Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry

The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (A great book with a gaping hole)

By Jeremy Myers
12 Comments

The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (A great book with a gaping hole)

Crucifixion of the Warrior GodGreg Boyd has a new book out. Actually, it’s two books. The two-volume work is titled The Crucifixion of the Warrior God.. I have been waiting for these books for about four years now … His book attempts to provide an explanation for the violence of God in Scripture.

Back in 2013, I joked that Greg Boyd stole my book, but then about a year later, as I heard more about his book project, I realized that Greg Boyd and I were not quite saying the same thing after all …

But I wasn’t sure exactly what he would say in the book, since it hadn’t yet been published. But now it has been published, and … and it turns out that while I agree with him on about 90% of what he writes in the book, I disagree with him on the central point.

What is his central point? It seems to be this (SPOILER ALERT!): Greg Boyd argues that God withdraws from sin so that evil will be destroyed by evil. The violent portions of Scripture are to be understood as the times when God withdrew from sinful humanity and a sinful world.

Greg Boyd calls this the Principle of Redemptive Withdrawal. He spends most of volume 1 leading up to this point, and most of volume 2 unpacking and defending it.

As with everything Greg Boyd writes, these two books are well-written, well-argued, and thought-provoking. And regardless of what you believe about the violence of God in Scripture, these books will present you with a new way of looking at things so that you no longer have to choose between accepting that God is violent or writing off the Bible as hopelessly full of error. There are other explanations.

Greg Boyd has presented one such explanation. And there is so much to praise about these books.

That which is Praiseworthy

I love the Greg has stuck with a high view of Scripture and biblical infallibility (which is related to, but distinct from, inerrancy). In the reviews I have read so far, Greg takes a lot of flak for this stance, but I am completely on board with him. When people give up on the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, I find that they rarely wrestle with the text. Instead, they too quickly write off the uncomfortable passages as being “hopelessly in error.” I am convinced that one reason Greg Boyd is a leading theologian is that his view of Scripture forces him to wrestle night and day with the troublesome texts. Such an approach leads to creative thinking and approaches to biblical hermeneutics, rather than simply consigning something to the trash bin of “error.”

Another major point from Greg Boyd’s excellent book is his insistence on the truth that Jesus reveals God to us… and especially through His crucifixion. Greg Boyd calls this the cruciform (or crucicentric) hermeneutic. I have referred to this elsewhere as reading the Bible with a crucivision lens. This approach to Scripture and theology is essential.

Third, I 100% agree with Greg Boyd that sin bears its own punishment, so that when sin comes to fruition in our life, it brings forth only death and destruction.

I could go on and on about the many areas of complete agreement I have with Greg Boyd and this book.

Crucifixion of the Warrior God Boyd

My One Main Sticking Point … or Maybe Two

Ultimately, while I agree with so much of Boyd’s approach to the problem of divine violence, I believe it misses the mark in two main areas.

First, I was consistently uncomfortable with Boyd’s understanding of sin. Since sin is “the problem” in Scripture, it seems he should have spent more time discussing the origin and nature of sin. For example, Boyd wrote in numerous places that Jesus bore the destructive consequences of sin “that we deserved” (cf. e.g., 768). I’m not certain, but Boyd seems to view sin as creating a sort of debit in the divine ledger books, which ultimately got charged to Jesus. I think this transactional way of viewing sin led Boyd astray.

Yes, there are destructive consequences of sin, but I am not sure that there are destructive consequences of sin “that we deserve.” That’s like saying that “Jesus came to deliver slaves from the chains that they deserve.” This means something else entirely than saying “Jesus came to deliver slaves from the chains.”

Much more needs to be said on this point, but I’m trying to keep this review relatively short.

So the second main point of disagreement I have with Boyd is in his central thesis that God withdraws from sin to let it have its way with us. I already briefly mentioned this above, but I find this view so disheartening and discouraging. I 100% agree with Boyd that all of Scripture and all of God’s character and activity in human history must be viewed through Jesus Christ, and especially Jesus Christ on the cross. But Boyd’s main thesis for God’s withdrawal comes from Jesus’ statement on the cross “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46-47).

And though I read and re-read Boyd’s explanation of this cry from the cross (pp. 768-780), I never really understood how Greg understood this text. Here is his basic conclusion:

Perhaps the best way of thinking about this is to distinguish between the loving unity that the three divine Persons experience, on the one hand, and the loving unity that defines God’s eternal essence, on the other. We could say that on the cross, the former was momentarily sacrificed as an expression of the latter. …

… While the Principle of Redemptive Withdrawal is focused on the abandonment Jesus experienced as he experienced the Father’s judgment on the sin of the world, it is nevertheless grounded in the truth that the cross is the definitive expression of the self-giving, mutual indwelling agape-love that defines the triune God throughout eternity (p. 778).

It sounds like Greg is saying something similar to how I understand this passage (Here is my explanation of Matthew 27:46-47), but I am not sure. I don’t know what he means by “the Father’s judgment on the sin of the world,” and I don’t find his distinction between the divine experience and the eternal essence to be helpful.

But this is the crucial (pun intended) passage for Greg’s thesis. What exactly happened on the cross when Jesus cried out “Why have you forsaken me?” is the most important text for understanding how God responds to sin. Greg seems to believe that God truly did abandon Jesus to sin, and therefore, God also abandons humans to sin when we persist in it.

violence of God Crucifixion of JesusEven if Greg is right that God abandoned Jesus to sin (which I do not agree with), wouldn’t it be better to say that God abandoned Jesus to sin so that God did not have to abandon us to sin?

In my view, it is best to say that God never abandons anyone. Not Jesus and not us. “Something else is going on” when Jesus cries out from the cross, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?”

The flood event in Genesis 6-8 is one example of how Greg Boyd deals with the violent texts of Scripture. He says that since wickedness had spread over the face of the earth, all humanity had become corrupted by the sons of God (Gen 6:1-8), and so Noah was literally the last pure man on earth, and so to save, rescue, and deliver humanity from complete destruction, God had to step back from humanity and withdraw His protection so that sin would destroy humanity and a new creation could occur through Noah and his family, whom God rescued and delivered from the flood through the ark. Boyd argues that God’s only activity in the flood was to rescue and deliver Noah. The flood waters came on their own as God stepped back.

I am extremely uncomfortable with such an explanation of the flood account, or such a way of reading Scripture. My discomfort is not because Boyd’s thesis is new, but because I think it ultimately violates one of his preliminary points, that all of Scripture must be read and interpreted through Jesus Christ, and especially through Jesus Christ on the cross. I do not believe that what we see on the cross is God withdrawing from sin, but rather jumping head-first into it.

God Does Not Withdraw from Sin. He Dives Into It

Since Jesus reveals to us what God is really like, and since Jesus is the incarnation of God, then Jesus also reveals how God deals with sin.

God does not back away from sin to let it have its way. No, God, in Jesus, enters fully into our sin, not to participate in it, but to deliver us from it. He does not draw away; He dives headlong into the mess.

I do not believe that God allows sin to have its way with us, even if we continue to rebel and live in it. This is little more than another form of child abuse. A neglectful, absentee parent is barely better than an abusive one.

I do not believe that God destroys sin by letting sin destroy itself. I believe that God destroys sin through redemption. He destroys sin by tearing it apart from the inside, not violently, but through love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, and revelation. I believe God destroys sin through the revelation and illumination brought by the incarnation. He rescues, not be retreating, but by redeeming. Jesus said “I will never leave you, nor forsake you.” And neither does God. He never withdraws. Never backs away. Never leaves us alone.

Does sin hurt us? Yes. Does sin bear its own punishment? Yes. God does not punish us for sin. But the blows we feel as a result of our own sin are the glancing blows that hit His back first.

This is starting to turn into a book of my own, so I will stop here. Look, read this book. Absolutely read this book. Even though I disagree with the central point of the book, it does a fantastic job of presenting some truths that all Christians need to hear.

But if you are uncomfortable with Greg’s point that God withdraws from sin to let it have its way, that’s okay … be uncomfortable .. for there are other ways to maintain Boyd’s cruciform hermeneutic without turning God into an absentee parent when we need Him most. You can get your copy on Amazon here.

… Of course, if you want my own take on the subject of how to understand the violence of God in the Bible, my explanation is found in my recently-published book, Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.

God is Redeeming Scripture, Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: cruciform, crucivision, Greg Boyd, violence of God, violence of Scripture

Advertisement

2 Keys to Understanding the Heart of God

By Jeremy Myers
7 Comments

2 Keys to Understanding the Heart of God

There are two ideas I have been mulling over the last couple years which are central to understanding the heart of God, and which most Christians do not seem to understand. These two keys are based on God’s omniscience, that fact the He is all-knowing. While it is amazing to think that God knows everything, I think we have not grasped what this means when it comes to heart of God.

heart of GodThese keys are summarized by some quotes I heard from somewhere … (I cannot recall where or from whom … sorry).

There is no person you would not love if you only knew their story.

I think this quote might be from Darin Hufford, though I am not certain.

It is often easy to judge and condemn other people when all we see is their outward actions or behavior.

We all tend to hate people who treat us with spite or anger.

We even get frustrated at loved ones when they do not do what we think they should in the way we want them to.

But God, who is the only being in the universe who knows everything about everyone, loves each and every person unconditionally.

When a person is rude to you, you get angry in return. But if, like God, we saw the fight they had with their spouse that morning, or the way they had been treated by their boss when they showed up late, or how the person they had encountered right before you had cussed them out, we would be able to love that person in spite of their rudeness, because we would know their story. We would know what led up to them being rude.

You do this with yourself all the time. If you are rude to someone, you might feel bad about it afterwards, and you might even apologize. But you probably also know everything that is going on in your life which caused you to react rudely toward someone else. Since you know your own story, you are often able to keep loving yourself despite the things you do.

Since God knows everything about us, He is able to understand what led up to our bad behavior, and He loves us anyway. He loves us in the midst of our bad behavior, because He knows what led up to it.

This is the first key to knowing the heart of God. The second key is like it:

To know all, is to forgive all.

forgivenessI think I might have heard this from Greg Boyd, but again, I cannot be certain.

This second idea is almost exactly the same as the first. God is willing and able to forgive us for everything, in part because He knows all the events and circumstances which led up to whatever sin we committed.

It is not that we get to blame others for what we do, or even that God lets us off the hook for our sin, but that God forgives us for what we do, partly because He knows what led up to it.

Since God is omniscient, He alone knows everything that happened to the rapist which caused that man to become a rapist. He is still at fault for what he did, and made some terrible choices en route to such a terrible crime, but God is able to forgive the rapist because He knows what led up to the man committing such a terrible sin.

So How Then Should We Live?

You and I do not know everything about everyone. So does this mean that we do not have to love them or forgive them?

No, it means that we do need to love and forgive them, for we know that God, the one being who does know everything, loves and forgives.

Our job is to unconditionally love and freely forgive others, despite not knowing everything about them.

If we leave omniscience up to God, we can love all and forgive all, just as God loves and forgives us.

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: forgiveness, Greg Boyd, love, omniscience, sin, Theology of God

Advertisement

Are Greg Boyd and I arguing the same thing?

By Jeremy Myers
10 Comments

Are Greg Boyd and I arguing the same thing?

A couple weeks ago, I announced that I was giving up on my proposal (…again).

Then Chuck McKnight alerted me to this video interview of Greg Boyd by Nate Cunningham.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pBVQmC09Vw&feature=share&t=13m40s

The video should start at the 13:40 mark, but if it doesn’t, that is where the interview begins to talk about Greg Boyd’s proposal on how to understand the violence of God in the Old Testament.

Greg Boyd’s view sounds shockingly similar to the view I am having great difficultly defending from Scripture. I am not at all saying that Greg Boyd is borrowing from me (he doesn’t know me), but it makes me wonder if I was on the right track after all…

Sigh…

06/26/14 UPDATE:

As a follow-up from the comments below, here is a much more in-depth video about Greg Boyd’s proposal (thanks to Soli Deo Gloria):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5CkCGR9YI4&feature=share&t=28m00s

It sounds shockingly similar to what I have been arguing. I promise I have never watched this video before until yesterday (June 25, 2014). The things he is talking about in this video I was writing about over a year ago. But it looks like he gave this Q&A several months before that… So did Greg Boyd steal my book, or did I steal his? Neither!

I was listening to a podcast this morning from 2012 where Raborn Johnson and Steve Sensenig talked about a Theology Rooted in Love, and they were saying many of the same things as well!

You know what I think is going on? This is another example where the Spirit of God moves in the hearts and minds of people all around the world to see similar truths at similar times so that we all work together to teach and learn what the Spirit is saying to the church. It is, as Richard Rohr calls it, the spiritual “symbiosis” between mutual members of the Body of Christ (Things Hidden, 2).

Anyway, watch the videos above, and then let me know what you think in the comments below.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Discipleship, Greg Boyd, violence of God, When God Pled Guilty

Advertisement

Waving the White Flag Before the Onslought of God’s Violence

By Jeremy Myers
58 Comments

Waving the White Flag Before the Onslought of God’s Violence

RETREAT!!!!!

I give up.

I wave the white flag.

I surrender.

I hang my head in defeat.

I slink off into the woods with my tail between my legs.

waving the white flag

Over a year ago I set out to put a theory of mine down on paper about how to reconcile the violence of God with the self-sacrificial non-violence of Jesus Christ. The theory had been percolating in my mind for over a decade, and I finally decided to tackle the issue head on.

After 100,000 words, I give up.

If you read this blog much last year, it is almost the only thing I posted on… up until October 13. Then the posts stopped.

Why?

Because I hit a road block. A pot hole. A speed bump. A dead end.

What was the road block?

Only one little thing called…

…Scripture.

Most of what I had written was a hypothesis, a theory, about how to reconcile the violence of God in the Old Testament with the sacrificial love of Jesus in the New. My book was called When God Pled Guilty, and I was basically arguing that just as Jesus took the sins of the world upon Himself on the cross, so also, somehow, the violent portrayals of God in the Old Testament is God taking the sins of Israel upon Himself through the testimony of inspired Scripture.

In other words, to the outside observer, Jesus hanging on a cross looks guilty (even though He wasn’t). So also, a casual reading of the Old Testament makes God look guilty (even though He isn’t).

I thought that there were enough hints and clues scattered through the Bible to show that the violent portrayals of God in the Old Testament are really just Him taking the blame and shouldering the responsibility for the bad things that happen in this world which He does not prevent from happening.

I thought I had a pretty good theory going…. until I tried to get the theory to match with the violent portrayals of God in Scripture. I soon found that all my theorizing hadn’t gotten me past the 1 yard line… of my own side of the field. I still had 99 yards to go, and the defense was shutting me down faster than the Seahawks shut down Peyton Manning…. (sorry Bronco fans…. I wanted Manning to win too).

Sigh.

Honestly, I should have seen it coming. Want to know why?

My wife was never convinced.

My wife is the greatest theologian and Bible scholar I know.

She has what I call “intuitive theology.” She doesn’t read a lot of books or spend dozens of hours each week studying… but she always knows more theology than I do, and always asks penetrating questions which shoot holes through all my acadamagician ideas (Yes, I just coined that term… it’s a cross between academic and magician… because that’s what most theology is. We throw some verses in a pot, mix in some fancy Greek and Hebrew and a quote from Barth, mix it up, blow smoke in people’s faces, and then Voila! — A book that everyone must buy!)

Anyway, my wife was never convinced of my theory, and so I should have known it was doomed from the start.

Another nail in the coffin though, was when I was recently interviewed by Drew Marshall (listen to the audio) and when I briefly mentioned this idea to him, he asked if I had been smoking marijuana. Ha!

But aside from my wife and Drew, there are a few other reasons I am abandoning this theory.

1. Occam’s Razor

No, this is not a new razor put out by Gillette (Now with 8 Blades!!!).

Occam’s razor is a principle used in science and other problem-solving fields which states the simplest solution is often right. Specifically (according to Wikipedia), Occam’s razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

If you did any reading of my hypothesis, you know that it was not simple. It is not a hypothesis with the fewest assumptions. To the contrary, my hypothesis was so complex, so difficult to grasp, and so full of details, I myself had trouble keeping it all straight in my own head!

Heck, I had already written 100,000 words on the topic, and was only about half-way done. (A typical 200 page book is about 60,000 words.)

2. Modern Disasters

A second reason I am giving up is because ultimately, I had no good explanation for the most difficult question of all… which is why bad things happen today. My hypothesis did very little to provide an explanation for this.

In my (abandoned) theory, I argued that the Old Testament portrays God holding back disasters upon people until, as a result of their great evil, they departed from God’s protective hand. I think that this can actually be seen time and time again in Scripture.

But then, what does this mean for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, or the December 26, 2004 tsunami that killed almost 250,000 people? How does my theory explain people like Hitler and Mussolini getting to live so long while they brought incredible amounts of evil upon the world? How comes they seemingly hadn’t departed from God’s protective hand? 

What did my theory have to say to the millions and millions of little girls who are sold into sex slavery to be raped by as many as 40 or 50 men every single day?

Nothing.

Other than that “God didn’t do it,” my hypothesis could say nothing helpful, loving, kind, or hopeful to such situations or such people caught in a living hell.

3. Couldn’t Even Refute the Calvinists

I am actually not that interested in “refuting” Calvinists, but one area of Calvinistic theology which has always troubled me is the insistence by some that since God is sovereign, He is the cause of everything. If you press them, some will say that while God is not the “author” of evil, He is the primary cause behind all evil, sin, and suffering in the world. (For examples, see John Piper’s quotes here and here.)

John Piper slaughter women and children

Calvinists say that everything that happens in the world is because God’s wills it to happen.

So when a family gets in a car accident and the husband and wife escape, but their children die in a ball of flame when the car explodes, their Calvinistic pastor says that while we don’t understand why such things are God’s will, we must trust that God knows what He is doing because everything happens is according to His will. (This really happened, by the way).

The same argument is applied to Katrina, tsunamis, Hitler, and the raping of little girls.

In my opinion, such a god is monstrous, and is not worthy of worship.

But in the hypothesis I was presenting, I was saying that God “inspired” human authors to write negatively about Him in Scripture so that He could take responsibility for the bad things which happened on earth which He did not prevent from happening.

If that is true, then why I am upset at Calvinists for saying that God caused the bad things that they were ascribing to Him? If my hypothesis is true, isn’t saying “God willed your children to die in a burning car while you watched” the same thing as saying, “God sent a flood upon the earth so that everything which had breath died a horrible death by drowning”?

In my view, of course, God didn’t actually do either thing, but also in my view, God is willing to take the blame for that which He does not prevent, so I shouldn’t get too upset when people blame God for the evil things that happen in the world. After all, God apparently inspired some biblical authors to say the very same things about Him!

If God takes the blame for that which He does not prevent, then it is not wrong to blame God for the horrible events which happen in the world which He does not prevent.

This I could not accept.

4. Back to Ignorance

ignoranceLast month I spent several days reading, editing, revising, and arguing with myself about the 100,000 words I had written.

I got the end (which was actually the middle, because the second half hadn’t been written yet), I realized I could have saved myself 99,997 words, and just written, “I don’t know.”

My fancy 100,000 word answer turned out to be little more than a long way of saying, “I have no idea how to reconcile the violence of God in the Old Testament with the self-sacrificial love of Jesus Christ in the New while still maintaining a conservative view of inspiration and inerrancy.”

Yes, I know. Many of you think I should just abandon inerrancy.

I would really hate to do that.

Pray for Me, Please?

Believe it nor not, this is a crisis of faith for me.

I cannot, CANNOT believe that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is the same God who drowns millions, burns cities, and commands His people to slaughter women, children, and animals.

Something else is going on in the text, but I just cannot figure out what.

My wife, with her intuitive theology, says it is something that cannot ever be figured out.

But my brain, which God gave me, cannot live with the tension. Something must give.

I seem to be left with only two options: Either Jesus truly is violent like God and He was hiding this dark side from us during His ministry, or Jesus truly revealed God to us and the violent portrayals of God in the Old Testament are in error.


The day after writing that post, when I was at work, a new thought occurred to me. A key, I’ll call it. It allowed much of the original hypothesis to remain intact, but organized it all around a central thesis which simplified and clarified the entire idea. 

Although… just as I am writing this paragraph… a new thought has occurred to me…. what if? No. It can’t be.

Hmmm….

A brand new theory has just presented itself…

It seems simple…

Memorable…

Elegant…

…Heretical.

Hmm. I better run it by my wife…

If I decide to share it, you’ll be the first to know!

As a side note, many who read my blog tell me that Greg Boyd is coming out with a book later this year that sounds similar to what I was arguing. When I first heard this, I read some of his blog posts and listened to some of his sermons, and honestly, I cannot tell if he is arguing the same thing or not. I guess we will see. Apparently, if the ideas are similar, he has not hit the same road blocks I have… I look forward to reading his book… I think it is called The Crucifixion of the Warrior God.


Note: I wrote the preceding post last Saturday. As you see at the end, in the process of writing the post, a new idea occurred to me. I thought more about it on Sunday, prayed about it, looked at some key biblical texts, and (maybe most important of all – ha!) talked to my wife. She is still not convinced, but she sees promise in the idea. So, I’m back in the saddle again. Hopefully some new posts on understanding the violence of God will be published soon… I am still not sure my new approach has adequate answers to the four problems I stated above, but I think it is a move in the right direction.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Calvinism, evil, Greg Boyd, Jesus, John Piper, suffering, Theology of Jesus, violence of God, When God Pled Guilty

Advertisement

The Waters of the Flood and ANE Cosmology

By Jeremy Myers
12 Comments

The Waters of the Flood and ANE Cosmology

the waters of the floodIn seeking to understand what is going on in the account of the flood and why the waters that came upon the earth, we must understand the Ancient Near East cosmology. That is, what they thought about how the world worked, and what connections existed between the spiritual realm and the physical realm.

The Waters in the Ancient Near East Cosmology

In reference to the flood, one of the most important points to grasp is that in ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, the waters of the worldโ€”especially large bodies of water such as the ocean and the seaโ€”were considered to be the dwelling places of powerful deities.

Though he goes by different names in different cultures one of the more prominent pagan deities was Yamm, the god of the sea. As such, when we read in numerous places in the Bible about the raging waters, and Godโ€™s control of them, it is not that God is fighting the waves of the ocean, but that God is viewed to be at war with Yamm, the god of storms and chaos (cf. Ps 69:1-2; 74:13; 77:16).

In his book, God at War, Greg Boyd shows the depth and breadth of this imagery throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. In reference to Genesis 1, he says that all ancient Near Eastern people would have understood the imagery of the โ€œthe deepโ€ and โ€œthe watersโ€ which covered the earth.

Such imagery was prevalent in ancient creation myths, and typically, when the gods of these myths set out to bring order to the chaotic waters, they did so through war, battle, and violence (Greg Boyd, ย God at War, 159-164).ย The Hebrew God of Genesis 1, however, needs no violence. He brings order to the chaos with nothing more than His voiceย (Greg Boyd,ย ย God at War, 86).ย He simply commands the anticreation chaotic waters to retreat, and they do! Yamm is shut up behind closed doors by the command of God.

At the end of the creation account, God gives dominion over the earth to mankindโ€”the pinnacle of His creation. The dominion over the earth is understood as the rulership, control, or authority over the earth. But when Adam and Eve sinned, when they fell to the temptation of the serpent, they forfeited their dominion over the earth, and gave that authority to a different โ€œgod of this world.โ€

[Read more…]

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: cosmology, Genesis 1, Genesis 6, Genesis 6-8, Greg Boyd, the flood, the waters, Theology of Angels, Theology of Sin, When God Pled Guilty, Yamm

Advertisement

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »
Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework