Category: Jesus

Posted on

What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?

Colossians 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

In the first chapter of Colossians, Paul pens one of the greatest treatises on the divine nature of Christ in all of Scripture. And yet, some have used this very section to promote a false understanding of Jesus.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious group that was birthed in the late 1870’s when Charles Taze Russell, who had been highly influenced by Adventist teachings, determined that certain Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity and divinity of Christ, were not supported by Scripture.

I’ve written a number of posts regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their view that Jesus is not God, including the following posts:

The bottom line with Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they don’t believe in the trinity. Therefore, they don’t believe that Jesus is God. They teach a doctrine that is known as Arianism (see post here), which teaches that Jesus is a created being who does not possess a divine nature.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are highly committed to their understanding of Jesus as a created being, and they believe that this passage, in Colossians 1, serves as strong evidence in support of their view.

Specifically, this passage twice describes Jesus as being “firstborn”. The thinking goes that if Jesus was born, then he must be created. If he was created then he clearly isn’t God. If he isn’t God, then he’s just a man. Hence, the view that Jesus is a created being without a divine nature must be the correct view.

That logic might sound correct on the surface, but there is one small problem, as our good friend Inigo Montoya will explain:

The problem is that we interpret the word “firstborn” based on our modern understanding. Naturally, we see the word “born” and assume that it refers to a birth. We assume therefore that the passage is saying that Jesus was “born”, just as all people are naturally born.

But that’s not at all what the passage is saying.

To understand this passage, we need to understand a little bit about the culture of the Ancient Near East, particularly how the family heirs were treated.

In the Ancient Near East culture, it was customary for the oldest son to receive a double portion of any inheritance. The oldest son enjoyed this benefit because of his status as the highest in rank of all the sons. So, if you had two sons, your assets would be divided into 3 parts. The oldest son would get 2 shares and the youngest son would get one share.

The oldest son was therefore the pre-eminent, or favored son. The oldest son was the highest in rank – usually.

However, there are a number of Biblical examples where this was not the case.

Take Jacob and Esau for example. Esau was the oldest son but God favored Jacob, who received Isaac’s blessing over Esau.

Jacob’s sons are another example. Jacob had 12 sons. Reuben was the oldest and therefore, was considered the pre-eminent son, eligible for the double portion.

However, Reuben forfeited his rank and the blessing associated with the oldest son when he slept with one of his father’s wives. As a result, Jacob made Joseph the pre-eminent son, even though he was NOT born first. In fact, he was the eleventh born! (see 1 Chronicles 5:1)

When you see a list of the tribes of Israel (Jacob’s new name), you never see Joseph listed. Why is that? It’s because Joseph was given two shares. Joseph’s shares are represented by his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

The Greek word that is translated “firstborn” is the word “prototokos”. While the word is translated as “firstborn”, it doesn’t mean that Jesus was created. If Paul wanted to communicate that Jesus was the first-created, he would have used a different word, “protoktisos”, which literally means “first-created.”

How do we know that Paul is not trying to communicate that Jesus was “born” if he indeed uses this word which translates to “firstborn”?

It’s clear from the context that Paul is not using the word in the way the Jehovahs Witnesses assert.

In the first instance of the word, Paul says that Jesus is “the firstborn over all creation.” If Paul were communicating that Jesus was “born” then he’s also saying that “creation” is the parent. That doesn’t make sense. If Paul was communicating that Jesus was literally born, shouldn’t the passage say that Jesus was the “firstborn of God”?

In the second instance of the word “firstborn”, Paul states that Jesus is firstborn from among the dead. Again, this language doesn’t make sense if Jesus is actually born. How can Jesus be parented by creation and also by “the dead”?

This passage makes complete sense if we understand that the word “firstborn” carries the meaning of pre-eminence or rank, just as the firstborn child of any ancient near eastern family held pre-eminent status over his siblings due to his higher rank.

In this case, Paul says in verse 15 that Jesus is pre-eminent over creation. Why? Paul gives the answer in the very next verse. It’s because Jesus is the CREATOR. Jesus is pre-eminent (firstborn) over creation because he is the author of ALL of creation.

In the same way, Jesus is pre-eminent over death precisely because he has demonstrated supremacy over death by rising from the dead.

So in the end, this passage doesn’t teach that Jesus is a created being as the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. Instead, this passage teaches the exact opposite. Jesus is the uncreated creator of all things in whom the fullness of deity dwells and through whom all things are reconciled by His shed blood on the cross.

Jesus is indeed firstborn. He has demonstrated supremacy over creation and death precisely because He is GOD!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Genesis 41:51-52 says, “Joseph named his firstborn Manasseh…. 52The second son he named Ephraim”. Yet in Jeremiah 31:9 it says, “Ephraim is my firstborn son”. How can Ephraim be the second son in the Genesis passage but the firstborn in Jeremiah? How do you explain this apparent contradiction?

If Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovahs Witnesses contend, what do you think are the implications in terms of Jesus’ ability to save humanity? In other words, how can a savior who is not divine atone for the sins of the world?

What are some personal examples you can think of where the first born son (or daughter) did not enjoy the favored status you might expect?

What are some other qualities of Jesus that you learn from this short passage in Colossians? What else can we say about Jesus from these verses?

 

Photo is a screenshot from the movie “The Princess Bride”

Posted on

Does Proverbs 8 Prove that Jesus is a Created Being?

Proverbs 8

1Listen as wisdom calls out! Hear as understanding raises her voice! 2She stands on the hilltop and at the crossroads. 3At the entrance to the city, at the city gates, she cries aloud, 4“I call to you, to all of you! I am raising my voice to all people. 5How naive you are! Let me give you common sense. O foolish ones, let me give you understanding. 6Listen to me! For I have excellent things to tell you. Everything I say is right, 7for I speak the truth and hate every kind of deception. 8My advice is wholesome and good. There is nothing crooked or twisted in it. 9My words are plain to anyone with understanding, clear to those who want to learn.

10“Choose my instruction rather than silver, and knowledge over pure gold. 11For wisdom is far more valuable than rubies. Nothing you desire can be compared with it.

12“I, Wisdom, live together with good judgment. I know where to discover knowledge and discernment. 13All who fear the LORD will hate evil. That is why I hate pride, arrogance, corruption, and perverted speech. 14Good advice and success belong to me. Insight and strength are mine. 15Because of me, kings reign, and rulers make just laws. 16Rulers lead with my help, and nobles make righteous judgments.

17“I love all who love me. Those who search for me will surely find me. 18Unending riches, honor, wealth, and justice are mine to distribute. 19My gifts are better than the purest gold, my wages better than sterling silver! 20I walk in righteousness, in paths of justice. 21Those who love me inherit wealth, for I fill their treasuries.

22“The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else. 23I was appointed in ages past, at the very first, before the earth began. 24I was born before the oceans were created, before the springs bubbled forth their waters. 25Before the mountains and the hills were formed, I was born—26before he had made the earth and fields and the first handfuls of soil.

27“I was there when he established the heavens, when he drew the horizon on the oceans. 28I was there when he set the clouds above, when he established the deep fountains of the earth. 29I was there when he set the limits of the seas, so they would not spread beyond their boundaries. And when he marked off the earth’s foundations, 30I was the architect at his side. I was his constant delight, rejoicing always in his presence. 31And how happy I was with what he created—his wide world and all the human family!

32“And so, my children, listen to me, for happy are all who follow my ways. 33Listen to my counsel and be wise. Don’t ignore it.

34“Happy are those who listen to me, watching for me daily at my gates, waiting for me outside my home! 35For whoever finds me finds life and wins approval from the LORD. 36But those who miss me have injured themselves. All who hate me love death.” (Proverbs 8:1-36, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

When I was a high school senior, I took AP English. At one point we were studying poetry and we read a famous poem by Robert Frost, entitled, “The Road Not Taken”. The poem starts with the line:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

and ends with the oft-quoted phrase:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

 

Our teacher asked the class what we thought the poem was about. A few people in the class who had a somewhat religious background, including myself, thought the poem was a metaphor for heaven and hell. After all, if you’re going to talk about two roads that diverge, you cannot get any more divergent than heaven and hell.

I remember our teacher graciously telling us that we were overthinking the poem. There was nothing in the poem that mentioned heaven or hell and the context of the poem was not about eternal destiny. There was really nothing about the poem that would indicate that it was religious in nature.

To my surprise, I learned that the plain meaning was usually the correct meaning, unless there was some compelling reason to believe that the writer was speaking metaphorically or allegorically.

In our case, the poem was simply about two different choices, both of which were appealing in their own way. Which one should I choose? How do you choose? The author is simply writing about the conflict that arises when we have to choose between two paths. That’s it.

What can happen though is that some people will naturally want to import their own views and perspectives into the poem. In my case, being a person who went to church and Sunday school and who had heard a lot about the two different life choices of heaven and hell, I saw “two paths” and immediately concluded “heaven and hell” without really thinking about whether that was what the author was really writing about.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses make a similar error in their understanding and explanation of Proverbs 8.

If you’ve ever had a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness, you likely know that they do not believe that Jesus is God. Instead, they teach that Jesus is a created being. They believe that Jesus is God’s first created being, which makes him extra special, but in the end, he’s still a created being like you and me.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses theological viewpoints on Jesus are rooted in an ancient heresy known as Arianism. I wrote about their views in my blog post “A Modern Day Version of an Ancient Heresy” in which I discuss their views of the opening verses of John’s gospel.

When talking to a Jehovah’s Witness regarding their view that Jesus was a created being, they have a number of biblical “proof-texts” to support their theological stance. One of those passages is Proverbs 8.

According to the Jehovah’s Witness, Proverbs 8 provides ironclad evidence that the Bible teaches that Jesus is NOT God.

Verses 22-31, in particular, demonstrate that Jesus is created. The Jehovah’s Witness argument is that Jesus is speaking about how he was formed “before he created anything else.” Jesus was there at God’s side when He created everything.

To the Jehovah’s Witness, this fits perfectly with their view that Jesus was the first created “thing” and then God created everything else through Jesus.

There is only one problem with this reasoning – the subject of this passage is wisdom not Jesus.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their haste to project their theological view of Jesus into any text that might have words or phrases that trigger their theological bias, have erred in much the same way I, and others in my high school English class, so quickly attributed a wrong context to Robert Frost’s famous poem.

Solomon, the author of Proverbs, is using a literary device known as personification to explain and highlight the importance of wisdom.

There is nothing in the context to suggest that Wisdom is really Jesus. Actually, when you really look at this passage, you realize that the text cannot be referring to Jesus. Here are a couple of reasons why:

First, wisdom in this passage is identified as a female, whereas Jesus is male.

Secondly, if wisdom is an actual person, then “good judgment” must also be a person because wisdom lives with good judgment according to verse 12. If wisdom is really Jesus, then who is this “good judgment” character?

Lastly, if you know anything about the broader context of Proverbs, it is a collection of sayings and instruction regarding wise living. This is made clear at the very outset of the book:

The purpose of these proverbs is to teach people wisdom and discipline, and to help them understand wise sayings. 3Through these proverbs, people will receive instruction in discipline, good conduct, and doing what is right, just, and fair. 4These proverbs will make the simpleminded clever. They will give knowledge and purpose to young people. (Proverbs 1:1-4, NLT – emphasis added)

Additionally, in this particular section of the book, Wisdom is personified as a female instructor. Proverbs 9 continues with this personified motif as Wisdom is contrasted with Folly, both of whom are given female personalities.

So if this passage isn’t speaking about Jesus, what is the point being made?

The point of this passage is summarized at the end, in verses 32-36, which state:

32“And so, my children, listen to me, for happy are all who follow my ways. 33Listen to my counsel and be wise. Don’t ignore it.

34“Happy are those who listen to me, watching for me daily at my gates, waiting for me outside my home! 35For whoever finds me finds life and wins approval from the LORD. 36But those who miss me have injured themselves. All who hate me love death.”

In short, the reader is encouraged to “listen to my counsel and be wise.”

In the end, the Jehovah’s Witnesses commit an error we call eisegesis, which occurs when one imports their own viewpoint or bias into the interpretation of the text. Good Bible interpretation will instead interpret the passage based on the plain meaning and the context while resisting the urge to make the passage say what the reader wants or hopes that it will say.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

The error of eisegesis, where one interprets a text in such a way that it fits with their pre-conceived views, is not just a problem with Jehovah’s Witnesses. People everywhere commit this error. What are some views you have that you are more apt to try to find the text to support? In other words, what are some ways you have, or are tempted to commit this error of eisegesis?

Why do you think the Jehovah’s Witnesses are so committed to their view that Jesus is a created being?

What are some of the benefits of wisdom according to this passage?

What do you think are some good Bible study habits and techniques that will help you to interpret passages correctly, without importing your personal views into the interpretation of the passage?

 

Photo by James Wheeler: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-pathway-surrounded-by-fir-trees-1578750/

 

Posted on

What is Required to Bear Fruit as a Christian?

John 15

1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John 15:1-8, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Have you ever wondered what the Christian life is all about? For many people, living as a Christian has been reduced to a series of religious activities, such as attending church, being in a bible study and serving in various ministry capacities.

While these activities aren’t bad, Jesus is clear that the goal of the Christian life is to “bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.”

So how exactly does one “bear fruit”? HINT – it doesn’t happen because of our religious activities.

In John 15, Jesus gives a picture of fruitfulness by describing the relationship between a vine and its branches.

Being in a more agrarian society, Jesus’ audience likely would have understood the analogy in greater depth than we might, given that most of us probably didn’t grow up on a farm and may never have had much experience with vines or vineyards.

Nevertheless, it’s not a complicated concept to understand. Similar to a tree trunk, which gets its nourishment from a well-developed root system and then delivers it to the branches, a vine is the source of nourishment for the branches that are connected to it.

The key to bearing fruit for a branch is staying connected to the vine. If a branch is disconnected from the vine somehow, it will not produce fruit. Jesus emphasizes this point with the phrase “remain in me”, which he repeats six times in these eight verses.

What does Jesus mean when He says to “remain in me”?

The greek word used here is the word “meno”, the primary meaning of which is to stay in a given place, state or relation. Other words that help define the word “meno” are abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, and stand.

To remain in Jesus means we are to stay relationally present with Him. That word “dwell” evokes an image of Jesus being present with me in my living room, in my car when I’m driving, at my work place, when I’m out and about, when I’m hanging out with the guys or when I’m alone with no one around me to see what I’m doing. In short, I’m aware of Jesus’ presence in my life wherever I’m at and whatever I’m doing.

You don’t have to be a viticulturalist to know that the natural outcome of a branch that is connected to a vine is fruit. If there is no fruit, you know there is a problem somewhere. The same is true in our spiritual lives. If there is no fruit in your spiritual life, there is a problem.

So what are the problems that might result in a lack of fruit?

Verse 2 says that He “cuts off” branches that don’t produce fruit, while He “prunes” some branches that do bear fruit so that they will be more fruitful.

The Greek word that is translated as “cuts off” in the NIV, and “takes away” in the NASB is the Greek word “airo” which literally means “to lift up”.

In a vineyard, some branches would end up on the ground and would not have access to sunlight. These branches would grow but they wouldn’t produce grapes. Jesus is saying that branches that were lying on the ground would be “lifted up” so that they would have access to sunlight and thus would be able to bear fruit.

It’s easy to think we’re connected to Jesus because our lives are filled with religious activities, but remaining with Jesus means that I understand that He is the only source of spiritual life. He is the true vine.

As part of our fallen nature, we all try to fill the needs and cravings in our life in inauthentic ways, whether it’s work, hobbies, money, entertainment, sex or whatever. None of these avenues can truly satisfy us. Only Jesus can provide TRUE spiritual life and nourishment that satisfies and fulfills.

So if you’re not bearing fruit, perhaps it’s because you’re not depending on Jesus alone as your true source of spiritual nourishment and fulfillment. Jesus wants to lift you up out of the dirt and bring you into the light of His word and His truth so that you can begin to bear fruit.

Another possible reason we may be experiencing a lack of fruit is that we need to be “pruned”. Jesus says that He (God the Father) prunes every branch that does bear fruit so that it will bear more fruit.

The word that is translated “prune” is the greek word “kathairo” which means “to cleanse, to prune.” Vinedressers would routinely clean and wash the branches on the vine to rid them of pests that might destroy the leaves and interrupt the fruit-bearing process.

If you’re lacking fruit in your life, perhaps you need Jesus to cleanse you. In other words, maybe there is a sin issue that is keeping you from being fully dependent on Jesus and as a result, is negatively impacting your ability to bear fruit in your life.

Are you starting to get the picture? Jesus wants us to bear fruit, just as a branch connected to a vine would produce fruit.

But we are unable to produce fruit on our own. Only Jesus can produce fruit. We bear fruit if we simply stay connected to Him in a dependent relationship.

If we are lacking fruit, it is likely because we are depending on something apart from Jesus to provide fulfillment in our lives.

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

What are some of the inauthentic ways you seek to fulfill the needs and cravings in your life?

Describe a time when you realized that you were not producing fruit? What was happening in your life? What caused you to realize that you were not fruitful?

What are some practical ways you can seek to remain in Jesus? How do you demonstrate your dependence on Him?

What do you think spiritual fruit is? How do you define it? What does it look like in your life to produce “fruit”?

What are the religious activities you are regularly involved in? In what ways are these activities helping you grow in your dependence on Jesus? How can you avoid falling into the trap of thinking that these religious activities alone will produce “fruit” in your life?

 

 

Photo by Zachary Brown on Unsplash

Posted on

What is Your Definition of Truth?

John 14

1“Don’t be troubled. You trust God, now trust in me. 2There are many rooms in my Father’s home, and I am going to prepare a place for you. If this were not so, I would tell you plainly. 3When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. 4And you know where I am going and how to get there.”

5“No, we don’t know, Lord,” Thomas said. “We haven’t any idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

(John 14:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

What is truth?

I think the best way of defining truth is “that which corresponds to reality.”

We live in a time and culture where many people are not too concerned with truth, especially as it relates to religious beliefs.

The predominant view regarding religion today is that of pluralism, the idea that there is no ONE right view or true religion. Most people think that whatever works best for you is good for you. If you think about it, this totally fits our postmodern culture.

Postmodernism is a reaction or a rejection to the philosophy of modernism, which is also known as naturalism. While naturalism emphasized logic and repeated observation and experience to arrive at truth (seen most notably in modern science and the scientific method), postmodernism emphasizes one’s own experience as the basis for truth.

Hence, for most people, there is not ONE truth, but there can be many truths, because truth is whatever your experience tells you it is.

Enter Jesus in John 14. Jesus is interacting with his disciples shortly before he is arrested and crucified. In preparing his disciples for what they will soon encounter with his death, resurrection and ascension, he tells them that he’s going to prepare a place for them. He also tells them that they know the way to get to where he’s going.

The disciples are confused. “We don’t know where you’re going….so how could we know how to get there?”

In typical fashion, the disciples are perplexed because Jesus is talking about a spiritual reality while the disciples are thinking only about the physical reality they’re currently in.

Jesus’ response to his disciples is profound and has far-reaching implications. He says:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

Jesus uses three separate terms to describe himself:

I am the way – Jesus defines himself as THE way, not “a” way. In our diverse world of religious pluralism, Jesus does not describe himself as one alternative path among many. Jesus is not an option that suits some people while Buddha, Mohammad or Confucius might be more preferable for others. Jesus is not a preference. Jesus is THE option.

I am the truth – Jesus says that he is THE truth. If truth is that which corresponds to reality, then Jesus is saying that he is the ultimate reality. His life and His words accurately depict what is real. What this means is that Jesus’ words are not mere suggestions to consider. Instead, they are the basis of reality for everyone, not just those people who prefer Jesus over some other religious leader or humanistic ideology.

I am the life – Jesus also describes himself as THE LIFE. Jesus is not just a way to experience a better life as if he is a self-help guru. He is the source of all life itself. John says this about Jesus in the introductory words of his gospel:

He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make. 4Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone. (John 1:3-4, NLT)

Perhaps you have heard the analogy that getting to God is like a trek to the top of a mountain. While God is at the top, there are many routes that one might traverse in order to get to the top and reach God.

This analogy adequately illustrates what many believe today. God is whatever or however you might define him and your path to getting to him is whatever path you might choose to take.

Jesus stands in stark contrast to this way of thinking. God is not whatever or whomever you might want him to be. Making God out to be whoever you might prefer him to be is what the Bible calls idol worship and it’s an egregious sin. Israel’s engagement in idol worship is a main theme in the Old Testament and was the primary reason for their punishment and exile at the hands of foregien powers. (See my blog posts “Are You an Idol Worshiper” and “A Discourse on the Foolishness of Idols”).

Jesus says that if you want to get to God the Father, you MUST go through Him. Contrary to what our modern day religious pluralism says, Jesus IS the only way. Jesus can make that claim because He’s the only one who has made a valid payment for sin. No other religious leader or ideology even offers a solution to the problem of sin before a holy God. Jesus is the only one who does, and therefore, His claims are exclusive.

Christianity does not fit well in today’s religious pluralistic culture because it makes exclusive claims about God and salvation. Jesus himself claimed to be the ONLY way to God and this view was supported by his disciples and the New Testament writings (see my blog post “Is Christianity an Exclusive Religion?“)

We live in a pluralistic society and as a result, we’re tolerant of others and their views and beliefs. However, tolerance is not truth. Tolerance says that we respect the rights of others to hold views and beliefs that are different than ours. It doesn’t mean that we agree that their views are right. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Jesus is truth. His words are truth. He is the only one who has paid the price for sin and therefore, He indeed is the only way to get to God.

Reflection

How would you define truth?

What is your response to those who say all religions are basically the same? How would you go about distinguishing Christianity from other religions and ideologies?

How do you respond to those who object to Christianity’s exclusive claims? 

Do you think that Christianity is intolerant because it teaches that there is only ONE way to reach God? Why or why not? How do you define tolerance?

 

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Posted on

Is the Old Testament God a Bloodthirsty, Genocidal Psychopath?

Psalm 106

34Israel failed to destroy the nations in the land,

as the LORD had told them to.

35Instead, they mingled among the pagans

and adopted their evil customs.

36They worshiped their idols,

and this led to their downfall.

37They even sacrificed their sons

and their daughters to the demons.

38They shed innocent blood,

the blood of their sons and daughters.

By sacrificing them to the idols of Canaan,

they polluted the land with murder.

39They defiled themselves by their evil deeds,

and their love of idols was adultery in the LORD’s sight.

40That is why the LORD’s anger burned against his people,

and he abhorred his own special possession.

41He handed them over to pagan nations,

and those who hated them ruled over them.

42Their enemies crushed them

and brought them under their cruel power.

43Again and again he delivered them,

but they continued to rebel against him,

and they were finally destroyed by their sin.

44Even so, he pitied them in their distress

and listened to their cries.

45He remembered his covenant with them

and relented because of his unfailing love.

46He even caused their captors

to treat them with kindness.

47O LORD our God, save us!

Gather us back from among the nations,

so we can thank your holy name

and rejoice and praise you.

48Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel,

from everlasting to everlasting!

Let all the people say, “Amen!”

Praise the LORD!

(Psalm 106:34-48, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Have you ever heard someone question the morality of God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament?

Perhaps you (or someone you know) have wondered if the Bible is actually describing two different gods, since God as He is depicted in the Old Testament seems so different than how He is portrayed in the New Testament in the person of Jesus.

Some might go so far as to deny the God of the Old Testament, using words like “blood-thirsty”, “genocidal” and even “psychopathic” to describe His behavior.

In a previous blog post entitled “Is the God of the Old Testament Petty“, I wrote about how some people view the Old Testament God as petty or jealous.

The bottom line is that many people simply cannot reconcile the actions of God in the Old Testament with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. How is it possible, the reasoning goes, that Jesus could teach about the need to love others while the God of the Old Testament routinely wipes out whole cultures and whimsically punishes people for no apparent reason? That doesn’t seem very loving. Ergo, many simply dismiss the Old Testament entirely since it paints a picture of God that is inconsistent with their view and understanding of who they think God is or should be.

The primary reason that people cannot reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament (Jesus) is because they have created a caricature of each that is based on limited information and a false understanding of God’s nature.

These caricatures often set up the Old Testament God as being a bloodthirsty God of vengeance while depicting Jesus as mild-mannered and universally accepting of all peoples. It’s no wonder people are confused. Both versions and understandings of God are wrong and incomplete.

Regarding the God of the Old Testament, here are a few things people don’t often recognize:

First, God expelled the people who inhabited the land that Israel occupied because they were extremely wicked. This Psalm passage says that they even sacrificed their sons and daughters to the idols of Canaan. The land was desecrated and they defiled themselves.

Should God not bring punishment on the wicked?

The Israelites ultimately adopted the same wicked practices of the people they displaced, and despite God’s numerous warnings, their lack of repentance led to the same fate – punishment.

The second thing people don’t realize about the Old Testament is that the events portrayed extend out over a span of thousands of years. Yes, there is judgment, but it is not the constant rampage that people have depicted, as if God is out of control and in a continual fit of rage.

The Old Testament God is actually quite patient and reserved, if you think about the time frame related to the events. Over, and over and over and over again, God warns his people about impending judgment and punishment that will come as a result of their sin and wickedness. He provides many, many, many opportunities over years and years and years for them to humble themselves and repent. And yet, he doesn’t just talk a big talk. He delivers on his promised retribution.

The perception of Jesus, however, is that he doesn’t exhibit any of the out-of-control jealousy and rage that the Old Testament God does. Jesus is seemingly patient and kind, without a mean bone in his body. Jesus is often seen as someone who exhibits the pacifism of Ghandi, the esoteric teachings and pithy proverbs of Buddha and the generous giving spirit of Santa Claus, all at once.

But this caricature of Jesus is also false and incomplete.

Jesus affirmed the teachings of the Old Testament as being the authoritative words of God (see John 5:39, Matthew 5:17 and Luke 24:44-46). Additionally, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament and referenced many of the stories as if they were real. There is no indication that Jesus disputed any of the stories, writings or teachings of the Old Testament. If Jesus is so different than the God of the Old Testament, in terms of their nature and purpose, wouldn’t we expect Jesus to note that? Shouldn’t we expect that Jesus would point out the flaws in the Old Testament version of God and demonstrate where and how He is superior? He doesn’t.

In addition, the idea that Jesus is a kind, grandfatherly figure who never utters a harsh word is also false. Jesus had many harsh words, particularly for the religious elites of the day. Jesus demonstrated kindness and gentleness to those who were humble and those who were in despair, but for those who were arrogant and thought of themselves as sinless, Jesus often took a different tone – one of rebuke.

Jesus came to the earth to offer humanity the opportunity to partake in the kingdom of God, which required Him to go to the cross and secure payment for the sins of the world. It is clear that Jesus’ first advent was not as judge, but as a prophet and priest.

However, Jesus himself acknowledged and taught that He would come again, but this time, He would be coming as a conquering king, bringing judgment to the world. This is most clear in his extended discourse on the future in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25, but also in Revelation 19:11-21, which depicts Jesus on a white horse with the armies of heaven behind him as he defeats his enemies.

Jesus is in perfect alignment with God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament. He claimed to be sent from the Father and He also affirmed their unity of purpose.

Much more could be said to demonstrate this but that is beyond the scope of this limited blog post.

Suffice it to say, the idea that the God of the Old Testament is a vile, evil, rageaholic, while Jesus is Mr. Rogers on steroids is a false caricature that is based on limited information and personal preferences rather than an accurate reading and understanding of the Biblical texts.

Reflection

How would you respond to someone who says the God of the Old Testament is a different god than Jesus?

How have you reconciled in your heart and mind the differences in the Old Testament depiction of God and the New Testament portrayal of Jesus?

In what ways do you think your views and understanding of God might be deficient or incomplete? 

What steps do you think you and others can take to reconcile the supposed differences between the God of the Old Testament and the person of Jesus?

 

Image created by Grok-2 Ai generator on X.com

Posted on

Is it Unbiblical to Teach That Salvation is About “Accepting Jesus”?

John 1

10But although the world was made through him, the world didn’t recognize him when he came. 11Even in his own land and among his own people, he was not accepted. 12But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. 13They are reborn! This is not a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan—this rebirth comes from God. (John 1:10-13, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

I’ve been a Christian for a long time and ever since I can remember, I was told that becoming a Christian, or getting “saved” was simply a matter of “accepting” Jesus into your heart.

Not too long ago, I saw the above photo from one of my Facebook friends who regularly shows up in my feed. I respect Voddie Baucham as a teacher so I was curious about the context of the quote that seems to indicate that the idea of “accepting Jesus” is unbiblical.

Is it true that the New Testament nowhere mentions salvation being about “accepting Jesus”?

I think the short answer to that is NO.

John 1:12 is the most clear verse that would challenge that assertion as John states:

But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. [emphasis added]

Now to be fair, my Scripture reference is from the New Living Translation (NLT) which is the only translation I’m aware of that uses the phrase “accepted him.” Most other translations, including the NIV, King James, NASB, ESV and others, all use the phrase “received him“. So I suppose it’s possible, if you exclude the NLT, that one could argue that the Bible doesn’t say anything about “accepting Jesus” when it comes to salvation.

In my mind, though, this could be considered theological nit-picking. It seems apparent to me that the words “accept” and “receive” are synonyms. So why make the argument that salvation has nothing to do with “accepting Jesus”?

Honestly, I could not find a link to the sermon in which Dr. Baucham made the quoted statement, so it’s hard to know exactly what he’s getting at or why he felt compelled to make the statement in the first place.

The problem sometimes with sound-bite quotes is that you don’t always get the context and so the quote can appear to be saying something entirely different than what the author was really intending to communicate.

I can say, however, that in my many years of ministry, this is not the first time I have heard someone make a statement like this. So I’ll address the statement as I’ve heard it shared from others, not necessarily from Dr. Baucham’s perspective, which, as I’ve stated, I was not able to clearly determine.

In my experience, the argument that salvation is not about just “accepting Jesus” is often made by those who are seeking to address the problem of spiritual mediocrity within the church.

An overwhelming number of people claim to be Christians and yet, as we look around at the landscape of our culture, it’s hard to imagine that there are really that many people who legitimately ARE Christians. In other words, the lifestyles of most people do not seem to indicate that most people are indeed Christians.

So what is the problem?

Some people would argue that a major problem is in our evangelistic message – that we are not calling people to repentance but instead, we’re peddling a soft message that requires little to no commitment. Note that Dr. Baucham’s quote appeals to the need to “repent and believe.”

The argument is that if we tell people that salvation is simply a matter of “accepting Jesus” into their life, we’re giving them the impression that being saved is merely a verbal transaction where, if we say the right words, and “ask Jesus into our hearts”, we can escape the punishment of hell and then go on our merry way doing whatever we were doing.

This kind of approach, the argument goes, lacks commitment and ultimately is not transformational. Instead of producing mature believers whose lives reflect Jesus, it produces worldly people who think of themselves as Christians simply because they said “the sinner’s prayer.”

The oft-suggested solution to this perceived problem is to refrain from telling people that salvation is about “accepting Jesus” and instead, communicate that it’s about a higher level of commitment that requires repentance.

As I see it, there are two problems with this solution.

The first problem is that the idea of “accepting Jesus” logically includes the idea of repentance.

Repentance literally means to turn and change direction. One cannot legitimately accept Jesus while maintaining the view that they can earn their salvation through their own good works.

Accepting Jesus is NOT just saying some prescribed prayer. It requires an attitude of humility that recognizes we fall short because of our sin and that Jesus is the ONLY one who can offer forgiveness through His shed blood on the cross.

Accepting Jesus, or receiving Christ, means that we accept the free gift of salvation that Jesus offers to all people. How do we do this? Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we do this by faith.

What that means is that I literally change direction (repentance). Instead of my former course where I trusted in my own good works to earn God’s favor, I now choose a new course, where I place my trust in Jesus alone to provide forgiveness and to save me from the penalty of my sins.

There’s a second problem with the solution of saying we should refrain from saying that salvation is about “accepting Jesus”. The second problem is that even if we were to stop talking about “accepting Jesus” and even if we were to convince everyone to use the different language of “repent and believe” in our evangelistic presentations, there is no reason to believe that the outcome would be any different than it already is.

The reason for this is because spiritual mediocrity in the church is largely a reflection of the hearts of people rather than the specific wording of the evangelistic messages that are being promoted.  Mark 4 tells us that there are 4 different soils that represent the different heart attitudes of people who hear the message of the gospel. (See my blog post: Which Soil Are You?)

Sharing a message of “Repent and Believe” to a person who has a hard heart, rocky heart or thorny heart is likely to yield the same result as sharing a message of “Accept Jesus”. Regardless of the specific verbiage of your message, the outcome will be the same, because it is already determined by the heart condition of the hearer.

Please note that I’m not saying that our evangelistic message and approach doesn’t matter. Our message should be biblically correct. However, the idea that one biblical approach  will produce better results than another, equally biblical approach is wishful thinking and places too much emphasis on the sower for the results.

There is no silver bullet message or approach that will guarantee the hearer will become a fruitful Christian.

In addition, since we know that spiritual mediocrity among professing believers has been a problem since the outset of the church, it stands to reason that it’s an issue of discipleship more than evangelism. The issue was addressed repeatedly in the New Testament and has been a source of controversy for 2000 years. We’re not likely to see a change in this phenomenon, though we should certainly do our best to disciple believers to maturity, just as the apostles did.

(See my blog post: Why Some Christians Never Grow)

The most important thing we can do when communicating with a non-Christian is to give a clear and understandable explanation of what Jesus is offering. (See my blog post: What Does it Look Like to Follow Jesus?)

I think it’s clear that linking salvation to the idea of “accepting Jesus” is not unbiblical, as long as we help the hearer understand that accepting Jesus involves repenting of our sins and believing in Jesus as our one and only Savior.

Reflection

What has been your understanding of the idea that people must “accept Jesus” in order to be saved? What are they accepting?

What do you think are the main reasons why some Christians don’t grow? How should we change our evangelistic approach to ensure greater fruitfulness among believers?

Do you agree with the statement by the author of this blog that mediocrity among professing Christians is more a result of discipleship than evangelism? What are your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing?

How can we disciple others to greater levels of maturity and fruitfulness? What steps can be taken? What resources do you think are needed?

 

Photo is a screenshot from a Facebook post at Voddie Baucham’s Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10221114209364128&set=a.1532880861226)

Posted on

Early Christianity and the Role of Women

Luke 24

1But very early on Sunday morning the women came to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2They found that the stone covering the entrance had been rolled aside. 3So they went in, but they couldn’t find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4They were puzzled, trying to think what could have happened to it. Suddenly, two men appeared to them, clothed in dazzling robes. 5The women were terrified and bowed low before them. Then the men asked, “Why are you looking in a tomb for someone who is alive? 6He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead! Don’t you remember what he told you back in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and that he would rise again the third day?”

8Then they remembered that he had said this. 9So they rushed back to tell his eleven disciples—and everyone else—what had happened. 10The women who went to the tomb were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and several others. They told the apostles what had happened, 11but the story sounded like nonsense, so they didn’t believe it. 12However, Peter ran to the tomb to look. Stooping, he peered in and saw the empty linen wrappings; then he went home again, wondering what had happened. (Luke 24:1-12, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In this last chapter of the gospel of Luke, the good doctor gives his account of the empty tomb.

It’s fascinating to consider some of the details of his account, which yields several interesting (at least to me) observations.

First of all, this chapter stands as a powerful defense against the argument that the resurrection is a fabricated event. For if the resurrection never happened, but you were determined to concoct a story for the purpose of gaining some kind of power and influence over others, you would never construct the story in such a way that the first people to discover the empty tomb were women.

The truth is that women in that culture did not have the same power, authority or voice to create the kind of instant credibility that would have been necessary to get people to believe your false narrative.

In other words, the most probable reason that Luke shares the details he does, in which a group of women are the first ones on the scene to discover the empty tomb, and in which these same women are the ones to deliver the message of Jesus’ resurrection to the eleven disciples, is because that is exactly how the events happened.

Secondly, the angel’s response to the women leads to an interesting conclusion about the role women played in the ministry of Jesus.

If you’re like me, you tend to think of Jesus roaming around teaching, preaching, healing and performing miracles among the masses, all with a small band of 12 men at his side.

The reality is that Jesus had a lot more than 12 men who followed him. More than that, the group of Jesus-followers was not exclusively men. The angel’s response confirms this. The angel questions the women:

“Why are you looking in a tomb for someone who is alive? 6He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead! Don’t you remember what he told you back in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and that he would rise again the third day?” (Luke 24:6, 7)

Did you catch that?

The angel reminds them of something Jesus had taught regarding his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection. Clearly, the women cannot be reminded of something UNLESS they were there when it was originally taught.

This just underscores an often overlooked detail of Jesus’ ministry and the make-up of his cast of followers. They weren’t all men! There were most assuredly women, some of whom are mentioned in this encounter with the angel at the empty tomb. In fact, not only were there a number of women among Jesus’ followers, but according to Luke 8:1-3, many of these women were supporting Jesus and his disciples through their own resources.

It’s easy for some to dismiss the validity and authority of Scripture because of a dissatisfaction with how women in the Ancient Near East culture were portrayed. However, there is no denying that Jesus substantially elevated the role and prominence of women relative to the culture of the time. Not only were women among some of His most devoted followers but it is women, not men, who initially discover the empty tomb and announce the resurrected Jesus to the rest of His followers.

Reflection

How would you go about defending the resurrection to someone who disputed it?

What do you think is the reason why women were the first ones to discover the empty tomb?

What are some of the issues in the Bible that challenge your belief that it is God-inspired?

What difference does it make to you to know that women were part of Jesus’ followers and were exposed to his teaching, healing and miracles, just as the 12 disciples were? In what ways does this change or impact your understanding of Jesus and the role women play in ministry?

 

Image by Ken Williams from Pixabay

Posted on

How Do You Prepare for God’s Final Exam?

1 John 5

11And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12So whoever has God’s Son has life; whoever does not have his Son does not have life.

13I write this to you who believe in the Son of God, so that you may know you have eternal life. (1 John 5:11-13, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

When I was in college, on the last day of instruction for every class I ever took, someone would ask the professor what was going to be on the final exam.

It makes sense. Everyone wants to know what is going to be tested so they can adequately prepare for the test. Can you imagine not having any idea how the instructor was going to evaluate your knowledge and progress?

Nobody studies for a test by just guessing what will be covered on the exam and how they will be evaluated. It’s actually quite foolish.

And yet, this is exactly how many people approach life.

According to Pew Research in December 2023, over 70% of Americans believe in an afterlife, while over 60% of Americans believe in hell.

(https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spirituality-among-americans/)

How exactly though does one determine whether they will go to heaven or hell?

In my many years of ministry, I have engaged with thousands of people regarding issues of spirituality and the afterlife. When asking people the question of whether they think they will go to heaven when they die, I found that most people think they will make it. But when asked the follow-up question of how God decides who makes it into heaven and who doesn’t, most people aren’t quite sure.

It’s interesting to me that most people aren’t sure how God decides who makes it into heaven, but they’re fairly certain that they will make it to heaven.

This is because people overwhelmingly believe that getting into heaven is a matter of being a good person and most people think of themselves as good.

But is this how God evaluates a person’s eternal destination – their goodness? And if so, what is the threshold of “good” that is needed? What kind of goodness score must one get in order to pass the test and make it into heaven? How would a person even evaluate their own level of goodness?

You would never study for a final without knowing what is going to be on the test and how your grade is going to be tabulated, but concerning one’s eternal destiny, which is a far more important outcome than your grade in a class, many people simply guess and make assumptions about how God evaluates them.

Fortunately for us, we don’t have to guess how God evaluates eligibility to enter heaven. He doesn’t make us wonder what His standards are. Here in 1 John 5, He tells us quite explicitly how He decides. In fact, we’re told that we can KNOW for certain whether we have eternal life or not.

What is the standard? It’s not what most people think. It’s not goodness, which is really just a subjective spectrum that most people have erected in such a way that no matter what bad things they have done, they think of themselves as good.

According to this passage, eternal life is based on the Son, Jesus. Those who have Jesus have eternal life. Those who do NOT have Jesus don’t have eternal life.

This standard is actually a lot easier to evaluate than some subjective idea of goodness. You either have the Son or you don’t. If you have the Son, John tells us that you can KNOW that you have eternal life. You can be 100% certain.

But if you don’t have the Son, you can be 100% certain that you don’t have eternal life.

The question for us then is how do we get the Son? Stay tuned.

Reflection

Do you believe there is an afterlife? What does the afterlife look like? What is the source of your information about the afterlife?

How do you define goodness? What makes a person “good”? How do you think God defines goodness? How good do you think a person needs to be to make it into heaven and live with God for eternity?

If you were to die tonight, how sure are you (on a scale of 0-100%) that you would make it into heaven and live with God for eternity? How would you rate your chances?

This passage says that eternal life is based on the Son, Jesus. How do you think a person can “have” the Son? What do you think is involved in getting the Son and having eternal life?

 

Photo by RDNE Stock project: https://www.pexels.com/photo/teacher-proctoring-his-students-during-an-examination-7092593/

Posted on

The Last Supper and the Human Condition

Last month, Jen and I took a break from our daily routine and traveled to Italy to visit our son Joshua, who is an Army officer stationed there.

It was a great to visit him and see what his world is like. It was also fun to get a taste (literally) of Italy, though we only saw a small portion of the country.

Enjoying lunch in a Vicenza cafe with our son Joshua

In addition to spending a day in Venice and a few days in Florence, where we saw Michelangelo’s famous statue of David, Jen and I also took a day trip to Milan, where we experienced a very informative walking tour through parts of the city that included seeing the Duomo di Milano (Milan Cathedral) as well as the famous DaVinci masterpiece “The Last Supper”. 

I have to admit that the Last Supper was not exactly what I expected. It looked a little different than all the photos you see. It turns out that there’s a reason for that.

Venice was exactly how I imagined it from watching movies like “The Italian Job”
Joshua and Jen at dusk in Florence on a bridge overlooking the Arno river
Jen and Dave pose with the Duomo di Milano (Milan Cathedral) in the background

Our guide explained that when DaVinci was commissioned to make the painting, he decided against the tried and true traditional Fresco style of painting, which creates a permanent image because the painting is all done in wet plaster.

The downside of this technique is that you have to paint very quickly before the plaster dries. DaVinci wanted to take his time and create a painting with more intricate detail than the fresco technique would allow, so he developed a completely new technique that allowed him to take his time.

Michaelangelos famous statue of “David” is located in Florence

The result was an undisputed masterpiece. However, it became more clear, over time, that DaVinci’s novel new technique was flawed, as parts of the painting literally began to flake away from the wall.

To fix this problem, other painters were often called in to fill in the gaps and “restore” those portions to match copies that demonstrated the original image.

Fast forward hundreds of years and the image on the wall has been painted over dozens of times. The original image is actually lost as many of the finer details, such as facial expressions, don’t look exactly as Leonardo had painted them.

In 1977, it was decided that the painting would go through a restoration process whereby all the extra layers of paint would be removed so that the image that remained would be only what Leonardo had painted. It was risky because they weren’t sure if ANYTHING would be left when they removed all the layers.

Fortunately, there was still plenty of Leonardo’s original image still intact when all of the extraneous layers were removed. At that point, what was left underwent an extensive 25 year restoration process to ensure that the image would not experience further decay. In fact, our guide told us that Leonardo’s masterpiece should remain intact for another 500 years!

What remains is still amazing but it is not exactly the original. There are parts that have faded or flaked away. We have a good idea of what the original looked like based on copies that were created when it was more complete.

I think the Last Supper illustrates the human condition. The Bible tells us that we are God’s masterpiece, but it also says that we’re broken because of sin. 

Just as the Last Supper was in a constant state of decay, so too are we. Without outside intervention, the Last Supper was doomed to decay into, at best, a muted reflection of the original masterpiece and at worst, nothingness!

The Last Supper by Leonardo DaVinci

The same is true with us. Without God’s intervention, we have no hope of reflecting the true masterpiece that God says we are. And even in this life, the best we can hope for is a muted, partial reflection of God’s artistry. 

The Last Supper will never be restored to the original image that Leonardo painted. But we, as believers, have the hope and assurance that one day, we will experience the final restoration of our bodies and our souls. Sin will be eradicated and we will no longer experience death or decay!

THAT is good news and it’s amazing!

Thank you for your partnership with us, which allows us to help others realize that we are all “masterpieces” in need of restoration!

Arrivederci!

Jen and I loved hanging out with our son Joshua in Italy, where he is serving as an officer in the U.S. Army.
Posted on

It’s Good Friday….what’s so good about it?

Christians around the world are celebrating Good Friday. But what’s so good about Good Friday?

I’ve written about this before, and you can read about it in my post “What Makes Good Friday “Good”?”

The truth is that while Easter Sunday is one of the most celebrated holidays in the Christian faith, what happened on Good Friday cannot be overstated. Understanding the significance of what Christ accomplished via His death on the cross might be the most important theological concept for Christians to understand.

Essentially, Jesus’s death pays for our sins (see my post mentioned above), the veil in the temple is torn (see my post “The Significance of the Torn Veil”) and access to God is finally granted (see my post “Access Granted!”)

Good Friday is a solemn day to reflect on the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf. It’s important to recognize the brutal suffering Jesus endured as He was beaten, tortured and ultimately crucified, all on our behalf. What Jesus endured was on our behalf. It should be me on that cross, not Jesus.

Scripture is clear that the effects of Jesus’ death were immediate. Hence, we don’t have to wait until Sunday to celebrate what Jesus secured for all believers on Friday – namely, that sin has been fully atoned, we are completely forgiven and we have free, unobstructed and direct access to God Himself!

Reflection

Why do you think Good Friday is referred to as “Good Friday”?

What do you think Jesus accomplished via His death on the cross?

How do you typically observe Good Friday? What traditions do you practice that you’ve found to be helpful for reflecting on the importance of this day?

If you read the 3 different articles linked in this post, what did you find most helpful or challenging to your understanding?

 

Photo by Wim van ‘t Einde on Unsplash