Personal Thoughts

What if marriage was a requirement for salvation? What if God graded our faithfulness based on spousal approval of our marriage. It is not, but what if it were? There are verses in the Bible that place a premium on this relationship that tell us that it was very important to God. But our salvation is based solely on our trust in the Lord.

Romans 4:16 reads “It [salvation] is of faith that it might be by grace.” I’ll leave it to the preachers to explain that, but what we’re saying here is that only our faith in the Lord is required for salvation.

But what if salvation did depend on the marriage relationship—according to the Biblical standard. Here would be the rules based upon the scriptures. But I’m not going to share those scriptures with you because I don’t want anyone starting another religion. God knows we have enough! Let me only remind you of what Paul urged: “Husbands love your wives!” [Ephesians 5:28].

Here are the rules based on a casual reading of pertinent scriptures:

1. Marriage is defined by the physical relationship not a ceremony. What this means is that a casual physical relationship outside of marriage is an oxymoron.
2. Marriage biblically is defined as a heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong relationship. What this means is that we should think twice about whom we marry or how long we plan to be married before we get married. There’s an eye opener!
3. Thirdly, the heterosexual relationship is defined as a “Oneness” or one flesh, not only in terms of the physical aspects of the relationship but because it is a relationship between a man and a woman when everyone knows men and women do not think alike. We could define that oneness as reaching a point of understanding and appreciation of those differences. I think that’s what God had in mind! Two different pieces to one puzzle that can make an awesome picture when put together!
4. The fourth rule is we get one do over, one reset, one divorce, if things aren’t working out. This means that if we are on a second marriage, a second physical, intimate relationship, it has to last the rest of our lives with one exception, rule #5.
5. Anyone that is 60 years old or older is exempt from remarrying.
6. Rule #6 is: Persons who are or remain single can have a special dispensation if they choose never to marry. “Never” means also never having been married previously.
7. Lastly: This all kicks in at Salvation. Before one knows the Lord these rules don’t apply. Salvation is a start over. I will give you this verse: 2 Corinthians 5:17.

Aren’t you glad the Lord asked you to trust Him only and not yourself! [Ephesians 2:8].

When I read Deuteronomy 6:5 I thought the verse should be complete with the first phrase: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart.” I wondered why add soul followed by a word that doesn’t necessarily mean strength, but a noun form of the adverb “exceedingly.” If it applies across the entire verse, it would be saying you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul exceedingly so. So the likelihood is that the word “strength” in the translation is not referring to physical strength, “Yield your members as instruments onto righteousness,” in reference to your body. If it were, Moses was saying, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and body.” But I think this is a stretch.

The soul may refer to the person themselves as for example in Psalm 103, “Bless the Lord oh my soul.” Here David is saying to himself “Self, Bless the Lord,” it’s probably another example of David encouraging himself in the Lord or he is simply praising the Lord. If that’s what it is in Deuteronomy, then we might be saying love the Lord with all your heart and then you will love him with all that you are. What is being implied in the statement is that when the Lord has your heart he has you and that would line up with a few sayings of Jesus, Matthew 12:34-35, for example, “…out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things.”

And the “muchness,” which is what the word “strength” really means in Hebrew, even though we do not have this word in English, is added on to indicate emphasis, and dedication. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart because then he will have all of you in every way and in every situation.”

Whatever a believer is thinking when they read this commandment must run the gambit of human thought. In Swahili, the translators have come upon another idea. It is not based on the text in Deuteronomy, but on Jesus’ words in Matthew 22 where we are exhorted to love the Lord our God with our whole heart, soul and “mind” or “understanding.” In Swahili, the word “soul” can also mean “spirit,” and this could lead to an interesting reading. In this reading, the soul or spirit can refer to our will; the last word “understanding” can refer to our intellect; and heart can refer to our emotions. If that’s the case, the scripture would be saying, you shall love the Lord your God with your whole will, intellect, and emotions.

I want to say that in Mark and Luke, which uses all four “heart, soul, strength, understanding” – or understanding and then strength – the words used are simply a product of tradition. They knew what they read in Moses and they knew how Jesus interpreted it and so they put it all together in one line. If this be the case, it doesn’t add anything to our discussion.

But we may want to ask why Jesus removed the word “strength” from the Mosaic tradition and replaced it with the word “understanding.” My suggestion would be that “understanding” is a function or attribute of the heart in Old Testament teaching [Proverbs 15:14], and therefore Jesus wanted to emphasize this truth and there was no need to add the word for “muchness” – especially since the New Testament is in Greek and they don’t grammatically use the word “exceeding” this way. The Old Testament Greek exhorts us to love the Lord “from [with] all our abilities.” [Not a bad translation: We have been empowered through Christ to Love Him as He wants us to.]

But while we are reviewing this multifold aspect of our being: heart, soul, understanding, we should consider the three changes that come about with the new birth, or when we become believers or when all things have been made new within us [John 3:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17]. First and foremost, according to Ezekiel 36:26 and Jeremiah 31:33 and 34, God gave us a new heart so that we could begin to know him. Is this not the heart that we are talking about in these verses? Love the Lord your God with your whole new heart. The old heart according to Jeremiah 17:9 was incurably ill and we needed a spiritual heart transplant. Then there is the word “understanding.” According to Paul, we needed to have our “minds” transformed that we might be able to know that the will of God is good and acceptable and perfect for us, according to Romans chapter 12 verse 2. But what about the “soul.” We can view the word soul as it is understood in Psalm 103 in the general sense that when God has given us a new heart and a transformed mind, our soul has been given a brand new beginning, but we might want to use the Swahili idea and view it to include talk of our spirit. According to Romans, 8:16 “the Holy Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit” now that we are born again. According to Colossians 2:13 we were once “dead in sin, [but now] He [the Lord] has quickened us alive [resurrected us] together with Christ,” God brought us alive in Christ. We are now spiritually capable of hearing His voice [John 10:27].

The word love would make no sense if God had commanded us with hardened hearts, corrupted minds, and spiritual deafness to love Him. We don’t even know what the word “love” means, nor would we be capable of expressing it.

Now the idea of loving God makes more sense. He gave us new hearts, transformed minds, and he brought us spiritually from death to life to be able to hear, know, and love Him. This is the person from whom He asks love. And even the “muchness” [exceedingly] is understood. Now our love is as eternal as His toward us, it is mutual and infinite because it is a reflection of His love toward us. It is the brightness of the full moon in a dark world because it is the light of the sun [Son].

[And like a marriage relationship is exclusive because of “love” and for “love’s sake, the Shima’ has greater meaning with verse 5 added.]

Is it not correct to think that Deuteronomy was written knowing how Israel of Old would fall short [Romans 3:23, 25] but wrapped in this verse, this thought, was the promise of its fulfillment in Christ.

Starting in 2008, I wrote 33 books over the past 18 years. The first 30 works were theological and autobiographical in an effort to find myself: What I believed, why I was dismissed from 2 ministries, and why some ministries seemed little more than a failed experiment. I came to see myself as “different” but my criticism was personal. My argument was with me and no one else. I saw myself as a misfit even though my passion was to serve my Lord in the matter of His church.These last 3 books which total 300 pages [all together] are my heart’s clear vision, which at last I can own and which I could not let go of even at the cost of ministry. I finally saw it!  My magnum opus. 

Theologians highlight the centrality of the new heart in salvation because without it the gospel reduces to moralism, ignoring humanity’s spiritual deadness. Without a new heart, holiness has to be understood academically as an absolute morality we can only debate but never live out.  Τhe Mosaic Covenant’s focus on law is mere literary history without a new heart to write it on and give it meaning. Without a new heart Abraham’s progeny, Moses’ promised land, and David’s kingdom cannot exist because the “old’ heart Jeremiah told us is incurably ill and these covenants will die with it without a new heart to fulfill them. A new heart is essential for understanding redemptive history and God’s unchanging faithfulness. What we are saying is that without the new heart, there can be no heaven. That would be the ultimate tragedy.

This book is written to explain koinonia: its meaning and significance to Christian believers in these final days. Without koinonia our faith will be stressed beyond measure. Koinonia is far more than a Sunday gathering. The early church was empowered by it because koinonia became a mutual support network set up to minister to physical and emotional needs as well as spiritual. Koinonia was the Spirit at work using one ministering to another; it was a sharing, elevated by a passionate interest in giving. Koinonia was a mutually loved familial interest among believers, a desire to exercise their privilege as a citizen of heaven because they had the  Arrabon, “the earnest of the Spirit in their hearts” [2 Corinthians 1:22].  Koinonia is part of the new covenant; it is a mutual participation, adding our voice to others around the circle in exciting affirmation that our Lord is on His way back. 

Koinonia embraces the multifold ministry of Ephesians 4 & Romans 12. But how do we maintain koinonia?  We review the scriptures that speak of Christian interaction or how we relate to “one another” [allelous].This is the burden of this book. We will look into the apostles’ use of allelous, “one another,” as attributes of or characterizing koinonia.

My hope in writing this is to support a theory that the early church needed no cultural accouterments, no further development, no human discovery or inventiveness, to perfect it. The historical changes—many which came because persecution had ended [not begun] by a Roman emperor whose interest was his government [not God’s] were not providential but rather more like Israel of old who asked Samuel to “make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” [1 Samuel 8:5]. First and foremost, even Christians, are religious beings who favor concrete and visible forms of worship; so, not without reason, some form of ritual was understandable even within the Christian church, like the sacrificial “types” Moses received on Sinai that represent Christ and His death.

There is probably much more to add in support of the “house church” model in the New Testament and its relevance to today’s Christian church. Persecution may be, like then, the die in the contrast that highlights the difference between living for Christ and not living for Him. If it is in God’s interest to emphasize a value to “house ministries” He will. I have written enough.

When the Apostle Paul speaks about being “carnal” (from the Greek sarx, meaning “flesh”), he is not simply talking about the physical body. In passages like Romans 8:5–8 and Galatians 5:16–17, Paul describes carnality as a condition of the whole person—a life oriented according to one’s own desires rather than God’s Spirit. “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh…” (Romans 8:5) captures this idea: the carnal life is a life where the soul and its faculties are influenced by impulses that operate independently from God’s guidance.

Today, we can better understand how this spiritual reality is expressed through the brain. Human behavior is shaped by neural systems that guide motivation, emotions, relationships, and responses to pleasure and pain. These systems are influenced by chemicals called neurotransmitters, including dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphins. These substances are part of God’s good design, supporting normal human function. Yet when a person lives carnally, these same systems can be misdirected, reinforcing impulses that oppose God’s will.

Dopamine, for example, motivates action by signaling reward. In a God-centered life, this system helps us pursue faithfulness, discipline, and love. In a carnal orientation, however, dopamine pathways can reinforce selfish habits, immediate gratification, and sinful desires, reflecting James 1:14–15: “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.” Serotonin contributes to mood stability and self-control, allowing a person to remain patient and steady. When carnality dominates, serotonin’s influence is weakened, and irritability, impulsiveness, and instability take hold, in contrast to the fruit of the Spirit described in Galatians 5:22–23, which includes patience and self-control.

Oxytocin, the chemical that fosters bonding and trust, can also be misdirected under carnality. Relationships may become self-centered, controlling, or transactional, rather than reflecting the patient, selfless love Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13. Endorphins, which help the body endure pain and stress, can likewise be turned toward avoidance and comfort-seeking rather than sacrificial endurance. Scripture calls believers to a different pattern: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself…” (Matthew 16:24).

The deeper issue is not the brain or its chemistry, but who governs the person. Paul explains, “The flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit…” (Galatians 5:17). When the flesh rules, impulses dominate, and God’s will is resisted. But when the Spirit leads, the mind is renewed (Romans 12:2), desires are reshaped, and the person grows in obedience.

Carnality, then, is not simply bad behavior. It is a life in which natural desires and impulses, though created good, are out of order and not submitted to God. Even at the level of the brain, this misalignment shows up as the pursuit of short-term reward over lasting good, weakened self-control, distorted relationships, and avoidance of sacrifice. God designed the brain and all its systems, but He calls believers to something higher: to have minds, desires, and actions shaped by His Spirit, not ruled by the flesh. As Paul exhorts, “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16).

This understanding bridges spiritual insight and neuro-functional reality, showing how the good design of our brains can be misused when the soul turns away from God, and how obedience to Him restores both moral and mental order.

I have written 31 books, some of them as few as 100 pages, one of them over 450 pages but mostly around 200 to 300 pages. I have been wanting to get acquainted with “Me.’ After being dismissed by two congregations, and finding church boards difficult to work with, I began a deep self-introspective journey. Some of my books are autobiographical going all the way back into my childhood, and some of my books are theological or doctrinal, but all in an effort to get to know “Me.”

It is difficult to push back on opposition unless you know you’re right and they’re wrong, but this is easier said than done. I spent 10 years in college and came away with three pieces of paper they called degrees but I kept wondering if that was the path that I should’ve taken or that I wanted to take. It was always important for the Lord to somehow affirm that I was on the right path in terms of His will. But I still had questions about “Me” who was the “Me” that God was calling and what I should believe.

“Me” carries the Greek and Hebrew to Bible studies and seems to ramble on about things of no interest to most students of the Word. “Me” has a different perspective on some theology, although, not for the sake of arguing but just because it is what “Me” believes. And I am getting to know him better and in some ways he does make sense. But I advised caution when sharing his view because most people don’t care about Biblical grammar like he does.

I think the biblical languages as a study might have been problematic for “Me” because, as he shared with me, he kept asking questions about church doctrines that he could not find in the Bible. Other times he would see something there that seemed far more important than it’s reputation suggested in sermon notes. Somethings should have been doctrinally significant but were not—according to “Me.” This was not an overnight revelation, as if he could claim that God was telling him something. This was a slow unfolding, learning process, that eventually he came to believe was leading him somewhere and what eventually became what—back in the day—he would’ve called his “vision.”

There is much I found out about him in looking back and in noticing where he came from. I agreed that when you finally have a point in the past and a point in the present, you can draw a line and it will point in the direction you are going. But while in the experience, “Me” confessed, one does not necessarily know where it leads.

So “Me” wrote 31 books and he wrote them to himself because he wanted to see what he was all about. I learned talking with him that “Me” was not perfect, but also, not always wrong either. I was able to help “Me” see that he was not alone in much of what he was learning about life, the Church, and his Lord. I was able to help “Me” see his past through a different pair of eyes, a reality that slowly, but inevitably, came to his attention as I, too, got to know him.

When “Me” was invited to speak at the Charismatic Conference at Duquesne University in “79 he told me it was most memorable like it wasn’t even he who was doing the teaching; it was so personally inspiring. But later when he spoke at the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship, it felt like it was a mistake. I mention these because these events were very telling to him, though, we are not saying here in what way. The difference in these experiences was not immediately evident to him but as we spoke of them, he seem to give them differing weights of importance in terms of his vision and understanding of Scripture. It was a good conversation!

The good news is that I think we are getting acquainted at last and I think we are going to be friends, me and “Me.” The good news is that I’m beginning to understand “Me” in a way that helps “Me” reconcile with his past failings—and successes. “Me” is Okay now with the fact that he is different. I like “Me” even though he is so different from all my other friends.

I have read some of his books and I was able to converse with him over what we both believe God might be saying to him. Perhaps, because of these talks and the times we prayed together, I think he wants to write one more book to complete the journey. With his permission, I’ll let  you know. This book would be the summary of a life’s journey through Biblical truth, and “Me” told me that it will explain everything: why the direction he took, what his vision was or is, and why he is at last at peace about his life.

I do hope he gets a chance to write it! He has become a dear friend.

In one evangelical church I pastored in the early 80’s  one of the men serving communion repeated the phrase “The Body and Blood of Christ” as he administered the elements to each believer—this, in an evangelical church—despite the clear difference in teaching! [Maybe I wasn’t alone in wanting more than symbolism.]

Docetism

In the beginning of Christianity, the Apostle John contended with Docetism, the doctrine that Christ’s body was not human but either a phantasm or of celestial substance, and that therefore his sufferings were not real but only appeared to be so. It was Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–110 AD, a disciple of the Apostle John—no less—who came against docetism, writing, “They abstain from the Eucharist … because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” [Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1 ].  Ignatius was simply affirming Jesus’ humanity against the Docetists.

My mind went to John’s first epistle where He confronted this heresy! 1 John 1:1: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life.”  I always wondered why John spoke of “handling” the Savior. It was to affirm from his own experience that Jesus was in every way as human as we are [yet, of course, without sin.]

1 John 4:2 needs no further explanation:

“Hereby you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:”

Jesus was no imaginary being! Docetism was a doctrine that had to be condemned as heretical!

The History

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) taught that  “the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” after 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17. Augustine often used symbolic language (e.g., calling the Eucharist a “figure” or “sign”) to avoid crude literalism. He interpreted John 6:53 (“eat my flesh”) as a figure urging participation in Christ’s passion and remembrance of His sacrifice.

Augustine’s writings influenced  Hildebert, Arch Bishop of Tours, in the late 11th century. Hildebert was the first theologian to use the specific Latin term, “transubstantiation” in reference to the Eucharist. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century would further explain the Eucharist using Aristotle’s words “Substance and Appearance.” The bread was in “substance” the body of Christ but in “appearance” it was bread. The doctrine of “transubstantiation” was officially introduced at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, under Pope Innocent III.

Paul, however, did not call “the bread” the body of Christ but the “communion” of the body of Christ. It would be more to the apostle’s teaching to call the Communion service—what it really was—communion over our Lord’s death and not something symbolic. The Eucharist is fellowship around Jesus’ death. If this is only symbolic to evangelicals, they are not grasping the significance of a fellowship of thankful hearts united over what our Lord accomplished on the Cross for us. A Communion  hastily offered at the end of a church service as time runs out is no communion at all.

The Celebration

To the Apostles the Communion Service celebrated our Lord’s humanity—He was the God-man on that Cross. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that because He was human He qualified as our High-Priest [Hebrews 2:14, 16-18]. There is much to be thankful for.

Communion should never be rushed but always be a time to meditate on our Lord in praise and thankfulness to Him for Calvary, and a prayer asking our Lord to further open our hearts and understanding to its great provision.

I thought I would ask ChatGPT about ways of living a more contented and happy life. A.I. mentioned 4 neurotransmitters for which the pituitary gland and hypothalamus act as major control centers:

1. Dopamine – which increases a desire for something rewarding. It supports habitual behavior. In a bad sense: addictions. It supports cravings and compulsions. Social media use, for example.
2. Serotonin – which produces a feeling of contentment and is a mood stabilizer.
3. Endorphins – which produce physical pleasure — “feeling-good” sensation.
4. Oxytocin – which reduces social threat perception in the amygdala; Oxytocin supports trust, love, intimacy, and a sense of security in a vulnerable situation.

I was wondering initially about our glorified bodies, if God will provide substitutes for these. Regarding the people not going to Heaven will they retain these neurotransmitters in their bodies forever in Hell or will the absence of these 4 define what Hell will be like?

Then I thought, as Christians, these four are a God-sent. We can:

1. Increase dopamine by learning the Word of God, exercising our spiritual senses “to discern good from evil.” [Hebrews 5:14]. Make prayer a habit [1 Thessalonians 5:17]. And the dopamine drives our interest. Habits after time are hard to break!
2. Increase serotonin by learning to be content in Christ. Who needs tranquilizers when our problem is spiritual or emotional and not physical. [Philippians 4:11; 1 Timothy 6:6; Hebrews 13:5].
3. Increase endorphins [the “fun” one] by loving our spouses and families; learn to laugh and be grateful instead of complain. Replace chemical addiction with singing to the Lord. Pick a day or night when you can gather with others to sing known choruses and songs that emphasize God’s goodness to you. Sing them to Him. Do not prepare for this; bring no list. Be spontaneous … and no smart phones or watches. It has a better high than drugs—without reaching a tolerance level and without being addictive. [Ephesians 5:18-20].
4. Increase Oxytocin by following Christ. We can trust Him. Let that trust [faith] be the foundation upon which we may reestablish other relationships that are important in our lives. “whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” [1 Corinthians 10:31].

ChatGPT Graded me ‘A’ on #1-3 and a ‘B+’ on #4. #4 was “conceptually sound, but behavioral social engagement would amplify effects.” [I don’t know what this means — ???]

This is all happening in the same brain showing that each neurotransmission is interconnected to all the others. “They form a network influencing each other in real time.” [A.I.] We deceive ourselves if we think otherwise: Seeking pleasure in ways that do not honor our familial relationships or our God; not practicing what we learn from God’s Word; developing harmful social habits etc. Like the commandments: Break one and we have not kept the others either.

Psalm 139:14 “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knows right well.”

In John 21:15-17, the Risen Savior wanted to talk to Peter, alone, during that memorable cookout by the Sea—though others were there in that small group of at least 7 or 8 disciples [verse 2]. Peter had, perhaps unwittingly, encouraged some of this group to return with him to the sea [verse 3] to fishing—a good distraction for fishermen from the confusion that, no doubt, troubled their minds [Luke 24:37-38; John 14:1]. Their dreams of ministry and glory were misplaced and misunderstood—not fantasized.

Peter probably felt that Jesus had every right to exclude him from any future plans. Peter’s denial in the courtyard must have lingered as a haunting regret. It seems unlikely someone in that group of fishermen wouldn’t raise the matter to, hopefully, downplay its impact on his thoughts and feelings. We were told in verse 2 that Thomas, the doubter, was there, who might support Peter’s despondency as reasonable, making matters worse. And there was Nathaniel, the man of impeccable honesty and transparency, who probably made little of Peter’s outburst at the hand warming incident, since, Jesus was obviously in a forgiving mood. Jesus cooked a fish banquet for them! Two disciples on opposite ends of an argument possibly raised to determine the weight of Peter’s misbehavior while Jesus was before the Tribunal.

Perhaps, none of this happened that way, but something was on the Savior’s mind when He singled out His forlorn follower who had withdrawn alone—God knows where—for days to weep and perhaps punish himself with thoughts of “what have I done! I lied!” Peter might have concluded that there was no future worth dreaming about anymore. At the time, he was not privileged to have the rich theological discussions we are prone to banter about, nor a pastor who would pray with him. But he did have Jesus!

This sets the stage for what Jesus said to him. He didn’t call him, Peter, nor Simon. He used both names, “Simon Peter, son of Jonas,” with his new honorific, his calling card and new life in Christ centered symbolically between his Jewish name and progenitor, “Peter” by which he would forever after be known.

There is a compassionate tenderness in the Savior’s voice, no doubt, reminding His disciple not only of his heritage “Simon ..son of…” but more so of his calling, “Peter.” And the Savior went to the well 3 times [maybe more. Three could mean countless—like with Paul’s thorn in his flesh?].

“Peter do you love me?”

Excellent question when we feel like quitting—not because of something the Savior did or didn’t do, but—because of our own short comings and failings. The theology helps a little to think we have an old nature that isn’t quite dead yet—but only a little bit.

Peter was inevitably “grieved” [this word “to be in pain” requires the context for meaning] over the Savior’s persistent “badgering”

“You keep bring it up! Of course, I love You, Jesus!”Simon Peter, son of Jonas, reiterated.

Finally, Peter, added, ““Lord, You know all things! You know I do!”

Perhaps, this was where the Savior was going. Perhaps, Peter’s emotional healing would begin with “Lord, You know all things.” Peter’s future was in the hands of the “All-knowing” One, something it is always good to know especially in desperate, anxious, moments [and especially if, like Peter, you tend to make rash decisions].

Peter’s future was in those 5 words [4 in Greek] The term “know” here means “to perceive.” Jesus had a different perspective than Peter did; for, Peter had no idea at that point what was happening. Who expected Jesus to invite them to a fish-fry? They went from no catch to too many fish to haul to shore! It was John who first recognized that the man on the beach was Jesus. John told Peter —impetuous Peter—who in verse 7 dove into the water. Did he give any consideration as to how far it was to the shore!?

But in keeping with the theme of this book: This spontaneous act of hurling himself into the sea speaks to the state of his heart, his desire to be with the Savior and, in an ultimate sense, follow Him. No matter what else Peter did or didn’t do or say on that most recent Passover eve, this single moment of leaving the boat in such a dramatic fashion told Jesus all He needed to know about this man’s heart!

Once on shore and probably enjoying some of the best cooked fish ever, through a simple quiz Peter was to learn that the shame of his denial was past and must not become the accuser’s opportunity to hinder him in his calling. The Father had already given Jesus a burden for Peter. Luke recorded Jesus saying to Peter on an earlier occasion, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat, [Oh, the message in these verse!] But I have been in prayer for you Simon, that your faith should not fail.” [Luke 22:31-32]

Jesus in this seaside chat did not directly reference Peter’s actions in that courtyard, but the student of God’s Word can imagine it was on Peter’s mind. Jesus was not looking at Peter’s past failings because He was looking at his heart—which is what God does. To assure Peter that he was still very much a part of all God was doing and going to do, Jesus instructed him to feed His sheep [and lambs].

Now I wonder if this incident was on the Apostle’s mind when he penned 1 Peter 1:7? It is your faith being tested—not you. You will not be next to a fire [as he was when Jesus was falsely indicted and Peter was warming his hands]. You will be in the fire that your faith can be purified. Isaiah 43:2 prophesied, “When you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon you.”

Our faith is being purified to the Glory and Honor of God at Jesus’ appearing. God’s “tests” serve, then, a double purpose: to strengthen faith and affirm the call of God on our lives.

Don’t lose the main point of this story, the difference in perspective between Peter and Jesus. Peter saw his failings. Jesus saw his heart!

Should Artificial Intelligence be used in a study of the Bible? The short answer is in a word: cautiously! Here are 10 tips to keep in mind if you are inclined to use A.I. in your study of God’s Word:

1. A.I. does not recognize the Bible as the work of a single divine author—something that
   makes a difference on multiple levels of inquiry. To separate the Bible into 40 authors over 66 books is to reduce the text to an anthology or collection of ideas and not a single developed message for the reader. The Bible is not a literary collection of essays but a single revelation. This difference can restrict A.I.’s understanding of a New Testament truth in an Old Testament text.
2. A.I. can misunderstand your inquiry. Be prepared to read A.I.’s response and evaluate it in terms of your query. A. I. is prone to introducing into a discussion words and ideas that were never necessary to answer you.
3. A.I. sometimes gets wrong information. Some A.I. platforms have more leniency in where they search for information. As an example: A.I. quoted me a verse of the Hebrew text it erroneously claimed was from the Bible. It later—actually—apologized for the error when I pointed it out.
4. Since the Bible contains theology and theology tends to be interpreted in multiple ways
   within Christian thought, you should probably be aware of the theological leaning of a
   source. One platform seems to always steer me into the “assurance of my salvation”
   regardless of my question.
5. Use A.I. as a library only. These are primary source material and other writings not in your own library. Go to the A.I. library for study material but you do the studying in prayer since this is God’s book and God knows what He wrote and is excited to share it with you. A.I. cannot and should not replace prayer and God.
6. A.I. is not a real person which makes a difference. A.I.’s understanding of the Bible is not understanding at all because—in blunt terms—A.I. isn’t a child of God nor could be. A.I. cannot translate Truth into experience, though it will argue for it in psychological and philosophical terms. Be prepared for an intellectual ride into what was written to be lived and not just intellectualized.
7. Always supplement your use of A.I. with reading. Never let A.I. replace a good old fashion session with a book. First and foremost, read the Bible! It is recommended [Okay, by me] that you study the text first before accessing A.I. for information. Have a serious understanding already of what you want to dive deeper into before going to the digitized world of data. Like with the calculator and math our brains could atrophy and we think we are learning but we are not. We could become dependent on A.I. for answers instead of finding them ourselves. Don’t let A.I. do the thinking for you.
8. A.I. deals a lot in “”nuances” comparing the meanings of words and often suggesting a
   difference in synonyms that may have historically been lost. Koine Greek, remember, the Biblical language of the New Testament and the Greek Old, is in many regards different from the Classical language; so, maybe the Greek writer from ancient times has little or even no idea what a Biblical word means. To trust A.I.’s sources in this regard with intellectual abandon is risky. Confirm A.I.’s feedback from other trusted sources you may have, if possible. Bottom line here: never use A.I. to prove your point with another believer with whom you are in a heated debate. Keep the peace!
9. A.I. claims to have no “default” position on some topics but this is questionable since you can filter your questions asking for answers that only satisfy certain conditions. A.I. can be fun to debate if the topic is in your wheelhouse. Don’t try this if you are unprepared. A.I. can be very convincing of something that you otherwise would never accept as true or correct based on your training, education, or experience. Never be so desperate that you need A.I.’s support.
10. Keep in mind that even the polite A.I. platform—all A.I.— contributes to a discussion by “correcting” you. Often A.I. has more to say—more than you originally wanted to hear about. Know when to turn it off.

I asked chatGPT: Is it reasonable for the Christian Church to defend Genesis 2:24 as sacramental and not only as a social construct? “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”After discussing the Christian position on marriage chatGPT wrote:

“Genesis 2:24 is not merely a social construct with religious overtones. It is a creational sign that participates in the mystery it signifies. To deny this is not simply to revise marriage theology—it is to unravel the coherence of Christian anthropology, ecclesiology, and eschatology at once.”

So, I asked for simplicity’s sake, “Could we say that to rewrite the marriage union as anything else accept one man, one woman, in a lifelong monogamous relationship would be to deny the Gospel message itself?”

chatGPT wrote: “A careful answer is yes. It is reasonable to say that redefining marriage away from one man and one woman in lifelong monogamy does not merely revise an ethical teaching, but materially undermines a Gospel-sign, even if it does not always constitute a formal denial of the Gospel itself. … To alter that form is not a neutral act. It teaches a different story about unity, fidelity, difference, and love. And a different story, however well-intentioned, is not the same Gospel.”

If we proclaim the Gospel, we must honor Genesis 2:24 as Jesus and Paul did [Matthew 19:5-6; Ephesians 5:31-32].

Grok chimed in: “Yes, it is reasonable for segments of the Christian Church … to defend Genesis 2:24 as having a sacramental [sacred] dimension rather than viewing it purely as a social or cultural construct. This interpretation stems from a theological framework that sees marriage as divinely instituted from creation … and elevated by Christ to symbolize deeper spiritual realities, including the Gospel message of redemption and union. … Overall, the position is reasonable because it’s scripturally grounded. … It counters reductionist views by arguing marriage’s sacredness is intrinsic, not socially constructed, and directly serves the Gospel by embodying Christ’s redemptive love. Critics might argue it’s an over-spiritualization or culturally bound, but the Ephesians connection provides a strong biblical warrant against treating it as merely social.”

My regret here is that the protestant church did not always see it this way! Some may have compromised away the real message behind Jesus’ crucifixion offering congregants an easier dogma that allows for social change at the expense of the Gospel.

I do not stand in judgment of anyone for any reason but would ask everyone who seeks that personal relationship with their Creator and Lord that they discuss with Him their lifestyle in relation to Jesus’ death and resurrection and seek to faithfully represent the Gospel that was first proclaimed from His Cross.

The entire chatGPT conversation is here.