In the Old Testament (Covenant), God punished the sin of a man in the son of that man. This concept is very difficult for many to grasp, but any student of the Bible knows it is true. When God revealed Himself to the Hebrews, His covenant people in ancient days, He said, "I visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children" (Exodus 34:6-7). God is not always the way you think He is, but He is always the way He says He is. He punishes the sin of a man in the son of that man.
When Noah became drunk and fell naked on his bed, Ham came into Noah's tent and did something sinful to Noah. Genesis 9:24-25 says that when "Noah awoke and saw what Ham had done," he said, "Cursed be Canaan" (Ham's son). Of course, when the Israelites came into "the land of Canaan," the fulfillment of that curse was seen by the Canaanites utter destruction, commanded by the Lord (Deuteronomy 20:17).
It's easy to gloss over King David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba. We read that King David orchestrated the murder of Uriah, Bathsheba's husband, and we groan at David's attempts to cover his sin, but we identify with him because we do the same thing. However, very few of us seriously contemplate that God punished David for his sin by striking his infant son with death.
We are not Hebrew. It is difficult to understand living under the covenant God had with the Hebrew people. The Old Testament is a record of God's dealings with the Hebrews, but we often spend too little time reading the Old Testament Scriptures. The Hebrews understood that God punished the sin of a man in the son of that man.
That's why the disciples of Jesus, all of them Hebrew, were walking through Jerusalem and came upon a man born blind from birth and asked a question of Jesus that puzzles us who live in a different culture. The disciples asked Jesus, "Teacher, who sinned? This man or his parents?" (John 9:2). That question doesn't make sense unless you understand that God revealed Himself to the Hebrew people as the God who punishes the sin of a man in the son of that man.
Likewise, in the Old Covenant culture (e.g. that is from Genesis to Malachi, or from Adam to Jesus, or better yet from "the first Adam to the last Adam"), a deed of courage and honor was credited to the father. When something stellar is done by someone today, we will say "Who is he?" But in the Old Covenant days of the Hebrews, people would ask, "Whose son is he?"
This is true of young David when He killed Goliath, an act that caused the entire nation of Israel to celebrate. After David killed the giant, King Saul, who knew David well, asked the shepherd boy, "Whose son are you, young man" (I Samuel 17:58). King Saul was saying, "Your father deserves the praise and glory for your heroic actions."
In the same manner, Jesus commended Peter for the confession Peter gave of the Christ by saying, "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah" (Matthew 16:17). Jesus, raised among the Hebrews in Hebraic culture, once told His disciples "I do what I do that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:13).
Jesus is the Son of God. He is the Messiah, conceived by the Holy Spirit of a virgin, sent by the Father to glorify Him through the noble, courageous act of delivering sinners from their just punishment. "You shall call His name Yehoshua," said the angel, "For He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). "For God so loved this world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him, will not perish but have immortal life" (John 3:16).
We quickly grasp that Jesus is Emmanuel - God with us. But why is the name "Son of Man" used 84 times in the New Testament?
Answer: Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. That means everything in the Old Testament (and I mean everything) finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "These very Scriptures (the Old Testament) testify of me" (John 5:39).
Jesus came to fulfill the Law of the Hebrews (the Old Testament) and to make that Law "obsolete" (Hebrews 8:13) in order to establish a New Covenant with the nations.
Jesus is the Son of Man because the God who sent Him, the very God who punishes the iniquity of the fathers on the children, has sent His Son as the Son of Man to take punishment for the sin of man on a rugged cross on a hill called Moriah.
Some wrongly dismiss the Old Testament as an errant description of who God is. Others ridicule the ancient Hebrews for not fully understanding God for who He really is.
Count me in as one who believes the Hebrews were chosen by God as the people through whom He would reveal Himself to the world in the form of shadows.
On a sunny day, if you see a shadow coming around the corner of a building, you know that a person is soon to follow. When you read the Old Testament, you see shadows in the Law, the Prophets, the sacrifices, the rituals, the Temple worship, and all the rest of God's dealings with His people. Don't fall in love with the shadow and seek to imitate its form. The Substance has come, and to know Him is far better than to worship the shadows and kiss the pictures (the Law). The Person whom the shadows represent has arrived. The Son of God and the Son of Man has come.
Jesus came to establish a new agreement between God and sinners. God doesn't change, but He sends His Son to fulfill all righteousness. The Son of Man has come (literally, your son), so that the righteous punishment from God due your sins can be placed on your Son, fulfilling the Law. The honorable, noble and courageous act of the One "who knew no sin but became sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21) redounds to the glory of the Father - for the Father, in love for sinners, has sent His Son as our Son (e.g. "the Son of Man), to pay the price for our sin. There is no greater love than this. The Father, the Son and the Spirit in covenant together redeems sinners.
Now, for those of us who "embrace the Son of Man," the good news is powerful. It's the answer to our sin, and it is the solution for peace with God and a life full of good promises from God. "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are all "Yes" in Christ. And so through Him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God' (II Corinthians 1:20).
Two Closing Illustrations
Recently I ministered to a young mother who fell asleep while nursing her baby. When she awoke, her newborn infant son lying dead on the floor. The guilt and excruciating agony in this mom was overwhelming. I'll never forget the question she cried out to me, "Is God punishing me for my sin by taking my son?"
Most evangelicals would quickly say, "Oh no! God would never do anything like that to you." Yet, if you study the Scriptures, that is exactly what God does. He punishes the sin of man in the son of man.
At least, that's what God did in the OLD COVENANT.
But He sure doesn't do it now in the NEW COVENANT.
I was able to confidently assure this woman who lost her child that the love of God abides on her, and never would she experience punishment from God in this life because her trust is in the Son of Man (which it was). I was able to show her "The Good News' in Jesus Christ, and help her understand that any punishment due her sins was poured out on God's Son who came as the Son of Man in order to bear the sin of man. I showed her Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
After focusing on the gospel, this woman in time began to understand the love of God in a deeper and fuller manner, even though she went through the terrible agony of losing a child. She came to realize that events in this life are not punishments from God, for the punishment from God due her sins has already been meted out on the cross. God forsook the Son He loved that He might never forsake those who love the Son.
After our Easter services at Emmanuel (2017), a beautiful young teenage girl spoke with me in the lobby. The details of her life are stunning. She lost her parents and most of her siblings in a tragic tornado as they drowned while taking shelter in a drainage ditch. All of them were swept away by a ravaging flood. This beautiful young girl survived, but her family was killed. Doubts about God's love and goodness for her had flooded her heart since that tragic day.
When she heard the gospel on Easter it set her free.
"God will never punish me for my sins because the Son of Man has come to bear my punishment on the cross. I am free from the fear of God, but more importantly, I am now captivated by the love of God because He sent His Son - the Son of God - to represent me as my son - the Son of Man - that the Law of sin and death might be fulfilled in Him. All the promises of God are now freely mine through the Son, and I have no reason to fear any punishment from God, but desire to grow in my understanding of His daily love, mercy and grace for me. I want to know Christ and Him crucified!"
That indeed is Good News.
47 comments:
Thanks Wade,
what is the significance of Ezekiel being referred to as son of man?
appreciate your studies and willingness to share.
kevin
Kevin,
Because I see all of the Law AND the prophets, I believe Ezekiel's reference as the "son of man" is only a shadow of Christ - the Substance. In other words, Ezekiel's ministry to Israel in his day parallels Christ's ministry to the world.
Wade
Great post, Wade! I especially like your analogy of "shadows" relative to the pre-carnate Christ. That's powerful. Your explanation on the reference "Son of Man" was very helpful to me as well.
Your outlook about the punishment for the sins of the parents being conveyed upon their children really provokes a lot of thought too.
The jury is still out in my consideration regarding the proposal that redeemed followers are punished for their sin because Christ has assumed all of the punishment we are due. The fact is that redeemed Jesus followers do sometimes sin following their being born again. The Father does discipline. There are consequences for our sinning. Calling it "punishment" or not seems to be a mute issue in some aspects.
Maybe you, or a regular blog reader, can direct me to a previous blog post or another reference where you have shared more light on your conclusion that God does not "punish" a believer for sinning.
Thanks a lot.
RRR
Wade has used the scriptures to re-enforce the message that he has grafted and has used the traditions of the past Jewish and Christian scholars understanding, where they see the sins of the fathers, i.e. the sins of the Grandfather plus the sins of the father being visited upon the children and the grand children in the third and the fourth. However, the context of Exodus 34:5-7, Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 5:5-8, in all instances, is in connection with the worshipping of idols.
When we sin, even if we repent of that sin, the consequences of that sin still remain with us and our descendants. The consequences of David's sin in 2 Sam 11 impacted King David's kingdom for many years. We should also understand that there is about an 8 yr gap between the End of 2 Sam 11 and 2 Sam 12. This time gap can be seen in 1 Chron 3:5.
When Nathan challenged David, he had forgotten what his original sin was that had manifested many more sins in his life. The story of the Old man and His lamb triggered in David the realisation that He had stolen the hearts of Israel, God’s chosen people, and because of this, he had begun to act "God Like." A form of idolatrous worship, where he, himself, had replaced God in his life. The nation of Israel also join David in this sin of idolatrous worship in that they worship David and God’s wrath also came against them at this time and David had to act to kerb God’s wrath against them by repenting on their behalf. He acted as their “High” Priest and sacrificed oxen on their behalf.
Now an interesting passage to consider: –
Ezekiel 18:24-28: - "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die {the second death}.
"Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not fair.' Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and {physically} dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies {the second death}. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die {the second death}.
Ezekiel 18 is an interesting chapter to contemplate. The consequences of a person’s iniquity remain with the person if they will not repent of their sin, they will die the second death, but if they repent of their sin(s) and return to righteous living, then they will live.
This was just as true in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament teaching.
The same covenantal conditions apply for those who love the Lord and keep His statutes, yesterday, today and in the future. The only difference between the Old and the New Testament atonements for sin is that today we need only the covering of the Blood of Christ who died for all whereas in the Old Testament, atonement for a person’s sin was the yearly sacrifice where the blood of an animal was used to again God’s forgiveness.
But even then, God preferred the sacrifice of the circumcision of the heart rather than the blood of animals in seeking forgiveness.
Paul in Ephesians tell us to renew/transform our hearts: -
Ephesians 4:20-24: - But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the renewed man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Shalom
Wade,
Sometimes preachers get carried away with their subject and state something completely backwards. The title of you post is correct:
“The son of Man [Jesus] is Punished for the Sin of Man.”
But then you say: “God…has sent the Son of Man [Jesus] to punish the sin of man on a rugged cross…”
Jesus did NOT punish anyone on the cross, but “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
When God transferred Jesus from Heaven to earth, He left no part of Jesus in Heaven. That means the ‘sperm and egg’ all came from Heaven and Mary became the first surrogate mother on earth. (Jesus had no DNA from Mary.) All things are possible with God.
Its been said preachers should use words that a fifth grader could understand.
It’s easy to understand: ‘When something great us done…’
“When something stellar is done…” left me clueless even though I have a college degree. :)
BTW Wade, great post!
Wow...I confess to being dense sometimes...and this is one of those times.
Wade, are you saying that God "sent" His Son but the Son had no choice? And that this "sending" of the Son was specifically for the purpose of fulfilling an OT law given to the Hebrews?
My confusion lies in the fact that since technically the Son IS God, it is God (in the form of man) who dies for the sins of all mankind. And scripture indicates that the Son did so willingly. According to Philippians 2:7-8, Jesus emptied Himself and humbled Himself.
Also, when we say God doesn't change it means that He cannot be changed or altered (if you will) by outside forces. But He can change of His own volition and by His own discretion as in Exodus 32:14. So I'm understanding God to be flexible and willing to relent according to the "if you will...then I will..." aspect of the covenant with His people.
Am I seeing these things incorrectly?
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Tom. My inquiry involves the proposal that God does not punish born again followers of Jesus for their sins committed as Christians saying that punishment was remedied on the Cross. Wade seems to apply this proposal as he ministers compassionately to the mother in his post. Perhaps Wade might say that there are "consequences" to the sin committed by believers, but it is not "punishment". Not sure if that's how he would explain it. It's one of those very deep issues, but it helps to dialogue about it. One thing that this entire conversation has done is to lead me to consider whether some of the pain that my children might incur in life might be the result of "punishment/consequences" of my sinful acts. Now that's an interesting concept.
Wade,
My apologies!
I normally run my comments for Judy to check out, but she was sleeping.
This morning she said she hoped I hadn’t posted my comment. She got me to see that “God…has sent the Son of Man to punish the sin of man on a rugged cross…” was a correct statement. (I took it wrong that Jesus was doing the punishing.
She also pointed out that every fifth grader knew what the word “stellar” meant.
It reminded me of being hired as a machinist at General Dynamics in Fort Worth many years ago. I had been a metal shop teacher in high school. The ‘boss’ went over a lot of ‘test’ questions on different subjects. He read the results aloud and kept saying “good” until he came to VOCABULARY. He jerked the paper closer to his face and said: “Oh well, that’s not important.”
BTW, I was being hired to work on the F-111 fighter plane (wings could fold back for speed). They had received the contract from the government that Robert Kennedy (Attorney General) had proof that LBJ got $100,000 kick-back. (Robert was waiting to bring charges until after the election when LBJ would no longer be vice-president.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308941/Mob-hitman-James-Files-stands-claims-man-responsible-President-John-F-Kennedy-s-assassination-prepares-release.html
Files DID NOT assassinate JFK, but he did shoot a dead man because the movie shows a bullet from the ‘sniper’s window’ where the fingerprints of LBJ’s ‘hit-man’ (Mac Wallace) were found had knocked JFK’s head forward a split second before the mercury bullet of Files knocked his head backwards. This is proven by brains on the cloths of Governor John Connally who was in front of JFK, and brains on a policeman’s motorcycle windshield that was behind JFK.
A conspiracy could easily be proven today that there was more than one sniper by an autopsy of JFK’s skull for traces of mercury since mercury never goes away.
I think I got off topic and Judy hasn’t checked it out. :)
The years would make Files 18 when JFK was killed.
I fear Files will be killed to keep his mouth shut.
RRR
Perhaps the following verses: -
Matthew 12:31-37: - "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
Mark 3:28-30: - "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" — because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."
Luke 12:8-12: - "Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
"And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
"Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
Romans 3:19-31: - Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Perhaps, a repentant heart is also required?
Thanks again, Tom, but you don't answer the issue, in my mind, at least. Of course, I totally agree that God "forgives" the sins of all who surrender their lives to Jesus Christ and are born again. I agree that our sins are removed, we are cleansed, and our sins are blotted out by the grace of God. We could not enter into the presence of a 100% holy and righteous God otherwise. The issue, as I understand the proposal, is whether a born again follower receives "punishment", "discipline", or otherwise "consequences" as allowed by God for disobeying Him. I contend, yes.
A person can be forgiven of their sin and still receive the consequences for it. I can forgive a man for killing a loved one, but he will still hang. We certainly will NOT be "punished" by eternal separation from God, we'll not enter hell, or experience suffering following the return of Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:10 does say: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."
I personally believe that I will be held accountable for my sins, even those committed as a born again believer in Jesus Christ. Also, I receive the consequences for sins I commit as a believer. If I am unfaithful in my marriage, chances are I will be found out, suffer a broken relationship, ridicule, and suffering. If I slander a brohter, I will experience miserable shame, regret and suffering as a result. If I live a life of disobedience to God, even as a born again believer, I will experience the consequences and those dependent upon me, those who trust me, and respect me, will suffer. When a pastor commits adultery, he suffers, his congregation and his family suffer and the credibility of the entire church suffers the consequences.
I wouldn't say that it's "flippant" to tell someone that their actions did not result in their receiving the consequences for their sin, but I personally would not say that or even tell someone that God does not "punish" them for disobedience, even as a born again child of God. A believer drinks too much, goes over the line, kills someone, they experience misery, perhaps are jailed and suffer the guilt that comes with understanding the misery they have caused. "Punishment" by God?
Wow. That one verse makes way more sense now. I never understood that verse before. I always thought "Were they seriously askin that question..it doesnt make any sense"
T.
Anonymous T.
Thanks - The disciples' question does make sense.
All others - great comments. I wish I could respond to each individually. I'm out for ministry all weekend and into next and will be without a computer.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
WHAT??!!! "Out for ministry"???!!! What are you thinking?!
Just kidding, brother. Good on you! Will be praying you're anointed in a special way with our Father's presence and power.
Wade,
Believing traditions of men, both in the reading of Scripture and the practice of living as a follower of Christ, has resulted in the truths of the New Covenant being hidden from a large proportion of genuine believers.
Thank you for a very worthwhile article, which I will share with some brethren!
In this world the old adage of "For every action there is a reaction" holds true, and I'm sure you would agree that when sin is uncovered there is an inevitable reaction in this world.
The traditions of men (often promoted by opinions in commentaries)make much of the incarnation but fail to show that God took on human form for the very purpose of which you teach in your article, never ceasing to be God, but put aside His rights as God as Victorious quoted.
Aussie John you wrote the following: -
Believing traditions of men, both in the reading of Scripture and the practice of living as a follower of Christ, has resulted in the truths of the New Covenant being hidden from a large proportion of genuine believers.
And it is very true, but the Label you have used, the "New Covenant," is very misleading to say the least and that is where the major issues lies.
Mankind likes to be associated with "brand new things" and when the "newness" of the "brand new thing" wears off, they disassociate themselves from what was "brand new" and go looking for the next "brand new thing" on which to pin their hopes.
If I tell you I have a "new" car, is the car second hand or brand new? The statement is silent on that issue, but whether or not it is brand new or refurbished like new again I still brought a car. In both instances, I have brought a car in which to drive around in and whether or not it is brand new or refurbished like new again its function is not changed.
The same is also true of the Covenant that God has made with all of Mankind. When the covenant was first made, it was brand new, but the covenant became broken through man's use of it thereby breaking their relationship with Him. So God then set about refurbishing His covenant with mankind so that Mankind could renew their relationship with Him.
In the Parable of the wine skins, we are told that "new" wine cannot be put into aged wine skins because the new wine will cause the aged wine skins, that are now hard and brittle, to burst open spilling the stored "new wine," in the aged wine skins, onto the ground and wasting it.
What the parable tells us is that the new wine must be put into refurbished wine skins where the "aged" skins have been restored or transformed through the rubbing of waxes and oil into the skins so that the leather is soft and flexible once more. Even "new" unused wine skins where the leather has aged needs to be refurbished so that the leather is not hard and brittle.
As such, we must renew our minds so that we can take on the renewed body in Christ and be filled with the new wine/Holy Spirit.
Christ came to refurbish like new the covenant that God had with mankind from the very beginning. In essences, the purpose of the covenant was not change but one or two of the covenantal processes were. That is why in Hebrews, it is written that the "refurbished/made new again" form of the covenant has made the older form of the covenant to become old and obsolete in it s form and consequently fade from use.
Christ now is the New mediator/Priest, according to the order of Melchizedek, of the Covenant that God has with mankind, in line with the Nation of Priests Covenant that God entered into with Israel at Mt Sinai before Israel rebelled against the Covenant while Moses was up on the Mountain with God, the first time, for forty days.
When the time of the fullness of the heathen Gentiles trampling the sanctuary is fulfilled, in our near future, then All of Israel will be saved and God will make like new again the Covenant that He had entered into with them before they had rebelled against the Covenant.
At that time they will see Jesus afar off and seek His terms of Peace.
Then after that time a time will come when there will be neither Jew nor Gentile in the assembly that worships God, only His Saints.
Shalom.
Tom,
The New Covenant is 'brand new' according to Scripture and is so for a very good reason according to Hebrews 8. Not the Old Covenant refurbished!
Aussie John
Perhaps, that is the tradition held by many within the church but I reached my conclusion after considering the Greek Root G:2537 with the normally accepted Strong meaning - [Of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while neos is properly so with respect to age -- new ]. - embedded in the word kainous with the meaning of which is found in association with the Greek words for Covenant or Testament in the New Testament. The Parable of the New Wine in the refurbished wineskins is telling in this respect because even a brand new unused wine skin, if it has aged and become hard and brittle requires that it be reworked so that it is soft and pliable once again so that it will not fail because it has become hard and brittle.
I find the choice of the words used, to be unfortunate, in describing the Old i.e. the original Mt Sinai Priestly Covenant which Israel rebelled against and the New Covenant which is described in Jeremiah 31:31 and is also the basis of the covenantal relationship that Jesus spoke of during His ministry around 2,000 years ago. The covenantal relationship in the early Covenant and the later form of that same covenant has not changed, however the process of gaining atonement for our sins has changed between the earlier and the later form of the covenant, but the intended outcome has not changed.
Perhaps a study on the Greek words in the parable of the new Wine in the refurbished wineskins may help in understand the significance of what I have written.
Shalom
Aussie,
"Believing traditions of men, both in the reading of Scripture and the practice of living as a follower of Christ, has resulted in the truths of the New Covenant being hidden from a large proportion of genuine believers."
Could you give some examples of instances where you feel that some believers are following the traditions of men rather than Scripture truths?
Thanks.
RRR,
I always feel uncomfortable answering commenters on the blog of others, but having done so with Tom, I will do so with you.
Having spent more than half of my 77 years in pastoral ministry, I had to smile when I read your question because I know ( and I suspect so do you), that such an answer could open a can of worms, which would have no value to anyone, so I will answer thus:
George MacDonald, who was a Scottish author, poet, and Christian minister, said,"Those Christians who are very strict in their observances, think a good deal more of the Sabbath than of man, a great deal more of the Bible than of the truth, and ten times more of their creed than of the will of God. Of course, if they heard anyone utter such words as I have just written, they would say he was and atheist".
One lesson I continue to learn is that one needs to be very careful our head doesn’t grow faster than our heart.
I often wonder how many who call themselves Christian have come to their position of belief by being Bereans who have received what they read, are told, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things are true (Acts 17:11). A trip to USA to a large evangelical conference in a well known church caused me to ask that question often, because I asked members of that church why they believed what they believe. The many I asked all gave the same answer, "Pastor.... said so".
I hope that none I taught will say a similar thing!
Thanks, Aussie John, for your response to my question.
You bring up something a bit lighter in your response, that is "blogging etiquette". I often respond to comments from others made on Wade's blog and have never considered whether that is impolite to Wade, as the blog-poster, or not. I imagine you mention it as being your own preference but it did make me think. I surely would not want to be disrespectful to Wade or undermine his message.
RRR,
You, Aussie John, Rex, Tom, Christianne and everyone else who comments is more than welcome to ALWAYS add your thoughts, disagree, expand on, or otherwise write any comments you believe beneficial. I can't always respond, but I DO always read and appreciate the perceptiveness of all my readers and commenters.
Wade
Thanks a lot, Wade. You're very gracious; really, not kidding. I certainly do appreciate the many, many hours you invest in prayer, research, and editing on your posts. It's a very good source of inspiration, spiritual growth, and by all means, thought-provoking, all the time. Honestly, after so long a time of being acquainted with your blog site, I do kind of feel like family with you and those other regular contributors on your blog; even though we've never met.
Sure pray that your ministry outing this past week was blessed in abundance. I know you have had many ministry outings, but you mentioned going on one in particular for which we have been praying in particular. Have a GREAT Sunday, everyone!
Wade,
Being a twin, this tears my heart out. I believe an operation to separate these 16 year old twin girls would kill one of them. If anyone needs prayer they do.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/conjoined-twins-refuse-separated-despite-044655729.html
Each girl has a heart, a set of arms, a set of lungs and a stomach. But, they share some ribs, their circulatory system, and their digestive and reproductive systems.
Doctors want to do surgery but have told them it could end in serious neurological problems or death. They are happy and plan to stay the way they are and take whatever life gives them.
However, very few of us seriously contemplate that God punished David for his sin by striking his infant son with death.
I've seriously contemplated this and find it tragic and certainly a practice (assumed) lacking in justice rather than dispensing it.
Why, for example, did God not punish David by taking the life of Solomon if the punishment was to be extended to the third and fourth generations?
Exo 34:6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;
Exo 34:7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
How can God forgive iniquity (v.7) and then not only punish the guilty, but the innocent children and grandchildren of the guilty one? How is that justice? How is this not contradictory...I forgive your iniquity but I will punish you and your children for it?
I'm going to ponder this one for a very long time.
Tom,
I appreciated your reply to my comment.
I'm sorry to be slow in replying to you. I could re-iterate what I and many others have written, such as Wade has himself written in this blog (use his search facility for his excellent articles on New Covenant).
If my memory serves me correctly,I remember reading words which Wades Dad, Paul wrote entitled something along the lines of wishing he had known some 40 years ago. I also wish I had understood what changed my life and my relationship with my heavenly Father almost 40 years ago. My own thoughts are almost identical to Paul's.
I kept a copy of a comment from within Paul's article, which resonated, and still does so,in my life:
"1. It completely changes my view of the cross: The cross DID…redeem me,DID sanctify me, and DID glorify me
There are no lists of rules and laws needed to perform in order to get His blessings
2. It completely changes my view of the law: Ten Commandments – are “school teacher” to bring Israel to the need of a Messiah.
We, the church, have a new Law-giver -- Christ Himself. Hear ye Him.
3. It completely changes my view of living
All of life is … now a gift … and is sacred … and is to be lived ... as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving … because of His grace given in Christ Jesus our Lord."
I can only say "AMEN!!" to that, and thank God for the grace that opened my religious Baptist eyes to what Paul meant when He said to the Galatians,"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery".
Victorious
In a post above I had made this statement, "However, the context of Exodus 34:5-7, Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 5:5-8, in all instances, is in connection with the worshipping of idols.
Exodus 20:4-6: - "You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
From the time of Isaac up and until the present time, the "chosen people of God," have indulged, in varying degrees, in idolatrous worship, turning their back on God as if they hated Him.
Jeremiah wrote the following: -
Jeremiah 2:26-28: - "As the thief is ashamed when he is found out,
So is the house of Israel ashamed;
They and their kings and their princes, and their priests and their prophets,
Saying to a tree, 'You are my father,'
And to a stone, 'You gave birth to me.'
For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face.
But in the time of their trouble
They will say, 'Arise and save us.'
But where are your gods that you have made for yourselves?
Let them arise,
If they can save you in the time of your trouble;
For according to the number of your cities
Are your gods, O Judah.
There are other passages which speak of Israel committing Idolatry for four ages of time, i.e. just over 4,000 years. God in Exodus 20:4-6 indicated that he would put up with this idolatrous behaviour during the first two ages of Israel's existence, but that He would visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the next two ages of the existence of Israel.
In our near future, God will show compassion on His Chosen People, Israel, and when they agree to His terms of Peace, after they seek the terms of Peace from Christ during the Battle at Armageddon when Christ will be seen afar off by Israel, (Luke 14:31-33), judging the Gentile Nations, (Isaiah 24:21-22), when the fullness in time of the Heathen Gentiles trampling the Sanctuary, is complete, God will redeem and save all of Israel (Romans 11:25-27).
Now the prophecy below may explain why Bathsheba's first son with David was taken by God. He was not the chosen one of God to build a House for God in Jerusalem.
2 Samuel 7:10-14: - Moreover I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore, as previously, since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel, and have caused you to rest from all your enemies. Also the Lord tells you that He will make you a house.
"When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.
If He had lived, David would have wanted him to build the Temple for him because he was his first born with his wife Bathsheba. But who can fathom the mind of God?
Shalom
Aussie John
You are welcome. I trust that you will be like a Berean and take the time to carefully read and meditate on the scriptures around this subject.
Even I can become very uncomfortable when my "traditions" are challenged.
Shalom
Tom Ross,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. I do understand the correlation between idolatry and the statement God made regarding visiting the iniquity of the fathers to the future generations. Nevertheless, besides not reflecting justice imo, but rather injustice, Wade seems to have attributed those verses to a variety of situations that did not include or focus on idolatry. The references to David's son with Bathsheba, Noah and certainly Jesus do not fit the sin of idolatry.
I'm questioning the implication that the loss of David and Bathsheba's son is attributed to verses Exodus 34:5-7, Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 5:5-8. Wade seemed to imply it was. That's why I asked that if that was the case, why didn't God take Solomon as well? And Solomon did turn to the gods of his foreign wives and yet God allowed him to build the temple and disregard David since he was a "man of war."
Just because the Jews questioned "who's son are you?" doesn't mean anything other than that was a natural question in a Patriarchal culture. The Jews as evidenced by the Pharisees' understanding, missed the boat in a lot of areas. I don't think those questions were the result of God's statement way back in Deut. and Exodus.
The Hebrews had spent 400 yrs. in Egypt and obviously taken on many of their gods and strange worship customs. When God made that statement, it is my belief He was saying that one's offspring look to their parents as examples and will most likely follow their idolatrous ways, polygamous practices, and immoralities. That makes more sense than punishing innocent offspring for the sins of another which cannot be viewed as "justice" in my opinion.
And finally, to use those verses as a premise for God "sending" His Son and punishing Him for my sins seems a contradiction of a God who speaks of Himself as "compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin...."
I do not see a contradiction in seeing Jesus willingly offering Himself as a sacrifice for my sins as opposed to God (His Father) "sending" Him to fulfill those verses on an innocent, sinless Son.
Victorious
I understand your concern. Wade has used the scriptures to re-enforce the message that he has grafted in this blog.
My mother was a story teller and often she did not let the facts get in the way of telling a good story.
It would seem that Wade has done the same thing here, but he will not be the last "Preacher man" to fall into this trap. Interpretation of the scriptures and the subsequent writing of blogs around the scriptures, requires a lot of time and effort and I am sure that Wade is often short of time in his busy schedule.
If Wade is teachable, then there is no issues in my mind if the occasional mistaken understanding gets through in his blogs. The requirement of a good communication is that they are willing to learn and I am sure that those who comment on the substance of Wade's blogs help to keep Wade as honest as he can be in what he writes because he learns from all the input that he soaks up and processes.
It is how we process our mistakes and errors that determine the character of the person.
It is also how we process the mistakes and errors of other people that demonstrates the character that we exhibit and the grace that we give to them.
Shalom
Tom Ross,
You write a lot of wisdom, but why do you end with “Shalom”?
I would think if you want to say ‘peace’, you would speak ‘American’ since we are not in Israel.
Just wondering.
Rex Ray,
I guess it sounds cool. Lots of people like to say "ciao".
"ขà¸à¸ªันติสุข" ("PEACE", in Thai)
Tom,
"The requirement of good communication is that they (sic) are willing to learn."
Absolutely agree.
Victorious,
1. You ask: "Wade, are you saying that God "sent" His Son but the Son had no choice?"
Absolutely not. The Father, the Son and the Spirit covenanted to save sinners. The Father sent the Son in love (John 3:16), the Son obeyed and submitted to death "For the joy set before Him" (e.g. our redemption), and the Spirit leads us into Truth.
2. And that this "sending" of the Son was specifically for the purpose of fulfilling an OT law given to the Hebrews?
Yes. But the Law given to the Hebrews is God's Law - fulfilled in Christ.
3. "My confusion lies in the fact that since technically the Son IS God, it is God (in the form of man) who dies for the sins of all mankind."
Victorious, God can't die. Only man can. Jesus is the unique God-man. He didn't die as God, He died as our Kinsman-Redeemer.
4. And scripture indicates that the Son did so willingly. According to Philippians 2:7-8, Jesus emptied Himself and humbled Himself.
Of course.
5. Also, when we say God doesn't change it means that He cannot be changed or altered (if you will) by outside forces. But He can change of His own volition and by His own discretion as in Exodus 32:14. So I'm understanding God to be flexible and willing to relent according to the "if you will...then I will..." aspect of the covenant with His people.
"IF you will (obey) ... then I will bless.." is precisely the condition of the Law. In the New Covenant which Christ sealed in His life, death and resurrection, the blessings of God area all "yes and amen" for the one in Christ. We are now called to love others as HE loves US (unconditionally, eternally, selflessly).
Am I seeing these things incorrectly?
As Tom states, learning is good.
Trusting both you and Tom are learning a little more of the gospel of grace.
:)
I believe the entire nature of "sin" is so far beyond our ability to conceive that our attempting to come to conclusions about God's reasoning in dealing with it is futile.
One "sin" event resulted in all of creation changing. It resulted in a plan being required to deal with the consequences that would require thousands of years to unfold; to build a nation identified as being God-fearers for the purpose of accommodating the entry of The Messiah. It resulted in all humanity being born afflicted with an inherited "sin" nature that doomed us all eternally separated from The Creator unless He did something about it.
One could say, "You and I are being 'punished' for the sin of Eve and Adam by our inheriting the consequences of their sin." One could say that "All of creation is judged cursed because of the sin of one person." I mean, mosquitos, disease, death of all, destructive insects, earthquakes, tsunamis, misery, all of it caused by the holy system being broken by the one.
There is no "justice" in this as we can grasp "justice" because we do not grasp the magnitude of the situation when an entire order of creation is originally created to be entirely holy, perfect, beautiful, accommodating to the inhabitants, submissive to The Creator, and then one small virus of "sin" is thrown into the mix. Explain that! We can only begin to perceive its enormity when we consider the enormity of The One and His character and sovereignty.
For me, the parameters of all elements involved, i.e., "the disgusting, destructive, evil, wickedness of the swill of sin"/"the 100% pure, holy, righteous, eternal, Sovereign over all"/"the resulting destructive, evil, vile, eternal consequences of spoiling something so beautiful, pure, and wonderful"/and "the degree of grace, love, creative and effective providence of The Creator", all make our assuming that we can explain or completely understand it, amusing.
Trusting both you and Tom are learning a little more of the gospel of grace.
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have no trouble whatsoever understanding the gospel of grace. It's God's justice that's being called into question by implying He lays the punishment due a sinner onto another.
The entire Mosaic Law as I understand it is God's effort to teach the Hebrews how to differentiate between intentional and unintentional sin; to teach fair and just interaction between them and their neighbors; and above all, to teach them about the one true God who led them out of slavery, nurtured them and wants to make them into a nation who reflects the love of God for His people.
Over and over God tells the Hebrews to pursue justice and not to distort it and not to show partiality. Judge the righteous judgement.
How then, can we interpret the apparent injustice of punishing the innocent on account of the guilty?
We are either misinterpreting the words of Exodus 34:6-7, misunderstanding their intent, or (God forbid) erroneously applying the virtue of justice to God. It's obvious throughout scripture that each person is responsible for his own sin and that God shows no partiality in His dealings with mankind.
Rex
Do not read too much into how I sign off my posts. It is a 'tradition' that I have adopted but the 'tradition' from which it was drawn is one I have not fully embraced or accepted.
Shalom
well, I always ask this question, when the topic is the Crucifixion:
"Who died on the Cross"?
and what ensues among evangelical people who respond are statements like 'the Son of God died' or 'Jesus died on the Cross'; and then I ask THIS QUESTION: "Do you believe that God died on the Cross?"
and the answers come like: 'No way! God cannot die.' or maybe 'Jesus died but He was God's Son, not God' or maybe 'Jesus the Man was crucified, not Jesus the God' ..... and so it goes ....
The closest thing I get to orthodoxy is when someone says: 'Jesus had two natures, one Divine and one Human. It was His Human nature that was crucified, not His Divine Nature.'
But then I ask: "Did a 'nature' die on the Cross OR did a Person die on the Cross?" And I explain that Christ the Person was both fully God and fully Man. And in the Paschal Mystery, the Incarnate God-Man was crucified on Calvary, a willing victim.
There's a lot of variation in how Christian people understand what the Crucifixion was all about, but there is the agreement that what happened was done for our sakes. I like to think it was done out of love, that Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, renews everything in Creation. He is making all things new.
Tom,
In your reply to Victorious you said, "It is how we process our mistakes and errors that determine the character of the person".
How we process our mistakes and errors is only a PART of the evidence that the Holy Spirit has been working in one's life, a major part is how one responds to their fellow believers with whom they may differ, allowing for the very real possibility that something they have held onto for many years,and argued for from pulpits and other venues may be faulty.
I suppose you and I would be in agreement that "we are justified by grace" Rom.5:1, where Paul goes on to reveal another ingredient of character?
I have observed during almost my lifetime that such received grace engenders grace in the recipients, which in practice reveals graciousness towards others, even those with whom one differs.
Again to quote you,"My mother was a story teller and often she did not let the facts get in the way of telling a good story.
It would seem that Wade has done the same thing here, but he will not be the last "Preacher man" to fall into this trap. Interpretation of the scriptures and the subsequent writing of blogs around the scriptures, requires a lot of time and effort and I am sure that Wade is often short of time in his busy schedule.If Wade is teachable, then there is no issues in my mind if the occasional mistaken understanding gets through in his blogs. The requirement of a good communication is that they are willing to learn and I am sure that those who comment on the substance of Wade's blogs help to keep Wade as honest as he can be in what he writes because he learns from all the input that he soaks up and processes."
Oh,Tom! Hardly exhibiting character or grace in a public forum!
“The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold, but the LORD tests the heart” (Proverbs 17:3).
“You test the heart and are pleased with integrity” (1 Chronicles 29:17)
The gracious spirit of a person reveals an insight into God that surpasses any amount of knowledge of Scripture. Without that, I am just a banging cymbal. I love that passage in Exodus 33:11 that says, "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend."
Hello
I am sorry that I have probably offended some by what I have written. And yes I am concerned with the traditions of my fathers. I am also concerned with the traditions that I make for myself that catch me out also.
The use of labels only trips us up and the labels that have become commonly used to differentiate between the "former" covenantal form and the later covenantal form that God has established with mankind is one such example. There are other example as well and many an argument has been had around these labels in use with few opinions changed.
Am I teachable, I believe that I am, as my views are always in flux as new teaching/revelation comes and is validated.
It is my understanding that it is our relationship with God at this very moment in our lives that is important for us to be working on full time.
Yes we will be know by the fruit we produce and it is our fruit that will determine our righteous before God.
Having a heart after God's own heart? Yes that is what we are told to be working on through the renewing of our minds.
Shalom
Tom,
You said, “...it is our fruit that will determine our righteous before God.”
You are only correct IF our fruit is ‘believing in Jesus’, because “All our righteous is as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6) compared to what God has done.
Isaiah 64: - Oh, that You would rend the heavens!
That You would come down!
That the mountains might shake at Your presence —
As fire burns brushwood,
As fire causes water to boil —
To make Your name known to Your adversaries,
That the nations may tremble at Your presence!
When You did awesome things for which we did not look,
You came down,
The mountains shook at Your presence.
For since the beginning of the world
Men have not heard nor perceived by the ear,
Nor has the eye seen any God besides You,
Who acts for the one who waits for Him.
You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned —
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.
And there is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself up to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us,
And have consumed us because of our iniquities.
But now, O Lord,
You are our Father;
We are the clay, and You our potter;
And all we are the work of Your hand.
Do not be furious, O Lord,
Nor remember iniquity forever;
Indeed, please look — we all are Your people!
Your holy cities are a wilderness,
Zion is a wilderness,
Jerusalem a desolation.
Our holy and beautiful temple,
Where our fathers praised You,
Is burned up with fire;
And all our pleasant things are laid waste.
Will You restrain Yourself because of these things, O Lord?
Will You hold Your peace, and afflict us very severely?
Continuing: -
Isaiah 65: - "I was sought by those who did not ask for Me;
I was found by those who did not seek Me.
I said, 'Here I am, here I am,'
To a nation that was not called by My name.
I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people,
Who walk in a way that is not good,
According to their own thoughts;
A people who provoke Me to anger continually to My face;
Who sacrifice in gardens,
And burn incense on altars of brick;
Who sit among the graves,
And spend the night in the tombs;
Who eat swine's flesh,
And the broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
Who say, 'Keep to yourself,
Do not come near me,
For I am holier than you!'
These are smoke in My nostrils,
A fire that burns all the day.
"Behold, it is written before Me:
I will not keep silence, but will repay —
Even repay into their bosom —
Your iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together,"
Says the Lord,
"Who have burned incense on the mountains
And blasphemed Me on the hills;
Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom."
"As the new wine is found in the cluster,
And one says, 'Do not destroy it,
For a blessing is in it,'
So will I do for My servants' sake,
That I may not destroy them all.
I will bring forth descendants from Jacob,
And from Judah an heir of My mountains;
My elect shall inherit it,
And My servants shall dwell there.
Sharon shall be a fold of flocks,
And the Valley of Achor a place for herds to lie down,
For My people who have sought Me.
"But you are those who forsake the Lord,
Who forget My holy mountain,
Who prepare a table for Gad,
And who furnish a drink offering for Meni.
Therefore I will number you for the sword,
And you shall all bow down to the slaughter;
Because, when I called, you did not answer;
When I spoke, you did not hear,
But did evil before My eyes,
And chose that in which I do not delight."
Therefore thus says the Lord God:
"Behold, My servants shall eat,
But you shall be hungry;
Behold, My servants shall drink,
But you shall be thirsty;
Behold, My servants shall rejoice,
But you shall be ashamed;
Behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart,
But you shall cry for sorrow of heart,
And wail for grief of spirit.
You shall leave your name as a curse to My chosen;
For the Lord God will slay you,
And call His servants by another name;
So that he who blesses himself in the earth
Shall bless himself in the God of truth;
And he who swears in the earth
Shall swear by the God of truth;
Because the former troubles are forgotten,
And because they are hidden from My eyes.
"For behold, I create like new, the heavens and a like new, the earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing,
And her people a joy.
I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people;
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her,
Nor the voice of crying.
"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
They shall build houses and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
They shall not build and another inhabit;
They shall not plant and another eat;
For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people,
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
They shall not labor in vain,
Nor bring forth children for trouble;
For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the Lord,
And their offspring with them.
"It shall come to pass
That before they call, I will answer;
And while they are still speaking, I will hear.
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent's food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,"
Says the Lord.
Rex,
So right.
Of course that gets us back to the context of Wades article; the free gift of Christ's righteousness imputed (credited) to us(Rom.4:22). The Apostle Paul certainly understood that as he writes to the Romans (Rom 3:20-22). We have,and never will have, no matter how hard we try, to have a righteousness of our own,but as the transforming power of the Holy Spirit causes us to grow in grace Christ's righteousness will become apparent as fruit.
I love this passage from Paul's letter to Titus: "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS DONE BY US IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, BUT ACCORDING TO HIS OWN MERCY, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION AND RENEWAL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHOM HE POURED OUT ON US RICHLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOR,so that being justified (considered as if righteous)by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life".
Transformed by grace divine,
The glory shall be Thine;
To Thy most holy will, O Lord,
We now our all resign.
Victorious, you write:
"Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have no trouble whatsoever understanding the gospel of grace. It's God's justice that's being called into question by implying He lays the punishment due a sinner onto another."
Victorious, to me that's the gospel.
And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Wade, you said...
Victorious, to me that's the gospel.
The gospel is that Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep. He is God who took on human form, emptied Himself, humbled Himself, and came to serve. He was a man acquainted with sorrow and grief. He was despised, crushed, scourged, and crucified so we might have eternal life.
To me, the emphasis of the gospel is Jesus. He is the central figure, not only in the 300+ prophecies concerning Him, but the primary, predominant focus in the NT.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from this article, you seem to be emphasizing a hierarchy within the Trinity with the focus on God as the Father who "sends" the Son. I gathered that since you seemed to base a good portion on the scriptures that imply God punishes the innocent because of the guilt of the father. It appears you see the question, "who's son is he" as evidence that the Jews were asking that referring to those 2-3 verses rather than a simple question reflecting a patriarchal culture.
You posted the lyrics to a beautiful song that I hadn't heard for a very long time. Thank you for that.
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
So did God die? ....smile...
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. I do understand the correlation between idolatry and the statement God made regarding visiting the iniquity of the fathers to the future generations. Nevertheless, besides not reflecting justice imo, but rather injustice, Wade seems to have attributed those verses to a variety of situations that did not include or focus on idolatry. The references to David's son with Bathsheba, Noah and certainly Jesus do not fit the sin of idolatry.
goldenslot
Post a Comment