The Strange Case of Symbolic Baptism: A Doctrine in Search of a Text

Posted on 07/06/2026 by Paul Pavao

I’m looking at a defense of symbolic baptism written by a an intelligent and godly man with long experience in the Scriptures. You may be like him, a follower of Jesus that, to borrow a John Wesley quote about Georg Whitefield, I will never see in heaven because in the great crowd that is praising his name you’ll be so much closer to the Throne that you’ll be out of sight to the likes of me, yet nonetheless holding to an irrational position on baptism.

The defense I am looking at is like every other defense of symbolic baptism I have seen. There is not a single verse presented that implies baptism is symbolic except 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, which says Paul was sent to preach the Gospel, not baptize, so he let others baptize in Corinth. This defense does not even include that passage.

Instead, there is a list of 7 passages that “seem” to say that baptism has something to do with salvation, and even one that says “baptism saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21), all being explained away as unclear.

To me, one of the prime principles of Bible interpretation is “A verse is only unclear if it is difficult to understand. If it seems unclear because you don’t believe it, you need to change your theology, not the verse.”

The problem with that prime principle of Bible interpretation is that it causes confusion and fear. For example, everyone told me when I was first saved that “salvation is by faith alone.” In fact, “salvation by faith alone” is one of the central tenets of the Protestant Reformation. The problem is that the only occurrence of “faith alone” in the Bible is “not by faith alone” in James 2:24.

That’s no minor problem, but if you look at the problem, you will have to do a lot of deep thinking about how “saved by grace through faith apart from works” in Ephesians 2:8-10 can possibly be reconciled with not being deceived into thinking that immoral, unclean, or greedy people will inherit the kingdom of God in Ephesians 5:3-7.

Baptism in the New Testament

If you read the baptism verses in the New Testament, you will only find passages that agree with “as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” in Galatians 3:27. That, too, is seen as conflicting with salvation by faith alone, so without any scriptural support for baptism as a symbol or public testimony, we explain away every verse on baptism in the New Testament, not reading a single one for its plain meaning, except perhaps 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, which we make sure not to compare with Acts 18:8.

Yes, reading the Bible for what it says leads to confusion and fear because the majority of teachers and denominations have no qualms about twisting clear verses into difficult verses, even if they have to do it on almost every page of the New Testament. In the case of purely symbolic baptism as a public testimony, every verse on baptism is explained away, not on the merits of the verse, but on a strict and questionable adherence to “salvation by faith alone.”

So, yeah, if you read the Bible for what it plainly says, you are going to be confused for a while until you can deal with the contradictions between the Bible and what your teacher and denomination believes, and what public songs and sermons teach every day. Calling clear verses difficult is the best way to avoid have to deal with those verses and the fear and confusion they cause.

On the other side of the confusion, though, is peace with the Scriptures. It is reading the Bible without having to twist “we are justified by works and not faith only” into “we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.”

I especially like that I can read Ananias’ words to Saul, who would later be known as the apostle Paul, “Arise and be baptized, washing away your sins and calling on the name of the Lord” for what they say (Acts 22:16). I don’t have to twist it into “Arise and be baptized, then separately call on the name of the Lord to wash away your sins.” It is apparent to an unafraid reader that Ananias meant to use the word “wash” in association with the only act that involved water, baptism, and also to associate calling on the name of the Lord with baptism. All those things are in one sentence for a reason. You wash away your sins by being baptized and calling on the name of the Lord.

What is my authority for this interpretation of Acts 22:16? Your common sense. I think, deep down, you agree with me whether you like agreeing or not. The burden of proof is not on the reader who takes the sentence as it stands, but on the reader who divides its parts and assigns them separate functions.

I recommend ditching the training in explaining away verses and reading the New Testament like a fisherman. I say that even though I recommend reading the Old Testament like a trained and inspired rabbi like the apostle Paul.

*I didn’t even mention that none of the apostles waited for the church to gather nor for outside witnesses before baptizing their converts in Acts. The Philippian jailer, in fact, was baptized between midnight and morning in his house (Acts 16).

Posted in Bible, Dealing with Scripture Honestly, Gospel, honesty, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Will God Judge You by Your Church Membership?

Posted on 06/29/2026 by Paul Pavao

I was asked, “Can I be saved if I don’t join the Eastern Orthodox?” I answered:

I am so sorry you are having to ask this question. Here’s the simplest answer I can give you.

Read Ezekiel 18:20-32; Matthew 25:31-46; and Revelation 2-3 (both chapters). Do read them; don’t skip them, nor go on until you’ve read them.

Now ask yourself:

  • Do any of these passages judge you by what church you belong to?
  • In the letter to Sardis at the start of Revelation 3, what is more important, which church they are in or their relationship with and obedience to Jesus?
  • How important are these passages? What are they offering or threatening?

That all said, let me give you a teaching about your salvation:

Salvation from Sin

In Ephesians 2:1-10, the Bible tells you that you can be changed from dead in your sins and trespasses into God’s workmanship, a new creation in Christ Jesus created specifically for good works. This is salvation from sin. 2 Corinthians 5:14-21 describes this, too, as does Titus 2:11-14.

Salvation from Wrath

In Ephesians 5:5-7, Paul tells you what will happen to you if you do not continue as a new creation, living in the Spirit rather than living by the flesh. You have been saved from sin, meaning you are now empowered to stop sinning, but you shall be, future, saved from wrath if you live by the life of Christ and do the things described in those judgment passages I gave you above. Romans 5:9-10 discusses the salvation we have now and salvation from wrath in the future in exactly the same way I just did.

Those first passages I gave you above describe that future judgment, by works (by how you lived). You will be saved from wrath in the future by learning from those passages, living by the life of Jesus, walking in the Spirit, and thus obeying Jesus’ commands. That sounds hard, but that’s because people are constantly saying it’s hard. It is perfectly normal for a Christian to live in the commands of Jesus, excited about them, and considering them a wonderful blessing, not a grievous burden (Matt. 11:28-30). Of course, no one does them perfectly (James 3:1), but God has made provision to forgive us as long as we are making our best effort to live in the Spirit rather than the flesh (1 John 1:6 – 2:2).

Second-Century Quote

[The Messenger of Repentance] concluded the twelve commandments, and said to me, “You have now these commandments. Walk in them, and exhort your hearers that their repentance may be pure during the remainder of their life. Fulfil carefully this ministry which I now entrust to you, and you will accomplish much. For you will find favour among those who are to repent, and they will give heed to your words; for I will be with you, and will compel them to obey you.”

I say to him, “Sir, these commandments are great, and good, and glorious, and fitted to gladden the heart of the man who can perform them. But I do not know if these commandments can be kept by man, because they are exceeding hard.” He answered and said to me, “If you lay it down as certain that they can be kept, then you will easily keep them, and they will not be hard. But if you come to imagine that they cannot be kept by man, then you will not keep them. Now I say to you, If you do not keep them, but neglect them, you will not be saved, nor your children, nor your house, since you have already determined for yourself that these commandments cannot be kept by man.” (Shepherd of Hermas, c. AD 100-160, Commandment Twelfth, ch. 3)

Will God Judge You by Which Church You Join?

You will read all those verses, and hopefully it will seem ridiculous to you that any organization, the Eastern Orthodox or any other, would claim that you have to join them to be saved. None of the Scriptures above give any reference to any organization, but only to your relationship with Christ.

What Church Is Supposed To Do for You

Now, one thing is important. We do not live our lives by ourselves. We depend on each other. Hebrews 3:13 and 10:24-25 are enough to prove that, though a lot of other passages say the same thing.

I do want to point out, though, that neither the Eastern Orthodox nor just about any other church actually does Hebrews 3:13 nor Hebrews 10:24-25. You are going to have to stir yourself up and seek fellowship that will help you walk in the Spirit and obey Jesus. The Eastern Orthodox are not going to find it for you, and not many Protestant churches will either. You have to find men and women who love Jesus to do the things for you that those two passages in Hebrews mention.

Let’s do this. Write to me once per week unless that’s too much. I will write you a response like this one. You, though, have to go read all the verses in the email I send you. For example, it will take you a lot longer to read the verses I mentioned than to read this email.

Posted in Bible, Church, Dealing with Scripture Honestly, Early Christianity, Gospel, Holiness, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox, Teachings that must not be lost, Unity | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Connecting the Dots: Why Paul and John Speak Differently About Eternal Life

Posted on 06/26/2026 by Paul Pavao

I asked ChatGPT what I could do in the public forum to communicate better. In fact, I used the phrase “be more systematic.” It replied:

If I were looking for one improvement in your public communication, it would not be to become more systematic. It would be to become more explicit about the chain of reasoning that already exists in your head. You already do this naturally in conversation. When someone asks the next question, you answer it. Five questions later, the whole structure is visible.

In writing, you have to ask those questions on behalf of the reader before they can. That’s the main difference I see between your private communication and your public communication.

It had pointed out just before:

For example, in the last ten messages, you moved naturally from:

– John’s present-tense verbs
– eternal life
– Gnosticism
– Ignatius
– John 5
– Ephesians 2
– the river illustration
– fellowship as the lifeline

To you, those are all connected. To a reader, they may seem like separate thoughts.

That was really helpful to me. I’m going to pray about how to pass on those chains of thought. This post, however, is some immediate thoughts on ChatGPT’s advice and an explanation of the connection between the above topics. I apologize that the following is long and that I am not asking questions for you. I hope, though, that the questions are implicit through the rest of the article.

A Flow of Theological Thoughts

Let’s take a shot at passing on the connections in my head between various theological thoughts.

  1. Paul and John use eternal life differently, very differently. For John, we have eternal life now (i.e., Jn. 3:16; 6:47). For Paul, it is a reward at the final judgment (i.e.; Rom. 2:6-7; Gal. 6:7-9). Most people are confused by this, and they impose John’s wording on Paul’s writing. Even pastors often have no idea this is true. (I almost added Rom. 6:22 as a reference for Paul, but if I had, you would have had to ask why Romans 6:23 seems a contradiction to it. I have John Chrysostom’s explanation on my “Contrasting John with the Rest of the New Testament” post
  2. Paul and John, if the Bible is true, have the same theology. (If they did not, the Bible contradicts itself on eternal life!)
  3. The connection between them, the agreement between them, despite the difference in wording, is easy to see in John 5:26-29. In 5:26-27, we see John’s thinking. We are the living dead, zombies, alive physically but dead spiritually. When the word of the Lord comes, we are raised to life. John only knows of one real life, the uncreated and thus eternal life of God brought to us in Jesus. Paul says the same in Ephesians 2:1-10. We were “dead in our trespasses and sins,” but God in his mercy (different word than grace) saves us by his grace (different word than mercy and best explained in Titus 2:11-12), and this is defined as being made alive in Christ.
  4. In John 5:28-29, those “in the graves” hear the word of our Lord and resurrect, those who have done good to a resurrection of life and those who have done evil to a resurrection condemnation. This aligns with Paul who said both that those who patiently do good will be rewarded with eternal life at the judgment (Rom. 2:6-7;) and that those who are sowing to the Spirit will eventually reap eternal life because they are doing good (Gal. 6:7-9).
  5. The reason they speak differently is because John is writing *FORTY* years after Paul wrote Romans. John was an old man overseeing Ephesus and the churches around it. (These are mentioned in Revelation 2-3, and Ignatius of Antioch directed 5 letters to these same churches only a decade or two after John wrote his Gospel.) In the late-first century, gnosticism had managed to spread in teaching and influence, much more than it had in Paul’s lifetime. Though Paul mentioned them (1 Tim. 6:20-21), they were much more trouble by the time John wrote his Gospel. His first letter was written about them as well, aimed directly at them. They talked, but did not do, so John’s first letter slams hypocrites. Ignatius, writing to the same area and some of the same churches, also mentioned them repeatedly.
  6. One other connection between Paul and John is on immortality. The Greek idea that our souls are immortal has infiltrated Christianity, but it was unknown to Paul and John. Both knew that immortality belongs only to God (1 Tim. 6:16), and God would confer immortality only on the righteous and only at the judgment (Rom. 2:6-7). So John says we have immortality, eternal life, now only because we have the Son, and eternal life is in the Son (1 Jn. 5:11-12). To have eternal life in ourselves, to be immortal, had to wait for the resurrection of life when the dead come out of the tombs (Jn. 5:28-29). Then eternal life will be in us, too, and we will be immortal because God has conferred immortality on us.
  7. Another important thing for us to understand is that to Paul and to John, to be saved is to be saved out of the muck and mire of the world. Someone who serves sin is headed for death, not immortality (Rom. 6; Gal. 5:19 – 6:10; all of 1 John). John, in his letter, is standing at the side of raging river calling for those who are being swept down the river to reach out for the lifeline he is throwing them. He’s crying, “You’re not saved! You’re still being swept down the river towards your doom! Grab the lifeline and come fellowship with us here on the river bank where you are really saved!” (cf. 1 John 1:3-4).
  8. People being swept down the river don’t need assurance. They need to be saved from drowning, so James said: ” Brothers, if any among you wanders from the truth and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).

The Always To Be Remembered Caveat About Good Works

In all of this, it is critically important that the good works required for immortality are a pattern of good works (Rom. 2:7; Gal. 6:10), not sinless perfection, and an ongoing forgiveness because you are walking in the light (1 Jn. 1:7), not just because you’re saved.

In the NT, “saved” rarely means going to heaven. Instead, in Ephesians 2:1-10, it means being made alive in Christ (v. 5) and becoming God’s workmanship (v. 10), unless “saved from wrath” is used. That does mean going to heaven because at the final judgment you were judged righteous.

Note: as another connection of ideas, becoming God’s workmanship is grace. It is the very definition of grace. As always, note that I greatly, greatly, greatly prefer “favor” as a translation of the Greek charis rather than “grace,” but that said, read Titus 2:11-12 and think about whether being God’s workmanship and grace are exactly the same thing.

You can know how Jesus will judge at the judgment (2 Cor. 5:10) by reading Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 2-3.

Jesus died to make you righteous in behavior (Titus 2:11-15 especially, but also Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 14:9; 2 Cor. 5:15; Acts 3:26; and compare Acts 26:20). If your behavior has a pattern of righteousness, you are of God, and you can expect to have the righteous standing that Jesus has with God. If your behavior has a pattern of ongoing evil, you do not belong to God, but are of the devil (1 Jn. 3:7-12). That passage begins by saying not to be deceived about this.

Posted in atonement, Bible, Dealing with Scripture Honestly, Evangelicals, Gospel, Modern Doctrines, Rebuilding the Foundations, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Is Tradition: Jesus, the Apostles, and our Bible

Posted on 06/10/2026 by Paul Pavao

I can’t do better than my long ago article, “Apostolic  Tradition.” It looks nicer than my blog does as well.

Posted in Bible, History, Rebuilding the Foundations, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Christian Scientist, A Dinosaur Fossil, and the Cost of Misrepresentation

Posted on 06/08/2026 by Paul Pavao

Like almost all my posts about evolution, this post is primarily about dishonesty and slander, because honesty is a Christian virtue and Jesus is the Truth … it’s not about science.

As a side effect of explaining the dishonesty and slander continually perpetrated by young-earth creationist organizations, which I write about because too many of my personal friends have participated in it, I have to talk about evolution. As a side effect of writing about evolution, I have to write about Hebrew and Ancient Near East scholars who say that Genesis 1-3 has nothing to do with evolution, nor science at all, but that there is one good God who created everything and wants to fellowship with humans. Wes Huff is popular nowadays; he’s a scholar who teaches this.

I saw a post on Facebook saying that paleontology was shaken by the discovery of blood-vessel structures inside a Tyrannosaurus Rex rib bone. Here is my (edited) response to the misinformation in the post.

What’s true is that paleontology is amazed by this discovery and was a little bit shaken when Mary Schweitzer first found soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil in 2005. Mary Schweitzer IS A CHRISTIAN, and she is a paleontologist who began her career in biology. She still teaches, with all other paleontologists, that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and that the soft tissue she found is 68 million years old. The following is from an interview in which, among other things, she complains about young-earth creationist misuse of her research.

Were you nervous before publishing about soft tissue in dinosaur bones?

Yes, very. After we had the data, I didn’t publish for over a year. I was terrified. First of all, I don’t like attention or the spotlight and I knew this was going to get a lot of attention. I’m not surprised that the response of the community has been skeptical, and I guess I’m grateful for that because the scrutiny has made me much more cautious and therefore, made me a much better scientist. I go above what is usually required to validate my data before I publish—my colleagues are just doing their jobs to be skeptical, a scientist’s job is not to prove things but to question them.

One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors. Still, it’s not surprising they’ve reacted this way—the bone that I first studied I got from Jack, and when I gave him our initial results he was rather angry—I called him a few times and by my third call he said, “Dammit Mary the creationists are just going to love you.” But I said, “This is just what the data say— I’m not making it up.

Posted in Evolution, honesty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When Grammar Shapes Theology: Wisdom, Jesus, and Proverbs 8

Posted on 05/26/2026 by Paul Pavao

This is pulled from my own Facebook post obviously.

In another Facebook post I laughed at myself for not knowing that idioma in Spanish is masculine, not feminine. Language gender (and other grammar rules) is really important for understanding the Bible in general, but it is most important in Proverbs.

Wisdom is supposedly feminine in Proverbs, but we miss Wisdom’s connection to Jesus, especially in Proverbs 8:22-31, because our English translations (almost correctly) refer to Wisdom as “she.” The problem, though, is that Wisdom is not a woman, “she” is a feminine word, like “cup” in German and Spanish.

In both German and Spanish, coffee is a masculine word and cup is a feminine word. If we translated those two languages the way we translate Proverbs, we would say, “I poured him into her.” We don’t do that because English does not have word genders. We just have people genders.

We should probably translate “Wisdom” in Proverbs as “it,” not “she.” Using a feminine pronoun in Hebrew, Greek, German, or Spanish does not mean, nor even indicate, that if Wisdom speaks, “she” is speaking. The “she” in Hebrew usually means “it” in English unless it’s speaking of a person or animal.

Note: I do examine a lot of my claims more deeply before moving a post from Facebook to my blog. ChatGPT, a language AI, pointed out to me that the writer of Proverbs is personifying Wisdom, so using him or her could be appropriated. That’s important, but … “she” is no more appropriated than “he” because the fact that Sophia (Hebrew for “wisdom”) is a feminine word has nothing to do with human gender. 

In fact, German uses “it,” a neuter pronoun, for young women, not because Germans don’t know that young women are actually women, but because both maid and miss, Mädchen and Fräulein, have word endings, -lein and -chen, that require a neuter pronoun. I’m just now remembering, too, that a child is “das Kind,” neuter, whether the child is a boy or girl.

If you don’t know these things, and if no one tells you, then you are never going to know that Wisdom is not a woman, but was understood by Greek-speaking Christians to refer to either the Holy Spirit or Jesus, and always Jesus in Proverbs 8:22-31.

This is critical to early Trinitarian theology. Because everyone agreed that Proverbs 8:22 used “created” in reference to Jesus, Lucian of Antioch was able to deceive Arius of Egypt and Eusebius of Nicomedia into spreading the idea that the Son of God was created like everything and everyone else.

True teachers in the early centuries of the church understood that there was no way for a human to really understand how God could beget a Son, so the particular word used to describe God birthing a Son was not important. They used “emit” because Psalm 45:1 said, “My heart has emitted a good Word” (from Septuagint, what is Septuagint). God’s heart emitted him because he was not created like we were, from nothing, but he came out from the inside of God. Thus, he was the same “substance,” the same “essence,” the same eternal “stuff” that God is made of. We are made of created matter; the Son of God was “made” of “God” or at least of whatever “stuff” God is made of.

This was important because God is eternal and uncreated. Whatever he is made of has always existed, and therefore always will exist. Matter, or the “stuff” that earth, cherubim, seraphim, and humans are created from is not eternal. It had a beginning, so it can have an end. If the Son of God is from the substance of God, uncreated and eternal, then he is uncreated and eternal. If he is created from matter, then he is created and mortal.
These are insufficient words that the early Christians had to wrestle with to explain the unexplainable: God birthed a Son. Here’s one attempt to explain from the late second century:

We acknowledge … a Son of God. Don’t let anyone think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. … The Son of God is the Word of the Father … He is the first product of the Father, not as though he was being brought into existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal Mind, had the Logos in himself. … What then? Because the multitude, who cannot distinguish between matter and God, or see how great is the interval which lies between them, pray to idols made of matter, are we therefore, who do distinguish and separate the uncreated and the created … (Athenagoras, “A Plea for the Christians” 10 & 15; cited from my own Trinity Quote list)

Since Lucian, Eusebius (of Nicomedia, not the historian), and Arius, we’ve stopped using Proverbs 8:22-31 as referencing Jesus. The word “created” or “made” is not the problem, though. The issue is what Jesus was “created” from. He was eternally part of God, then God was able to generate/create/beget/emit his Word as a second to himself before the beginning of all things, and he is thus God and not creature.

This is referenced throughout the 250 years between the apostles and Arius the heretic, though Eusebius of Nicomedia (not Eusebius the historian, his contemporary) should be more to blame for the heresy and the consequent 60 years of unrest (and violence and killing) in the churches of the eastern Roman Empire.

I have a lot of quotes from those 250 years at the link I gave above, and even more in my book, Decoding Nicea (which  has 164 reviews on Amazon now!).

I didn’t mean to write all this when I started. Proverbs 8:22-31 seems to me the most important reason we should understand grammar gender versus human and animal gender.

Posted in Dealing with Scripture Honestly, Early Christianity, History, Modern Doctrines, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Creationist Deception Almost Made Me a Dishonest Man

Posted on 05/22/2026 by Paul Pavao

Here’s why I write on the very unpopular subject of microbe-to-mammal evolution. A lady on Facebook cited a study from Nature, a prestigious scientific journal, saying that there were tetrapods (4-footed creatures) before Tiktaalik, a very famous fossil supposed to be a transitional fossil between fish and amphibians. The article is simply trying to say that tetrapods evolved before Tiktaalik. The lady, however, was deceived into thinking the article was against evolution. The result was that she posted a confusing post thinking she had evidence against evolution, but no one could figure out why she thought it was.

Anyway, someone referred to her as just another creationist deceiver. I answered that the judgment was too harsh. She is not a deceiver; she’s one of those deceived by creationist literature. She responded by asking me how she was deceived.

If you don’t understand what I wrote above, ignore this post. It’s not for you. Some Christians read and are interested in the anti-evolution organizations and their arguments. This is for them.

Here’s what I wrote to her. “Ahlberg” is the lead scientist on the study published in Nature. I’m answering why I say she is deceived.

It’s the post. there is nothing in your post that evidences the argument you just made. The fact is, if you accept the timelines in your own post, then 500 billion years ago, not long before your 375 million years ago (by geologic time), there were no fish nor quadrupeds.

The “fact” of evolution is that the deeper you dig in the earth, the more different life is. So whether Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil or not, something happened over the 125 million years between the Cambrian explosion and the findings you are reporting that produced creatures with skeletons, the first tetrapods and, later, dinosaurs and mammals. Whether Tiktaalik was the original transition between fish and amphibians is irrelevant. The article is merely saying that some species earlier than Tiktaalik transitioned from water to land.

Finally, you’ve been deceived by people who want you to believe that Ahlberg doesn’t believe fish can evolve into tetrapods. Here is a more accurate summation of his article:

“The story of the origin of tetrapods began with fishes leaving the water, and ended with the descendants of these first colonists on land diversifying into the ancestors of the modern amphibians and amniotes (the group that includes reptiles, birds and mammals). The timeline of these events has seemed clear-cut: the first tetrapods evolved during the Devonian period and the earliest members of the modern groups appeared during the following Carboniferous period.” (“Earliest reptile footprints rewrite the timeline of tetrapod evolution”)

Ahlberg is only adjusting the timeline of the evolution from fish to tetrapods, not denying it. Whoever pointed you to that Nature article lied to you, and you believed them.

I understand. It happened to me back in 1995. I was incensed because I try to be a man of truth and honor. As I looked into the people who deceived me, I found out the the Institution for Creation Research; Answers in Genesis; and the Creation Research Society are master deceivers, trained in deception by long practice. I should point out that Ken Ham, the founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis seems to be honest enough to abandon deceptive scientific arguments and opt for ridiculousness instead: “We can’t know anything at all about the past” (from the televised debate with Bill Nye, the Science Guy).

I hope you react to being deceived the same way I did, by exposing the deceivers.

I am still a Christian, I still love Jesus,  and I am still a Bible and Christian history teacher, but now, from Ancient Near East and Hebrew scholars, Christian ones, I know that Moses was not trying to argue science in Genesis 1-3; he was arguing theology, the one God who loves humans against the many warring and corrupt gods of the nations.

For my readers, I think I need to make a practice of referencing my article “Lying for Jesus” when I write about evolution. It gives examples of the lies I believed, passed on, and was both embarrassed and angry to find out were false. The “Tale of Two Cites” was later, but I embarrassed and dishonored myself with the others.

Posted in Bible, Evolution, Evolution and Creation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Beauty of Men Who Stay on Mission

Posted on 05/22/2026 by Paul Pavao

I taught one of our “summer-nary” classes last Sunday, and I finally got the teaching right. I not only prayed for, but really believed, that God would speak and that those who heard me would not hear my words but whatever God wanted to teach them.

I got quite a bit of praise for God’s work, and I admit I liked and that I need such attention. I hope I elevate the work of others, even the young men who quickly volunteer to put out or stack chairs at our events because they can do it 3 times as fast as this little old man can.

I was attending Wednesday morning Bible study for a while that included some young men, but also 2 retired pastors and an almost 70-year-old pastor who still speaks around the world. The 2 retired pastors transformed–that’s not too strong a word–my attitude toward theology and what’s important. Sometimes they would get on a roll and drone on, and I would recoil at some of their opinions that are just tradition, not Scripture.

But more and more I came to admire their focus. They were droning on about the power of God to transform men, laughing at their own failures, exhorting to holiness nonetheless. More and more I would just stop and marvel at humble men fiercely fighting for the honor of God and stirring others to serve and honor him too. They had done it so long that they could not give up the battle even in their retirement.

The almost-70 still working pastor is more theological, like me. He easily shucks off tradition and ventures into unpopular waters easily. He, too, is never off mission, He has not only refused retirement literally, he refuses to get his eyes off the mission at any time.

The end. It is always hard to know how to end a post that is mostly about an emotion like admiration, so I just quit so that I don’t drone on forever, LOL.

Posted in Evangelicals, Gospel, Holiness, Leadership, Miscellaneous, missions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Does Aphesis Mean? Forgiveness, Jubilee, and Freedom in Christ

Posted on 05/18/2026 by Paul Pavao

Today the word aphesis seems so important. It is the word Paul and much of the New Testament uses for forgiveness. Well, maybe I should say that translators translate the word as forgiveness. It is the same Greek word that means Jubilee and the 7-year release from debt and slavery in the LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which convinces me that it has to mean more than just forgiveness.

Jubilee is in Leviticus 25, and it occurs every 50th year in Israel. All the land is supposed to be returned to the family that inherited it from Joshua. The 7-year release is in Deuteronomy 15. There we learn that every 7 years and all Hebrew slaves were (supposed to be) released and all debts canceled.

Scholars all agree aphesis is primarily associated with “Jubilee language” in the LXX, but they differ on how much Paul was trying to convey Jubilee thoughts when he used it. An important example of aphesis is Ephesians 1:7:

“In him we have our release by ransom through his blood, the _aphesis_ of our trespasses, according to the riches of his favor.”

The combination of apolutrosis, release by ransom, and aphesis in the same verse establishes, in my opinion, that Paul meant much more than forgiveness in this verse. Yes, it also means forgiveness, but aphesis primarily means “release,” which is why it is used for Jubilee and the 7-year release. Land was released from other owners back to the family to which it was due at Jubilee, and debts and slavery were released (at least to Hebrews) every 7 years.

We have not just been forgiven by Jesus’ ransoming blood; we have been freed from everything that held us bound and given access again to our ancestral homeland, God’s temple garden, Eden.

One final note. Aphesis is used twice in Luke 4:18 where Jesus tells a synagogue why the Spirit of the Lord was put upon him. He was to give aphesis to the captives and brokenhearted. Obviously, Jesus was not just forgiving captives, he was releasing them, and in some way he was freeing the brokenhearted as well, not just forgiving them.

Rejoice in being forgiven, but do not limit what Paul said to forgiveness. He describes the fullness of aphesis, the fullness of what he meant by “forgiveness,” in Romans 6.

Notes for Readers of My Blog

I use jstor.org to search for scholarly articles on just about anything that interests me. They allow me to read 100 journal articles for free every month, and I rarely read more than 3 or 4. A lot of months I don’t read any.

That is where I find scholar level (journal articles reviewed by other scholars) articles, often just to check my own interpretations of Scripture. One article suggested that Paul chose aphesis over another possible Greek word for forgiveness, charizomai, because he did not want to limit what Jesus did for us. It is a bigger word, carrying the idea of release and not just forgiveness into his understanding of the atonement.

I think that is important, and I think that Romans 6 and many other descriptions of the atonement emphasize our  freedom from sin every bit as much as forgiveness. Ephesians 2:8-10 is a passage that is clear about this. We are not just forgiven, we are created in Christ Jesus to do good. Being created all over again, becoming a new creature (2 Cor. 5:15-21), is certainly a much bigger idea than mere forgiveness.

Posted in atonement, Bible, Dealing with Scripture Honestly, Gospel, Rebuilding the Foundations, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Reminiscing of Another Paul the Aged

Posted on 05/09/2026 by Paul Pavao

Today I am keenly aware, as my day to begin Medicare approaches, that I have not lived up to my imaginary potential, but God has lived up to his real potential. I look back at things I did and did not do, at zeal I did not maintain, and I marvel at the goodness of God. I don’t think I have entered a room in the last almost 44 years that God did not enter first. Jesus promised a river of life from deep in my belly, and it has been there. “The God of angel armies” has truly gone before and been my rear guard. “When we are faithless, he remains faithful.” I didn’t think, looking forward from the 1980s, that God liked me enough to remain faithful when I was faithless, but looking back from 2026, I’m in awe, and I think I finally believe God likes me. I attribute some of that belief to learning to use the word “favor” rather than “grace” when reading Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 6:14, Titus 2:11-12, and especially in Hebrews 4:16. Most of that belief, however, comes from long experience of God intervening in my life, rewarding my faithfulness, and hanging around to keep me safe during my unfaithfulness.

I had great parents who helped me believe that I could be liked despite sometimes having to be tolerated. My brothers and I fought like dogs and cats, and I ignored my sister way too much, but we’re a tight-knit bunch. Of course, Lorie Pavao has somehow been thrilled with me for 38 years, which is crazy and inexplicable apart from the power of God.

This gazing at my life is not prompted by thoughts that this life is over. Instead, today I got to pass on some of the things I’ve learned and experienced deeply and emotionally to people younger than me. It put me in awe of the _checed_ of God, his mercy/lovingkindness/covenant faithfulness.

To paraphrase “Covenant Woman” by Janny Grein, I’m a lifelong covenant Christian. I’ve lived with my feet planted deep in his good, good Word, standing on the promises I have heard (signed, sealed, delivered by the blood of the Lamb). Wow … it’s been amazing. I’m hoping for 20 more years to give what I’ve gotten. It’s a blip in eternity, but that’s a long time for an earth-bound human to pass on what God has given.

My mammal brain remembers the Scripture I read in my younger years amazingly well, but the Scripture I read yesterday rather poorly. The kindness of God, though, is etched in large print in my spirit and etched in deep emotion in my deep, reptilian brain.

When I am on my deathbed, play me a song that include Isaiah 61’s …

“to provide for those who mourn in Zion,
to give to them a garland for ashes,
the oil of joy for mourning,
the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness,
that they may be called trees of righteousness,
the planting of Yahweh,
that he may be glorified.
They will rebuild the old ruins.
They will raise up the former devastated places.
They will repair the ruined cities
that have been devastated for many generations.”

… and I will leap and dance again because those words will touch something far deeper than my understanding.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Testimonies | Tagged , | 1 Comment