Covenant: How God makes our relationship official.

COVENANT 'kəv.ən.ənt noun. Agreement.

2. [Law] A contract drawn up by deed, or a clause in a contract.

3. [Theology] An agreement which creates a committed relationship between God and his people—such as the covenants between the LORD and Abraham, Moses, and David, or between Jesus and Christians.

4. [verb] Agree by lease, deed, or other legal contract.

[Covenantal kəv.ən'ənt.əl adjective.]

In our culture, “covenant” is a fancier, or more formal, way of saying “contract.”

Because that’s what our English word means. It comes from the Latin word convenire, “go together,” which evolved into the French word, then our English word. Early bible translators used it for the Hebrew word בְּרִית/berít, “treaty, alliance, constitution, ordinance, pledge,” and the word the Septuagint used to translate it, διαθήκην/diathíkin, “will, testament, agreement, arrangement.” Y’notice the Hebrew word has more of a sense of loyalty and diplomacy, and the Greek word has more of a sense of carrying out one’s wishes. Whereas the way we tend to use our English word “covenant” nowadays is either to talk about how sacred and binding marriage oughta be… or about the restrictions a neighborhood puts on the homeowners who live in it, and usually the penalties for violating those restrictions.

Not sure whether any of these concepts describe what God actually does with his covenants in the bible.

And when you ask your average Christian what a covenant is, most of the time we lean hard towards the idea it’s an agreement… and it’s binding. I’ve heard more than one preacher claim covenant means “a contract which cannot be broken.” Which certainly isn’t the way we use the word nowadays. Marriage covenants are dissolved all the time. Neighborhood covenants get changed whenever new leaders get elected; heck, most of those people run for office specifically to either make the covenants stricter or looser! In fact those people who claim a covenant is an unbreakable contract: Many of ’em claim God did away with the Law and replaced it with Jesus’s new covenant… so how’s it an unbreakable contract if God considers it null and void? (Isn’t the Law part of God’s word?—and isn’t it true God’s word never returns void?)

Frankly, the reason our English dictionaries say covenant means an agreement—that it’s nothing more than a verbal or written contract between interested parties—is because that’s how we use the word. A covenant is a contract; a contract is a covenant; they’re synonyms. “Covenant” sounds harder to get out of, but it’s really not. Ask any divorced Nevadan.

So if we wanna understand what covenants in the bible are all about, we need to put aside our English word and our culture’s ideas about covenant, and look at how God set up a berít or two with humanity.

Going city to city till the Son of Man comes.

Mt 10.23.

Today’s verse isn’t actually part of Jesus’s Olivet Discourse. But plenty of Christians think it is, and a number of Christians have shoehorned it into their End Times views.

In Matthew 10, Jesus sends out the Twelve in teams of two, to share the good news that God’s kingdom has come near, with Israeli towns. Mt 10.5-7 He instructs them on how they’re to do it, and to be wary because people can be awful. Mt 10.8-16 And then Jesus starts to say some stuff about the students getting persecuted.

Most scholars believe the synoptic gospels were written together thisaway: Mark was written in the late 50s, and Matthew and Luke quoted it for their gospels in the mid-60s. (Those who think Matthew was written by the Matthew in Jesus’s Twelve, and not by some different guy named Matthew, theorize Mark is a condensed version of Matthew… but if that’s true, Mark is garbage; he took out the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’s great commission! Nah; other way round.)

Now. When Jesus talks about persecution, Matthew takes the verses from Mark’s version of the Olivet Discourse. Some of it’s word for word. It’s why I’ve been quoting these verses in my previous Olivet Discourse articles; it’s because they’re parallel. But in Mark, Jesus says it to only four students in his Olivet Discourse, and in Matthew, it’s to all the students as they prepare for their mission. Different contexts altogether.

Matthew 10.17-22 KWL

17 “Be aware of the people.

For they’ll hand you over to senates,

and have you flogged in their synagogues.

18 You’ll be brought before leaders and kings

for my sake, for testimonies of me, to people groups.

19 Whenever they hand you over,

don’t fret over how or what you should say,

for what you should say will be given to you

at that hour.

20 For you aren’t to be the speakers.

But your Father’s Spirit should be speaking in you.

12 Sibling will betray sibling to death,

and parent to child,

and children will revolt against forebears,

and put them to death.

13 You’ll be hated by everyone because of my name—

and this person will be saved

when they endure to the end.”

So… when did Jesus actually say it? At the Olivet Discourse, or years earlier when he sent out his students to evangelize?

Personally I don’t see why Jesus can’t have said the same thing twice. I’m sure he did! We all do. Dig through TXAB’s articles and you’re sure to find me repeating myself from time to time. I have a book of assorted C.S. Lewis articles which he wrote for various publications: Not only does he repeat certain ideas in multiple articles; you’re gonna find those ideas in his other books too. He had pet issues and ideas which he loved to talk about—or always felt he had to talk about. We all do. So does Jesus.

So Jesus certainly could’ve said this stuff dozens of times, and at the Olivet Discourse he simply said it again. But now let me get to the verse we find in Matthew which we don’t find in Mark or Luke—one which is wholly unique to Matthew’s gospel, and isn’t included in Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse either. It’s in chapter 10, not chapter 24.

Matthew 10.23 KWL

“When they persecute you in this city,

flee to another.

For amen!—I promise you,

you ought not complete the cities of Israel

before the Son of Man might come.”

In context, Jesus is talking about the Twelve at that time; however long they were meant to travel from Israeli city to Israeli city, sharing the gospel. Long enough to hit many of the cities by the time he caught up with them. Not all, but he didn’t expect them to finish. Although, since Jesus was using subjunctive verbs (“ought not complete” and “might come,” which indicate it’s likely, not definite) he allowed for the possibility that—who knows?—maybe they might get to all of ’em.

But as I said, Christians frequently ignore the context.

The red letters.

Back in medieval times, western scribes used to rubricate certain texts. If you’re not familiar with that word, it means “render in red letters”—they’d highlight certain important parts of the books, like headers and commentaries and pull quotes, by putting the words in red ink. After the printing press was invented, full-color or spot-color printing was of course possible (’cause the Gutenberg Bible was full color) but time-consuming and not cost-effective. So printers went with bold letters, slanted letters, capital letters, capitalized letters, bigger letters, or whole different typefaces—whatever you could print in black.

Meaning bibles were likewise printed in black ink. Red-letter editions didn’t begin till 1899. It started with Louis Klopsch, editor of The Christian Herald, who was writing an editorial, and read this passage from the gospels. (Which, for once, I’m not gonna put in red letters, ’cause it’s not what Klopsch would’ve read.)

Luke 22.20 KJV

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

I’m guessing Klopsch at first imagined the New Testament printed in Jesus’s blood, and then that grisly image was replaced with the idea of simply Jesus’s words printed in blood-red text. He thought it was a neat idea; his pastor thought it couldn’t hurt; he produced 60,000 copies of a red-letter New Testament later that year. They sold out quickly.

The reason I’ve lumped this article under the category of bible translations rather than simply bible, is because a certain amount of interpretation is involved in figuring out what parts of the bible oughta be printed in red letters.

Fr’instance Revelation. The book is Jesus’s revelation to his apostle John. A “Lamb as it had been slain” Rv 5.6 KJV sits upon the heavenly throne in Revelation 5 to open the seals of an important scroll, and it’s safe to assume every statement from the throne thereafter comes from the lamb. The lamb is obviously Jesus. Yet not every publisher of a red-letter bible remembers this, and puts the statements from the throne into red letters.

Sometimes it varies by publisher; sometimes translation. Fr’instance when Jesus is instructing Nicodemus in John 3. In the second edition of the New International Version, published 1984, John 3.16 is in red letters, ’cause most translators figure he said it. But in the third edition, the current 2011 edition, Jesus’s quote stops at 3.15. Verse 16 isn’t red-letter anymore. It’s not a Jesus quote; now it’s the apostle John’s commentary.

John 3.14-17 NIV

14 “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

The NIV isn’t the only translation which does this. There’s the Lexham English Bible and the New English Translation. The Good News Translation (a.k.a. Today’s English Version) cuts Jesus off even before, at verse 13.

Yeah, where Jesus speaks and where he doesn’t is pretty much interpreters and translators’ judgment call. Therefore it’s also a judgment call as to where the red letters go. True from the very beginning: When Klopsch put together the first red-letter New Testament, he used the King James Version, which has no quotation marks because they weren’t in standard use till his century. Kopsch had to use his best judgment as to where the Jesus-quotes begin and end. That’s not always clear. The hope was the red letters would help make it clear.

Friends and family may turn on you.

Mk 13.12-13, Mt 10.21-22, Lk 12.16-19, Jn 16.2-3.

In Jesus’s Olivet Discourse, he warns his students of the tribulation they’d undergo in the near future. Not just the Romans destroying the temple, but specifically how the first Christians themselves would be persecuted. Here are some of those specifics.

Mark 13.12-13 KWL

12 “And sibling will betray sibling to death,

and parent to child,

and children will revolt against forebears,

and put them to death.

13 You’ll be hated by everyone because of my name—

and this person will be saved

when they endure to the end.”

 

Matthew 10.21-22 KWL

12 “Sibling will betray sibling to death,

and parent to child,

and children will revolt against forebears,

and put them to death.

13 You’ll be hated by everyone because of my name—

and this person will be saved

when they endure to the end.”

 

Luke 21.16-19 KWL

16 “You’ll also be betrayed by parents, siblings,

relatives and friends,

and they’ll put some of you to death.

17 You’ll be hated by everyone because of my name.

18 But if every hair on your head isn’t destroyed,

19 save your souls by your endurance!”

Rough stuff, right? But something Jesus’s students needed to hear. Something all Christians need to hear. ’Cause if we’ve grown up in not-so-dysfunctional families, where parents and siblings don’t stab you in the back on a regular basis, we’ll assume that should continue to be the case when times get rough. But the reality is this isn’t always so. Parents turn on their kids all the time. Even “good Christian parents.”

Give you an obvious example: All the “good Christian parents” who disown their gay kids. Now these parents will use the argument, “But the kids are sinning.” So what? When has sin ever been a justification for disowning one’s kid? Did King David ben Jesse disown his son Absalom after the young man not only tried to overthrow his dad, but publicly raped his dad’s concubines? 2Sa 16.21-22 If you wanna talk sin, that’s sin. God regularly forgives much bigger sins than that… but “good Christians” regularly don’t.

So the day will come (and already has, multiple times) when self-described “good Christians” will get suckered by some fascist into following him, and the fascist will want to go after anyone who rightly refuses to follow him instead of Jesus… and these “good Christians” will immediately take the side of the fascist. What if their loved ones get killed? “Oh, they brought this on themselves.” They’ll mourn their dead—but they won’t give up their idol.

Two types of worship music.

There are two types of worship songs we tend to see in churches.

No, I’m not talking about hymns versus Christian pop songs. That’s been an old Evangelical debate ever since churches began using contemporary worship choruses in the early 1970s. Nor am I talking about traditional-ish (hymnlike songs) versus contemporary-ish, nor organs and pianos versus guitars and basses, white gospel music versus black gospel music, or any of the other music debates we find nowadays. Those are stylistic choices, and Christians are free to disagree about all of ’em.

Nope, I said type of worship song. It refers to the purpose and content of the song. Generally there are two of ’em.

INSTRUCTIVE describes the songs written to deliberately teach an idea—to put it to music, and get it into Christians’ heads. They teach us about amazing grace, about what a friend we have in Jesus, about how great God art, and that he’s holy holy holy. They tend to have a lot of verses, various complicated words… and no I’m not only talking about hymns, though a lot of ’em totally fit the description.

MEDITATIVE describes the intentionally simple songs. They have few verses, or lots of repetition; their ideas are basic Christianity. Like how there’s wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb, or on Christ the solid rock we stand, or God’s a good good Father. Their purpose is to give us something we already know by rote, so we can sing ’em and not ponder the words… and instead meditate on God and his greatness, and pray to him while our lips go on autopilot. Yep, exactly like when we pray in tongues.

Didn’t know your worship songs had these purposes, didja? You just thought you were singing nice things to God. But yep, every Christian song does one or the other. (Even if—and yeah this is gonna sound cynical of me, but it’s nonetheless true—even if the song was really only written to be catchy and sell albums. Because the artists are fully aware it won’t be recognized as a worship song otherwise.)

Okay. Since humans are creatures of extremes—us Christians included—many of us love one type and hate the other. We won’t always know why we have this preference; we tend to think it has something to do with the style.

Get into a bible study.

BIBLE STUDY 'baɪ.bəl 'stə.di noun. One’s individual reading and research of the scriptures.

2. Short for “bible study group”: A gathering of people who meet to discuss the scriptures, or Christian topics, together.

Hopefully you read your bible on a regular basis; hopefully all the way through from time to time. (You can do it in a month y’know.)

And if you want to understand certain parts of it better, I would also hope you get hold of some bible handbooks, bible commentaries, or bible dictionaries—resources which help explain some of the historical and cultural background. ’Cause too many Christians forget we, and the folks in the bible, have very different worldviews. Even if you think you have a “biblical worldview,” you still really don’t think like a first-century Judean under Roman occupation, a seventh-century-BC Jerusalemite with the threat of the neo-Babylonian Empire coming for you, a tenth-century-BC Israelite who only just found himself living in a monarchy, a 14th-century-BC Hebrew slave newly freed from captivty, or a 19th-century-BC Sumerian nomad surrounded by pagans.

So get those reference materials, and get to learning. Don’t be intimidated; they write ’em for average Christians who lack seminary degrees.

But here’s the only catch with studying the bible on our own: How do we know we’re doing it correctly?

How do we know we haven’t picked up some poorly-researched book by some crank, and instead of learning solid stuff, we’re learning weird heresy? How do we know our conclusions are accurate, and whether the Holy Spirit really is guiding us through our studies?

Simplest answer: You confirm what you’re studying through fellow Christians who also studied this stuff, or who are also currently studying it. Yeah, you could all be individually studying it at home, and come together and compare notes… or you could study it together under some teacher who already knows a bit about it.

Christians generally call these get-togethers bible studies. But I should tell ya: All my life I’ve encountered “bible studies” in which the bible is not the primary book everyone’s reading. They’re doing a study on some other book. Some bible-adjacent book. Like a commentary, or a book about important people in the bible, or a book about certain biblical principles, or prayer books. Properly those are book clubs, not bible studies… but we still call ’em bible studies. Bible’s gonna come up pretty frequently, y’see.

And in these groups we can ask questions, confirm our interpretations, and learn a few things. After all, if we’re all listening to the same Holy Spirit, our interpretations should have some consensus to them… depending on what the Spirit wants to emphasize to each individual, of course.

It’s why I always recommend we plug into one bible study or another. Go interact with some fellow Christians, let iron sharpen iron, and get to know God better.

Get ready for persecution. But 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 defend yourself.

Mk 13.9-11, Mt 10.17-20, Lk 12.11-12, 21.12-19.

After Jesus said the temple’s coming down, his students wanted to know when and how, so Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse, loosely telling ’em what’d become of them when the Romans destroyed the temple in the Roman-Jewish War, i.e. the great tribulation.

What’d become of them? Persecution. Which happened in Acts, happened over and over again in the various Roman persecutions, happened throughout Christian history whenever Christians went to lands where Christianity upended the status quo, and still happens. Never stopped. Our first-world rights to freedom of speech and religion aren’t perfect, but they’re still way better than the rest of the world. But don’t kid yourself: They’re hardly the rule; they’re a huge exception.

Now, your average American doesn’t know squat about history, and your average Evangelical doesn’t know squat about Christian history. Mostly ’cause their anti-Catholic bigotry calls it “Catholic history,” so they know little to nothing till the King James Version showed up—and even then, their version of events is all warped. So they believe the previous tribulations of Christians under persecution were nothing. And that the great tribulation is yet to come. They’re steeling themselves for it. “When they come for me, here’s what I’m gonna do.”

That’s where whatever Christian beliefs they have, start to turn profoundly dark. Many of ’em are planning to do some mighty violent things. Not just Simon Peter with a machete type things: They’re planning to shoot cops and soldiers. They already have the assault weapons and the armor-piercing bullets. Even though many of ’em claim they “love” our police, “love” our troops. Sure, that’s what they say now. But their gun stockpiles indicate no, they really don’t.

As for those Christians who aren’t planning to murder law enforcement officers, a number of us are already planning our defense if we’re ever hauled before courts and city council chambers and Congress. Watch David A.R. White’s godawful God’s Not Dead movies and you’ll see what I mean. They’re pretty sure the government is already coming for them, even though our local, state, and national governments are so predominantly Christian (yep, even here in my liberal state of California) it’s silly. They’re expecting persecution—so they’re getting their logical and legal defenses ready.

But here in the Olivet Discourse, what did Jesus say about such defenses? To not put any such thing together. To shut up and listen to the Holy Spirit and let him defend us. To practice faith. You know—exactly what fearful Christians aren’t doing. Have no intention whatsoever of doing.

Mark 13.9-11 KWL

9 “Look out for yourselves.

People will hand you over to senates

and you’ll be flogged in synagogues.

You’ll stand before leaders and kings because of me,

to testify of me to them.

10 Primarily, this testimony

has to spread the gospel to every people-group.

11 Whenever they may take you to hand you over,

don’t worry beforehand about what you should say.

Instead, whatever is given to you at that hour, say it.

For you aren’t to be the speakers.

But the Holy Spirit is.”

 

Luke 21.12-19 KWL

12 “Before all these things happen,

they’ll throw their hands on you;

they’ll hunt you down,

handing you over to synagogues and prisons,

dragging you away to kings and leaders because of my name.

13 It’ll turn you into witnesses,

14 so determine in your hearts to not prepare a defense:

15 I’ll give you a mouth and wisdom

which every one of your adversaries

will be unable to withstand or dispute.

16 You’ll also be betrayed by parents, siblings,

relatives and friends,

and they’ll put some of you to death.

17 You’ll be hated by everyone because of my name.

18 But if every hair on your head isn’t destroyed,

19 save your souls by your endurance!”

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper.”

Isaiah 54.16.

I’ve lost count of how many times Christians have cited this verse and claimed it for themselves. Or for others, to encourage them. “It says in the bible no weapon formed against me shall prosper. And I believe that, and it won’t!”

The verse in question would be this one. I quoted the translation which sounds the most like the way people quote it.

Isaiah 54.16 NKJV

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper,

And every tongue which rises against you in judgment

You shall condemn.

This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD,

And their righteousness is from Me,”

Says the LORD.

The original saying comes from the KJV’s, “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper,” but of course people prefer “you” instead of the out-of-date “thee”—and most other translations like to go with other words than “formed” and “prosper.”

Anyway. Since I can be a smartass y’know, I have tested just what people mean when they quote this verse. “You’re saying no weapon formed against you will prosper. Well I can take this perfectly harmless hair tie” (I have long hair, and I usually have elastic bands on me so I can tie it back) “and form it into a weapon against you.” Here’s where I put it over the tip of my finger and pull back. “If I flick this hair tie at you, are you saying God will miraculously keep it from hitting you?”

Most of them, especially when they’re younger, immediately flinch. Or hold their hands up to block the hair tie. Because confronted with a literal weapon—even though I’m not pointing it at their face; it’s harmless—it turns out no they didn’t mean that.

Well again, depending on how young they are. Little kids sometimes are thinking of literal weapons. Sometimes toy weapons, like sticks and squirt guns and plastic swords. Sometimes not. In the United States, we have school shootings on far too regular a basis; and in nonwhite neighborhoods, too often the police are far more antagonistic than helpful. So sometimes little kids are naïvely thinking maybe, maybe, if they pray really hard, God’ll keep the scary men with guns away.

But for most of us: No they didn’t mean literal weapons. They don’t imagine God’ll stop the fists of an abusive spouse, or the assault rifles of the gun nut next door. Not that he can’t, but that’s not what they had in mind when they were talking about how no weapon formed against ’em would prosper.

So… what, were they saying this for no reason? Not at all. They’re thinking of spiritual weapons. They’re thinking of spiritual warfare. They think God’ll make it so none of those weapons formed against us will prosper. Whereas if Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, Remington, or Lewis Machine and Tool makes ’em… yeah they’ll most definitely put holes through us. But they aren’t thinking of AR-15s. They’re thinking of the devil’s fiery darts. Ep 6.16

Okay. So if all we’re talking about are the weapons of spiritual warfare, is this verse then valid?

Of course not. You think I’d write an article about its context if it were?

Hallelujah: The highest praise?

I’ve heard a whole lot of people claim the Hebrew word hallelujah means “highest praise.” It doesn’t.

The word הַ֥לְלוּ/hallelú is an imperative verb which means “praise ye,” or “praise, all of you,” and יָ֨הּ/Yah (KJV “Jah”) is of course short for יְ֭הוָה/YHWH, the LORD. It literally means “praise ye the LORD.” Exactly like this old children’s worship song I grew up with. (YouTube has a version of it with cats. Yea cats!)

Hallelu hallelu hallelu hallelujah

Praise ye the LORD

Hallelu hallelu hallelu hallelujah

Praise ye the LORD

Praise ye the LORD

Hallelujah

Praise ye the LORD

Hallelujah

Praise ye the LORD

Hallelujah

Praise ye the LORD

The children’s pastor would instruct one half of the room to stand to sing, “Hallelujah,” then sit while the other half stood to sing “Praise ye the LORD.” Of course the song would speed up as we repeated it, and we kids found all this jumping out of our seats to be very entertaining. It’s why you don’t see it practiced this way in a lot of adult services. Way too many creaking knees.

It’s a very simple song, but it’s meant to teach us precisely what “hallelujah” means. It’s technically not even praise! It’s the command to praise. “Praise ye the LORD” tells people to praise God… and leaves it up to us as to how we’re gonna praise him. Maybe with loud musical instruments, Ps 150.3-5 maybe with singing. Ps 150.6 Maybe with art, dance, barbecue… all of which are actually in the bible, believe it or don’t. Heck, why not a laser light show? Get creative!

But of course not every Christian has grown up with this children’s song, and a lot of us have taken our definition from another song—CeCe Winans’ 2003 song “Hallelujah Praise (The Highest Praise).” Which begins like so.

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah

Hallelujah is the highest praise, hallelujah is the highest praise

Hallelujah is the highest praise, hallelujah is the highest praise

Lately I’ve heard it in Bishop Carlton Pearson’s 2019 song “Hallelujah is the Highest Praise.” Other gospel artists are repeating the idea, ’cause it’s all over the place. But let’s be fair; the teaching didn’t originate with Winans. I’ve heard it long before her song came out.

It’s obviously not based on bible. Not just because of what the word hallelujah literally means, but because God makes it pretty obvious that saying fancy, holy-sounding biblical-language words are way less important to him than simply obeying him. Praise him aloud till your throat’s sore, but if you don’t do what he says, what good is that? “Hallelujah” in the mouth of an unbeliever or hypocrite isn’t even remotely the highest praise.

What’s the highest praise we an offer Jesus? Do as he says. Abide in him. Jn 15.4 The devout, fruitful, obedient Christian can say nothing, and by their actions praise God mightily.

Jesus still appears to people, y’know.

Several years after Jesus was raptured, Paul of Tarsus (sometimes referred to by his Hebrew name Saul) met him enroute to Damascus. Ac 9.1-9 He later retold that story to King Herod Agrippa 2.

Acts 26.13-16 NLT

13 “About noon, Your Majesty, as I was on the road, a light from heaven brighter than the sun shone down on me and my companions. 14 We all fell down, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is useless for you to fight against my will.’

15 “ ‘Who are you, lord?’ I asked.

“And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting. 16 Now get to your feet! For I have appeared to you to appoint you as my servant and witness. Tell people that you have seen me, and tell them what I will show you in the future.”

Up to this point Paul was dead set on destroying Christianity—and he flipped hard. Preached Jesus with such fervor, his former backers wanted him dead. Went to his own death for Jesus.

That’s not the behavior of a man who merely changed his mind. Paul saw something—and for the rest of his life, claimed it was Christ Jesus.

Nearly all Christians accept Paul’s story without question. Not just ’cause Paul produced fruit of the Spirit from then on, and performed various miracles. Usually it’s because Paul wrote 13 books of the New Testament, particularly Romans, which spells out how the self-sacrifice of Jesus revealed God’s grace to the world.

But as far as further Jesus-sightings are concerned, they’re pretty certain Paul’s experience was a special circumstance. Only Paul got to have a special Jesus-appearance. Nobody else. Nobody since.

There I gotta disagree with them.