DISCOVER JESUS’ KIND OF RELEVANCE
Discover Jesus’ Kind of Relevance. Stephan Joubert, famed for his ekerk, is unable to break free from his fanciful imagination. In one of his most recent articles on ekerk (21st July, 2025), “Discover Jesus’ Kind of Relevance,” he once again employs his imaginative magic wand, swinging it in front of the eager ears and eyes of his audience, to present them with his mystical abracadabra gospel, transforming a sermon of Jesus about repentance into a new vineyard.
Yes, absolutely, you heard correctly; the phrase “a vineyard” appears in Luke 13:1-9, but the term “new” is nowhere to be found in the text. This is just a classic move by Joubert to twist Scripture to fit into his mode of eisegesis.
It reminds me of the warning in the book of Revelation, which actually sparked Joubert’s creative, imaginative mentality. He talked about the book of Revelation at the Mosaïek Congress in Johannesburg on September 4-5, 2009, in the most derogatory way:
You need an imaginary world. Don’t you think that if you start reading the book of Revelation, not as the book of little prophecies that you can pick out with a pair of tweezers, but as the story that will open your imagination, what will happen? We need imagination to understand. Use it well. God gave it to you. (Source).
You need an imaginary world. Don’t you think that if you start reading the book of Revelation, not as the book of little prophecies that you can pick out with a pair of tweezers, but as the story that will open your imagination, what will happen? We need imagination to understand. Use it well. God gave it to you. (Source).
This absurd and unholy description of Revelation aptly illustrates Joubert’s disdain for God’s Word of warning in Revelation 22:18-19.
I testify and warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book [its predictions, consolations, and admonitions]: if anyone adds [anything] to them, God will add to him the plagues (afflictions, calamities) which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from or distorts the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away [from that one] his share from the tree of life and from the holy city (New Jerusalem), which are written in this book.
Stephan is very fond of the word “new.” His and Jan van der Watt’s “The NEW New Testament” translation bears witness to this, and now, thanks to his imaginative ingenuity, we also get a new vineyard. We will see later why he inserted the word “new”.
COMPARATIVE MINOR AND MAJOR SINS
It is obvious that Jesus, with his answer in Luke 13:1-5, immediately wanted to nip people’s steps in their comparative approach to sin in the bud. Disasters such as those in Luke 13 are no proof that people who perish in this way are greater sinners than people who die naturally. So, He immediately confronted them with their own sins without considering the relevance of the heart-wrenching, sudden deaths of so many people and asked them:
Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they had suffered in this way? I tell you, no; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you assume that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed were worse sinners than all the others who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. (Luke 13:2-5).
Jesus did not offer any world-relevant opinions or observations about the murder of the Galilean Christians. What was he to say to his listeners anyway? “Oh, I’m terribly sorry to hear that,” or “My deepest condolences for your loss.”
No, He cut through all the layers of human grief with his razor-sharp sword, exposing the core of the disasters, viz., that if they were suddenly overtaken by disasters, they would perish in this way as eternally lost sinners. Yet Joubert slips past the real relevance of Jesus’ words like nonsensical verbiage and dances around a typical Joubert welfare altar with these words,
We are relevant when we sign up to make things better for others. We are relevant when we include ourselves in answering our own prayers that God’s kingdom will come here on earth.
We are relevant when we sign up to make things better for others. We are relevant when we include ourselves in answering our own prayers that God’s kingdom will come here on earth.
The inclusion of yourself to answer your own prayers and hence to assist God in his unique entitlement to answer prayers is pure blasphemy.
Notice the shift in emphasis from Jesus to Joubert. For him, he is relevant when he does good works and is part of the “Lord’s Prayer” to help establish God’s kingdom here on earth. His prayer will probably be something like this, “Our Father who is in heaven, “Let Your name be sanctified; Let Your kingdom come through me, my colleagues, and ekerk’s assistance. . .”
JOUBERT AND EKERK LIVING HEAVEN BACK TO EARTH
It follows that when he gives someone a piece of bread, that person immediately becomes a friend of Jesus, as Joubert once boasted in a public forum. Thus, he has reached the highest of the highest rungs of his self-conceit and self-complacency when he wrote in an article on August 25, 2022, “We are living heaven back to earth every day.”
FOR REAL? The gentleman boasts how he and his ekerk manage to rule everyone, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, satanist, etc., with an iron rod and make them do God’s will on earth just as it is done in heaven (Psalm 2). What he is really saying is that he equals God.
The relevance of Jesus’ question regarding the two mentioned disasters lies in the fact that sinners will perish in the same way if they persist in their unrepentance and lostness. He was therefore referring in passing to the second death in hell. According to Joubert, who never once mentions Jesus’ admonition and call to repentance, “such relevance […] is mostly reactive.” In other words, it puts people off.
Jesus could not have responded in such a relevant, direct manner if the two disasters were not newsworthy. Indeed, the fact that He underlined the spiritual consequences of the two disasters is sufficient evidence of their tremendously important relevance to eternal life and the second death. Joubert’s relevance is therefore completely irrelevant, while Christ’s relevance to Luke 13:1-9 was completely pertinent.
Yet Joubert dares to take his readers on a journey to supposedly discover Jesus’ relevance, without even mentioning the core of the narrative in Luke 13, namely, repentance (salvation; rebirth). No, he dares to wave his magic wand and change “repentance” to “new vineyard.” Why? Because he wants to show once again that Old Testament Israel no longer exists and has been replaced by God’s new people, the church. In short, “Replacement Theology” is the “New Vinyard.”
JOUBERT’S IGNORANCE OF THE FIG TREE AND JESUS’ EXPLICIT PRESENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
In addition to his deliberate omission of the word “repentance,” he makes great claims about his “new vineyard” without once referring to the “fig tree.” Luke 13:6-9 is widely known as the parable of the fig tree and not the parable of the new vineyard. The fig tree has always been a symbol of the people of Israel, and not the Gentiles or the Church.
It is evident why Joubert minimises the literal and explicit presence of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. He seeks to illustrate that the Old Testament, primarily authored by and intended for Israel, does not provide a definitive representation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, as in the New Testament, thereby creating space for confusion and uncertainty.
In his book “Unlocking the Bible: A Comprehensive Study of the Old and New Testaments”, which he co-authored with Leonard Maré, they refer to the Old Testament as a journey to the coming of Jesus.”
“The Old Testament is a journey to the coming of Jesus. The Messiah theme runs like a golden thread through the books but is not always explicitly mentioned. The New Testament is the fulfilment of that expectation.” — Unlocking the Bible (paraphrase from the book description).
“The Old Testament is a journey to the coming of Jesus. The Messiah theme runs like a golden thread through the books but is not always explicitly mentioned. The New Testament is the fulfilment of that expectation.” — Unlocking the Bible (paraphrase from the book description).
I doubt whether Stephan Joubert and Leonard Maré will deny that the Godhead is literally and explicitly present in the Old Testament. Nonetheless, they would probably be quick to challenge this statement with the counterargument that Jesus as Messiah (the anointed) “runs like a golden thread through the book, but is not always explicitly mentioned.
The Messiah, the Prince of Peace (Jesus Christ), is explicitly mentioned in Daniel 9:25.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
The Messiah, the Prince of Peace, is also mentioned in Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
There is nothing more explicit than this. It anticipates the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus Christ many centuries before they took place, approximately 526 and 736 years following the writings of Daniel and Isaiah, respectively.
BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD
The people of Israel had known and believed since their exodus from Egypt under the leadership of Moses that the blood of an innocent lamb ensured salvation and deliverance. Approximately 300 to 405 years earlier, Abraham’s words, “God will provide Himself the lamb, my son” (Genesis 22:8), confirm Israel’s literal and explicit understanding of the coming Messiah.
It is important to note that he did not refer to “a lamb” but rather to “the lamb.” The lamb cannot be interpreted as a reference to the ram that had its horns entangled in a bush, simply because a lamb has not yet developed horns.
Thus, Abraham’s mention of the lamb serves as a prophetic insight into the future, indicating when God would send His Lamb to atone for the sins of the world. This prophetic declaration was made over two thousand years ago. Consequently, Stephan Joubert’s assertion that a prophecy must occur within a generation (approximately 30 years at most) to avoid being classified as divination, is utterly absurd.
In the first video in a series of eight called “Revelation Revisited in Corona Time,” he says,
“Although Revelation is recognised as a prophetic book, it is essential to understand prophecy in its proper context. It does not involve predicting future events. A prophet does not proclaim, “I know what is destined to happen there.” Such a claim would be classified as divination. The certainty of biblical prophecy is clear. In Deuteronomy chapter 18, God specifies that the words of a prophet must be fulfilled within his own generation.”
“Although Revelation is recognised as a prophetic book, it is essential to understand prophecy in its proper context. It does not involve predicting future events. A prophet does not proclaim, “I know what is destined to happen there.” Such a claim would be classified as divination. The certainty of biblical prophecy is clear. In Deuteronomy chapter 18, God specifies that the words of a prophet must be fulfilled within his own generation.”
Simple logic is certainly not one of Stephan Joubert’s scholarly insights. It is evident that Jesus is present in the Old Testament; nonetheless, to claim that He is not there in a literal and explicit sense as He is in the New Testament is simply absurd.
He is present in both the Old and New Testaments in a literal and explicit manner as the same God before His incarnation and crucifixion, as well as after. This is encapsulated in the statement, “…the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”— Revelation 13:8.
God the Son in the Old Testament certainly cannot be described as a figurative, symbolic, or metaphorical (the antonyms of “literal”) or as an implied, veiled, or vague Person (the antonyms of “explicit”) in the Old Testament.
If Joubert’s assumption is correct, then God the Father’s presence in the Old Testament must also be described as figurative, symbolic, metaphorical, implicit, veiled, and vague, precisely because Jesus himself said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).
That is why the prophet Isaiah writes.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Indeed, Joubert’s explicit denial of Jesus Christ’s literal and explicit presence in the Old Testament is a very subtle denial of the Godhead – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Fundamentally, Messiah and peace are not simply conceptually connected—they are prophetically integrated, theologically bound, and existentially hopeful. The Messiah is the agent, the promise, and the realisation of peace—shalom in its fullest expression: wholeness, restoration, and divine harmony.
In contrast, Joubert and Leonard Maré perceive the Messiah merely as a motif (theme) that intricately weaves through the Old Testament writings, albeit not always overtly stated.
Joubert is reluctant to recognise it as a prophecy, viewing it instead as a theme and an expectation that was ultimately realised in the New Testament. His assertion that prophecies are merely divinations when they fail to materialise within 30 years is both shameful and blasphemous.
Of course, Jesus’ name was first revealed to Joseph and Mary when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God.
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you are to call his name Jesus.” (Luke 1:30-31).
To Joseph, the angel gave the same instruction,
“you are to call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).
Joubert probably thinks that the naming of Jesus in the New Testament transformed his symbolic and metaphorical existence in the Old Testament into something tangible (hence Ekerk’s motto “Jesus – Visible, Tangible, Understandable) only when literality and explicit content were given to his existence.
Does our irrelevant professor really think that God has never known from eternity to eternity what his Son’s Name is, namely “Yêshûa” (“Yahweh is salvation”) and that it was indeed granted to various Israelites in the Old Testament, not that they had any Messianic meaning of their own, but to reminded Israel as a people that their God, Yahweh, is their only Savior. The name appears at least 27 times in the Hebrew Bible.
For this reason, Jesus caught the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in the crossfire when He rebuked them for their unbelief, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory?”
And then he began tom to explain to them from the Old Testament (the New Testament did not even exist then, let alone the NEW New Testament). He began with Moses, followed by all the other Old Testament prophets, to explain to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
Yet, our esteemed irrelevant Professor Stephan Joubert refutes Jesus’ words in Luke 24 and contemptuously says that they are not literal or explicit. There is only one worthy punishment for this: Get thee behind me, Satan.
THE FLAK IS INCREASING
Stephan Joubert seems to have been receiving lots of flak lately, not only from DTW, but also from others who have extended a serious warning for his misinterpretation and mismanagement of God’s Word. Some of his more recent articles on his ekerk seem to suggest this trend.
In his latest article, “What is Easier?”, with reference to 1 Peter 2:17, you can just about hear him whining and complaining about the necessity for correction when someone’s life is in danger (2 Timothy 3:16).
Rather than seeking contextual guidance from God’s Word on how to honour all people, he recounts a tale shared by billionaire Jeff Bezos, who despised his grandmother’s habit of chain-smoking, lighting one cigarette after another during trips in his grandfather’s car.
When he reprimanded her behaviour, candidly informing her that she was reducing her lifespan by nine years, his grandfather stopped the vehicle and courteously invited Jeff to step outside for a friendly discussion.
To Jeff’s astonishment, his granddaddy said something so kind that it allegedly changed his whole outlook on life. Jeff was 10 years old when his grandfather impressed the following words of worldly wisdom on the little boy’s heart: “One day you’ll understand that it’s harder to be kind than clever.”
Let us indulge in a playful act by placing this tale against a backdrop where one person fortuitously meets another who is teetering on the edge of suicide (a fate that smoking embodies in a significantly slower fashion, which may take as long as nine years to culminate in death).
Imagine (a word that Joubert loves to bits because he sanctions your imagination as a gift from God and that you should use it well) a person who has learned to honour all people, saying to the suicidal person,
“Hey, dude, are you going to shoot yourself? Listen up, pal. Don’t do it. However, God’s Word says that we should honour all people even when they no longer want to live. So, in loyalty to God’s Word, I am not going to dishonour you by trying to save you from killing yourself and very likely from hell, I salute you with an honouring adieu.”
Perhaps this is why Joubert says, “No, Peter does not say that we should try to change (or save from harm) everyone around us.”
I urge you, Stephan Joubert to ponder these words,
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6).
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22).
0
