KING HEROD THE EDOMITE: THE TIME ESAU RULED OVER JACOB. The Father Sought To Kill The Word Made Flesh As A Baby Who In Turn Called His Son Herod Antipas A Fox. The cunning of the Edomite did not compare with the one who knew how to be wiser than a serpent and yet gentler than a dove.

That Fox: Herod, Edom, and the Lineage That Opposes the King of kings and Lord of lords.

In Luke 13:32, Jesus makes one of His most pointed remarks about an earthly ruler: "Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.’” The reference to Herod Antipas as a “fox” is more than a dismissive jab—it is layered with prophetic, ethnic, and theological meaning. When understood in light of biblical history and Herod's Edomite heritage, Jesus' words become a direct confrontation of a lineage long opposed to the promise of God. This paper explores the deep significance of this insult and situates it within the broader story of redemptive conflict between Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom, and Christ and all usurping powers.

Herod Antipas: A Legacy of Blood and Treachery

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great, who had been appointed king of Judea by Rome and ruled as a client monarch. Herod the Great was an Idumean—descended from the Edomites, the ancient enemies of Israel and the lineage of Esau, Jacob’s twin brother. Though the Idumeans were forcibly converted to Judaism under the Hasmonean leader John Hyrcanus in the second century BCE, many Jews regarded them with suspicion and disdain.

Herod the Great’s reign was marked by cruelty and paranoia. Most infamously, he ordered the massacre of all male infants in Bethlehem in an attempt to eliminate Jesus (Matt. 2:16). His motive was clear: protect his power by eradicating any potential rival to the throne of David. Ironically, the man appointed by Rome to rule Judea was not a son of David but of Esau—a symbolic and literal usurper.

Herod Antipas, who succeeded his father, inherited not only his throne but also his hostility toward the true King. Though he initially regarded Jesus with curiosity (Luke 23:8), Antipas ultimately saw Him as a threat. In Luke 13:31, Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod wanted Him dead. Jesus’ response was curt and unflinching: “Go and tell that fox…”

Fox vs. Lion: Kingship and Character

In rabbinic literature, the lion is the symbol of nobility and kingship—especially associated with the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:9–10). By contrast, the fox represents cunning, deceit, and lowly status. A famous Talmudic saying (Sotah 13a) states: “Woe to the generation that is led by a fox instead of a lion.”

By calling Herod a fox, Jesus was issuing a scathing critique:

• Herod was not a lion, but a scavenger
• His authority was not divine, but political
• His rule was not messianic, but usurping and illegitimate

Jesus, by contrast, is the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5). The true King of Israel did not ascend by Roman appointment but by divine anointing and fulfillment of prophecy. The contrast between Herod and Jesus is not merely between two rulers—it is between two kingdoms.

Edom in Biblical Prophecy: The Enemy Within

Edom, the nation descended from Esau, is portrayed throughout Scripture as a rival and enemy of Israel. Though the brothers Jacob and Esau reconciled in Genesis 33, their descendants did not.

In the Book of Obadiah, Edom is rebuked for standing aloof while Jerusalem was attacked, for rejoicing over Judah’s fall, and for participating in their destruction:

“You should not have rejoiced over the people of Judah in the day of their ruin… You should not have entered the gate of my people in the day of their calamity… You should not have stood at the crossroads to cut off his fugitives.” (Obadiah 1:12–14)

Edom is judged precisely because of its betrayal of its brother. This fraternal betrayal is echoed in the New Testament, where Herod the Edomite joins Rome in opposing Christ, the Son of David.

The Timeline of Sovereignty: Luke 13 and John 10

Jesus’ full statement in Luke 13:32–33 is profound:

“Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.’”

Jesus is declaring two things:

1. Herod has no power over His destiny.

2. Jesus’ mission will unfold according to divine timing.

This echoes John 10:17–18:

“I lay down my life that I may take it up again… No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.”

Herod, the fox, may plot—but the Lion has already determined the time.

The Edomite Spirit in Every Age

The opposition between Herod and Jesus is not just political or ethnic—it is spiritual. The Edomite spirit represents all false claims to the throne, all enmity to the purposes of God, and all hostility to the seed of promise. Herod stands in the tradition of Esau who despised his birthright, of Edom who betrayed his brother, and of the kings who sought to destroy the Messiah.

Yet Jesus, the true King, does not confront the fox with fear—but with authority. He continues His mission, performs His works, and completes His course. Herod may be a fox, but the kingdom belongs to the Lion.

1 Esdras 4:45 and the Legacy of Edomite Betrayal

An often-overlooked apocryphal verse adds another layer to the Edomite narrative. In 1 Esdras 4:45 (RSV), we read:

"You also vowed to rebuild the temple which the Edomites burned when Judah was devastated by the Chaldeans."

This verse implies that Edom did more than rejoice at Judah's fall—they actively contributed to its desecration. While the canonical texts (like Obadiah) focus on Edom’s complicity and violence during Jerusalem’s destruction, 1 Esdras accuses them directly of burning the temple.

This corroborates the prophetic indictment in Obadiah and further identifies the Edomite line with direct opposition to the house of God. It places Herod's dynasty in historical continuity with a pattern of sacrilege, betrayal, and anti-Judah sentiment.

Thus, when Jesus calls Herod a fox, the insult resonates not just with personal cunning but with national treachery. The fox has always lurked near the temple—scheming, usurping, and burning. But the Lion builds a kingdom that no Edomite flame can destroy.

Conclusion

Jesus’ reference to Herod as a “fox” is not merely a character insult. It is a prophetic, ethnic, and theological statement rooted in Israel’s history with Edom. It calls to mind the age-old enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, between Jacob and Esau, between false kings and the true Messiah. In the face of Herod’s scheming, Jesus asserts His sovereignty. The fox may rule for a time, but it is the Lion who finishes the course—and who rules forever.

SALVATION FROM SIN AND DEATH: TWO STAGE OR PROGRESSIVE? Learn what the Bible Has To Say About The Salvific Process Rather Than Succumb To The Deception And Confusion Of The Different Theories. Rather than take a position and quote Scripture to argue your point of view based on your experience, let Scripture interpret Scripture and see how you align with what the Bible actually states.

 Confession vs. Transformation: Savior First, Then Lord?

Many sincere Christians say something like:

“I accepted Jesus as my Savior when I was young… but years later, I made Him my Lord—and that’s when everything changed.”

What they’re describing is real spiritual transformation—but it raises a theological question:

Can someone be saved by accepting Jesus as Savior while rejecting Him as Lord?

Analyzing the Experience

Let’s break down what’s likely going on:

1. Early Mental Assent Without Heart Surrender

• Many accept Jesus in an intellectual or cultural sense—responding to a sermon, saying a prayer, or checking a doctrinal box.
• But there’s no repentance, no submission, no indwelling evidence.
• Later, they come to a point of true yielding, conviction, and change—which aligns with what Scripture calls conversion or regeneration (e.g., 2 Corinthians 5:17, Ezekiel 36:26).

Theologically, it’s possible that the first “salvation” was just profession—and the second moment was the true new birth.

2. A True Salvation Followed by a Crisis of Surrender

•  Then came a moment of crisis, brokenness, or Holy Spirit filling, where they fully yielded control to Christ.
• This is often described as “making Jesus Lord”—though in truth, He was already Lord; they just stopped resisting.

Biblically, this parallels Romans 12:1–2—presenting one’s body as a living sacrifice. It’s a crisis of consecration, not salvation.

3. Spirit Baptism or Deeper Infilling

• In Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, this “Lordship moment” may coincide with being baptized in the Holy Spirit, often evidenced by tongues.
• Even believers who already follow Christ find a new boldness, clarity, and power when they receive the Spirit in fullness (Acts 4:31; Ephesians 5:18).

This isn’t about salvation per se, but about empowerment, intimacy, and fruitfulness.

Scripture Speaks to This Pattern

• “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46) — many profess Him but don’t submit.
• “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23) — Lordship requires self-denial.
• “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith.” (2 Corinthians 13:5) — suggesting self-deception is possible.

Language Matters Less Than the Reality

Whether someone says:

• “I made Jesus my Lord,” or
• “I surrendered all,” or
• “I received the Holy Spirit in power,”

—what matters is that they experienced a defining encounter with Christ that changed their walk, character, and direction.

It shows that salvation is not about a phrase but a Person—and a life of submission to Him.

"Have You Considered My Servant Job?"

Job: Repenting from Knowledge, Not Experience

Key Verse:

"I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
— Job 42:5–6 (ESV)

1. Job’s Earlier Knowledge Was Doctrinal, Not Experiential

Throughout the book, Job speaks rightly about God:

• He defends God’s justice against his friends.
• He holds to God’s sovereignty.
• He refuses to curse God.

But his knowledge is secondhand—“by the hearing of the ear.”

He knew of God.
He had heard about God.
He believed in God.
But he had not yet encountered God in full revelatory power.

 2. The Shift: From Theology to Theophany

In Job 38–41, God speaks—not through ideas, not through a preacher, but directly.

It is not an argument that changes Job.
It is not a doctrine that humbles him.
It is the presence and voice of God that breaks and transforms him.

Job sees God—not physically, but spiritually. His repentance now flows not from logic, but from awe.

This is the difference between:

• Knowing about Jesus
• And encountering Jesus in glory.

3. Repentance from Knowledge vs. Repentance from Encounter

	Repentance from Knowledge	Repentance from Encounter
Based on	Doctrine, teaching, conscience	Revelation, glory, presence
Produces	Conviction of right and wrong	Awe, brokenness, transformation
Fueled by	Head understanding	Heart exposure to holiness
Language like	“I know this is wrong”	“Woe is me, for I am undone!” (Isa. 6:5)

Biblical examples: Peter denying Jesus, Judas regretting Isaiah’s vision, Paul on Damascus Road

4. Modern Application: The Limits of Knowledge-Based Repentance

Many Christians repent because:

• “The Bible says it’s wrong.”
• “I feel guilty.”
• “I know I should change.”

But few have cried, like Job, “Now my eye sees you… I despise myself… I repent in ashes.”

This kind of repentance is deeper, holier, and lasting because it flows from encounter, not obligation.

5. Job Prefigures New Covenant Transformation

Under the New Covenant, believers receive:

• Not just the law, but the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:6)
• Not just commandments, but the indwelling Christ (Gal. 2:20)
• Not just sermons, but the revelation of Jesus (Eph. 1:17)

Job’s journey shows that repentance by the Spirit comes when:

“The eyes of our heart are enlightened” (Ephesians 1:18).

 Summary of Job

Job illustrates the critical truth that:

• Head knowledge can produce morality, but
• Only divine encounter produces repentance that leads to transformation.

That’s why we must preach for encounter, worship in Spirit, and lead people into the presence, not merely instruct their minds.

Let's Contemplate The Words of Jesus

Two Stages of Spiritual Birth in John 3 “Seeing” vs. “Entering” 

Key Text:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above [ἄνωθεν], he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
— John 3:3 (WEB)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
— John 3:5 (WEB)

1. Two Conditions, Two Outcomes

Verse	Condition	Result
John 3:3	Born from above (ἄνωθεν)	Can see the kingdom
John 3:5	Born of water and Spirit	Can enter the kingdom

Jesus is not simply repeating Himself—He is deepening the revelation:

• Seeing is the first grace of awakening—recognizing there is light.
• Entering is the second grace—walking through into the realm of that light

2. Analogy: The House with Lights On

Imagine a man walking down a dark road at night. Ahead, he sees:

• A house glowing with warmth.
• The lights are on.
• There’s life inside.

This is like someone who begins to perceive the kingdom:

• They see truth.
• They sense the Spirit.
• They’re drawn to it.

But seeing the house doesn’t mean he’s inside.

To enter, he must:

• Approach the door.
• Be washed (cleansed).
• Be invited in and filled (Spirit).

This is baptismal language: water and Spirit = cleansing and indwelling.

3. Biblical Pattern of Seeing vs. Entering

Event	Seeing (Awareness)	Entering (Participation)
Moses and the burning bush	He saw the bush (Exod. 3:2)	Then heard God speak from it (3:4)
Isaiah’s vision	Saw the Lord (Isa. 6:1)	Was cleansed, then sent (6:7–8)
John the Baptist’s crowd	Saw Jesus (John 1:29)	Later followed Him (John 1:37–39)
Disciples at Pentecost	Heard the sound, saw fire (Acts 2:2–3)	Were filled with the Spirit (2:4)

There is always a threshold between seeing and entering—a transition from illumination to indwelling.

4. Water and Spirit — The New Creation Gateway

• Water = cleansing, repentance, submission (John the Baptist’s baptism, Acts 2:38)
• Spirit = rebirth, empowerment, adoption (Romans 8:15–16)

To enter is to be recreated, re-sourced, and re-identified:

• Not just observing the kingdom’s reality,
• But living inside it, moved by its laws and filled with its King.

5. Why This Matters

Many stop at seeing:

• They feel stirred in worship.
• They understand truth mentally.
• They admire Jesus or the Bible.

But unless they are born again by water and the Spirit, they cannot enter in:

• No transformation.
• No indwelling power.
• No access to the kingdom's inner life.

 “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34)—but not in it yet.

Summary

John 3 is not redundant—it is revelatory:

• First, Jesus says: You must be born from above to see the kingdom.
• Then He says: You must be born of water and Spirit to enter it.

The Spirit leads people through both:

• The Spirit leads people through both:
• From illumination to regeneration,
• From fascination to transformation,

💡 Conclusion💡

Clearly there is undeniable evidence in the Scriptures of two stages pertaining to salvation, which are in reality a progressive experience as one begins the journey on the way to the reality of the truth that leads to life. 

Confession vs transformation equates to the experience of Job, where he had heard of the message of repentance and faith towards God but had yet to encounter the Lord, so that he might be transformed. Jesus himself points out the path, the way to life, when he says that there are those who see the kingdom, and there are those who enter the Kingdom. The question is which one are you—a hearer who hears and confesses, or one who sees, enters and acknowledges Jesus is Lord!

CHRISTIAN ZIONISM vs BIBLICAL CONTINUITY: Parallels Between John 15 and Romans 11. These passages of Scripture lead to different conclusions than when interpreting Romans 11 in the light of current events. Interpreting Scripture with Scripture is the only way we can arrive at the truth.

 When reading the Scriptures a paradox appears once having read John 15 and encountering Romans 11. Jesus speaks of the vine. Paul speaks of an olive tree. Is there any connection?

This question strikes at the heart of the Christian Zionist vs. biblical continuity debate. 

The following unpacks Romans 11 and John 15 together, and examine how they relate. What emerges is a coherent and liberating message when read without theological overlays.

The Key Parallel: Branches, Grafting, and Abiding

Both Romans 11 and John 15 use the metaphor of branches—but with different emphases:

Theme	Romans 11	John 15
Image	Olive tree	Vine
Focus	Grafting (Jews & Gentiles)	Abiding (Believers & Christ)
Warning	Don’t be arrogant; fear being cut off	Those who don’t abide will be cast out
Inclusion	Gentiles grafted into Israel	Believers in Christ bear fruit
Condition	Faith (standing by it)	Remaining (abiding) in Christ
Purpose	To provoke Israel to jealousy and show God’s mercy	To bear fruit and glorify the Father

Where Christian Zionism Goes Wrong

Christian Zionists often interpret Romans 11 as a prophecy of the national salvation of ethnic Israel apart from the Church. But that view requires forcing Paul’s metaphor of the olive tree to say something it doesn’t.

They separate the “natural branches” (ethnic Israel) and “wild branches” (Gentiles), claiming God has two peoples: Israel and the Church. But John 15 clearly shows Jesus saying, “I am the vine, you are the branches”—and anyone not abiding in Him is cast away, no matter their origin.

This undermines Christian Zionist interpretations in three ways:

1. There is only one root (Romans 11:18) — Jesus Himself (cf. Isaiah 11:1, Revelation 22:16).

2. Only those in Christ remain—whether Jew or Gentile. There’s no parallel covenant for unbelieving Jews.

3. Being a natural branch doesn’t exempt one from being cut off (Romans 11:20–22).

 Reading Romans 11 in Context

Romans 11:1–6 — Paul says God has not rejected His people (Jews), because a remnant still believes—like Paul himself.

Romans 11:17–24 — Some Jews were broken off because of unbelief; Gentiles were grafted in because of faith. But either can be grafted in or out—based on faith.

Romans 11:25–27 — The most misunderstood part:

"All Israel will be saved..." (v.26)

Many take this to mean national Israel will be saved in the end, but Paul is quoting Isaiah 59:20–21, which refers to those “who turn from transgression”—not an unconditional guarantee to the whole nation.

"All Israel" here is best understood as the full remnant of Jews and Gentiles in Christ—the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). Paul is describing how Israel is being saved: through mercy shown to Gentiles, provoking Jews to believe.

Reading John 15 in Context

John 15:1–8 — Jesus says He is the true vine. Only those who abide in Him bear fruit. Those who do not are cut off, withered, and thrown into the fire.

Jesus is replacing the idea of national privilege (e.g. “we are Abraham’s descendants”) with spiritual union with Himself.

Even the “fruit” metaphor ties directly to Romans 11:

“If the root is holy, so are the branches.” (Rom 11:16)
“By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit.” (John 15:8)

The connection is unmistakable: no spiritual fruit, no remaining in the tree/vine—regardless of your natural lineage.

The Integration

• Romans 11 teaches inclusion by faith, exclusion by unbelief.
• John 15 teaches remaining in Christ is the condition for life.
• Both deny the idea of a guaranteed national or ethnic salvation.
• Both affirm the unity of God’s people in the root or vine—Christ.
• Both warn: no one is safe in their assumptions.

 Final Implication

Those who claim Romans 11 guarantees a national Jewish revival without Christ must ignore the warnings in John 15:

“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away…” (John 15:2)
“Without Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

The only Israel that will be saved is the Israel of faith, grafted into the Messiah, bearing fruit by abiding in Him—not by race or land or law.

 Conclusion

Romans 11 and John 15 are harmonized in Christ. Both dismantle the myth of ethnic privilege and emphasize faith, fruit, and abiding as the true markers of God’s people.

The root is not Abraham. It is Christ.
The branches are not national entities. They are believers.
The covenant is not with land or genealogy. It is with the Son.

This truth liberates. It reveals that salvation is not inherited—but offered to all who will abide in the Vine.

ESCAPING THEOLOGICAL PROGRAMMING: Littlefield’s Journey. A critical look at Rev. Matthew Littlefield’s move from Dispensationalism to partial truth—exposing lingering programming and the need for deeper revelation.

From Dispensationalism to Progressive Revelation: An Analysis of Rev. Matthew Littlefield's Theological Journey.

Rev. Matthew Littlefield has recently written about his journey from being raised in a church environment, discovering the emptiness of the world, and then encountering Jesus Christ, ultimately returning to the Christian fold. In this process, he has had to confront various misconceptions that have permeated the church environment. His tone is deeply personal, charting a shift in his eschatological views after years of immersion in Scripture and critical theological engagement.

Yet, as transparent and courageous as his journey has been, the narrative also reveals that his transformation remains partial. He has moved from unquestioning adherence to Dispensationalism to a more integrated, historically aware reading of Scripture, but he continues to operate within the constraints of inherited dogma—particularly regarding Trinitarian theology and the remnants of futurist eschatology. This analysis seeks to honor the sincerity of his progression while identifying the deeper layers of programming that still shape his interpretive framework. It also aims to trace where such a journey may ultimately lead if carried through to its logical, Spirit-led conclusion.

The Nature of Human Programming and Religious Conditioning

Every human being, regardless of background or belief, is subject to deep psychological and cultural programming. It begins in infancy, with language acquisition—our first filter of reality. From there, acculturation teaches the child to conform to the values, fears, and assumptions of their environment: first the home, then the community, and eventually the world. In this complex dance of assimilation, individuals form their belief systems not in a vacuum of truth-seeking, but in an environment of inherited authority.

Religious belief is no exception. Theology is often absorbed before it is ever examined. In the case of Littlefield, his early formation in Pentecostal and Baptist contexts saturated him with Dispensationalist assumptions. These were not presented as interpretive options, but as divine certainties: that Israel is God’s prophetic timepiece, that a pre-tribulational rapture is imminent, and that certain geopolitical events are fulfillments of biblical prophecy. These ideas were not merely doctrinal; they were deeply embedded cultural narratives.

The Spark of Awakening: Immersion in the Scriptures

What distinguishes Littlefield from many who remain in inherited paradigms is his commitment to read the Bible for himself—systematically and devotionally. His decision to prioritize Scripture over novels, and his method of reading both Old and New Testaments daily, became the primary instrument of his transformation. It is often in the collision between sincere reading and ingrained theology that reformation begins.

Littlefield discovered, as many do, that the Bible does not say what Dispensationalism claims it says. The rapture is not plainly taught. The so-called "seven-year tribulation" is not laid out as a future event. The nation of Israel is not exalted above other peoples in the New Testament. He began to see one unified people of God throughout Scripture—defined not by ethnicity, but by faith in Christ.

This immersion in Scripture brought about a narrative awareness. He saw how the Old is fulfilled in the New, how promises and types converge in Christ, and how the Bible is not a disconnected collection of prophecies but a unified redemptive arc. This insight marked a significant departure from the chart-based, headline-driven theology he was raised in.

The Courage to Question: Exiting Dispensationalism

Littlefield's rejection of Dispensationalism is courageous, especially in circles where questioning the prophetic status of modern Israel or denying the rapture is tantamount to heresy. He admits to having once viewed war in the Middle East as proof of the end times and having assumed a binary of faithful rapture-ready Christians versus a world under judgment.

His reevaluation of these views coincided with influence from Bible college, mentorship under a non-Dispensationalist pastor, and sustained theological reading. He names figures like Graeme Goldsworthy and Walter Kaiser as instrumental in helping him see the Bible as a progressively unfolding narrative centered on Christ rather than national Israel.

The Lingering Chains: Trinitarian and Futurist Programming

Despite his growth, Littlefield’s article reveals unresolved areas where inherited doctrine still shapes his theology. He appeals to Trinitarian logic in critiquing Dispensationalism's "two brides" error, stating that since God is one in three persons, assigning Israel to the Father and the Church to Christ implies divine polygamy. This reveals that while he has challenged eschatological systems, he has not examined the foundation of Nicene theology that defines God in philosophical categories foreign to Scripture.

The Trinity, as articulated by post-apostolic councils, is a formulation rooted in Greek metaphysical constructs—"persons," "essence," "substance"—absent from the apostolic writings. Littlefield refers to this framework as if it is self-evident and biblically grounded, rather than historically developed. This suggests that his hermeneutic, while maturing, still operates within a Western systematic grid that filters his reading of Scripture.

Similarly, though he acknowledges the possibility that the "seven-year tribulation" may have been fulfilled during the Jewish-Roman war of AD 66–73, he still treats the category itself as legitimate. This concept originates from an isolated and speculative interpretation of Daniel 9:27, artificially separated from its covenantal context. Dispensationalism severs the 70th week from the previous 69 and projects it into a future timeline, yet Littlefield still refers to it as if it has interpretive value. This inconsistency reveals how the vocabulary of a system can persist long after the logic has been abandoned.

Romans 11 and the Illusion of Ethnic Destiny

Littlefield states that he will address Romans 11 in another post, admitting that Christian Zionists use it as their final theological stronghold. His decision to defer this discussion is significant. Romans 11 is often misread to suggest a future national conversion of Israel, but it can be better understood in its immediate context: as a warning against Gentile arrogance, a declaration of the mystery of God’s mercy toward all people, and a reaffirmation that "all Israel" refers to the fullness of God's elect from both Jew and Gentile.

By failing to unpack Romans 11 fully, Littlefield leaves an open door to Zionist reinterpretation. This, again, reflects that his journey is not yet complete. Until he definitively rejects the idea of a dual covenantal destiny—one for the Church and another for ethnic Israel—he remains susceptible to relapse into modified forms of Dispensationalism.

 Where the Journey Leads If Finished

If Littlefield continues on his present path—reading Scripture independently of inherited grids, discerning typological fulfillment, and resisting cultural pressure—his theological clarity will deepen. Several conclusions are likely to emerge:

1.      A Non-Trinitarian, Christ-centered Monotheism: The New Testament affirms that God is one. Jesus is the manifestation of God in flesh, and the Holy Spirit is His presence (living and abiding in Him—see Proverbs 30:3-4), not a distinct person floating around in the ether. The Trinity, as traditionally taught, is an accretion of later philosophy onto a Hebraic revelation.

2.      Fulfillment of Daniel’s Seventieth Week: The entirety of Daniel’s 69 weeks culminates in Christ—His baptism, ministry, death, and the covenantal judgment on Jerusalem, with a future seven-year period remaining prior to His return. But this is not the Great Tribulation. Tribulation, in its historical sense, has occurred and is still occurring around the world for Christians.

3.      Israel as a Spiritual Reality, Not a Political Entity: The Israel of God is composed of those in Christ, not those in geopolitical structures. The Church is not a replacement but a continuation of God’s people—the olive tree into which Gentiles are grafted.

4.      The End as Revelation, Not Escape: Eschatology is not only about predicting the Antichrist or escaping tribulation. It is about Christ being revealed, the saints enduring, and the Kingdom advancing. The obsession with prophetic timelines will give way to a love of righteousness and readiness to be changed in a twinkling of an eye.

5.      The Spirit Over System: The voice of the Spirit must be allowed to override the creeds, councils, and commentaries of man. The more Littlefield yields to Scripture itself, the less he will need to lean on systematic theology to explain Scripture away.

The Obstacle: Theological Inertia and Tribal Identity

Littlefield’s journey will not be without resistance. Institutions are built on consensus. Most Christians do not read the Bible to find truth, but to reinforce the categories they already trust. Stepping outside the doctrinal matrix threatens one’s belonging—relationally, vocationally, and intellectually. But truth demands this price.

Every stage of awakening isolates the seeker further from their former tribe. First, one questions the rapture. Then the uniqueness of Israel; then the seven-year tribulation; then why the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible when the Apostles baptized people into Jesus’ name. Each step peels away another layer of programming. The final steps involve questioning the very architecture of religious orthodoxy: the creeds, the councils, the confessions.

If Littlefield dares to continue, he will lose credibility in certain circles, but he will gain something greater: the ability to see and speak what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

Here is a summary of his trajectory:

Belief	Then (Dispensationalist)	Now (Post-Bible immersion)
Israel’s role	Central in God’s future plan	No longer unique—only believers in Jesus are God’s people
7-year tribulation	Future, worldwide, related to modern Israel	Possibly fulfilled in AD 66–73
Rapture	Pre-trib rapture before tribulation	No biblical support—only one second coming
Hermeneutics	Literalist and chart-based	Narrative-based, typological, context-sensitive
View of prophecy	Predictive and headline-driven	Fulfilled typologically in Christ and church history

Conclusion: A Voice in Mid-Transition

Rev. Matthew Littlefield is a man in motion. He has left behind the prophetic idolatry of Dispensationalism (where time is divided into seven epochs) and embraced a more Christ-centered, narrative-rich approach to Scripture. But he still carries the vocabulary and assumptions of the system he left.

He affirms the Trinity without exploring its extra-biblical origins. He questions the secret rapture but retains tribulation language. He resists Zionism but postpones engagement with Romans 11. These tensions are not condemnations; they are signs of a sincere seeker moving from indoctrination to revelation.

Should he finish the race, Littlefield may yet become more than a critic of Dispensationalism. He may become a clarion voice that exposes all theological constructs that hinder the knowledge of God. He may teach others not simply to reject systems, but to see Christ afresh—outside the constraints of creed, culture, and tradition.

In so doing, he will not only be liberated himself. He will become an agent of liberation for others: a man who escaped the labyrinth, not by taking a different path within it, but by rising above it entirely.

Let him who has ears to hear, hear.

DEEPER EXPERIENCES: CONVERSION BEYOND MERE INTELLECTUAL ASSENT. Denial Of Deeper Or More Enriching Subsequent Experiences Inhibits Spiritual Transformation In Those Claiming To Be Christians. This denial is mostly prominent among the proud and academically minded not those who seek truth.

Three Possibilities Behind the “Second Experience” Testimony

Many believers describe a moment when everything changed after an earlier confession of faith. This second moment is often framed as “making Jesus Lord,” “receiving the Spirit,” or “truly changing.” Theologically and experientially, this can be understood in three categories:

1. The First Was Mere Profession — The Second Was True Conversion

Explanation:
The individual “accepted Jesus” in childhood or at a youth rally, but it was not a regeneration event. There was no inward change, no fruit, no conviction of sin. Years later, they encountered Christ in power and truth, repented, and were truly born again.

Evidence:

• No spiritual growth between “first” and “second” experience
• No real hunger for the Word or fellowship
• The second experience brought immediate transformation (new heart, new habits, new direction)

Key Scriptures:

• Matthew 7:21–23 (Lord, Lord… I never knew you)
• Luke 8:13 (rocky soil—temporary belief without root)
• 2 Corinthians 5:17 (if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation)

Implication:
The first event was not salvation—only the second was. This is often the case for cultural Christians or those raised in church who later encounter the living Christ.

2. The First Was Real Salvation — The Second Was Consecration or Surrender

Explanation:
The person was truly saved earlier but resisted Lordship, yielded to the flesh, or lived in spiritual immaturity. Later, through a crisis or conviction, they fully surrendered to Christ’s Lordship and began walking in obedience, often for the first time with joy and boldness.

Evidence:

• Some signs of spiritual life between the two points (e.g., conviction, prayer, struggle with sin)
• The second experience brought freedom, empowerment, focus, and deeper intimacy with God
• Fruit increased but salvation was present beforehand

Key Scriptures:

• Romans 12:1–2 (present your bodies as a living sacrifice)
• Galatians 5:16–25 (walking by the Spirit vs. gratifying the flesh)
• 1 Corinthians 3:1–3 (carnal Christians—saved, yet immature)

Implication:
The person was saved but lacked discipleship or yieldedness. The second experience was a crisis of consecration, not regeneration.

3. The First Was Conversion — The Second Was Spirit Baptism (Empowerment)

Explanation:
The believer was saved and living for God, but had not yet received the baptism in the Holy Spirit as described in Acts. The second experience was a Pentecost-like infilling, often accompanied by tongues, prophecy, or new boldness in prayer, evangelism, or worship.

Evidence:

• Clear spiritual life and fruit before the second experience
• The second brought empowerment, gifts, supernatural boldness
• Often associated with Acts-like manifestations (tongues, prophecy, healing)

Key Scriptures:

• Acts 8:14–17 (Samaritan believers received the Spirit later)
• Acts 19:1–6 (disciples of John received the Holy Spirit after believing)
• Luke 24:49 / Acts 1:8 (wait for power from on high)

Implication:
The second experience was not for salvation but for power and service. The believer goes from “born of the Spirit” to “baptized in the Spirit.”

Summary Table

Category	Nature of First Experience	Nature of Second Experience	Result
1. False Conversion to True	Mere profession, no regeneration	True salvation	Born again, transformed
2. Real Salvation to Surrender	Genuine salvation	Full consecration, surrender	Fruitfulness, freedom, maturity
3. Salvation to Spirit Baptism	Regeneration and obedience	Empowerment, infilling, gifts	Power for witness, deeper intimacy

SAVIOR AND LORD: WHY THE SECOND SURRENDER CHANGES EVERYTHING. Discover Why True Transformation Happens When Jesus Is Not Only Your Savior—But Your Lord. The second surrender changes everything.

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” — Luke 9:23 (ESV)

Many believers tell a story that goes something like this: “I accepted Jesus as my Savior when I was a child… but years later, I made Him my Lord—and that’s when everything changed.” These testimonies are often filled with vivid detail—of tears shed, addictions broken, prayers answered, or a new boldness to live for Christ. Something shifted. Something awakened. And yet, this experience raises a theological question: Can someone be saved by accepting Jesus as Savior while still resisting Him as Lord?

Let’s walk through the biblical and spiritual implications of this so-called “second surrender”—and why it’s not a contradiction, but often a confirmation that true transformation has taken root.

1. The First Response: Savior Without Lordship?

It’s not uncommon for people to initially respond to Jesus from a place of emotion, intellectual belief, or social pressure. Perhaps they prayed a “sinner’s prayer,” responded to an altar call, or grew up attending church. But if we examine this moment closely, we may find that there was no real repentance, no death to self, and no fruit of regeneration.

Jesus said plainly, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). He was warning us that mere profession of faith is not salvation. It’s possible to acknowledge Jesus with our lips while keeping the throne of our hearts for ourselves.

In these cases, the “first surrender” may have been little more than a profession—what the Bible refers to as having a “form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:5). Years later, after conviction, brokenness, or awakening, that person encounters the true Jesus—not merely a savior from hell, but a King who demands full allegiance. And that’s when the new birth happens.

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” — 2 Corinthians 5:17

2. The Second Surrender: The Crisis of Consecration

In other cases, a person may have genuinely received Christ at an earlier stage—believing with sincerity, experiencing forgiveness, and beginning a walk with God. However, they may still live with divided loyalties. Christ is in their life, but not yet at the center of it. They’re saved—but self-directed.

Then a crisis comes. It may be external—suffering, loss, disappointment—or internal: a hunger for more of God, a desire for holiness, a revelation of spiritual powerlessness. And in that moment, they yield fully. They surrender in a way they never had before. Not just to be saved, but to be spent.

This is the Romans 12:1 moment: “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” It’s not a salvation experience, but a consecration experience. It’s the moment when you not only trust Jesus for your eternity, but entrust Him with your everything.

In this surrender, there is a holy exchange: your will for His, your plans for His purpose, your strength for His Spirit.

3. Spirit Baptism: Empowerment to Walk It Out

Especially in Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions, this second surrender often coincides with an infilling of the Holy Spirit—what some call the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). For many believers, this is not about being saved, but being empowered. It’s the moment when the dry bones of discipline are set ablaze with divine desire.

When a believer is filled with the Spirit, they often describe:

• Boldness in witness (Acts 4:31)
• Increased sensitivity to sin
• Deeper intimacy with God
• A renewed hunger for Scripture
• Power for service and deliverance

Paul exhorts believers not only to be saved, but to “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). This is an ongoing command. Surrendering to the Lordship of Christ includes letting His Spirit fully inhabit us—not just our Sunday mornings, but our thoughts, conversations, finances, and time.

4. Scripture Demands Both: Savior and Lord

The idea that Jesus can be your Savior but not your Lord is a false dichotomy. The New Testament consistently links salvation with submission. The very word “Lord” (Greek kurios) implies authority, ownership, and rulership.

• “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” — Romans 10:9

• “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” — Luke 6:46

Confession is meaningless without obedience. Calling Him “Lord” must result in following Him as Master.

That doesn’t mean perfection—but it does mean direction. The mark of a true believer is a trajectory of increasing surrender, not comfortable rebellion.

5. The Fruit of the Second Surrender

When someone surrenders fully to Christ’s Lordship, several things begin to manifest:

• Obedience becomes joy (John 14:15)
• Old habits lose their power (Romans 6:14)
• Service replaces selfishness (Galatians 5:13)
• Identity becomes rooted in Christ (Galatians 2:20)
• The cross becomes central (Luke 9:23)

These are not the fruit of religious effort, but of relational union. The second surrender doesn’t merely intensify Christianity—it authenticates it. It reveals that Jesus is not merely a ticket to heaven, but the Treasure of the heart.

From Profession to Possession

When someone says, “I made Jesus Lord,” what they often mean is, “I finally stopped resisting Him.” It’s not that Jesus became something He wasn’t—but that they became who they were always meant to be: a disciple.

The gospel invitation is not just “believe” but follow. Not just “come to Me” but “deny yourself and take up your cross.” (Luke 9:23)

So, what about you?

Has your walk with Christ been marked only by a profession, or by a transformation? Have you invited Jesus to save you from sin’s penalty, but resisted Him as King over your desires, plans, and priorities?

The second surrender changes everything—not because Jesus changes, but because we finally let Him change us.

“For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” — Romans 14:9

LORDSHIP SALVATION IS A TERM THAT MANY MAY HAVE HEARD BUT DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW IT COME ABOUT. The Lordship Controversy, Occurring In The Late Twentieth Century, Involved A Debate Among Dispensational Theologians About Salvation And Repentance. "Free Grace" theologians denied the necessity of repentance and obedience, while Calvinistic theologians emphasized that salvation requires repentance and faith. This controversy highlighted the importance of Christ's lordship and criticized the antinomian view promoted by the Free Grace movement.

 ⚖️ Ironies in the Lordship, Grace, and Spirit-Baptism Debates

1. Lordship Salvation Is Emphasized Even by Those Who Theologically Reject It

• MacArthur and Sproul (Calvinists) strongly emphasize that Christ must be received as Lord and Savior, and that true salvation produces obedience, holiness, fruit, and perseverance.

• Ironically, nearly every evangelical preacher, including many who claim Free Grace Theology, still urges people to “make Jesus Lord of your life” or “surrender to Christ.”

• So in pastoral practice, Lordship is preached almost universally, even by those who, in theory, disagree with it.

👉 Conclusion: Lordship is instinctively understood as part of real salvation—even when denied theologically. People know intuitively: if there’s no transformation, there’s no true salvation (2 Corinthians 5:17; Luke 6:46).

---

2. Free Grace Theology Is Rarely Practiced as Purely as It's Theorized

• Hardcore Free Grace theologians (like Zane Hodges or Bob Wilkin) insist that faith alone saves, and any insistence on surrender or repentance is “adding works.”

• But in most churches—even those who claim “grace only”—pastors still call for repentance, obedience, and fruit as evidence.

• Most Christians understand (whether they admit it or not) that justification by faith does not mean justification without evidence (James 2:17).

👉 Conclusion: Grace-only theology often exists more online and in print than it does in actual pulpits.

---

3. Everyone Talks About the “Second Experience,” Even If They Deny It Exists

• Many Reformed, Baptist, or evangelical churches officially reject a separate baptism in the Holy Spirit.

• And yet, they still describe crisis moments, breakthroughs, "receiving power", or “a new level of anointing” in testimonies or revivals.

• Even D.L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon, though not Pentecostal, described dramatic post-conversion encounters with the Holy Spirit that radically empowered them.

• Meanwhile, Pentecostals speak of “initial Spirit baptism” with tongues, and then multiple fillings and fresh outpourings (Acts 4:31; Ephesians 5:18).

• Revivalist and Keswick holiness preacher, South African Reformed Minister Andrew Murray sought the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and learned that he needed to be filled with the Spirit every day to accomplish his tasks.

👉 Conclusion: Many believers experience second (or third, or fourth) encounters with God or daily fillings of His Spirit—even when their theology says there's only one.

---

4. Continuationist Experience vs. Cessationist Confession

• Cessationists like MacArthur claim that tongues and prophecy have ceased, yet:

  • They urge believers to “listen to the Spirit’s leading.”

  • They affirm “illumination of Scripture by the Spirit.”

  • They speak of calling, conviction, and divine direction—all of which are Spirit-led phenomena.

👉 Conclusion: Cessationists use charismatic language to describe their spiritual lives, while denying the gifts that language came from.

---

5. The People Most Afraid of “Experience” Have Often Had Profound Ones

• The theological resistance to tongues, prophecy, or “second experiences” often stems from fear of emotion, chaos, or false manifestations.

• Yet many who are cautious have had personal encounters—quiet, unspoken, or unacknowledged—that shaped their lives powerfully.

👉 Conclusion: Experience is inescapable. The issue is not whether experience is valid, but how it aligns with Scripture and bears fruit.

---

🧭 What This All Means

The debates persist because different groups emphasize different starting points:

• Reformed: Sovereignty, justification, and monergism (God alone acts).

• Pentecostal: Spirit-empowered living, manifestation, and holiness.

• Grace-only: Assurance, non-merit, and security.

• Charismatic: Relationship, gifts, and inner healing.

But in real Christian life, people blend:

• They call Jesus Lord while claiming grace alone.

• They seek the Spirit’s power while denying a second baptism.

• They pray for healing while saying miracles have ceased.

---

✅ Closing Reflection

Hopefully, you may have discerned this:

The deeper reality of the Spirit transcends denominational boundary lines and systematic theologies.

• Most believers hunger for real transformation.

• They long for communion with God that goes beyond doctrine.

• And when faced with spiritual dryness, they often seek the second experience—whether they call it that or not.

So let's face the truth here: Lordship is proclaimed, grace is cherished, and the Spirit is sought—even if theology lags behind reality.