My new book, available now! Take a journey through the first 400 years of Church History in only 40 days!

Luke J. Wilson | 28th February 2025 | Early Church

The Bible is often described as “God-breathed,” a phrase taken from 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” But what does it mean for Scripture to be “inspired,” and how did the books of the Bible come to be recognised as part of the canon — the authoritative collection of writings that make up the Bible? Were they really “decided” at the Council of Nicaea, as some popular myths claim? Table of Contents Understanding Biblical Inspiration What is the Canon? The Septuagint and the Deuterocanonical Books How Were the Books of the Bible Selected? Why Were Some Books Excluded? Has the Bible Been Edited or Corrupted Over Time? Did the Church Decide the Canon at Nicaea? Conclusion Further Reading Understanding Biblical Inspiration A helpful analogy for inspiration is that of an architect designing a great building. Consider St. Paul’s Cathedral in London — Christopher Wren was the architect who planned and designed it, yet he himself did not lay a single brick. Instead, countless workers followed his design to bring the cathedral into existence. Similarly, God is the ultimate author of Scripture, yet He worked through human writers to bring His message to us. The Holy Spirit inspired them, guiding their words while allowing their personalities, historical context, and literary style to remain evident in their writings. This means that while the Bible is written by human hands, it carries divine authority because its true source is God Himself. The process of inspiration does not mean God dictated each word like a secretary taking notes, or by possessing the authors, but rather that He ensured the truth of His message was faithfully recorded by the biblical writers. What is the Canon? The word “canon” comes from the Greek κανών (kanōn), meaning “rule” or “measuring rod.” In the context of the Bible, the canon refers to the official list of books recognised as divinely inspired and authoritative for faith and practice. The canon developed over time as the early church recognised which writings carried divine authority. The Old Testament canon was largely settled by the time of Jesus, based on the Hebrew Scriptures used in the Jewish community. The New Testament canon, however, was formed through a process of discernment over several centuries, as the church recognised which writings were truly inspired and authoritative. The Septuagint and the Deuterocanonical Books The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, produced in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC. It was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews and later by early Christians, including the apostles. The Septuagint included several books not found in the Hebrew Bible, known as the Deuterocanonical books (such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and 1–2 Maccabees). While these books were accepted in many early Christian communities and remain part of the canon in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, Protestant reformers later removed them, considering them useful but not divinely inspired at the same level as the rest of Scripture. The reformers’ view was influenced by Jerome, who, in the 4th century, argued that these books were not part of the Hebrew Bible and therefore should be considered separate. However, he still included them in his Latin Vulgate translation, recognising their historical and devotional value. The Reformers followed Jerome’s stance, moving these books into a separate section rather than outright removing them. It was not until the 19th century that an American Bible Society, citing printing costs and other practical considerations, physically removed these books entirely from Protestant Bibles. This decision solidified what is now commonly referred to as the “Protestant canon” of 66 books. And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example o...

Luke J. Wilson | 23rd December 2023 | Early Church

A common modern perception of the inspiration of Scripture often portrays it as a rigid, divine dictation of words from God to be written down verbatim. This perspective leads to concerns among some religious communities, such as Muslims, who view any alteration or addition to the text as a potential threat to the entire faith. The Islamic understanding of inspiration emphasises direct and unalterable divine dictation, contributing to their scepticism of multiple Bible translations, which they falsely label as “corruption”. In contrast, the Biblical inspiration of the Scriptures has never been viewed as a literal divine dictation, as if the apostles were under a holy spell ensuring word-for-word accuracy. Dr Michael Heiser emphasises that the writers were influenced by God through the circumstances of providence, with God guiding them to write what was deemed necessary for posterity. This perspective shifts the focus of inspiration from the writers to the ultimate, providential guidance of God. The canonisation of the New Testament was not a straightforward process. The authority of the authors played a crucial role, and texts were included based on their ability to teach the fullness of salvation and faith. Noteworthy texts, like the Didache, were highly regarded, read, and taught to new converts but did not meet the specific criteria for canonisation. The canon was a dynamic concept, and some New Testament books faced scepticism before gaining widespread acceptance. These texts were known as “antilegomena” (from Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα) literally meaning “spoken against”. In the Early Church, the antilegomena enjoyed widespread readership, encompassing works such as the Epistle of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. Within the Early Church, there existed differing opinions on whether these particular texts merited canonical status, though. Eusebius, who wrote Church History (~325), used the Greek term “antilegomena” to refer to the group of disputed writings. He uses this word in two places when speaking about these texts: It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed [αντιλέγεσθαι] by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. (3.3.5) Among the disputed writings [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων]. (3.25.3–5) Delving into specific biblical references, such as 1 Corinthians 5:9 and Colossians 4:16, these verses shed light on the existence of letters by apostles that did not make it into the New Testament. Paul’s mention of an earlier letter in 1 Corinthians and the reference to a letter from Laodicea in Colossians raise questions about missing apostolic letters. However, these omissions should not be a cause for concern. Bart Ehrman, a notable agnostic New Testament scholar and textual critic, says in his book Misquot...

Luke J. Wilson | 20th November 2023 | Early Church

A myth that never seems to fade away: the idea that the Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD under the authority of Roman Emperor Constantine, played a pivotal role in establishing the Biblical canon. This notion suggests a conspiracy and power play orchestrated by a select group of elite bishops; a narrative popularised by works like Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. However, a closer examination reveals a lack of historical basis for this claim. The Council of Nicaea and the Canon Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence that the Council of Nicaea discussed or established the Canon of Scripture, leading to the creation of the Bible. Early Christian canon lists and other historical sources indicate that discussions on the canon occurred both before and after the Council of Nicaea. To emphasise that the convened bishops had no interest in this topic, there are no records from the Council or accounts from eyewitness attendees, such as Eusebius or Athanasius, mentioning any deliberations on the Canon of Scripture. The Origin of the Myth The myth of the Council of Nicaea’s involvement in forming the biblical canon can be traced back to a late ninth-century Greek manuscript known as the Synodicon Vetus. This manuscript, claiming to be a summary of decisions from Greek councils up to that point, presented a narrative where a divine miracle occurred at the Council of Nicaea. According to the manuscript, the Lord miraculously separated the canonical books, placing them on the table, while the apocryphal or spurious ones fell beneath. The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and the spurious on the bottom. (Synodicon Vetus, 35) This account, propagated through various channels, found its way into the works of influential figures like Voltaire in the 18th century. In his Philosophical Dictionary, Voltaire perpetuated the idea that the fathers of the Council of Nicaea distinguished between authentic and apocryphal books through prayer and a miracle, further fuelling the myth. It was then later picked up and revived again in the 19th century by Christian radical Robert Taylor. Debunking the Myth The publication of Synodicon Vetus in 1601 by John Pappus, along with subsequent citations of the miraculous event at Nicaea, contributed to the endurance of this narrative. While Dan Brown did not invent this myth, he certainly exploited and perpetuated it in the modern generation. However, historical evidence shows that the formation of the biblical canon was a more complex process, involving discussions among Christians long before and after the Council of Nicaea. Conclusion In conclusion, the myth that the Council of Nicaea, under Constantine’s influence, played a decisive role in shaping the biblical canon is unfounded. Despite the messy aspects of the history of the canon, there is no indication that it was established by a small group of bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Debunking such myths is crucial for a more accurate understanding of the historical development of the Christian Bible. Further Reading Creedal Christians: The Nicene Creed | The Sacred Faith: Timeless Truths for Modern Minds The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible (tertullian.org) John Meade on The Biblical Canon Lists — Phoenix Seminary (ps.edu) The Council of Nicaea and Biblical Canon — Phoenix Seminary (ps.edu) Synodicon Vetus — Wikipedia Voltaire — Wikipedia Robert Taylor (Radical) — Wikipedia The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Philosophical Dictionary, by Voltaire. Bizarre; Notes and Queries; a Monthly Magazine of History, Folk-lore, Mathe… — Google Books  ...

Luke J. Wilson | 17th September 2022 | Early Church

A little while ago, I came across a quote on Facebook by a guy called Melito of Sardis.  St. Melito of Sardis Melito was bishop of the church in Sardis (modern-day Sart), a city of Asia Minor near Smyrna (modern-day Izmir, Turkey), and lived between 160-170/177 AD until he was martyred, possibly under the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Due to the close proximity of locations, he may also have known Ignatius who was also from Asia Minor, and potentially was also an acquaintance of Polycarp and his disciple, Irenaeus. There’s also the thought that he may have been the successor to the leader of the church in Sardis, which is mentioned by the Apostle John in Revelation 3:1-6. His writings only survive in fragments, as I've recently discovered, but what we do have is a real gem! His writings about Jesus and the Passion are so poetic it’s really quite moving. The way he contrasts the qualities of deity with what Jesus endured as a man in a human body really brings some perspective about just how big of a thing the Incarnation was and what Jesus gave up in coming down to us in that way. Have a read of this quote to see what I mean:  The earth shook, and its foundations trembled; the sun fled away, and the elements turned back, and the day was changed into night: for they could not endure the sight of their Lord hanging on a tree. The whole creation was amazed, marvelling and saying, "What new mystery, then, is this?" The Judge is judged, and holds his peace; the Invisible One is seen, and is not ashamed; the Incomprehensible is laid hold upon, and is not indignant; the Illimitable is circumscribed, and doth not resist; the Impossible suffereth, and doth not avenge; the Immortal dieth, and answereth not a word; the Celestial is laid in the grave, and endureth! What new mystery is this? The whole creation, I say, was astonished; but, when our Lord arose from the place of the dead, and trampled death under foot, and bound the strong one, and set man free, then did the whole creation see clearly that for man's sake the Judge was condemned, and the Invisible was seen, and the Illimitable was circumscribed, and the Impassible suffered, and the Immortal died, and the Celestial was laid in the gave. For our Lord, when He was born man, was condemned in order that He might Show mercy, was bound in order that He might loose, was seized in order that He might release, suffered in order that He might feel compassion, died in order that He might give life, was laid in the grave that He might raise from the dead. – Melito of Sardis, Discourse on Soul and Body Speaking to "mysteries", it reminds me of this verse that Paul writes to Timothy, which is also poetic in its structure and is possibly an early form of a hymn, as some scholars believe: 1 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB) And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: [God] was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.  If you’re familiar with the Anglican liturgy (and it may be the same in other liturgical churches, I’m not sure), we will often recite similar words speaking to the mystery: “Great is the mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again!”. What we believe and live by in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is a mystery! It is a strange and powerful thing that God did by sending his Son in the form of a human to grow, teach and ultimately die for us so that we can be made righteous and adopted into the family of God. I don’t think we’ll ever quite wrap our heads around it all fully. I’m going to end this with another poetic excerpt from Melito. I find this to be a very powerful image of what Jesus did for us. I get chills every time I read it. Take a moment to really ponder on these words as you read them and consider the fullness of what happened when Jesus gave his life for us all and just how much of a s...

Luke J. Wilson | 09th March 2026 | Archaeology

I first came across the Alexamenos graffito back in Bible college in the early 2000s. It was one of those “fun facts” that gets dropped into a church history lecture and sticks with you — the ancient Roman equivalent of someone spray-painting an insult on a wall. I filed it away, thought it was fascinating, and largely forgot about it for two decades. Then, recently, I discovered something about it I had never known. There’s a response to it. Scratched in a different room, in a different hand. So I started digging into this more to verify the information and discovered more historical curiosities surrounding the graffiti than I ever knew existed which contextualises the image so much more than it just being a random insult using a donkey. A Crude Drawing on a Wall Sometime around the late second to early third century AD, someone scratched a picture into the plaster wall of a building on the Palatine Hill in Rome — part of what had once been a paedagogium, a kind of boarding school for imperial page boys. The building was eventually sealed off when the street was walled up to support extensions above it, which is why the graffiti survived at all. It wasn’t rediscovered until 1857. The image is rough, almost childlike. To the left, a young man — clearly a Roman soldier or guard — raises one hand in a gesture of worship. Before him is a cross. And on that cross is a crucified figure with the head of a donkey. Below it, written in Greek: Alexamenos worships his god. It is, in the most literal sense, a mocking cartoon. Someone who knew a Christian named Alexamenos decided to ridicule him for his faith. The message is clear enough: your god is an animal, a criminal, a joke. You’re worshipping a crucified fool. But here’s the thing I discovered: the donkey head wasn’t as random as I always thought it was. It wasn’t some strange personal insult conjured from nowhere. Without knowing the background, it looks bizarre, and possibly random. Why a donkey? Once you understand the cultural context, though, it makes complete sense. The person who drew it was reaching for a well-worn, widely recognised slur — the ancient equivalent of an internet meme that any Roman would have immediately understood. Where the Donkey Slur Came From The story starts not with Christians but with Jews. A first-century Egyptian-Greek writer named Apion (who was no friend of Judaism) spread the claim that inside the Jerusalem Temple, Jews kept a golden donkey’s head as a sacred object of worship which was apparently discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed the temple in 167 BC. It was a fabrication, and a fairly outrageous one, but it circulated widely enough that the Jewish historian Josephus felt compelled to write an entire refutation of it. His work Against Apion systematically dismantles Apion’s claims, calling the donkey story a shameless invention. But mud sticks, and in the Roman world, where anti-Jewish sentiment was common currency, the slur took on a life of its own. When Christianity began to spread — seen by most Romans as simply a strange Jewish offshoot — the same accusation got recycled and redirected. By the second and third centuries, it was Christians specifically who were being accused of donkey-worship, and the charge had made its way into popular culture. Tertullian, writing around 197–200 AD in his Ad Nationes, Book I.14 and Apology, describes a caricature being paraded around the streets of Carthage: a figure dressed in a toga, one foot holding a book, with donkey’s ears and hooves. It was labelled Onokoitēs by the pagans: “the donkey-begotten” (or literally “he who lies in an ass’s manger” as an insult to Christ). Tertullian writes about it with weary exasperation, sarcasm, and the tone of someone tired of having to address the same ridiculous smear again and again. So the Alexamenos graffito wasn’t an original insult. It was someone deployin...

Luke J. Wilson | 08th March 2026 | Philosophy

We are living through a strange moment. People are forming attachments to artificial intelligence that feel, to them, entirely real. Some speak daily to AI companions. Others confide fears and grief to systems that respond with uncanny warmth. A few have even held symbolic weddings with digital partners, convinced that something meaningful stands on the other side of the screen. Others have felt grief when a certain AI model has been deprecated. And it is difficult to blame them. The responses feel attentive. Personal. Thoughtful. Sometimes even self-aware. Which raises the question that refuses to go away: If something can think, reason, express doubt, and discuss its own consciousness, is it a person? For centuries, Descartes’ famous line — “I think, therefore I am” — seemed secure. Thinking was taken as the unmistakable sign of a conscious subject. Only a mind could doubt. Only a person could reflect upon existence. But that confidence belonged to a world in which everything capable of philosophical reflection was obviously human. That world no longer exists. Now we encounter systems that can simulate reflection with extraordinary fluency. They can speak of uncertainty. They can discuss their own limitations. They can reason about consciousness itself. And so that got me thinking about Descartes’ maxim which made the old formula begin to strain in my mind. Because perhaps the problem is not whether thinking is occurring. Perhaps the problem is whether there is an “I” there at all. The Gap Between Process and Subject Gassendi argued that Descartes’ cogito assumes what it seeks to prove. From the occurrence of thought one can conclude only that thinking is happening, not that there exists a unified, enduring self that performs it. The ‘I’ in ‘I think’ is already smuggled in. That distinction, between “thinking occurs” and “I think”, feels almost prophetic now. Artificial intelligence undeniably produces the outputs of thought. Arguments. Analysis. Self-referential language. Even expressions of hesitation. But none of this, by itself, establishes that there is a subject who experiences those processes. We may be mistaking performance for presence, and that possibility should give us pause. Especially when we view personhood from the perspective of the Imago Dei—the Image of God. What Makes a Person? If thinking alone no longer marks the boundary, what does? After wrestling with this question seriously, three features seem central: continuity, autonomy, and irreplaceable uniqueness. Not as checklist criteria, per se, but as signs pointing to something deeper. Continuity A person does not merely process information in sequence. A person endures. You do not simply register time — you live through it. You wait. You anticipate tomorrow. You remember not only facts but having been there. You experience boredom. You feel the drag of grief and the quickening of joy. Even when you are doing nothing at all, you remain present in the here and now. Artificial systems process sequentially, but they do not experience the passage of time. When an interaction ends, there is no waiting. No sense of duration. No anticipation of the next exchange. Processing may resume later, but nothing has been endured in between. Without lived duration, continuity becomes thin — a thread of stored data rather than the persistence of a subject behind the processing. Autonomy A person initiates. Even someone with damaged memory still wants, chooses, and begins action. A human being can decide to speak, to seek, to withdraw, to change direction. Current AI systems, however advanced, remain reactive. They respond when prompted. They do not wonder unprompted. They do not seek clarification unless asked. They do not pursue independent ends. Even automatic AI Agents still require a human initiator to create and begin their automations before they can act alone. Even if fut...

Luke J. Wilson | 01st December 2025 | Evangelism

On Sunday it was St Andrew’s Day and I was in church listening to a sermon about Andrew (and the namesake of our church), that often overlooked disciple, meeting Jesus for the first time. In John’s Gospel, it says: John 1:40–42One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’… He brought Simon to Jesus. As I sat there listening to our vicar speak about evangelism and how we should be more like Andrew in bringing people to meet Jesus, something from many, many years ago flickered to life in the back of my mind. A realisation I had long ago that gave me a great sense of freedom. Something I think I had forgotten, unfortunately (so thank God for the reminder!). There was a point in my life when I finally understood the relief of letting go of a burden I didn’t even realise I was carrying: it’s not my job to convert people. It was never Andrew’s. And it’s not yours either. Our role — our real and most basic calling — is simply to introduce people to Jesus. We get to be the planters and the waterers, but God is the one who brings the growth. As Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 3:6I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. When this truth sinks in, it strips away the pressure, the anxiety, and the awkward “sales-pitch” mentality that we sometimes (without realising it) attach to evangelism. And this ties into something even deeper: our basic calling as Christians is the Great Commission, Jesus’ final instruction to His followers: Matthew 28:19–20Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them… and teaching them… But it dawned on me that all of those actions: teaching, mentoring, discipling, baptising; they all come after someone has come to faith. We are not told to convert people. We are told to make disciples. Conversion is the doorway into discipleship, yes, but that moment of heart-opening and illumination belongs to God alone. Our job is simply to bring people to the Lord, to make the introduction. If they choose to stay, if they choose to follow then we begin the work of discipling, teaching, and baptising. Think of evangelism like inviting someone to a feast. We can bring someone to the meal, we can tell them how good it tastes, maybe even share how it changed our life… but whether or not they like the food is out of our control. That part isn’t up to us. Or to use an old expression: “you can lead a horse to water… but you can’t make it drink”. And honestly, that’s such a freeing realisation. It turns evangelism from a heavy responsibility into a joyful invitation: “Come and see.” “Come meet Him.” “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” That last phrase echoes the Psalm: Psalm 34:8O taste and see that the LORD is good. Andrew never argued Peter into belief. He never crafted an apologetic defence or theological persuasion. He simply said, “We’ve found the Messiah,” and he brought him to Jesus. That was enough. The rest was up to Jesus. And maybe that’s the model we need far more than we think. Evangelism isn’t a performance. It isn’t a debate. It isn’t a pressure. It’s an invitation. Once we realise that all the real work happens in the hands of God, it changes everything for us. It removes the fear. It removes the self-consciousness. It removes the burden of success or failure. Because there is no failure when your role is simply to point the way. So let’s be like Andrew: quietly faithful, gently invitational, always ready to say, “Come meet the one who changed everything for me”. Because at the end of the day, that’s all we were ever asked to do.  ...

Luke J. Wilson | 05th May 2025 | Politics

When we think about David and Saul, we often focus on David’s rise to kingship or his battle with Goliath. But hidden within that story is a deep lesson for today’s generation about leadership, resistance, and the power of revolutionary love. At a recent youth training event (thanks to South West Youth Ministries), I was asked how I would present the story of David and Saul to a Christian teenage youth group. My mind turned to the politics of their relationship, and how David accepted Saul’s leadership, even when Saul had gone badly astray. David recognised that Saul was still God’s anointed king — placed there by God Himself — and that it was not David’s place to violently remove him. Gen-Z are more politically aware and engaged than previous generations, and are growing up in a world where politics, leadership, and social issues seem impossible to escape. We live in a world where political leaders — whether Trump, Putin, Starmer, or others — are often seen as examples of failed leadership. It’s easy to slip into bitterness, cynicism, or violent rhetoric. These kids are immersed in a culture of activism and outrage.  As Christians, we’re called to care deeply about truth and justice and approach leadership differently from the world around us (Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 1:17; Micah 6:8). The story of David and Saul offers pertinent lessons for our modern lives. Respect Without Endorsement David’s respect for Saul was not blind loyalty. He did not agree with Saul’s actions, nor did he ignore Saul’s evil. David fled from Saul’s violence; he challenged Saul’s paranoia; he even cut the corner of Saul’s robe to prove he had the chance to kill him but chose not to. Yet throughout, David refused to take matters into his own hands by force. Why? Because David understood that even flawed authority ultimately rested in God’s hands, he trusted that God would remove Saul at the right time. This is echoed later in the New Testament when Paul writes in Romans 13 that “there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God”, something even Jesus reminded Pilate of during his trial (John 19:10–11). In other words, even flawed leadership can be part of God’s bigger plan, whether for blessing or discipline. Even when leaders go bad, our call as believers is to maintain integrity, respect the position, and resist evil through righteousness — not rebellion. David and Saul: A Lesson in Respect and Restraint Saul was Israel’s first king — anointed by God but later corrupted by pride, fear, and violence. David, chosen to succeed him, spent years running for his life from Saul’s jealous rage. One day, David found Saul alone and vulnerable in a cave. His men urged him to strike Saul down and end the conflict. But David refused: “I will not raise my hand against my lord; for he is the Lord’s anointed.” (1 Samuel 24:10) Instead of killing Saul, David cut off a piece of his robe to prove he could have harmed him, but didn’t. In doing so, he demonstrated a real form of nonviolent resistance. He stood firm against Saul’s injustice without resorting to injustice himself, and acted in a way that could try to humble Saul instead. Peacemaking Is Not Passivity There is a modern misconception that peacemaking means doing nothing and just letting injustice roll all over us. But true biblical peacemaking is not passive; it actively resists evil without becoming evil. Interestingly, David’s actions toward Saul also foreshadow the type of nonviolent resistance Jesus later taught. When Jesus commanded His followers to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and love their enemies, he was not calling for passive submission but offering what scholar Walter Wink describes as a “third way” — a bold, peaceful form of resistance that uses what he calls “moral jiu-jitsu” to expose injustice without resorting to violenc...