Two Radically Different Paths: Natural Law vs. Kingdom Theology

Abarim Publications and The Bible Project offer starkly contrasting interpretive frameworks for understanding biblical promises about prayer, faith, and miracles—yet both deliberately avoid the extremes of naive supernaturalism and empty metaphorization. Abarim interprets every "supernatural" claim as naturalistic scientific understanding, viewing faith as the ancient equivalent of the scientific method and prayer as meditation on natural law. The Bible Project contextualizes these passages within Kingdom theology and ancient covenant relationships, emphasizing trust in God's purposes over technique-driven outcomes. Neither source treats these texts as blank checks for miraculous intervention, and both demand that genuine faith produce measurable results—though they define "results" very differently.

The critical difference lies in their metaphysics: Abarim eliminates supernatural agency entirely, recasting God as synonymous with natural law itself, while The Bible Project maintains divine personhood and sovereignty but emphasizes narrative context and covenantal limitations on how God responds to prayer. This creates two sophisticated middle paths through contentious theological territory, though both have significant blind spots.

Abarim Publications: Faith as scientific method, prayer as engineering

Abarim Publications employs what can only be described as thoroughgoing rationalist-naturalism wrapped in orthodox-sounding language. Their methodology traces every Greek and Hebrew term through Proto-Indo-European roots to classical usage, consistently arriving at naturalistic conclusions that eliminate supernatural intervention while maintaining the Bible's authority.

The linguistic-naturalistic hermeneutic

Their foundational claim: "The Word of God works the same for everybody always" and "Christ is natural law upon which the whole of creation operates" (Colossians 2:3). This equation of Christ with natural law becomes their interpretive key for every passage. They explicitly state that biblical "wisdom is recognized by its measurable effects"—lengthy prayers without observable results prove the person is "a clueless charlatan who should be avoided."

Pistis (faith) becomes "sureness based on valuable information," not religious sentiment. They trace it to peitho (to persuade through rational discourse) and argue that biblical faith represents the ancient equivalent of the scientific method: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1) = the scientific method." When Jesus speaks of mustard seed faith (Matthew 17:20), Abarim argues he referenced not the seed's small size but its completeness—a seed contains the whole future tree. Similarly, faith must be "whole and wholly complete and able to live autonomously," meaning comprehensive understanding of natural principles.

Proseuche (prayer) transforms into "meditation upon the Creator's laws and an endeavor to understand them and deploy them properly." They contrast pagan prayer (trying to manipulate deity) with biblical prayer: "When a wise person wishes for something, he studies creation and meditates on natural law until he knows how to rectify things. Then he does it (John 14:12)." Prayer isn't petitioning God to intervene but achieving sufficient understanding to act effectively yourself within natural law.

Dynamis (power) critically does NOT mean raw force but "ability, possibility, potential—something that can be done or for which the opportunity exists." This reframes every New Testament reference to God's power as describing possibility space within natural law rather than supernatural might. On Matthew 13:58, they note: "People's dubiosity affected the range of Jesus' ministerial activities (their doubt quite assuredly did not diminish Jesus' power)."

Pneuma (spirit) becomes perhaps their most radical reinterpretation: "A mental or behavioral function...your joining your own 'atomic' self to others in making spiritual 'molecules.'" They define spiritual phenomena as "phenomena that cannot exist on one single mind and can only exist in two or more minds." The Holy Spirit represents collective human coordination—the formation of cooperative structures from individuals, culminating in "the Internet and the Body of Christ."

Specific passage interpretations

For Matthew 21:22 and Mark 11:24 (faith moving mountains), Abarim points out that moving mountains "was done all the time in the old world, and it required team work, vast skills and a very good reason." They cite Herod's harbor at Caesarea Maritima, built with hydraulic concrete requiring whole Italian mountains dug up and transported to Judea. "Moving mountains" describes collective human engineering capability, not supernatural telekinesis. When the Bible mentions "the mountain of such and such," it refers to "a people or nation, complete with its culture and industries"—demographic and cultural obstacles, not geographic ones.

The "ask and receive" passages (Matthew 7:7-11, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14) all filter through their framework where aiteo (ask) means "to request with implied support of some code of conduct" (proper appeal within natural law) and lambano (receive) means "to take control over, to take possession of" (active appropriation of understanding). Understanding natural law enables one to properly "align with" solutions and "take authority over" problems.

For John 14:12-14 ("greater works"), they argue this refers to greater understanding and application of natural law, enabled by accumulating knowledge over generations. Not supernatural powers but expanded human capability through scientific progress.

James 5:14-16 (prayer of faith saves the sick) must produce "measurable effects" or proves the person is incompetent. The prayer of faith means proper understanding and application of healing principles—medicine, care, hygiene—not supernatural intervention. Results are everything; non-efficacious prayer demonstrates ignorance.

Philippians 4:13 uses endunamoo (intrinsically enabled), which "demonstrates a key difference between the latent servitude demanded by pagan religions and the widely diverse autonomy we have in Jesus Christ...the YHWH equips his people with abilities that arise from their own within." Internal capability development through understanding, not external supernatural empowerment. "All things" means all things within one's developed capacity, not unlimited power.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 (spiritual gifts) becomes specialized abilities that emerge from and serve collective cooperation, not individual supernatural powers. Different people contribute different capabilities to the social whole—a distributed knowledge economy, essentially.

Bridging ancient text to modern application

Abarim's bridge is natural law continuity: "The ways of the Living Creator translate to unchanging natural laws." They validate interpretations through results-based testing: "When John the Baptist sent disciples to ask if Jesus was the One, Jesus told them to look around and note that the blind were seeing, the lame were walking, lepers were healed." Observable effects prove understanding.

Their framework avoids both naive literalism (mountains aren't geographic features to be telekinetically moved) and complete spiritualization (everything must have measurable, observable effects in the physical world). Biblical language describes real natural phenomena using ancient conceptual frameworks. The task is identifying what natural reality the text describes, then understanding how to replicate those results through proper comprehension of natural law.

The Bible Project: Kingdom theology and covenantal trust

The Bible Project, founded by Tim Mackie (PhD in Old Testament) and Jon Collins, offers a dramatically different approach rooted in biblical theology, narrative context, and ancient Near Eastern worldview. Where Abarim eliminates the supernatural entirely, TBP contextualizes it within Kingdom theology and covenant relationship.

The narrative-theological hermeneutic

TBP's framework centers on Jesus' announcement of God's Kingdom breaking into the present age. They position the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) as "the center of the center of the center" of the Sermon on the Mount, making it their primary lens for understanding all prayer teaching. Prayer is not transactional but about trusting God's will rather than manipulating divine power for personal desires.

Their core prayer theology emphasizes:

• Kingdom-centered: The first half focuses on God's purposes (Kingdom coming, name hallowed, will done) before addressing personal needs

• Covenantal trust: Prayer reflects Israel's wilderness dependence on daily manna—trusting God for provision rather than hoarding

• Forgiveness as breathing: Giving and receiving forgiveness work together as one integrated practice

• Testing versus temptation: God presents tests that strengthen faith; the evil one presents traps

Critically, they interpret Jesus' own praying of the Lord's Prayer in Gethsemane as the model: submitting to the Father's will even facing death. This establishes that authentic prayer may not change circumstances but aligns the pray-er with God's purposes.

Treatment of specific passage categories

TBP has produced limited direct commentary on most specific passages requested—a significant finding itself. Their Lord's Prayer framework and Sermon on the Mount podcast series (2024) provide interpretive context rather than verse-by-verse exegesis.

For Matthew 7:7-11 (ask and receive), their framework suggests interpretation through asking according to God's will and Kingdom purposes. The "good gifts" God gives are defined by divine wisdom, not human desire. The persistence of "asking, seeking, knocking" expresses covenant trust relationship, not technique for manipulating outcomes.

For faith moving mountains passages (Matthew 17:20, 21:21-22, Mark 11:24, Luke 17:6), TBP would likely interpret this as hyperbolic/metaphorical language within ancient Jewish teaching methods. Mountains symbolize seemingly impossible obstacles, not literal geographic features requiring telekinesis. "Mustard seed faith" emphasizes that even small genuine trust in God can accomplish His purposes. The "whatever you ask" promises are conditioned by:

• Asking in Jesus' name (according to His character/will)

• Kingdom purposes (for God's glory, not selfish ambition)

• Covenant relationship with God

• Narrative context (Jesus addressing disciples' specific ministry situations)

The fig tree cursing in Mark 11 functions as prophetic sign about fruitless religious systems, not a demonstration of petty divine power or technique for getting what you want.

For John 14:12-14 ("greater works"), TBP's framework suggests this refers to the geographic and numerical scope of the gospel spreading globally through the Church, enabled by the Holy Spirit after Jesus' ascension. "Asking anything in my name" is conditioned by alignment with Jesus' mission and the purpose clause: "that the Father may be glorified in the Son"—not a blank check but prayer within apostolic mission context.

For James 5:14-16 (prayer of faith for healing), their approach would emphasize community (calling elders) rather than solo faith heroics. Anointing with oil serves as symbolic act expressing trust in God as healer, not magical substance. The "prayer of faith" means prayer aligned with God's will, offered in covenant trust. "Save the sick" could include spiritual as well as physical restoration, and the ultimate "raising up" may reference resurrection hope rather than guaranteed immediate physical healing.

For 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 (spiritual gifts), TBP would emphasize gifts given by one Spirit for the common good, not individual status. Body of Christ unity despite diversity of gifts matters most. Context: Paul addressing Corinthian divisions and spiritual immaturity. Love (1 Corinthians 13) surpasses spectacular gifts in importance.

Hermeneutical methodology and bridging strategies

TBP's methodology prioritizes:

Literary and narrative awareness: 43% of the Bible is narrative—the dominant literary form requiring story-logic rather than propositional proof-texting. Genre awareness distinguishes narrative, poetry, law, letters, apocalyptic. Symbolic patterns (settings, directions, numbers, repeated motifs) carry meaning. The Bible functions as Jewish meditation literature designed for repeated reading with layers of meaning discovered over time.

Biblical theology framework: Every text interpreted within the grand narrative arc leading to Jesus. Kingdom of God serves as the organizing principle. Heaven and earth reunion drives the biblical narrative toward restoration of God's presence with humanity. Covenant relationship structures prove essential to interpretation. They deliberately avoid "tribal readings" that use denominational proof-texting.

Ancient Near Eastern worldview: Understanding ancient cultural context—patriarchal structures, ancient cosmology, how ancient Israelites would have understood texts—enables symbolic rather than strictly literalistic reading of supernatural elements.

Their bridge to modern application emphasizes:

• Daily dependence on God for provision (Lord's Prayer model)

• Forgiveness as habitual practice ("breathing")

• Prayer as active participation in Kingdom work, not passive petition

• Community emphasis when facing crisis

• Checking motives: praying for Kingdom advancement or selfish gain?

• Persistence in covenant relationship, not vending machine transactions

• Wilderness seasons as formation rather than failure

The middle ground and its limitations

TBP clearly offers middle ground between supernaturalistic literalism and complete metaphorization. They affirm Jesus' literal, historical resurrection and acknowledge the Holy Spirit's ongoing work. They're not cessationist. But they contextualize supernatural elements within ancient Near Eastern cosmology, symbolic narrative purposes, Kingdom theology framework, and literary genre considerations.

However, critics from Gospel Coalition Australia note that TBP downplays substitutionary atonement and God's wrath, focusing more on consequences of sin rather than God's anger toward sin. Propitiation remains largely absent from their atonement teaching. This theological gap affects their overall framework for understanding prayer and divine response: if God's anger isn't satisfied, what enables answered prayer? The "consequence vs. judgment" dichotomy leaves systematic questions unresolved.

Additionally, their focus on biblical theology sometimes creates an application gap—strong on ancient context but less specific on how promises apply to modern believers who are not apostles on Kingdom mission. The narrative emphasis, while valuable, can leave readers uncertain about what to actually expect when they pray for healing or face seemingly immovable obstacles.

Comparative analysis: Natural law versus sovereignty

These two sources represent fundamentally incompatible metaphysical commitments that nevertheless produce some surprisingly similar practical outcomes.

How they handle Hebrew/Greek linguistic context

Abarim provides extraordinarily detailed linguistic analysis—tracing terms through Proto-Indo-European roots, classical Greek usage, Septuagint applications, and New Testament contexts. Every analysis, however, systematically arrives at naturalistic conclusions. Their linguistic sophistication is genuine, but their interpretive outcomes appear predetermined by their natural law framework. The etymology serves to validate rather than question their metaphysical commitments.

TBP offers less granular linguistic detail but stronger attention to how ancient hearers would have understood terms within their cultural-theological context. They emphasize covenant relationship vocabulary, Kingdom terminology, and symbolic patterns. Their linguistic work focuses on theological meaning within the biblical story rather than philosophical reconstruction of reality. Less etymological detail but arguably better grasp of how language functioned in ancient Jewish communities.

Literal promises versus alternative readings

Abarim offers alternative readings that retain concrete physical reality while eliminating supernatural agency. Mountains move through engineering, not telekinesis. Healing happens through medical knowledge, not divine intervention. Spirit describes social cooperation, not an independent divine person. Faith means scientific understanding, not religious belief. Their "alternative reading" maintains physicality while removing transcendence.

TBP offers alternative readings based on literary genre, hyperbole, covenant conditions, and narrative context. Mountains serve as metaphors for obstacles. "Whatever you ask" includes implicit conditions (in Jesus' name, for Kingdom purposes, according to God's will). Miracles serve theological-narrative functions rather than establishing universal techniques. Their "alternative reading" maintains divine personhood and transcendence while limiting the scope and conditions of promises.

Hermeneutical approaches

Abarim's approach: Rigorous etymology + natural law continuity + results-based validation = naturalistic reinterpretation. They bridge ancient to modern by arguing that ancients described natural phenomena using pre-scientific language. Modern readers with scientific understanding can now decode what they were actually experiencing. The bridge is epistemological progress—we now understand what they experienced but couldn't explain.

TBP's approach: Narrative context + biblical theology + ancient worldview + literary genre = Kingdom-centered contextualization. They bridge ancient to modern by arguing that God's covenant relationship with His people continues, but the specific forms of promises must be understood within their narrative context. Apostolic mission promises don't automatically transfer to all believers in all situations. The bridge is theological continuity within historical particularity—God remains faithful but His commitments must be understood within the story's progression.

Key term interpretations compared

Term	Abarim Publications	The Bible Project
Faith	Sureness based on evidence; scientific understanding; wholeness of comprehension	Radical trust in God's provision and purposes; covenant loyalty; not technique
Prayer	Meditation on natural law to gain understanding and capability	Conversation within covenant relationship; aligning with God's will; Kingdom-centered
Power	Possibility space within natural law; what can be done given opportunity	God's ability to accomplish His purposes; available for Kingdom mission
Spirit	Collective human cooperation; social phenomena requiring multiple minds	Personal Holy Spirit enabling believers; God's presence with His people
Ask	Proper appeal within natural law framework	Petition within covenant relationship according to God's character
Receive	Take control/authority over something through understanding	Accept what God gives as good gifts according to His wisdom
Miracles	Superior understanding of natural principles; applied science	Demonstrations of Kingdom breaking in; God's power for redemptive purposes

Avoiding the two extremes

Both sources successfully avoid the extremes the user identified, though through opposite strategies.

Avoiding naive supernatural literalism:

Abarim eliminates supernatural agency entirely. No violations of natural law occur; everything operates through consistent principles. "Supernatural" claims describe natural phenomena misunderstood.

TBP contextualizes supernatural claims within literary genre (hyperbole), narrative function (signs pointing to Kingdom), covenant conditions (according to God's will), and theological purpose (God's glory, not human manipulation). Not every promise applies to everyone in every situation.

Avoiding empty metaphorization:

Abarim demands measurable, observable physical effects. Faith must produce concrete results—healing, building, organizing. Prayer without demonstrable outcomes proves incompetence. Everything remains grounded in physical reality, just without transcendent agency.

TBP maintains real divine action in history (Jesus' resurrection, Spirit's empowerment, answered prayer) while recognizing that God sovereignly chooses how and when to act. Prayer participates in Kingdom work that has real effects (community formation, justice, healing), even if not every specific petition receives a yes. The effects are relational and communal as much as individual and physical.

Critical evaluation: Strengths and blind spots

Abarim Publications strengths:

• Epistemologically rigorous: Demands evidence and measurable results

• Avoids wishful thinking: No room for self-deception about efficacy

• Linguistically sophisticated: Deep etymological work

• Maintains physical reality: Not "merely spiritual" abstractions

• Process-oriented: Growth and understanding over time rather than magic

Abarim Publications weaknesses:

• Eliminates transcendence: If God = natural law, prayer becomes self-talk about physics

• Predetermined conclusions: Every linguistic analysis arrives at naturalism—is the evidence really driving this?

• Redefines orthodoxy: Uses orthodox language while meaning something completely different

• Ignores relationship: If prayer is meditation on natural law, why call it prayer? What happened to divine personhood?

• Hubris risk: "Understanding natural law" becomes salvation by epistemology

The Bible Project strengths:

• Narratively grounded: Avoids proof-texting and reads texts in context

• Literarily sophisticated: Genre awareness prevents category errors

• Maintains divine personhood: God as relational being, not impersonal force

• Kingdom framework: Coherent theological structure

• Accessible teaching: Makes complex ideas understandable

• Balances transcendence and immanence: God acts but according to His purposes

The Bible Project weaknesses:

• Limited specific exegesis: Inferential rather than direct commentary on most passages

• Atonement concerns: Underplaying wrath/propitiation affects prayer theology foundations

• Application gaps: Strong on ancient context, weaker on modern implications

• Scope ambiguity: Unclear which promises apply to post-apostolic believers

• Risk of domestication: Does Kingdom theology adequately account for God's freedom to act?

Conclusion: Two sophisticated paths with different destinations

Abarim Publications and The Bible Project both offer sophisticated alternatives to naive supernatural literalism and empty metaphorization, but they arrive at fundamentally incompatible conclusions about reality. Abarim presents a naturalistic monism where God, Christ, and Spirit name aspects of natural law and human cooperation, while TBP maintains theological theism where God acts personally in history according to covenant purposes.

For readers seeking interpretive frameworks for prayer, faith, and miracle passages, the choice between these sources depends on prior metaphysical commitments. Abarim will satisfy those who cannot accept supernatural violations of natural law but want to maintain the Bible's authority and physical grounding. TBP will satisfy those who maintain traditional theism but want to avoid prosperity gospel manipulation and recognize literary-theological sophistication.

Neither source provides simple formulas for getting what you want through prayer. Abarim says: study natural law until you understand how to accomplish your goal yourself. TBP says: align your prayers with God's Kingdom purposes and trust His wisdom when He says no. Both demand maturity, both reject magical thinking, both require that faith engage reality rather than escape it.

The critical difference: Abarim makes you alone responsible for outcomes through knowledge acquisition, while TBP maintains a relationship with a sovereign God whose wisdom may see things differently than you do. One eliminates divine freedom to preserve natural law; the other limits promise scope to preserve divine sovereignty. Choose based on which metaphysical price you're willing to pay.