Listening to many politicians, I get the impression that they believe that debt is the great evil of our time. However, debt is not always bad. Borrowing can sometimes be useful. The important distinction is between productive borrowing and unproductive borrowing.
A household that gets into serious debt to fund consumption is foolish. However, getting a mortgage to buy a house might be sensible, if the long-term benefits outweigh the interest costs.
People establishing a business will need to have some savings to get started, but most businesses will need to take on debt to develop to their full potential. Borrowing to purchase productive plant or capital equipment makes sense if the extra production will cover the interest costs.
A government is different from a business, as it does not sell what it produces. It does not have a savings account that it can draw on to fund infrastructure projects. A government’s only source of income is taxation, and if it has taken money from businesses and households, it has a responsibility to use it straight away. Saving up for many years to build a new power station would upset the people whose money the government has taken.
If the development of an economy needs capital equipment or infrastructure developments, it makes sense for the government to borrow money to fund them, provided the extra production outweighs the interest costs. During the 1950s and 1960s, the New Zealand government built a series of Hydro Electric Power Stations on the Waitaki River in the South Island. These assets have brought massive benefits to the economy.
Rather than treating debt as a great evil, politicians would be better off discussing what types of assets and infrastructure the economy needs. They should decide which of these can be provided by businesses and which would be better provided by the government. They should be assessing which infrastructure projects would be sufficiently productive to cover the interest costs of the required debt.
Government borrowing to build infrastructure or investment in capital equipment that would make the economy more productive makes sense, as the economic benefits easily cover the interest costs. The government that does not borrow to build infrastructure is holding back the development of the nation. Too much debt can be a problem, but debt in itself is not bad.
The New Zealand economy is currently underdeveloped, so increasing productive debt to fund infrastructure and capital assets might be a sensible policy. I would like to see more discussion about the quality of debt, and less about the volume of debt.
The government has a balancing role in the economy. When the economic situation gets tough, a household needs to cut back on its expenditure and reduce its debt. When sales decline, a business needs to cut back its expenditure to match.
The government is different from households and businesses. When the economy is sluggish, the government needs to increase expenditure to compensate for the households and businesses that are cutting back. If the government cuts its expenditure at the same time as households and businesses, it will exacerbate the economic situation. The employees who lose their jobs will stop spending, and the businesses they purchase from will lose sales. They will need to cut their expenditure to compensate, and the economic downturn will deteriorate.
In a robust economy, spending goes round and round. If the government stops spending when the economy deteriorates, the economic situation will be made worse.
The other way that a government is different is that it gets most of what it spends back. If it spends more money on wages and salaries, the employees pay income tax, which means more than 30 percent of what they receive goes back to the government, even before they spend it. When they spend the remainder, they pay GST on the goods and services that they buy, which sends more of it back to the government.
But it does not stop there, because money circulates around the economy. The businesses that they have bought from pay wages and salaries to their employees. Some of this goes back to the government in income tax. And what is spent is charged GST. As the money circulates around the economy several times, the government gets back more and more of the initial spending in tax.
Politicians from most parties seem to be obsessed with getting the country’s books back into surplus. This might be necessary at times, if debt has become too large and there is a problem with paying the interest, but this is not the current situation in New Zealand. Compared to most similar countries, our government debt is not that large, and the interest is affordable.
If the debt level is too high, then recovering the situation by getting the government books back into surplus might be sensible. But the time to do it is when the economy is overheating, because contracting it will do no harm.
The current season, when our economy is limping and facing the headwinds of rising fuel prices, is the very worst time to attempt to get the government books into surplus. Cutting government spending will weaken the economy, which tends to increase the deficit, so the policy has an effect that is opposite to what was intended.
A big chunk of what the government spends goes on wages and salaries and benefits. So the main way that government can reduce spending is to reduce salaries, cut jobs. or reduce benefits. The problem with all these options is that cutting people’s incomes also cuts their ability to spend. So, a reduction in government spending makes life tough for businesses, as they lose sales. They have to cut back their spending to compensate for it, so cutting government spending tightens the entire economy.
The other thing that a government can do is to provide fewer services to society. But this makes people feel worse off, and they may have to pay for things themselves that the government used to provide. People who feel worse off tend to spend less, so the entire economy is negatively affected.
Another thing that the government can do to reduce its deficit is to increase taxes. But that also means that people will have less money to spend on things that businesses sell, which also dampens the economy.
To make matters worse, if the economy is struggling, the government will get less revenue from taxation, so policies that cut back economic activity can make its deficit worse.
Tightening the economy is sensible if it is overheated, but it is the very worst thing to do if the economy is already struggling. That is the situation now.
Setting a date for getting into surplus is foolish, without reference to the economic situation. Decisions about surpluses and deficits should be based on the economic conditions, not the calendar.
The politicians are arguing about how quickly they can get the books back into surplus, but that is the wrong policy for the current season. It could crush the economy at a time when it is already fragile, and the international situation is uncertain.
The business people who support government policies that keep wages and salaries down like these policies, because they make it easier for them to keep their businesses profitable. However, they forget something important.
Their employees are their customers, or the customers of other businesses. So, when the wages and salaries of employees are screwed down, they have less to spend on the products and services that businesses produce. So tightening wages and salaries might temporarily increase their profit margin, but it tends to reduce their sales, which makes it hard to make a profit,
But worse still, when businesses are finding it hard to make sales, they tend to stop spending too. This can be good for them, but it makes it harder for the businesses that they buy things from, because they will find it harder to make sales. A few struggling businesses will need to put off staff too. They have to cut back their spending, so it becomes even harder for businesses to make sales.
The overall consequence is that the economy spirals down as everyone stops buying to save money, which means that every business finds it hard to sell their products.
Most politicians and many business people don’t understand that the economy is circular. Spending goes round and round from business to business, household to business and so on. Spending on wages and salaries goes round too, from employees to businesses to businesses to employees, and so on. One business’s spending is another business’s sales. The wages and salaries that businesses pay to employees are the income that they use to buy products from other businesses.
Money flows round the economy, and if one part is squeezed, the squeeze spreads out to other parts of the economy. An economy cannot be grown by cuts and squeezes.
I don’t believe in political power, so I am not invested in the general election that is coming up in New Zealand at the beginning of next month. However, I am interested in economics, so I get frustrated with statements by politicians that don’t make economic sense. These are getting more and more common.
Cost of Living
The biggest issue in the upcoming general elections seems to be the “cost of living”. All political parties are announcing policies to reduce the cost of living for New Zealanders.
Unfortunately, this concern is misguided and producing political suggestions that will not be effective. The real problem faced by New Zealanders is not the so-called “cost of living”; it is “stagnant incomes”.
Increases in the cost of things that people need to buy are not unusual. The attack on Iran by the United States and Israel has pushed up the price of fuel, especially diesel, which has pushed up the prices of many goods that we buy.
In a normal economy, people’s income will usually be rising. As people become skilled in their work, they should be paid more. Many people will be promoted to more responsible roles that are better paid. People will be free to move to better jobs for which they can get better pay. If incomes are rising gradually, most people will be able to handle increases in the cost of living.
The real problem in New Zealand is that governments have been screwing down incomes, creating suffering for people when the cost of living increases. Here are just a few of the things that the government have done to hold down incomes.
Changing employment laws to make it difficult for unions to operate effectively and push for higher wages.
Undermining the process for female employees to obtain pay equity with males.
Keeping increases in the minimum wage as minimal as possible.
Reducing the size of the public service by disestablishing roles
Preventing cost-of-living adjustments to wages and salaries.
Fostering immigration to keep wages for unskilled work low.
Minimising increases in benefits.
Pausing infrastructure spending after the last election to review the benefits created unemployment in the construction sector, which put downward pressure on wages.
Via Central Bank policies, governments have used unemployment to control inflation.
Keeping unemployment at 4 to 5 percent of the workforce, ostensibly to control inflation, puts massive downward pressure on wages and salaries.
Making employment precarious by encouraging triangular employment through labour-hire companies and staffing agencies.
Encouraging zero-hours employment contracts
Maintaining unemployment and uncertainty makes it risky for people to move to better-paid jobs, because they are scared of being made redundant as the last person in.
Fear of unemployment or redundancy makes it difficult for employees to ask for an increase in their wages and salaries.
If incomes had been rising over the past decade, as should happen in a healthy economy, people would be able to cope with the rising cost of living.
Rising prices are not a problem that governments can solve, but if they had allowed benefits, wages and salaries to increase as they normally would, we would not be facing a cost of living crisis. People would be able to cope with the change.
The political parties like this mischaracterisation of the “stagnant income” problem as a “cost of living” problem, as it turns it into a problem that they cannot solve and allows them to push responsibility for the difficulties faced by New Zealanders onto someone else. They prefer to rant against the “evil supermarket duopoly”, the “greedy banks” and the “colluding fuel companies. The politicians direct the anger of the people who are suffering against these companies, so they don’t get the blame for the real economic problem that they have caused.
Governments are responsible for the stagnant income problem. Unfortunately, the election process is enabling them to shrug off their responsibility and pass it off to various companies by calling it a “cost of living problem”.
New Zealand does not have a cost of living problem. We have a stagnant income problem. Solving the latter problem requires a completely different set of policies, but none of the political parties is interested in them.
In Colossians and Ephesians, an intensified form of the verb is used. — ἀποκαταλλάσσω (apokatallassō). This word does not seem to have an "everyday" meaning because, it doesn't really show up in ordinary secular Greek writing — it appears in Paul's letters to the Ephesians and Colossians, and barely anywhere. It seems to have been a rarer, more emphatic meaning rather than common marketplace vocabulary.
This is how the word is built up:
apo- ("away, back, fully") + kata- (intensifying) + allassō ("to change")
The prefix stacking suggests something like
The three occurrences of this form of the verb occur in Ephesians and Colossians, which deal with cosmic-scale reconciliation (all things, the universe) rather than the more relational/interpersonal reconciliation language typical of καταλλάσσω in Romans and Corinthians.
Ephesians 2:16 – "and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."
Colossians 1:20-21 – "and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross... And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you..."
I think that katallasso was a strange word to choose for what Paul was describing in these verses. Several things stand out.
Unlike barter or money changing, the exchange is not equal. God had very little to gain from the transaction, and humans had everything to gain.
When two people have fallen out, the one who was in the wrong has to eat humble pie in order to put things right. Yet in both Romans and Corinthians, it is God who takes the initiative. He is the subject of the verb, whereas humans are the object. God takes action, and humans are the recipients. That is not the normal process of katallasso.
The reconciliation took place while we were still enemies of God. This is unusual, because the usual first step towards reconciliation between enemies is for both sides to let their enmity go. In contrast, God did not wait for us to give up our enmity towards him. He took decisive action without waiting for humans to seek peace.
In normal usage, katallasso is used when two estranged parties (friends, spouses, business partners, even warring cities) made peace and restored normal relations. For that to happen, both sides have to concede and give up things that they had been hanging onto. God did something quite different. The difference was Jesus. He died, acting as a human, to put things right and restore the relationship between humans and God.
People reading Paul’s letter would have been jarred by the use of katallasso for what happened, because it is so different from the usual exchange/putting right. They would get a sense of how shocking God’s actions were. In contrast, we assume that the word is a perfect description of our reconciliation of God.
Paul said that we are ambassadors for Christ. This is consistent with the diplomatic meaning of katallasso. We are envoys for God, proclaiming the diplomatic settlement with the world that Jesus established to end hostilities between the parties.
The New Testament was written in the Greek language as spoken by ordinary people in everyday life. A problem that faces readers of English translations is that many key Greek words are translated by English words that have become religious words. These religious words are an obstacle to understanding what the writers of the New Testament were saying.
One example is the Greek word καταλλάσσω, which is translated as “reconcile”. This word now has a religious meaning, which English readers assume they understand.
katallasso was actually a common commercial and social term before it picked up any special theological weight. Its ordinary senses:
To exchange money or change currency
This was probably the most basic, literal use — like exchanging one currency for another, or exchanging coins for goods. It is a money-changer's word.
To exchange or barter goods
More broadly, swapping one thing for another in trade.
To make up/patch things up after a quarrel
This is the extended, very natural everyday sense — used of friends, spouses, or business partners who had fallen out and then settled their differences and were on good terms again. Like two people "made up" or "patched things up" after a fight.
Diplomatic/political reconciliation
Also used of cities, states, or factions ending hostilities and restoring normal relations —a peace-treaty sense.
So in plain, secular Greek, if you heard someone say a version of katallassō, you'd most likely think of:
Understanding this made me ponder why Paul chose to use this word to describe our relationship with God.
One commentator said, “The word carries the everyday logic of 'swapping something for its opposite' — enmity swapped for friendship, one currency swapped for another. The New Testament writers borrowed this ordinary 'settling accounts / making up' language to describe humanity's relationship with God being switched from hostile to friendly — but the underlying word itself was just common marketplace and social vocabulary, nothing inherently religious”.
Apart from Romans 7, where the reference is to a broken marriage, the word katallasso and the related noun are used intensively in two passages.
Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the service of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their wrongdoings against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:18-20).
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also celebrate in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation (Rom 5:10-11).
Jesus was conceived when the Holy Spirit overshadowed his mother Mary. This broke the line of the flesh from Adam. He did not inherit the corruption of the flesh that troubled the rest of the human race.
When a person trusts in Jesus and is born again of the Spirit, the harm to their flesh/brain is restored. The Holy Spirit restores the damage to our flesh (including the brain) that was inherited from the first man, who was attacked by the powers of evil.
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24).
When we are born again to become a new creation, the harm done to Adam that we inherited is restored. The Holy Spirit changes who we are. We are born again with a restored brain.
Our Spirit is brought to life. We become intensely aware of God's voice. We can perceive the power of evil at work around us. This is huge, but we have to learn to understand clearly all that we are now perceiving. If we are not careful, we can let our perception be deadened by what we learned in the past.
Our Will is restored, so we are able to seek and do God's will. This is the most important change. However, we are still free and need to listen to the voice of the Spirit and do Jesus’ will. Although our will is set free, we will still need to learn how to obey gladly. The big difference from the situation of Adam and Eve is that we have spiritual protection through what Jesus has done.
Our Mind is restored, so that we can think the way God thinks. Unfortunately, we will have taken on many bad ideas in the years before we are born again, so the Holy Spirit will need time to teach us and clear out all the junk. He gradually renews our mind.
Our Desire for God that was deadened is restored.
Our Emotions will continue to work as our internal senses, but as we begin to see things as God sees them, our emotions will begin to respond more like Jesus would respond.
Our Imagination has the capability to receive dreams and perceive visions from God.
Our Memory continues to retain most of our experiences. A problem is that our memory will be full of bad thinking and lies, and bad decisions and their pleasures from the past. These will keep popping out and leading us astray, even after our mind has been restored. Evil spirits will stir these memories up if they get a chance. By giving thanks, we fill our memory with positive experiences.
Being born again reverses the damage done that we inherited from Adam and Eve, but that is the first step. While living with corrupted flesh, we have picked up a lot of junk that we have to learn to let go of by putting the old life to death and learning to walk in the Spirit. That is the purpose of discipleship.
This full series is at Born Again.
Being expelled from the presence of God and sent into a world controlled by the powers of evil without any spiritual protection was a disaster for the first humans. The powers of evil hated God and wanted to destroy his earth.
Humans had been given authority on earth, but they had surrendered it to the powers of evil by obeying them. If the powers of evil could keep humans hostile to God, they could retain their stolen authority forever. They were not able to destroy humans, because this would destroy the basis of their authority on earth. If there were no humans, God would be free to take back his earth again, because it would release him from his covenant that gave authority on earth to humans without recourse.
To cement their authority on earth, the powers of evil set about doing their best to modify the brains (flesh) of the people created in God's image, so that they would never escape their clutches and turn back to him. They achieved this by making subtle changes to human flesh, and particularly the brain, which is made of flesh. They could not change them too much, or modify them to be sub-human, because they would cease to be human, and they would lose their authority on earth that came through God's covenant with humans.
The corrupted flesh that has been inherited by all human descendants affects us in a variety of ways. See more at What is a Person.
Mind - the human mind still operates in the same way, but is vulnerable to deception and can sometimes miss the truth (2 Cor 11:3; 2 Tim 3:8).
Emotions - emotions still operate in the same way, but good feelings now have a distorted form: rage, dread, melancholy, horror.
Imagination - human imaginations remains powerful, but they are drawn to evil.
The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth (Gen 8:21).
Will - the human will has been distorted, so that it is difficult to please God and hard to make decisions that align with his will. (Rom 5:8).
Desires - these have been biased away from God and towards evil.
The flesh lusts against the Spirit (Gal 5:17).
Corrupted by its deceitful desires (Eph 4:22).
Memory - still operates in the same way, but the spiritual powers of evil make sure that it is filled with bad/evil experiences that corrupt our mind and imagination.
Spirit - this is the faculty that seems to have sustained the most damage. Humans still have the ability to perceive spiritual things, but it has been significantly weakened. They are not aware of the presence of the powers of evil, even when they are attacking. They also find it really difficult to hear God.
Every human inherits the flesh that manifests these problems.
To understand what happens if we are born again, we need to know the human problem. We need a clear understanding of what happened when Adam and Eve were deceived by the powers of evil and chose to disobey God.
When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they were in unity with each other and with God. They could perceive spiritually, as well as physically. They could talk with God, and they could see him, in a way that was real. They were free to choose how they would behave. God taught them his will, but they were free to disobey.
Adam and Eve committed their first sin well before they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They could hear God's voice, but they chose to listen to other voices and decide if they really were evil. This was an insult to God, who is good and perfectly wise. Deciding not to trust God was their first sin. When they made this decision, God's presence left them.
He was already gone when the serpent approached them, because he could not have come near to do evil if God had been there. The serpent could not tolerate God's glory, even when he was planning to do evil.
Modern Christians makes it seem as if being born again is something that we can choose and do for ourselves. That is misleading, because the new life is a work of the Holy Spirit. It is beyond our power.
Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish ruling council. Jesus was explaining to him that his career as a Jewish religious leader was a waste of time. He would need to begin again and serve God with the help of the Holy Spirit. This was something that was beyond Nicodemus’s power on his own.
People cannot choose to be born again. They cannot make themselves “born again”. This is something that the Holy Spirit must do. Rather than just focusing on his role in delivering salvation, we must also take account of what we need to do to open the way for the Holy Spirit to do his work.
In his preaching, Jesus used various other expressions to describe the first step of dying to sin and self.
Change your thinking and trust the gospel (Mark 1:15).Come follow me (Mark 1:16).
Take up your cross and follow me (Luke 14:27).
Any of you who does not give up everything you have cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:33).
You cannot serve God and unrighteous wealth (Luke 16:13).
Sell your unrighteous wealth and give it to the poor (Luke 18:22).
If these expressions are not part of our preaching of the gospel too, then our hearers will only get the wrong half of the stick.
Nicodemus discovered the full cost of loyalty to Jesus. When he defended Jesus before the pharisees and chief priests by demanding a fair hearing for Jesus before they condemned him, he was mocked and insulted by them (John 7:45-52). When Jesus had died on the cross, Nicodemus helped bury him in the garden tomb. Asking for the body of a man killed as a rebel identified him as a rebel against Rome, so any political privilege he had would be gone.
Nicodemus had to give up his position as a Jewish leader and as a Roman collaborator to follow Jesus and be born again. He had to die to his old life, before he could be born into the new Kingdom.
The phrase “born again” misses out on part of the process. It explains the new life we have in Jesus, but it does not explain that we need to die to our life with Jesus before we can enter into the new life. I wonder how many Christians believe that they have been “born again” because they prayed a prayer, but have never died to their old life, because they did not realise that was part of the process.
Paul used a slightly different expression when describing what happens when a person chooses to follow Jesus. He said that we died with Jesus and rose again with him to new life.
All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his... Now, if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him (Rom 6:3-8).
This passage is a fuller description of the process of becoming a follower of Jesus than the phrase “born again”. When we are united with Jesus by committing to follow him and trusting in his death and resurrection, we are raised with him to a new life. But that is the second step in the process. In the first step, we are united with him in his death. When we die with Jesus, we are dying to our old life controlled by sin and self. We cannot gain the new life without dying to our old life first.
Baptism is a good way of describing this two-pronged process. We go under the water, symbolising our death to our old life. We come out of the water, and the Holy Spirit comes down on us as an expression of the new life we have in Jesus.
Paul understood the current and future aspects of the new birth. He explained that those who trust Jesus died and rose with him. He also stressed that we must continue to put off the old life and put on the new life as we grow in Jesus and serve him in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature… since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator (Col 3:5,10).
We must keep on putting to death our sinful nature and continue to put on the life of Jesus as we grow in faith and obedience.
Being born again is just one of the expressions used in the New Testament for accepting the gospel of Jesus. Various other expressions are used.
Take up the cross (Luke 14:27).
Accepted the word (Acts 2:41).
Obey the gospel (Romans 1:5, 1 Peter 4:17).
Come to the light (John 3:20-21)
Passed from death to life (John 5:24, 1 John 3:14)
Repent and turn to God (Acts 26:20)
Deny himself (Mark 8:34, Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23)
Die daily (1 Corinthians 15:31)
Renounce all that he has (Luke 14:33)
Sell all and give to the poor (Mark 10:21)
Suffer with him (Romans 8:17)
These expressions suggest a whole range of labels that Christians could give to themselves that would be equally descriptive.
Carrying the Cross Christian
Obeying the Gospel Christian
Repentant Christian
Deny myself Christian
Renounced all that I have Christian
Sold all to give to the poor Christian
Suffering with Jesus Christian.
I imagine that most Christians would choose not to use these labels, because they might be hard to live up to. People of the world might challenge us for failing to measure up to our name.
“Born again” is a more comfortable name to use, because its effect is invisible. Therefore, no one can accuse a Christian of not being born again, because there is no decisive way to observe them and be sure that they are not. The “new” birth is a work of the Holy Spirit. We cannot see him working because he is invisible to human eyes. Some people may have a deeply spiritual experience, but others might not. So if a person says that they are born again, we have no way of validating whether it is true. This means that using “born again” as the criteria for distinguishing true Christians from people who are not true Christians does not make sense.
A criterion is only useful for discerning between people if it can be observed. Describing what kind of Christian we are using a criterion that is invisible is a safe option, but is not very helpful.
Jesus had a different way of distinguishing those who are truly his followers. He said,
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:34-35).
The best way to identify the true followers of Jesus is to look for those who are loving each other as Jesus loved us. His followers will be implementing his new commandment to love one another.
The benefit of this criterion is that it is easy to observe. If people are loving each other in a sacrificial way, it will be obvious. They don’t need to call themselves “Loving One Another Christians”, because their love will be visible to everyone. Even people of the world will be able to discern who is real and who is not.
A modern problem is that many people who claim to be born again are not very good at loving one another. Unfortunately, the world has realised that and is ignoring Jesus because of it.
Jesus used the expression “born again” on one occasion only, but the modern church has built a theology around it. Being born again has become the standard by which Christians are judged. True Christians have been “born again”, but those who have not been “born again” are not true Christians. There are several problems with this phrase.
It was not used by the apostles when preaching in the book of Acts. Paul did not use the expression in any of his letters to the churches. Building a doctrine of Christian initiation on the basis of an image that is used only once in the New Testament is risky and unwise.
Many Christians prefer to describe themselves as “born again” Christians, as a way of distinguishing themselves from other Christians who are not quite as real. I find this practice odd, because I suspect that very few of these people could describe clearly what the expression actually means. I presume that most would be hard-pressed to explain what actually happens when a person is born again.
For many people it just means that they have raised their hand and prayed a “sinners’ prayer” at a church service or outreach meeting. But if I asked if everyone who has said a sinner’s prayer is actually born again, I imagine that most would say no.
Some will say that being born again means that they have become a new person, but in many ways, they are still the same person, so what really changed? We need a better understanding of what Jesus meant when he spoke of being born again.
Jesus used the expression “born again” when a pharisee called Nicodemus came to him with questions about the Kingdom of God. He told him that he needed to be “born again of the Spirit”. This was not a parable to make a complicated experience simple. It was a powerful image that Jesus used deliberately to jolt Nicodemus into a radical change of thinking.
Nicodemus was smart, but he struggled to understand what Jesus was saying, so it is not surprising that many Christians do not understand his meaning either.
The gift of a spiritual language in the church is different from the gift of a spiritual language in private prayer to God. The latter is a manifestation of the presence of the Holy Spirit with a person. Paul also describes how this works in 1 Corinthians 14. It can be distinguished because it edifies the individual praying and not the church.
For anyone who speaks in a language does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit (1 Cor 14:2).
Anyone who speaks in a language edifies themselves… (1 Cor 14:4)
I would like every one of you to speak in languages… (1 Cor 14:5).
... greater than the one who speaks in languages (1 Cor 14:5)
If I come to you and speak in a language, what good will I be to you (1 Cor 14:6)?
For if I pray in a language, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful… (1 Cor 14:14).
I will pray with my spirit… I will sing with my spirit (1 Cor 14:15)
Otherwise, when you are praising God in the Spirit… (1 Cor 14:16).
They do not know what you are saying. You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified. (v1 Cor 14:16-17).
I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you (1 Cor 14:18).
The theme of all these verses is that a person speaking in a spiritual language is speaking to God inspired by the Holy Spirit. This edifies the person praying, but does not edify any person in the church who is listening. Paul wants all followers of Jesus to edify themselves by praying in a spiritual language.
However, in the church, he wants followers of Jesus to do things that will build the church.
Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church (1 Cor 14:12).
The roles listed in 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, Ephesians 4:11-12, and Romans 4-8 are roles that “God has placed in the Church” to build it up.
In contrast, what we call the gifts of the Spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 are manifestations of the Spirit in the lives of followers of Jesus in a way that he considers to be appropriate.
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he wills (1 Cor 12:11)
Naming them "Manifestations of the Spirit" would give a better understanding of how they function. They dont belong to a person. They have not been given to a person as a permanent thing. They are signs that the Holy Spirit is active in the person's life.
This full series can be read at Whats in a Name?
There are two other roles/gifts that not everyone has.
Not all speak in languages. Not all interpret (1 Cor 12:30b).
At first glance, this does not make sense because further on in the letter, Paul writes that he wants everyone to speak in a spiritual language.
I would like every one of you to speak in a spiritual language (1 Cor 14:5).
So why would he say in 1 Corinthians 12:30 that only some do and most don’t?
The reason is that in this verse he is describing a role that functions in the church. This is why it is linked to a role described as interpretation/explanation.
One of the ways that God speaks to the church is by one person giving a message in an unknown language and a second person giving an interpretation. Paul describes how this works in 1 Corinthians 14.
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church (1 Cor 14:27-28).
Several people might give a message in their spiritual language. Another person must interpret or explain.
If there is no one with the capability to interpret, the speakers should remain silent. They should know someone is there who can interpret before they begin to speak. They are not told to trust that the Holy Spirit will spontaneously give someone the ability to interpret their message, because they would not know that when they begin to speak. Rather, the assumption is that someone will be present who has developed a role in listening to the Holy Spirit and interpreting messages in unknown languages. People should know that such a person is there.
This is something that should happen in the church.
Try to excel in those that build up the church. For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say (1 Cor 14:12-13).
If a person believes the Holy Spirit is giving them a message for the church in a spiritual language, and they don’t know that there is a person there who can give an interpretation, they should pray that they can interpret their own message. If they cannot do that, then they should remain silent.
Speaking a message in an unknown language and giving interpretations/explanations are two roles that should function in a healthy church. They go together, because one can function without the other. This is why Paul said that not everyone has these roles. They are activities that people need to learn to do and become proficient as the Holy Spirit manifests through them. They begin as a spontaneous manifestation (as per 1 Cor 12:10) and develop into a role (as per 1 Cor14:27). These giftings/roles are what Paul wants to see more of in the church.
Eagerly desire the greater gifts (charismata) (1 Cor 12:30).
Followers of Jesus should seek the greater gifts, which are prophecy and languages/interpretation. Paul goes on to explain how they work in 1 Corinthians 14. All three of these gifts are important because they build up the church. Having people who can exercise these roles strengthens a church.
Speaking a message in a spiritual language and having it interpreted by someone else is a good path into prophesying. The speaker has to speak, which is never easy for a beginner. But the interpreter does the heavy lifting for them by getting the message clear.
This full series can be read at Whats in a Name?
Paul switches course in 1 Corinthians 12:27-31. He is still explaining the way that the body works, so he gives a different list of roles and gifts.
You are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it (1 Cor 12:27).
Every follower of Jesus is part of the body and can make a contribution to it. He then explains how God has structured the body of Jesus.
God has placed in the church,
first of all apostles,
second prophets,
third teachers,
thereafter miracles,
thereafter gifts of healing,
helpers,
guidance (1 Cor 12:28).
These roles are “placed” in the church. The Greek word is “tithemi”. It describes an action in which something is passively put in a place. The placing of these roles is undertaken by God, not by the people being placed. People are placed, not manifestations of the Spirit.
The first three roles are numbered in order. They match with Ephesians 4 and Romans 12, although these dont give an order. Apostles are first, because they go out to establish a new church. Prophets are second, because a prophet always accompanies an apostle to ensure that the new church has a strong foundation. Teachers are third, because once the church has been established, pastor/teachers are needed to disciple the new believers.
The fourth role listed in Ephesians 4 is the evangelist. Their role is to grow the church by bringing people to faith in Jesus. They demonstrate the reality of God by doing miracles and healings in the power of the Spirit. That is why 1 Corinthians 12 has “miracles” and “gifts of healing” next on the list. They are essential for proclaiming the gospel in the world.
The other important non-eldership role is the deacon, who cares for the poor. In 1 Corinthians 12, the role is represented by “helpers” and “guidance”. Deacons give food to the poor, but they also teach them how to manage their finances.
All these roles are given to particular people. These are not roles that are given to everyone. That is why Paul goes on to say,
Not all (are) apostles. Not all prophets. Not all teachers. Not all work miracles. Not all have gifts of healing (1 Cor 12:29-30a).
Only some people have these roles in the church. This is the opposite of what is described in 1 Corinthians 12:7, where each person is given a manifestation of the Spirit in some way. The first part of the chapter describes manifestations of the Spirit that any believer can experience. The final part describes roles that are given to people who are placed in a position in the body of Jesus. These are the different roles of elders and deacons that the church needs.
Every believer can experience the manifestation of healing by the power of the Spirit. They can pray for people and have the healing of the Spirit flow through them. However, only some believers “have gifts of healing” (1Cor 12:30a) that they carry and know how to release healing in any situation that they encounter. These are people who have learned how to minister healing as the Holy Spirit leads.
In some ways, I believe that the word “manifestation” would be a better description for what Paul is describing in 1 Corinthians. That would make it clear that they are not talents that we have or roles that we have learned to act in. They are a manifestation of the Holy Spirit in our lives. He can manifest in any of the ways described in any believer as he chooses. These manifestations are given (didomi) according to his will. They are something that the Holy Spirit gives, not something that the believer has.
A “manifestation” of the Spirit would be a better description of what he is doing, but that change is probably a step too far for most Christians. I think we prefer to call them gifts, because that gives us a sense that it is something that we have, and we like that idea, even though it is not correct. In contrast, calling them manifestations would eliminate a great deal of understanding.
The gift of healing is interesting because in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul uses the word “charismata”.
To another gifts (charismata) of healing by that one Spirit (1 Cor 12:9).
This is unique because he does not use the word “charismata, in the description of any of the other eight so-called spiritual gifts. Unlike the others, this one is described as plural “gifts of healing”.
I suspect that the reason for this is that healing is a gift that people need to learn how to use. Those who pray for the sick need to know how the spiritual world functions. So, although any believer can be a channel for healing, God will need people who have learned how to facilitate the gift of healing if the church is to reach its full potential.
So, although the Spirit can give the gift of healing to any follower of Jesus, there will be people who carry “gifts of healing”. This will be a bit like the gifts in Ephesians 4, which elders are called into. In a similar way, some people will be called into "gifts of healing". They will be confident to release the healing of the Spirit in various situations.
None of the other so-called gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 are described in this way. They are gifts that the Holy Spirit can give to any believer when he chooses, because they do not need experience to use them effectively. In contrast, experience with the gift of healing for learning how the Holy Spirit works to restore sick people to health.
Likewise, people who are called to serve as an evangelist will frequently carry gifts of healing, because healing the sick and casting out demons is integral to New Testament evangelism. People who undertake this role will need heaps of boldness and compassion, so they need to have been given an appropriate personality by God.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul begins by explaining that he is speaking with authority that is part of his calling as an apostle (Rom 12:3).
By the grace (charis) given (didomi) to me, I say to every one of you (Rom 12:3).
He then explains to the Roman Christians that different members of the body of Jesus have different functions (Rom 12:4). They have each received a calling in a similar way to those described in Ephesians 4. The wording is similar.
We have different gifts (charismata), according to the grace (charis) given (didomi) to each of us; whether prophesying… (Rom 12:6).
Many English translations use the word gifts twice, but charismata is only in the Greek text once. I presume Paul uses the word “charismata” in Romans because these gifts are similar to those in Ephesians 4. The lists overlap, but we miss the parallels because Ephesians names the eldership roles, whereas Romans describes what they do.
Ephesians 4 Romans 12 Prophet Prophesying Pastor/Teacher Teaching/Encouraging Apostle Leading/Steering Evangelist
The other gifts link to the ministry of the deacon. It is not an eldership role, but can become one.
Deacon Service Giving Showing Mercy
If we understand that many deacons become evangelists (Stephen is the first), the last three gifts in Romans 12 link to the role of the evangelist. This structuring explains that the gifts in Romans 12 parallel those in Ephesians 4.
Because the callings are similar, using the expression “gracious gift” as the primary name of the phenomena described in 1 Corinthians 12 is misleading. Paul uses the word “charismata” in that passage to explain that these gifts are given graciously to people who don’t deserve them. In contrast, for the gifts in Ephesians 4 and Romans 12, people have to have done enough to deserve the trust required.
The problem with using the word “gift” is that it is used in other ways within the New Testament. The most important is in Ephesians 4:8-11. Paul writes of Jesus that,
When he ascended on high...
he gave gifts to men (Eph 4:8).
The Greek verb and noun for “gave gifts” are “didomi” and “doma”. These are the common words for “give” and “gift”. In Ephesians 4:11, Paul describes the gifts that were given.
He himself gave (didomi)
some to be apostles,
some prophets,
some evangelists,
some pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11).
There were roles in the church that Jesus called people to based on their personality. An Apostle needs a particular type of personality. A pastor/teacher needs a different kind of personality. They were not manifestations of the Spirit that come and go. They were a gift that was given to a person, that existed in them, even if they abused it.
I have explained in an article called Ascension Gifts that these are abilities/callings that God gives for leadership in the church. This is very different from the phenomenon that Paul described in his letter to the Corinthians. Calling the latter gifts will lead to confusion with the former, so it should be avoided. Likewise, “gracious gift (charismata)” is a confusing term, because Paul uses it in a different way in his letter to the Romans.
A popular New Testament passage for Christians who have been touched by the Charismatic Renewal is 1 Corinthians 12. In most modern translations, the chapter carries the heading “Spiritual Gifts”, but I wonder if that is not misleading. The passage uses a variety of Greek words to describe what Paul is explaining.
1 Corinthians 12:1 seems to refer to spiritual gifts.
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be unaware.
The problem with this is the Greek word "pneumatikon", which means “spiritual”. The Greek word “pneuma” means “wind”, “breath,” or “spirit”. The suffix “tikos” shifts the focus from the object itself to its characteristics. So the word "pneumatikon" means “pertaining to the spirit”.
The word “gift” is not in the Greek text (most English bibles indicate this by putting the word in italics). A more accurate translation would be, “Now concerning spirituals...” The verse does not justify the name spiritual gifts.
Verses 4-6 give a trinitarian, threefold, naming of what Paul is describing.
4 Now there are varieties of graces, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are varieties of services, and the same Lord.
6 There are varieties of effects/operations, but the same God
who works all things in all persons.
They come from the Spirit, the Lord (Jesus) and God (the Father). The fullness of the Trinity is active.
Three different Greek words describe what God has given through the Spirit.
Each of these words brings an important insight to the description. The each need to be understood.
The Greek word “charis” means "favour," "grace," "kindness," or "good will". The suffix “ma” (μα) typically indicates the result of these. Therefore, “charisma” is a gift that results from grace or favour, and “charismata” is the plural of “charisma”. It refers to benefits that are the result of grace and kindness. It is not a gift that I own.
The Greek word “diakonia” means “attendance as a servant”. Most English bibles translate the word as “ministry”, but this is misleading, because it loads a lot of baggage onto a word that cannot carry it. Paul is simply saying these gifts are for the service of other people, not the individual who receives them.
The Greek word “energema” simply means “effect”. It is derived from the verb “energo”, which means “to be active”. So Paul is saying that there are varieties of effects when the Holy Spirit is active.
In 1 Corinthians 12:7, Paul uses another name to describe the phenomenon he is teaching about.
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (1 Cor 12:7).
The Greek word translated as “manifestation” is “phanerosis”. It is derived from a verb “phaneroo”, which means “to render apparent”. So what Paul is describing is a “manifestation or outward, visible disclosure or expression” of the Spirit's presence. It makes the presence of the Spirit apparent to people watching. The Spirit makes himself evident through a believer, for the sake of the gathered community.
In this passage, Paul uses five different words to describe the phenomena that he is teaching about. We have tended to use the first “spiritual gift”, even though the word “gift” is not in the text. We could just have easily chosen to describe them as “graces, services, effects or manifestations”. It is worth thinking about why we made that choice.
The secular news media realise now that the attack by the United States and Israel on Iran was a disastrous military mistake. They are beginning to realise that the destruction of American bases in Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and Qatar is changing the security structure of the entire region. It is unlikely that the US will want to rebuild bases that are vulnerable to Iranian missiles and drones and have to be re-supplied through the Persian Gulf. The Gulf states are coming to realise that they cannot rely on the United States for their defence, because it has proved to be more loyal to Israel than to its other allies.
These changes will cause a massive shake-up for the security of West Asia (the middle east). It will affect the supplies of oil and other chemicals around the world well into the future. However, another change is taking place at the same time, but western commentators have not even begun to notice it. A massive Islamic revival is now underway, currently centred on Iran, but it will spread across the entire region. This will have an enormous effect on West Asia going into the future.
See Islamic Revival or Substack for a full explanation and background information.
I have come to a particular understanding about how the universe operates. I have set it out in Spiritual Realms and Three-agent Universe. I am fairly sure that my understanding is correct, but it is hard to prove it using proof texts.
The reason is that the Old Testament authors lived in a two-agent universe: everything was the work of God or man. They reflected that understanding in the way they wrote about their experiences. The Holy Spirit usually did not make them write things that they did not believe or understand, so the Hebrew text reflects their world view, even if it was incomplete.
The New Testament explains that we live in a three-agent universe. Humans are caught up in a struggle between God and the spiritual powers of evil. Because God does not want to glorify the powers of evil, the scriptures don’t tell us much about how their power structures are organised in various seasons. The truth is that we don’t need to know. We just need to know that Jesus defeated them on the cross.
I believe the scriptures (Old and New Testament) do give hints about the way that the powers of evil are organised (some of the hints are clearer than others). What I have tried to do is to pull all these hints together and organised them to understand something of how the powers of evil are organsied in various seasons. This is not a complete revelation, so I will never be certain that I have got it absolutely right.
I have shared all that I have discovered, but I realise that it is not enough to persuade everyone. Therefore, I don’t see any point in arguing about particular scriptures, because that will never resolve the much bigger and more important issue. To understand the world we live, we need the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
For my first years as a Chrisitan, I lived in a two-agent universe. I believed every thing happened was an act of God. However, it did not make sense with the reality of my life. After struggling with this conundrum, I came to see that we live in a three-agent universe. That enable me to make sense of things that happen in life. I believe that this understanding was a revelation of the Holy Spirit, but I could be wrong.
When I first chose to follow Jesus, I had a two-agent view of salvation. Now I have a three-agent view of salvation. That has changed my understanding of the gospel to one that honours God more.
When I was young, I enjoyed arguing and debating about the meaning of particular scriptures, but I gradually came to realise that it was fruitless effort. People are not persuaded, and the arguments harden disagreements into hostility, which is not helpful to the body of Jesus.
If people are asking questions about my teaching with a genuine desire to increase their understanding of what I am trying to say, I am quite happy to endeavour to answer them. But if people are just trying to prove me wrong, I mostly don’t respond because it does not achieve anything.
Romans 13:3-5 relates back to Proverbs 21:15. I presume that Paul recalled this verse when he was thinking and writing about Rulers and justice. A literal translation of the verse is as follows.
Joy to the righteous is the doing of justice, but ruin to doers of evil (Prov 21:15).The proverb explains that good people are glad when a ruler executes justice correctly, regardless of whether the ruler is good or evil. On the other hand, well executed justice brings down people who are prone to wickedness. The quality of justice is more important than the quality of character of the ruler.
More at Understanding Romans 13.
While playing around with AI tools, I asked two different tools to give me a picture of the birthday bash.
I am not sure which I like best.
.
.
A common practice amongst evangelical Christians is "pleading the blood". I am ambivalent about this practice, as it does not seem to be biblical. The phrase "pleading the blood" is not used in the New Testament. Claiming the covering of the blood" (or being "under the blood") is closely related to "pleading the blood", but "claiming the blood" is not mentioned in the New Testament either.
These phrases are mostly used in spiritual warfare. Modern Christians frequently "declare the blood" or claim the "covering of the blood" as a defence against demonic influence or temptation. Since spiritual warfare is serious, I believe that we should base our defensive posture on the clear teaching of the scripture (see Personal Protection).
Paul gave clear teaching about spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6. The main protections against spiritual attack are the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). Our spiritual protection comes from declaring the word of God and standing in faith.
1 Peter 5:9 and James 4:7 confirm that we defeat the powers of evil by resisting them in faith. This is not something we just do as individuals; it is something we do with a body of believers. Strong protection comes together by standing together with other followers of Jesus who are committed to loving us in him (see Spiritual Protection).
Words are not magic. Using words that we do not understand to resist evil is a risky game. Pleading the blood is a fairly vague way of resisting the powers of evil and standing on faith. When resisting the enemy with prayer, we should be more precise about what we are doing.
Many of the references to blood in the New Testament refer to the Lord's Supper. When Jesus celebrated his Last Supper with his disciples, he referred to his blood. Mark, Matthew and Hebrews describe the wine that Jesus shared as the "blood of the covenant".
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many (Mark 14:24, Mat 26:28).
This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep (Hebrews 9:20).Luke and Paul referred to the "new covenant in my blood".
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20).
In the same way, after supper, he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11:25).
In the book of Hebrews, it is described as the "blood of the eternal covenant".
Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus (Heb 13:20).
The relationship between blood and the new covenant is explained in Hebrews.
This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people (Heb 9:18).
In Old Testament times, a covenant was established by an action involving blood, usually the blood of an animal. When God established his covenant with the children of Israel, Moses sprinkled the blood of a calf on the document recording the covenant and on the people themselves. Allowing themselves to be sprinkled with blood, the people committed to obey the law that God had announced to them (Ex 24:6-8, Deut 29:25).
Jesus established a new covenant by dying on the cross, but his blood was not sprinkled on his followers. Instead, before he died, he established a shared meal for his followers in which a cup of wine would be shared, representing the blood he shared on the cross. The "blood of the covenant" that we drink together is the equivalent of the blood that was sprinkled to establish the old covenant. The new covenant had a better symbolism to mark its fulfilment.
The cup shared at the Lord's Supper is a "cup of thanksgiving".
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16).
The cup is filled with wine. There is no blood in the cup. Thanksgiving looks back to something that has happened in the past. The benefits gained by the shedding of Jesus blood were achieved when he died. He does not repeat the suffering in the present. Rather, he encourages us to look back on what he did for us with thanksgiving.
The other important word in this verse is "participation". When we drink from the cup of wine during the Lord's supper, we are declaring our participation in what Jesus achieved on our behalf. We died with Jesus so we will can live with him. This was confirmed in John 6:53-58.
Confusion
The danger in tending to worshipping "the blood" or turning it into something magical is that it minimises what Jesus did. We were rescued by Jesus. His blood did not rescue us. Jesus' blood did not feel any pain when he was beaten by the Romans and hung on the cross. The pain of his beating and death was registered in his mind. He paid the price by experiencing this pain. His blood did not feel it. Jesus felt it. Jesus is the one we should worship. His Holy Spirit is the one who can empower us.
New Testament verses that describe what the blood of Jesus achieved cover four main themes.
1. Redemption
The achievement that is described most frequently in the New Testament is "redemption". This is an economic term. In the Old Testament, a person who fell into poverty and was sold into slavery could be redeemed by someone in their family. The family member would pay a fee to the person who owned the slave to set them free from their enslavement.
The New Testament explains that we were redeemed, or bought back, by Jesus' blood. To realise the significance of this achievement, we need to understand whose power we were redeemed from.
A redemption fee is paid to someone who has the power to keep the people under their control from being freed. When humans rejected God's way and fell into sin, they did not just oppose God. They fell under the control of the spiritual powers of evil, who refused to set them free again unless a redemption fee was paid to them. The fee that they demanded was blood. Jesus shed his blood to redeem us (set us free) from the control of the spiritual powers of evil.
Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace (Eph 1:7).
He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption (Heb 9:12).
You were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect (1 Peter 1:18-19).
You were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev 5:9).This redemption blood payment was partially fulfilled during the first Passover when the destroyer (one of the spiritual powers of evil) was prevented from killing the firstborn of Israel by the blood of the lamb on a doorpost. It seems that the spiritual powers of evil accepted the blood of the lamb as a down payment on Jesus' blood.
By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel (Heb 11:28).The book of Revelation confirms that the saints defeated the dragon (representing the spiritual powers of evil) by the blood of Jesus.
They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony (Rev 12:11).The redemption fee paid by Jesus destroyed the authority of the spiritual powers of evil because they lost their right to control humans under their power.
The letter to the Romans says something similar.
Much more then, having now been put right by His blood, we shall be rescued from Wrath through Him (Rom 5:9)?
Wrath is a powerful cosmos dominator spirit that dominated the world during the season prior to the cross. Jesus' death rescued humans from his power.
I explained how blood works for redemption in Why Blood?
The spiritual powers of evil demand blood, partly because they like the grisliness of bloodshed, but mostly because they want the death of all humans to remove the people whom God gave authority on earth. The death of God, who had became man, fully satisfied their demands.
2. Reconciliation
Human sin created enmity between humans and God. It also created enmity between humans.
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13>).
Through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross (Col 1:20).Jesus' death made peace between us and God. I think these verses are using the expression blood to refer Jesus' death'. It was his death that reconciled us with God, not his blood. One thing is clear. God does not demand Blood.
3. Cleansing
One of the effects of human sin is that it contaminates us in a way that gives the spiritual powers of evil the power to attack us. I described how this works in Pure and Impure. Cleansing the tabernacle was the purpose of the Day of Cleansing. The contamination of sin causes humans to feel guilty and fearful of God. Jesus shed his blood to set us free from this impurity.
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God (Heb 9:14).
The blood of Jesus, his Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).
And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people pure through his own blood (Heb 13:12).Jesus' blood cleanses us from the contamination of sin and makes us pure.
This is the message of Romans 3:25, although it is not well understood.
God presented Christ as a mercy seat, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith (Rom 3:25).
The mercy seat was the lid of the covenant box in the tabernacle where God dwelt. Blood was not offered on it. On the Day of Cleansing, blood was sprinkled on the gold altar beside it. This was done to cleanse the Holy of Holies from any contamination due to the sins of the people.
Jesus death on the cross purifies us from the contamination of sin and allows us to become the temple of the Holy Spirit. Sin empowers the spiritual powers of evil, because it gives them access to human lives. Blood is the redemption fee that they demanded. Jesus death satisfied their demands, which disempowered them.
In the New Testament, the word "blood" is a shorthand way of referring to the death of a person. The following are just a few of the many instances.
The expression "blood of the prophets" refers to the prophets being killed.
Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets (Luke 11:50).
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matthew 23:35).When Judas told the Jewish leaders he had betrayed innocent blood, he was admitting that he contributed to Jesus' death.
I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood (Matthew 27:4).Pilate said he was "innocent of Jesus's blood", as a way of claiming to be innocent of his death.
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood" (Matt 27:24).
The people said the Jesus blood was on them, to indicate that they were responsible for Jesus' death.
All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25).
The Jewish leaders said Peter and James were trying to make them guilty of Jesus' blood. They believed they were being accused of responsibility for his death.
You are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood (Acts 5:28).
The death of Stephen was referred to as his blood.
And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed (Acts 22:20)The book of Revelation refers to the deaths of the martyrs as their blood (Rev 6:10).
In her was found the blood of prophets and of God's holy people, of all who have been slaughtered on the earth (Rev 18:24).
He has avenged on her the blood of his servants (Rev 19:2).
In all these verses from across the New Testament, the word "blood" refers to the death of a person.
The implication of this is that many of the references to blood in the New Testament refer to Jesus' death, rather than to his blood as such.
An important thing to note from the New Testament account of Jesus's death is that his blood was not captured. Jesus lost a significant amount of blood when he was beaten almost to death by Pilate's soldiers. He would have bled further when nails were driven through his feet and wrists. This blood all trickled down onto the ground and was lost.
A victim of crucifixion dies when lifting their body to inhale air becomes too difficult, and their heart and brain run out of oxygen. No blood flows. When Jesus breathed his last breath and died, the centurion pierced his side with a spear to ensure that he was dead. Blood and water ran out and would have trickled onto the ground, and would have been lost. This is a contrast with Old Testament sacrifices.
When sacrifices were offered in the Old Testament tabernacle, the animal's throat was cut, and the blood that flowed was caught in a vessel so it could be poured against the altar. Jesus' blood was not captured, so it does not exist now (unless Jesus' resurrected spiritual body has the equivalent of spiritual blood). So, the blood of Jesus is not available for use now. Everything it achieved had to be achieved at the time of the cross, when it was shed.
I have noticed that more and more songs about the blood of Jesus are being played on Christian radio. This could be good, but I am worried about some of the theology that is being propagated.
Some songs seem to confuse the blood of Jesus with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one who carries all the power of God, so the blood of Jesus is not the power of God. When songs speak of the power of the blood, they might be claiming that the blood of Jesus was effective for the purpose for which it was shed, but some songs seem to go beyond that.
The blood that gives me strength from day to day
It will never lose its power (Andraé Crouch – The Blood Will Never Lose Its Power).
Your blood will never lose its power.
Your blood will never lose.
Your victory will stand forever.
Your blood will never lose (Rend Collective - Your Royal Blood)
Providing power for daily life is not the purpose of the blood of Jesus. It is the Holy Spirit who gives us power from day to day. He will never lose his power. Confusing the blood of Jesus with the power of the Holy Spirit is a mistake.
Some songs verge on worship of Jesus' blood.
The blood, the blood, the blood
Oh, the wonderful blood (Tiffany Hudson-The Wonderful Blood).
Followers of Jesus should only worship God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
When I went to the New Testament, I was surprised at how little mention the blood of Jesus receives. I will analyse these mentions in the remainder of this series of posts.
I have been puzzled why financial markets have been so slow to react to the US/Israeli attack on Iran, and the subsequent closure of the Straits of Hormuz. This is unfortunate, because the only voice that Donald Trump responds to is negative news from the financial markets.
Sarah Conor explains why the markets have held up.
Financial markets treat the economy as an engine driven by monetary policy. Reality dictates otherwise. At its base, the economy is an energy processing mechanism. Central banks cannot print oil or other commodities.Most market traders were not around during the 1973 oil crisis, so they dont understand the current situation.As we enter week three of the Strait of Hormuz closure in March 2026, macroeconomic models fail because they misdiagnose the problem. Physically removing 10-20% of oil and natural gas consumed starves the global engine...
What’s unique about this shock is that it originates on the supply side.
Typically, a demand shock originates in the financial layer. The 2008 Great Financial Crisis and the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns serve as examples. In these scenarios, the infrastructure of the world remains intact, but consumers stop buying. Credit freezes or governments mandate business closures causing prices to fall. Central banks solve demand shocks by lowering interest rates and injecting fiat currency to stimulate consumption.
A supply shock originates in the physical layer. The current Hormuz closure is a supply shock. Consumers (by consumers, I am referring to any buyer - individuals, businesses, governments) have the means and will to buy, but physical goods vanish. As a result, production halts because the baseline input is absent.
Shortages push prices up. Unlike demand shocks, central banks are stuck in a stagflation trap. Inflation requires contractionary policy to starve demand, but weaker production requires lower rates to offset demand destruction. Monetary policy cannot fix a physical deficit.
The problem with modern economics is that it models financial, but not necessarily physical, reality. It assumes consumers reallocate spending to cover higher energy costs, creating demand destruction elsewhere. This is a miscalculation.
When 10% to 20% of global oil, natural gas, and fertilizer leaves the market, those raw materials cease to exist for the end user. Capital cannot substitute for physical joules of energy. A freight network cannot run on fiat currency and nitrogen-based synthesis requires physical gas.
I have been reading with interest the various statements from churches and ministries apologising for their slowness in providing a public warning about the errors and abuses committed by men whom they supported and promoted.
Their apologies to the victims seem to be sincere and heartfelt. They declare that they will protect their people by not using the fallen person in their services and conferences. This is good, but one thing seems to be missing from all the statements.
None of these contrite Christians leaders seems to be asking how it was that they were able to work with the problematic prophetic minister in various places over many years and not realise that something serious was wrong with them.
This is not just prioritising gift over character, as is often said. It is failure to discern a gift that is flawed and an abusive personality.
The Christian leaders who raised the problem person up and supported the expansion of their ministry claim to be spiritually-anointed prophetic leaders. Many of them call themselves prophets. They all claim to be experts on the gifts of the Spirit and leaders of the move of the Holy Spirit in our time. They all claim to be able to hear the voice of the Spirit better than the average bear. I presume that they all know how to move in the gift of discernment.
Given these claims, how could they not discern that a person ministering alongside them was operating fraudulently? How could they not discern that there was something perverted about the person’s sexual behaviour? This is not just an issue of slowness to give a public warning. It is a failure to discern the problem in the first place.
When Elisha’s servant cheated and demanded money from Naaman after he had been healed, the prophet knew what his servant had done before he got home (2 Num 4:19-27). If an Old Testament prophet could discern a problem so effectively, why can a New Testament prophet not do it.
A shepherd had three main roles.
When Paul was getting near the end of his ministry, he gave a warning to the elders of the church in Ephesus.
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! (Acts 20:28-31).
Paul warns the elders and shepherds that abusive people would come into their church. He warned that people whom they trusted would begin to harm the disciples they were caring for. Protecting their sheep from abusers is an essential part of the role of an elder.
Paul did not say “Maybe”. He was certain that spiritual wolves would come and try to harm the flock. All elders and shepherds should be prepared for dealing with this problem.
Claiming ignorance does not work. It is not satisfactory for an elder or pastor to say that they did not know how to identify a threatening animal, or what to do if they encountered one. David was just a shepherd boy and he knew how to deal with a lion and a bear that threatened his sheep. It was the essence of his job as a shepherd.
The failure of leaders to discern problems with people whose ministries they were platforming is a serious failure. They have failed one of the main tasks of every elder. They should be asking themselves if they are capable of continuing in this task of being a shepherd, given the seriousness of their failure.
A feature of the modern church that is quite unique is that most Christian activity is dominated by big ministries. There are various types of ministry, and they are often associated with the name of a person.
The future of the church seems to depend on these ministries.
The most effective Christians who want to serve God seriously are expected to establish a ministry organisation. Unfortunately, if big ministries do everything that is important, there is not much left for ordinary followers of Jesus to do.
Christian ministries provide employment for many serious Christians, as they need staff to:
Employing staff to do all these tasks can be quite expensive. The result is a big monthly budget.
Serving on the staff of a Christian ministry can be a demanding role.
The staff see the leader of the ministry at their worst and bear the brunt of their ego when they are frustrated.
The staff are often the last to be paid when funding is tight.
The staff are expected to be personally loyal to their leader. They cannot criticise the leader of the ministry, even if they see things that are seriously wrong, as this would jeopardise their employment. An employee who is critical can be publicly ostracised by being labelled as disloyal. If they are blacklisted by their leader, it could be difficult for them to gain employment elsewhere.
The setup of the ministry means that the only people who get close enough to the leader to know them well are the senior staff. However, none of these senior staff can criticise their leader as they could lose their employment and income. This means that the leader of the ministry has no real accountability and is effectively uncorrectable.
People resigning from ministries are often expected to sign “non-disclosure agreements” (NDAs). This ensures that they cannot reveal bad things that happened in the church.
Funding a ministry is very expensive. Thousands of dollars will have to be raised each month to pay salaries. Most ministries will rent or buy a building, so rent or interest on the mortgage will have to be paid each month. Vehicle costs and air fares will need to be paid. The big budget means that the ministry will need a constant stream of revenue just to remain viable.
Most of the revenue will be raised through donations and sales of merchandise. This brings huge temptation to ministry leaders. To keep donations flowing and merchandise selling, the leader has to keep their ministry before the public. If publicity dies off, revenue from donations and merchandise sales can fall off.
Ministry leaders can be tempted to exaggerate their achievements by embellishing their description of healings that have occurred or embroidering accounts of important people they have prophesied to. They can be tempted to spice up their words of knowledge and prophecies with information obtained from the internet or other people. In the age of social media, people have short attention spans, so constant hype is needed to keep a ministry in the public eye so that the revenue keeps flowing in. The temptations are huge.
To keep the revenue from donations and merchandise sales flowing, big ministries need endorsements from other big ministries. Big-name endorsements of their books and teaching materials boost sales. Invitations to speak at conferences organised by big-name ministries are opportunities to sell merchandise. Invitations to speak at their churches helps in to bring in donations.
A network of ministries has emerged where they all provide endorsements and speaking opportunities for each other. These opportunities are critical for keeping the revenue flowing. A culture of mutual support between ministries has developed where support is received in return for support given.
This dependence on endorsements and speaking opportunities is one reason why these ministries are unwilling to acknowledge sins and failures. If something negative gets associated with a ministry, the flow of revenue will slow. Christian ministries are often reluctant call out problems in other ministries because they need them to support their own ministry.
Many ministries tithe on their income. This is an opportunity to do good, but it gives the ministry great power. It can build up other ministries by giving donations, but it can also weaken them by stopping them. Fear of losing financial support can create a reluctance to criticise serous faults.
Most Christian ministries have limited accountability and oversight. They will often have a board of some kind, but the members of the board have limited authority.
Some will be friends of the leader, who will be unwilling to challenge them.
Others will be wealthy donors who have a big investment in the ministry. They will be reluctant to damage their investment by rocking the boat.
The dominance of “ministries” in the modern church does not fit with the teaching of the New Testament.
Peter and James did not set up a ministry organisation in Jerusalem. In fact, they created problems when they stayed in Jerusalem (contrary to Jesus’ command) and became too big. I explain the problems in Governmental Apostles and Centralised Finances. They were pulling followers of Jesus into Jerusalem, rather than sending them out into the world.
Paul did not establish an organisation called “Paul and Silas Ministries”. Paul kept moving out to new places so that he would not become too big in the places that he had planted churches. I presume that this is why he wanted to go to Spain. Unfortunately, he got waylaid, and it damaged his ministry. I explain this in Paul and James in Jerusalem.
The church that Jesus established operated in a totally different way from the modern Christian ministries. They should be led by a team of elders with different giftings that complement each other ie balanced leadership. I have explained how this works in my book called Being Church Where We Live.
Spiritual protection comes through elders who are working together and submitting to each other, not through endorsement by distant big names. Submission to other elders is the key to spiritual protection. If one elder makes a mistake, the others will bring correction. If an elder is under spiritual attack, the others will stand against the attack in spiritual warfare. Submission is the key to protection.
The modern use of “words of knowledge” turns it into a sign gift, which is harmful.
Analysis of the spiritual gifts described in 1 Corinthians 12 often groups them into three broad categories: revelation gifts, speaking gifts, and power gifts.
Power gifts (in this context) are gifts that demonstrate God’s power in action. They are about action and impact, not information or persuasion.
They change situations directly
They are externally observable (even by non-believers)
They point attention to God’s power, not human skill
There are two main power gifts:
1. Working of Miracles (1 Cor 12:10)
When Jesus fed the four thousand, everyone saw the miracle, even those who were still assessing him to decide if they would follow him.
When Paul shook off a viper that bit his hand and was not harmed, the people of Malta could see the miracle worked by God (Acts 28:3-6).
2. Gifts of Healing (1 Cor 12:9)
When Jesus healed the sick people that he encountered, the power and grace of God was visible to everyone, even the Jewish leaders who opposed him.
When Peter and John healed the crippled man at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, everyone could see him walking around. They were filled with amazement at what God had done (Acts 3:1-10).
These two gifts are very important for evangelism as they demonstrate the power and grace of God to people who don’t know him. If you have been healed of a sickness, it is hard to argue that God does not love you.
The Word of Knowledge is a Revelation GiftThese spiritual gifts reveal information from God that a person could not know by natural means. A Word of Knowledge is revelation (not a permanent ability) where God discloses information about the past or present that explains what is going on in a tricky situation.
Jesus knew by a Word of Knowledge what the Teachers of the Law were thinking when the paralysed man was lowered through the roof for him to be healed (Mark 2:8).
Ananias was given Saul’s exact street address in Damascus and told what Saul was currently doing (Acts 9:10–12).
When Peter was on the rooftop, the Spirit informed him that three men were downstairs looking for him before he saw them (Acts 10:19–20).
These words of knowledge were given to help the apostles minister to people in need.
Modern Use
The main use of the Word of Knowledge in the modern church is to identify people in a church meeting to be called forward to receive prayer for healing or a prophetic word. The speaker gives out some titbits of information about the person they want to minister to. If the person is sick, they might say something about the sickness. When they come forward, the speaker will pray for them. If the speaker wants to give a prophetic word to the person, they say something about the person that will identify them. When the person comes forward, the speaker will give them a prophecy of some kind.
There are several problems with this shift in use of the word of knowledge gift
Lack of Biblical Precedent:
I have searched the New Testament for an example of a word of knowledge to identify people at a meeting who will receive prayer for healing or a prophetic word, and I could not find one. Jesus and the apostles did not use the Word of Knowledge in that way. I am uncomfortable about using a spiritual gift in a way that it is not used in the New Testament.
Turning Revelation into a "Sign":
The modern use of the words of knowledge turns it into a sign gift, which it is not. Its purpose seems to be to demonstrate that the person speaking has God’s anointing and blessing.
Human Focus:
Power gifts are supposed to demonstrate the power of God for everyone to see. Using the word of knowledge to call out people at a meeting for prayer or a prophecy points to human skill more than to God’s power. It builds up the status of the person speaking.
Difficulty in Testing:
Testing words of knowledge given in this way is almost impossible. The fact that someone comes forward indicating that the word fits them does not prove it came from God. It could just be coincidence that someone fitting the description is present. The inability to test these words means that there is very little accountability. The modern church just assumes that these words of knowledge are correct, even if no one comes forward. Since these words are rarely tested, there is potential for cheating using information from social media or from other sources.
Private vs. Public:
A true word of knowledge is usually directed towards a person who needs help. They are the only one who needs to hear it. This means that the Holy Spirit will usually prefer to give the gift in private, rather than in big meetings. Using the gift for a different purpose takes it into an environment where it does not fit easily.
Performance:
The modern use of the word of knowledge turns it into a performance before spectators, but the Holy Spirit does not like operating this way. He likes to work in public places, but only when he can clearly manifest the power of God.
The word of knowledge is a wonderful gift. We need it more than ever to deal with numerous problems and situations that never seem to be resolved. However, I believe that we have devalued the gift by using it as a tool to identify people to come forward for ministry in church meetings. This has probably grieved the Holy Spirit, which has prevented us from receiving the gift in situations where we really do need it to help people.
When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, he encouraged to jump off the highest point of the temple. Performing this dazzling sign would cause people to worship and honour him (Luke 4:9-12). Jesus responded by warning against testing God. He faced a temptation to build up his ministry by manipulating signs. Turning a revelation gift into a sign gift that will glorify the ministry of the person up the front is a similar temptation. Followers of Jesus should avoid this practice.
