In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I speak with theologian and professor Bradley Green to unpack one of the most commonly mentioned but rarely understood ideas in today’s cultural moment: critical theory.
Many people have heard of critical race theory—but Green explains that critical theory is actually a much older and broader worldview rooted in Marxist thought and developed by the Frankfurt School. More than just a social theory, Green argues that critical theory functions as a kind of alternative theology—with its own views of reality, sin, and redemption.
In this conversation, you’ll learn: • The distinction between critical theory as a whole, and critical race theory specifically • How Marxism evolved from economics into cultural Marxism • Why critical theory focuses on oppression and liberation • What Green means by calling critical theory a “Christian heresy” • How critical theory borrows from—and distorts—biblical categories like creation, sin, and redemption • Why institutions like family and church are viewed as oppressive within this framework • What Christians can affirm, critique, and learn from critical theory • Why the gospel offers a better and more complete answer
Bradley also highlights an important insight: while critical theory correctly identifies that something is wrong in the world, it ultimately misdiagnoses the root problem—and therefore offers a flawed solution.
If you’ve ever wondered how to think clearly—and biblically—about critical theory, this episode will give you helpful categories and clarity.
In this episode of Theology for the People, Nick Cady sits down with theologian and professor Bradley Green to unpack one of the most commonly mentioned but rarely understood ideas in today’s cultural moment: critical theory.Many people have heard of critical race theory—but Green explains that critical theory is actually a much older and broader worldview rooted in Marxist thought and developed by the Frankfurt School. More than just a social theory, Green argues that critical theory functions as a kind of alternative theology—with its own views of reality, sin, and redemption.In this conversation, you’ll learn:The distinction between critical theory as a whole, and critical race theory specificallyHow Marxism evolved from economics into cultural MarxismWhy critical theory focuses on oppression and liberationWhat Green means by calling critical theory a “Christian heresy”How critical theory borrows from—and distorts—biblical categories like creation, sin, and redemptionWhy institutions like family and church are viewed as oppressive within this frameworkWhat Christians can affirm, critique, and learn from critical theoryWhy the gospel offers a better and more complete answerGreen also highlights an important insight: while critical theory correctly identifies that something is wrong in the world, it ultimately misdiagnoses the root problem—and therefore offers a flawed solution.If you’ve ever wondered how to think clearly—and biblically—about critical theory, this episode will give you helpful categories and clarity.
In that post, I mentioned that whereas the Bible says that Jesus is “from the Father” (the doctrine of “eternal generation”), the Bible says that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father — and, according to the Western Christian tradition, “from the Father and the Son.”
That raises some important questions:
Where does that language come from?
Is it biblical?
Why do Western Christians add that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? What is the history of that?
In this article, I will walk you through the biblical foundation for the “procession” of the Holy Spirit, and the historical argument between Western and Eastern Christians about whether to add the clause “and the Son.”
The Biblical Language: “Proceeds from the Father”
The key verse behind this language comes from Jesus Himself:
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” (John 15:26)
This is the only place in the Bible where the word “proceeds” (Greek: ekporeuetai) is explicitly used to describe the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Father.
Two important things are happening in this verse:
The Spirit proceeds from the Father – This speaks to the Spirit’s eternal origin.
The Son sends the Spirit – This speaks to the Spirit’s mission in time.
Christians have historically distinguished between these two ideas:
Eternal procession: Who the Spirit is in relation to the Father.
Temporal mission: What the Spirit does in being sent into the world.
This is similar to the distinction between the “ontological” and the “economic” Trinity. For more on that, read: The Trinity: Ontological & Economic
But this verse raises a question: If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, what is the Son’s role?
The Son’s Role in Sending the Spirit
Other passages fill in that picture:
John 16:7 — Jesus says of the Spirit, “I will send him to you.”
John 20:22 — Jesus breathes on the disciples after His resurrection and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Galatians 4:6 — “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.”
These verses strongly connect the Spirit not only to the Father, but also to the Son.
So while John 15:26 emphasizes that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the broader New Testament shows that the Spirit is also intimately related to the Son—to the point where He is even called “the Spirit of the Son.” In fact, in John 14, when telling His disciples at the Last Supper that He would not abandon them through this departure from this world, Jesus said that He would come to them, in the context of sending the Holy Spirit to them (see John 14:18). Furthermore, the New Testament authors tell us that the Holy Spirit indwells those who believe in Jesus, and then Paul tells us in Colossians that Christ dwells in us who believe (cf. Ephesians 1:13-14; Colossians 1:27)
Why “Proceeds”? What Does that Mean?
In addition to accurately reflecting the words of Scripture, “proceeds” (for the Spirit) and “begotten” (for the Son) describe the distinct ways each person of the Trinity relates to the Father. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God, these relationships distinguish them as unique persons.
The Father is unbegotten (He is the source). The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The Son is not the Father because He is begotten, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son because He proceeds. In God’s temporal mission, the Spirit is then sent by the Son and glorifies the Son, and the Son, in turn, glorifies the Father.
The Early Church and the Nicene Creed
As the early church wrestled with how to faithfully summarize biblical teaching, they gathered for the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). At that gathering, they produced the Nicene Creed, which affirmed that the Son is “begotten, not made.”
“We believe in the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father…”
Notice: no mention of “and the Son” yet.
At this point, the church was primarily concerned with affirming:
The full divinity of the Spirit
His distinct personhood
His procession from from the Father (directly using the language of John 15:26)
The Addition of “and the Son” (Filioque)
The phrase “and the Son” (Latin: Filioque) was added later in the Western church.
It first appeared in regional councils in the West (notably in Spain in the 6th century) as a way to combat false teachings that undermined the divinity of the Son.
The reasoning went like this:
If the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, some might conclude that the Son is less central or less divine.
But if the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it reinforces the full equality and unity of the Father and the Son.
By the early Middle Ages, the Western church had adopted the phrase into the creed:
“who proceeds from the Father and the Son”
The Filioque Controversy
This addition led to one of the most significant theological disputes in church history between the Eastern (largely Greek speaking) and Western (largely Latin speaking) churches.
The Eastern church objected for two main reasons:
1. Theological Concern
Eastern theologians argued that the Father is the single source within the Trinity.
They believed:
The Son is begotten of the Father
The Spirit proceeds from the Father
Adding “and the Son,” they argued, blurred these distinctions.
2. Authority Concern
The East also objected that the Western church added to the creed unilaterally, without an ecumenical council.
For the Eastern church, this wasn’t just a doctrinal issue—it was also a question of church authority and unity. Tensions were already growing over the Western church’s claims about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the “Pope”) as the head of all Christians — a claim the Eastern church did not accept. From their perspective, the unilateral addition of the Filioque to the creed felt like another example of the West asserting authority in a way they believed was illegitimate and unwarranted.
The Great Schism: The East-West Split
Although it wasn’t the only factor, the disagreement over the Filioque clause contributed to the growing divide between Eastern and Western Christianity, culminating in the Great Schism of 1054.
To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Filioque clause and maintains “The Spirit proceeds from the Father,” whereas the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant churches affirm “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
Is the Filioque Clause Biblical?
On the one hand, Eastern Christians point out that John 15:26 explicitly says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. On the other hand, Western Christians highlight the fact that the Spirit is deeply connected to the Son (John 16:7; Galatians 4:6), the Spirit is sent by the Son and bears witness to Him, and the unity of the Father and the Son is biblical and must be preserved.
Many theologians today suggest a both/and approach:
The Spirit proceeds from the Father
The Spirit proceeds through the Son in a way that reflects their unity
This preserves both the Father’s role as source and the Son’s participation and unity with the Father.
Conclusion
So, why do Christians say that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father (and the Son)”?
It’s because Jesus explicitly stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26), and because the New Testament shows the Spirit is also sent by and connected to the Son
Even though Christians have disagreed on how to best phrase it, both sides are trying to be faithful to Scripture and to preserve the mystery and beauty of the Trinity.
One definition of “begotten” is to create or produce, to bring into existence.
If God and Jesus are both eternal, and they have no beginning of existence and no end of existence, how is Jesus God’s begotten son?
The answer to this question lies in understanding the Greek word translated “begotten” and the attempt to explain something important that challenges the limits of human language.
“Begotten” Does Not Mean “Created”
When the early church clarified its beliefs about Jesus at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), it used a very precise phrase:
γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα (gennēthenta, ou poiēthenta) = “Begotten, not made.”
That phrase is crucial.
“Made” means created—something that comes into existence
“Begotten” means sharing the same nature as the one who begets
gennaō (γεννάω) = “to beget” implies the same nature
poieō (ποιέω) = “to make” implies a different nature
So when Christians say Jesus is begotten, they are explicitly saying that He is not a created being.
This language was chosen in response to teachers like Arius, who argued that the Son (Jesus) was a created being. The church’s answer was clear: Jesus is not made—He is begotten.
Why Say that Jesus is “Begotten” at All?
We get this language from the Bible, and from Jesus’ own words. For this reason, it’s important that we not dismiss them, but receive them and try to understand them.
In passages like John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:16, Jesus is called the “only begotten Son.”
The Greek word behind this phrase is: μονογενής (monogenēs)
While it has traditionally been translated in English as “only begotten,” its meaning is slightly different. It most directly means: “one of a kind,” “unique,” or “only one of His kind”
So when John calls Jesus the monogenēs Son, he is emphasizing that:
Jesus is the unique Son of God
He is not one Son among many
He is the Son in a completely different category
This fits with what the creed later clarifies: Jesus is not just another “child of God” – He is the Son of God in a way that no one else is.
“Begotten” Speaks of Relationship, Not Beginning
Theologians have used the phrase “eternal generation” to describe this truth:
The Father is eternally Father
The Son is eternally Son
The Son is from the Father—but not after the Father
In other words: There was never a time when the Son did not exist. So “begotten” does not describe a moment in time, but rather aneternal relationship within the Godhead.
Why Not Just Say “Born”?
The Greek word gennaō can also be translated “born,” so this raises a question about why English translations of the Bible and creeds use the word “begotten” instead?
The reason is an attempt at theological precision.
“Born” tends to imply a moment in time
“Begotten” emphasizes shared nature, without implying that there was a “starting point” when it began.
So, begotten is carefully chosen to preserve the idea that the Son is unique and that He shares in the Father’s nature, but was not created.
The Unique Son: Jesus Is the Son by Nature; We Become Sons by Adoption
This brings us to an important distinction. The Bible says that we become sons or children of God through faith in Jesus (John 1:12, 1 John 3:1)
As sons of God, we share in the inheritance which is ours as sons, and Jesus is our brother. But there is a difference between the way that we are sons of God and the way that Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus is the only begotten Son
Believers are adopted as sons (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:4–7)
Jesus is:
Son by nature
Eternal
Shares the same divine essence as the Father
We (believers) are:
Sons and daughters by adoption
Not sons from eternity past, but:
Brought into God’s family by grace
John 1:12 says: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God”
We become children of God. Jesus never became the Son, He has always been the unique Son of God – in a way that no one else is or ever will be.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just a technical theological point, it’s actually essential to the gospel.
If Jesus were made, then He would be a creature. But if Jesus is “begotten, not made,” then He is fully God.
And that matters because:
Only God can fully reveal God
Only God can truly save
The message of the gospel is that the eternal Son of God came to us, so that we, who are not sons by nature, might become sons by grace.
Going Deeper: “Eternal Generation” versus “Procession”
The doctrine of “Eternal Generation” is the way that theologians explain some of the passages in the Bible which describe the Son as being from the Father, while not being created by the Father. This is different from “procession,” which is the term traditionally used for the Holy Spirit.
But as for the Son coming from the Father, consider these examples:
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)
“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” (Hebrews 1:3a)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
The Bible describes the Son as being “from” the Father, but not as a created being or someone who came into existence at some point—rather, as the eternal Son who has always been in perfect relationship with the Father.
Here are four basic assertions about the Trinity that are universally accepted by Christians [1]:
There is one and only one true and living God.
This one God eternally exists in three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
These three Persons are completely equal in attributes, each sharing the same divine nature.
While each Person is fully and completely God, the Persons are not identical.
It is in an attempt to write down what the Bible, and Jesus Himself stated regarding the nature of God, that we use the terms “begotten” and explain it using the language of “eternal generation.”
What does persecution actually look like in the places where the gospel is least known? And how should Christians think about persecution in relation to missions?
In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I speak with Matt Rhodes. Matt is a missionary and author, who has been serving for 15 years as a church planter in North Africa among a Muslim-majority tribals communities. Matt shares stories from the field and discusses the central thesis of his book Persecution and Missions: A Practical Theology.
One of Matt’s key insights is that persecution is not merely an occasional obstacle to mission—it is often a structural reality in places where the gospel is advancing. In many communities, the greatest barrier to faith in Christ isn’t intellectual objections but the social and familial cost of conversion. Whereas many people espouse the benefits that persecution has on the church, Matt points out that the threat of persecution does keep many from even considering the claims of Christ out of fear of reprisal.
In this episode Matt and I discuss:
Why persecution often prevents people from even exploring Christianity
The immense social cost faced by converts from Muslim backgrounds
Common mistakes Western missionaries make when discipling persecuted believers
The tension between contextualization and compromise in missions
How the New Testament frames persecution through the lens of the Exodus and the Promised Land
Why missionaries must be honest about the cost of following Jesus
The dangers of wealth, financial incentives, and dependency in missions
Matt also shares practical wisdom from his experience serving in a village context in North Africa and offers specific ways listeners can pray for believers who face intense pressure for their faith.
This conversation offers an important reminder: following Jesus has always come with a cost—but the hope of resurrection and eternal reward makes that cost worthwhile.
What does persecution actually look like in the places where the gospel is least known? And how should Christians think about persecution in relation to missions?In this episode of Theology for the People, Nick Cady speaks with missionary and author Matt Rhodes about his 15 years serving as a church planter in North Africa among a Muslim-majority tribal community. Matt shares stories from the field and discusses the central thesis of his book Persecution and Missions: A Practical Theology.One of Matt’s key insights is that persecution is not merely an occasional obstacle to mission—it is often a structural reality in places where the gospel is advancing. In many communities, the greatest barrier to faith in Christ isn’t intellectual objections but the social and familial cost of conversion.Nick and Matt discuss:Why persecution often prevents people from even exploring ChristianityThe immense social cost faced by converts from Muslim backgroundsCommon mistakes Western missionaries make when discipling persecuted believersThe tension between contextualization and compromise in missionsHow the New Testament frames persecution through the lens of the Exodus and the Promised LandWhy missionaries must be honest about the cost of following JesusThe dangers of wealth, financial incentives, and dependency in missionsMatt also shares practical wisdom from his experience serving in a village context in North Africa and offers specific ways listeners can pray for believers who face intense pressure for their faith.This conversation offers an important reminder: following Jesus has always come with a cost—but the hope of resurrection and eternal reward makes that cost worthwhile.📘 Matt’s book: Persecution and Missions: A Practical Theology
This episode is audio only for the safety of the people to whom Matt ministers, but the audio can be found on YouTube here:
In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I speak with Shane Angland to explore a question that I have thought about for a long time: Did the early church fathers view Scripture the way Protestants do today—or is the Protestant view of the Bible a Reformation novelty?
Shane and I walk through patristic theology and discuss how figures like Irenaeus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine spoke about the inspiration, authority, sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture. We also examine the “rule of faith” and whether it functioned like a controlling magisterium—or more like a summary of Scripture’s core teaching that guided interpretation.
Along the way, we discuss:
What “patristics” are, and where the patristic era generally begins and ends
Whether the fathers believed Scripture could contain errors
How early Christians handled difficult passages (textual issues, translation, and humility)
The unity of Scripture and the Christ-centered reading of the whole Bible
The Reformation’s claims about Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture
Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine and why it’s really about how to interpret the Bible
Whether the church creates Scripture’s authority or recognizes it
How medieval developments changed the relationship between Scripture and tradition
If you’ve ever wondered whether the Reformation recovered an earlier Christian approach to the Bible—or introduced something new—this conversation is for you.
The Bible in Patristic Thought: Authority, Clarity, and the Rule of Faith – with Shane Angland –
Theology for the People
In this episode of Theology for the People, Nick Cady is joined by recurring guest Shane Angland to explore the question: Did the early church fathers view Scripture the way Protestants do today—or is the Protestant view of the Bible a Reformation novelty?Nick and Shane walk through patristic theology and discuss how figures like Irenaeus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine spoke about the inspiration, authority, sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture. They also examine the “rule of faith” and whether it functioned like a controlling magisterium—or more like a summary of Scripture’s core teaching that guided interpretation.Along the way, they discuss:What “patristics” are, and where the patristic era generally begins and endsWhether the fathers believed Scripture could contain errorsHow early Christians handled difficult passages (textual issues, translation, and humility)The unity of Scripture and the Christ-centered reading of the whole BibleThe Reformation’s claims about sola Scriptura and the perspicuity (clarity) of ScriptureAugustine’s On Christian Doctrine and why it’s really about how to interpret the BibleWhether the church creates Scripture’s authority or recognizes itHow medieval developments changed the relationship between Scripture and traditionIf you’ve ever wondered whether the Reformation recovered an earlier Christian approach to the Bible—or introduced something new—this conversation is for you.
I have recently started posting more on the Theology for the People YouTube channel. You can watch this interview on video here:
In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I speak with Bruce Zachary, founding and teaching pastor of Calvary Nexus in Camarillo, California, to explore the Passover Seder meal—what it is, why it matters, and how it points powerfully to Jesus the Messiah.
Bruce shares his story of growing up in an observant Jewish home and later coming to faith in Christ after visiting Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa and encountering the Book of Hebrews.
From there, the conversation dives into the biblical foundation of Passover in Exodus 12, the symbolism of the Seder plate, the meaning of the afikomen, and the significance of the four cups from Exodus 6:6–7—especially the “cup of redemption” connected to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper.
We also discuss how Christians should approach the Seder respectfully, how it helps connect the Old and New Testaments, and why Passover is one of the richest pictures of God’s redemptive plan—from Exodus to the cross and beyond.
📍 Upcoming Event: Bruce will be leading a Passover Seder at White Fields Community Church in Longmont, Colorado on March 27, 2026. The event is open to the public. Register here.
More from Bruce: Messages and free resources, including several ebooks, are available at calvarynexus.org
Nick and Bruce help lead a global church planting network called Cultivate. Visit: cultivatechurchplanting.com
In this episode of Theology for the People, Nick Cady sits down with Bruce Zachary, founding and teaching pastor of Calvary Nexus (Camarillo, California), to explore the Passover Seder meal—what it is, why it matters, and how it points powerfully to Jesus the Messiah.Bruce shares his story of growing up in an observant Jewish home and later coming to faith in Christ after visiting Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa and encountering the Book of Hebrews. From there, the conversation dives into the biblical foundation of Passover in Exodus 12, the symbolism of the Seder plate, the meaning of the afikomen, and the significance of the four cups from Exodus 6:6–7—especially the “cup of redemption” connected to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper.Nick and Bruce also discuss how Christians should approach the Seder respectfully, how it helps connect the Old and New Testaments, and why Passover is one of the richest pictures of God’s redemptive plan—from Exodus to the cross and beyond.📍 Upcoming Event: Bruce will be leading a Passover Seder at White Fields Community Church in Longmont, Colorado on March 27, 2026. The event is open to the public. Register here.More from Bruce: Messages and free resources, including several ebooks, are available at calvarynexus.orgNick and Bruce help lead a global church planting network called Cultivate. Visit: cultivatechurchplanting.com
I have recently started posting more on the Theology for the People YouTube channel. You can watch this interview on video here:
Colorado lawmakers recently introduced a bill to decriminalize prostitution in our state. Senate Bill 26-097, titled “Decriminalize Adult Commercial Sexual Activity,” is framed as a move toward personal liberty, but if it is passed, it will put people, especially women, at greater risk of sexual exploitation.
Those who are concerned with justice, compassion, and the protection of the vulnerable should be alarmed by this bill, and take steps to oppose it.
Last Sunday, at White Fields Church, we were joined by László (Laci) Németh, founder of the Anonymous Ways Foundation (Névtelen Utak Alapítvány) in Budapest, Hungary. Our church has supported their work for years, and when Laci heard about this bill, he was very concerned, because, as he stated in our service, wherever prostitution has been decriminalized, it has led to an increase in the sexual exploitation of women.
What This Bill Would Do
SB26-097 would effectively legalize the sex trade. However, SB26-097 is a decriminalization bill, which is even more reckless than actual legalization because it removes all penalties without adding any oversight or safety regulations. In addition to decriminalizing prostitution, this bill would:
Allow brothel operations. Permitting the establishment of businesses that profit from the sale of sexual acts.
Normalize exploitation. Treating the sex trade as just another sector of the economy, rather than a system built on the brokenness of the human condition.
Why This is a Problem
The proponents of this bill often frame it as a matter of “empowerment” or “safety” for sex workers. However, theology and history both tell a very different story.
In the book of Genesis, we are introduced to the profound truth that forms the bedrock of Christian ethics: every human being is created in the image of God (Imago Dei). This means that people are not products and bodies are not commodities, because human dignity is intrinsic. We are embodied souls, and therefore what we do with our bodies affects our souls.
The Myth of Increased Safety
The primary argument for decriminalization is that it brings the industry “out of the shadows,” supposedly making it safer for those involved. Yet, global data shows the opposite. In regions where prostitution has been decriminalized or legalized, we don’t see a decrease in violence or exploitation. Instead, we see an explosion in demand.
When legal barriers are removed, the market for that service grows. In the context of the sex trade, more buyers will lead to a need for more “supply.” But where does that supply come from? It doesn’t come from a sudden influx of empowered individuals choosing a career path. It comes from the vulnerable. It comes from women and children (boys and girls) trapped by poverty, addiction, and trauma. It comes immigrants and undocumented or trafficked individuals, in other words: from the very people whom God calls His people to protect. (see: “God’s Heart for the Vulnerable”)
By making it easier to buy sex, the state will be creating an infrastructure for human exploitation. You cannot expand the sex industry without expanding the recruitment of people into it—many of whom are not there by “choice” in any meaningful sense of the word.
The ministries and non-profits providing actual outreach to women and men on the streets (like the ones linked above), tell us that these people are not asking for the state to make their “workplace” more official, they are asking for a way out. They are looking for alternative employment, healing, and restoration of their dignity. By legalizing this industry, the state won’t be helping these women exit; it will be helping to keep them in it.
A Righteous Society
Additionally, God’s people are to be those, who like Jesus: love righteousness and hate wickedness (Hebrews 1:9). Sometimes people claim that “you can’t legislate morality,” but in reality, every law speaks to morality on some level, and criminalizes actions which are immoral or unethical.
If we really believe that God’s ways are best and lead to human flourishing, then we should want all people, created in the image of God, to experience that flourishing. If what the Bible says is true, and sin leads to heartbreak and destruction, then we should not allow laws which allow or encourage people to hurt themselves or others.
What You Can Do
As Christians, we are called to champion righteousness and “defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:9). SB26-097 fails this biblical mandate because it ignores the link between the sex trade and human exploitation.
This bill is currently being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It will not be put to a public vote, but will be decided by our state legislators.
Here’s what you can do:
Email Colorado State Representatives, to tell them that you oppose this bill, and ask them not to approve it.
Pray: Pray for our lawmakers, that they would have the wisdom to see the human cost of this legislation. Pray for the women, men, and children currently trapped in the sex trade.
In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I speak with Murray Smith of Christ College in Sydney, Australia about one of Jesus’ most debated teachings: the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24-25, Luke 21).
Murray gives us his take on the state of evangelical Christianity in Australia, and then we turn to discussing Murray’s recent book: Jesus’ Speech on the Mount of Olives: a 12-Week Study, which is designed to help Christians read this passage with clarity and hope.
Murray lays out the three major interpretive approaches(preterist / futurist / “both-and”), he explains why “full preterism” is outside of orthodox Christian confession, and then he walks us through why he believes Jesus speaks about both the destruction of Jerusalem and the final return of Christ.
Additionally, we discuss:
Why this passage is so debated—and yet so important
How Jesus’ cosmic “signs” function as accompanying realities of His coming
What it means to “be ready” according to the parables in Matthew 24-25
Why healthy eschatology produces hope, urgency, discipleship, and mission
Though Murray and I have differences in how we interpret this passage, we both hope that studying it will help believers recover a living, formative, and practical hope in the return of Jesus.
Passages referenced: Mark 13; Matthew 24–25; Luke 21; Daniel 7; 1 Thessalonians 4; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 21–22
Links to my recent messages on the Olivet Discourse:
The Olivet Discourse: Jesus’ Most Debated Sermon, and Why It Matters – with Murray Smith –
Theology for the People
In this episode of Theology for the People, Nick Cady speaks with Murray Smith (Christ College, Sydney) to talk about one of Jesus’ most debated teachings: the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24–25, Luke 21).Murray gives a candid snapshot of the state of evangelical Christianity in Australia, and from there, the conversation turns to Murray’s book Jesus’ Speech on the Mount of Olives, a 12-week study designed to help Christians read this passage with clarity and hope. Murray lays out the three major interpretive approaches (preterist / futurist / “both-and”), he explains why “full preterism” is outside orthodox Christian confession, and then walks us through why he believes Jesus speaks about both the destruction of Jerusalem and the final return of Christ.Nick and Murray also discuss:Why this passage is so debated—and yet so importantHow Jesus’ cosmic “signs” function as accompanying realities of His comingWhat it means to “be ready" according to the parables in Matthew 24–25Why healthy eschatology produces hope, urgency, discipleship, and missionThough Nick and Murray have differences in how they view this passage, they both hope that studying it will help believers recover a living, formative, practical hope in the return of Jesus.Passages referenced: Mark 13; Matthew 24–25; Luke 21; Daniel 7; 1 Thessalonians 4; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 21–22Links to Nick's recent messages on the Olivet Discourse:The Great Tribulation & the King's ReturnLiving Ready for Jesus' ReturnHow to Prepare for the End of the WorldWhat to Expect on Judgment Day
I have recently started posting more on the Theology for the People YouTube channel. You can watch this interview on video here:
We know Satan is the author of sin. So if he is bound for a thousand years (Revelation 20), how can sin still remain on the earth?
Great question! It touches on how we understand Satan, the nature of sin, and the condition of the human heart.
The short answer is: Satan tempts us and influences us sin, but human sin is not dependent on Satan, but on something inside of us – and since the fall, sin resides in the human heart.
The ultimate solution to sin is not even the binding of Satan (as good as that will be) — it is our completed and full redemption. What we need are new hearts and complete sanctification.
Revelation 20: Satan Bound for a Thousand Years
In Revelation 20:1-3 it says:
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
In Revelation, John the Apostle is recounting the vision he received from God, in which he was given a preview of the things which were to come in the future.
He goes on to say:
Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. (Revelation 20:4b-5a)
Then, John goes on to say:
And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. (Revelation 20:7-8)
Clearly what is being described is a time when Satan will be bound, and thereby prevented from deceiving the nations. Then, when he is released, he will deceive the nations once again – the result of which will be a rebellion and a multipolar attack on God’s people.
What this shows us is that, although during the thousand years, sin will be restrained by Christ’s rule – the capacity to sin, rebel, and attack will remain within people during that time, only waiting to be “activated” when the opportunity arises.
In other words: the problem of sin is deeper than demonic influence. It is rooted in human nature.
The Fall: When Sin Entered the Human Heart
In Genesis 3, Satan appears as the tempter. He deceives Eve and entices Adam into rebellion. In that sense, he plays a catalytic role. But notice something crucial: Satan does not force Adam and Eve to sin. He tempts them, but they willingly choose rebellion.
After the fall, something fundamental changes in humanity. Sin is no longer merely a possibility; it becomes part of our nature.
Genesis 6:5 describes the condition of humanity before the flood: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Notice where the problem is located: “the thoughts of his heart.”
In other words: Sin is not merely environmental. It is internal.
The prophet Jeremiah later writes: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
And Jesus Himself makes this clear: “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery…” (Mark 7:21–23)
Sin is not just something that is “out there” – it is something that is “in here”: bound up within our very hearts.
Case Study: The Flood
Sometimes people wonder: “What if we could get rid of all the ‘bad people’ in the world, and start over with only ‘believers'”? Well, in Genesis 6-9, we see that that actually happened once! And it didn’t fix the problem of sin.
In Genesis 6–9, we read about the time when God judged the entire world; the unrepentant were destroyed, and only one righteous man and his believing family were spared. And yet, even after this “global reset” sin and evil somehow reemerged! But, how?!
What the story of the Flood shows us, is that sin is not just something that exists in society, or in certain wicked and unbelieving people. Rather, what the flood shows us is that sin resides inside of the human heart, and is even bound up with those of us who sincerely believe.
If sin were merely “out there” — then the flood should have permanently solved the problem. And yet what happens almost immediately after they exit the ark?
Noah becomes drunk (Genesis 9:21).
Ham dishonors his father.
A curse follows.
Within a few generations, humanity is united again in rebellion at Babel (Genesis 11).
Sin reemerges. Why? Because Noah and his family were descendants of Adam. The carried a fallen nature within them.
When Noah got on the ark, sin got on the ark with him. The only way to truly eradicate sin from the world, would be to eradicate humanity completely – and yet, that is not something God was willing to do.
This is why Nicholas Wolterstorff famously said, “The tears of God are the meaning of history.” What he was saying is that, the entire reason there has been human history, is because God refused to wipe us out, even though our sins caused Him grief (as it says in Genesis 6:6 that human sin “grieved Him to His heart.” Rather than wiping us out, God chose to suffer the grief caused by us to Him by our sins.
The flood proves that until we are transformed, sin will always resurface.
Satan’s Role: Tempter, Not Ultimate Source of Sin
Scripture calls Satan:
“A liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44)
The deceiver of the nations (Revelation 20:3)
The tempter (Matthew 4:3)
But the Bible never teaches that Satan is the sole originator of every sinful impulse. James makes this clear:
“Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin…” (James 1:14–15)
Notice the order:
Temptation connects with our own desire.
Desire gives birth to sin.
Satan can tempt. He can deceive. He can influence. But he works with something already present: the fallen human heart and our desire to sin.
Jesus shows us a different way; even though He was tempted (or “tested” – it’s the same word in Greek) in all ways as we are, He did not sin (Hebrews 4:15). When He was tempted in the wilderness after His baptism, Jesus resisted the temptations of the Devil and responded to him with the Word of God (cf. Matthew 4).
If there were no internal corruption (as we see with Jesus), external temptation would have nothing to attach itself to.
Furthermore, God has promised us that He will give us the strength to withstand whatever temptation we face in life, if we rely on His strength and step out in faith and obedience (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Original Sin and the Fallen Nature
The Apostle Paul writes:
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin… so death spread to all men because all sinned.” (Romans 5:12)
Through Adam, sin entered humanity. We have inherited not only guilt, but a corrupted nature inclined toward self-rule rather than submission to God as Lord.
This is why even in ideal conditions, sin resurfaces.
Cleansed world after the flood? Sin.
Miraculous provision in the wilderness? Sin.
Kingdom of Israel under righteous kings? Sin.
And, as we see in Revelation: Millennial Kingdom? Sin will rear its head then too.
The Hope: A New Heart & a Completed Salvation
God promises in Ezekiel 36:26, speaking about the then future time of the Messiah who is to come, and what will happen to His people as a result: “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.”
That promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. In Him we are: forgiven, justified, regenerated, and sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:17: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” The ultimate solution to sin is not merely the binding of Satan, it is the redemption of the human heart.
But even then, we still go through a process of sanctification, which will last all of our lives, and only be complete when we see Jesus face-to-face, and are finally “like Him”
Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)
The good news of the gospel is something greater than simply that Satan will be bound – or even that he will ultimately be defeated (which he will! – see Revelation 20:10). The even greater news, is that God is transforming us from glory into greater glory, and that one day, not only will we be set free from the penalty of sin and the power of sin, but we will even be set free from the presence of sin – both from without AND from within!
Psalm 82 is one of the most curious and potentially confusing passages in the Bible, because of this interesting statement: “I said, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you’” (Psalm 82:6).
Who is this Psalm speaking to or about? If there is only one true and living God, then who are these “gods”? To make things even more interesting: Jesus quotes this passage from Psalm 82 in the Gospel of John, where he uses it in defense of His claim to be the Son of God!
In this post, we’ll explore the two main interpretive views of Psalm 82 and consider why Jesus referenced this passage in John 10.
What is Psalm 82 Describing?
Psalm 82 opens with these words:
“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.” (Psalm 82:1 ESV)
This brings up some important questions: “Who is in this ‘divine council’?,” and “Who are these ‘gods’?” – not to mention: “Why is God judging them?”
The rest of the psalm gives some clues to help us answer these questions. First of all, God rebukes these “gods” for ruling unjustly, showing partiality to the wicked, and failing to defend the weak and the needy (verses 2–4). He then pronounces judgment:
“I said, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.’” (Psalm 82:6–7)
The psalm concludes with a plea for God Himself to rise up and judge the earth, because all nations ultimately belong to Him (vs 8).
So the central question is: Who are these “gods” whom God rebukes and condemns?
View 1: The “gods” are Human Judges or Rulers
The most widely held view throughout Jewish and Christian history is that Psalm 82 refers to human rulers—especially judges—within Israel. But of course, this view leaves the question: “Why call human judges or rulers ‘gods’?”
The Rationale for this View:
“Elohim” Can Refer to Human Authorities While elohim is most often used for God, it can also be used in a representative or functional sense. In passages like Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8–9, elohim appears to refer to human judges acting in God’s name.
The Context Is a Courtroom Psalm 82 is filled with courtroom language: judging, ruling unjustly, defending the poor, showing partiality. These are precisely the responsibilities assigned to human judges under the Mosaic Law.
The Moral Failure Fits Human Leaders The rebuke (failing to protect the weak and ruling unjustly) seems to apply to the actions of corrupt human rulers. Throughout the prophets, God consistently condemns Israel’s leaders for these exact sins (e.g., Isaiah 1, Micah 3).
“You Will Die Like Men” Emphasizes Their Mortality Verse 7 states that despite their lofty position, these “gods” will die like ordinary humans. This makes sense if the Psalm is addressing rulers who have forgotten that their authority is temporary and accountable to God.
Summary of View 1
In this reading, Psalm 82 teaches that human judges, entrusted with God’s authority, have abused their power and/or neglected their calling. God reminds them that even though they function as His representatives on Earth (cf. Romans 13:4,6), they are not divine—and they will face judgment for their transgressions.
View 2: The Divine Council (Heavenly Beings)
A second view, popularized in recent decades by scholars such as Michael Heiser and others who have studied the ancient Near East, argues that Psalm 82 refers to supernatural beings, who are members of a heavenly “divine council.”
The Rationale for this View:
The Language of a “Divine Council” Psalm 82:1 describes God standing “in the midst of the gods,” which some argue mirrors ancient Near Eastern imagery of a heavenly council of spiritual beings.
“Sons of the Most High” This phrase is sometimes associated with heavenly beings elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Job 1–2).
Cosmic Scope of Judgment Some proponents argue that the Psalm envisions God judging spiritual rulers over the nations, not merely human officials in Israel.
Not Polytheism
It’s important to note that proponents of this view are not polytheists and do not believe in the existence of other gods. The True and Living God is not just onegod among equals; instead, God is judging other created spiritual beings who are called “gods” only in the sense that they are spiritual beings given power to rule, yet they are utterly subordinate to Him and are subject to death and judgment.
To support this view, Michael Heiser points to Deuteronomy 32:7-9 as an important corollary:
Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD’S portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:7-9)
Heiser states that this verse is describing how God divided the nations of mankind into regions, over which He then appointed spiritual beings (i.e. angels) to govern over them, and God gave them authority to oversee those human populations in the regions determined for their habitation (cf. Acts 17:26). Finally, God declared that the nation of Israel would be under his own purview, since they were his own special people whom he had created for his purposes.
An explanation of this view can be found in this video:
Jesus and Psalm 82 in John 10:34–36
Rather than hiding from or avoiding this potentially controversial choice of words in Psalm 82, Jesus brings up this passage in John 10, in a conversation with the Jewish Religious Leaders. In John 10, Jesus had just said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The Jewish leaders responded to that by picking up stones to kill Jesus for committing blasphemy. Jesus responded by saying:
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:34–36)
What Jesus Was (and Was Not) Doing
Jesus was not saying, “I am just one god among many.” Nor was He saying, “Everyone is divine.”
Instead, Jesus was making a legal and rhetorical argument—known as a qal wahomer (“from the lesser to the greater”).
Here’s the logic:
If Scripture can refer to human (or otherwise created) authorities as “gods”—because they were entrusted with God’s word and authority—
Then how can it be blasphemy for the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world to call Himself “the Son of God”?
His argument is that: If those created beings were called “sons of God,” and that was put in the Bible – then, how can it be wrong for Jesus to call himself the Son of God, since he (Jesus) is even greater than them?
If Psalm 82 is referring to human figures, then Jesus’ point is that fallible humans were called “gods” in the Bible when they were endowed with authority from God. If Psalm 82 is referring to spiritual beings, Jesus is claiming that created and fallible angels (literally: “messengers”) from God can be referred to as “gods” without it being blasphemy, and therefore since he has been sent by the Father as the ultimate messenger of His Word, then it is not blasphemy for him to call himself the “Son of God.”
Rather than undermining Jesus’ deity, this passage strengthens that claim. Jesus distinguishes Himself from those “gods” because:
They received the word of God, but He is the Word made flesh.
They were appointed temporarily, but He was consecrated and sent by the Father.
They would die like men, but He would lay down His life and take it up again.
Theological Implications
Psalm 82 reminds us that God takes justice seriously. Authority — whether religious, political, or spiritual — is always accountable to Him. Leaders who exploit power or ignore the vulnerable will be subject to divine judgment.
John 10 reminds us that Jesus is not merely a representative of God or a messenger from God; He is God the Son.
And what’s incredible about this, is that the One who judges unjust rulers is the same one who came to take the judgment for our sins, by being judged in our place on the cross.
The irony of Jesus’ crucifixion therefore, is that the religious leaders who accused Jesus of blasphemy were actually the exact kind of people Psalm 82 was referring to: leaders who misused their God-given authority. All the while, the true judge of Psalm 82 was allowing himself to be condemned, so that sinners like us could be saved.
Theology for the People 