Women verses men

Apostle Paul wrote, “²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

This statement could be one of the main reasons that some believe women can serve in any role that a man does.

Yet Paul also wrote, “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3

If “head” is used figurative for authority, and the headship of Christ over man is not merely cultural, then the headship of man over woman is as literal as is the headship of Christ over man.

But what does this headship mean? Is it a contradiction to the statement that there is “in Christ” "neither male nor female?”

There can be a distinction in roles between male and female that relate to this life that do not relate to the resurrected life in the age to come. Paul also said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” 1 Timothy 2:12 Is this just a cultural issue, or is it a fundamental principle?   In the requirements of an elder/ bishop (overseer)--I'll use “elder” from here on--of the Christian assembly, we see that the elder is a man: “If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. ² A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...” 1 Timothy 3:1-2

Obviously, some believe women can fill the role of elder, probably seeing Paul's restrictions as cultural, while others may not allow such a role for women yet allow women to speak (some say “preach”) to the Christian assembly, probably justifying it on the grounds that she is still under authority of a male elder.

The role of deacon is extended to women probably because the word translated “wives” can be translated “women”: “¹¹ Likewise, their wives [or women] must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.” 1 Timothy 3:11 Yet as you read on, Paul says, “¹² Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” 1 Timothy 3:12 The word for “deacon” is really just a transliteration of the Greek word into English, and it means “minister.” Yet it is presented as an official role/ office in the church and not just a general reference to ministering. We have the account in Acts 6:1-6 where 7 men were chosen to fulfill a service-type-role. Yet again, we have the reference to Phoebe as a servant in the Church, using the Greek word for “deacon”: ​¹ I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, ² that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also." Romans 16:1-2   Was she of the office of deacon, or just a servant/ minister in general, that any believer can fulfill?

I believe this all boils down to the issues of roles and authority in the Church function. I don't believe it is just about culture and customs but divinely establish roles. There may be some room for compromise, and I'm sure compromise is going to happen due to the times and culture we live in, especially with girls being raised to believe they can be anything they want, and they can do anything as good or better than a man. 

I don't believe this discussion about roles has to be about who could do a better job.  It's about Divinely appointed roles in this age. And in this age, there are differences between the sexes that make them better suited for their particular roles, whether in marriage and raising children, or in the Church. 

Men are to live with their wives with the understanding that they are the “weaker vessel”: “ ⁷ Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.” 1 Peter 3:7 Is she physically weaker, or psychologically weaker, or culturally less significant or more vulnerable? One will pick what best fits their view about women. I do know that generally, men are physically stronger--though there are exceptions, and we see that the transgender issue affects women more than men in athletic competition--and that men can usually handle criticism better than women—saying something negative about a woman's appearance, and she will never forgive you, but a man will more likely blow it off.

Women and men are generally different, and each have their strengths and weaknesses. This is probably due to their natural differences and what they were designed to do. Women and men can do each other's roles in about anything, except men cannot have babies and women cannot impregnate. There will be times when men can do better what a woman generally does, and vise-versa. Both women and men suffer from the same problem of having a sinful disposition, and both can have evil thoughts and do evil. Men generally want to be significant, and women want to be secure, though both sexes want a degree of significance and security.  But these basic needs are fulfilled by husbands loving their wives and wives respecting their husbands.  If the wife is seeking to be significant outside the marriage relationship, such as in seeking a career at the expense of the marriage or family, then there may be problems in the marriage relationship. It is typical for men to seek a career that provides for his family and gives him that significance naturally needed.  

It will seem women are happier if they feel secure in their marriage relationship and have their significance in having children and managing the home, in which she can have an impact on their children's' character. Of course, the husband and wife need to work out what is expected of each in their marriage roles. The instruction by Apostle Paul concerning younger widows seems right for young women: “Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” 1 Timothy 5:14 How many women put a career first—after years of college, and then regret getting too old to have children? They have been raised to be independent and be prepared for a failed marriage, and then when they are old, they lack fulfillment, because they went against the natural design.

Of course, women can do probably most things that a man can do. They may be able to do it better. They can carry a gun and go into combat. But what about the roles God intends for them? Are either male or female better suited to do the opposite sexes traditional roles? Yes, there are exceptions. But both men and women are subject to a fallen nature: "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9. Both can fail at their roles or doing the other's role. We should not pit one sex against the other. Though both male and female are one in Christ, they were physically designed for different roles in life. Both should find their significance and security in those unique roles without the need of denigrating one to raise up the other. After all, God created the woman from man to be “a helper comparable to him.” Genesis 2:20  

The Thief's Appeal

 The one thief on the cross must have concluded that Jesus was the Christ, and that he could appeal to his mercy. This account is similar to the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

I've done some rethinking of the thief's request and faith when he asked Jesus to “remember” him:

³⁹ Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." ⁴⁰ But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? ⁴¹ And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." ⁴² Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." ⁴³ And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." Luke 23:39-43

The one thief makes reference to Jesus being “the Christ,” which would suggest they (the 2 thieves) knew this claim being made of Jesus. The one thief was saying it with ridicule, but the other thief, probably having a change of mind (cp. Matthew 27.44), rebuked the one who made ridicule, having come to a fear of God in their hopeless state.

The thief who had a change of mind recognizes the innocence of Jesus and the just consequences of their situation. And instead of ridiculing the claim that Jesus was the Christ, he must have accepted that claim. And in acceptance of that claim, knowing that the Christ was both Son of God and king of Israel, the thief appealed to his mercy.

The Old Testament says that God desires mercy over sacrifice. Jesus said: ³ But go and learn what this means: I desire 'mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." Matthew 9:13 (⁶ For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6)

This appeal by the thief came from an acceptance in who Jesus was, being the Christ, and he made the appeal for mercy as he acknowledged his sins and trusting that Jesus could grant it.

This is similar to the parable by Jesus about the Pharisee and the tax-collector:

⁹ Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: ¹⁰ "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹ The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' ¹³ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' ¹⁴ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 18:9-14

The tax collector, in the parable, acknowledged his sinfulness and appealed to the mercy of God. The pharisee trusted in himself, that he was righteous, comparing himself to the tax collector. Jesus said the tax collector went to his house justified rather than the pharisee.

There's definitely a similarity between the thief on the cross and the tax collector, because both make an appeal to Divine mercy.

We know from Divine revelation that the death of Christ was for sins. It is because of this Divine sacrifice for sins (the “propitiation”) that God is just in justifying us through faith:

²¹ But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²² even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, ²⁶ to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26

Some may argue the mercy of God was accomplish at the cross, while others would say it is in saving us from our sins (forgiveness of sins or justification) or from our sinful nature (regeneration or eternal life).

In the account of the thief and the parable of the tax collector, you have individuals who made an appeal to divine mercy. Whether they could understand the divine basis of that mercy or not, they trusted the one who could grant it.

Unlike the thief who still had a mind of ridicule towards Jesus and the self-righteous pharisee, these acknowledged their sinfulness and need, and they believed/ trusted in and appealed to the mercy that only God can give. Therefore, the thief was given assurance of being in Paradise, and the tax collector was said to be justified.

Is unbelief sin?

“And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: ⁹ of sin, because they do not believe in Me; ¹⁰ of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; ¹¹ of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.” John 16:8-11

Some believe this “sin” is specifically unbelief in Christ. The Holy Spirit convicts of this “sin.” That view might be a problem for those who believe the death of Christ released everyone from their sins, because what about the “sin” of unbelief? (They say that people go to hell because of being unregenerate, not to “pay” for their sins—which Christ already paid for.) I've seen some say unbelief is a condition and not a sin, because unbelief keeps them from being saved. Unbelief does keep one in an unsaved state: see John 3:18 below.

Others may see it as sin in general: the Holy Spirit convicts people of sin in general, so that they will see their need for Christ. Jesus said, “²⁴ Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." John 8:24 One needs to believe in Jesus so that they don't die in their sins, but one must believe they are a sinner or else why do they need to believe?

I could see both views as possible.

Interestingly, about the time of my salvation, when I believe it happened, I was particularly convicted of my lack of trusting in Christ for may salvation—I was trying to reform myself.

But whether unbelief is a sin is a difficult question with respect to many things that can be believed or not believed. And what about persuasion?

Belief requires knowledge and persuasion. If one does not know, how can they be charged with sin? And even if one knows, can they believe, if they are not persuaded?

But there is a role that the will can play, if the evidence is undeniable.

But there are a lot of things people differ on, and to believe one thing and not another is not necessarily sin. To believe in a young earth or old earth is not a sin issue. To believe in pretrib or posttrib is not a sin issue. Some may say these are sin issues, but I don't believe so.

However, when it comes to salvation, unbelief does leave one in a condemned state.

¹⁸ "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18

And there is the issue about the works of Jesus being denied, which because of the circumstances, to not believe he was the Christ would seem to be a sin—because the works were undeniable. And in connection with this is the “unpardonable sin,” which appears to be denying the undeniable working of the Holy Spirit: “²⁸ "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; ²⁹ but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" Mark 3:28-29

That blaspheme must include unbelief because it involved attributing the working of God through Jesus to Satan. That the works of Jesus were clearly from God, and to attribute it to Satan is a sin that can't be forgiven. That attribution was due to unbelief, and since that unbelief can't be forgiven reveals that it is a sin. So there is unbelief that is sin. But not all unbelief falls into a sin category, due to what is at issue, as in things involving eschatology (prophecy) or ecclesiology (Church operation).

faith can fail

 What if one's faith fails?

Satan wants you to fail: ³¹ And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. ³² But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." Luke 22:31-32

The failure here was probably not Peter's denial of knowing Christ, which was more a denial from fear of persecution, but the failure that could come from the denial. If satan can get you to commit certain sin or to question your faith or depart from sound doctrine, it can lead to failure in your faith. And such failure will make you useless as a vessel fit for service to God.

¹⁸ This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, ¹⁹ having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, ²⁰ of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. 1 Timothy 1:18-20

¹⁶ But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. ¹⁷ And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, ¹⁸ who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:16-18

⁵ Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified. ⁶ But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified. 2 Corinthians 13:5-6

“ Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” 1 Corinthians 10:12

“You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” Galatians 10:4

“But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise.” Hebrews 10:32-36

symbolism

 Symbols in Scripture may be used because of the complexity of what they represent. 

How could you give a vision of a future nation defeating another nation except by using symbolism and then explaining what that symbol means?

In a vision of past, present, and future kingdoms, symbolism can portray all the kingdoms at once for simplicity and consistency of revelation, such as with the revelations of kingdoms in Daniel and Revelation.

I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. ⁶ Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. Daniel 8:5-6

The male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. ⁹ And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. Daniel 8:8-9

Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be. ²⁰ The ram which you saw, having the two horns—they are the kings of Media and Persia. ²¹ And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. ²² As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power. Daniel 8:19-22

²³ "And in the latter time of their kingdom, When the transgressors have reached their fullness, A king shall arise, Having fierce features, Who understands sinister schemes. ²⁴ His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; He shall destroy fearfully, And shall prosper and thrive; He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people. Daniel 8:23-24

Symbols can be used to emphasize certain characteristics of an object or to represent a spiritual condition. A spiritual reality can be represented by clothing and the condition of the clothing.

​¹ Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. …

³ Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel.

⁴ Then He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying, "Take away the filthy garments from him."

And to him He said, "See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes."

⁵ And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head, and they put the clothes on him. And the Angel of the LORD stood by. Zechariah 3:1-5

Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" ¹⁴ And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. ¹⁵ Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. Revelation 7:13-15

The marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." ⁸ And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Revelation 19:7-8

The physical features of the "beast," in Revelation 13, as that of a leopard, bear, and lion draw our attention to other nations in the book of Daniel chapter 7. that were represented as a leopard, bear, and lion. 

I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. ² Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. ³ And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. ⁴ So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" Revelation 13:1-4

"I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea. ³ And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. ⁴ The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man's heart was given to it. ⁵ "And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear. It was raised up on one side, and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it: 'Arise, devour much flesh!' ⁶ "After this I looked, and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. ⁷ "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. ⁸ I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.  Daniel 7:2-8

He was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. ⁶ Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. ⁷ It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. Revelation 13:5-7

It's possible that 5 of the 7 heads of the beast in Revelation 13 correspond with the 4 nation-divisions of Nebuchadnezzar's dream image in Daniel 2. The dream image of Daniel 2 and the beasts of Daniel 7—especially the fourth beast--and the 7 headed beast of Revelation 13 with its 10 horns all have a relationship to one-another.   Daniel's fourth beast vision includes a "little horn" that corresponds with the particular beast-man of Revelation 13 that corresponds to the 7th head that speaks pompous words and persecutes the saints of God.

³⁶ "This is the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. … you are this head of gold. ³⁹ But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. ⁴⁰ And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. ⁴¹ Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; ... ⁴⁴ And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Daniel 2:36-44

The "beast" in Revelation 13 is a composite representation.  The beast has 7 heads, and yet there is a future 7th head, and we are told in Revelation 17 that the 7th head is also an 8th head, and so the 7th head are two stages of the kingdom represented, and the 7th head stage has 2 phases. It is the 7th head that dies and comes to life again, can corresponds to the particular beast and little horn that speaks pompous words and persecutes the saints. 

⁹ "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. ¹⁰ There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. ¹¹ The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition. ¹² "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. ¹³ These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. ¹⁴ These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings. Revelation 17:9-14

The end of the Daniel's 4 beast and the final phase of Nebuchadnezzar's image and the final phase Revelation 13's beast--all these are revelations of the same ruler and kingdom--will be at the Second Coming of Christ who will defeat the beast's kingdom and the armies of the nations who have gathered for battle ("Armageddon").

It seems that the complexity of the things represented, and for simplicity and consistency of the revelation, symbolism works best.

Updated 4/7/25

Muster the Mustard

 Jesus *informed his disciples that they could not cast out a demon because they were faithless and unbelieving. He goes on to say that if they have faith of a mustard seed, they can move a mountain.

Since he said they were faithless and unbelieving, then the contrast must be between having no faith or faith. But what is “mustard seed” faith? Is it just a super tiny amount?

And how does one get such mustard seed faith? Can one just muster it up by strength of the will?

**Elsewhere, Jesus accused Peter of having “little faith” and doubt. Is little faith less than mustard seed faith? After saying Peter had little faith, he asked him why he doubted? Is little faith equal to doubt and less than mustard seed faith?

^*19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not cast it out?" ²⁰ So Jesus said to them, "Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:19-20

**³¹ And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" Matthew 14:31

It could be that mustard seed faith speaks of the fact of faith, as opposed to doubt or unbelief. It's not how much faith one can muster up, but it is faith, nevertheless, in contrast to doubt or unbelief. As far as the ability to muster up faith at all, it does help if one wants to believe or is willing to be honest and humble enough to be objective, that is, to be persuaded by the facts or evidence.

Peter believed he could walk on water when Jesus gave him the command to come to him. Peter saw Jesus walking on water, and so it was probably that fact and that he knew the miracles that Jesus did, and so, if Jesus gave the command to come to him, he was able to take those steps into the water. But the ***fierceness the weather distracted him and caused him to doubt that he could continue what was humanly impossible .

***²⁸ And Peter answered Him and said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water." ²⁹ So He said, "Come." And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. ³⁰ But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!" Matthew 14:28-30

So Peter started out in faith, but then began to sink when he became afraid, and Jesus attributed this with doubt.

But what did Jesus mean by “little faith?” Is it less than mustard seed faith? Is little faith with more doubt than mustard seed faith? I think speaking of degrees of faith and degrees of doubt can get confusing.

The Greek word translated “little faith” is oligopistos. The Greek word “oligos” can mean “little” as in size, but it can also mean “short” as in duration. The Greek word “pistis” means “faith.” Could it be that Jesus was saying that Peter began well, because he did walk on the water, but it was short-lived? Peter had short-lived faith, for shortly after he began, he was frightened and doubted and began to sink.

Peter didn't have to muster up faith, though he was willing to believe he could walk on water: He only needed the command of Christ to be persuaded it could be done, but the threatening circumstance of the weather distracted him and caused fear and doubt, and so his faith was short lived, and he doubted and began to sink.

It is about how much faith one has, but whether they are persuaded. It helps to want to believe. And for a time, Peter did believe.

The book of James says that God will give wisdom to those who believe and have no doubt: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. ⁶ But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.” James 1:5-6 This supports the view that faith does not include doubt. This faith must take God at His word, that God will keep His word. Of course, one must understand what this particular wisdom is about—that God will provide. It doesn't mean you will be on the level of of Solomon in earthly wisdom, but it must be understood in light of the context of trials and temptation.

Mustard seed faith must be about what is the object of your faith and not percentages. It's like the man who believed Jesus could heal without coming to his house. Jesus said that he had “great faith”: ¹⁰ “When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!” Matthew 8:10 The man understood who Jesus was and what he could do. Unlike others who would need Jesus to come to where they needed a miracle, this man understood and was convinced that Jesus work the miracle from anywhere. This man understood the authority of Christ and was without doubt. He did not have to muster up faith he already had. The object of his faith made his faith “great,” though a mustard seed faith would have worked.    4/4/25

Overarching theme

 

Overarching theme (of Scripture)       “a people for His name”

I recently read an article (by Corey Marsh) in “Bibliotheca Sacra” (The Dallas Theological Seminary Journal) that sought to demonstrate a “doxological-historical” model for biblical theology as opposed to the more popular “redemptive-historical” model. The doxological model focuses on the theme of God's glory as progressing though canonical (inspired Scripture) history. The redemptive model views the history of redemption as the overarching framework of Scripture.

The article says, “God is glorious, so he created. He created so he could redeem. He redeemed so he could re-create. He recreated so he is glorified in all creation. Viewing Scripture as primarily doxological rather than redemptive safeguards God's place as sovereign who receives glory, providing a vital link connection creation to redemption to recreation.”

The article says it is the assumption of modern evangelical scholarship that views “humanity's redemption as the ultimate paradigm through which to understand all other biblical themes.”

The article says, “While both glory and redemption are related, even complimentary, concepts, they are distinct categories in Scripture. In simple terms, one is bigger than the other. The glory of God, as progressing throughout the canon and manifested throughout history, subsumes humanity's history of redemption. The bible, therefore, conveys a history of God revealing himself rather than a history of humanity.”

Could there be an alternative view as to the overarching theme of Scripture that incorporates both views, being the intent of God to have a people for His name? This view would include both the redemptive and the doxological ideas, because throughout time and in eternity, God will have a people to manifest his holiness and salvation, for His glory.

I have come to a modified form of dispensationalism that is based on the people of God for His purposes (his elect and servants) in (temporal) time, to show forth His holiness and salvation. And in the final state (the new creation), it will be a people for His name (His glory) among whom God will dwell. Following is a dispensational chart showing the dispensations according to this view. I will include Scripture that speaks of God having a people for His name.

And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. Genesis 5:24

Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? Job 1:8

If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, Numbers 12:6-8

For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 7:6

Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. Acts 15:14

Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you. Zechariah 8:23

In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance. Isaiah 19:24-25

Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. Revelation 21:3