This is part of a series of meditations on what Scripture teaches about each day of Holy Week, which goes from Palm Sunday until Easter, in which Christians everywhere mark the culmination of Jesus Christ’s ministry, His death on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead.
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest….But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads: ‘He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!’ Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God….I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet—I can count all my bones—they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”
-Psalms 22:1-2, 6-10, 14-18, ESV
I sometimes wonder what thoughts were running through David’s mind when he finished Psalm 22. He had just received the Davidic Covenant, a glorious promise of God that his offspring would rule forever. Psalm 110 is clearly a response to this, with David describing his Lord sitting at God’s right hand and crushing His enemies, but the tone of Psalm 22 is vastly different. Instead of a reigning king, this psalm depicts immense suffering and agony. Could both of these psalms really be talking about the same person? We have the advantage of being on the other side of the cross and seeing the true meaning that the Holy Spirit intended by inspiring David to write the words of Psalm 22. Other than Isaiah 52-53 I know of no passage with such a density of Messianic prophecies as Psalm 22. In just the first 18 verses, we see predictions of Jesus being rejected (v. 6), mocked (v. 7), trusting in God the Father from birth (v. 9), surrounded by bloodthirsty enemies (v. 12-13), exposed to significant injury (v. 14) causing great agony that leads to bodily failure (v. 14-15, 17), having His hands and feet pierced (v. 16), and the soldiers casting lots for His clothes (v. 18). Therefore Psalm 22 was fulfilled on Good Friday.
The Servant Suffers
This darkest day in history started out with Jesus being taken from His mock trial before the Sanhedrin to Pontius Pilate the Roman governor. Pilate saw right through the Jews’ plot and did not go along with it at first. He tried Jesus and found Him innocent, but the Jews began to stir up the crowd against Him. Pilate tried to absolve himself of the situation by sending Jesus to Herod, but when Herod refused to try Him the problem ended up right back in Pilate’s lap. Finally, the Jewish leaders were able to do what they had failed to do before, whipping the crowd into a frenzy against Jesus such that it threatened the peace. As a result, Pilate ultimately went along with the Jews and allowed them to crucify Jesus. After being beaten beyond human semblance (Isaiah 52:14), Jesus was led to Golgotha and crucified along with two others.
Since crucifixion involves death by suffocation, it would have been very difficult for Jesus to even breathe—and even more difficult to speak. Therefore, He chose His words very carefully. So as the prophecies of Psalm 22 were being fulfilled all around Him, it should come as no surprise that He quoted Psalm 22:1 by saying, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” to show everyone that He was fulfilling it. Then, they unknowingly fulfilled verse 8 by mockingly calling on Him to save Himself. He most certainly could have, as He told His disciples He could summon twelve legions of angels (72,000 angels if we take the statement literally) if He so desired (Matthew 26:53)—an army more than adequate for the task. And that’s not even considering the fact that according to the interpretation of the Old Testament “Angel of the LORD” as a Christophany—to which I subscribe—it was pre-incarnate Jesus who killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night during the days of Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:35, Isaiah 37:36). He could have easily not only climbed down from the cross but also instantly killed every Jew and Roman that stood against Him, so why didn’t He?
God’s Will to Crush Him
Clearly no one could kill Jesus without His express permission (John 10:17-18), so His death was both willing and necessary. First, it was completely voluntary. This was not “cosmic child abuse” as is so often charged, but was part of the complete desire and will of Jesus Himself. It was also necessary. If Jesus had physically saved Himself, He could not have saved us by taking the wrath of God for our sin on our behalf and dying the death we deserve. Saving Himself would have also been disobedient to the Father, thus erasing the perfect life of obedience He had lived on our behalf so that God could justly declare us righteous in His sight. Jesus’ death wasn’t a deviation from the original plan or some grotesque but necessary plan B implemented after the Fall. Jesus’ death WAS the plan from before Creation (Ephesians 1:4) and predicted all the way back in Genesis 3:15 with the promise that He would be wounded but would crush Satan’s head in the process. His life of sorrow and grief on our behalf (Isaiah 53:3) reached its climax on a cross at Golgotha where Jesus was marred beyond recognition (Isaiah 52:14) and faced the worst oppression and affliction (Isaiah 53:7), pierced for OUR transgressions and crushed for OUR iniquities (Isaiah 53:5-6) because WE had gone our own way and not God’s (Isaiah 53:6a). Jesus bore our griefs and sorrows (Isaiah 53:4) because God put the burden of our sins on Him (Isaiah 53:6b) such that He was killed for OUR transgression (Isaiah 53:8). Our sin caused all of Jesus’ agony, from the physical pain of the worst execution method ever devised to the full weight of God’s wrath for sin that caused Him to be cut off from God the Father. While Jesus in His divinity could not be parted from the invisible God, Jesus in His humanity was cut off from God as He bore our sin, which in a way meant the temporary severing of the perfect relationship of the Trinity. Just as Jesus endured the agony of being crushed for our sin, God the Father endured the agony of having to crush His beloved Son for our sin. Yes, our sin is that bad!
Good Friday
But God is also that good! It was God’s Will to crush Jesus (Isaiah 53:10a) so that He could be the offering for guilt (Isaiah 53:10b) that would sprinkle clean from sin people from many nations (Isaiah 52:15). In this way, Jesus accomplished salvation so comprehensively that He died crying “it is finished!” (John 19:30). When they laid the body of Jesus in the tomb of a rich man as prophesied (Isaiah 53:9), no one really knew all that had been accomplished that day. After living a life just like ours yet so different in that He was without sin, Jesus died a death like ours yet so different in all that it accomplished. His body laid lifeless in the tomb like ours awaiting the resurrection that would reunite body and soul to make Him the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5). So let us remember just how bad our sin is and how it made this a gory and ugly Friday. But the utter darkness of that day should make the light shine all the brighter, leading us to worship the God who accomplished the salvation that makes this grotesque Friday truly Good Friday.
“Guilty, vile and helpless, we; Spotless Lamb of God was He; Full atonement! Can it be? Hallelujah! What a Savior!”
-P.P. Bliss, “Man of Sorrows, What A Name”, 1875
And of course, I would be remiss if I failed end by quoting Tony Campolo and S.M. Lockridge: “It’s Friday, but Sunday’s comin’!”
One of the more curious Christmas carols is “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel”. In contrast with the fast meter and cheerful melodies of most Christmas carols, it is slower and exudes a sense of longing. It never mentions Jesus by name (though it does list various Old Testament allusions to Him), or Mary, Joseph, angels, or wise men. Instead, it speaks to Israel, both rehashing Israel’s history and promising the coming of Israel’s Messiah, with the refrain: “Rejoice, rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel”. Rather than reflecting on the birth of Christ, it seems as if it was written during the Jewish exile to Babylon in anticipation of the birth of Christ. It speaks of mourning, exile, tyranny, and death, asking for God to send His Son to ransom, free, save, and deliver them. Why all this talk about Israel, and can we as non-Jewish Christians rightly claim Israel’s Messiah? For that, we need to look at who the people of God were throughout history and see what it truly means to be of the nation of Israel.
The Hereditary People of God
Throughout the Bible, we see the theme of a conflict between two peoples: the people of God and their enemies, the children of God’s blessing vs. the children of God’s curse. This begins with the sons of Adam. The cursed line of Cain in Genesis 4 is contrasted with the blessed line of Seth in Genesis 5. This is seen most vividly in contrasting Lamech with Enoch. Lamech is the seventh from Cain, signifying the completeness of human depravity. He was the first to practice polygamy and also killed a man in an act of revenge (Genesis 4:18-24). Whereas Cain expressed regret and grief (albeit worldly grief) after murdering Abel (Genesis 4:13-14), Lamech was self-righteous, feeling so justified in killing a man who wronged him in a small way that he describes the incident to his wives in a poetic and even celebratory way. Contrast that with Enoch, the seventh from Adam (Jude 14) through Seth, who represents complete faithfulness to God. During the time of Seth’s son Enosh, “people began to call upon the name of the LORD” (Genesis 4:26). Enoch walked with God so closely, that God took him directly to heaven so he would not have to face death (Genesis 5:22-24, Hebrews 11:5). This theme continued after the Flood with the curse pronounced on Ham’s son Canaan and blessing on Shem (Genesis 9:25-27), with the blessing eventually passing to his descendant Abraham and by association to his nephew Lot (Genesis 11:24-27). This ultimately resulted in the destruction of the Canaanites by Israel as recorded in Joshua.
At that point, various different nations became perennial enemies of Israel. The most notable and enduring of these are the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites. In contrast with the Canaanites, these nations were actually related to Israel. The Moabites and Ammonites came from Lot’s incestuous relationship with his daughters (Genesis 19:30-38). Since there is no mention of Lot’s wife prior to God’s rescue of Lot from the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19, it is possible that Lot’s wife was a Sodomite. If that is the case, it means that Lot’s daughters were the only surviving Sodomites. If we assume that Moab and Ben-ammi married Canaanites, then the Moabites and Ammonites while still related to Abraham are also the remnant of the Canaanites and maybe even the Sodomites. The Edomites were even more closely related to Israel, being the descendants of Jacob’s brother Esau. Like Canaan, the first mention of Esau involves a curse, as God tells Rebekah that in the perpetual conflict between Jacob and Esau, the descendants of Esau would serve the descendants of Jacob just as the descendants of Canaan were cursed to serve the descendants of Shem (Genesis 9:25-27 vs. Genesis 25:21-26). Esau also married two Canaanites and an Ishmaelite (Genesis 36:2-5), meaning that like the Ammonites and Moabites the Edomites were remnants of the cursed Canaanites. Esau’s first wife shares the same name as Lamech’s, signaling the link between Esau and Lamech as representing the descendants of the curse. This is further communicated by the fact that Esau’s descendants listed in Genesis 36 constitute the only non-Israelite genealogy after Abraham listed in Genesis. As we often see in domestic disputes, close relations make the conflict all the uglier, leading to numerous wars and other conflicts between Israel and their three closest relative nations. Most notably, it was the Moabites who paid Balaam to curse Israel, and when Judah was destroyed by Babylon the Edomites cheered them on and took advantage of the situation to enrich themselves. Therefore, the various Old Testament prophets pronounced judgments of God against the Moabites (Isaiah 15-16, Jeremiah 48, Ezekiel 25, Amos 2), Ammonites (Jeremiah 49, Ezekiel 25), and especially the Edomites (Isaiah 34, Jeremiah 49, Ezekiel 25, Amos 1, all of Obadiah, Malachi 1). The most striking of these is found in the last book of the Old Testament:
“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the LORD of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.’”
-Malachi 1:2-4, ESV
But the relationship between the Israelites as God’s people and the cursed nations around them was often much closer than national origin. A perennial problem in Israel was intermarriage between Israelites and the various nations. Intermarriage with Canaanites was forbidden by God since they would cause the Israelites to go astray from God to worship other gods (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). Descendants of Moabites and Ammonites to the tenth generation were also prohibited from joining with Israel as having descended from a forbidden union (Deuteronomy 23:2-6). Edomites to the third generation were likewise prohibited from joining with Israel (Deuteronomy 23:7). And just as God had warned, intermarriage with Moab and Ammon caused Israel to commit idolatry, worshipping Chemosh the god of Moab and Molech the god of Ammon (1 Kings 11:7). Of note, Molech was the god to which the Israelites sacrificed their children. Intermarriage even remained a problem even after the exile to Babylon (Ezra 9-10, Nehemiah 13). Thus it became a sign of Israel’s failure to obey God, which was echoed in the prophetic reference of Jerusalem as descended from the cursed Canaanites (Ezekiel 16) and with the portrayal of both the northern and southern kingdoms metaphorically as unfaithful women with names strikingly similar to the name of Esau’s second wife (Ezekiel 23).
Such intermarriage was nothing new, as it was alluded to as one of the signs of wickedness prior to the Flood. Since Genesis 6 follows the contrast between the blessed line of Seth and cursed line of Cain in Genesis 4-5, the natural interpretation of the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of man” in Genesis 6:1-2 is intermarriage between the male descendants of Seth (the people of God in that time) and the female descendants of Cain, which likely resulted in the same idolatry seen throughout the history of Israel.[1] Even the origin of the tribes of Israel involved intermarriage with Canaanites, as Judah’s wife was clearly a Canaanite (Genesis 38:1-2). If we assume that his daughter-in-law Tamar was also a Canaanite, then Perez and Zerah were both half Canaanite just like the Moabites and Ammonites. Joseph’s wife Asenath was Egyptian (related to the Canaanites). The wives of the other sons of Jacob are not mentioned, but it is quite possible that they were Canaanites as well. The bottom line is that throughout the Old Testament, the people of God intermarried with the nations and thus became like them, worshipping their gods and participating in their evil. This is most vividly seen in the parallels between the Israelite town of Gibeah and Sodom before it (Judges 19 vs. Genesis 19), but Israel’s entire history bears this out. The fact that the hereditary people of God, from the descendants of Seth to the descendants of Israel ultimately became just like the cursed people around them shows that all people are polluted by sin regardless of their ancestry. Therefore, salvation cannot come through bodily descent just as it cannot come through good works. This means that the people of God cannot be determined by genetics or heredity, as all of our genes are irreparably tainted by sin.
The Adopted People of God
When the New Testament authors rehash Old Testament history, they make clear that the true people of God were not identified by heredity. Paul likens ethnic Israel to the Edomites by quoting Malachi 1 in Romans 9:10-13 before explaining that most of the ethnic Israelites were excluded from the true people of God while some foreigners were brought in in Romans 11. Throughout the entire section of Romans 9-11, Paul describes who the true people of God are, starting by contrasting Isaac as the child of God’s promise with Ishmael as the child of human effort, meaning it is the children of God’s promise who are truly God’s people (Romans 9:6-8). In contrasting Jacob and Esau, Paul explains how God chose Jacob and not Esau “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls” (Romans 9:11). He further explains:
“What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works….For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”
-Romans 9:30-32,10:3, ESV
Therefore, people become God’s people by His work and His choice through the means of faith, but those who reject Him are excluded because of their lack of faith, both in following in the wicked footsteps of the cursed people of old as well as by trying to please God by legalism apart from faith.
Just as the corrupting of the physical people of God through intermarriage was a theme throughout the Old Testament, so was the theme of foreigners joining the people of God by faith. A mixed multitude left Egypt in the Exodus (Exodus 12:38), suggesting that Egyptians and possibly other foreigners placed their faith in the God of Israel. Caleb was one of those foreigners, who as one of the two spies (representing Judah) whose faith in God outweighed fear of the Canaanites was able to enter the Promised Land and even receive a territorial inheritance as part of Israel (Numbers 13, Joshua 14-15). Rahab (possibly a Canaanite) and Ruth (a Moabite) also joined Israel by faith and thus became part of God’s people, both marrying into the tribe of Judah (Joshua 6:25, Ruth 1:16-17, 4:9-14). Since David descended from them, he inherited both the sin nature represented by the Canaanite and Moabite roots of his ancestors but also the heritage of faith displayed by some of them. His descendants likewise varied in faithfulness, from Hezekiah and Josiah who served God to Manasseh who sacrificed his children to Molech like the Ammonites. But even the righteous kings committed egregious sins (as if there is any such thing as a sin that is not egregious) and could not save their nation politically or spiritually.
Instead, throughout the Old Testament there was a remnant of people within the physical “people of God” who were the true people of God by faith in the promise of God. God had promised that a future descendant of Seth, Abraham, Jacob, Judah, and David would be the perfect King who would bring true salvation. Even before pronouncing the curse on Adam and Eve, God promised their descendant would defeat Satan (Genesis 3:15). This eternal ruler would come from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and would be both a true man (Psalm 8) and God incarnate (Isaiah 9:6-7), David’s descendant but also David’s Lord (Psalm 110:1). He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), signifying that He was the true son of God’s promise as the “seed of the woman” to which Isaac pointed as well as the fact that with His birth, life, death, and resurrection He would usher in a new humanity: the true people of God.
Jesus Came to Save Us Canaanites
Since all people were dead in sin, we were all spiritual Canaanites under the curse of God. The only way for us to be free of that curse is for a man who was not inherently under the curse to come and take on that curse on our behalf, thereby allowing God to justly adopt us into His people and His blessings. That person of course is Jesus Christ. Since Joseph was his earthly (essentially adoptive) father, Jesus was the true descendent of Seth, Enoch, Abraham, Jacob, Judah, and David. But being conceived by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, Jesus ushered in a new humanity as the Second Adam. Adam failed his test of temptation in the Garden, but Jesus passed His test of temptation both in the wilderness and throughout His life, culminating in another garden. He then took on the curse and died the death we spiritual Canaanites deserved and then rose from the dead to inaugurate His new nation not based on lineage but on faith. In the words of the Holy Spirit through Paul, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5) When exhorting the Galatians to hold fast to this Gospel and not give into legalism, Paul sums it up this way:
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith…for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
-Galatians 3:10-14,26-39, ESV
Through His birth, life, death, and resurrection, Jesus created a new nation, comprised of the people of God who why both trusted in His coming before He was born and all of us who place our faith in Him after His coming, whatever nation we hail from. This is what we celebrate at Advent, not only the coming of Jesus Christ to save us from our sins, but also the Kingdom of the true people of God that He created. All who by faith rely on Christ’s finished work of salvation are part of that Kingdom.
Applications
The implications of being part of the people of God by faith and not by heredity are massive. First, it means that no family line or nation has any advantage (or disadvantage for that matter). It is true that people born into certain nations and families are blessed by greater access to the truth of the Gospel, but it is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit that causes faith, so that temporary advantage becomes a disadvantage when they reject Christ, just as the disadvantage of those without that blessed access becomes their advantage when they hear the Gospel and by the working of the Holy Spirit believe. Therefore, demographic distinction is irrelevant for access to God. Those who are in Christ have access to God and will be with Him for eternity showered in His blessings. Those who die rejecting Christ will be away from His presence enduring His wrath for eternity. This is regardless of ethnicity, family background, social status, or gender. This means that our identity in Christ must supersede any human allegiance. Through Christ, I have more in common with Christians in China, India, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America than I do with the unbelieving American next door who looks just like me and shares many of the same social and political views. This Advent season, remember that we will worship God alongside men and women from every language, tribe, tongue, nation, and era, so we might as well start now.
This Advent season, we should also reflect on our physical and spiritual lineage. Matthew’s Gospel begins with the genealogy of Jesus to show that He was the prophesied King, which introduces his major theme of the coming of the Kingdom of God. Instead of skipping over the list of names, cross-reference their stories in Scripture and meditate on the failure of man and the faithfulness of God. Think of the faith and failures of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. Think of the faith of Rahab and Ruth as the descendants of the curse becoming part of the people of God by faith. Think of both the sin and repentance of David regarding “the wife of Uriah” as well as both the wisdom and idolatry of Solomon. Read the first verse on each of the successive kings of Judah in 1st and 2nd Kings, which states whether they did good or evil in God’s sight. Think of God’s promise to Zerubbabel through Zechariah after the exile to Babylon. Encapsulated in Matthew’s list of names is the story of the Old Testament: the failure of the people of God to remain holy, instead mixing with and becoming just like the enemies of God, but that God has always kept His remnant through faith rather than bodily descent. The Bible is full of horrible sinners deserving nothing but hell and one gracious and merciful God who chose to save some of them. So as we prepare to celebrate the most important birthday in the history of the world, let us rejoice in all that Christ accomplished on our behalf through the incarnation and rest in the fact that He has made us citizens of His everlasting and invincible Kingdom, the true people of God who by faith have become the true descendants of Abraham and thus the true recipients the blessings God promised to Abraham, the true Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). This means that O Come, O Come, Emmanuel applies even more to us as to ethnic Jews. In fact, it only applies to those who trust in Christ, both Jew and Gentile. Rejoice, rejoice! Emmanuel, Jesus Christ, the Messiah has come to thee, having ransomed you from your Canaanite lineage of sin and adopted you to be His people, O true Israel, people of God.
[1] Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary of the Whole Bible, the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary, and the Gospel Transformation Study Bible notes all espouse this interpretation. The Reformation Study Bible notes do not put forth a particular interpretation.
When I was growing up, pronouns were merely a grammatical construction. I could not have imagined that they would one day be at the center of heated societal debate. Nor could I have imagined that this debate would be around something so central to human identity as gender. As the movement to normalize gender fluidity gains traction, many Christians are faced with the challenge of how to respond to pressures to accept and even celebrate when people identify as another gender. While this can take many forms, the most likely scenario is when a believer is pressured to refer to certain people by preferred pronouns or names that are clearly inconsistent with biology. On the surface, this appears to be incredibly minor, so non-Christians are justifiably confused when many Christians refuse to budge on something so simple and seemingly harmless as using preferred pronouns. This can make us appear legalistic and hateful, which increases the pressure to compromise on the topic of pronouns. How should a Christian respond to such pressure biblically? On one hand, Scripture clearly teaches that God created people as male and female to reflect His nature, which contradicts transgenderism. On the other hand, Scripture also clearly teaches that we are to love our neighbors (which is everyone) and show respect and honor to all. Therefore, any response must include both of these in order to be biblical.
The Nashville Statement
Fortunately, we don’t have to start from scratch to draft such a response, as the topic of gender is not new to the Church—especially in recent decades. The church has always had to grapple with questions about what the Bible teaches regarding particular topics. This had led to various councils and synods throughout Church history, convened to determine what the Bible clearly teaches and then craft succinct and clear statements to summarize what Scripture teaches on that topic in order to address the threat of specific false doctrines. In 1987, feminism threatened to be just such a false doctrine by undermining the biblical distinction between men and women. Therefore, several notable Christian leaders and theologians crafted the Danvers Statement to address manhood and womanhood biblically, which was later explained in much more detail the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This book is a wonderful resource for Christians approaching the topic, but it does not explicitly address transgenderism or pronouns. Many of the same leaders and theologians crafted the Nashville Statement in 2017 to specifically address the topics of homosexuality and transgenderism. Both statements are available in full here, but a few lines are particularly helpful:
WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.
WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.
WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female. WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his image-bearers as male and female.
-Nashville Statement, 2017, Articles 7, 10 and 11
Addressing the Topic of Pronouns Biblically
These provide a good starting point for a response to the subject of pronouns, but they do not address pronouns specifically. What if I am faced with a situation in which people insist I call them by pronouns clearly inconsistent with biology? What if my workplace makes it a policy that I must use people’s preferred pronouns even when they are clearly inconsistent with biology? How should I as a Christian respond? Whatever that response is, it needs to be biblical, uncompromising on matters on which Scripture is clear yet also respectful to all. Here is my attempt at just such a response using the model I laid out last time for respectfully objecting to policies that would be sinful to follow:
As a Christian, I am compelled to affirm and I also wholeheartedly affirm the following:
As the sole inerrant Word of God (Psalm 19:7-9, Proverbs 30:5, Hebrews 1:1-2), the Bible is the highest authority for how Christians must live (Deuteronomy 8:3, 1 Timothy 3:16-17), meaning that in cases where the direction of any earthly authority contradicts with what is clearly directed in the Bible, the Christian is obligated to obey the Bible (Acts 5:29).
The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 45:4-6, 1 Timothy 2:5) with three persons that while perfectly unified are distinct from one another (Genesis 1:26, Psalm 110:1): God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 48:16, Matthew 28:19). This has been acknowledged since the early days of the Church and is spelled out in the Athanasian Creed. One of God’s attributes is that He does not change (Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17), so it naturally follows that the distinct persons of God cannot become one another.
The Bible clearly teaches that God created and now sustains the universe (Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:3), which He accomplishes most often through natural means. God has complete authority and dominion over the universe and everything in it (Matthew 28:18, 1 Peter 4:11). Therefore, all authority is either delegated by God to specific created beings for the purpose of obeying His commands (Genesis 1:26-28, John 19:11, Romans 13:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-6:9) or retained by Him alone. Since authority is given in order to enable obedience to God, disobedience to God is acting outside of that authority, meaning that no one has the authority to disobey God or compel anyone else to disobey God. As the creator of mankind in general and of each person in particular, God makes each person as a distinct person from conception (Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1-5) as either male or female, which He reveals through the natural means of biology. Therefore, the biology of a person indicates whether God created that person as male or female.
The Bible clearly teaches that people are made in the image of God to both resemble and represent Him (Genesis 1:26-27). This is inextricably tied to mankind being made male or female (Genesis 1:27). The distinction between male and female therefore resembles the distinction between the members of the Godhead (Genesis 2:18-22 vs. John 14:15-18, Galatians 3:27-28), while our common human identity reflects the perfect unity of the Godhead (Genesis 2:23-24 vs. John 14:23-30). This is most vividly reflected in marriage (Malachi 2:15, Matthew 19:4-5) but is also evident in the unity yet distinctness of men and women in general (John 17, 1 Corinthians 11:3-12, Galatians 3:28). This means that men cannot become women and vice versa just as the members of the Godhead cannot become one another. References to men becoming women in the Bible (Jeremiah 50:37 and 51:30) are clearly metaphorical, referring to loss of strength, rather than depicting actual gender transition.
The Bible clearly teaches that any action, word, thought, or motive that deviates from God’s standard is rebellion against God and therefore sinful (Romans 3:23, James 4:17). This includes anytime anyone fails to glorify God by acting in accordance to God’s design and purpose for them (Genesis 4:7, Isaiah 53:6). Among the many sins explicitly named in the Bible is questioning why God made people the way He did (Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9, Romans 9:20-21). The way God has created each person is externally evident in biology, so to question people’s biology is to question why God made them the way He did. The Bible also condemns the practice of men presenting themselves as women and vice versa as being an affront to God’s nature and dishonoring to both God and the people made in His image (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:3-15). Based on this, a Christian must view it as sinful to identify as a gender inconsistent with biology. The Bible also states that approving of sins is also sinful (Romans 1:32), so a Christian who does anything that affirms someone else identifying as an alternate gender is sinful.
The Bible clearly teaches that truth is absolute, with God as its source and standard (Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5, John 14:6, Revelation 19:11) irrespective of human feelings and perspectives. Therefore, it is sinful to speak anything that is not the truth (Zechariah 8:16, Ephesians 4:15, 25), which would be lying that is condemned throughout the Bible (Exodus 20:16, Proverbs 6:17-19, Colossians 3:9). This would include calling someone by an identity that does not align with the actual identity of that person, which means that a Christian would be committing the sin of lying by referring to someone as a gender that is clearly inconsistent with biology.
The Bible clearly teaches that all sin is rebellion against God and thus primarily against God (Psalm 51:4) regardless of whether or not it is against any person. Any sin is therefore infinitely more offensive to the holy God than it could ever be to any person (Romans 2:6-11, James 2:10). This means that while the Christian should avoid unnecessarily offending anyone (Romans 12:18, 1 Corinthians 10:32), our primary concern must always be to avoid offending God through sin. While avoiding offense to both God and others is always preferrable, the Christian is obligated to avoid offending God even if that requires offending people.
The Bible clearly teaches that since people are made in the image of God, all people are worthy of respect, honor, and dignity (Romans 12:10, 1 Peter 2:17), while respect and honor are particularly owed to those in positions of authority (Romans 13:7). The Bible is equally clear that fellow Christians in sin should be gently called to repentance (Galatians 6:1-3) but that in most cases the Christian is not under the same obligation to call non-Christians to repentance for specific sins (1 Corinthians 5:12). This means that just as it would be sinful for a Christian to act in ways that display approval of identifying in ways contrary to biology, it would be equally sinful for a Christian to signal disapproval in ways that are disrespectful or dishonoring both to peers and superiors.
These clear teachings of the Bible apply to the topic of pronouns as follows:
Since pronouns imply the gender inherent in the pronoun, to refer to a person by a specific pronoun is to recognize that person as the gender assigned to that pronoun. Therefore, to refer to a person by a pronoun clearly inconsistent with biology would be to approve of that person identifying contrary to God’s design, which would be sinful. It would therefore be sinful to refer to someone as “he/him” whom God has clearly created as “she/her” and vice versa. Use of “they/them” pronouns for a single person or any “neo-pronouns” similarly denies a person’s God-created identity as male or female by refusing to acknowledge truth and instead implying ambiguity. It is therefore sinful for a Christian to refer to a particular individual by “they/them” or “neo-pronouns”. This does not apply to situations in which “they/them” pronouns are used to communicate anonymity rather than gender ambiguity.
This does not extend to names, as names do not explicitly imply a particular gender but instead express the identity of the entire person. Therefore, it is not sinful to refer to people by their preferred names, even if those names are normally used to denote a person of the opposite gender.
Therefore, my deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs prevent me from referring to a person by pronouns that clearly differ from that person’s biology but do not prevent me from calling that person by any particular name. Those same beliefs also prevent me from treating anyone with disrespect by going out of my way to call that person by pronouns consistent with biology when that person has explicitly requested to be referred to by other pronouns.
If faced with a situation in which someone requests to be referred to by pronouns clearly inconsistent with biology, I will use that person’s name instead. In situations where the person in question is a superior and therefore due certain titles that imply gender (such as “Mr.” or “Ms.”), I will use an appropriate title that does not imply gender, such as rank in a military context or terms like “director” or “chief” in a civilian context. In addition to aligning with the Bible, this aligns with legal precedent in Meriwether v. Hartop et al. and various policies ensuring the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Currently, the presence of pronouns in a bio or email signature block also communicates support for identifying in ways contrary to biology, so I will not put my pronouns in a bio or signature block. If pronouns become mandatory in those cases, they will no longer communicate that support, allowing me to abide by such a policy.
A Helpful Analogy
Some may still argue that pronouns are a matter of preference such that not using preferred pronouns is inherently rude and dishonoring. However, pronouns are essentially titles that denote a person’s identity, so it is actually rude and dishonoring to insist that we use certain pronouns that are clearly inconsistent with a person’s true identity. Insisting that people use pronouns inconsistent with biology would be tantamount to insisting that we use certain titles for people who have not earned those titles. To illustrate this, an analogy may be helpful. Suppose a military major became convinced in his own mind that he was actually a colonel. He would then replace the major’s rank insignia on his uniform with colonel’s rank and insist that people refer to him as a colonel rather than a major. For those who do not know his true rank, it might possible for people to mistake him for a colonel unless they saw his ID, which would still say he was a major. But regardless of how closely he resembled a colonel, it would be wrong of him as a major to wear a colonel’s rank and expect to be referred to by a colonel’s title when he has not earned it. It would be equally wrong of him to insist that simply because he believes himself to be a colonel and wears colonel’s rank that he as a major should be allowed access to parking spots and locker rooms that are reserved for colonels and above. You have to hold that rank in order to access those spaces, and he doesn’t have the right to assign himself that rank no matter how much he may convince himself he deserves it. In order to earn the rank and associated title and privileged access, he would need to have served the appropriate time, demonstrated potential to serve in the higher grade, be recommended by a promotion board, placed on a list ultimately approved by the chain of command up to the President, and confirmed by Congressional committee—twice (once for lieutenant colonel and again for colonel). In essence, he cannot claim the title and rank of colonel until appointed as one by those who have the authority to appoint him as such. It would be wrong both for him to present himself as the wrong rank and for anyone to support him in that endeavor when they know it isn’t true. However, those who didn’t know he was actually a major would not be at fault by calling him by his presented rather than actual rank.
How does this relate to gender and pronouns? I have previously discussed how all authority ultimately comes from God (Romans 13:1). The authority of any person must therefore be delegated to that person by God. This delegation happens through commands: when God commands someone to do something, He gives the authority required to carry out that command. Authority not delegated by God is retained by Him, so it would be presumptuous and even rebellious against Him to assume authority He has not delegated. God is the only one who creates people (Psalm 89:27 and 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5) and is therefore the only one who can assign them with the position, titles, and associated privileges of male or female. No command anywhere in Scripture states or even insinuates that God has delegated that authority to anyone, meaning He retains it for Himself alone. Therefore, just as it would be wrong of a major (who lacks the authority to appoint himself as a colonel) to insist on being referred to as a colonel, it is wrong for someone to insist on being referred to as the gender to which that person was not appointed by God. Furthermore, just as it would be wrong for people to knowingly facilitate that major in presenting himself as a colonel, it would be wrong for me as a Christian to knowingly facilitate someone presenting as a gender clearly inconsistent with biology by calling that person by preferred pronouns. However, just as those who unknowingly facilitate the colonel charade would not be at fault, so I would not be at fault for using preferred pronouns when unsure. Throughout this post, I have been using phrases like “clearly inconsistent with biology”, implying that it can be unclear at times. Even before the transgender movement, there have been times in which a person’s gender is not immediately obvious. If I cannot tell whether a person is male or female, I must trust the pronouns that person tells me and can therefore call that person by preferred pronouns without sinning. However, it would be sinful for me to knowingly refer to someone by pronouns inconsistent with biology.
Conclusion: The Nature of Truth
Ultimately, the question of pronouns is merely an application of the concept of truth. As a Christian, I believe that truth is absolute. God is the ultimate source and standard of all truth, which means that whatever He says is true regardless of what anyone thinks or feels. Conversely, the cultural understanding of gender and pronouns is based on a belief that truth is relative to each person. For me as a Christian to affirm that relativistic understanding of truth is to deny the existence of absolute truth and thus deny the God who is its source and standard. That is why the issue of pronouns is such a big deal to Christians. That is why we cannot simply acquiesce to someone’s preferred pronouns when they clearly differ from the absolute truth of how God created each person as revealed through biology. Ultimately, we must obey God rather than man on gender and every other topic. This is not about offending people by not honoring their preferences but all about avoiding offending the God who made us and has ultimate authority over us. At the end of the day, we will all have to answer to God for everything we do and say (or leave undone or unsaid). Jesus said that to deny Him before people by fearing what people may think or do rather than fearing God would cause Him to deny us before God the Father at that Final Judgment (Matthew 10:33). So if I deny His truth by using pronouns clearly inconsistent with biology, that may indicate that I love and fear someone or something more than God, which is the definition of idolatry. While this is not the unpardonable sin of rejecting Christ, a propensity to compromise in such areas may indicate just such a rejection. This means that eternal salvation is at stake, which I am not willing to risk.
Dan Hult 