The Reformed Olive Press

  Aristaeus, Emmaus, and the Hidden Theme: Tracing Ancient Parallels The New Testament story of the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35) has captivated readers for centuries. Two discouraged disciples leave Jerusalem after Jesus’ death, and a mysterious stranger joins them on the way. He explains the Scriptures, but they do not recognize Him until He breaks bread. Suddenly, their eyes are opened. It is Jesus, risen from the dead. Then, as quickly as He appeared, He vanishes. At first glance, this seems uniquely Christian. Yet when read through the lens of Jewish apocalyptic literature and placed against the backdrop of the ancient world, we see familiar narrative patterns. Other cultures also told stories about divine figures who traveled with humans incognito, who brought hidden knowledge, and who revealed themselves at the climactic moment. Aristaeus and the Gift-Bearing Sons of God Take Aristaeus, son of Apollo in Greek mythology. His story weaves together death, loss, and revelation....

Micah 5: Hezekiah or Jesus? Re-Examining the Ruler from Bethlehem When most Christians read Micah 5, they immediately think of Jesus. After all, Matthew’s Gospel quotes this passage to explain why the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:6). But if we pause and step back into Micah’s own world in the 8th century BCE, the prophecy sounds very different. It is rooted in the political turmoil of the Assyrian crisis and the hope for a faithful Davidic king. The Original Context of Micah 5 Micah was prophesying during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Micah 1:1). His world was collapsing under the shadow of the Assyrian empire. Cities were being destroyed, tribute was being exacted, and Jerusalem itself was under threat. In this setting, Micah 5:2–6 speaks of a ruler from Bethlehem — the hometown of David — who would shepherd God’s people and deliver them from their enemies. The “Bethlehem” reference is less about pinpointing a birthplace and more about invoking the memory...

How Misreading Shakespeare Helps Us Avoid Misreading the Bible Most people know that Shakespeare can be tricky. Early Modern English, cultural references, irony, and layered meaning make his plays rich — but also easy to misread. Hamlet’s “wherefore” doesn’t mean “where,” and Falstaff’s jokes often hinge on Elizabethan social norms. Even minor misunderstandings can completely change how we see a character, a plot, or a theme. The Bible, in many ways, is even more complex. Written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, it uses idioms, poetry, prophecy, and parables. Ancient cultural norms — from covenant law to sacrificial practices — are woven into its narratives. Just as misreading Shakespeare can make a play seem shallow or confusing, misreading the Bible can distort theology, ethics, and understanding of God’s covenant with humanity. Lessons from Shakespeare 1. Language Matters – Words shift meaning over time. Understanding context is crucial. 2. Culture Shapes Meaning – What was obvious to...

  Separate but Equal: A Cautionary Lens on Complementarianism History offers painful lessons about how claims of equality can mask inequality. One of the starkest examples is the U.S. policy of “separate but equal” during segregation. From the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson to Jim Crow laws, segregationists insisted that Black and white Americans could occupy different spaces yet remain “equal in status.” In practice, this was false: facilities, schools, and opportunities for Black citizens were consistently inferior, despite the rhetoric of equality. The supposed fairness of separation hid a systemic hierarchy, preserving power and privilege for one group. A similar dynamic appears in some interpretations of complementarianism, the belief that men and women are equal in value but occupy distinct, divinely ordained roles. For example, men may hold leadership positions in the church or home, while women are expected to submit or refrain from certain forms of authori...

Is Paul a Reinterpreter or False Teacher? An Alternate View Few figures in the New Testament are as influential—and as controversial—as the apostle Paul. For most of church history, his letters have been taken as inspired Scripture, shaping theology, worship, and Christian identity. Yet, throughout the centuries, some believers have questioned Paul’s legitimacy. Was he a faithful apostle of Jesus Christ, a radical reinterpreter of the faith, or a false teacher who hijacked the movement? While many Christians reject this question outright, it is worth exploring what the Bible itself says. Below are key arguments often raised by those who believe Paul should be viewed with suspicion—or at least as someone who reshaped the gospel into something different from what Jesus and His earliest followers taught. Paul vs. Jesus on the Law Jesus declared in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them...

Rethinking “Idols of the Heart”: Ezekiel 14 in Its Prophetic Context Modern readers — influenced by the Church Fathers, Reformers like Calvin, and psychological interpretations — often read Ezekiel 14:3 as a verse about internal sins or abstract idols like pride, greed, or ambition. But is that what the text meant to Ezekiel’s original audience? “Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their hearts and put the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces. Should I indeed let myself be consulted by them?”— Ezekiel 14:3 (ESV) Many Christian traditions have taken “idols in the heart” to mean invisible personal struggles — the things we “love more than God.” While this may serve a devotional purpose, it risks missing the historical and covenantal force of Ezekiel’s words. Ezekiel’s Audience: Elders with Hidden Allegiances Ezekiel is speaking to elders of Israel who have  come to inquire of Yahweh — not humble seekers, but men still loyal to false gods. Though they sat ...