A Study in Judging

12 Angry Men: A Study in Judging

John C. Carroll

Williams Jessup University/ Wilson University

12 Angry Men: A Study in Judging 

Introduction 

            The purpose of this assignment is to convince you why you should engage with a favorite creative work. The chosen creative work is a classic film—12 Angry Men. I will examine the way we as humans allow our biases to cause us to judge others. Since how we judge others affects everyone, everyone should watch this epic presentation of human prejudices. In seeing this story unfold, we may come to see ourselves and our bigotry. It may be easier to admit that we have these tendencies when a film points them out rather than a friend or foe.

Case Deconstruction

            Shortly after everyone arrived in the courtroom, the jurors took a public vote to see where everyone stood on the verdict. The first vote was 11-1 in favor of conviction. Juror #8 (Lemmon 1997) was the lone dissenter. The tension escalated immediately. The other jurors demonstrated a combination of irritation, condescension, and anger. 

            Because of the limitations of length, this paper must be selective in the examples that it uses. Therefore, it will profile a few of the key characters to show how we are often like them when we judge others. 12 Angry Men shows a range of human nature in its jurors. One of the noble things about the jurors is that none of them allowed their biases or motives to prevent the jury from reaching a unanimous and accurate decision. 

            All of the jurors were powerful in their way. But a few were outstanding to me. Some were extraordinary examples of good, and others were equal examples of bad. Juror #8, which is the central character in the cast, is the best of humanity. He did not have a bias either for or against the accused. He simply did not want to sentence a man to death without being as certain as possible of his guilt. Operating from his moral core, he took on an entire jury room to pursue justice. He was unphased by the criticism. We all want to think that we are juror #8 when we are judging others. The reality is that we rarely are that honest in how we judge others. 

Juror #10 is the worst of humanity represented in this film. He was a racist. He wanted the kid to be guilty simply because he was Puerto Rican. He hated their kind. Towards the climax of the case, juror #8 asked, “#10, do you think he’s guilty?” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Juror #10 responded, “Yes, I think he’s guilty. But I couldn’t care less. You smart bastards, you do whatever you want” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Juror #8 then asked, “How do you vote?” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Juror #10 said, “I vote, not guilty” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Even juror #3, who was the last holdout, agreed that juror #10 was the “worst son of a” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Of course, #3 had his vendetta motivating his opinion against #10. 

            #10 had no moral core; he only had a racist agenda. And when he saw his agenda was defeated, he surrendered. This person can never be a trusted ally. They are only with you so long as your cause benefits them. Like in the case, #10 only voted with #8 because he knew that his racism disgusted the rest of the room. #3 found out that a #10 kind of person will abandon you, even if they agree with you if your mutual battle can no longer be won. 

            We all know this person, whether in a past or the present situation. That person has judged you in your church, in your school, or on your job. They didn’t like you because of a characteristic beyond your control. And when they got the opportunity to convict you, they tried. The primary lesson to learn from this kind of person is not to be them. When we get the chance to judge others, we must overcome our prejudices against them. Better yet, we should eliminate the prejudices in our hearts before we have the opportunity to judge anyone. 

Juror #3 started by saying, “Okay, here’s what I think. And I have no personal feelings at all. I’m talking facts” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). As the production progressed, it became evident that the exact opposite was true. Personal feelings were the sole motivator in his desire to see a guilty verdict. He saw the victim as his son who would have nothing to do with him. And the facts were details he wanted to manipulate to convict his son vicariously through a stranger. 

Juror #3 is the classic case of protesting too much. Call me cynical, but I am always skeptical when people attempt to convince me of their absolute integrity and virtue in a matter. I have seen it turn out the opposite in almost every case. When people are acting with integrity toward you, their actions will do the talking. Maybe I am just a pot calling kettles black. 

 Juror #7 was just annoyed by the whole process. The most important thing on his mind was getting to the Yankees game. And he would vote whatever way that would make that happen the quickest. He cared more about his comfort and convenience than whether or not an innocent person may get the death penalty. He was self-absorbed. Truth, justice, and the value of human life were inconveniences to his entertainment. 

We all know the person that thinks everything in the world should revolve around them. They do not care what happens to anyone else as long as their life goes as planned. The smallest thing in their life is more important than the biggest thing is your life. Perhaps the truth is that we all know that person from the mirror. 

Why You Should Watch It? 

            This section will present three reasons why people should watch 12 Angry Men. The first argument is one that will appeal only to religious people. However, arguments two and three should appeal to everyone. After finishing this paper, a person who has social awareness will be interested in watching this movie. 

It Portrays a Biblical Principle

            Judging in a legal manner is a theological thread that runs throughout the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16). God’s assembly—both in the Old and New Testaments—have been people of judgment (1 Corinthians 6:1-7). There was an office of judges in Israel (Acts 13:20). The book of Judges is in the Old Testament. Therefore, judgment, guilt, and innocence are central to a convent community.

            While the system of justice portrayed in 12 Angry Men is not the same as that in Scripture, the principle of desiring just outcomes and not letting personal agendas cloud our judgment is shared.  

We Have All Been Judged 

             Everyone should watch this film because we have all been judged by others. We need to understand that when people misjudge us that it is usually about something broken in them. We also need to know that even though the evidence at times may make us look guilty, that there are people in the world that are willing to defend us regardless of the pressure that others place on them. Not everyone is out to get us. And even if they think we are guilty in the beginning, they are honest enough to change their minds when presented with a proper presentation of the facts. 

We Will All Judge Someone 

            Lastly, everyone should watch this film because we will all have the opportunity to hold someone’s future in our hands. It may be in a church, work, or family setting, but we will all have the opportunity to judge someone. Use 12 Angry Men as an example of the kind of juror you will be. Do not be a #3, a #7, or a #10; be a #8. We should be the kind of person that will judge others the way that we would want others to judge us. 

            We must require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before you decide someone is guilty. As in the case of the accused, their very life could depend on it. Maybe not their physical life, but an accusation can take a person’s career, family, and reputation from them. And to do that to someone, we must be confident they deserve it. 

Summary

            Everyone should watch this movie as a matter of self-reflection. What kind of people do we want to be as a society, a community, or a church? We will be those who defend our fellows, even when they may be a stranger to us. We will be those who will defend others, even when our personal biases would prefer a different outcome. Together, let us judge fairly. 

Reference 

Donnelly, T. A. (Producer), & Friedkin, W. (Director). (1997). 12 angry men. [Motion picture]. USA: MGM Television 

What is the Value Added?

There are several schools of thought about religious traditions among us Oneness Pentecostals. The two extremes are that all man-made traditions are self-righteous, or that we should seek to preserve our traditions on the level of Scripture. Both of these extremes are wrong. But I do have a question to ask about our traditions. What are some of the traditions about which I am speaking? I am talking about things like facial hair, movies, sleeve length, etc. What value does seeking to preserve our extra-biblical traditions at all cost add to the body of Christ? That is what the rest of this blog will discuss.

What Value Does it Add to Our View of God?
The issue of traditions directly affects our view of God. The first concern for a Christian ought to be, "Will seeing things the way I do distort or clarify my view of God?" And anything that does not portray God as he has revealed himself to us in scripture is a distortion of who he is. You may be asking, "How do extra-biblical traditions distort one's view of God?" I will try to explain.

When we add to God's commandments, it makes God appear harsher than what he really is. Adding to God's commandment distorted Adam and Eve's view of God in the garden. Eve claimed that God said they could not "touch" the tree in the midst of the garden (Genesis 3.3). But God had only said that they could not eat from the tree (Genesis 2.16-17). Furthermore, the punishment for eating it was death. I am not certain who made the prohibition more strict than what God did. It seems to be the natural human tendency when in a relationship with God, to improve on what God said.

Commanding not to touch the fruit seems like a wise idea to prevent eating it. Because if you cannot touch it, then you cannot eat it. But it is not what God said. Eve attached the same punishment to touching the fruit as God did to eating it—death (Genesis 3.3). Here is the crux of the matter. When they touched it, they did not die. See there, we touched it and nothing happened. If we can touch it and nothing happens, then we can eat it and nothing will happen. We often create human commandments and equate them with God's commandments. So, when people violate our commandments and nothing happens, they often proceed to break God's commandments.

What Value Does it Add to Our View of Scripture?
Like in the above section, the issue of traditions will affect our view of Scripture. What do our traditions do to how we and the people we teach see Scripture? It taints it. When we choose when we can add to or take away from Scripture, then we set ourselves above Scripture. Our traditions add no value to the word of God, it only takes away from it.

Summary

When we go beyond scripture, we do tremendous damage to the conscience. We distort God and his word. We need a revival of letting God say what God has said without adding to it. When we insist on our traditions, we reject the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. And to do so is not Apostolic. 

Handling Pharisees Jesus-Style Part 1

This blog is a result of several conversations colliding at this moment on the calendar. Too often I have lost moments like these because I let them pass without writing them. Not today, Satan! It all began with a conversation with my cousin, Aaron Cirilo. He has a way of phrasing a concept that always resonates with me. He made the statement: "The self-righteous are always easy on themselves and hard on others. The righteous are hard on themselves and easy on others." Epic, I know. There were other conversations that will go unmentioned. 

Then I began reading John 8 in search of some answers from the Lord about a mentality that every Christian struggles with at some point. Pharisaism is that mentality. I struggle with it. The reality is that it makes me the most uncomfortable when it is being used against me, and not when I am using it against others. Which convicted me even as I wrote it. What am about write applies to everyone—including myself. And perhaps me writing this makes me the ultimate Pharisee. I am reflecting on the way that I treat others as I write this piece. 

We all dislike Pharisees theoretically. But how are we to handle them? The way we tend to handle them is with as much condemnation and judgment as they give to everyone else. But is that the proper way? With this blog, I am beginning an exploration of how Jesus handled Pharisees. Can anyone question the wisdom with which Jesus handled Pharisees? I want to follow his example.  

In John 8, the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus whom they caught in the very act (4). Her guilt is not a question. Neither she nor Jesus attempted to say that the Pharisees were mistaken in their accusations. She did it. But the behavior of the Pharisees leads to a lot of questions. Where was the man that she was with? She did not commit adultery alone. Were they covering for him? If they were,  then why were they covering for him. What did he know about them? So many questions that I would have loved to have been there to ask. But that is how I would have treated Pharisees. How did Jesus treat Pharisees? I must make the point here that Jesus is not just for the people who are accused falsely of bad things. Jesus loves, forgives and restores people who are accused rightfully of bad things. 

The Pharisees were not actually concerned about the woman or her sin. They were using here a political pawn attack Jesus (5-6). They were checking to see if Jesus would keep their laws and traditions. Pharisees will play games with people's lived for their personal agendas. They even have the audacity to do it with sins in their lives. That is why they are not only Pharisees, but also hypocrites. 

How did Jesus handle the Pharisees in the case of the adulterous woman? His first response was to act like he could hear them (6). I did hear what they were saying, but he did not affirm their accusations. He did not probe for details. He ignored them. Blocking out the voices of Pharisees is how Jesus handles them. I will not validate their arguments by trying to argue with them. Pharisees love that attention. Refuse to give it to them. 

But in normal Pharisaical fashion, they would not shut up. When Jesus finally engaged them, notice how he did it. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (7). They were convicted by their consciences (9). Jesus did not air out their sins, even though he could have. The private court of their conscience convicted them. He focused on their private sins, not her public sins. Jesus was way more concerned with what they were hiding than what they were revealing. They were exposing someone else's sins while hiding many of their own. We, like the Pharisees, are comfortable with people who hid their sins but judge others. Jesus is just the opposite. Jesus handled Pharisees by making them reflect on their own sinfulness. How should we handle Pharisees? We should not validate their accusations, but cause them to reflect on their own morality. 

Ultimately, Jesus did whatever he had to do to rescue people from the poison of Pharisees. And so should we. Jesus refused to hand over even the guilty to others who were also guilty. Todd Nance preached a memorable message called, "When Grace Judges Your Sin." You do not want Pharisees judging you. You want grace judging you. 

Pauline Leadership

This is an assignment I submitted for a leadership class I just finished. Thought I would share. 

Pauline Leadership

Introduction

            Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). He wrote twenty-three percent of the New Testament—excluding the disputed book of Hebrews (“Who Wrote Most?,” 2014). His thirteen books are the most of any author. However, Luke wrote twenty-seven percent of the New Testament when you count the number of words written (“Who Wrote Most?,” 2014). By any definition, Paul wrote a substantial portion of the New Testament.  

            The information stated above is the Paul on which we usually focus. However, there was also the pre-Christian Paul. We are introduced to him for the first time in Acts 7:58 under his Jewish name, Saul. He was holding the coats of them that stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58). Luke said that Saul, “made havock of the church” (Acts 8:3). However, by the grace of God, Paul went from the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15) to an apostle. It is suggested that Paul personally started over twenty churches (Cole, 2011). Paul’s leadership was world-changing. His work and writings have shaped how we see Christianity. 

Paul’s Strengths and Weakness

Paul Strengths 

            A prolific apologist. That Paul is the premier apologist of Christianity is barely contested. The term apologetics comes from the Greek word, apologia. It seems like we draw apologia from I Peter 3:15 most frequently. But there is a great Pauline passage where apologia appears. Paul stated that he was “set for the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17, King James Version). The word for defense is apologia. Paul was an apologist. Being an apologist is important to leadership in that if one is going to be a great leader, then they must be able to communicate the core beliefs of the community. 

            The Mars Hill message.One of the most popular Pauline apologies was on Mars Hill (Acts 17:16-32). Paul argued the resurrection before the Athenian supreme court at Areopagus. He argued so effectively that he even converted Dionysius, one of the judges of the court. Paul understood that persuasion was the goal of preaching (2 Corinthians 5:11). And he was great at it. 

            The Agrippa Apology. Paul represented himself before King Agrippa (Acts 26). He provided an apology of his theology of the resurrection. The events here fulfilled the prophecy from his conversion that he would preach before kings (Acts 9:15). While he was unsuccessful at converting the king, few preachers are so effective at preaching the gospel that they appear before such men. And he was so good at providing defenses, that he would have exonerated himself had he not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:32). 

            A fearless fighter.  Paul was a fighter (II Timothy 4:7). I will discuss the other side of this Pauline quality in the section about his weakness. The bad side of being a fighter is that one can sometimes turn it against the wrong people. And Paul sometimes did. However, leaders need to be fighters—and Paul was. Galatians was Paul fighting at his best. He was fighting against the Judaizers and for the Gentile Christians. Every congregation needs to know that their under-shepherd will fight for them like David defending his flock against bears, lions, and giants (I Samuel 17:34-36). 

            A Loving Pastor. Paul loved deeply the people he oversaw. Paul compared himself to a mother on a couple of occasions to demonstrate how he cared for the churches. He said that he was as gentle as a nursing mother (I Thessalonians 2:7). And Paul compared his love to that of a mother travailing in birth (Galatians 4:19). Every leader must be loving. 

Paul’s Weaknesses 

            Admittedly, finding weaknesses in Paul’s leadership is more difficult than it would have been for David’s leadership. Therefore, I chose Paul. As Apostolics, we glorify the Apostles to the point that it feels blasphemous to suggest that they were anything less than perfect down to every emotion they had. However, maintaining that sort of romanticized memory of them is both inaccurate and unhealthy. It is inaccurate because it is not how Scripture portrays them. And it is unhealthy because it sets the leadership standard at an unattainable level. Therefore, the following three areas are places where Paul had propensities that could be a liability—especially if left unchecked. 

The temper from Tarsus. Throughout Paul’s writings,one can see flashes of anger. Paul said some harsh things in his letters. Sometimes his temper manifests as being argumentative, and other times as being sarcastic. I identify with Paul because I too am sarcastic and argumentative.

The arguing apostle. The New Testament painted Paul as argumentative. The contention here is that there were times when Paul was right to argue, but there were times when he might have been better served not to argue. In an earlier section, we discussed Pauline apologetics. Apologetics is a proper place to argue with “meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). Paul frequently argued with the Jews in their synagogues (Acts 17:1-2). Paul argued with superstitious pagans on Mars Hill (Act 17:16-34). However, that is not where his argumentation ended.

Paul also argued with other preachers. There was the fellowship-ending fight between him and Barnabas about Mark (Acts 15:36-41). The argument was because Paul refused to give John Mark a second chance at the ministry. Later Paul admitted to being wrong about Mark (II Timothy 4:11). Then there was another argument in Antioch involving Paul and Barnabas (Galatians 2:11-14). This time it was over Peter and other Jewish brethren’s treatment of Gentile Christians concerning dietary laws. Paul had an open argument with Peter in front of everyone. Paul told how Peter had been eating like a Gentile until certain of James’ delegates came around (Galatians 2:11-4). The point here is that Paul seemed to argue a lot. The lesson that we should learn from this is that it is easy to turn an apologetic against falsehood into an attack against my fellowship. 

The sarcastic apostle. Paul not only liked to argue, but he also had a sharp tongue. He employed various literary devices as word weapons again his opponents. I am using the term sarcasm as a synecdoche for all caustic forms of speech. Galatians contains one of Paul more cutting comments (pun intended). Paul said about the Judaizers: “I would they were even cut off which trouble you” (Galatians 5:12). Another translation puts it better: “I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12, English Standard Version). Paul responded to the Judaizer’s insistence that Gentiles be circumcised by saying that he wished they would cut off not only their foreskin, but their entire member. If you are so into cutting stuff, then you should go all the way. 

There are numerous examples of Paul’s sharp tongue in 1 Corinthians. There are several texts where Paul used the term “what” where he was seething (1 Corinthians 6:16, 19; 11:22; 14:36). Paul called people fools (1 Corinthians 15:36). One could provide many other examples of Paul’s tongue lashings. The point here is not to say that Paul’s combined used of sarcasm, temper, and wit was wrong. But likely it would be a hindrance to a contemporary leader if he were to try artificially to emulate Paul’s use of language. 

Personal Insecurity. Paul also struggled with insecurity. Or so it seems by modern standards. Paul frequently and obsessively defended himself and his ministerial resume. Paul went so far as to say that he had more reason to boast in his flesh than any other man (Philippians 3:4). He praised himself as being the ultimate Hebrew (Philippians 3:5), and as having performed perfectly the righteousness of the law (Philippians 3:6). In the context, Paul was saying I am not going to brag, but if I did here is what I would say. He was comparing himself to his detractors whom he called “dogs” and “evil workers” (Philippians 3:2, King James Version). For the man who commanded the Corinthians not to compare themselves among themselves because it was unwise (2 Corinthians 10:12), he often compared himself to others. The text here in Philippians 3 is not an isolated example. He defended himself and called his detractors names often. Perhaps Paul needed to do what he did for that circumstance and time. However, it is not a leadership style that we need to imitate. 

            Blind Loyalty to Mission. Every leader appreciates and expects loyalty. We love people who are sold out to the mission of a church or corporation. But Paul had the propensity to go after his mission at all cost. Even if pursuing the mission meant doing and justifying immoral behavior. The following two sections will show that Paul’s modus operandi was a blind pursuit of the mission to a fault. 

            The Pre-conversion Paul.While still a Pharisee, Paul was zealous for Jewish traditions, and not just the Law of Moses (Galatians 1:14). He was so determined to defend Judaism that he imprisoned and executed Christians (Acts 9:1-2; 26:10-11). Paul’s passion propelled him beyond what the Law demanded of him. His goal was to exterminate the name of Christ and all his Christians by any means necessary. 

            The Post-conversion Paul.While Paul did not murder people who did not accept Christianity, he was still the same mission-driven personality. He had the same passion for propagating the gospel as he did Judaism (Acts 9:15-25). The Holy Spirit warned Paul repeatedly not to got to Jerusalem, yet he was determined to go (Acts 21:4, 11). He was imprisoned in Jerusalem and transported from there to Rome where he was martyred. For Paul, it was all or nothing. 

Paul’s Priorities

Instrumental Values 

            Paul was logical. Paul was logical. Therefore, he was the consummate defender of the gospel (Philippians 1:17). The word for defense comes from the Greek, apologia. Apologists give reasons for their positions (1 Peter 3:5). An apology necessarily requires logic. So Paul reasoned habitually with non-Christians (Acts 17:2). 

            Paul was loving. Paul was a loving pastor as stated in a previous section. He told the Corinthians: “Our mouth is opened unto you, our heart is enlarged” (II Corinthians 6:11). Paul suffered from a love condition called an enlarged heart. Unlike the medical condition of the same name, it is a good thing to have. 

            Paul was intellectual.Paul’s intellect was unparalleled in the New Testament. He was educated in the school of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He said that he was “thoroughly trained in the law” (Acts 22:3, New International Version). His intellect was second to no one. 

Terminal Values 

            The following are the terminal values that most stood out to me. 

            An exciting life. Without a doubt, Paul lived one of the most exciting lives in the New Testament. 2 Corinthians 11:23-28 gives a list of some of the major activities of Paul’s life. Nothing about his life was boring or mundane. Paul’s ministry began in epic fashion (Acts 9). If tradition is true, then his ministry ended just as epically. He was beheaded (Sanders, 2019). The Pauline plot is the thing of which award-winning dramatic movies are made. 

            A sense of accomplishment. If the ultimate sense of accomplishment is the peace one has in passing, then Paul had the ultimate fulfillment. In the end, Paul said, “I am now ready to be offered” (II Timothy 4:6, King James Version). My father preached a message from this text that he called, “Looking Back With No Regrets.” What a perfect summation of Paul’s life. 

            Equality. Paul believed in the equality of believers. He argued that all Christians are under the one Lord (Romans 10:12). He applied Christian equality to economics, ethnicity, and gender (Galatians 3:28). Paul preached the only true equality—equality in Christ. 

Paul’s Primary Leadership Style 

            Hybels (1998) said about visionaries and their vision: “They talk about it, write about it.” If this is true, then Paul’s primary leadership style was visionary. One could make an argument that Paul exhibited all of the leadership styles discussed in this class. However, the way that I conceptualize Paul is he was first a visionary. Discussing Paul’s visionary leadership is a broad topic. So I will be isolating my comments to some statements from Ephesians. Paul wanted the Ephesians to have their eyes of understanding opened so that they would know the hope of their calling (Ephesians 1:18). Their hope went beyond this world to the world to come (Ephesians 1:21). Paul pushed for saints to see the ultimate purpose of their Christianity. 

            By definition, Paul’s resurrection apologetic was future focused. Paul fought for the future. He fought for a righteous crown which he, and all Christians, will receive at Christ’s coming (II Timothy 4:8). Everything about Paul’s life was visionary. 

Paul’s Spiritual Disciplines 

            Paul exhibited great spiritual disciplines. Firstly, he read the scriptures. He exhorted Timothy to study so that he could rightly divide the word (II Timothy 2:15). But not only did he tell others to study and read scripture, but he also did it himself. When requesting what he wanted Timothy to bring to him in prison, Paul asked for a cloak, books, but especially the parchments (II Timothy 4:13). The Scriptures were as important to Paul as the clothes on his back. 

            Not only did Paul love the Scriptures, but Paul was also powerful in prayer. Paul spoke about “groanings which cannot be uttered” (Romans 8:26). He said that he would not only pray with understanding, but that he would also pray with the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:15). Furthermore, much of Paul’s writings were prayers. Ephesians 1:16 introduces one of his most prolific prayers.

            While Paul did exercise all the spiritual disciplines, the ones that are the most prominent to me are his dedication to the Scriptures and prayer. Without a doubt these two spiritual disciplines are essential to every church leader.  

Paul’s Interaction with Spiritual Authorities 

            No place better describes Paul interaction with spiritual authority than the following text: “And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6, English Standard Version). Paul was unimpressed with influential people. What they were made no difference to him. He, like God, showed no partiality.

            No matter what certain influential people thought, Paul did what he knew he was called to do. He heard the voice of God on the Damascus road, and that was all he needed. He appreciated the fact that James, Cephas (Peter), and John validated his ministry (Galatians 2:9). Even then, he opposed Cephas in front of everyone on the issue of eating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). Moreover, Peter’s resume was much older than Paul’s. As we would say, “Paul rebuked one of his elders.” The way Paul interacted with spiritual authority was that he respected them insomuch as they walked “in step” with his calling and revelation of the gospel (Galatians 2:14).  

Two Leadership and Followership Traits

Leadership Traits

                        The following leadership traits come from “Contrasting Managing and Leading” (Bliss & Associates, n.d.). As you will see, Paul certainly exhibited key leadership traits.

            Empowering. Paul was an empowering leader.  Perhaps Timothy was the most popular person that Paul empowered for ministry. But there were others who were nameless, including women (Philippians 4:3). Paul named Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, and Lucas as fellow-laborers (Philippians 1:24). 

            Communication. I do not know what greater proof one could offer for Paul’s communication prowess than the thirteen New Testament letters he wrote. Or fourteen, if one includes Hebrews. Paul’s penmanship, polemics, preaching speak for itself. 

Followership Traits 

            McCallum (2013) said, “The flip side of leadership is followership. It stands to reason that if leadership is important to performance, followership must have something to do with it too.” The following sections will argue that not only was Paul a great leader, but he was also a great follower. 

            Paul’s work ethic. McCallum (2013) listed work ethic as a followership trait. Paul had a tremendous theology of work. He connected the right to eat to whether or not one works (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The relationship between working and eating goes all the way back to the beginning (Genesis 3:19). Paul lived out that work ethic as he viewed preaching as labor (Philippians 4:3; I Timothy 5:17). He had a low tolerance for people who did not have the same work ethic as he did. On this basis, Paul had a falling out with Barnabas because of Mark’s lack of commitment to work (Acts 15:38). 

            Paul’s competence. McCallum (2013) also listed competence as a necessary followership trait. Paul’s competence was unmatched in the New Testament. Paul was educated in the school of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He was climbing the religious ladder rapidly and was advancing past many of his peers (Galatians 1:14). Paul had a long record of competence in Judaism that continued his whole Christian life. 

Three Luv Characteristics 

Tough Love 

Blanchard and Barrett (2011) said, “I think sometimes the most loving thing you can do is to be straight with People (sic) when they are getting off course.” Paul certainly knew how to give tough love. The Galatians thought he was their enemy because he gave them tough love (Galatians 4:16). Paul said what was needed to be said even if it offended the hearers. 

Servant Leadership

            “Servant leadership is love in action (Blanchard & Barrett, 2011). Paul called himself a servant (Romans 1:1). He had loving jealousy to present the Corinthians to Christ as a chaste virgin (II Corinthians 11:2). Everything Paul did was because of his daily care for the churches (II Corinthians 11:28). The saints were his life. 

Celebrating Successes  

            Blanchard and Barrett (2011) led with love by celebrating successes. Paul did the same with the Thessalonians. He praised them because their faith in God was known worldwide (1 Thessalonians 1:8). Paul really did know how to give a compliment. 

Paul’s Purpose and Passion

            Paul stated that he was called from his mother’s womb to preach the gospel (Galatians 1:15-16). Preaching was his purpose. Not only was preaching his purpose, but it was also his passion. He made some strong statements about preaching. He was so passionate about preaching that he was ready to preach the gospel in Rome knowing that he would die there (Romans 1:15). Paul gladly preached the gospel in the face of mockery and rejection (I Corinthians 1:23). He preached the gospel under the most severe of life situations (II Corinthians 11:23-28). Only the person who is passionate can preach through Paul’s predicaments. He viewed being a preacher as parallel to serving in the military (II Timothy 2:3). No one in history, Jesus excepted, has preached the gospel with more passion than Paul. The driving passion of Paul’s preaching was to reveal the eternal purpose of God in Christ to the church (Ephesians 3).

Personal Reflection 

            Assignment two was a reminder of how I had lost consistency in my daily devotions. I read something daily, but it is not always the Bible. I know that reading books about the Bible is no substitute for reading the Bible. This class has made me aware of that. Consequently, I am making the appropriate changes. 

            Furthermore, I am tracking my prayer time for personal accountability. I use the stopwatch function on my clock application. I only start it while I am doing focused prayer. I talk to God often throughout the day with a few sentences. I do not count those in my time. It is so easy to get caught up working for God that you do not walk with God. Prayer always makes me wonder why I do not do it more. I can feel the difference in every area of my life when I have not prayed. 

            This class has renewed my commitment to spiritual disciplines. Assignment two was both discouraging and motivating. The discouragement has passed, and motivation is now the primary factor. I know that I cannot lead myself, the church that I pastor, or the marriage that I am about to enter without consistent spirituality. For this reason, this class has been of immeasurable value.

Appendix A

Paul’s Leadership:

Leadership Strengths	Leadership Weaknesses	Instrumental Values	End/Terminal Values
Strength #1: Paul was an apologist.	Weakness #1: Paul had a temper.	Value #1: Paul was logical.	Value #1: Paul had a sense of accomplishment.
Scripture Reference #1: Philippians 1:17	Scripture Reference #1: Galatians 5:12	Scripture Reference #1: Philippians 1:17	Scripture Reference #1: II Timothy 4:6-8.
Strength #2: Paul was a fighter.	Weakness #2: Paul was insecure.	Value #2: Paul was intellectual.	Value #2: Paul believed in equality.
Scripture Reference #2: II Timothy 4:7	Scripture Reference #2: II Corinthians 11. Paul was defending his apostleship constantly.	Scripture Reference #2: Acts 22:3	Scripture Reference #2: Romans 10:12
Strength #3: Paul was a loving pastor.	Weakness #3: Blind loyalty to the mission.	Value #3: Paul was loving.	Value #3: Paul lived and exciting life.
Scripture Reference #3: Galatians 4:19; I Thessalonians 2:7	Scripture Reference #3: Acts 9:1-2	Scripture Reference #3: II Corinthians 6:11	Scripture Reference #3: II Corinthians 11:23-28

Appendix B

Paul’s Timeline:

Reference 

Blanchard, K., & Barrett, C. (2011). Lead with luv: A different way to create real success.[Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com 

Bliss and Associates Inc. (n.d.). Contrasting managing and leading. Retrieved from http://jessup.mrooms.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=346742

Cole, N. (2011, October 3). So how many churches did the apostle Paul start?Retrieved from https://www.cmaresources.org/article/how-many-churches-paul-started_neil-cole

Hybels, B. (1998, January 1). Finding your leadership style: Ten different ways to lead God’s people. Retrieved from http://jessup.mrooms.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=346695

McCallum, J. (2013, September/October). Followership: The other side of leadership. Retrieved from http://jessup.mrooms.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=346757

Sanders, E.P. (2019, April 1). St. Paul the apostle. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Paul-the-Apostle

Who Wrote Most of the New Testament? (2014, May 3). Retrieved from https://apologika.blogspot.com/2014/05/who-wrote-most-of-new-testament.html

An Invitation to go on the Record

An Invitation to Go on the Record

Introduction

            Pastor Phil Endris and I recently released a video on Forward Talk entitled, “We are Going on the Record.” The purpose of the video was to highlight a few reasons that we as the church and ministers should go on the record (click here to view that episode). The purpose of this blog is not to restate the reasons that we think that Christians should go on the record with their views. Rather, I am writing this blog to encourage others to go on the record in response to any of the Forward Talk videos, or to my personal writings or teaching. 

            CLARIFICATION: Allow me to make the clarification that I am writing this blog solely as John Carroll and not as Forward Talk. I am not writing on behalf of pastor Phil Endris.

The Invitation

            What do I mean by an invitation for you to go on the record? I mean that I am inviting you to take the opportunity to utilize any of the technologies available to you to respond to Forward Talk or to my personal content. Anyone may utilize YouTube, blogs or various other tools to respond to our published material?

            Why would I invite such a critique? I get almost weekly feedback from preachers in the form of phone calls, texts or social media saying that there is someone on a closed forum that is attempting to dismiss what you are saying. Furthermore, it is the rare occasion that a dissenter will contact me directly. The only preacher that consistently does it is pastor Steve Epley. A couple of others have done it on isolated occasions. 

            What I would love to see is some of the people who like to do remote keyboard strikes as they drone from behind the privacy of a closed preacher’s forum go on the record as I have. Even worse are those who deliver weak attacks cloaked in concern in private conversations where no record of their comments exists at all. Some fear that this open dialogue will cause division. I argue strongly that going on the record will cause no more division that we are currently experiencing as a result of private slander. The positive side of going on the record with our brotherly critiques is that the person being critiqued can actually clarify misunderstandings. It is exactly this level of transparency that the anonymous gossiping preacher resists at all cost. 

            It is no secret to those who are familiar with my work, that I taught a series on divorce and remarriage in early 2018. I have had many screenshots sent to me from various private forums where conversations were being had about my argument. There have been some men that have had very severe things to say about me and what I have taught—including calling me a false prophet. I did what no one has done in response, I went on the record. I have asked repeatedly that someone produce a video response to my material. I have asked that someone present a written critique of the arguments. So far, no one has made any serious attempt at responding to my points. Or at least no one has done it publicly. 

            Let me state clearly, I am inviting anyone to respond to my divorce or remarriage series. The body of Christ needs to see the ministry have respectful, public discourse. If anyone should respond on the record to my material, then I would respond again in kind. The sole point of this blog is to invite conversation which is so important to the body of Christ. 

As always, leave your feedback—on the record

A Surprising Consequence of Divorce Part 1

There are many consequences of divorce. Many of them are negative and traumatic. Contrary to some, I do not think that every consequence of every divorce is negative. I understand fully that my views on divorce and remarriage are controversial. And I am comfortable with that. 

I have experienced a shocking and unexpected consequence from my divorce. When my ex-wife and I divorced it was life-changing. I experienced deep depression and many other negative responses. Nothing about it was fun. It was by far the worst experience of my life. 

However, there have been some good things come from my divorce. It changed how I view fellowship. More specifically, it changed how I view disfellowship. Because losing my marriage was the most painful relationship loss that I will ever experience, the threat of a preacher friend walking away from me holds much less power over me than it did in the past. For much of my ministry, I have lived in constant fear of pleasing the brethren. While walking in harmony with godly men is noble, walking contrary to one's faith and conscience to please men is not. 

The political pressures of Pentecost seem small to me after the loss of my family. The threat does not work. The fear of the consequences of Pentecostal politics does not paralyze me.  I hurt for friends who have not experienced the depth of loss that I have when I see them struggle with being who they are because of preachers and politics. I want so bad for them to know that the greatest relationships that they will ever have fall asleep under their roof every night. And the second greatest category of relationship they will ever have are the people that God has blessed them to pastor. 

I ask every pastor that reads this blog to reconsider your priorities. Put your family and the congregation you oversee first. Then allow God to put organic relationships in your life that fit the vision God has for your family—including your church family. Don't subject what God is doing locally to someone a thousand miles away (in many cases). There is no one that you only see a few times a year at a conference worth giving that much power in your life. The people that have that kind of sway in your life should be few and selected carefully. 

I do not, and will not, build my life around fellowships, movements or organizations. I build my life around the relationships that God places in my life to forward his agenda for me. And those people will be loyal to individuals and not institutions. I fear for good reason relationships that are dependent on human systems. I fear them because of how they have treated me and the people with whom I am the closest. 

I am fiercely loyal. I will admit that I may even be loyal to a fault. I may stick with people too long. But I am loyal and I value loyalty wherever I see it. 

As always, comment even if you disagree. 

Redemption During and After Divorce

In my last post I wrote about what I hate about divorce. In this post I want to write more redemptively. While Christians should always try to avoid divorce, there are redemptive things that can result from it. I am not suggesting that the things I am about the reference cannot be accomplished in marriage. But sadly they too often are not. So, if you are divorced, it is not the end of the world. Your life is not over. The following are some positive things that can result from divorce:

• One can recover their true identity in Christ. Too often married people have unhealthy identity issues with their spouses. 
• One learns to trust God solely. 
• No relationship loss after divorce will every be more painful or life-altering. 
• Many times God will restore one's life with a marriage that is God-honoring and fulfilling. 

No doubt there are many other results that could be noted. But these will suffice for the present purpose. If you know someone who is divorced, or is going through a divorce, please share this with them. It may be the grace and hope that they need. 

I Hate Divorce Too

It is no secret that I have gone through a divorce. In conversations on this topic, people often say to me, "God hates divorce." The aforementioned phrase is a quote—more or less—of Malachi 2.16. Often it feels as if people use this phrase to insinuate that those who allow for divorce and remarriage in certain cases do not hate divorce. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. 

I was reminded of above truth again this evening as I talked about divorce with a friend whose parents are divorced. Divorce doesn't just hurt the spouses; it hurts the children too. My friend and I both agreed that we hate divorce. He recounted his story about his parents in a way that saddened me deeply. Our conversation reminded me once again of the tragic consequences of a fallen world. 

I sat recently at a conference table filled with preachers. The topic of divorce came up and at least one preacher referenced Malachi 2.16. My response was that as the only divorced preacher at the table that I hate divorce more than all of them combined. The point of this post is simply to say that no one hates divorce more than those who have experienced it. I insist that it is impossible for a person who is still happily married to their first spouse to hate divorce more than me. Or any normal person who has survived divorce. 

I know no one who is pro-divorce. I know no one who went into a marriage hoping that it would fail. Certainly, no true Christian would. What do I hate about divorce?:

• I hate the human brokenness that produces it. 
• I hate the pain of separation that results from it for all parties involved. 
• I hate the isolation, suspicion and calloused judgment that sometimes comes from fellow Christians. 
• I hate the loneliness that follows it. 

In a subsequent post, I am going to write about the redemption that is possible after divorce. 

First World Fellowship

For many preachers, fellowships can be frustrating. The frustrations of fellowships are not limited to organizations. A person is certainly not free from the frustrations as an independent preacher. It can be discouraging to watch the politics involved between local churches and between national churches. Perhaps the most notable thing about it all is the pettiness. When two men's teachings have 90% or more in common, and they still manage to find some small thing to use as an excuse to disfellowship each other. 

A friend of mine pointed out that this may be a first world fellowship problem. I wonder how many of our issues would matter if we lived constantly under the threat of persecution or death? I would dare say that a persecuted church would be a more united church. I pray that God will raise of voices of unity in the body of Christ. 

Preaching conferences, broad acceptance in the brotherhood, and many other issues inform the choices we make about fellowship between churches and ministers. Sadly, we allow suspicion and the level of a person's political toxicity to determine whom we fellowship. 

I pray that the American Apostolic movement will begin to love each other like a persecuted church before we actually become one.  As Oneness Pentecostals, we should be pursuing oneness with our brothers and sisters of the name. I realize fully that there are lines we should not cross, but I must insist with this little blog that we can do better. 

Misrepresentation

Anyone who meddles in ideas will be misrepresented. There is no escaping it. I don't claim to be an expert on any issue. But I do enjoy immensely the exchange of ideas. And there are a couple issues on which I think if have a solid grasp. Whatever the issue was, I have yet to have a conversation that either I or the other person(s) did not misunderstand some detail about the issue under consideration. The reasons for this are multi-layered.

Two Kinds of Misrepresenters 

Not all misrepresenters are created equal. I want to create a couple categories so as not to misrepresent them. It would be terrible if I misrepresented the misrepresenters. 

The Innocent Misrepresenter

The innocent misrepresenter is so because he does not have the informational or intellectual capacity to grasp the nuances of the topic. Therefore, he attempts to convey the conversation but cannot do it accurately. What often happens is that the misrepresenter has a preconceived notion about what a particular position states or what certain terms mean. Therefore, they hear an issue discussed through the distortion of misinformation. Far too often people have walked away from my conversations or statements and repeat what they heard, but not what I said. This kind of misrepresenter is not malicious; they are just misinformed. And that is tolerable. 

The Malicious Misrepresenter

The malicious misrepresenter is so because he has an unholy agenda. There may be many motivators for the misrepresentation. I am not so much concerned about the motivation as I am the action. When I encounter a malicious misrepresenter, I will mark and avoid them. When I and others have clarified our position on a topic, and one refuses to state it accurately, then they are a malicious misrepresenter.

My Response to the Malicious Misrepresenter 

When I have confirmed that you are a misrepresenter of the malicious variety, then I will not engage you in conversation. If you are going to misrepresent me, then you are going to have to work hard to find my material so that you can traffic in your devious dealings. 

However, if you maliciously misrepresent one of my friends—and likely anyone—then I will call your hand. I know all too well what it is like to be on the receiving end of malicious conduct. By the grace of God, I will not participate in it. In the interest of being transparent, I must admit that I have had to repent of this sin more than once. But I am asking the Holy Spirit to keep a check on my tongue and spirit in this regard. 

NOTE: As will all my blogs, all comments will be posted. Please feel free to engage. 

The Need to be Honest with Scripture

I recently posted on Facebook about the need for hermeneutical honesty. The comments got so out of hand that I deceide to erase the post there. However, I have decided to reproduce that post here on my blog. My comments were as follows:

"Do we conservative Apostolics (of which I consider myself) care about hermeneutics in our preaching? I understand fully the concept of preserving traditional separataion. But a high view of scripture demands that you not commit crimes against the context of scripture to do it. We need a revival of biblical literacy and honesty. Preaching scripture soundly ought not to be too much to expect regardless of the setting. I may not agree with your conclusions, but I do need to respect your ability to interpret the Bible. If I disagree with you, then I will consider seriously that I may be wrong. I have a long history of being wrong, so I am aware that is a possibilty. Otherwise, I have no option but to dismiss your claims with respect."

I understand that much of the fury against the post was becasue of the timing. But anyone who knows me is aware that the above post is something that I have been passionate about for a very long time. My post was by no means isolating a recent sermon at PEAK 2018. Conversely, I am not suggesting that I am excluding said message from my post. The Facebook exerpt from above covers every sermon—including my own. I will go further and say, "Especially my own."

One of the primary purposes of preaching is persuasion. Paul wrote the following statement about preaching: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Corinthians 5.11, King James Version). My contention is that the way we handle scripture ought to have persuasion as its goal. We will convince no one of our view as long as we continue to demonstrate a disregard for context. As Apostolic preachers, we must start taking the Bible more seriously. As long as we misuse scripture to promote personal agendas we will continue to lose the respect of saint and sinner alike.

Finally, let me say that I am not a perfect interpreter of scripture—no preacher is. We all have room for improvement. Therefore, let us work hard to interpret scripture faithfully. 

As will every blog I post, I encourage you to comment below even if you disagree.

Dispensationalism Part 2

Dispensationalism Part 2: One People of God  

Reflection

            In the first blog I discussed the relationship of the two brides/peoples of God to the Oneness of God. While I did not discuss it extensively, I think that made the point clearly that two brides/peoples of God theology is incompatible with the Oneness of God. In this blog I will argue that not only is it incompatible with the Oneness of God, but it is also incompatible with a systematic theology of the people of God. I shall contend that God has always and will always have one covenant people of faith. So the question is, “Who are the one people of God?”

One Covenant People

            The Oneness of God (my first passion) informs my eschatology (my second passion). As noted in the first blog of this series, the two peoples of God theory of Dispensationalism is incompatible with an Oneness theology. So in this blog I will provide an introduction to how I see the one people of God. It is my contention that the people of God have always been covenant people consisting of both Jew and Gentile. Furthermore, God has never been interested in a bloodline, but rather faithline.

Abraham Was a Gentile

            The terms circumcision and uncircumcision mean Jew and Gentile respectively. Paul’s defense of Gentile justification apart from circumcision was that Abraham was justified while uncircumcised—i.e. Gentile (Romans 3:27; 4:25). The argument is this, if the Jews denied the justification of the Gentiles because they were uncircumcised, then they would have to deny the Justification of father Abraham.

            The Gentile calling of Abraham is exhibit one in the case that God has always had one covenant people. I can’t make a full argument here about Gentile participation in the Old Testament Israel. But I will make a couple of surface, but significant points. Firstly, in the Old Testament many Gentiles came to participate fully in Israel, so much so as to be bloodline members of Messiah—Rahab and others. The New Testament, among many metaphors, makes Gentiles members of the “commonwealth of Israel” (Ephesians 2:11-22).  Jew and Gentile are one body (Ephesians 4:4), one new man (Ephesians 2:15), one tree (Romans 11), with one hope (Ephesians 4:4).  The covenant people of God have always been about faith and not race.

           

Please subscribe and leave comments. 

Dispensationalism 1b: Replacement Theology

Dispensationalism 1b: Replacement Theology

            I want to write this blog as transition between the first blog on this topic and the next blog on this topic—hence Dispensationalism 1b. Dispensationalists often accuse non-Dispensationalists (like myself), specifically those who do not hold to a two brides/peoples of God theology, of teaching “replacement theology.” There are those who teach replacement theology, but I am not one of them.

            I am going to state what I believe in this blog. However, I am not going to present arguments in defense of what I believe at the present time. I will make the argument for my eschatology incrementally in subsequent writings.

            So what do I believe? I believe that God has always had one covenant people that consisted of Jew and Gentile. God has never been interested in an ethnic people, but rather a faithful people. I believe that the New Testament Church is a renewal and continuation of the Old Testament church in which Gentiles have full covenant access to God in Christ by the Spirit. The church and Israel are not two peoples, with two plans and two destinies. God has only ever had and will only ever have one Covenant people who consists of both Jew and Gentiles. The church does not replace Israel; the church is the Israel of God consisting of both Jew and Gentile in one body.

            I will make my argument for this position in future blogs. As always, all feedback is welcome. Please comment on the blog. All comments will be posted—especially the ones who disagree with my conclusion. 

Dispensationalism Part 1: Dispensationalism and Oneness Theology

Dispensationalism Part 1: Why Dispensationalism is Incompatible with Oneness Theology

            Eschatology used to be that subject that I resisted thinking about. I didn’t understand it. I feared it. I thought that it was too esoteric to be worth my effort to understand it. I have come to realize that nothing could be further from the truth. There is a blessing in reading and understanding the book of Revelation (Revelation 1:3). Once one accepts the blessing of the book of the apocalypse, it will connect other theologies in a way that nothing else can.

            I am writing this blog series to put in my own words what I believe about this topic. I have been misquoted so many times on this issue that I have decided to go on record. If anyone in the future should decide to speak for me about what I believe, then it can be compared to what I actually believe. Most of the cases where someone has said what I believe, that person has never spoken to me. By writing this blog series I will clarify publically my eschatological position. Obviously, I will not be able to clarify it all in this first installment of this series. It will take the subsequent contributions to paint the full picture of my position.

Clarification

            Before I proceed to the purpose of this blog, I want to make a clarification. Please read the following carefully. There are those who self-identify as dispensationalists who are NOT the target of this dispensational series. For example: Dr. Nathaniel Wilson has done an excellent job of apostolicizing dispensationalism. I take credit for coining the phrase, “Wilsonian dispensationalism.” I wrote about it in a finals paper for a Wilson University class. I hope to do a blog that specifically contrasts Wilsonian dispensationalism with classic dispensationalism. Dr. Wilson has written his reformed dispensational view in his book Rightly Dividing the Word. At this point I will allow Dr. Wilson to speak for himself. Just wanted to clarify that Wilsonian dispensationalism is not the object of my scorn. Although I don’t fully agree with his view, his view is compatible with core Apostolic theology

.

Dispensationalism and Theology Proper

            Finally we are at the point of the post. The point is how classic dispensationalism relates to theology proper and specifically how the two peoples/brides component of the dispensational model conflicts with an Oneness views of God. The two peoples/brides concept is central to classic dispensationalism. It is not incidental, but fundamental to making dispensationalism work. It’s like love and marriage, horse and carriage; you can’t have one without the other. Donaldson (2011) correctly argued that dispensationalism doesn’t work without the distinction of Israel and the church as separate peoples (Donaldson, The Last Days of Dispensationalism).

            Classic dispensationalism  not only sees two brides, but does so in a way that is not palatable to Oneness theology. Notice the following quote from Larkin (1920):

We must not forget that there are “Two Brides” mentioned in the Scriptures. One in the Old Testament, and the other in the New Testament. The one in the Old Testament is Israel, the Bride of Jehovah; the one in the New Testament is the Church, the Bride of Christ. (The Greatest Book on “Dispensational Truth” in the World)

            In Larkian dispensationalism, which no one can logically claim is not dispensational orthodoxy, you not only have “two brides,” but you also have two husbands—the Father and the Son. So you have two peoples, two plans, two destinies, and two divine persons. Classic dispensationalism is fundamentally trinitarian per the dispensational fathers.

            My further point is that I am not sure that the two brides/peoples of God  of dispensationalism can be transformed to be compatible with Apostolic theology. Let’s see what the covenantal distinction between Israel and the Church looks like with the Oneness of God. You have the one person of God married to Israel, then divorcing her, marrying a Gentile bride, rapturing her out on their honeymoon, and then marrying the Jewish bride again while keeping his Gentile bride. The two peoples of God theology ultimately has Jesus married to two brides at once. There are multiple levels on which this is wrong. But allow me to list one. A bishop must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2). However, the two peoples of God theory has Jesus, the bishop of our souls (1 Peter 2:25), as a polygamist.

  Click here to listen to a recent lesson I taught on this topic.