feast. John records that the master of the banquet says:   “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”  (John 2:10, NASB)   That’s not a “grape juice” scene. It’s a wedding banquet scene, describing ordinary human behavior around alcohol.   Word Study: What the Greek Actually Says Two Greek details help keep us honest.   First, in the Lord’s Supper texts, the Synoptic Gospels use a phrase that literally means “the produce/fruit of the vine.”  One Greek form is τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου  ( tou genēmatos tēs ampelou ), meaning “produce/fruit of the vine.” That wording is significant because it points to grape-vine product generally, not narrowly to a single technical term.   Second, in John 2:10, the common Greek word for wine is used: οἶνος  ( oinos ). That is the standard word for wine in Greek usage, including the New Testament. And the master’s comment includes the verb often softened in translation: the idea is that people have drunk freely —a term tied to becoming affected by wine (the concept behind “getting drunk”), which explains why lesser wine could be served without complaint.   Put simply: The Supper institution sentence emphasizes “fruit of the vine”  (broad designation). John 2 shows real wine  at a feast and uses oinos  plainly.   So the Bible easily supports two truths at the same time: Wine was real wine in biblical life. The Supper command does not explicitly require fermentation.   Historical and Contextual Notes Churches that insist on fermented wine often point to the Passover context and to the ordinary practice of wine at meals in the ancient world. They may argue that “fruit of the vine” is a Jewish reverent way of referring to wine used in sacred settings. That is a reasonable argument for what was likely used— but  “likely used” is not the same as “must be used.”   On the other side, many Protestant churches in the temperance movement era moved toward grape juice in the 19th–20th centuries. Some did it pastorally, to avoid enabling alcoholism; some did it polemically, treating fermentation as morally suspect. Those motives vary, but the practical outcome is common today: millions of faithful Christians have taken communion with juice for generations—without denying the Supper, without denying Christ’s blood, and without denying the reality of wine in Scripture.   Denominations That Tend to Insist on Wine This varies congregation to congregation, but generally: Roman Catholic  parishes require wine (with very specific sacramental rules). Eastern Orthodox  churches use wine (commonly warm wine with water). Many confessional Lutheran  churches normally use wine, though pastoral accommodations sometimes exist. Many Anglican / Episcopal  and Reformed  congregations use wine or offer both. Many Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, and non-denominational  churches commonly use grape juice, often offering juice as standard.   The point of listing this is not to take shots—it is to show the reality: the global church practices differ widely, and sincere believers exist on both sides. If Scripture required only one option, the command would be far clearer than it is.   Misconceptions and Clarifications   Misconception 1: “If we don’t use fermented wine, it isn’t the Lord’s Supper.” That goes beyond Scripture. The New Testament’s emphasis is on Christ’s institution, the meaning of the signs, the proclamation of His death, self-examination, and unity in the body—not fermentation requirements.   Misconception 2: “If Jesus used wine, we must use wine.” Even if we grant that Jesus used fermented wine at Passover, that still does not automatically create a universal requirement. The command is to take the cup as the covenant sign— “fruit of the vine” —and to remember Him rightly. Must  language demands explicit wording.   Misconception 3: “Wine is sinful, so it cannot represent Christ’s blood.” Scripture condemns drunkenness, not the existence of wine. Jesus’ first public sign at Cana occurs in the context of wine at a wedding. John does not apologize for that. The sin is being mastered by it.   Misconception 4: “Using juice is automatically ‘more holy.’” Not necessarily. Holiness is obedience, love, and truth—especially discernment of Christ’s body and unity with His people. A church can use wine and sin in arrogance. A church can use juice and sin in pride. The substance is not a shortcut to sanctification.   Theological Reflection: What Must Be Preserved The cup is a covenant sign. It points to the blood of Christ poured out for forgiveness, and it points forward to the kingdom feast where Jesus says He will drink it “new” with His people. “Fruit of the vine” keeps the symbol anchored to grapes and the vine imagery woven throughout Scripture—life, blessing, and the promise of joy in God’s kingdom.   What must be preserved is not alcohol content, but the integrity of the sign and the obedience of faith : It must be a true “vine” element (grape-derived). It must be received in remembrance, proclamation, and reverence. It must be practiced in love, guarding weaker consciences, not crushing them.   Connection to Christ Jesus did not institute the Supper as a test of who can handle alcohol. He instituted it as a proclamation of His death and a covenant meal that gathers sinners around a Savior. The bread and the cup preach the gospel: His body given, His blood poured out, forgiveness accomplished, resurrection guaranteed, and a kingdom coming.   The “fruit of the vine” language also points beyond the cross. Jesus ties the cup to the day He will drink it “new” in His Father’s kingdom. That is resurrection hope, not ritual anxiety. The Supper is not meant to produce fear-driven arguments over ingredients; it is meant to produce worship-driven unity around the crucified and risen Christ.   Christ-Centered Conclusion So must a church use fermented wine for the Lord’s Supper?   You can argue it is historically likely. You can argue it is symbolically fitting. You can argue it is preferable in your tradition. But you cannot honestly say Scripture commands it as a universal requirement, because Jesus’ own wording is broader: “fruit of the vine.”  (Matthew 26:29, NASB)   That means the church’s task is twofold: hold the Supper in reverence and keep the gospel central—while refusing to bind consciences where Christ did not. If wine is used, do so with sobriety and care. If juice is used, do so with gratitude and integrity. In either case, the Supper must lead us to the same place: repentance, unity, proclamation, and hope—until the day we drink it new with Him in the kingdom.   New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.

Alcohol: What The Bible Says About Drinking Introduction: The Christian and the Cup Few topics stir more debate in the church than alcohol. Some treat it as a demonic poison that has no place in a believer’s life. Others toast their liberty in Christ like it’s part of communion. Somewhere in between are confused Christians wondering if they should sip in secret or speak in condemnation. But Scripture isn’t silent. And it doesn’t hand us a watered-down opinion. The Bible speaks with moral clarity , not cultural panic. This isn’t about absolutes of abstinence  or open-bar grace abuse —it’s about wisdom , witness , and the fear of the Lord . The question isn’t just, “Can Christians drink alcohol?” It’s “Should Christians drink alcohol—and if so, how?” Wine in the Bible: From Blessing to Brawling Wine is all over the Bible. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t ignore it. It was: A common beverage  in ancient times Used in feasts and celebrations A symbol of blessing and abundance Even part of the Passover and Lord’s Supper “Wine produces mockers; alcohol leads to brawls. Those led astray by drink cannot be wise.” — Proverbs 20:1 (NLT) This passage doesn’t prohibit wine—it warns against being led by it . That’s the consistent theme: alcohol in moderation is tolerated. Alcohol in control is forbidden. Old Testament: Joy, Warnings, and the Nazarite Vow Wine was a normal part of life in Israel, including temple sacrifices: “You must present one quart of wine for a liquid offering with each lamb.” — Numbers 28:7 (NLT) Wine was used for merriment: "You cause grass to grow for the livestock and plants for people to use. You allow them to produce food from the earth—wine to make them glad, olive oil to soothe their skin, and bread to give them strength." - Psalms 104:14-15 (NLT) And yet, many of the greatest examples of devotion abstained completely : Nazarites were forbidden to drink wine (Numbers 6:3) Priests were prohibited from drinking when on duty (Leviticus 10:9) Kings and rulers  were warned that strong drink perverts justice (Proverbs 31:4–5) This pattern isn’t about sin—it’s about seriousness. Those in spiritual authority or leadership  are held to a higher standard. That’s not legalism. That’s Scripture. Jesus and Wine: Water into What? Jesus didn’t avoid wine. His first public miracle was at a wedding feast: “This miraculous sign at Cana in Galilee was the first time Jesus revealed his glory. And his disciples believed in him.” — John 2:11 (NLT) The context is a wedding party. Jesus didn’t just turn water into wine—He turned it into good  wine (John 2:10), meaning the real fermented kind, not some sanitized grape juice version. The Greek word used is οἶνος (oinos)  – Strong’s G3631 – which always refers to real, fermented wine. The master of ceremonies even explains the normal wedding pattern: “A host always serves the best wine first… then, when everyone has had a lot to drink, he brings out the less expensive wine.”  — John 2:10. In the Greek, the key verb is μεθύσκω (methýskō) —more literally, “to get drunk”  or “to become intoxicated.”  John isn’t describing sanitized grape juice. He’s describing a real wedding feast with οἶνος (oinos) —real wine—and the kind of wine that will get people drunk. He also drank wine Himself: “For John the Baptist didn’t drink wine, and you say, ‘He’s possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man, on the other hand, feasts and drinks, and you say, ‘He’s a glutton and a drunkard…’” — Luke 7:33–34 (NLT) Jesus wasn’t a drunkard—but He wasn’t a teetotaler either. Merriment and Medicine: Wine in the New Testament While much of the modern debate around alcohol centers on morality, Scripture presents wine in a wider lens. In the New Testament, wine is shown to serve two notable and legitimate purposes: celebration  and healing . First, celebration. As already noted, Jesus’s first miracle was performed at a wedding in Cana, where He turned water into wine—not merely as a party trick, but as a revelation of His glory : “This miraculous sign at Cana in Galilee was the first time Jesus revealed his glory. And his disciples believed in him.”  — John 2:11 (NLT) The setting was a joyful occasion, and the miracle affirmed that celebration—done rightly—is not incompatible with holiness. The wine wasn’t condemned; it was created by the Word made flesh . But wine also shows up in Scripture as medicine . Paul gives this personal instruction to Timothy: “Don’t drink only water. You ought to drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach because you are sick so often.”  — 1 Timothy 5:23 (NLT) The Greek word for wine here is again οἶνος (oinos)  – fermented wine. Paul wasn’t suggesting fermented grape juice as a metaphor for spiritual joy. He was prescribing a real, practical medicinal solution . In a world without modern antibiotics, wine was known for its purifying properties and was commonly used to treat waterborne illness and stomach ailments. This instruction also implies something important: Timothy had likely been abstaining . Possibly out of conviction or caution. Paul, knowing his frequent illnesses, tells him to stop avoiding it entirely. In other words: wine is not merely portrayed as a symbol of judgment  or a temptation toward sin —it is also a gift  when used rightly. It brought joy at the wedding. It brought healing to Timothy’s body. That’s why Scripture’s approach is nuanced and sober , not reactionary or permissive. The Sin Is Not Drinking—It’s Drunkenness Scripture never condemns drinking outright. It repeatedly condemns drunkenness: “Don’t be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit…” — Ephesians 5:18 (NLT) “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble.” — Romans 14:21 (NLT) The Greek word for “drunk” in Ephesians 5:18 is μεθύσκω (methyskō)  – Strong’s G3182 – which means to be intoxicated , under the influence , or controlled  by alcohol. That’s the line. You don’t have to cross it far to violate it. Scripture draws a hard boundary around the idea of being led  by anything other than God’s Spirit. Drunkenness isn’t just a bad look—it’s a spiritual betrayal . It places another influence in the throne room of your mind. Wisdom, Weakness, and the Weaker Brother Paul raises another issue: Christian liberty doesn’t give us the right to ignore others’ struggles. “You must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble.” — 1 Corinthians 8:9 (NLT) In a church culture shaped by trauma, addiction, and new believers, flaunting alcohol is not freedom—it’s foolishness. You may be able to drink without sinning, but you’re not allowed to drink without thinking. If your “right” to drink damages someone else's walk with Christ, you’re not walking in love—you’re walking in pride. Christian liberty is about love, not license . Leadership and Alcohol: A Higher Bar Scripture consistently holds church leaders to a higher standard: “An elder must live a blameless life. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy drinker…” — Titus 1:7 (NLT) “A deacon must not be a heavy drinker or dishonest with money.” — 1 Timothy 3:8 (NLT) The Greek phrase μὴ πάροινον (mē paroinon)  – Strong’s G3943 – literally means “not addicted to wine” or “not given to frequent drinking.” This isn’t prohibition—it’s precaution . Elders, pastors, and teachers are called to live above reproach. That includes their cup. If you're called to leadership, you're called to limit liberty for the sake of others' holiness . Drinking and the Fear of the Lord This is where most modern Christians fall off the wagon— not in what they do, but how they think about what they do . If you treat alcohol casually, selfishly, or proudly—you are not walking in the fear of the Lord. “Blessed are those who fear to do wrong, but the stubborn are headed for serious trouble.” — Proverbs 28:14 (NLT) “Don’t be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn away from evil.” — Proverbs 3:7 (NLT) We don’t make drinking decisions in a vacuum. We make them in a world full of temptation, addiction, stumbling blocks, and compromised witness. The fear of the Lord  is the lens through which every glass must be viewed. So... Can Christians Drink? Yes. But here’s the better question: Why would you? Are you drinking to unwind—or to escape? Are you drinking in private—or in pride? Is it done in the fear of the Lord—or in the name of Christian liberty? Paul says: “You say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is good for you. You say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is beneficial.” — 1 Corinthians 10:23 (NLT) We are not slaves to the bottle, the bar, or even our brothers’ opinions. We are slaves to Christ. And for many of us, the wisest, most God-honoring choice will be abstinence—not out of fear of sin, but out of a desire to stay sober-minded , Spirit-filled , and stumbling-block free . Conclusion: Not Legalism—Lordship This is not about rules. It’s about reverence . It’s not about judging others—it’s about judging your heart. If you drink, let it be done in moderation, humility, and discernment. If you abstain, do it not out of pride, but for purity and protection. And whether you eat or drink, do it all to the glory of God . In a world drunk on self, the church should stand out—not just by what’s in our cup, but by what’s in our hearts.

If Anger Is a Sin, Why Did Saul Get Angry When the Spirit Came Upon Him? Scripture does not give us the luxury of easy categories when it comes to anger. On one hand, anger is repeatedly warned against as spiritually dangerous and often sinful. On the other, the Bible records moments where anger appears alongside God’s active work—nowhere more uncomfortably than in the rise of Saul.   The question is not whether anger appears in Scripture. The question is what kind of anger  is being described, and where it comes from .   Saul’s Anger in 1 Samuel 11 The crisis at Jabesh-gilead is not a personal insult to Saul; it is a national and covenantal threat. Nahash the Ammonite proposes humiliation that would mark Israel as defeated and dishonored among the nations.   The narrator describes Saul’s response carefully: “Then the Spirit of God came upon Saul mightily when he heard these words, and he became very angry.”  — 1 Samuel 11:6 (NASB)   The sequence matters. The Spirit comes first. Anger follows. Saul does not erupt emotionally; he acts decisively. Israel is summoned, unity is restored, Jabesh-gilead is delivered, and Saul does not retaliate afterward. The anger produces order, not chaos.   This is already different from the anger condemned elsewhere in Scripture.   The Hebrew and Greek Texture of the Passage In the Hebrew text, Saul’s anger is described with חָרָה ( ḥārāh ) , a verb meaning to burn  or to be kindled . It does not describe loss of control, but intensity. The emphasis is not on emotional volatility but on inner heat directed toward action.   The Septuagint (LXX)  renders this using ὠργίσθη ( ōrgisthē ) , from ὀργή ( orgē ) —a word that can describe indignation or righteous wrath, depending on context. This is significant because the same Greek term is used in the New Testament both for God’s wrath and for human anger that must be restrained.   The word itself is morally flexible; the source and direction determine its value .   James 1: Human Anger Defined James helps narrow the category:   “Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” — James 1:19–20 (NASB)   James does not say “anger” generically. He says ὀργὴ ἀνδρός ( orgē andros ) — the anger that belongs to man . The problem is not the emotion itself but its origin . Human anger is self-referential. It reacts, defends, escalates, and justifies itself. James’ concern is that most anger we experience comes from this source, and therefore cannot produce God’s righteousness.   Saul’s anger in 1 Samuel 11 is explicitly not described this way. It is not “the anger of Saul.” It is anger that follows the Spirit’s arrival.   Galatians 5 and Explosive Anger Paul sharpens the warning further: “…enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger…”  — Galatians 5:20 (NASB)   The phrase “outbursts of anger” translates θυμοί ( thymoi ) , not orgē . This word refers to boiling, explosive rage—anger that erupts suddenly and overwhelms restraint. This is the anger of the flesh, and Paul leaves no room for exceptions. That anger is always sinful.   Saul’s response in 1 Samuel 11 does not resemble θυμός . There is no explosion, no tantrum, no self-centered reaction. The anger is controlled, purposeful, and short-lived.   Ephesians 4: Anger Allowed, Not Trusted Paul’s instruction in Ephesians captures the tension believers must live with:   “Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity.”  — Ephesians 4:26–27 (NASB)   Anger is acknowledged as a real human experience, but it is treated as dangerous. It must be resolved quickly. Prolonged anger becomes spiritually corrosive. Even justified anger, if left unattended, opens the door to sin.   This explains why Saul’s moment in 1 Samuel 11 is descriptive, not prescriptive. Scripture records it, but never encourages believers to pursue anger as a spiritual tool.   Saul’s Story as a Warning The narrative itself provides the caution. The Saul who is Spirit-directed in chapter 11 becomes self-protective and volatile later. His anger turns jealous toward David, paranoid toward priests, and violent toward perceived rivals. The emotion remains, but the source changes.   The same man shows both possibilities: Anger aligned with God’s purposes Anger corrupted by fear and ego   Scripture does not need to explain this shift. It lets the story teach it.   Theological Summary Anger in Scripture is not condemned absolutely, but it is never treated casually . The Bible allows for rare moments where God ignites indignation for His purposes, while relentlessly warning that human anger almost always distorts righteousness.   That is why James says to slow down. That is why Paul warns about the flesh. That is why Saul’s life ends in tragedy.   Anger is not forbidden—but it is never trusted.   Christ as the Final Contrast Only Jesus displays anger without corruption. His anger confronts hardened hearts and injustice without becoming self-defensive or retaliatory. Where Saul’s anger eventually consumes him, Christ’s anger remains perfectly obedient.   Saul shows us that God can use anger. Jesus shows us that righteousness never depends on it.   All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB), © The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.

Anointing and Spirit — From Saul to David. When God Chooses the King Before the Crown Few moments in Scripture are as sobering—and as instructive—as the quiet transfer of divine favor from one leader to another. There is no coup, no rebellion, no public announcement. Saul remains on the throne. The nation still sees him as king. Yet in the unseen realm, everything has already changed.   First Samuel teaches us a truth modern leadership culture resists: authority can exist without divine approval, and divine calling often arrives long before public recognition. David is anointed while Saul still reigns, and the Spirit’s movement reveals that God’s kingdom advances not by appearances, but by obedience and heart posture.   This article explores one of the most theologically significant transitions in the Old Testament—the movement of God’s Spirit from Saul to David—and why this moment shapes how Scripture understands kingship, calling, and ultimately Christ.   Biblical Foundation (NASB) “Then Samuel took the flask of oil, poured it on his head, kissed him and said, ‘Has not the LORD anointed you a ruler over His inheritance?’” (1 Samuel 10:1)   “Then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you mightily, and you shall prophesy with them and be changed into another man.” (1 Samuel 10:6)   “Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.” (1 Samuel 16:14)   “Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward.” (1 Samuel 16:13)   “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.’” (1 Samuel 16:7)   The Nature of Anointing In Scripture, anointing is never symbolic alone. It is covenantal, declarative, and divine. To be anointed is not merely to be chosen by people, but to be claimed by God for a specific purpose.   The Hebrew verb māšaḥ (מָשַׁח)  means “to smear, consecrate, or set apart.” Kings, priests, and prophets were anointed not to legitimize themselves, but to testify that authority flows downward—from God to servant—not upward from ambition.   Saul was genuinely anointed. His calling was real. The Spirit truly came upon him. Scripture does not diminish Saul’s beginning; it mourns his failure to remain faithful. This distinction matters. God does not revoke Saul’s kingship lightly. He withdraws His Spirit only after repeated, willful disobedience.   The Spirit Given—and Withdrawn Saul’s story disrupts simplistic theology. The Spirit comes upon him powerfully, enabling prophecy, leadership, and military victory. Saul is “changed into another man.” Yet empowerment does not guarantee perseverance.   When Saul repeatedly substitutes partial obedience for submission, the text records a devastating moment: “the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul.”   This is not emotional language. It is theological reality.   The departure of the Spirit signals divine rejection—not of Saul’s existence, but of his role as God’s chosen instrument. Saul retains the throne but loses divine empowerment. What remains is authority without approval.   This moment prepares readers for a deeper biblical truth: God may tolerate leadership structures for a season, but He does not indefinitely empower rebellion.   David: Anointed in Obscurity David’s anointing is intentionally unimpressive. No crown. No ceremony. No army. He is not even invited initially. Jesse presents seven sons—each one outwardly impressive—yet God rejects them all.   The Lord’s declaration to Samuel reframes leadership entirely: “man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”   David is not anointed because he is perfect. He is anointed because his heart posture is oriented toward God. His kingship begins not with conquest, but with consecration.   The Spirit comes upon David “from that day forward,” yet David does not ascend the throne for years. Scripture teaches a consistent pattern: calling precedes authority; anointing precedes visibility; obedience precedes exaltation.   The Septuagint and the Weight of the Moment The Septuagint intensifies the theological contrast. Where the Masoretic Text states the Spirit “came mightily,” the Greek emphasizes permanence and force— katephēsen —underscoring that David’s empowerment is not temporary or conditional in the same way Saul’s was.   This distinction prepares the reader for the Davidic covenant and ultimately the Messiah, whose anointing would not be withdrawn.   Misconceptions Corrected This passage is often misunderstood in two ways.   First, some assume Saul’s failure means God was fickle. Scripture presents the opposite. Saul’s rejection is slow, patient, and preceded by warning after warning.   Second, others assume David’s anointing implies immediate blessing. In reality, David’s life becomes harder, not easier. Anointing does not exempt him from suffering—it appoints him to it.   God prepares kings in obscurity, not applause.   Christological Fulfillment David’s anointing points forward to Christ in unmistakable ways. Jesus is anointed before His public ministry, empowered by the Spirit, and rejected by visible authority while approved by heaven.   Like David, Jesus is chosen before enthroned. Like David, He is anointed among His brothers. Unlike David, His anointing is permanent and perfect.   “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, because the LORD has anointed Me…” (Isaiah 61:1)   Jesus fulfills what Saul failed and what David foreshadowed: perfect obedience under divine authority.   Christ-Centered Conclusion First Samuel confronts a dangerous assumption—that position guarantees favor. It does not. God’s Spirit rests where obedience and humility dwell.   Saul teaches us that calling can be forfeited through disobedience. David teaches us that faithfulness in obscurity prepares the way for God’s timing.   Before God crowns, He consecrates. Before He exalts, He tests. And before He reveals, He refines.   The true King would come not crowned by men, but anointed by God—and His kingdom would not rise by force, but by faithfulness.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, and 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Young Earth and Old Earth — What Does Genesis Actually Require? Reading the Creation Account Faithfully Without Forcing the Text   Few theological debates generate more heat than the question of the earth’s age. For some believers, a young earth feels like a litmus test for biblical faithfulness. For others, an old earth appears unavoidable given the scope of creation itself. The tragedy is that the debate is often framed incorrectly, turning brothers and sisters into opponents and timelines into tests of orthodoxy.   The Bible does not ask us to choose between faith and honesty. It asks us to read Scripture as Scripture—according to its purpose, genre, and theological intent. Genesis was written to reveal who created , why creation exists , and how humanity relates to God , not to satisfy modern scientific curiosity. The danger arises when we force the text to answer questions it never claims to address.   This article makes a case—not for abandoning Scripture, but for reading it faithfully. I lean Old Earth, not because science governs Scripture, but because Scripture itself does not demand a young-earth chronology.   Biblical Foundations (NASB)   “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)   “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.” (Genesis 2:1)   “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4)   “For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.” (Psalm 90:4)   “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” (2 Peter 3:8)   These passages establish what Genesis insists upon: God is Creator, creation is ordered and intentional, and time is not experienced by God the way it is by humanity.   What Genesis Is (and Is Not) Genesis is theological history , not modern scientific prose. It speaks truthfully, but it does not speak anachronistically. The creation account uses structured repetition, poetic symmetry, and ancient cosmological language to communicate meaning rather than mechanics.   Days 1–3 form realms.Days 4–6 fill those realms.   This literary symmetry signals purpose. The text emphasizes order, sovereignty, and goodness , not duration. Genesis answers the pagan world by declaring that creation is not accidental, violent, or divine—it is the work of one sovereign God who speaks and orders reality.   The question, then, is not whether Genesis is true, but whether it intends to function as a stopwatch.   The Meaning of “Day” (yôm) The Hebrew word yôm (יוֹם)  can mean a 24-hour day, but it can also mean an undefined period of time. Scripture itself demonstrates this flexibility.   Genesis 2:4 uses yôm  to summarize the entire creation account: “in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.”   No one argues that all of creation happened in a single 24-hour period. The same word is used to describe eras, divine acts, and future judgment ( “the day of the LORD” ).   Complicating matters further, the sun is not created until Day Four. If solar time governs the meaning of “day,” the first three days cannot be defined by the very object that measures them. This does not invalidate the text—it signals that something other than strict chronology is at work.   Genealogies: Lineage, Not a Calendar One of the strongest arguments for a young earth comes from biblical genealogies. At first glance, they appear to provide a clear timeline from Adam onward. A closer reading shows that this assumption rests on modern expectations, not biblical usage.   Biblical genealogies establish lineage, legitimacy, and covenant continuity . They are not designed to function as exhaustive chronological records.   Scripture itself proves this. Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus intentionally omits generations to form a theological structure. Yet it is still called a genealogy. The Hebrew verb yālad (יָלַד) , often translated “begat,” regularly means “became the ancestor of,”  not “direct biological father of.”   Most decisively, the Septuagint genealogies  in Genesis add hundreds of years  compared to the Masoretic Text. Early Jewish and Christian readers were not troubled by this. If genealogies were intended to lock in a precise creation date, this discrepancy would have caused immediate theological crisis. It did not—because genealogies were never meant to serve that function.   The Bible gives us a family tree , not a geological clock.   Death Before the Fall? Clarifying the Real Issue A common concern is that an old earth implies death before sin, supposedly contradicting Romans 5. Scripture, however, is precise: human death enters through sin .   “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin…” (Romans 5:12)   The passage does not explicitly address animal death. Genesis itself never states that animals were immortal prior to the Fall. Scripture’s redemptive focus is human death, human sin, and human resurrection.   Old Earth views do not require death before Adam. They allow creation to have a history without redefining the Fall or undermining the gospel.   The Septuagint and Early Christian Thought This discussion cannot ignore history. The Septuagint—the Bible of the early Church—does not sharpen the meaning of yôm  into solar precision. Early Christian thinkers such as Augustine openly questioned literal 24-hour days long before modern science existed.   This matters because it dismantles the claim that Old Earth readings are modern compromises. They are not. They are ancient theological reflections rooted in reverence for Scripture.   Christological Anchor Genesis points forward, not backward. Its ultimate goal is not to explain the age of the earth, but to establish the need for redemption.   Adam is real. Sin is real. Death is real. Christ is the Second Adam.   Jesus affirms Genesis as true, treats Adam as historical, and grounds marriage, sin, and redemption in creation—yet He never ties salvation to a creation timeline.   “When the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son.” (Galatians 4:4)   Redemption, not chronology, is the Bible’s driving concern.   Christ-Centered Conclusion Christians do not dishonor Scripture by admitting what it does not claim. Genesis tells us who created , why creation exists , and how humanity fell —not how long creation took by modern measurement.   Faithfulness does not require unnecessary precision. It requires submission to the text as God gave it.   Creation declares the glory of God. Redemption reveals the heart of God.   The cross matters more than the calendar.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, and 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

ḥerem and ḥesed — Saul, Amalek, and the Cost of Partial Obedience Few chapters in Scripture confront religious self-deception as sharply as 1 Samuel 15. Saul defends his actions using the language of worship, sacrifice, and devotion, yet God rejects him. The dividing line between obedience and rebellion is drawn not in motives or emotions, but in submission to the word of the Lord.   Saul’s fall warns every generation of believers, leaders, and congregations: God measures obedience, not outcomes.  Partial obedience is not obedience at all. It is rebellion clothed in religious vocabulary.   The tragedy of Saul is not that he lacked zeal—it is that his zeal was untethered from obedience. The king chosen by the people learns that sincerity cannot sanctify disobedience. That warning still echoes today.   Biblical Foundation (NASB) “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel…’”  (1 Samuel 15:2)   “But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs…”  (1 Samuel 15:9)   “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears…?” (1 Samuel 15:14)   “Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.”  (1 Samuel 15:22)   “Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king.”  (1 Samuel 15:23) These verses define Saul’s turning point. The Lord does not reject him for unbelief, but for selective obedience.   Word Study (Hebrew / LXX)   חֵרֶם — ḥerem (“devoted to destruction”) Derived from a verb meaning “to separate, ban, or dedicate.” It was covenant language: that which belonged to ḥerem was placed beyond human use and reserved exclusively for the Lord.   Thus the command to destroy Amalek was not arbitrary violence; it was judgment executed through Israel under divine authority.   חֶסֶד — ḥesed (“covenant love, loyal mercy”) Often rendered “steadfast love,” yet richer than sentiment. It describes relational fidelity rooted in covenant commitments.   Saul misapplies mercy by sparing where God commanded judgment. His version of kindness is selective sentiment, not covenant faithfulness.   LXX Insight: The Septuagint highlights Saul’s deviation using the verb ἐξέκλινεν ( exeklinen ) — “turned aside.”  His sin is directional, not accidental. The king who should lead Israel into obedience leads them away.   Historical & Contextual Notes Amalek attacked Israel in the wilderness, striking the weak from behind ( Exodus 17:8–16 ). God’s command to destroy them was not retaliation but fulfillment of a sworn judgment.   Saul was not free to reinterpret the command. Warfare under ḥerem was not conducted for economic or political advantage. To spare Agag and preserve the best livestock was to keep what belonged to God. Saul violated both holiness and humility.   Samuel’s grief—“he cried to the LORD all night”—reveals divine sorrow over rebellion, not indifference. Judgment is never detached from lament.   Misconceptions / Clarifications   1. Saul was not punished for showing mercy. He was punished for rejecting God’s command . Mercy becomes rebellion when extended where God has decreed judgment.   2. Saul did not intend rebellion. But God does not evaluate obedience by sincerity. Intentions do not excuse disobedience. Partial obedience, justified by worship language, remains rejection of God’s word.   3. Sacrifice cannot sanctify disobedience. Saul’s appeal to sacrificial worship deepens his guilt. Worship becomes idolatrous when used to justify rebellion.   Theological Reflection The contrast between ḥerem and ḥesed  reveals a deeper truth: covenant faithfulness requires obedience before sacrifice.   Saul represents the perennial temptation to negotiate obedience—to keep what appears useful, to reframe disobedience as devotion, to sacrifice without surrender.   Samuel’s rebuke draws a stark line: Rebellion is witchcraft. Stubbornness is idolatry. Partial obedience is rejection of God.   Disobedience is not failure of performance but failure of allegiance. Kingship demands submission to the King. Saul refuses that submission, and heaven records the verdict.   Connection to Christ Saul’s loss of kingship because of selective obedience prepares the way for a King whose obedience is absolute.   Where Saul spares the condemned, Jesus bears the condemnation.Where Saul excuses rebellion with sacrifice, Jesus becomes the sacrifice through obedience.   In Christ, ḥerem finds its final fulfillment: sin is judged once for all.In Christ, ḥesed  flows freely: mercy is extended where judgment is deserved.   At the Cross, obedience and sacrifice converge perfectly.   Christ-Centered Conclusion Saul reminds us that religious words cannot sanctify rebellion. The sheep bleating in Samuel’s ears echo every generation’s attempt to offer worship without obedience.   God’s call remains unchanged: obedience before sacrifice humility before leadership covenant loyalty above personal desire   Christ is the faithful King Saul was not. In His obedience, judgment is satisfied and mercy revealed. In Him, ḥerem  and ḥesed unite—not in compromise, but in redemption.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, and 2020 by The Lockman Foundation.Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Jonathan: Faith Under Fire vs. Saul’s Rash Oath When Quiet Trust Defeats Loud Religion Few passages in Scripture expose the difference between faith and religious noise as clearly as 1 Samuel 13–14. Israel faces the Philistines with inferior weapons, scattered troops, and a king more concerned with appearances than obedience. Into that fear steps Jonathan—not with speeches, vows, or public authority, but with quiet trust in the living God.   This is not merely a story about courage in battle. It is a theological contrast between two ways of leading: one rooted in confidence in God’s character, the other rooted in fear disguised as devotion. Jonathan acts in faith without permission. Saul speaks in God’s name without wisdom. The outcome reveals which posture heaven honors.   Biblical Foundation (NASB) “Jonathan said to the young man who was carrying his armor, ‘Come and let us cross over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; perhaps the LORD will work for us, for the LORD is not restrained to save by many or by few.’” (1 Samuel 14:6)   “Now the men of Israel were hard-pressed on that day, for Saul had put the people under oath, saying, ‘Cursed be the man who eats food before evening and until I have avenged myself on my enemies.’” (1 Samuel 14:24)   “But Jonathan had not heard when his father put the people under oath; therefore, he put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened.” (1 Samuel 14:27)   “Then the people said to Saul, ‘Must Jonathan die, who has brought about this great deliverance in Israel? Far from it! As the LORD lives, not one hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day.’” (1 Samuel 14:45)   Word Study (Hebrew / Greek / LXX) Jonathan’s defining word is ’ûlay (אוּלַי)  — “perhaps.” In modern ears it sounds uncertain, but biblically it is the language of humble faith. Jonathan does not presume upon God; he trusts Him. His confidence rests not in outcomes but in God’s freedom: “The LORD is not restrained.”   Saul’s defining act is an oath . The Hebrew verb ’ārar (אָרַר)  — “to curse”  — appears in Saul’s vow. He binds the people with a threat rather than leading them with faith. In the Septuagint, Saul’s oath is rendered with language emphasizing coercion rather than consecration, sharpening the contrast between divine initiative and human control.   The LXX also clarifies several narrative transitions in chapters 13–14 that appear fragmented in the Masoretic Text, making Jonathan’s independent initiative more coherent and Saul’s reactionary leadership more stark. Jonathan moves while Saul hesitates. Heaven responds to action, not anxiety.   Historical & Contextual Notes Israel at this moment is militarily crippled. The Philistines control iron production; Israel fights with farm tools. Saul’s army dwindles. Fear spreads. In that context, Jonathan does something profoundly theological: he remembers who God is.   Jonathan’s armor-bearer responds with covenant loyalty: “Do all that is in your heart; behold, I am with you.”  This mirrors later scenes with David’s mighty men. Faith reproduces faith.   Saul, by contrast, seeks control through ritual. His oath does not arise from divine command but from insecurity. He mistakes restriction for righteousness and silence for submission. His command weakens the army physically and spiritually—hunger replaces hope.   Misconceptions / Clarifications   1. Saul’s oath was not spiritual discipline—it was superstition. God did not command it. Scripture never affirms it. The people obey out of fear, not faith.   2. Jonathan did not violate God’s law. He violated his father’s foolish decree. Torah allows eating during battle; Saul’s oath contradicts wisdom, not holiness.   3. Victory came before the oath, not because of it. The Philistines are thrown into confusion by God before Saul speaks. Saul tries to claim spiritual credit after God has already acted.   Theological Reflection Jonathan’s faith is profoundly God-centered. He does not ask, “What will happen?”  but “Who is God?”  His theology is simple and sufficient: God saves as He pleases.   Saul’s leadership reveals the danger of religious authoritarianism —using God’s name to bind people where God has not spoken. Saul’s vow echoes later failures in Scripture: Jephthah’s rash promise, the Pharisees’ burdens, and every system that substitutes control for trust.   Notice the irony: the king who demanded monarchy to fight battles now hinders the very battle he was chosen to lead. Authority without faith becomes an obstacle to God’s work.   Connection to Christ Jonathan foreshadows Christ not in kingship, but in sonship. He acts in trust, not coercion. He brings deliverance without demanding recognition. He is willing to die for a vow he never made.   Christ fulfills this pattern perfectly. Where Saul binds with curses, Jesus invites with grace. Where Saul weakens the people, Jesus feeds them. Where Jonathan risks his life for Israel, Jesus gives His life for the world.   The people’s declaration over Jonathan— “he has worked with God this day” —anticipates Jesus’ words: “The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing.”  (John 5:19)   Christ-Centered Conclusion This passage confronts every generation with a question: Do we trust God enough to act, or do we use God’s name to control outcomes?   Jonathan teaches us that faith does not need guarantees. Saul warns us that religious language without trust becomes tyranny.   God still honors quiet obedience over loud vows. He still feeds His people where leaders forbid nourishment. And He still rescues His servants from the consequences of other people’s foolish oaths.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, and 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Are Muslims Descendants of Abraham? A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Examination   Few questions in interfaith discussions surface as often—or as confidently—as the claim that “Muslims trace their lineage back to Abraham through Ishmael.”  It is said with the tone of something long settled, a statement woven into public imagination simply because it sounds plausible. Yet familiarity does not guarantee accuracy. When we look closely at Scripture, history, and theological development, a more nuanced—and far more interesting—picture emerges.   Understanding this matters. Abraham stands at the crossroads of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. To speak about him carelessly is to speak carelessly about the foundations of three major world religions. And for Christians, clarity matters because Abraham’s story is ultimately inseparable from the story of Christ. So rather than accepting a cultural slogan, we do well to ask: Does the evidence actually support this claim?   Abraham, Ishmael, and the Biblical Record The Scriptures speak plainly about Abraham’s family. God promises that Abraham will become “the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:5), and that blessing undeniably includes the future of Isaac and the covenant people of Israel. Yet the Bible also affirms God’s kindness toward Ishmael. The angel declares his name— יִשְׁמָעֵאל (Yishmā‘ēl), “God hears” —because the Lord hears Hagar’s distress (Genesis 16:11). God promises that Ishmael will become a great nation, and Genesis later records his twelve sons, the princes who form the Ishmaelite tribes (Genesis 25:12–18). Their territory stretches “from Havilah to Shur,”  placing them in the northwest regions of Arabia.   But the biblical text carefully stops there. It never claims: that Ishmael became the father of all Arabs, that Ishmael traveled south into the region that would become Mecca, that Abraham ever visited or built anything in that region, or that Ishmael stands at the head of a future religious movement.   Instead, Scripture draws a deliberate distinction between Ishmael’s blessing and the covenant line. God states unequivocally: “But My covenant I will establish with Isaac”  (Genesis 17:21). Isaac, not Ishmael, becomes the bearer of the promise through which the Messiah will come. The Ishmaelites exist, yes—but they remain one tribal group among many in the ancient Near East, not the genealogical foundation of an entire future religion.   Ancient Words and Ancient Peoples Even the language Scripture uses reinforces this distinction. The Old Testament refers to Ishmaelites ( יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים — Yishme‘ēlîm ) as a defined tribal group. By contrast, the word Arab  ( עֲרָב — ‘Arab ) describes nomadic or desert-dwelling peoples in general—a geographic and cultural designation, not a genealogical one. The Septuagint reflects this distinction as well, translating “Ishmaelites” with the specific ethnic term Ἰσμαηλίτης (Ismaēlítēs)  while using broader terms for other Arabian groups. Scripture never collapses all Arabian peoples into the Ishmaelites.   This helps explain why even early Jewish and Christian historians never identified Arabs as Ishmael’s direct descendants. For them, Ishmaelites were a known group—but one group among many.   History, Islam, and the Question of Lineage The idea that Ishmael fathered the Arab people does not appear in antiquity. It arises in Islamic tradition , beginning in the 7th–8th centuries A.D., as Muslims sought to anchor their emerging religious identity in the shared patriarch of monotheism. According to Islamic genealogy, Muhammad descends from Ishmael through the line of Adnan. Yet even notable early Muslim historians acknowledged the uncertainty of genealogical records prior to Adnan, and no pre-Islamic source—Jewish, Christian, or secular—makes such a connection.   Moreover, Mecca itself does not appear in the historical record until well after the time of Christ, making any claim that Abraham settled Ishmael there an article of theological faith rather than historical fact. The early Islamic tradition reframes Abraham’s story to include the rebuilding of the Kaaba, but this reflects theological meaning, not verifiable history.   Arabs as a people, meanwhile, trace their origins through multiple biblical and extra-biblical lineages—descendants of Joktan (Genesis 10), tribes from Keturah (Genesis 25), Midianites, Edomites, Nabateans, and other Semitic groups. Ishmaelites were part of that tapestry, but not its totality.   So when Muslims today identify Abraham as their ancestor, they do so theologically , the way Christians identify Abraham as their father by faith. It is a claim of spiritual identity grounded in narrative formation—not in DNA.   Misconceptions That Cloud the Conversation The idea that “all Arabs descend from Ishmael” persists largely because it seems like a convenient bridge between religious traditions. But convenience is not truth.   Not all Arabs descended from Ishmael.  Scripture places his descendants in a limited geographic band and does not connect them with the wider Arabian population.   The covenant does not pass through Ishmael.  This does not diminish God’s blessing to him, but it clarifies God’s redemptive plan.   Abraham never appears in Scripture within the deep interior of Arabia.  Every geographical detail of his life places him in Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Egypt.   Genealogical claims do not equal covenant claims.  Even when biological descent is established, covenant identity is something entirely different.   This is why Jesus confronts the Pharisees—biological descendants of Abraham—with a startling truth: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham”  (John 8:39). Lineage is meaningless without faith.   Theological Weight: Who Are Abraham’s Children? Here we reach the heart of the matter. The New Testament reshapes the discussion completely. For Christians, the defining descendant of Abraham is not Ishmael or Isaac— but Christ . Paul writes with precision:   “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed… and to your seed, that is, Christ.”  (Galatians 3:16)   Jesus is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. Through Him, the covenant expands beyond one ethnic line and becomes a worldwide invitation:   “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”  (Galatians 3:29)   In other words: Physical descent does not grant covenant status. Faith in Christ unites Jew, Gentile, and Arab alike. The family of Abraham is no longer defined by blood but by the gospel.   This means Christians need not contest whether Muslims (or any people group) can trace ancestry to Abraham. The question of salvation is not genealogical but Christological.   A Christ-Centered Conclusion So do Muslims trace their lineage to Abraham?   Biblically, the Scriptures never make that claim.   Historically, the evidence for a direct Ishmael-to-Arab genealogical line is thin and late.   Theologically, Islam affirms Abrahamic roots as part of its own sacred history.   But the deeper truth is this: the line that matters most is not the line between Ishmael and Isaac, nor the debate over ancestral geography. The line that matters is the one that runs from Abraham’s altar to Christ’s cross—the fulfillment of the promise through whom “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed”  (Genesis 22:18).   In Christ, the question is not, “Whose bloodline do you claim?”  but rather, “Whose Savior do you trust?”  And through Him, every nation—including the Arab world—is invited into the family that Abraham was promised from the beginning.   Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB). © The Lockman Foundation. All Rights Reserved.