Tag: Jesus

The Words of Amos to the Faithful Remnant of God’s People in the US Today?

The pairing of the church and state is not a wedding made in heaven

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Mountain fortress overlooking a stone bridge and river gorge at twilight

I have been reading Embrace the Tension by Tommy Nixon. He has resonated deeply with me, especially in this time. Christians in the United States seem to be living in a golden moment with a president openly engaging Christians and a popular segment of the church celebrating a symbiotic relationship with the president and his administration.

We don’t have to look too closely, however, to be concerned. Many prophetic voices have distanced themselves from this expression of Christianity. They stand outside the structure of this church and state power duo sounding an alarm. The foundation of this relationship is power and influence, and the fruit of the Holy Spirit is missing,

Satan tempted Jesus by offering him all the power of the kingdoms of the world, and Jesus flatly turned him down. When Jesus’ own followers attempted to seize him by force and make him king, he escaped into the hills. When Pilate confronted Jesus about the confusing things he was hearing – Was Jesus really king of the Jews? – Jesus told him that his kingdom is not of this world.

Jesus explained to Pilate that his power was given to him by God. If Jesus had come to take over, his followers would have risen up and seized control, but that isn’t why he came. He came to good news to the poor and to die on a cross. He came to introduce people to the Kingdom of God that is here now – growing in the midst of the kingdoms of this world – though the reign of the Righteous King is not yet.

Jesus will not reign as king until he comes again at the end of the age. In the meantime, he was clear that his followers are to be salt and light in the world. The church has no mandate to take over the kingdoms of the world. The church is commissioned to make disciples – followers of Jesus. 

Tommy Nixon recalls in his book the church at Antioch. They were diverse, but not for diversity’s sake. They were diverse because Jesus loves and came to save the world. They were unified, but not for unity’s sake. They were unified in Christ and in his purposes. They had power, but not for power’s sake. The power they wielded was found in taking up a cross and following Jesus. They experience the joy of the Holy Spirit, but not for joy’s sake. They experienced the joy of the Holy Spirit in the midst of a world that was orientated against what God was doing.

A dramatic change in the church took place when Constantine became king and issued the Edict of Milan, proclaiming religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire, followed by the Edict of Thessalonica, in which Christianity was made the state religion. This is how Tommy Nixon characterizes the change:

“What seemed like a triumph for the church was the beginning of a dangerous compromise. The same empire that once persecuted followers of Christ now embraced Christianity as its own. The gradual fusion of the church with the state followed, leading to the kingdom becoming the empire. Political power and cultural dominance diluted the gospel message. It was no longer good news to the margins; it was a tool to maintain control.

Embrace the Tension: Choosing the Radical Middle Instead of Picking a Side by Tommy Nixon, page 142

If we make an honest comparison of the church before the 5th century and the church after the first century, we can see the influence that state power had on the church. Before the church had any power it was persecuted and marginalized, but it revolutionized the Roman world in the love of neighbor and the love of God. The church was subversive in the best possible ways, led by people authentically walking the path of its suffering Savior, preaching good news to the poor – as Jesus did.

From the 6th century on, the became wedded to state power and than more deeply embedded in state power. Church and state became inseparable, and the corruption of the Church ensued. We call those years the Dark Ages for good reason.

Not everything was dark, of course. God was still at work in His church and in the world, despite the evil and corruption that litter the annals of this period of the history of the Church. The Crusades and the Inquisition are among the rotten fruit that grew in the name of Christ, though God always preserves a remnant in every age.

Tommy Nixon is nothing if not brutally honest and authentic:

“We see the effects of this today. In the United States, the surge of Christian nationalism and the conflation of faith with political ideology reveal how deeply the empire has shaped our perception of what it means to be a follower of Christ.”

Embrace the Tension, page 142

Once again, a segment of the Church flirts with the power and influence of Empire. In this context, Tommy Nixon refers to the Book of Amos. Amos was a prophet in Israel in the 8th Century BC. He warned Israel, that was once the oppressed living in slavery, that it had become the oppressor. Idolatry and injustice were rampant, and God was giving them an opportunity to repent and turn from their waywardness.

They didn’t listen, of course. Within 30 years of the ministry of Amos, the northern kingdom was exiled to Babylon.

Though Amos spoke at a low point in the history of God’s people, he ended with a message of hope. He spoke of a day when God would “restore David’s fallen shelter,” and “repair its broken walls,” “restore its ruins,” and “rebuild it as it used to be.” Amos 9:11-12

I don’t think that God intended to restore the nation of Israel exactly as it was; God intended to restore Israel as He designed it to be. Amos says God would do this so that his people would “possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name.” God’s blessing and promise to Abraham was always to extend to all the nations.

We see the reality of this, of course, in Jesus. He came first to the lost sheep of Israel, but his ministry extended far beyond the remnant of Israel. It extended to all of us and to all of time.

God’s ways are not our ways. He sent his only Son into the world that all who call upon his name will be saved – in Israel, Judah, Samaria, and all the world: the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, El Salvador, China, and to all the islands of the world.

Tommy Nixon concludes his assessment of the church in America by saying. “It doesn’t have to be this way.” We don’t need to devolve into the corruption of state power. “We can continue to be the rebels, but we have to be honest about the rebellion. The church needs a lot of work, but you and I are the church. It is time to be brave and own our hypocrisy and do something about it.”

Tommy Nixon speaks truth when he says, “The church is the problem,” but our hope is in the fact that “the church is also the solution.”

It’s time for the church to be the church, to repent, and to get back to what it means to be followers of Christ, fellow cross bearers, suffering servants in the way of Jesus, who live out the kingdom of God in our daily lives, preaching good news to the poor, suffering with those who suffer, mourning with those who mourn, and sharing the good news of the kingdom of God to anyone who will hear.

Jesus could have taken over the kingdoms of the Earth, but he knew who it was who had the present authority over the kingdoms of the world. The will of God was to introduce His kingdom on Earth and to raise up an army of suffering servants who would pray and live into the reality of the kingdom of God on Earth as it is in heaven.

We are tempted by the same things that tempted Jesus, and we should reject them the same way Jesus rejected them. His kingdom is not of this world. We have missed the mark in our attempt to protect the power and influence we have gained in this world at the expense of being like Jesus – the ambassadors of his kingdom.

Just as Amos prophesied it is not too late. It is not too late for the remnant of God’s people in this age – the church – to be the body of Christ, representatives of Jesus in this world. We do not need earthly power and influence. As a matter of fact, earthly power and influence will corrupt the whole thing. It always has, and it always will until the day Jesus comes again. As God told Amos, God will do what He says. We only need to be faithful.

Reflections on Praying, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will Be Done, on Earth As It Is In Heaven”

Intellectual faith vs. doing faith

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Neighbors cleaning a sunlit city street together

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray he taught them to recognize God: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” Immediately after recognizing God for who He is, Jesus taught us to pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” These things are the foundation of our prayer life with God, according to Jesus.

As I think about this today, the realization strikes me that praying, “Thy kingdom come,” needs to be accompanied by a willingness to reflect God’s kingdom and God’s will in the way we live. If we pray for God’s kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven and don’t think that prayer means anything for us in the way that we live, do we really mean it?

These thoughts came to me as I was worshipping God and thinking about the song we were singing, which was an expression of faith in the promises of God. If we

pray or sing these words to God without any intention to reflect the God we are worshiping and praying to in our daily lives, is our worship and prayer anything other than a clanging gong or a banging cymbal that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 13?

When Jesus began his public ministry, the message he preached was the coming of the kingdom, which he said is near at hand. (Mk. 1:14-15l Matt. 4:17, 23) Jesus said that the reason he was sent was to preach the coming of the kingdom of God. (Luke 4:3)

When Jesus spoke in his hometown synagogue, he said it a little bit differently: he said that he came to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom to prisoners, to give sight to the blind, and to set the oppressed free. (Luke 4:18-19)

Throughout his public ministry Jesus demonstrated what he came to do. He touched lepers, though doing so would make him unclean under Jewish law, and he healed them. He gave sight to the blind. He healed the sick and the lame. He set people free from demonic influences. He forgave sins. He lived out a tangible demonstration of what it means for the kingdom of God to come, and he extended God’s favor to Samaritans, a Canaanite woman, and a Roman centurion.

He also challenged the religious people of his day. He repeatedly healed people on the Sabbath. He even went right into the synagogues and healed them in front of the religious leaders, knowing that it would provoke them in their religiosity, because they didn’t understand what it means for God’s kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven.

The religious leaders were angry when Jesus challenged their understanding of the law and therefore of God. In their best moments they were just confused.

When Jesus healed ten lepers and instructed them to go show themselves to the priests, only the Samaritan leper came back and thanked Jesus. The priests asked, when would this kingdom that Jesus was preaching come? Jesus said, God’s kingdom isn’t any particular place, because God’s kingdom is within us. (ἐντός (entos), meaning inside (us) (adverb or noun) — within (us), sometimes translated “among us” or “in our midst”)

They still didn’t know what he meant. All they could see was that he was breaking the rules – the requirements they had established to protect people from breaking the mosaic Law of not working on the Sabbath. They didn’t understand that the Lord of the Sabbath was standing in front of them, telling them they were getting it wrong.

Jesus said the kingdom is in the midst of His followers. He come to announce that God’s kingdom has come, though it is also still to come. He introduced his kingdom, and he called his followers to recognize it, to repent, and to live in its reality.

The question I want to ask today of myself and anyone who might be reading this is this: Are we doing that?

Continue reading “Reflections on Praying, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will Be Done, on Earth As It Is In Heaven”” →

Idolatry, the High Places, and the Modern Believer

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

As I read through the Bible this year, the phrase, “the high places,” caught my attention because it is used as a kind of litmus test and descriptor of the kings of Israel and Judah in Kings and Chronicles. Like a worn-out refrain, and a tired old drumbeat, king after king in Israel and Judah is identified for failing to remove the high places. Only Hezekiah removed them and only Josiah destroyed them completely.

In case you have not read Kings or Chronicles lately, each king is judged by whether he did what was right in the sight of the Lord and removed the high places. The phrase “the high places were not removed” functions like a spiritual diagnostic in Kings. Even of the kings who were not wholly evil, only two (2) of them did something about the high places that were scattered throughout the region.

I have glossed over the phrase every year that I have read through Kings and Chronicles until now. When I recognized I wasn’t exactly sure what the high places were, I took some time to lay my assumptions aside and look into it. What I found is interesting and surprisingly relevant for us today.

What Were the High Places?

The Hebrew word translated “high places” is bamot. These were worship sites, usually located on hills or mountain tops, on ridges, or sometimes even on raised platforms in cities. A typical high place might include a stone altar for sacrifices, standing stones (masseboth), wooden poles associated with goddess worship (Asherah poles), incense altars, or occasionally a sacred tree or grove.

Ancient Near Eastern people believed that worshiping on elevated places brought them closer to heaven. Thus, “high places” became a term synonymous with worship. I wonder, as I write this, whether our phrase for good worship or a good spiritual experience – a mountaintop experience – comes from the idea of “high places” (knowingly or unknowingly).

The First Reference to a High Place

The first explicit mention of a “high place” is in 1 Samuel 9. When Saul goes looking for his father’s lost donkeys and is told to seek out the prophet, Samuel, who was planning to meet the people “at the high place” for a sacrifice. They were waiting for Samuel to get there to bless the sacrifice before they ate. Saul meets Samuel on his way to the high place, and Samuel instructed Saul to go on ahead of him, to wait for him, and to eat with him. (1 Samuel 9:12–14, 19).

This first mention of a high place is interesting because it seems to carry no negative connotation. Samuel had a good reputation as a prophet who did what was right in the Lord’s eyes, and the sacrifice they enjoyed at the high place seems to have been acceptable.

Older Worship Practice

Although the term “high place” is first used in 1st Samuel, worship on high places by some of the most iconic people of God goes back much earlier. For example: Noah builds an altar after leaving the ark; Abraham builds altars at Shechem, Bethel, and Mt. Moriah; Jacob worships at Bethel, and Moses meets God and receives the Law on Mt. Sinai.

Man placing stones near a wooden ark under a cloudy sunrise in the mountains

The pattern of mountaintop worship and encounter with God is repeated and prominent. Just as noticeable, perhaps, is the absence of a negative comment about these practices. They seem to have occurred in ways that advanced relationship and covenant between God and key figures in the Old Testament. The pattern seems to have been acceptable to God, and those older mountaintop places of worship are not called “high places” (bamot).

A Change in the Worship of God

The early encounters of people with God were organic and free-flowing, but that way of relating to God changed with Moses and the Exodus. Although, Moses met with God on the top of Mt. Sinai, God changed the way people would relate to Him and worship Him going forward.

After Moses provided the blueprints from God, the Tent of Meeting (Tabernacle) was constructed to provide a place for the the Ark of the Covenant, for offering sacrifices to God, and for Moses to meet with God. The presence of God came to reside among the people over the Tent of Meeting with a visceral demonstration of fire by night and cloud by day.

Moses was instructed to consecrate the Levites, alone, to care for the Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant, to carry, assemble, and to tear down the structures when they moved, and to conduct all of the ritual sacrifices that were very carefully prescribed.

Anyone who dared to approach God, offer sacrifices, or worship in a way that was not prescribed incurred the consequence of that transgression. No one but a Levite (and Moses) could enter the Tent of Meeting or offer sacrifices, and the Levites had to follow the the detailed instructions prescribed by God or pay the price.

The Problem with High Places

When Israel entered the Promised Land of Canaan, hilltop shrines devoted to gods like Baal and Asherah were scattered throughout the area. At that time, God specifically commanded Israel to destroy the high places (bamot), saying, “You must not worship the  Lord your God in their way.” Instead, the people were instructed to “seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling.” (Deuteronomy 12:1-7).

They were warned, “You are not to do as we do here today, everyone doing as they see fit, since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance the Lord your God is giving you.” (Deut. 12:8-9) Yet, all they had was the mobile Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant, and they moved around until the Temple was built by Solomon. They were not always even in the same location.

The Transitionary Period

It was during this time frame that Samuel met Saul at “the high place.” Other people also offered sacrificed on high places during this period, despite the instruction from Moses. For instance, Joshua builds an altar on Mount Ebel after the conquest of Ai and offered sacrifices as Moses instructed them to do after crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land. (Deuteronomy 27; Joshua 8:30–35)

Stone firepit with smoldering ashes near river in natural valley landscape

Sometime later, the tribes that took the land east of the Jordan built an altar. Joshua and the western tribes prepared to go to war with their brothers, assuming that it was an unauthorized rival worship location. They relented when eastern tribes explained it was not an altar for performing sacrifices; it was a ceremonial altar meant to be a witness that they belong to Israel. (Joshua 22)

God specifically instructed Gideon to build an altar to the LORD and offer sacrifices on it after tearing down an altar his family constructed for Baal. (Judges 6) Samson’s parents built an altar and offered sacrifices in thanks to God that seems to have been acceptable, because the Angel of the LORD ascends in the flame. (Judges 13)

Samuel repeatedly participated in offering sacrifices away from the Tabernacle at Mizpah (1 Samuel 7), Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16), the high place at Ramah (1 Samuel 9) during the period when the priesthood centered at Shiloh had collapsed and the Ark and Tabernacle were no longer together. David also built several altars during this time, including an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24) where Solomon would later build the Temple.

Finally, Solomon offered sacrifices at the high place of Gibeon. In Solomon’s case the text seems to excuse the practice by stating, “[T]here was no house built for the name of the Lord.” (1 Kings 3) This seems to suggest that it was a transitional time.

Not a Hard and Fast Rule

Though God had told them to “seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling,” it didn’t seem to be a hard and fast rule after they entered the Promised Land the Temple was built.

Perhaps, this is because the issue wasn’t locational, but a matter of the heart. With “high places” for pagan worship scattered throughout the land, it was too tempting for God’s people to mix worship of Yahweh with pagan practices or outright idolatry.

After the Temple was built in Jerusalem, continuing to worship at local high places was usually viewed as disobedience to God’s command. That is why the books of Kings repeatedly evaluate rulers with statements like: “Nevertheless, the high places were not removed.” Even kings who were otherwise faithful often failed this test. Once the Temple was dedicated, the transitional period ended. From then on, the high places became symbols of covenant unfaithfulness.

The clearest passage on this theme is Deuteronomy 12, which does not merely forbid worshiping other gods on the high places—it forbids Israel from worshiping the LORD wherever they choose. They were to worship only at the place God chooses.

Notice the contrast:

  • First, Israel is commanded to destroy the Canaanite places of worship: “You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations… served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.” (Deut. 12:2)
  • Then comes the key command: “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way.” (Deut. 12:4)
  • We are to approach God on His terms: “But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose… there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices…” (Deut. 12:5–14)

This theme is repeated. Deuteronomy 16:21–22 forbids setting up sacred poles or standing stones alongside the LORD’s altar, practices commonly associated with high places. Deuteronomy 17:3–9 requires sacrifices to be brought to the tabernacle rather than offered wherever people wish. Deuteronomy 17:9–11 condemns Israel because they “built for themselves high places… and there they burned incense on all the high places.”

The point is not merely, “Don’t worship idols.” It is, “Don’t worship the LORD according to the pattern of the nations or at places you choose yourself.” In other words: the people can only worship and honor God properly on God’s terms – not on their own terms. God is God, and we are not.

The Spirit of the Law

This is the interesting part. Before the temple was built, there were periods when Israel lacked a single permanent sanctuary. During the days of Samuel and even early in the reign of Solomon, sacrifices at places like Gibeon were tolerated because that was where the tabernacle and bronze altar were located (1 Kings 3:2–4). The author of Kings even explains:, “The people were sacrificing at the high places because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD.”

Once the Temple in Jerusalem was established as the place God had chosen, however, continuing to worship at local high places became an act of disobedience. That is why the historian repeatedly criticizes otherwise good kings by saying, “The high places were not removed.”

King kneeling on a prayer rug in front of an ancient temple altar with rising smoke

Deuteronomy is teaching that true worship is defined not by human sincerity or convenience, but by God’s initiative. The temptation of the high places was to approach God on one’s own terms—at a place of one’s own choosing, often borrowing from the belief systems and practices of the surrounding culture.

The prophets continually call Israel back to worship that is shaped by God’s word rather than by human preference. This theme reaches its fulfillment in the New Testament, where worship is no longer centered on a geographic sanctuary but on Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, who becomes the true meeting “place” between God and humanity (see John 2:19–21 and 4:21–24).

Continue reading “Idolatry, the High Places, and the Modern Believer” →

Elisha, Naaman, Upended Expectations, Jesus, and God’s Grace to the Nations

Upended expectations that revolutionize our understanding of world

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Older man standing in a river washing with a cloth during sunset

The story about Naaman, the Aramean general, always seemed odd to me. It didn’t really attract my attention other than to pique my curiosity a bit, until I focused on Luke 4, describing how Jesus announced his public ministry in his hometown synagogue.

Because Jesus referenced the healing of Naaman in the context of announcing his own purpose, the story takes on new significance. The story is not just an oddity. It should command our attention for the purpose for which Jesus referenced it – related to his earthly ministry. (Luke 4:16-30)

I have written about Jesus mentioning the healing of the pagan general in Luke 4 many times since 2020 when I first became intrigued with it. The mere mention of the healing in connection with the ministry of Jesus is intriguing. The intrigue is bolstered by the reaction of his hometown synagogue – they tried to march him out to a cliff and throw him to his death! (vv.28-30)

Until recently, I had spent much time reading the story itself. The fact that Naaman was an Aramean (Syrian) general, that Jesus made a peculiar point of saying Elisha could have gone to any one in Israel with leprosy and healed them, but he healed the foreign general, seemed to stand on its own. In New Testament theology, we would say that Jesus was tipping God’s hand about salvation for the Gentiles.

We might simply check the theological box and move on, but I think there is a deeper message here.

If we put ourselves in the shoes of those first-century Jews hearing the story, it takes on new significance. They and their ancestors had been God’s people for roughly 2000 years since Abraham and 1500 years since Moses. Their outrage at the suggestion of Jesus that he might bypass God’s people and go to the Gentiles is understandable.

Scripture is rich and the story itself is worth examining in more detail. It appears in 2 Kings 5. The details of the story add more nuance in the context of Luke 4 that has application for us today. It deepens and expands the significance of Jesus mentioning it in his home town synagogue when he announced his public ministry.

Continue reading “Elisha, Naaman, Upended Expectations, Jesus, and God’s Grace to the Nations” →

The Lessons from Elisha: Foreshadowing Jesus

An examination of the differences between Elijah and Elisha

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Man in traditional robes sitting on a rock, covering face with hands, historic city with ancient buildings and Dome of the Rock in background at sunset

The contrast between the ministries of Elijah and Elisha provides insight that carries into the coming of the Messiah, the ministry of Jesus, and the New Covenant. The contrast between Elijah and Elisha is a contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. It is a contrast between an emphasis on the judgment of God and an emphasis on the grace of God and salvation.

In my ignorance, Elijah previously stood out more to me than Elisha, even though Elisha famously asked for and received a double portion of the spirit Elijah had. The spirit of Elijah passes to Elisha as seen in the miracles each of them performs. Scholars often highlight the fourteen miracles performed by Elisha versus the seven miracles performed by Elijah as an example of the double portion, but the differences between Elijah and Elisha go much deeper than that.

The character of the miracles is different. This is something I might not have noticed but for a focus on the details in the story of Elijah over the last few years. Those details led me to see some lessons from the story of Elijah that do not stand out at first blush.

Elijah was an oppositional prophet. He was the antagonist to Ahab and Jezebel. He challenged the prophets of Baal and smoked them in a fiery display of God’s power over the impotent idol (Baal) that Ahab and Jezebel worshipped.

Elijah had all the prophets of Baal slaughtered, but Jezebel was not impressed. She called for Elijah’s head, and he fled in fear. He sulked in self-absorbed pity. He complained to God that he was the only one who was faithful, and he seemed to come close to finding fault even with God for the anti-climactic outcome.

When God tried to show Elijah that God was not in great displays of power like wind, fire, and earthquake, Elijah seemed incapable or unwilling to acknowledge what God was saying. Twice God asked why Elijah ran away to Mount Sinai. Twice Elijah gave God the exact same answer.

A man in a brown cloak entering a rocky cave surrounded by moss and vegetation

Elijah protested to God that he had been zealous, and he insisted that he, alone, was faithful to God in all of Israel…. But clearly, he was not alone. Multiple times the text tells us that Obadiah was faithful; he saved 100 prophets from Jezebel’s decree of capital punishment; and God found 7000 people left who had not bowed to Baal.

Elijah seemed not just disappointed, but upset (with God?) that judgment had not rained down on Ahab and Jezebel and all of Israel. It wasn’t that judgment didn’t loom over their heads; it was that God controls the timing – not Elijah.

God told Elijah to go back and anoint Hazael king of Aram and Jehu king of Israel and to pass his mantle to Elisha. Elijah passed the mantle to Elisha but he never followed through with the other instructions God gave him.

Elijah continued in ministry even after he passed his mantle to Elisha, but he seems to take a back seat to other prophets, and he did not change his attitude. God told him to meet the messengers of the King of Israel to deliver a message. After they delivered the message to the king, the king sent them back to summon Elijah, but he smoked them by calling down fire. The king sent another envoy of messengers, and Elijah smoked them with fire also – killing 50 people at a time.

Though God told Elijah to confront the king’s messengers with his own message, the text is conspicuously silent about Elijah calling down fire on the envoys who came to summon him. The King sent a third group of messengers to summon Elijah, and this time God told him to go with them.

Now that I have spent some time meditating on the stories of the two prophets, Elijah stands out for his brashness, but Elisha stands out as the prophet who is more true to who God is. He is the one whose ministry is more characteristic of God, and his ministry stands out in the way way it bridges the narrative arc of Scripture between Old Covenant and New Covenant, from a focus on Abraham’s descendants to all the nations, from the Law of Moses to the Law of grace, love and Christ.

Elisha signals the change from the old covenant to the new covenant. Elisha points the the direction that the arc and sweep of Scripture will take us. Elisha is the link in this point in the narrative to God’s ultimate plans and purposes in the world.

Continue reading “The Lessons from Elisha: Foreshadowing Jesus” →