David ServantBlog Archives - David Servant

Kevin Evans — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:55:40 +0000

This teaching is a follow up to my previous one titled, “Will I be Blessed if I Bless Israel? (And Cursed if I Don’t?)” Please don’t read this teaching without first reading that one, as it lays an important foundation.

The overall feedback to that article has been mostly positive but, as I anticipated, there has been some pushback from dispensationalists. Many of those good folks don’t even know they are dispensationalists. I’m not saying that to make anyone feel bad. I, too, was once influenced by dispensationalism and did not realize it. So let’s start there.

Generally speaking, dispensationalism divides human history into seven dispensations in which God interacts with humanity in different ways. According to classic dispensationalism, we are currently in the Church Age, which is a parenthesis between two Jewish ages. They are the Age of Law (the Mosaic dispensation) and the future Millennial Kingdom (a restored age for national Israel). Dispensationalists gave us the idea of a “pre-tribulation rapture,” which marks the beginning of the next dispensation and God’s renewed plan for Jews. They also gave us the idea of the “two returns” of Jesus, separated from each other by a period of seven years.

Dispensationalism is a relatively new theology, emerging only in 1830 through the teaching of John Nelson Darby, one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren movement. It gained massive traction in the United States via the Scofield Reference Bible, first published 1909, and later through books like The Late Great Planet Earth and the Left Behind series. It is now very influential in many evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic circles—particularly in North America—but it is still a minority view when looking at the full sweep of church history. It was not a view held by the apostles or early church fathers; nor has it ever been held by mainstream Protestants, Roman Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox churches.

Historically, Christians have embraced covenantal theology, which interprets redemptive history in light of God’s covenants, the first being His covenant with Adam. God promised him death if he ate the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:15-16), thus implying a promise of eternal life if he didn’t. It was therefore a conditional covenant. We all know what happened when Adam failed to keep the single condition of his covenant with God.

Next was God’s covenant with Noah (Gen. 6:18), in which He promised to preserve him and his family from the coming judgment. The covenant was obviously contingent upon Noah building the ark, also making it a conditional covenant.

After the Flood, God made a covenant with every future descendant of Noah (which includes you and me). God promised to never flood the earth again (Gen. 8:22). That covenant is unconditional, praise God! It is, however, time-limited for only as long as “the earth remains” (Gen. 8:22). As Jesus told us, heaven and earth will one day pass away (Matt. 24:35). In any case, every time you see a rainbow, it is a reminder of that universal, unconditional, but time-limited, divine covenant (Gen. 9:8-17).

Next was God’s covenant with Abram/Abraham. Unlike the unconditional and time-limited Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic covenant was conditional and eternal. It would potentially benefit not only Abram/Abraham, but “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12:3), through Christ, one of Abraham’s descendants. The Abrahamic covenant will be the focus of this teaching.

I need to mention that, 430 years after God made His covenant with Abram/Abraham, He inaugurated the Mosaic covenant (Gal. 3:17). It was between Him and the descendants of Jacob/Israel only. It was intended to be temporary (Heb. 8-10, particularly 8:13), lasting only until the New Covenant, which was promised in the Old Covenant (Jer. 31:31–34), and which Jesus inaugurated at the Last Supper.

So we see that God’s covenants can be universal or particular, time-limited or eternal, and conditional or unconditional. That is why it is important to always know the terms of a covenant, lest wrong assumptions be made.

Perhaps the greatest distinction between dispensational and covenantal theology is the former is more Israel-centric, whereas the latter is more world-centric. To put it in simple terms, it is “God so loved Israel” versus “God so loved the world.”

If your pastor’s sermons are more focused on Israel than the thousands of unreached people groups in the world who are waiting to hear the gospel for the first time, he, and you, have been influenced by dispensationalism.

If you believe that Jesus is going to return twice in the space of seven years, the first at which the church will be raptured, you have been influenced by dispensationalism.

If you imagine that the future judgment of the sheep and goats to be a judgment concerning how you treated the modern nation of Israel, you have been influenced by extreme dispensationalism.

If you are mourning the approximate 1,200 deaths and 3,400 injuries of innocent people created in God’s image due to the barbaric events of October 7, 2023, but are not mourning the retaliatory approximate 70,000 deaths and 170,000 injuries of innocent people created in God’s image in Gaza, you have been influenced by dispensationalism. If you are inwardly saying right now, “Those figures regarding Gaza are inflated,” even if you are correct, your thoughts betray your dispensational bias. Is the life of an Israeli child more valuable than that a Gazan child?

When I listen to some dispensationalist Christians regarding the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I am reminded of a passage in Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in which Huck fabricates a story to Aunt Sally of a steamboat boiler explosion, who then asks, “Good gracious! Anybody hurt?” Huck replied, “No mam. Killed a nigger.”

My observation is that dispensationalism is on the decline. Part of the reason is because Christians are waking up to the fact that God is not a racist. When Christians are perceived as being racist (as they are when they are dispensationalists), it doesn’t help our cause, nor does it glorify God.

My goal in this teaching, as always, is not to win an argument, but to help believers understand biblical truth, and in so doing, advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus.

Am I a Second-Class Citizen?

It can be surprising how passionate some folks are on the subject of modern political Israel. It honestly seems that some think unregenerate Jewish people are more loved by God than everyone else—including His own beloved spiritual children who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. When I read, however, as a “Gentile Christian,” certain passages in the New Testament, I don’t get the impression that I’m a second-class citizen in God’s eyes. Actually, I get just the opposite impression. Here is one of those passages, written to Gentile believers like me, that comes to mind:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision” which is performed in the flesh by human hands [a reference to unbelieving Jews who, in Paul’s view, are not actually circumcised because their hearts remain hard to Christ]—remember that you [Gentiles] were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you [Gentiles] who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups [believing Gentiles and believing Jews] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two [believing Gentiles and believing Jews] into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both [believing Gentiles and believing Jews] in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away [Gentiles], and peace to those who were near [Jews]; for through Him we both [Gentiles and Jews] have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:11-22).

Wow. It sounds to me as if believing Gentiles possess the identical standing with God as do believing Jews. So, as long as unbelieving Jews don’t have a higher status than believing Jews, I’m in good shape! To that end, did you realize that none of what Paul wrote in the passage above has any application to unbelieving Jews, except Paul’s labeling them “the so-called Circumcision”? That being so, why would any Christian think that unbelieving Jews have a higher status in God’s eyes because of their physical lineage than believing Gentile Christians? They do not. And that will become even more clear as we continue.

Here’s another life-changing passage penned by Paul—the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13)—written to believing Gentiles:

And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:29, emphasis added).^[1]

How about that? As a believing Gentile who belongs to Christ, I’m a descendant of Abraham! That is an irrefutable biblical fact!

And that fact, among others, makes me wonder about the dispensationalist claim that descendants of Abraham’s grandson, Jacob/Israel, have an “unconditional divine right” to Canaan/Palestine by virtue of God’s (alleged) “unconditional covenant” with Abraham. Why then don’t all Gentile Christians, like me, who are also Abraham’s descendants, have the same “unconditional” right? Should I purchase a plane ticket to Israel so I can confiscate a piece of land currently owned by a Muslim or nominal Christian? Whether they will admit it or not, dispensationalists believe that Jewish descendants of Abraham have that right. Why not Gentile descendants of Abraham?

And here is even a greater inconsistency in dispensational theology: What about the tens of thousands of Arab Christians who, in 1948, were forced off of land that was owned by their families for generations? If any of those approximately 60,000 Arab Christians were genuine believers in Jesus, they were, according to Paul, all descendants of Abraham. Why don’t dispensationalists believe that those descendants of Abraham had a divine right to the land by virtue of God’s covenant with Abraham? (And what are the chances any of those descendants believed that the Israeli confiscation of their homes and land was due to God’s special love for the Christ-rejecting descendants of Jacob/Israel?)

Many Gentile Christians have been singing about the biblical fact that we are descendants of Abraham through Christ since they were children in Sunday School:

Father Abraham had many sons
And many sons had father Abraham
I am one of them, and so are you
So let’s just praise the Lord!

Should the final line of that Sunday School song be changed to, “So let’s go claim our land!”?

God’s Covenant with Abraham

Because it is irrefutable that God’s covenant with Israel through Moses tied the possession of Canaan’s land to Israel’s obedience, dispensationalists sometimes resort to claiming God made an unconditional covenant with Abraham to give his descendants the land. That, they say, explains why God has, since 1948, been giving land in Canaan/Palestine to unbelieving, often immoral, Christ-rejecting Jews, even at the expense of, not only Muslims, but also Christians.

If that were true, of course, it would mean the Abrahamic covenant contradicts the Mosaic covenant, which means that God contradicts Himself. That isn’t possible. God is not confused.

Beyond that, when we read God’s promises to Abraham concerning Canaan, it is clear they were not unconditional. Let’s survey those promises. There are at least seven relevant passages in Genesis where God communicated with Abram/Abraham about their covenant.

1.) Genesis 12:1-3 (which we considered in my previous article) describes God’s initial communication with Abram when he was 75 years old. God told him to leave Haran, journey “to the land which I will show you” and promised, “I will make you a great nation.”

In that first communication, God didn’t promise Abram any land. But He did promise him, “In you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” God intended to bless all the families of the earth through Abram. That sounds significant, even more so than anything else God told Abram about his future. Abram didn’t understand it then, but looking back, and by looking at the rest of the Bible, we are 100% certain God was referring to blessing all the families of the earth through Jesus, a future descendant of Abraham. From God’s first encounter with Abram, blessing all of earth’s families was on His mind.

2.) Abram obeyed God and journeyed to Canaan. There God appeared to him and gave him another promise, “To your descendants I will give this land (Gen. 12:7). It would have been easy for Abram to have wrongly assumed that God’s promise would be fulfilled sooner than it actually was. History tells that it wasn’t fulfilled for any of Abram’s descendants for about 470 years.

You may be surprised to learn that, as one of Abraham’s descendants through Christ, I’m looking forward to the fulfillment of that promise as it applies to me. I will one day live in the New Jerusalem, which I think is safe to assume will be generally located where Jerusalem has always been (although New Jerusalem will be huge by comparison).

I can only claim that future inheritance because I met the condition to be one of descendants of Abram/Abraham. That is, I believed/believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. So the promise God made to Abram that concerns me was conditional, not unconditional. That establishes the fact that at least part of the Abrahamic Covenant was conditional, so far as it concerns us believing Gentiles.

3.) Abram spent some time in Egypt because of famine in Canaan, but when he returned to Canaan, the Lord said to him:

Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered. Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you (Gen. 13:14-17).

That’s another promise of the Promised Land, but one that is even better than the previous one. Not only would God give Canaan to Abram’s descendants (as previously promised), but He would give it to Abram himself. In his lifetime, however, which lasted another 100 years, Abram never possessed Canaan. The only land he ever owned there was a small field and cave, which he purchased in order to bury Sarai’s/Sarah’s body. But God didn’t give him that parcel. He bought it from those who owned it. Recall that Stephen reminded the Jewish Sanhedrin just before they stoned him:

Then he [Abram] left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. From there, after his father died, God had him move to this country in which you are now living. But He gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground, and yet, even when he had no child, He promised that He would give it to him as a possession, and to his descendants after him” (Acts 7:4-5, emphasis added).

Clearly, God’s promise to Abram to possess Canaan is yet to be fulfilled—just as it will be for you and me, two of Abraham’s descendants who have the identical promise he did.

In His third repetition of the promises to Abram, God promised to give the land to him and his descendants “forever.” As I have just pointed out, Abram never possessed it. His descendants who eventually did possess it didn’t possess it forever. They lost possession by virtue of their disobedience. And they all died. So there is a yet-future fulfillment of God’s promise for Abram and his descendants.

Are you realizing that God’s “forever” promise to Abram and his descendants was a promise of eternal life? If I possess land forever but don’t live forever, what good is that?

God also revealed to Abram in this Genesis 13 passage that he would have a great multitude of descendants, “as the dust of the earth.” Although I’m sure Abram was smart enough to figure out that it would require millennia for his descendants to multiply that much, I suspect he never imagined they would include anyone other than his physical descendants. But when God told him about his future multitude of descendants, God was thinking about people like you and me who would become one with Christ and thus be counted as a descendant of Abraham. We’re a part of that multitude. Praise God!

The author of the book of Hebrews (I assume Paul) had some Spirit-given insight into all of this. He wrote:

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God (Heb. 11:8-10, emphasis added).

So, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who all received the promise of the land never possessed the land. None even had a house in Canaan. They all lived in tents as “aliens in the land of promise, as in a foreign land.” Beyond that, as we will soon see, when the Lord appeared to Abram ten years after His first communication, Abram learned that neither he, nor his unborn heir, nor his grandchildren, nor many successive generations of his descendants would possess Canaan. For all of them, it would have to be in a future life. That must be why Paul wrote that Abram “was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God,” a reference to the New Jerusalem. God’s promise to Abram still hasn’t been fulfilled after 4,000 years. But it will be!

Paul continued in the book of Hebrews just three verses later:

All these (Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob/Israel) died in faith, without receiving the [fulfillment of the] promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them (Heb. 11:13-16, emphasis added).

I’m sure you noticed Paul’s second allusion in this same passage to the New Jerusalem, the city God has prepared (and that we can read about in Isaiah 60-62 and Revelation 21-22). Again, according to Paul, the three patriarchs all realized they would possess the land of Canaan in a future, eternal life.

Abram Believes in the Lord

4.) About ten years after the Lord spoke to Abram the first time, He spoke to him again in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; your reward shall be very great” (Gen. 15:1). Abram, however, was wondering, and perhaps doubting. He was now 85 and Sarai was 75. He said to God, “O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?…. Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.”

God graciously assured him that a future biological son would be his heir, and then took him outside so he could look up at the night sky. His descendants, God said, would be as numerous as the stars. You and I were represented by two of the stars Abram saw that night! Hallelujah!

Then the Genesis narrative informs us that Abram “believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). Obviously, Abram already believed God existed before he looked up at the stars that night. He had heard the Lord speak and had obeyed His instructions. What became different about his faith that night as he looked up at the stars?

We might think that was the moment Abram believed God’s promise concerning his future descendants. However, note that the Genesis narrative does not say, “Abram believed God’s promise regarding his future descendants.” Rather, it says “Abram believed in the Lord.”

Although I wish it were clearer, when we consider the context of the entire Bible, we know that righteousness is reckoned to people when they “believe in the Lord.” When the Philippian jailer, for example, asked Paul what he needed to do to be saved, Paul told him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). As I have stressed for so many years, those who believe in the Lord Jesus submit to Him. Those who don’t submit, don’t believe. Perhaps that was Abram’s moment.

In any case, Paul taught that Abram’s being reckoned righteous by faith—and before he was circumcised—proves that uncircumcised Gentiles (like Abram) can be reckoned as righteous by faith (see Romans 4). Specifically, Paul wrote:

Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised [believing Gentiles], that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith [believing descendants of Jacob/Israel] of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised….

For this reason it [salvation] is by faith, in order that it [salvation] may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law [the descendants of Jacob/Israel, all under the Mosaic Law], but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham [believing Gentiles], who is the father of us all [believing Jews and believing Gentiles], as it is written, “A father of many nations have I made you” (Rom. 4:9-12, 16-17).

So Abraham is the father of believing Gentiles. That’s me! And I hope you!

The Cutting of the Abrahamic Covenant

We next read in Genesis 15 that God said to Abram, “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it” (Gen. 15:7, emphasis added). That was the second time God promised Abram what to this day has not been fulfilled for him.

Then God instructed Abram to bring three animals and two birds, which he was to kill, cut in half (except for the birds), and lay each half opposite each other. It was a covenant ritual. Some period of time elapsed. Abram fell asleep, and “terror and great darkness fell upon him” (Gen. 15:12). Then God spoke to him:

Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete (Gen. 15:13-16).

At that point, Abram gained more clarity on God’s plan. He now knew with certainty that he would not possess Canaan in his lifetime, which turned out to last another 90 years. He also knew with certainty that his unborn heir would not possess Canaan in his lifetime, nor would any of his grandchildren. In fact, it would be at least 460 years before any of his descendants would possess the land of Canaan.

Why the long delay? Only one reason was given: “The iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16). That is, the moral decline among the Amorites, just one of at least ten tribal nations in the Promised Land, had not reached its inevitable moral low point that would require God’s judgment in the form of an Israelite invasion. Think about that. God was planning the invasion of the Promised Land at least 460 years in advance by the army of a nation that didn’t exist yet. That was certainly a lesson to Abram about God’s mercy, holiness, and judgment. Do you suppose Abram thought to himself, “I’m glad that God’s core character fluctuates, and that He is going to give me and my descendants the Promised Land unconditionally, unlike the Amorites who obviously hold it conditionally, so that we never have to fear God’s wrath if we displease Him!”?

Of course, when God freed the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from Egyptian slavery, He made a covenant with them that irrefutably tied their possession of the Promised Land to their faith and obedience. The first generation of ransomed Israelites failed to enter the promised land because of their unbelief and disobedience. The alleged “unconditional” Abrahamic covenant didn’t override the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant. And, of course, the God who never changes didn’t change between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

At the close of God’s covenant ceremony with Abram, we read:

It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen. 15:17-18).

The area described in that promise is, at bare minimum, ten times larger than modern Israel, and encompasses, not only all of modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, but all of Lebanon, significant portions of Syria, much of Jordan, fringes of Egypt, and small parts of northern Saudi Arabia and western Iraq. I’m waiting for dispensational Christians to start asking for donations to help arm the Israel militarily to invade all those nations in order to take “the land that belongs to them by divine right.” And why not? If the Abrahamic covenant described in Genesis 15 gives modern descendants of Abram’s grandson Jacob divine right to the current land defined by modern Israel’s borders, it gives them right to all the land described in Genesis 15.

And perhaps I, as one of Abraham’s descendants, should fly over to Saudi Arabia and kick some Saudis off the land that is mine by divine right! I wonder how that will go over?

5.) Fast forward another 14 years, to when Abram was 99 and Sarai was 89. (And Ishmael was 13.) The Lord again appeared to Abraham and repeated the old promises, some of which were now 24 years old. This time as you read, I hope you will look for what applies to you:

“I am God Almighty;
Walk before Me, and be blameless.
I will establish My covenant between Me and you,
And I will multiply you exceedingly.”
Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying,
“As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you,
And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

“I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God (Gen. 17:1-8, emphasis added).

I love those words “everlasting covenant.” It was a covenant between God, Abraham, and Abraham’s descendants, which includes all Gentiles who believe in the Lord Jesus. Obviously, unless Abraham and his descendants would be living forever, an “everlasting covenant” would not have much relevancy.

I also hope you noticed God’s words to Abram, the believer, “Walk before Me, and be blameless.” It was not a suggestion. It was a command. God expects obedience.

Again, God promised Abraham and his descendants “all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.” To this day, both Abraham and I are waiting for that promise to be fulfilled. Moreover, all of Abraham’s believing physical descendants who, hundreds of years after Abraham, actually possessed some part of the Promised Land during their lifetimes, are waiting for that promise to be fulfilled as it was promised: “for an everlasting possession.” It is a sure eternal inheritance waiting for all believing Jews and Gentiles.

It is beyond me how anyone can extrapolate from these promises in Genesis 17 that the modern physical descendants of Abraham, through his grandson Jacob, who have rejected their Messiah and who are not born again, now have a divine right, over both Muslims and Christians, to the land that Abraham and everyone in Christ, Jew and Gentile, will one day inherit forever. I can’t find that in Genesis 17 or anywhere in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Why would unbelieving physical descendants of Jacob/Israel have a divine right now to land that they will have no right to in eternity?

During the same divine appearance, God promised Abraham that Sarah would give birth to a son whom they should name Isaac, concerning whom God promised, “I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him” (Gen. 17:19). God also instituted the covenant mark of circumcision at that time, similarly stipulated hundreds of years later in the Mosaic Law. From this point on in the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision was required, so we’re certainly not talking about an “unconditional” covenant. Moreover, circumcision was symbolic of a repentant, transformed heart. The concept of a circumcised heart is found, not just in the New Testament, but also the Old:

So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer (Deut. 10:16).

Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live (Deut. 30:6).

Circumcise yourselves to the Lord
And remove the foreskins of your heart,
Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,
Or else My wrath will go forth like fire
And burn with none to quench it,
Because of the evil of your deeds” (Jer. 4:4).

Paul put it in perspective for us 2,000 years later:

For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God (Rom. 2:25-29, emphasis added).

Personally, I’m not going to debate Paul about that. And to Gentile believers in Colossae he wrote:

And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Col. 2:11-12).

6.) Not long after the Lord’s appearance to Abraham when he was 99, He appeared to him again, visiting him at his tent, along with two angels. The Lord then told him that within a year, Sarah would give birth to a son. Then the Lord asked:

Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him (Gen. 18:17-19).

I want to point out two things from those two sentences. First, what made Abraham so important in God’s eyes so as not to have anything hidden from him? Primarily it was that “in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” Those words were the primary and redundant theme for 25 years of divine communication with Abraham, from start to finish. When theologians try to make the Abrahamic Covenant all about the descendants of Jacob/Israel (or worse, all about modern political Israel), they are completely missing the point. The story of Abraham is the beginning of the story of the redemption of all the families on the earth. That story continues through the entire Bible, and I could write a small book showing that. That great story of redemption ends in Revelation, where we read:

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth…

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb (Rev. 5:9-10; 7:9, emphasis added).

Those two passages in Revelation show us that God’s plan through Abraham and his seed will be fulfilled. Abraham’s spiritual descendants, both Jews and Gentiles from all of earth’s families, “will reign upon the earth.” It won’t just be the Promised Land that we will inherit, it will be the entire world. “The meek shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). Paul referred to Abraham as “heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). The New Jerusalem is 1,500 miles wide by 1,500 miles long (Rev. 21:16). That’s about the distance from Philadelphia to Denver.

The second sentence of that passage is the final nail in the coffin of the idea that the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional. God declared: “For I have chosen [Abraham], so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him” (Gen. 18:19, emphasis added). It can’t get any clearer than that. The covenant was conditional. A few years later, God tested Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice Isaac on an altar. When Abraham was about to follow through, the Lord stopped him and said:

By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their [or his] enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice” (Gen. 22:16-18, emphasis added).

And what was it that the Lord decided not to hide from the man with the conditional covenant? If we keep reading in Genesis, we soon see it was God’s intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, two wicked cities within the Promised Land that Abraham is still destined to inherit. As I asked similarly earlier, do you think that when Abraham saw the smoke of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction, he thought to himself, “I’m so glad God’s standards of righteousness are different for me, and will be different for all my future descendants, since we have an unconditional covenant”?

For Now

The Bible’s grand story of redemption doesn’t start with Jews or Israel. It started in the Garden of Eden, where God promised that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15). Adam and Eve weren’t Jews. There would be no Jews for more than 2,000 years. There were 22 generations from Adam to Jacob/Israel. And there were no Jews on the earth until after the days of Judah, Jacob/Israel’s fourth son. The word “Jew” is derived from the word “Judah.” The first time we find the word is in 2 Kings 25:25 (in the NASB).

That redemption story continues with the calling of Abram, a man from Ur of the Chaldeans. The ruins of that ancient city can still be visited—in modern Iraq. Not Canaan. Not Israel. Abram wasn’t an Israelite. He wasn’t a Jew. He was a Gentile. The fact that he is the first person in the Bible who is called a “Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13) lends itself to that fact, as it is derived from a semitic word that means “to cross over, pass through, or traverse.” Abram crossed over from Mesopotamia (Ur of the Chaldeans) into Canaan. And he received, as an uncircumcised Gentile, a promise that all the families of the earth would be blessed through his seed. That seed was the incarnate Son of God, who most often referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” and who once, while commending the great faith of a Gentile said:

Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. I say to you that many [Gentiles] will come from east and west, and recline at the table with [Gentiles] Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom [descendants of Jacob/Israel] will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 8:10-12).

Patriarchs Isaac and Jacob were just as much Gentiles as Abraham. They each inherited the promise to carry the seed that would bless all the families of the earth (Gen. 26:2-5, 24; 28:13-15; 35:9-12), which are comprised of mostly Gentile families. We can, of course, refer to all of Jacob/Israel’s descendants as Israelites, but as I’ve already pointed out, neither Israel nor any of his descendants for more than 380 years after his birth inherited any land in Canaan.

For those who utilize the argument that Abraham’s modern physical descendants through Jacob/Israel have a right to Canaan/Palestine “because their ancestors were the original inhabitants,” I hope you realize now that they were not. Pre-dating them were at least ten tribal nations. By the way, are you returning your land in North America to the descendants of the Native Americans “because their ancestors were the original inhabitants?”

“OK, but God used the nation of Israel to dispossess those original inhabitants. God gave Israel that land.”

Indeed He did, but He warned them that if they ever started acting like the pagans whom they dispossessed, He would similarly expel them from the land (see Lev. 18:24-30; Deut. 8:19–20; 28-30). Eventually, they started acting like the pagans whom they dispossessed, and God expelled them from the land. Only a repentant remnant of those folks ever returned. This is Bible History 101.

There is much more that could be said. I will write one more article in this series in which we will consider the premise that Israel’s birth in 1948 and the subsequent return of Jews to Israel from all over the world is a sure fulfillment of the prophetic final return of Jews to their ancient homeland and a sign of God’s favor toward Israel, which we should imitate. We will also look at Romans 11, a favorite of dispensationalists.

^[1] ^{The Greek word translated “descendants” here in the NASB is sperma, which is why some translations say, “You are Abraham’s seed.”}

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:55:30 +0000

It is often said within Christian circles that whoever blesses the nation or people of Israel will be blessed, and whoever curses the nation or people of Israel will be cursed. For that reason, supporting the modern nation of Israel—economically, politically, and militarily—is presented as a sacred moral obligation for Christians. To do otherwise, it is often implied or claimed, is “antisemitic.”

Modern Evangelicals—in contrast with the historic Christians, Mainline Protestants, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians—are the only group within Christendom (generally speaking) to embrace this idea, essentially due to a rather novel theology. The result is hundreds of millions of dollars donated annually to “bless Israel,” a nation that consistently ranks in the top 30 among the 193 nations and territories listed on the United Nations’ Human Development Index—alongside France and Spain. Meanwhile, Christians in Malawi, ranked 172nd, endure what they call the “hunger season” every year as they wait for the next harvest. Why is it easier to raise money for well-off Jews than for starving Christians? (Has Israel replaced the Church?)

If you ask those who advocate “blessing Israel” where this principle is taught in the Bible, they will not be able to tell you. That is understandable, since it is not taught in the Bible. In the New Testament epistles, for example—all written during a time when a nation called “Israel” existed—there is not a single admonition by Paul, Peter, John, James, or Jude for Christians to bless or support the nation of Israel or stand with it against their enemies and so on. That was not a facet of following Christ in the early church. Christians outside of Israel did indeed raise money for poor, persecuted Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem, but that was something entirely different, similar to helping starving Malawian Christians today. It was caring for the “least of these” (Matt. 25:31-46). It had nothing to do with supporting a geopolitical nation because of its “prophetic significance.”

In addition, there is nothing in the New Testament epistles that even hints about “Israel’s sovereign right to their ancient homeland given to them by God that is now unlawfully occupied and controlled by a foreign power.” That, too, was not on any Christian’s radar.

Recall also that God Himself visited the nation of Israel for 33 years in the form of a man and spent more than three of those years in a public ministry. He never said a word about “blessing the nation of Israel” or “Israel’s right to their ancient homeland.”

Should not all of this give us pause and cause us to ask if all the modern evangelical focus on Israel is a little misguided? Do we have right what Jesus and apostles had wrong?

The “Biblical” Defense

On occasion, some will point to Genesis 12:3 to defend the idea of blessing the nation and people of Israel. There we find a promise God made to Abram before He renamed him Abraham:

And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

If we are honest, we must admit that these promises were given to a single person, Abram. The promise expressed in the final clause could also be viewed as a promise given to “all the families of the earth.” Genesis 12:3 is not about the nation of Israel, ancient or modern, other than the fact that people descended from Jacob/Israel are part of “all the families of the earth” who would be blessed through Abram. That’s it.

This becomes even clearer when we consider the full context of Genesis 12:3. Here is God’s entire promise to Abram recorded in Genesis 12:1-3:

¹ Now the Lord said to Abram,
“Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;

² And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;

³ And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (emphasis added).

Note in verse 1 that the Lord was speaking to Abram. God used the word “you” seven times and the word “your” four times in all three verses. So verse 3 had direct application to anyone who blessed or cursed Abram personally—a man who lived about 4,000 years ago. To claim that God was speaking about blessing or cursing a small, select minority of Abram’s descendants 4,000 years later is a stretch, to say the least.

In addition, nowhere in the New Testament is it stated or implied that Genesis 12:3 applies to blessing or cursing the nation of Israel. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament is God’s promise to “bless those who bless you” and “curse those who curse you” quoted or even mentioned. This common evangelical idea isn’t New Testament theology.

Taken together, all of this stands in contrast to the idea that God’s promise to Abram to “bless those who bless you” and “curse those who curse you” has application to the nation of Israel, either ancient or modern.

The final sentence of God’s promise to Abram, however, does receive attention in the New Testament as having application—to everyone in the world. God said to Abram, “In you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). God repeated that promise to Abraham in a more specific way at least 25 years later: “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 22:18).

So Genesis 12:3 and 22:18 revealed that all the families/nations of the earth would be blessed through Abraham’s seed. As God made His promise to Abraham, He was thinking about everyone in the world, not just one small group of his descendants.

But was God saying—as is sometimes claimed—that the “seed” of Abraham is the modern nation of Israel that has somehow blessed the entire world through the work of its fourteen Nobel laureates? For reference, the U.S. has produced about 425 Nobel laureates. No, not if we believe the New Testament. There, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostle Paul emphatically declared that “Abraham’s seed” mentioned in God’s promise to Abraham refers to Christ:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ (Gal. 3:16).

Indisputably, the “seed” God was referring to in Genesis 22:18—and alluded to in Genesis 12:3—is Jesus. For that reason, God’s promise could be paraphrased, “In your descendant, Christ, will all the nations of the earth be blessed.”

The Modern Descendants of Abraham

Today there are hundreds of millions of physical descendants of Abraham. They include not only Jews, descended from Abraham’s grandson Jacob/Israel, but also Arabs descended from Abraham’s son Ishmael. Among the modern descendants of Abraham, only a small minority are Jews. The majority are Arabs.

Mathematical genealogy models also suggest that anyone living 3,000–4,000 years ago who has any living descendants today is likely an ancestor of most or all modern humans. This would make virtually the entire world population genealogical descendants of Abraham.

As Paul pointed out, in Genesis 22:18 God was thinking of a single descendant of Abraham. That singular seed would bring God’s blessing not just to one group of people, but to all the world’s people. So, God is not a racist—as it seems He is so often portrayed. He loves the world. Jesus is the Savior of all. That was God’s plan since at least Genesis 12:3!

By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul referred to Genesis 12:3 and 22:18 as “the gospel” preached beforehand to Abraham—a gospel for Gentiles as well as descendants of Jacob/Israel:

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you” (Gal. 3:8, emphasis added).

The gospel is a message of God’s blessing for anyone and everyone. That blessing hinges on believing in the Lord Jesus—for both Jews and Gentiles. There is no other way to have a relationship with God. This is why Peter referenced the same promise when preaching to a Jewish audience in Acts 3:

It is you [Jews] who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, “And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways (Acts 3:25-26, emphasis added).

A Few More Proof Texts

On rare occasions, advocates of “blessing Israel” appeal to Isaac’s prayer over Jacob—whom he thought was Esau:

May peoples serve you,
And nations bow down to you;
Be master of your brothers,
And may your mother’s sons bow down to you.
Cursed be those who curse you,
And blessed be those who bless you (Gen. 27:29).

Clearly, this was a prayer for a single person, not for his future descendants. The words “you” and “your” appear seven times in that verse. Isaac’s prayer for Jacob was not a divine declaration that, from that time forward, everyone who blesses that nation or people of Jacob/Israel, will be blessed. And of course, such an idea is taught nowhere in the New Testament.

There is also Balaam’s prophecy regarding Israel in Numbers 24:9:

Blessed is everyone who blesses you,
And cursed is everyone who curses you” (Num. 24:9).

From this verse, should we conclude that God’s attitude toward a group of people remains constant regardless of their behavior? If you don’t know the answer, read Deuteronomy 28, in which God enumerates the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience. Actually, read just about any chapter in the Bible.

Balaam, of course, was prophesying specifically about the second generation of Israelites—the generation whose parents had wandered in the wilderness for 40 years because of their disobedience. Were the first generation—who all perished in the wilderness—blessed or cursed?

Should we conclude that, because God’s blessing was temporarily upon the descendants of Israel/Jacob more than 3,400 years ago, that guarantees His blessing on all of their future descendants who have at least a tiny fraction of their DNA, regardless of their behavior? Does God have different standards for different people? Is He actually “a respecter of persons,” even though the Bible says He is not (see Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9)?

There is much more that could be said, but I hope I have provided some food for thought for those Christians who believe they have a biblical duty to support modern political Israel because they’ve heard that the Bible says they will be blessed if they do and cursed if they don’t. I sometimes refer to those who are championing the “bless Israel” idea as “believers in Replacement Theology,” not because they believe the church has somehow replaced Israel—of which they sometimes accuse me—but because they have replaced the church with Israel. Caring for well-off Jews in Israel is immensely more important to them than caring for suffering Arab Christians or starving African Christians. If that isn’t replacing the church with Israel, what is?

Worse, some accuse me of being antisemitic because I do not support every policy of Israel’s current administration. If that makes me antisemitic, it makes more than half the Jews living in Israel antisemitic.

This all reminds me that the word “Semitic” actually means “descended from Shem,” not “descended from Jacob/Israel.” Arabs are Semitic people, just as Jews are. Both are descended from Abraham, who was descended from Noah’s son Shem. The irony is striking when professing Christians call those of us who do not support every policy of the current Israeli administration “antisemites,” while cheering on the death of Arab Semites—including Arab Christians. If cheering on the deaths of innocent Arab Semites doesn’t make you antisemitic, what does?

All of this is not to say that God does not have a plan for a future spiritual awakening among those who identify as Jews. But that has nothing to do with the subject of this article. God also has plans for a future spiritual awakening among Egyptians and Syrians. It is just as certain as the future spiritual awakening in Israel. God said through Isaiah:

In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance” (Isaiah 19:24-25).

But that doesn’t mean Christians have a sacred duty to economically, politically and militarily support modern Egypt or Syria.

When the church began it was comprised 100% of descendants of Jacob/Israel. Since about AD 36-40, it has included believing Gentiles, and the door has been open ever since to anyone from either group—if they will believe. Unbelieving Jews are outside the church and the new covenant just as much as unbelieving Gentiles. There is no salvation for them outside of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, their Messiah. The old covenant is now obsolete (Heb. 8:13) and all Christian believers, both Jew and Gentile, comprise a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” and “a people for God’s own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). Together they are “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paul wrote, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Rom. 2:28-29). Jesus Himself referred to first-century Jews who were persecuting Christians as a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Was Jewish Jesus antisemitic? Gentile believers have not only been grafted in to the olive tree of faith whose roots are in Judaism (Rom. 11:17-24), they have also become “Abraham’s descendants” (Gal. 3:29) by virtue of them becoming one with Christ. All these truths are in your New Testament!

Food for thought!

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Sat, 20 Jun 2026 13:55:34 +0000

After almost half a century as a Christian, and after 47 years in vocational ministry making a serious effort to understand and teach the Bible, I realize more than ever that all wrong Bible interpretation stems from ignoring biblical and historical context. You can make the Bible say almost anything you want to by isolating verses from their context.

For example, I could easily persuade any new Christian—using the Bible alone—to become a Universalist, a Calvinist, a false- or hyper-grace proponent, or a flaming legalist. In every case, all I would need to do is take advantage of the new Christian’s ignorance of the whole Bible and point out selected proof texts.

Let me share an example of a very common scripture passage that is misused by Christians of many stripes, often to support less-than-balanced doctrines:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9).

Countless times over the years I have heard this scripture quoted as if it applies to Christians: “God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. So don’t expect to make sense of my pet doctrine, based on five verses, that seems so strange.” Or, “God must have had some reason we can’t understand for allowing that terrible tragedy to occur. But His ways are higher than our ways.”

But was God, speaking through Isaiah, addressing people who were born again—or even people who were trying to follow Him? The prior verse gives us the answer:

“Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the Lord,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord (Isa. 55:7-8, emphasis added).

Context changes everything. God is clearly speaking to backslidden people who are following wicked ways and thinking unrighteous thoughts. Therefore, Isaiah 55:8-9 does not really apply to people who are submitted to the Lord, learning and striving to follow His ways and think His thoughts—which He has already revealed to us from Genesis to Revelation. In fact, the passage didn’t even apply to faithful Israelites in Isaiah’s day who were studying and striving to obey the Law of Moses, since God “made known His ways to Moses” (Psa. 103:7).

This, of course, does not mean we understand everything or that there are no mysteries about God. There certainly are. Paul, writing to Christians, said, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part” (1 Cor. 13:9; see also 13:12). Still, followers of Jesus “have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

God gave us 33,000 verses in the Bible. If our interpretation of any verse contradicts scores of other verses, that is a clear sign we are interpreting it wrongly. Can I get an “amen” out there?

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Sat, 13 Jun 2026 13:55:20 +0000

A brief history lesson:

Before 509 BC, the world was ruled 100% by kings, pharaohs, and chiefs.

Between 509 BC and 27 BC, the world was ruled 95% by kings. Only two republics appeared during that period—Athens and the Roman Republic (which later became an empire under Augustus in 27 BC).

Between 27 BC and 700 AD, the world was again ruled 100% by emperors, kings, and caliphs.

Between 700 AD and 1800 AD, the world was ruled 98% by kings. Republics existed only in a handful of places at various times.

In 1776, as you probably know, a new republic was born: the United States. That historic event and its fruit have since inspired the world and spread. Yet even today, 70–75% of the world’s people live under authoritarian, one-party, or hybrid rule. Many nations call themselves “republics,” but they are not. Think of China, Russia, and many Middle Eastern and African states.

Here’s a helpful rule of thumb: Kings ruled 97% of humanity for 97% of recorded human history.

All of this is to say that those of us who have lived our entire lives in relatively democratic countries are at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding the concept of kings. Kings rule. They govern kingdoms. They embody the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government in a single person. There is no balance of powers and no rule of law. Kings wield supreme authority. They do what they want, when they want, and treat others however they please.

Think of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker in the time of Joseph. They “offended their lord” (Gen. 40:1) and were promptly thrown into prison. Three days later, during his birthday feast, Pharaoh decided to restore the cupbearer and execute the baker. His orders were carried out immediately. That scene reminds us of what King Herod did regarding John the Baptist during one of his birthday parties. Both stories illustrate the absolute authority of kings.

Kings are to be feared and obeyed. Even though history is filled with mostly self-serving kings—making the very word “king” carry a strong connotation of corruption—it is a title Jesus willingly embraced for Himself (Matt. 25:34, 40; 27:11; John 12:13-15; 18:37). Twice in the book of Revelation, He is called “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). The message there is unmistakable: Jesus is the Supreme King. All other kings should look to Him as their King and obey Him.

We have also largely lost the concept of “lords,” who belong in the same category as kings. Lords, too, were to be obeyed. Jesus certainly embraced that title (John 13:13), not because He identified at all with the lords of history, but because He is the “Lord of lords” who has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). He expects to be obeyed. That is why He once asked, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46).

What is both amazing and tragic is that the King of kings and Lord of lords has been reduced—by many who claim to believe in Him—to someone we only need to “accept.” And if you point out that perversion, you risk being attacked by those same people.

I’ve heard it said hundreds of times: “I accepted the Lord” or “She accepted the Lord.” Those phrases make no sense. Lords are not accepted. It’s like saying, “I walked a carrot” or, “I climbed a cloud.”

A.W. Tozer rightly called this the “Accept Jesus Heresy.” People who have convinced themselves that Jesus is someone to “accept” clearly do not believe in Him as He has revealed Himself—as King of kings and Lord of lords. They actually believe in an idol they’ve carved and named “Jesus.

If you’ve read the New Testament, you know Jesus never asked anyone to “accept” Him. He wasn’t looking for accepters—He was looking for followers. More precisely, He never even asked people to follow Him. He commanded them to follow Him (Matt. 4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 19:21; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 10:21; Luke 5:27; 9:59; 18:22; John 1:43; 21:19, 22).

How heaven must cringe every time a pastor says, “Jesus is asking us to…” Jesus does not ask. He commands. He gave us commandments to obey, not suggestions to consider. He didn’t say, “If you love Me, you’ll do what I’ve asked you to do.” He said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).

In light of this tragic distortion of Christ by people who claim to believe in Him, it should be no surprise that the same people have also altered the message He commanded His followers to proclaim. What was that message? After His resurrection, Jesus told the Eleven that “repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations” (Luke 24:47). That is the gospel—the good news. God is making a gracious offer through Jesus: forgiveness of sins.

It is, however, a conditional offer. Receiving the benefit requires meeting the condition: repentance. This was not new to the disciples. John the Baptist had preached “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). Jesus preached repentance from the very beginning of His ministry (Matt. 4:17; 11:20; Luke 13:3, 5). The disciples had heard Him emphasize it almost daily for three years. When He sent the Twelve out to preach, He instructed them to proclaim repentance (Mark 6:12).

Strangely and perversely, many in the “accept Jesus” camp claim that repentance doesn’t involve actually turning from sin. It merely means, they say, changing your mind about Jesus. Since they don’t view Him as King of kings and Lord of lords, “changing their mind” requires no turning from sin.

It’s too bad John the Baptist didn’t know that. He gave specific instructions about the sins his listeners needed to forsake (Luke 3:8-14). So did Jesus—repeatedly. His Sermon on the Mount is filled with warnings about specific sins that could lead people to hell (Matt. 5–7). Paul did the same (see 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-5). He warned the Corinthians about those who had specifically “not repented of the impurity, immorality, and sensuality which they have practiced” (2 Cor. 12:21), and he urged them to examine whether they were truly in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5).

God has been making this same gracious but conditional offer for a very long time. Through the prophet Isaiah He declared:

Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the Lord,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon (Isa. 55:7).

Peter preached the same message shortly after Pentecost: “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away” (Acts 3:19, emphasis added).

Simply put, to repent is to make the Lord your Lord. Before repentance, He was not your Lord—as proven by your disobedience. You had not yet believed in Him. When you repented, He became your Lord—as proven by your new obedience. (The first evidence of that obedience should have been baptism.) That is when you truly believed in Him. If you have never repented in this way, you have never truly believed in Jesus. You are not born again. God’s Holy Spirit does not dwell in you. If you die in that state, you will be condemned when you stand before Him in judgment.

But when was the last time you heard a preacher, evangelist, or pastor call people to repentance? Tragically, the “gospel” has too often been reduced to an explanation that we are saved by grace, not works—therefore our behavior supposedly has no bearing on our final salvation. That idea stands in direct opposition to the clear message of the New Testament. It is essentially a call not to repent, because people are told they don’t need to repent. Worse, they are often told that if they think they do need to repent, they are “trying to save themselves by works.”

That is why I titled this article “The Anti-Gospel Gospel.” The modern gospel is the exact opposite of what the King of kings and Lord of lords commanded His followers to proclaim. He told them to call people to repentance. But they tell people not to repent, claiming there is no need to turn from sin—and that attempting to do so is dangerous because it means “trusting in works.” Worse, rebels against God are told they only need to “accept Jesus” which, when you think about it, exalts them above Him. Such a “gospel” is demonic.

The “accept Jesus” crowd often mocks this teaching, labeling it “Lordship salvation.” In doing so, they are mocking the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself—the gospel He preached, the gospel He commanded His followers to preach, and the gospel proclaimed by the original apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20).

God has never offered grace as a license to sin. He offers a temporary opportunity to believe in a divine Person who is King of kings and Lord of lords. Genuine faith in Him naturally produces repentance, and that repentance results in the forgiveness of all past sins. Anyone who claims to repent but continues living the same sinful lifestyle has obviously not actually repented.

Those who truly repent are indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit and empowered by Him:

If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him (John 14:23).

Note that Jesus’ words above are not an invitation to a “deeper walk” but to salvation and the new birth. Jesus and the Father, by the Holy Spirit, come to live only in those who keep His Word. Before people truly believe in the Lord Jesus and are born again, they do not keep His Word. Once they believe, they naturally make Him their Lord, naturally repent, and naturally begin keeping His Word. As the new believer “continues in faith” (as the New Testament repeatedly admonishes us all to do) he will grow in obedience as he learns more truth and abides in Christ.

This is Christianity 101. Yet it seems most professing “born-again Christians” have little concept of it—which strongly suggests they are not actually born again. From experience, I can say that those non-born-again “born-again Christians” can be some of the nastiest people you will ever encounter—especially when you challenge their cherished belief that “accepting Jesus” is an irrevocable ticket to heaven. We will continue, however, “turning the other cheek” to the non-born-again “born-again Christians,” because that is what our Lord commanded us to do. He’s our Lord!

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 13:55:44 +0000

Note to readers: We published this short parable a few years back, but it seemed time for a republish! David
_____________

Once upon a time, there was a great king who ruled his kingdom in truth and righteousness. But there were enemies living within his kingdom who broke his laws, and whom he discovered were plotting to overthrow his rule.

The king laughed when he heard of their plot, knowing that his enemies were no match for his armies, and because his informants knew his enemies’ every move and intent. So he decreed that in ten days, all of his enemies would be rounded up and executed for treason.

He mercifully decided, however, to give all of them an opportunity to be pardoned. And he sent his messengers throughout his kingdom with this message: “The great king would like all his enemies to know that they have ten days to come to his palace, lay down their arms, and pledge their allegiance to him. If they will do that, he promises to fully and freely pardon them as a gift of his grace.”

When his enemies heard the good news, many of them came streaming to his palace from all over his kingdom. When they arrived, they surrendered their weapons and pledged their allegiance to him. As they did, he declared that they were pardoned, and that he would not treat them as enemies, but as friends and citizens. They, in turn, praised him for his amazing grace, and they thanked him for the gift of forgiveness.

But when some of the king’s enemies heard the messengers, they found fault with their announcement. They said, “You are delivering an inaccurate message! If the king is offering a full and free pardon as a gift of his grace, then he cannot require that we surrender our weapons and pledge our allegiance. If that were the case, then the king’s pardon is not a gift, but is earned! Your message is not one of grace, but of works!”

And they took offense, not only at the messengers, but also at those from among their evil friends who streamed to the palace to lay down their weapons and pledge their allegiance. They mocked those who turned from their rebellion, saying, “You are trying to earn your pardon by your works! Grace is unconditional, and clearly, the messengers are proclaiming a false message! As for us, we will not surrender our arms or pledge our allegiance to the king, but rather we will simply accept him as our forgiver!”

Ten days later, all those rebels were rounded up and executed for treason and stupidity.

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Fri, 29 May 2026 13:55:42 +0000

Psychology is supposed to be the scientific (evidence-based) study of how people think, feel, and behave, as well as the biological, social and environmental factors that influence those processes. Unfortunately, what is claimed to be scientific is not always scientific. I recently read House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, by Robyn M. Dawes, who served for many years as head of the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. Dawes exposes the fact that much of modern psychology is based on unproven theories.

This is not to say that all modern psychology is based on myths or that people haven’t benefitted from aspects of it that are evidence-based. But Satan loves to mix truth with error in order to deceive folks. So “let the buyer beware.” Followers of the Lord Jesus should be judging everything in the light of His Word.

Pop psychology, in comparison, is a perversion of academic/clinical psychology. Real psychologists roll their eyeballs when they hear pop psychology being purveyed. It oversimplifies the complexities of academic/clinical psychology and misuses its terms. Pop psychology can be found in abundance all over the internet, and it can be harmful to those who innocently employ it to self-diagnose. (See my previous article titled, “The Poison of Psychobabble.”)

I have personally benefited from evidence-based psychology. I learned, for example, from the late Dr. James Dobson—who always described himself as a “Christian psychologist”—that “behavior that is rewarded tends to recur.” So, my wife and I were careful that we didn’t reward our young children for behavior that we didn’t want to recur. For example, when they wanted something and kept whining to get it, we didn’t reward them by ultimately giving them what they were whining for, as that would only result in more future whining. Had we given in, we would have been teaching them that the way to get what they want is by continued whining. Conversely, we always tried to reward good behavior with praise and sometimes other rewards. And it worked, just like Dr. Dobson said it would. (By the way, it works on adults as well, and God uses that same principle to motivate His own children.)

Still, because psychology’s fundamental premise is that people’s behavior is shaped by a combination of genetics, environment, and social interaction (which is all undeniably true to some extent), personal responsibility is mitigated and accountability to God doesn’t exist. No secular psychologist ever said to someone whom he was counseling, “Your problem is that you aren’t doing what Jesus commanded.” Yet in so many cases, that would be God’s diagnosis.

There is no such thing as “sin” in psychology, and guilt is often viewed negatively. That makes it fundamentally godless, and thus something which Christians ought to approach with acute caution. The closest thing to sin in psychology is “anti-social behavior.” And psychologists place the blame for it on genetic, environmental and social factors. The solutions they offer to those they counsel don’t include the word “repentance.”

For these reasons, the danger exists for life-altering self-deception among those who seek help from psychologists. “I’m a victim!” can become the dominating thought—a thought that Satan loves to feed. “My troubles are not my fault. The blame for my negative thinking, feelings, and behaviors lies outside of me.” Once that conclusion is reached, it becomes easy to think that the solution is to simply negate those blameworthy external influences.

Dr. Dobson warned about that very thing. He routinely told his listeners: “Secular counselors treat symptoms; biblical counselors treat the heart.” Any system that lets people blame parents, society, or “low self-worth” instead of confessing sin was, to him, dangerous counterfeit help.

Please allow me to interject that the pendulum can sometimes swing to the other extreme—when people who are victims of some form of abuse become wrongly convinced (usually by their abuser) that they are to blame. A wise counselor can be an invaluable help to those who are caught in that web of deception, helping them to see more clearly.

Personally, I’ve suffered both extremes. I can recall one very difficult time in my life when I was certain I was a victim, but I realized at a later time that I was mostly to blame. And I can recall another time when I was confused in just the opposite way, thinking that I must be blind to my faults that others could see, but later realized my fault-finders had been misled by a treacherous mutual friend.

In any case, we all can use help from others when we struggle to see clearly. If you are currently in the midst of such a struggle, I encourage you to seek biblical counsel from a caring friend, rather than the counsel of a therapist or psychologist who is apt to ignore your responsibility and accountability to God. Paid therapists have a financial incentive to avoid saying anything to you that would keep you from returning for another session. When we need clarity, we are best served by wise friends who love us enough to tell us the truth. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6).

As a side note, I can’t help but wonder why, among high-paid professions (those who earn at least $100,000 per year), psychologists have the highest divorce rate. The folks who are supposed to be the experts regarding human behavior and relationships have the highest rate of failure in the closest human relationship that exists. Could it be because they are apt to place blame on their spouses rather than themselves?

I also can’t help but wonder if godless psychology is what is confusing so many people on basic issues of justice. What is influencing so many people to view criminals as the victims and victims as the criminals? When God is removed from your worldview, something perverse is bound to replace Him.

In any case, if you are a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, I think you can see the inherent contradiction between modern psychology and Christianity. The Bible emphasizes personal responsibility and accountability to God over any other factors that might contribute to negative (sinful) behavior. Just a cursory reading of Scripture reveals that. Murder is murder, regardless of your skin color, neighborhood, or what anyone has done to you in the past. The same is true for adultery, fornication, greed, hatred, idolatry, unforgiveness, and any and every other moral sin listed in the Bible.

Think about this: What are the chances a psychologist will counsel you to “love your enemies” or warn you that, if you don’t forgive your brothers from your heart, God won’t forgive you of your sins, but rather will reinstate your formerly-forgiven sins and turn you over to the torturers (as Jesus solemnly warned in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant). Pretty slim chance, I suspect. You are more likely to be offered counsel that is based on some psychological theory which may or may not have any scientific basis or real therapeutic value. What is tragic about all of this is that Jesus offers everyone who is “weary and heavy-laden” the opportunity to take His yoke upon themselves and “find rest for their souls” (Matt. 11:29-30). He offers emotional health and freedom, not by giving us justifications for our wrong behavior or by shifting blame, but through confession and forgiveness. It is wonderful grace.

In my humble opinion, those particular words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 11:29-20 are some of the best the Bible has to offer for anyone struggling under the weight of emotional burdens. Taking Jesus’ yoke is of course symbolic of making Him your Master and submitting to His will. The remedy for so many ills is simply obeying Jesus. And lest anyone misunderstand His metaphor, Jesus quickly added that His “yoke is easy and His burden is light.” His point is that we all have our choice of burdens. We can choose His light and easy burden or the heavy and wearisome burden of disobedience. It’s a no-brainer.

May I also ask, what are the chances a secular psychologist will acknowledge that Satan or evil spirits might be lying to you or oppressing your mind in some way? There is no chance. Neither will he point you to the Word of God to help you recognize and identify Satan’s lies. Nor will he show you that the New Testament instructs Christians to only think about what is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, excellent and worthy of praise (see Phil. 4:8). (What an emotional difference is made in the lives of those who obey those instructions!) Nor will he point out that those who are indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit have the potential to enjoy all the Spirit’s beautiful fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. The only thing that can stop that fruit from manifesting and maturing in believers is disobedience.

Secular psychologists may indeed help some people understand why they think, feel and behave as they do, and in turn help them overcome negative thinking, feelings and behaviors. But God offers so much more.

But what about Christian counselors who are psychologists, like the late James Dobson?

If they are Christians, as Dr. Dobson was, God’s unchanging Word will take precedence over the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the “Bible” of all secular psychologists. Dr. Dobson hated godless psychology, and so should anyone hate what contradicts God’s Word. To believe in God is to believe His Words. To love God is to love His Words. To please God is to obey His Words.

God made us. God knows us. God has told us what to do. It is His will that anyone and everyone who is “weary and heavy laden” “find rest for their souls” by “taking His yoke.” But the choice is always ours. He won’t force us. So just do it!

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Sat, 23 May 2026 13:55:59 +0000

The term “psychobabble”—found in the Oxford English Dictionary since 1984—was coined by a psychiatrist and writer named Richard Dean Rosen in his 1977 bestselling book titled, Psychobabble: Fast Talk and Quick Cure in the Era of Feeling.” It is a derogatory term for language that uses academic psychological terminology in a superficial, misleading, exaggerated, or meaningless way. It often sounds impressive and authoritative, but it lacks real substance, precision, or therapeutic value.

The word “psychobabble” is typically used to criticize pop psychology, self-help clichés, overly-simplistic explanations of complex human behavior, or the misuse of technical psychological terms by non-experts. Psychobabble has flooded social media, and it is the verbiage of TikTok therapists and Facebook life coaches. Pop “psychologists” use some of the same terms used by academic psychologists, but they pervert their meaning, misleading those who listen to them. Worse, some psychobabble has infiltrated even the ranks of clinical psychologists who employ therapeutic techniques that lack empirical support.^[1]

For that reason, psychobabble and its related pop psychology fallacies can be poisonous to those who partake. You may be surprised to discover that you have been unwittingly using some form of psychobabble in your own vocabulary, or have embraced some of pop psychology’s many myths. In this brief article, I want to point out some of the most common psychobabble phrases.

1.) “She’s a narcissist.” Within the field of academic psychology, narcissism is a rare personality disorder that requires an in-depth assessment for diagnosis using nine criteria. The clinical narcissist must be consistently (not temporarily) characterized by at least five of these nine: He has (1) a grandiose sense of self-importance, (2) a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love, (3) a belief that he or she is “special” and unique, (4) a need for excessive admiration, (5) a sense of entitlement, and he (6) is interpersonally exploitative, (7) lacks empathy, (8) is often envious of others, (9) and shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. (Of course, all of those criteria have been arbitrarily chosen to define the arbitrarily-chosen term, narcissism.)

In any case, just because someone is selfish or self-obsessed on some level doesn’t mean he is a narcissist. Calling someone who is selfish a narcissist is unfair and can even be cruel. If everyone who is selfish at times is a narcissist, then we’re all narcissists. So let’s eliminate the term from our vocabulary unless we are accredited psychologists. And let’s ignore all the “narcissist checklists” on TikTok, Reddit, Instagram and Facebook.

There are, by the way, scores of YouTube psychologists, both credentialed and self-anointed, who make a living by talking about nothing other than narcissism and its subtypes (such as “overt” and “covert” narcissism). It has become a growing industry. Everyone wants to label the person who hurt them a “narcissist “so they can lay all the blame for their broken relationship on the other person. When you’ve had the bad luck of marrying seven narcissists in a row, it might be time to look in the mirror…

2.) “He’s gaslighting me!” The term “gaslighting” comes directly from the 1938 British stage play titled Gas Light and its two 1940s film adaptations. The plot revolves around a manipulative husband who secretly dims and brightens the gas-powered lights in his house while repeatedly denying to his wife that the lights are changing brightness. He does other similar things in an attempt to convince relatives that his wife is going insane in order to have her committed to an institution so he can steal her inheritance.

Psychologists eventually began using the term to describe a form of psychological manipulation in which, over an extended period of time, a person with evil intent deliberately makes someone question their own reality, memory, or perceptions, with the intent of gaining power or control over them.

“Gaslighting” is not disagreeing with someone’s viewpoint in an argument. It is not challenging someone’s perception. It is not disagreeing with someone’s memory. It is not saying, “I never said that” about something minor or misremembered.

The gaslighting person hides your car keys every day and insists that you are losing your mind. Or he repeatedly tells you that all your friends hate you when he knows that is not actually true in an attempt to manipulate you for his selfish ends. Or he denies that he sent the hostile texts that you show him on your phone and claims they are forgeries and you are delusional. Gaslighting is a serious, patterned form of abuse. But in modern culture, it is one of the most overused terms of psychobabble, applied to almost any disagreement, lie, of difference of recollection.

3.) “You are dismissing my feelings!” or, “You are invalidating my feelings!” Within academic psychology, “emotional invalidation” occurs when someone repeatedly belittles or worse, mocks, another person’s emotions, conveying to them that their emotions are stupid or wrong.

A simple, single example of emotional invalidation would be telling someone who is grieving the loss of a loved one, “Get over it! It’s been two weeks already!” That is thoughtless, but it still does not qualify to be labeled as “emotional invalidation” unless it is a pattern.

Telling a child, “Stop crying, or I’m going to spank you again!” is certainly emotional invalidation and abusive, especially if it is a pattern.

If you believe many of the internet “life coaches,” however, you will start to believe that emotional invalidation occurs with any response that does not immediately and fully affirm your feelings or viewpoint. There is no room for disagreement, facts, alternative perspectives, or sincere challenges from others. And anyone who innocently says, “You shouldn’t feel that way!” becomes the emotion-invalidating enemy. That then becomes the excuse to “find a safe place” (next on our list) which is psychobabble for, “I only keep friends who affirm everything I feel and think.” Those kinds of folks eventually find themselves living very lonely lives.

People who say to others, “You are dismissing my feelings” are making an accusation. Whether the accusation is true or not, it will generally be perceived as an attack and met with resistance. Better to first evaluate if the person whom you are accusing is actually belittling or mocking your emotions. If they are, then better to gently say, “I know you genuinely care about how I feel, but you’re giving me some reason to question that.” That gentle response will elicit an entirely different response than, “You are dismissing my feelings,” which is relational poison.

4.) “I don’t feel safe around you, so for my own self-protection, I need to move to a safe place.” That statement is not psychobabble when there is a realistic threat of physical or serious emotional harm. For example, if someone is threatening you with violence, stalking you, sexually coercing you, inappropriately touching you, and so on, your brain should register genuine danger. You should find a safe place and call the authorities.

However, this is classic psychobabble when it is spoken to someone who disagrees with you, expresses a different opinion, or even criticizes you, makes you feel embarrassed, guilty or emotionally uncomfortable. It is a relationally-poisonous insult to convey to such a person that they are dangerous and thus deserve to be completely shunned. They might be thoughtless, rude or annoying, but they are not dangerous. And the person who uses this kind of psychobabble in dealing with people who disagrees with them or holds to a different opinion only reveals their insecurity and immaturity.

5.) “She is emotionally abusive!” That phrase is the current champion in the psychobabble hall of fame. In academic psychology (as well as in domestic-violence shelters and courts), emotional abuse is defined as repeated, patterned behavior that destroys someone’s self-worth, such as constant belittling, name-calling, humiliation, threats, isolation from friends and family, controlling someone else’s money or where-abouts, and deliberate silent treatment for days as a punishment.

Someone criticizing you once or twice, or who raises their voice against you during a single argument, or who says something hurtful in the heat of the moment, is not emotionally abusing you. If you simply don’t like a person’s tone, personality, or communication style (for example, if they’re blunt, sarcastic or dry), that is not emotional abuse.

On TikTok and Reddit, however, posters get thousands of “likes” when they publicly accuse others of emotional abuse for what amounts to typical human behavior. “My boyfriend rolled his eyes as I was talking to him” or, “My mother asked, ‘Why are you still single?’” “I suffered emotionally-abusive silent treatment when my friend didn’t text me back for 12 hours!” That is all just weaponized psychobabble. It, like most other psychobabble, is relational poison.

6.) “I’ve suffered trauma because of what you did.” Within academic psychology, trauma is defined as “Events of an extremely threatening or horrific nature, likely to cause pervasive distress in almost anyone.” It is also defined as “Actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence, examples being military combat, rape, childhood sexual abuse, natural disasters, severe accidents, and witnessing violent death.” Some clinicians make a distinction between “Big T” and “Little t” trauma, the latter of which they define as highly-stressful life events that do not meet the classic definition of trauma, such as divorce, job loss, bullying or infidelity. Still, “Little t” trauma is not found as a classification in psychology diagnostic manuals. The reason is because it redefines actual trauma and its consequences.

People who have suffered actual trauma have overwhelmed their nervous system’s ability to cope. They are often triggered by reminders of the actual traumatizing event, and can suffer from nightmares, flashbacks and hypervigilance. I’m sure you’ve heard of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It’s real, and I know people who have suffered with it. Trauma isn’t a feeling. It’s an event, or series of events.

In the world of pop psychology, however, trauma is almost anything that feels bad or overwhelming, such as a break-up, being cheated on, a harsh criticism, failing an exam, an argument with a parent, micro-aggressions, “bad vibes,” or seeing upsetting news. Being traumatized is equivalent to feeling anxious, sad, upset or angry. TikTok therapists tell us that we’ve all been traumatized, and that “trauma is stored in the body” (whatever that means). So we all need therapy, and for just $99, we can download their course and start healing. They tell us that, if we were born to Boomer parents (born between 1946 and 1964), we are likely to be suffering from “generational trauma.” That is, our parents suffered trauma, and that negatively affected how they raised us.

It’s all just psychobabble. And when we accuse someone of “traumatizing” us for some mistreatment, real or perceived, it is relational poison.

Again, the difference between academic psychology’s (evidence-based) and pop psychology’s (pseudoscientific) definitions of trauma can be summed up as follows: Academic psychology asks, “Did someone realistically think they (or someone else) might die or be sexually violated? Then they may have suffered trauma.” Pop psychology asks, “Did it upset or hurt your feelings? Then you are suffering from trauma” (and you need therapy).

7.) “You have forced me to set boundaries.”

“Boundaries” is one of the most overused and distorted terms on the internet, and it regularly appears on “top psychobabble” lists alongside terms like “toxic” and “gaslighting.” It is the foundation for the current trend of “going no contact” with family members who are labeled as “toxic.” In academic psychology, however, setting boundaries is simply communicating clear, consistent, reasonable, justifiable limits on patterned abusive behaviors you will not accept from others, and what consequences will follow if the limit is crossed (just like God does). Boundaries can protect the time, energy, and emotional well-being of the person who sets them.

Obviously, boundaries that are set for specific individuals are only needed for individuals who are consistently abusive. For that reason, followers of Christ should have no need to set up any boundaries among themselves, as they are supposed to be respecting the boundaries God has set up in His Word. I am happy to report that my wife has not set up any boundaries in our 46-year relationship because she has not seen any need for them. If I was a derelict husband, however, she might say to me, “David, if you come home drunk one more time, I’m going to move out for a month, and you will have to take care of yourself.” And that would be a good boundary for her to establish, as it would help hold me accountable for my abusive behavior and incentivize me to change. By not setting such a boundary, she would actually be helping to enable my abusive behavior.

In pop psychology, setting boundaries is often reduced to communicating personal preferences as non-negotiable rules that others must obey, or they will be labeled as “toxic.” Such boundaries are used to manipulate, control or punish others. Like so much of what is being twisted in pop psychology, setting boundaries becomes a justification for what is actually pure selfishness. When someone says, “I have a boundary against anything that doesn’t affirm me” that is selfish and controlling. Weaponizing boundaries has become a common justification to end conversations, to “go no contact,” or to demand one-sided accommodations while framing any pushback as “abuse.”

When there is a legitimate need to set boundaries, they should be flexible depending on context, relationship and new information. Within practitioners of pop psychology’s version, however, once boundaries are stated, they are treated as sacred, permanent, and non-negotiable. Changing or even discussing them is labeled as “boundary violation.” Those kinds of boundaries,” like just about everything else in the world of pop psychology, are relational poison.

In Conclusion

There are many other examples of psychobabble endlessly used by pop therapists, life coaches, social media influencers, and so on. If you hear any of these trendy buzz phrases, chances are you are hearing psychobabble: “Do the work,” “hold space,” “inner child healing,” “nervous system dysregulation,” “that’s my trauma speaking,” “sit with your feelings,” “you are mirroring my wounds,” “trauma-informed,” and “energetic boundaries.” All may have some remote basis in evidence-based psychology, but they are twisted and superficial. One theme they all seem to hold in common is also quite prevalent within academic psychology (which is also godless at its core): You are the victim. Someone else is to blame, and you are not responsible for your negative thinking patterns, behaviors, and broken relationships.

And how we love discovering that it is not our fault! It has been part of human nature ever since Adam said to God, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate” (Gen. 3:12), and then Eve said to God, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Gen. 3:13). But even though both original humans tried to place the blame on someone else, God didn’t buy their excuses. He held them accountable for their behavior. Welcome to reality.

Those Who Ignore History are Doomed to Repeat It

The ideas that are the foundation of modern psychology were only introduced to the world about 130 years ago by Sigmund Freud (a very perverse man, by the way). Pop psychology didn’t wait long to surface after that. By the 1910s, the press was already running headlines like, “What Your Dreams REALLY Mean,” “Are You in Love with Your Mother?,” “Every Man Has a Secret Wish to Kill His Father, says Freud,” and “Do You Have an Inferiority Complex? The New Disease That Explains Everything.” Since then, it has only gotten worse.

Oddly, the “Christian” world has fully embraced pop psychology as indicated by the many Christian self-help books that often blend out-of-context and twisted Scripture passages with psychobabble. Back in the 80s, for example, the raging fad of pop psychology was the “self-esteem” movement. The big problem with society, we were told then, was that people had a “low self-esteem.” They just didn’t love themselves enough. So, we needed to help everyone love themselves more. That would cure society’s ills. The self-esteem movement birthed school curricula, books, and policies promoting self-esteem as the answer to problems like crime and poor academic performance. It permeated education, parenting, and media, with participation trophies and “everyone’s a winner” approaches becoming the norm.

Before long, Christian publishers and pastors were jumping on the bandwagon, especially after they found some biblical support: “God commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves! So, we can’t love others like God wants us to until we first love ourselves! So we must work on loving ourselves!” It was an incredible twisting of Scripture and logic that sanctified selfishness. Up until then, most Christians understood that the second-greatest commandment was a call to repent of our existing selfishness—which everyone already has too much of—and start loving others like we already love ourselves.

The cultural dominance of the self-esteem movement peaked in the 1990s. By the early 2000s, the movement faced growing backlash for lacking empirical support. Studies actually showed that inflated self-esteem often led to selfishness, entitlement, and fragility rather than resilience and achievement. By the mid-2000s, the idea devolved into a punchline (and just in time for the next set of pop psychology fads).

What could people do for the thousands of years before the appearance of academic and pop psychology? Thankfully, they could look to God, the Maker of us all. His Word has provided us with an accurate psychological diagnosis and the remedy for all that is wrong with us. We are selfish sinners, and the cure is repentance and a living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that results in us loving our neighbors as ourselves. And all the specifics on just how to do that are found in His Word. There we learn, for example, how to deal with inevitable conflicts that arise. We also learn that, in some cases, there are people with whom we should not associate at all. But the Bible’s instructions stand in stark contrast with the psychobabble of selfish pop psychology. Don’t fall for it!

^[1]^{For proof, see House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, by Robyn M. Dawes, who served for many years as head of the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University.}

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Sat, 16 May 2026 13:55:11 +0000

The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field (Matt. 13:44).

There are many wonderful paydays for those traveling the narrow path to life (Matt. 7:14). The first one occurs at conversion, on the day of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. On that day, the new believer’s former sins are all forgiven (2 Pet. 1:9). His spirit is reborn and he becomes a “new creation in Christ” (John 3:1-16; 2 Cor. 5:17). His body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). God becomes his spiritual Father and he becomes God’s child (1 John 3:1). Eternal life now waits at the end of the narrow path (Rom. 2:6-7). And that is just the short list!

Of all the paydays enjoyed in the Christian life, that first one is perhaps the least appropriate to call a “payday” since the word implies a benefit that is earned. That initial payday is in no sense earned or deserved. Every component is a gift of God’s amazing grace. Yet, as Jesus’ Parable of the Hidden Treasure so paradoxically affirms, enjoying the benefits of God’s grace may cost a person everything.

Following the Lord Jesus Christ may cost one his relationships with friends and family members (Matt. 10:34-37), his reputation (Matt. 5:10-12), his livelihood and possessions (Heb. 10:34), and even his life (John 16:2-3). Yet, as the same parable also affirms, the benefits greatly outweigh the price. Gaining Christ is worth sacrificing everything because the benefits are eternal. As Paul wrote, “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18).

Other Paydays

We thank God for His wonderful grace. To reduce a believer’s entire relationship with God, however, to nothing more than a relationship of “undeserved favor,” is to ignore practically every page of the Bible. God “is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6, emphasis added). Rewards are earned. God has promised to reward everyone “according to their deeds” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 2:23; 20:12). That is a merit-based promise, not a grace-based promise.

There is coming a major payday for all believers—when they stand before Jesus. That is when we will know exactly how much treasure we have stored up in heaven and when our works will be tested with fire (1 Cor. 3:10-15). Yet there are many paydays between the initial one at conversion and the final one at the judgment seat of Christ. That is the subject of this final lesson.

I have intentionally saved this lesson for last. We’ve now reached the peak of our ascent, and the beautiful view belongs only to those who have persevered in the climb. Now that you’ve arrived, you deserve to know what many others do not: When you care for the “least of these” and/or support God-called ministers, God doesn’t just reward you with treasure in heaven. He also rewards you with treasure on earth.

The reason I didn’t mention this earlier in our stewardship journey is likely the same reason Jesus didn’t say it to the rich young ruler—because God doesn’t want us to give to the poor for personal profit. If we do, we are motivated, not by love, but by selfishness. Remember, Paul wrote, “If I give all my possessions to feed the poor…but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3, emphasis added). God will not reward giving for the wrong motive. “Giving to get” really isn’t giving at all. Yet Paul’s words strongly imply that God does reward giving motivated by love.

This is the fatal flaw in the teaching of the infamous “prosperity preachers” who litter the spiritual landscape. They grow rich preaching what amounts to sanctified selfishness. They focus solely on the Bible’s promises of blessing for givers while ignoring the greater context.

For example, one of their favorite verses is Luke 6:38, taken from Jesus’ Sermon on the Plain:

Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure—pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.

All of that is 100% true. Yet Jesus also said in His Sermon on the Mount:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full (Matt. 6:1-2).

This brings needed balance to Jesus’ promise in Luke 6:38. Giving to be seen by people earns praise from people but no reward from God. It stands to reason that giving for any wrong motive—including “giving to get”—also results in no reward from God.

Moreover, after quoting Luke 6:38, prosperity preachers often take up collections for their own lavish ministries, as though Luke 6:38 has application to giving to wealthy prosperity preachers. There was, however, no such thing as prosperity preachers when Jesus spoke those words as recorded in Luke 6:38. Everyone who heard His Sermon on the Mount (or any of His other relevant messages), would have understood Him to be talking about giving to the poor.

End of story.

By the way, Jesus did not say to His followers during His Sermon on the Mount, “If you give to the poor” but, “When you give to the poor…”

Because I founded a ministry that focuses on caring for the “least of these” and expanding Jesus’ kingdom, I am blessed to know many generous givers. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard them say, “You can’t outgive God!” Because of their generosity, God blesses them in return. They frequently enjoy those blessed paydays.

And it makes sense. Why wouldn’t God entrust givers with more so they can give more? And why would He wait until heaven to do that?

Conversely, why wouldn’t God withhold financial blessing from those who prove themselves unfaithful with what He has already entrusted to them? The Parables of the Talents and the Ten Minas (Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27) both come to mind. The faithful were rewarded; the unfaithful were punished.

Jesus once said, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much” (Luke 16:10). We must first prove ourselves faithful with little, and as we do, God will entrust us with more.

Proof from Paul

As we saw in Lesson 8, Paul received offerings from churches he founded to benefit the “least of these” in Jerusalem. He devoted two entire chapters in his second letter to the Corinthians to that cause, and the principles he laid out provide an excellent outline for anyone collecting money for the poor.

Paul, of course, wanted the Corinthians to be motivated by love, referring to their giving as “the proof of your love” (2 Cor. 8:24). He did not want their giving to be “affected by covetousness” [pleonexia], a word we have previously learned could also be translated “greed.” That proves once again that neglecting the “least of these” can itself be a form of greed.

I encourage you to read all of 2 Corinthians 8–9, but here is one especially relevant passage from chapter 9:

Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed; as it is written [in Psalm 112:9], “He scattered abroad, He gave to the poor, His righteousness endures forever.” Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God (2 Cor. 9:6-11).

Note that Paul again emphasizes the importance of right motivation. Giving “grudgingly or under compulsion” is not giving motivated by love for God and others. “God loves a cheerful giver”—a giver moved by love and faith.

Notice also that Paul did not say the harvest would come only in heaven. The passage clearly affirms an earthly return meant to enable greater generosity: “God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed.”

Then Paul doubled down: “Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; you will be enriched in everything for all liberality.” Paul almost sounds like a prosperity preacher! In reality, He sounds like Jesus, who also promised that givers will be blessed (see Luke 6:38).

Supporting Fruitful Ministers

Would you not consider yourself blessed if you had the opportunity to financially support the apostle Paul? Sadly, not everyone who benefited from his ministry seized that opportunity. But the saints in Philippi did, and they sent him an offering more than once. Paul wrote to thank them:

I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction. You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:10-18, emphasis added).

We sometimes hear Christians claim, “My God will supply all my needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” That promise, however, belongs specifically to those who financially support fruitful ministers like Paul. It is a promise of earthly blessing—the supplying of every need.

In the Old Testament, the giving of tithes (which, as we have seen, were meant for priests and the poor) was certainly connected to earthly blessing:

“Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the Lord of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes,” says the Lord of hosts. “All the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land,” says the Lord of hosts (Mal. 3:8-12).

By withholding their tithes and offerings, the people of Israel were inviting God’s curse on their harvest. Their repentance, however, would bring an end to the curse and usher in an overflowing blessing.

Notice also that God declared that by withholding what should have been shared with the priests and the poor, they were robbing Him. This is the same message Jesus conveyed in His teaching about the future judgment of the sheep and the goats. To neglect the poor in God’s family is to neglect God Himself.

This same theme of God’s identification with the poor appears in Proverbs:

One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord,
And He will repay him for his good deed (Prov. 19:17, emphasis added)

And once again, we see a promised repayment with no mention of heaven.

Here are two more promises from Proverbs of earthly blessing for those who care for the poor:

He who is generous will be blessed,
For he gives some of his food to the poor (Prov. 22:9).

He who gives to the poor will never want,
But he who shuts his eyes will have many curses (Prov. 28:27).

Helping the Poor Lift Themselves

The absolute best way to help the poor is to help them lift themselves out of poverty—with dignity through their own efforts. When equipped with tools, knowledge, skills, or employment opportunities, the poor generally get right to work.

Heaven’s Family has done this for thousands of poor subsistence farmers across East and Southern Africa. When we first meet them, they often cannot grow enough food to feed their families. Their meager harvests run out, and they endure what everyone calls the “hunger season.”

Through agricultural training in “Farming God’s Way,” however, their very next harvest is typically two to three times larger. As they continue practicing these methods, harvests keep increasing. They become self-sufficient and are enabled to care for local widows and orphans. The agricultural training takes place in the context of house churches we call “God’s Love Groups,” where members also learn to follow Jesus. It is holistic ministry at its finest—ministering to spirits, souls, and bodies.

You are probably thinking, “I’ll bet David wrote these lessons to persuade me to invest in Heaven’s Family.” You are partially right. The full truth is that I wrote them so the millions among the “least of these” would no longer be ignored and neglected, but would be loved by the millions who claim to love Jesus. In so doing, believers not only demonstrate their love for Christ, but they also store up treasure in heaven and experience God’s abundant earthly provision that belongs to the generous.

Now you know what God expects of us concerning the “least of these.” Will you obey? You also have an obligation to steward the relationships God has entrusted to you by sharing what you know with others so they, too, can align their lives with God’s will. Will you?

I’ll close with the lyrics to a song I wrote years ago that seemed to be from His heart. It is titled, I Cared, I Died. You can listen to the actual song by visiting the home page of HeavensFamily.org and clicking on the song title.

1.) I see a poor old man
Who lives in Pakistan
Sitting by his fire
As the full moon rises higher.
He stares up at the stars
Wondering what they are
And who put them there.
Is there a God who cares about him?

I care, I died.
I bore the guilt for all his sins.
But who will go or send someone?
Who cares enough to tell him what I did?

2.) A widow in Sudan
Driven from her land
I see her face is worn
I see her clothes are tattered and torn.
She knows she is My child
And she prays to Me out loud
Asking for some bread
Before her crying daughter is dead.

I care, I died.
I want to answer her simple prayer.
But I’ve entrusted much to some
So they will use what I’ve given them to share.

3.) I see a Russian boy
He’s never owned a toy
Living on the streets
Scavenging for what he eats, every day.
At night he sleeps alone
Longing for a home
Where some love is found
Where he can feel some arms around him.

I care, I died.
I want this child in a family.
Who will share their home with him?
Who will show him the love they have for Me?

4.) I see the millions more
Safe behind church doors
Wealthy and secure
But to Me they are wretched and poor.
They pray that they’ll be blessed
That I’ll grant them more success;
Why do they call Me Lord?
My commandments are ignored.

I care, I died
I’m calling you to wake from sleep.
When will you understand?
Only those who deny themselves are My sheep.

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Sat, 09 May 2026 13:55:07 +0000

Scripture identifies Satan as “the deceiver of the whole world” (Rev. 12:9) and the “father of lies” (John 8:44). He “disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:4).

As a master deceiver, Satan often mixes truth with error to fool the unsuspecting.

Recall that, of the four specific claims he made to Eve, only one was a lie, namely, “You surely will not die!” (Gen. 3:4). That lie was followed by three truthful claims: “God knows that in the day you eat from it [1] your eyes will be opened, [2] and you will be like God, [3] knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). When the first couple ate the forbidden fruit, Scripture says, [1] “the eyes of both of them were opened” (Gen. 3:7) and God said, [2] “the man has become like one of Us, [3] knowing good and evil (3:22). One lie. Three truths.

If someone wanted to poison a dog, he wouldn’t feed the dog poison. He would sprinkle some poison on a piece of meat. And that is how the devil operates. He mixes error with truth to fool the ignorant.

The devil has done that with the gospel itself, proffering good news that is clothed in biblical truth but counterfeit at its core.

For example, although it can be correctly said that anyone can enjoy a personal relationship with Jesus so that He becomes their friend, brother, shepherd, and savior, all of those wonderful relationships hinge, not on “accepting Him”, but on first submitting to Him as Lord.

Recall that Jesus said to His disciples, “You are My friends if you do what I command you” (John 15:14, emphasis added).

Remember that He defined His brothers as “whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 12:50, emphasis added).

Also remember that, as the “good Shepherd” (John 10:11), He defined His sheep as those who hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27, emphasis added). They ignore other voices that beckon (John 10:5).

Finally, although Jesus was once referenced by Paul as being “the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10), Paul^[1] also wrote that Jesus “became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:9, emphasis added). To unbelievers, Jesus is a temporary potential Savior, having died for their sins, but to those who obey Him as Lord—a sure sign of their genuine faith—He is their eternal Savior. As John wrote, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36, emphasis added).

Other biblical relationships with Jesus could also be cited that similarly hinge on relating to Him first as Lord. He told us that we cannot even rightly claim that we love Him unless we keep His commandments:

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments… He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me… If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word (John 14:15, 21, 23).

This, fundamentally, is why you won’t read in the New Testament about anyone “accepting Jesus.” That phrase does not describe a relationship with Jesus that is biblical. As I pointed out in our second lesson, Jesus was not looking for “accepters.” He was looking for “followers,” that is, those who will do what He says. And He doesn’t need our acceptance. We need His acceptance. That is gained by repentance and faith in Him, and obedience naturally follows.

Similarly, the idea of “falling in love with Jesus,” popularized in some Christian songs, is flawed at best and degrading to Him at worst. Our love for Him is not romantic, like we might feel for a member of the opposite sex, but obedient and self-denying, like we might possess for a benevolent king. It is also loyal and undivided, which is why Jesus declared that it is impossible to serve God and wealth (Matt. 6:24). He made it clear that the heart that loves God cannot be a heart that loves money. Thus, genuine love for God results in obedient stewardship.

All of this is to say, beware of counterfeit, satanic gospels. If you’ve been paying attention, I’ve been warning about that in every lesson.

What About Greed and Covetousness?

Satan has similarly succeeded at annulling the New Testament’s solemn warnings against greed and covetousness by proffering vague, counterfeit definitions of both, reducing them to nothing more than hidden, inward attitudes that cannot be judged, not only in others, but also in ourselves.

Paul warned that no “covetous man…has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Eph. 5:5). That sounds serious, and it moves us to ask ourselves, “Am I covetous?” But, because covetousness is vaguely defined as “having or showing a great desire to possess something belonging to someone else,” it is easy for us to appraise ourselves wrongly. Who determines at what point desire to possess something belonging to someone else advances from “not great” to “great,” at which point the sin of covetousness is committed?

Greed is similarly vaguely defined as, “intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.” Again, who determines at what point desire becomes intense and selfish enough to qualify as greed?

The truth is, those two words, as they are used in the New Testament, are not so vague. In order to understand their meaning, we first need to do a quick dive into the Greek.

The Greek adjective pleonektes is translated “covetous” all four times it is found in the NASB New Testament (1 Cor. 5:10, 11; 6:10; Eph. 5:5).

The Greek noun pleonexia is translated “greed” or “greediness” the majority of times it is found in the NASB New Testament (Luke 12:15; Rom. 1:29; Eph. 4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thes. 2:5; 2 Pet. 2:3, 14).

Obviously, the root of those two Greek words is the same. They both begin with pleone. In fact, both words are used synonymously in Ephesians 5:3-5:

But immorality or any impurity or greed [pleonexia] must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous [pleonektes] man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”

The NASB translators of Ephesians 5:3-5 could just as well have translated the adjective pleonektes as “greedy” instead of “covetous” and translated the noun pleonexia as “covetousness” rather than “greed.” It is thus safe to say, at least in regard to how the words greed and covetousness are used in the NASB, that they mean essentially the same thing. We can therefore be certain that no greedy or covetous person “has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Eph. 5:5).

Heart Attitudes Only?

One thing that is crystal clear from the New Testament is that biblical greed and covetousness are not just purely wrong attitudes of the heart. They are wrong heart attitudes, but they are always expressed by actions. They cannot be hidden. And we can, therefore, judge our guilt or innocence of greed/covetousness simply by looking at our actions rather than guessing about our hearts.

In this respect, greed/covetousness is similar to love. Everyone agrees that love in one’s heart manifests itself by acts of love. So much so that we judge a person’s love for us by their actions. Love of God is also revealed by our actions. And so is the love of money.

When Paul enumerated character traits that are required of church overseers, he declared that they must be “free from the love of money” (1 Tim. 3:3). Clearly, Paul believed that “love of money” was not just a hidden attitude of the heart, but one that was manifested by observable actions, otherwise, how could potential candidates for church leadership be judged as being qualified or disqualified?

If a man in the early church, for example, was involved in dishonest business dealings, that would disqualify him to serve as a church overseer. He was breaking one of God’s commandments to obtain money, proving that he loved money more than God. Similarly, if a man in the early church did not share his wealth with those in the church who were among the “least of these,” that would also disqualify him from church leadership, as he had proven himself to be a lover of money rather than a lover of God.

Paul similarly told the Corinthian believers not to eat with greedy/covetous people who professed to be Christians:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous [pleonektes] and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous [pleonektes], or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges (1 Cor. 5:9-13).

If greed/covetousness was purely a hidden attitude of the heart, how could the Corinthian believers know who to avoid? So, the love of money, greed and covetousness (all the same, biblically) can all be judged by outward actions, in ourselves and others.

All of this is to say, we don’t need to wonder if our inward selfish desires have grown “great” or “intense” enough to have crossed a threshold into greed or covetousness. We only need to appraise our actions in light of God’s commandments regarding money and possessions. If we do, that also ensures that we won’t fool ourselves into thinking we are innocent when we are actually guilty.

Greed/Covetousness Stalks Believers

Recall Jesus’ words to the crowds when He was once asked to be arbiter regarding a family inheritance: “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed” (Luke 12:15). Living in the last days as we are, a time Paul foretold when people will be “lovers of money” (2 Tim. 3:2), we must all beware of greed’s lure. It stalks us, attempting to persuade us that “life consists of possessions” (Luke 12:15).

Paul similarly warned Timothy that “the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil,” and that “some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 6:10, emphasis added). Jesus also warned His followers about “the deceitfulness of riches” that, like weeds, can “choke the word” that was once believed, resulting in unfruitfulness.

To those of us who know that “unconditional eternal security” is a myth, those warnings are especially solemn. If no covetous/greedy person will inherit God’s kingdom as Paul warned (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Eph. 5:3-5), and if Christians can succumb to covetousness/greed as Paul also warned (Col. 3:5; Heb. 13:5), then ultimate salvation can be forfeited. It should be obvious that free moral agents can switch from loving God to loving money, Judas being perhaps the prime example. A man named Demas, who was for some time a member of Paul’s traveling missionary band (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24) later abandoned the apostle, “having loved this present world” (2 Tim. 4:10). It seems reasonable to think that Demas may have succumbed to greed.

To persecuted Jewish believers who had “accepted joyfully the seizure of [their] property, knowing that [they had] for [themselves] a better possession and a lasting one” (Heb. 10:34), Paul^[2] wrote, “Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, ‘I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you’” (Heb. 13:5). Their temptation was to revert to Judaism to escape their economic persecution, choosing wealth over Christ. Had they yielded, it would have been a form of greed. Contentment was their key to victory and ultimate salvation.

The Most Common Form of Greed

Although the temptation exists for all Christians to gain wealth in ways that transgress God’s commandments, the more common form of greed found in many professing Christian circles revolves around how their wealth is used. Very little ends up serving the “least of these.”

This is not to say that giving isn’t being emphasized by churches and Christian ministries. In some, giving is a major emphasis. The focus, however, is on giving to the church or ministry. Is that biblical?

I have a friend who once surveyed the entire New Testament on the subject of money and giving. He found 545 related verses. 119 of them dealt with general stewardship principles and did not touch on any specific purpose for giving. The remaining 426 did touch on specific purposes for giving, and they all fell into one of three categories:

• 281 verses (66%) pertained to financially aiding poor, suffering, and persecuted Christians (not the needy in general).

• 88 verses (21%) pertained to financially aiding “the poor” (without distinction between Christians and non-Christians).

• 57 verses (13%) pertained to financially supporting missionaries (like Paul) and other gospel workers such as pastors and elders.

The conclusion? All the giving in the early church aided the poor or supported ministers and their ministry expenses. How does that compare to the modern church model of giving? How does that compare to your giving?

Counterfeit Giving

This brings me to the third, and final, “counterfeit creed” I wanted to expose in this lesson. When you compare giving to one’s church with giving to the “least of these,” you begin to realize that “giving” to one’s church doesn’t look much like giving at all. The large majority of what is “given” benefits the givers. The money they “give” is used to pay the mortgage, utilities, salaries and perhaps snow removal from the parking lot. It all benefits them. That is very much like paying membership fees. When people pay membership fees to their country club or gym, is that considered “charitable giving”?

“But my church gives 10% of all its income to missionaries! And 1% of its income is used to help struggling church families!”

That is good that 11% of what you give to your church does not directly benefit you. But what about the other 89%? And does any of that 11% reach the “least of these”?

If we strictly take only what the New Testament teaches, the means of storing up treasure in heaven is giving to the poor (Matt. 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 12:33; 18:22) and to God-called, fruitful ministers (see Phil. 4:10-19, particularly v. 17). So, the 10% of what your church gives to missionaries is likely treasure being stored up in heaven for you. The 1% that is passed on to struggling church families may also be heavenly treasure if those struggling families are poor by biblical definition, lacking basic necessities. But wouldn’t it be a shock to have faithfully paid your tithes to your local church all of your Christian life, only to discover when you enter heaven that 89% of what you gave resulted in no treasure there?^[3]

“But doesn’t the book of Malachi teach that we should ‘bring all of our tithes into the storehouse,’ and isn’t the local church the new covenant equivalent of the old covenant storehouse?”

The idea that the local church is equivalent to the old covenant tabernacle/temple storehouse for Israel’s tithes is nothing more than a myth, pulled from thin air, that has no biblical basis whatsoever. Any pastor who says otherwise is dishonestly using God’s Word to gain money for his ministry and himself, which could be a form of greed, and even one that robs the poor.

Any pastor who similarly twists God’s Word to separate tithing from giving to the poor, saying, for example, “All of your tithes belong to the local church, and if you desire, you can give offerings beyond your tithes to other ministries and the poor,” is also dishonest. Under the Mosaic Law, it is indisputable that a portion of everyone’s tithes benefitted the poor:

At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. The Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do (Deut. 14:28-29).

When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. You shall say before the Lord your God, ‘I have removed the sacred portion from my house, and also have given it to the Levite and the alien, the orphan and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed or forgotten any of Your commandments. (Deut. 26:12-13).

I am persuaded that every Christian, other than those among the “least of these,” should tithe, giving at least 10% of their income in a way that it does not directly benefit them (at least on earth). I understand, of course, that tithing is not mentioned as a Christian obligation in the New Testament epistles, and that it is primarily associated with the Mosaic Law. That being said, Abraham tithed long before the giving of the Mosaic Law, and Jesus did endorse tithing as a minor commandment (Gen. 14:20; Matt. 23:23). There is also no doubt that Jesus practiced tithing (at minimum) all of His earthly life. Putting all of that together, who could argue that tithing is not a good and biblical starting place for those who see themselves as stewards of the Lord’s money?

How tragic it is that tithing is so frequently preached from church pulpits while caring for the “least of these” is never mentioned, even in churches where the congregations unwittingly pray for the “least of these” every Sunday. “How so?” you ask?

Every time a congregation prays in unison, “Give us this day our daily bread,” they should realize that they are not praying for themselves, as they all generally have enough food at home to last them for weeks. Their prayer is not really relevant for them, but only for those in the body of Christ around the world who literally lack enough food for the day. They are among the “least of these” of whom Jesus will one day say to all of us either, “I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat” or, “I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat” (Matt. 25:35, 42).

Think about it: If Jesus had included a sentence in the Lord’s Prayer that said, “Give us safe water today so that our children don’t die of cholera,” would any of us have thought we were making that request for ourselves?

The All-Important Questions: Have I been fooled by a false gospel that offers temporal and eternal benefits apart from relating to Jesus as my Lord? Have I fooled myself that there is no greed in my heart when in fact my actions say otherwise, specifically in how I gain and utilize money in light of God’s commandments? Have all, or part, of what I have considered to be “giving” actually been giving to myself and loved ones?

^[1]^{Presuming Paul authored the book of Hebrews.}
^[2]^{Assuming Paul wrote the book of Hebrews.}
^[3]^{I am not advocating that Christians should not financially support their churches. If they are benefiting by the services and ministries offered by their churches, they should of course financially support their church.}

The post appeared first on David Servant.

admin — Sat, 02 May 2026 13:55:39 +0000

Having considered in the previous lesson several sections of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21), namely, the Parables of the Unfaithful Servant, Ten Virgins, and Talents, we are better equipped to properly interpret the concluding section—Jesus’ foretelling of the future judgment of the sheep and goats.

Recall that Jesus was speaking in His Olivet Discourse, not to the multitudes, but to four of His closest disciples—Peter, James, John and Andrew (Mark 13:3). Therefore, what Jesus said had application to them. That is undeniable.

The overriding general theme was that they should remain ready for the return of their Master—unlike the unfaithful servant, five foolish virgins, and one-talent slave—lest they suffer similar fates as they did. More specifically, they should remain ready by persevering in obedience so that, when their Master returned, they would be found doing His will. If they were not found faithfully serving Him, they would not only be denied access to the wedding feast (Matt. 25:10-12), but would be assigned “a place with the hypocrites” in “the outer darkness” where there “will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 24:51; 25:30).

That is how Peter, James, John and Andrew would have interpreted Jesus’ words. They were Jesus’ audience. The word you is found 62 times in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse as it was recorded by Matthew in chapters 24 and 25 of his Gospel.

Recall also that the section of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse that preceded those three parables contains numerous admonitions for those four disciples to not be misled as His return drew closer, and to remain ready and prepared (see Matt. 24:1-44). That pre-parable section ends with His words, “For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will” (Matt. 24:44). That sentence sets the stage for the three parables that follow, all of which, again, tell the stories of people who were not ready at the return of their master or a bridegroom, and who suffered irrevocably because of their unreadiness. The message is clear.

Taken altogether, Jesus’ Olivet Discourse was a solemn sermon. And it hasn’t grown less solemn over the past 2,000 years as His return has grown nearer. Because Jesus admitted that He Himself did not know the “day and hour” (Matt. 24:36) of His return, He was love-bound to warn His contemporary disciples, because they stood a chance of being alive when it occurred. Of course, every successive generation of Christians should take His words just as seriously as Peter, James, John and Andrew did. In fact, in the light of the fact that we are living 2,000 years closer to Jesus’ return than they were, we should, if it is possible, take Jesus’ words even more seriously.

The Specifics of Being Ready

If we survey the Olivet Discourse from the beginning through the Parable of the Talents in search of specific moral misbehaviors that identify one as being unprepared for Jesus’ return, there are few. I can only find references to “beating fellow servants” and “eating and drinking with drunkards” (Matt. 24:49), both found in Jesus’ description of the unfaithful servant in His first Olivet parable. It is therefore not surprising that He would, by the end of His discourse, include something more specific regarding essential moral behaviors that could affect the preparedness of His disciples at His return. And Jesus did just that, in His foretelling of the future judgment of the sheep and goats. There Jesus contrasted two kinds of people—those who will be ready to stand before Him and those who will not. The “readiness” theme doesn’t change. And the moral behavior that determines readiness is crystal clear.

Surprisingly, Jesus didn’t list any of the Ten Commandments. We might have thought He would have repeated the five He enumerated in His answer to the rich young ruler (see chapter 5). But He didn’t. Rather, it seems He focused on His “new commandment” (John 13:34), the commandment that Christians love one another. More specifically, He focused on the necessity of investing time and treasure to care for other believers who are facing lack of food, drink, shelter, clothing or health, or suffering imprisonment. He referred to those suffering believers as “these brothers of Mine, even the least of them” (Matt. 25:39). He equated serving them to serving Him and neglecting them to neglecting Him. Let’s read that entire section of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse:

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

Then the King will say to those on His right, “Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.” Then the righteous will answer Him, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?” The King will answer and say to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.”

Then He will also say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.” Then they themselves also will answer, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?” Then He will answer them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (Matt. 25:31-46).

Recall again that Jesus was speaking to Peter, James, John and Andrew, instructing them to be ready for His return, at which time everyone, including them, will be judged. How would they have interpreted His words we just read? Jesus’ message couldn’t be clearer: “Peter, James, John and Andrew, in order to be ready to stand before Me, you must relieve the sufferings of those who love Me.” Bible teachers and theologians are apt to clarify Jesus’ words for us lest we misunderstand them, quickly explaining that our works can’t save us, but that genuine believers, represented by the sheep, demonstrate their faith by their works of love. I would agree, but Jesus didn’t feel any need to add that clarification when He spoke to Peter, James, John and Andrew. Perhaps we should have the humility to question why we need to always say what He didn’t.

The Four Follow Through

Did those four disciples take Jesus’ words to heart? I think it is safe to say that they passed them on to the thousands of new believers in the early church in Jerusalem:

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching… And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need (Acts 2:42-45, emphasis added).

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need. Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:32-37, emphasis added).

Keep in mind that the kind of needs that were being met would have been basic necessities of food, drink, covering and shelter. The early believers were caring for the “least of these.”

Jesus’ words so impacted the original apostles that their direct involvement in caring for the poorest among them—who kept growing in number as the church grew—hindered their preaching of the gospel, teaching the Word, and praying—an unbalance they had to correct:

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them (Acts 6:1-6).

Needless to say, the Twelve considered caring for the poorest among them, the “least of these,” to be an essential component of their faith.

About 16 years later, when Paul journeyed with Barnabas to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to the scrutiny of Peter, James^[1] and John, they found no fault with what he was proclaiming to the Gentiles. They did, however, want to make sure his gospel was coupled with a call to action to believing Gentiles to care for the “least of these:”

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do (Gal. 2:7-10, emphasis added).

Paul did remember the poor. He later received offerings from predominately Gentile churches in order to serve suffering Jewish believers in Jerusalem. He wrote to the believers in Rome:

Now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them (Rom. 15:25-27).

Think about it: The greatest Christian apostle viewed caring for poor believers to be a vital component of his ministry. Five to ten years after Peter, James and John asked him to “remember the poor,” Paul wrote two entire chapters in his second letter to the Corinthians to persuade them to participate in a collection for the poor (2 Cor. 8-9), selling it as “obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ” (2 Cor. 9:13). That is, if they claimed to believe the gospel, they should prove it by caring for the “least of these.”

Paul had already instructed the Corinthian believers in an earlier letter: “On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). Although that verse is often used to encourage people to give every week to their local church, the context indisputably reveals that Paul was talking about putting aside money every week for the “least of these.” That is indisputable. When was the last time you heard a sermon about that?

Back to the Sheep and Goats

Having now read Jesus’ solemn warnings in His Olivet Discourse that culminate in His foretelling of the future judgment of the sheep and goats, and having followed the early church’s decades-long chain of obedience, and knowing that Matthew 25:31-46 is still in every Bible, we must ask why such an important component of the faith is being essentially ignored by the majority of the modern Christians.

One reason is that Jesus’ words have been made irrelevant by false teaching.

As I have previously written, some claim that there can be no behavioral requirement for ultimate salvation since we are “saved by grace” (Eph. 2:8) under the new covenant. And because Jesus repeatedly taught that there are behavioral requirements for ultimate salvation, salvation must have been “by works” under the old covenant, which is when He ministered. So, it is alleged that the relevancy of Jesus’ words regarding salvation only lasted until the new covenant was inaugurated by His death and resurrection. Thus, the “logic” continues, Jesus’ foretelling of the judgment of the sheep and goats has no relevancy for Christians under the new covenant, but only for those who lived under the old covenant.

If that were true, it would make Jesus’ foretelling of the future judgment of the sheep and goats, as well as His Parables of the Unfaithful Servant, Ten Virgins and Talents, all irrelevant in less than a week, since His Olivet Discourse occurred no more than four days before His crucifixion. Within just seven days, everything Jesus said in those sections of His Olivet Discourse could be safely ignored and forgotten by Peter, James, John and Andrew! What then was the point of Jesus telling them about the future judgment of the sheep and goats if they were essentially guaranteed to never experience it?

Moreover, the judgment of the sheep and goats is a future judgment that will occur when Jesus returns, and it will be a judgment of works that determines salvation or damnation. How could it possibly only be relevant to people who lived during the old covenant when the entire judgment revolves around how people treated other Christians? Only Christians live under the new covenant, and only they can be considered to be Jesus’ “brothers” and one with Him (1 Cor. 6:17), so that to serve them is to serve Him and to neglect them is to neglect Him. It would be impossible to judge people who lived before the new covenant based on how they treated people who lived during the new covenant.

Of course, the foundational premise that people under the old covenant were saved by works is entirely unbiblical. Salvation has always been by grace through faith, before, during and after the old covenant. Faith has always been validated by works. And everyone will be judged by their works.

Moreover, it was not just Jesus who taught that there are behavioral requirements for ultimate salvation. It was also Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude. We are not saved by any alleged “unconditional grace,” but rather, by a conditional grace. Those who teach that God’s grace is unconditional “turn the grace of our God into licentiousness,” and by so doing, “deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).

Another Bizarre Theory

Because the first part of the Olivet Discourse mentions Jerusalem and Judea and foretells of a time of great tribulation in Israel that will precede Jesus’ return, some claim that the sheep represent those nations that will prove themselves merciful towards modern, political Israel during the tribulation that precedes Jesus’ return, and the goats represent those nations that will be hostile towards the modern political nation of Israel. Those nations that were merciful will be permitted to remain when Jesus sets up His earthly kingdom, and those that were hostile will not be permitted to remain. (I even recently heard a sermon in which the teacher claimed that anyone who doesn’t support modern, political Israel’s every military action against its regional enemies is antisemitic, and such persons will find themselves among the goats at the judgment that Jesus foretold in Matthew 25:31-46. No joke!)

This theory is so unscriptural that I hardly know where to start.

First, although Jesus will gather “all the nations” and “separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (Matt. 25:32), we are not to think he will separate “sheep geo-political nations” from “goat geo-political nations.” The word translated “nations” in Matthew 25:32 is the Greek ethnos. It refers to a group of people united by kinship, culture, language, or customs—essentially a race, tribe, people, or nation. Jesus’ point is that people from all the world’s groups will be gathered to stand judgment and be divided into two groups.

Second, the Bible foretells that all the nations of the world will be aligned against unbelieving Israel just prior to the return of Jesus. There will be no “sheep nations”:

Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! (Zech. 14:1-5, emphasis added).

Third, the judgment of the sheep and goats concludes with the sheep “inheriting eternal life” and the goats being cast into the “eternal fire” (Matt. 25:41, 46). So, if the nation of Japan shows mercy towards political Israel during the tribulation that precedes Jesus’ return, will all Japanese citizens inherit eternal life? And if the nation of Russia is hostile towards political Israel during that same tribulation, will all Russians be cast into the eternal fire? Will eternal salvation or damnation be determined by peoples’ citizenry?

Fourth, when Jesus spoke of “His brothers” who are among the “least,” He was not speaking of Jewish “brothers” who share with Him the DNA of ancient Jacob. He was speaking of His spiritual brothers—those who do the will of His Father, as He said in Matthew 12:46-50. How could it possibly be thought that by being merciful to Christ-rejecting Jews in Israel that one is being merciful to Christ? Only believers in Christ are members of His body and indwelt by His Holy Spirit, one spirit with Him (Eph. 5:30; 1 Cor. 6:17, 19).

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, is it even remotely possible that, as Peter, James, John and Andrew listened to Jesus talk about the future judgment of the sheep and goats, they thought He was warning them that there would be “sheep nations” and “goat nations” whose citizens’ eternal destinies would be determined by how their nations treated political Israel just prior to Jesus’ return? The idea is utterly absurd.

How Then Shall We Live?

One other reason Jesus’ words regarding the salvific necessity of caring for the “least of these” are ignored is because so many of us live in Disney World. That is, we live on an island of wealth in a sea of poverty. We don’t have neighbors who are drinking water they collect from mud puddles. We don’t know anyone whose children are crying themselves to sleep with hunger. We can’t imagine hoping for an opportunity to work all day for $5. Lazarus will never be laid at our gate. So, “Out of sight, out of mind.” And are we not responsible to only care for those in close proximity, as prescribed in the Lord’s commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves?

As members of God’s family, we are not only responsible to love our neighbors, but to “love one another” as prescribed in Jesus’ “new commandment” (John 13:34), and without any geographical limits. That is why Paul collected offerings from Christians in Corinth, ancient Greece, for the benefit of poor believers in Jerusalem, Israel, 800 miles away as the crow flies.

“But the standard of living is so much higher in developed nations like the one in which I live, and I have a hard time making ends meet!” is a common excuse for a lack of compassion for the “least of these.” The “higher standard of living” justification, however, is a weak one. If any of us lost our jobs for an extended period of time, we would find ways to cut expenses and live on less. And if anyone in any poor nation suddenly enjoyed a windfall of prosperity, they could easily find ways to increase their expenses.

Just for some perspective, if you have an annual income of $50,000 (slightly below the U.S. median individual income in 2026), that puts you in the top 5-10% worldwide. The bottom 50% of the world’s adults earn about $5,000 per year on average. If you have a net worth of $100,000, you are wealthier than 82% of the world’s adults. The bottom 40% of the world’s adults have almost no measurable net worth beyond basic possessions^[2].

To read Jesus’ foretelling of the future judgment of the sheep and goats and react with any excuse for ignoring it is a telling revelation of the condition of one’s heart. A person who truly loves Jesus would react with joy, thinking to himself, “Oh praise God! I can serve Jesus and show my love for Him by caring for the “least of these” among His family! I must find some of those people as soon as possible!”

When Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers about his collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem, he first told them about the attitude of the believers in Macedonia:

Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints (2 Cor. 8:1-4).

Paul didn’t beg the Macedonian believers to contribute to his collection; they begged him to participate in his collection! It was an opportunity to show their love for Jesus by loving the “least of these.” It seems Paul may have even been hesitant to ask them to participate in his collection because of their own deep poverty, but they persuaded him, repeatedly begging “for the favor of participation in the support of the saints.” He acquiesced. And God supernaturally enabled them to give “beyond their ability.” Paul characterized it all as a manifestation of God’s grace. Grace had transformed selfish people into sacrificial lovers of people whom they had never met, but who were members of the same spiritual family. That should be the testimony of everyone who has been truly born again.

A Love-Link for You

Let me close this chapter with some good news just for you, dear born-again reader: I am connected with the “least of these” all over the world. Decades ago, I founded an organization called Heaven’s Family that has served impoverished believers in 80 nations. Our core scripture is Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus’ foretelling of the judgment of the sheep and goats. As I’m writing these words, I am riding in an old car in Malawi, the 173rd nation among 191 nations on the Human Development Index. This is a nation of needs. I’ve spent the last four days visiting Heaven’s Family’s projects in remote villages.

My traveling companion and I have been greeted in every village with joyful singing and traditional dancing. We’ve listened to the happy testimonies of men and women whose lives have been changed because of the agricultural methods they’ve learned from our partners. Their harvests of maize, which previously were not sufficient to feed their families for a year, have doubled, tripled, quadrupled, and more. For the first time in their lives, they have sufficient food to eat plus crops to sell, which means money to pay school fees for their children and for medicine when a family member becomes ill.

At every village, the people have either thanked us for the water well that we’ve already drilled or begged us for one that will serve their village. Yesterday, at one of those villages, a mother of eleven children told us that she’s lost seven of them to water-borne diseases, like cholera. So far, Heaven’s Family has drilled 70 wells in Malawi alone. The only thing that hinders the pace of our drilling is lack of funding.

The best news we’ve heard over the past four days is that, because of our strategic partnerships with some of Jesus’ choice servants in Malawi whom we have been privileged to train, 460 house churches have been planted in just a few years. 150 of those churches consist entirely of Muslim-background believers who now worship Jesus—their Lord who has blessed them with abundant food and safe water.

I founded Heaven’s Family in 2002 to serve two groups of people—the “least of these” who live in a world of poverty, and people like you and me who live in Disney World. Heaven’s Family is a bridge between those two very different worlds, benefitting people in both for time and eternity. And you can be a part of it. You won’t have to beg for “the favor of participation in the support of the saints.” We’re working every day around the world to make it easy for you to demonstrate your love for Jesus by caring for the “least of these.” You can start today by navigating to HeavensFamily.org/Compassion-Club. Why wait? Only the sheep are ready to stand before Jesus.

The All-Important Questions: If Jesus returned today, would I be ready because He would find me doing His will? Does my Christian life resemble that of the early Christians, so that caring for the “least of these” is an important component? Have I been making excuses in order to ignore my God-given responsibility to care for the “least of these”? Is my love for Jesus being expressed by my sacrifices for them?

^[1]^{This was a different man than the James who heard Jesus’ Olivet Discourse.}
^[2]^{For more precise information regarding how you compare to the rest of the world, visit www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i}

The post appeared first on David Servant.