One of the most commonly cited verses in Church of Christ theology is —
(Col 2:13-14 ESV) 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
The ESV gets this translation right, but the NIV bungles it –
(Col 2:14 NIV) having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
This is a key proof text in the argument that we aren’t “bound by the Old Testament” and therefore should be “New Testament Christians.” But the current version of the NIV is a bad translation, and the ESV gets it right.
The Greek is well-explained by Bobby Valentine –
Paul says that the cheirograph was nailed the cross. This word is a Pauline hapax and never occues again in the NT. In the 19th century the word turned up in the sands of Egypt inscribed on papyri. Adolf Deissmann in his epoch making book Light from the Ancient East demonstrates that the term refers to an I.O.U., a certificate of debt incurred by a person (cf. pp. 331-334).
Historical context is a cardinal rule in biblical interpretation. In Jewish apocalyptic there was an idea that there existed a book of records that kept track of our evil deeds. This book, like the mortgage (an I.O.U.) at the bank, provided powerful leverage with less than friendly spirit beings called principalities, powers, angels and the like. This book is mentioned often in Jewish literature of the time (1 Enoch 89.61-64; 108.7; Testament of Abraham 12.7-18; 13.9-14; and many other places). Enoch, for example, tells how he heard the words “write down every destruction {sin} … so that this may become testimony for me against them.” We have an IOU that stands against us and that IOU is our own sin debt. It is that sin that the malignant powers hold over us.
The premier koine Greek dictionary, BDAG, defines χειρόγραφον (cheirographon) as “a hand-written document, specif. a certificate of indebtedness, account, record of debts.” Thayer’s defines the word “a note of hand, or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to he returned at an appointed time.”
In short, the insistence of Church of Christ authors on misusing this verse, despite the presence of many better translations, such as the ESV, NASB, NET, and even the original NIV — as well as the consensus views of the major koine Greek dictionaries — is indefensible.
The Law of Moses wasn’t nailed to the cross. Rather, it was our I.O.U.’s to God, the record of our indebtedness to him. God forgave our trespasses. It’s just that simple. And he did this by bringing us into Jesus — in whom the fullness of deity dwells — and resurrecting us with him and circumcising our hearts (through the Spirit) when we were baptized.
And it should be obvious that the Law has not been nailed to the cross, in that we are still bound by “Love your neighbor” as well as “Love the Lord your God.” How does this work? We’re getting there.
Good stuff.. Gonna stir it up in certain circles…:)
cheirographon–1.a handwriting, what one has written by his own hand, a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time.
In my opinion, cheirographon is a self reminder written to one’s self.
Hbr 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hbr 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (I am tearing up my notes, or washing clean my memory)
In my opinion this is what Paul is talking about, where God’s “cheirographon ” was nailed to the cross. When Jesus death did away with the old covenant, and brought in the New Covenant.
What an eye-opener!
We seek to understand as those did to whom Paul originally wrote. He was writing to folks familiar with the demands of the Jewish law and the demands of Roman law. And it seems to me that he is clearly making reference to demands of a law code. Whether it was only the Levitical code he had in mind or whether it was a more general reference to legal codes is open to discussion. But that he was referring to a system based on law can’t be denied.
And it was Jewish leaders who wanted Jesus silenced. Ones who approved the Levitical law and who felt Jesus was challenging that system of laws. I don’t see that Paul was referring to anything OTHER THAN the Levitical laws as being “nailed to the cross.” It was JEWS who called for Jesus to be crucified. It was Jewish leaders who persuaded the Roman rulers to order death for Jesus. It was supporters of Jewish regulations who were causing trouble in Gentile congregations such as the ones in Colosse and throughout Galatia.
good article here- http://yrm.org/handwriting-ordinances.htm
Laymond,
I entirely agree that Col 2:13-14 and Heb 8:10-12 are speaking of the same thing.
Jay certainly shows he wants more understanding about the Jewish roots of Christianity, though I’m not compelled to share this among certain people.
There are two different ways of salvation being taught throughout these posts, and that is certainly not healthy teaching for unbelievers or new believers. Another post Jay wrote he said, “The Gentiles are saved by faith because Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness and this promise applied to all the nations that would be blessed through him.” and “Thus, in the end, national and other distinctions disappear because all come to God with the same faith.” Jay says we are counted righteous with the same faith.
It is by our sins that we are lost to begin with. It was our sins that hung Jesus on the cross. We have faith that the blood Jesus shed on the cross pays the penalty for our sins and satisfies the Judgment and wrath of God against our sins.
Jay seems to understand that without repentance there is no faith and without faith there is no repentance. One cannot exist without the other. Jay seems to understand that faith comes before baptism. Jay says we are saved at the time we have faith before baptism then Jay says are saved at the time we are baptized. What Jay isn’t able to say clearly throughout his posts is whether people are saved when they have faith or when they are baptized. Jay seems unable to really make up his mind about this.
Jay is so fickle using words to write his posts and a person who does this a lot is not a person that can be taken as serious. Until Jay can explain better his thoughts about salvation that is solid, I would not sit under someone who teaches like this, and I sure wouldn’t bring anyone to someone that is teaching two ways of salvation.
I do enjoy your posts though, Jay, and think that they are interesting to read.
Jay, if you and I can agree, I don’t see how those in between can disagree 🙂
Grace — you speak as someone that has clearly not read Jay’s writings. I don’t necessarily agree with all of his views, but to say Jay hasn’t clearly defined his views on salvation would expose you as being extraordinarily intellectually lazy.
You can try to belittle me all you want to, that exposes a childish side to people, it’s sin that makes people feel better about themselves. I see nothing wrong with my having a different opinion about Jay’s posts than you do.
Knowing that Jay reads and examines bonds for a living should make anyone better understand Jays way of seeing things.
That same what we have chosen to do for a living thinking helps us understand where many of us are coming from as well.
@Grace: A different opinion? I could care less what your opinion is. You suggested Jay hasn’t clearly stated his views on how/when salvation takes place. I’d venture a guess that Jay has spilled 250,000 words defending and clearly articulating his views on this. Over and over and over.
And you clearly thrived in your CoC Arguing 101. Principle 1: accuse the person that challenges you of sin. Well played.
I was wondering weeks ago, how long it would take for someone from the faith only camp to call Jay’s hand on Jay’s teaching on faith expressing itself in baptism as “normative” salvation(I believe is the word Jay used). I said, it boils down to, ” is salvation when the light bulb comes on in the hearer’s head/heart(faith only) or is it when faith moves the penitent believer to meet the “conditions” set forth by Jesus and expressed by Peter, Paul or whomever, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you”. In other words the light bulb comes on and leads to repentance and calling on the name of the Lord through the baptism experience? All the while allowing for the exception.
Of course, if it’s when the light bulb comes on initially, then it follows there really can’t even be a need for a “Sinner’s Prayer.” The transaction is already completed. There can’t be a “need” for anything else. Everything that follows the light bulb coming on, is not leading up to anything, but simply flows out of the heart “already reborn”. Grace is right to a certain extent. You have to choose one or the other. There is no room for baptism(tying into salvation), anywhere, in the initial flicker of light (faith only) teaching.
JMF, not here to argue over whether what you think about Jay’s posts is more right than what I think about Jay’s post. I merely stated an opinion about writings I’ve read and was attacked. How do you know what all and how many of Jay’s writings I have read? I wouldn’t say that everyone who examines bonds for a living sees things as Jay does. I already know most in the CofC camp would certainly not say such a thing as I have, and that is from a lot of observing for long time, intellectually saying anyhow.
Grace,
As JMF has correctly pointed out, I’ve expressed my views on baptism in great detail here, many times. But I can’t be required to do so every time the subject comes up.
I suggest that you read the ebook posted here Born of Water. http://dsntl8idqsx2o.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/born-of-water.pdf It’s an easy read. My views are neither Baptist nor traditional Church of Christ. Many in both camps assume that those two views are the only two that can possibly be, and so when they see that I’m not in their camp, they assume I’m in the other. But as you noted, I don’t really fit well in either camp.
I read that a long time ago, and giving one of your posts doesn’t reflect all of them, and you phrasing it and putting Baptist churches against the CofC doesn’t say or do much good about it either. Thank you anyhow, Jay.
I think these verses are plain. The entire OT law has been summed up in loving God and loving others.
Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Matthew 22:36-39 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Romans 13:9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Skip,
You make Gods law just toooooo simple. It has to be harder and more complicated than that and if you give us long enough to go through all the variences and options possible we will prove that is true!!!
A sinner is either born again at the moment of his surrender to Christ in dependent faith or not. Or a sinner is only born again at the moment of baptism. Most here believe the latter. Some believe the first option.
Jay believes the first but also that the point of dependend faith is usually at the point of baptism. I hope I have paid attention! If I’ve misstated you Jay it is not intentional.
I have noticed that many are promoting that we today are accountable to the Ten Commandments. My question then do you obey the commandment about the Sabbath Day?
Continuing… Is this a fair representation of the host and commentors?
1. salvation is by faith
2. salvation is by faith + obedience ( baptism specifically and a life lived good enough for Gods approval)
3. salvation is by baptism and compliance to “the law of Christ” as defined by the churches of Christ.
4. Salvation is by faith and people usually only come to faith at baptism.
5. It doesn’t matter what you do you can’t know you are safe until you die.
Perhaps salvation is by GRACE alone (no pun intended) through faith alone rather than by faith. This is what the reformation taught, old fogies that they were.
Hesed,
Randall
Royce, how about faith in God’s grace? What does “God’s Grace” mean to your way of thinking. ?
According to all I have read in the bible, to be in “God’s Grace” means to be in favor with God. And every instance where it is said one was in God’s Grace/God’s favor was earned by some act, or acts of the person upon which God looked favorably. To me God’s Grace, or to be in favor with God means friendship, or to be friends with God. I just don’t see God looking favorably upon those who are not his friends. And I can’t see friends as someone who ignores other friends. We have an example to follow, Jesus no doubt is a friend of God although Jesus is a servant of God he serves out of love and friendship. I can’t imagine God would look gracefully upon those who mistreat his friends.
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Royce,
I don’t quite find myself on your list. It is my view that in the normative case (the case that God had intended for us to follow and that actually happens very often) the Spirit is given concurrently with water baptism, not because baptism is an act of obedience (even if it is) but because this is the means chosen by God for the Spirit to be received and for the convert to announce his faith and for the church to accept the convert as a brother or sister. (Some take offense at my so saying because it sounds Baptist, but it’s what really happens even in Churches of Christ. I do not accept the Baptist understanding of baptism, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong on every single thing they teach.)
The account of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost clearly associates water baptism with receipt of the Spirit (as do many other verses), and the OT prophets frequently speak of the Spirit as water — among a desert people. Hence, in a Jewish setting, with Jews being well-studied in the prophets, the use of water certainly fits well with receipt of the outpoured Spirit. It’s not the only metaphorical significance of the water (burial comes to mind), but it’s certainly what would have been understood at Pentecost (no mentioned of burial, sermon was about Jesus is Messiah and Spirit is outpoured) — and it explains why, in Peter’s mind, receipt of the Spirit is associated with water baptism when Cornelius was converted. The baptism of Cornelius was not only Cornelius’ confession of faith (he had faith sooner but only God knew that) but the church’s acknowledgement of a new brother and household.
(And yet the church can’t keep someone out by refusing baptism, as will become clear.)
However, the promise is that all with faith in Jesus will be saved. Therefore, when the church baptizes incorrectly — too soon, not enough water, misunderstanding when salvation occurs, the convert’s knee doesn’t go under — God must still keep his promise. After all, the convert is not the one who messed up. Therefore, the convert is saved despite a flawed baptism. (And what theme is more pervasive in scripture than the fact that God keeps his promises?)
This means, of course, that God normally gives the Spirit concurrently with water baptism but that he doesn’t have to. But he does have to keep his promises, including the many promises to save all with faith.
To work a bit through your grid —
1. Yes, although more precisely stated, salvation is by grace (from God) through faith (for those who are open to God’s salvation). But this doesn’t answer exactly when salvation occurs — particularly, when the Spirit is received. The fact that all with faith will be saved doesn’t mean that there might not be a gap between faith and baptism when they’ve not yet received the Spirit and have not yet been justified. (And if they get run over by a train on the way to the church, God will keep his promise to save all with faith despite the gap.)
Justification is the announcement by God that this person has been saved (declared righteous, along with Abraham) and will be granted eternal life (in the future). Wright concludes that justification is at the moment of baptism, because baptism is also a declaration that this person has faith in Jesus and received the Spirit. (I’m just getting to this part in Paul and the Faithfulness of God — very slow but profitable read) and so I may not be entirely exact, but this is certainly what he said in Justification and elsewhere.
Wright, however, is part of a denomination that practices infant baptism, and he sees the baptism as not truly announcing justification until confirmation — it’s the uniting of baptism with a genuine personal faith that makes the baptism a true justification. I can’t say I quite agree with his approach. I think the Churches of Christ are right to baptize after but near the moment of coming to faith.
Some readers will freak because they see baptism as solely between the convert and God, but that’s far too limiting (and a product of Western individualism). Baptism is an announcement to the community of faith that this is your brother/sister in Christ. I mean, if you don’t tell anyone, no one will know. This is why no one in scripture baptizes himself. Everyone is baptized by a church member.
It is, of course, more than that, but there’s no contradiction between a sacramental view (which I would admit to) and a view that baptism is formal admission into the church-universal wherein the convert declares his/her faith, submission to Jesus as Lord, and willingness to die with Jesus to become part of Jesus. All that and much more!
I say my view is sacramental because I think, in the normative case, God acts to give his Spirit when we act to baptize a new convert. But I don’t think God is limited to acting through the sacrament of baptism — as the case of Cornelius clearly demonstrates. God is not controlled by us! And he won’t let our confusion regarding baptism prevent someone with genuine faith in Jesus from being saved.
2. I don’t see baptism as a matter of obedience in the sense of earning salvation. It is not a “work” or sui generis with Pauline works, or else Galatians makes no sense. But for this to be true, God must be able to save without baptism — which, again, Cornelius proves possible (God is not bound by some cosmic rule that he may only save the baptized), and this conclusion is strongly supported by the frequent forgivenesses by Jesus without baptism. These are not normative, but they are true.
Interestingly, John the Baptist was given the power to baptize “for the remission of sins” (the Gospels say so twice), but he could only provide forgiveness sacramentally — by water. But Jesus could forgive without water. And both worked and baptized and obtained forgiveness for their converts at the same time. God does not have to work in only one way at a time. For that matter, God himself was also busily forgiving sins at the Temple as sacrifices were made. Hence, there were at least 3 paths to forgiveness during the overlap of Jesus’ and John’s ministry. God is not limited to just one method at a time. Nor does he require any sort of sacrament at all. But sometimes he prefers to act sacramentally — through animal sacrifice or through water baptism, for example.
3. The Law of Christ is “love your neighbor.” A future post will address in more detail, but we can only obey in ways that matter to God as a product of the work of the Spirit within us. It’s the Spirit that writes God’s law on our hearts. It’s the Spirit that changes our hearts from stone to flesh. And it’s the Spirit that prompts the obedience of faith.
4. I’m not sure anyone believes this.
5. Sad, but this is not an uncommon view in the Churches of Christ.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Laymond, So you believe grace is earned by our acts as stated in your post? This is the exact opposite of the definition of grace. Grace means unmerited favor. If it is unmediated then it can’t be based on our acts. Ephesians 2 spells this out clearly.
He who believes and is thus redeemed by the work of Christ thus observes the Sabbath. The writer of Hebrews does a wonderful job explaining what the Sabbath really is, and what it is to truly enter that rest. He explains that the opposite of the Sabbath rest is unbelief, not missing church services. The Sabbath has neither expired nor been converted to Sunday, but is fulfilled in our faith in Christ. We fail to observe the Sabbath when we put our trust in ourselves rather than in the work of Jesus Christ.
Skip, show me in scripture where someone was in God’s favor, unmerited. Or do you deny Grace means in favor.
Laymond,
Grace doesn’t simply mean “in favor”. Grace means unmerited favor. A huge difference between the two. If we merit favor then it isn’t grace. Try this scripture on for size:
Ephesians 2:8,9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
Notice very carefully here: “Not from yourselves”, “Not by works”. Do you deny that our salvation has nothing to do with our merit?
Skip asks, “Do you deny that our salvation has nothing to do with our merit?” We should all agree that we cannot deserve (merit) salvation because of our own goodness or lack of bad deeds. We all are sinners. We deserve punishment for our sin. But Jesus offers salvation if we obey the gospel, not because of OUR goodness but because of HIS goodness and His offer of eternal life to us. That’s an offer to EACH of us, regardless of how good or bad we’ve been.
But when Peter was asked by seeking believers in the risen Lord what they needed to do, he did NOT say, “There’s nothing you can do. Just believe and you’ll be saved.” That’s what many now are saying. But what Peter said was that there were things the believers needed to DO in order to receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I agree with Peter. He spoke for the Lord Jesus.
Our salvation has something to do with our actions. Only those who turn to Jesus as LORD and who are baptized are promised remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those who trust Jesus and His apostles will not give a different answer to seekers today. Instead, we who do trust Jesus and His apostles will encourage seekers to repent and be baptized in order to receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Charles and all,
Charles is referencing Heb 3 and 4, where God’s rest is gained by faith in contrast to rebellion.
and
The author of Hebrews takes “rest” to refer to eternal life. If you read this in light of John Walton’s work on Genesis 1, you have to also consider Psalm 132 —
(Psa 132:13-14 ESV) 13 For the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: 14 “This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.
That is, when a temple was built for a god, following its dedication, the god was said to “rest” in his new dwelling. Walton says that Gen 1, read like other documents from the Ancient Near East, describes the creation as the building of a temple for God, with mankind being God’s “image” in the temple, followed by God resting there.
So if the Creation itself is God’s temple and place of rest, how is eternal life entering into God’s rest. Well, Rev 21 – 22 describes God as descending from heaven to live on earth with the saved. The Creation is redeemed, the Temple is purified, and God comes to rest where he was always meant to rest, and we join him.
In more practical terms, we get to rest after we die. Until then, “We’ll work ’til Jesus comes” and we’ll enjoy God’s Sabbath in eternity. That’s not to deny the need for us to take breaks, but we aren’t under heavenly orders to take off every 7th day to honor God.
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Ray, I am afraid you missed my point, or at the very least overreacted. I said, “salvation has nothing to do with our merit”. I did not say that salvation did not require a response. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Royce, you surely do NOT want to claim that the scripture passages I have cited are incorrect. Yet you quote a passage which could be taken to mean that faith ALONE saves. But it’s only by misunderstanding the passage that it would disagree with the truth about receiving the Holy Spirit. The ONE way we in this age receive the Holy Spirit is explained in Acts 2:38. Paul agrees with what the other apostles (Peter spoke not just for himself, but for the 12) teach in Acts 2:38. He here just doesn’t specify HOW and WHEN the Spirit is given. He speaks of the necessity of believing in JESUS as Lord, but doesn’t in the quoted passage specify HOW the person must respond in order to receive the Spirit. Of course believing in Jesus is essential. That’s not in question.
What IS in question is whether or not faith ALONE saves and results in God’s gifting a person with His Spirit. God could give His Spirit to anyone and everyone any way He chooses. Acts 2:38 spells out how He chooses to make the gift. It’s not because of faith ALONE.
Ray said, “Our salvation has something to do with our actions.” Perhaps it is picking nits but I prefer that salvation has something to do with our “reactions”.
Maybe the judging will be on how we react to ever how we believe to be what God wants.
If all this disagreement and obvious confusion is present, how could any one be sure that have it all just right?
Remember most of the world has not had the education and benefit of what some of you have had so that just obeyed as best they understood.
The Bible was written for instruction of the simple man, not for debates and condemning by the more educated.
Sometime I think we forget that instruction in righteous for the average man was its goal.
There will probably be more men dressed on overalls in heaven than three piece suits.
Alabama John,
Amen!
AJ said; “Maybe the judging will be on how we react to ever how we believe to be what God wants.”
Jhn 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Jhn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jhn 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
John if we can’t take the word of God, whose word can we depend on? I don’t think it was left in doubt what God wants.
laymond,
consider how many see differently what God wants and try their best to obey. See the differences in thinking and obeying on just this site.
I believe all posters are being honest but in your thinking all would be lost to hell except the ones that see it just as you do. Of course the supposed few all see themselves as being like Noah and his family.
I disagree, and believe far more will be in heaven than many think. Loving our God is a natural thing with thinking and believing like this. Sure makes facing dangers and drawing closer to death much easier too.
“Sure makes facing dangers and drawing closer to death much easier too.” John, maybe that teaching has that very intended purpose. Is a little white lie OK if it helps someone deal with death, I believe Paul was the one who said “God forbid, a lie is still a lie” and who is said to be the father of lies, hummmm could it be, that is where it originated.?
We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. I wasn’t around then.
Merit? Christ died for the ungodly. Some merit huh? Ungodly people deserve God’s wrath, not his grace and mercy.
So do you believe that God or Christ will accept men who are scared or forced into obeying them by the fear of immediate death or bodily harm?
Royce, Jesus died so that everyone “might live”, not so that everyone would live. Royce do you believe that if those ungodly people remain ungodly they will receive God’s grace and mercy, or God’s wrath?
AJ said; “Maybe the judging will be on how we react to ever how we believe to be what God wants.”
So AJ are you saying we will be judged on what we think, no matter what we do?
Silly Laymond
I thought that God destroyed almost all mankind because man through his nature rejected God. When did man’s nature turn around and desire to serve God?
Throughout history man has served God is so many different ways as best they could and with what understanding they had or came up with what they beleived to be acceptable. Not much different today, even it seems, among us.
If all the books were written the world couldn’t hold them so we today still have a lot to learn of our God and what He is and does. His wonders to behold.
We have an understanding God and one that loves us warts and all, this is not a lets see who wins game with God, but many times we present it as one. WE are always on the winning side of course. lol
The interesting question I always ask is when we get to heaven, we see others there we didn’t expect, what will be our reaction? Happiness that we were wrong about God and praise Him for it or disapointment that we were wrong?
Which God do you chose to worship? One choice keeps us happy, rejoicing and thankful and the other keeps us scared and fearful of dying. I’ve seen way to many good folks dying scared instead of happy for going to be with God in heaven. Its up to you!
” I’ve seen way to many good folks dying scared instead of happy for going to be with God in heaven. Its up to you!”
Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
John, when it came right down to the time, did Jesus seem happy to you? even though he knew as we know, we all die, and we all die alone. Oh sure there may be folks sitting around watching, but you are the only participant , you have to walk that valley by yourself, the valley of death. What was it Jesus said “why have you forsaken me” .If anyone knew what lay on the other side Jesus did, and still he didn’t see it as a happy event.
laymond, it was the terrible suffering ahead Jesus dreaded, not the beautiful happy life in heaven with his Father and all present afterward. Remember, not like us, He had been there before and KNEW what it was like.
Seen many suffering terribly from many afflections of this earth and that was awful for them, but the spark in their eyes when mentioning where they were soon going was great to see. Want all to have that.
I fear that many of us view God through our fears and insecurities and thus paint him with a brush that is not entirely biblical. We have to detach ourselves from our fears and insecurities and prayerfully try to see God as all scriptures paint him. We can’t simply cherry-pick the scriptures that buttress our point of view. Yes their are scriptures on fearing the Lord and yes their are scriptures on the grace and mercy of the Lord. A wise Christian tries to understand that all scripture is in harmony.
Larry said, “I thought that God destroyed almost all mankind because man through his nature rejected God. When did man’s nature turn around and desire to serve God?”
Man’s nature has turned around to serve God throughout the Bible. Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, … the Apostles, the followers of Jesus in the gospels, the day of Pentecost, etc…
Pingback: "Muscle & Shovel": Chapter 4 & Chapter 5, Part 1 (Saved by faith through grace?) | One In JesusOne In Jesus