The Reformed Olive Press

  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 Never Quoted Jesus Directly Unlike the other New Testament writers, Paul never quotes Jesus directly or appeals to His teachings as authority. While the Gospels preserve Jesus’ sayin...

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 ...

T he Bible Isn’t Obsessed with Your Thoughts: Rethinking Sin Beyond the Church Fathers For centuries, Christian theology has often equated sin with the hidden realm of the mind—impure thoughts, fleeting desires, inner lusts, or momentary anger. This internalized, guilt-ridden view of sin has shaped much of Western Christianity. But is it actually rooted in the Bible? Short answer: No. The biblical concept of sin—especially in the Hebrew Scriptures—is far more concerned with external behavior and how one treats others in community than with what modern people would call “inner thoughts.” The shift to defining sin as internal, mental, or emotional came later, shaped largely by Greek philosophy and Platonic dualism, not Moses or Jesus. Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Social, Tangible, Real In the Old Testament, sin is concrete. It's stealing, oppressing the poor, lying in court, committing adultery, or plotting violence. It’s about actions that violate the covenant and harm one’s neighbor. E...

Why the Gospels Are Not Eyewitness Testimony For centuries, many Christians have been told that the four gospels are direct eyewitness accounts—Matthew and John saw it all themselves, Mark got his notes from Peter, and Luke carefully interviewed those who were there. But when we actually look at how the gospels were written, they don’t fit the pattern of firsthand memoirs. This doesn’t mean they’re worthless or untrue; it means they belong to a different category: theological narrative. They Were Anonymous at First Our earliest gospel manuscripts don’t say “by Matthew” or “by John.” The titles we see today were added later, around the second century, when church tradition began attributing authorship. Ancient eyewitness writings usually identify the writer in the opening lines—something the gospels never do. They Were Written Long After the Events Jesus died around 30 CE. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written around 70 CE; Matthew and Luke followed in the 80s–90s; John came around 90–...

Did the Israelites Really Live in Egypt? Exploring the Historical Evidence for the Exodus The story of the Israelites living in Egypt and their dramatic escape — the Exodus — is one of the most famous narratives in the Bible. But outside of the biblical text itself, can history and archaeology confirm that this event really happened? What do the records and ruins tell us about the Israelites in Egypt and their journey out? The Biblical Account in Brief According to the Bible, the Israelites descended into Egypt during a famine, grew into a large population, became enslaved by the Egyptians, and then, under Moses’ leadership, escaped in a dramatic series of events including plagues and a parting of the Red Sea. This story has shaped Jewish and Christian faiths for millennia. But is there independent evidence for it? What Do Egyptian Records Say? Interestingly, no Egyptian inscriptions or official documents mention the Israelites or a mass exodus of slaves. The Egyptians were meticulous ...