The Four Gospels

This is a general overview of the Gospels.

As we read through the Old Testament, we see abundant evidence of the rebellion of men in general and Israel in particular, along with many promises and foreshadowings of a coming Redeemer, like bright stars against a midnight sky.

The New Testament is the story of that Redeemer.

Two questions might be asked: “Why do we have the Gospels?” and, “Why are there four Gospels?”

We have the Gospels because without them we would have virtually no record of the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus.  It is necessary that we have some such account in order to validate His teaching.  The Gospels provide the DEMONSTRATION of Who He was, in order that we might better pay attention to the DECLARATION of what He said, both during His life and in the later NT writings, including Paul’s, for all those are much His words as what He spoke while in Israel.  We include Paul, because some charge him with taking the Jewish Jesus and turning Him into something that was never meant to be.

A second reason we have the Gospels is to impress upon our minds the truth that Christianity revolves around, is founded and rests upon, and proclaims Jesus Christ Himself, and not just certain historical facts, doctrinal viewpoints or important “leaders” in the church.

There are several reasons why we have four Gospels.  Mainly, we have them because it is God’s will, but there are secondary reasons.

1. To give a more complete and satisfying portrait of the Lord Jesus.  Each Gospel has its own distinctive presentation of the life and work of Christ.

2. Each Gospel was written with a specific audience and purpose in mind.  No matter where a son or daughter of Adam finds themselves, they will never come to God on God’s terms to find that God cannot or will not help them.

We want to spend just a moment considering the men who wrote the Gospels and the unlikeliness of  any of them ever writing words from God.

Matthew, the publican, the tax-gatherer, the traitor to his own people, in league with their oppressors the Romans, yet was used to write to those same Jews of their great Messiah-King,Who would ultimately deliver them, not from the hated Roman, but from a far greater oppression and bondage – sin.

Mark, that one who deserted his fellowlaborers Paul and Barnabas, going back from service to God to the easier life at home, yet was destined to write the Gospel of the Servant-Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke, probably the “best” of the lot, humanly speaking, educated, polished, but, for all that, a Gentile, hence a stranger “from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world,” Ephesians 2:12, yet brought to know and write about that God, in the person of the Lord Jesus, presented by Luke as ideal, perfect Man, sent not merely to the house of Israel, but to gather His sheep out of every kindred, nation, tongue and tribe.

John, an uneducated, rough fisherman, his Gospel in the original language is by far the simplest grammatically, insomuch that beginning Greek students translate its verses in their first translation attempts; simple words, uncomplicated grammar, expressing thoughts that 2000 years of church study and wisdom have not begun to fathom.

As we noted above, each Gospel presents a different view of the Lord.  Adapting Pilate’s exclamation to the crowd prior to the Crucifixion (John 19:5), we might summarize each Gospel like this:

Matthew:  Behold the Sovereign!  Matthew wrote to Jewish readers of their Messiah, their King.

Mark:  Behold the Servant!  Mark wrote for the Roman mind, picturing Jesus as “the Servant of Jehovah”.

Luke:  Behold the Sympathetic!  Luke addressed the Greek mind, portraying Jesus as the Ideal Man.  As such, Luke is the “human interest” Gospel.

John:  Behold the Son!  John wrote to Christians, to declare and to defend the truth of Jesus as “God manifest in the flesh”.

The distinctives of each Gospel:

Matthew is the Gospel of Christ’s AUTHORITY.  Cf. 7:24-29, especially v. 29; 28:18

Mark is the Gospel of Christ’s ACTIVITY.  Mark records only one discourse and four parables, but eighteen miracles.

Luke is the Gospel of Christ’s AVAILABILITY.  Though there times of withdrawal in the Lord’s life, yet through Luke, He brings “good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people,” 2:10.

John is the Gospel of Christ’s ANTIQUITY.  Not only in the prologue does John refer to the eternal dignity and existence of Jesus as The Word, but Jesus Himself does so: John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly,  I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM’.”  Skeptics today may deny that Jesus ever claimed to be God, but the Jews who heard Him make this statement knew that that was exactly what He was claiming.  That’s why they tried to kill Him on the spot.

Advertisements

In The Flesh

“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” John 1:14.  See also Philippians 2:5-11.

I suppose this is really a continuation of my post “The Third Genealogy,” where I focused on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.  I’ll not repeat what I said there, but encourage you to read it, especially if you haven’t read it before.

In the first place, the body of our Lord was a real body.  There have been some who have supposed that He was merely a phantom or apparition, that His body wasn’t real.  But it was as real as yours or mine.  Though He was truly God, He was also truly human.  His body developed in Mary’s womb just like any other.  His birth was like any other.

Really, it’s the virgin “conception,” not the virgin birth, though He was born of a virgin.  He grew and developed as a child, like your children or mine grew and developed, Luke 2:52.  I’ve often wondered if He “spoiled” His parents for their other children.  Yes, I know there’s a huge discussion about this, which I won’t get into here, with a large percentage of professing Christendom believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity.  It’s enough for me that Matthew 1:25 indicates that Joseph and Mary enjoyed normal marital intimacy after the birth of Jesus.  And, Jesus being called Mary’s “firstborn” is meaningless if He were her “only-born”.

Second, it was a human body.  Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, and that “flesh” was truly human.  There is also a discussion over whether or not Jesus could have sinned.  I’ll only say that I don’t think it was possible for Him to sin – He is “holy, harmless and undefiled,” Hebrews 7:26.  As I’ve said somewhere else, Satan had no “hook” in Him to get Him to sin. Sin is not an essential element of being human.  Adam and Eve were perfectly human as they came from the hand of God, before they disobeyed Him and fell from their innocence and sinlessness.

Third, it was a “prepared” body, Hebrews 10:5.  The conception and birth of Jesus wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment happening; it was carefully planned, even in eternity past, 1 Peter 1:20, and prepared for.  In Matthew 1:22, we read that “all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet….”  The immediate context refers to the virgin birth of Jesus, but the virgin herself didn’t just appear out of thin air.  I think it can be said without exaggeration that “all this” includes everything from the very creation of Adam himself.  After all, the human DNA for the Lord’s body was present in Adam, and carefully and providentially shepherded through all the generations from Adam to Jesus.  If not, when was it introduced into Mary’s ancestry?

Fourth, it was a sacrificial body, that is, Jesus came into this world to be an offering for sin, a sacrifice for sinners.  His body was carefully prepared to be the sacrifice which would pay for the “sins of the world,” that is, of the human race considered as a whole. Individually, the only ones who can say that their sins are paid for are those who have believed on Him for salvation.  Unbelievers are still subject to God’s wrath, John 3:17, 18.

Finally, it is a resurrected body.  Jesus truly died physically; He truly rose physically.  Some have questioned this on the idea that this would somehow have cancelled out His payment for sin.  But the resurrection is the receipt, if you will, for that payment.  Without it, we have no way of knowing if His death was any more effective in that regard than the death of the other two who died with Him on that fateful day.  Furthermore, read Paul’s defense of the Lord’s physical resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15.  Without that resurrection, there is no salvation from sin and, as Paul put it, if there is no salvation, Christians are to be pitied above all human beings.

A Kitchen Prayer

This poem was written many years ago by a 19 year old girl who was in domestic service in England.  It was read by Dr. G. Campbell Morgan during one of his services at Westminster Chapel, London.

 

Lord of all pots and pans and things,

Since I’ve no time to be

A saint by doing lovely deeds

Or watching late with Thee

Or dreaming in the dawnlight

Or storming Heaven’s gates,

Make me a saint by getting meals

And washing up the plates!

Although I must have Martha’s hands

I have a Mary mind,

And when I black the boots and shoes,

Thy sandals, Lord, I find!

I think of how they trod the earth,

What time I scrub the floor;

Accept this meditation, Lord!

I haven’t time for more.

Warm all the kitchen with Thy love,

And light it with Thy peace!

Forgive me all my worrying

And make all grumbling cease!

Thou who didst love to give men food

In a room or by the sea,

Accept this service that I do –

I do it unto Thee!

He Will Work It Out

I printed this originally in a church paper in 1971. I don’t know how “old” the poem was then, but the author, Linda Mork of Glide Baptist Church, Glide, Oregon, was 16 years old when she wrote it.  I haven’t googled her or the church, but I would love to know how He has worked it out since then for her.  Anyway, here’s her poem:

In an age of great confusion
When men’s hearts are full of doubt,
My heart hath found the answer,
“The Lord will work it out!”

Though with tears of sorrow and anguish
We must often come to bout,
A trusting heart doth echo,
“The Lord will work it out!”

Men seek, and in their seeking
An answer they may flout;
I know but one true answer,
“The Lord will work it out!”

Though in some great trials and small ones
My faith shall often doubt,
My heart still holds His promise
That He will work it out!
_________

To which I say, “Amen”!

The Third Genealogy

Most people are familiar with the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke. Or, at least, they know they are there.  Matthew’s genealogy is condensed and intended to connect Jesus with the great covenants of the Old Testament:  Abrahamic and Davidic.  His is the genealogy of Christ’s royalty.  Matthew’s is the genealogy of Joseph.  Luke’s genealogy is longer and goes through a different son of David, goes all the way back to Adam, some 75 or so generations. His is the genealogy of Christ’s humanity.  It’s the genealogy of Mary.  I’ll do a post one of these days on Matthew’s genealogy.  There’s a lot of good stuff in there.

Well, that’s two of them.  Where’s the third one?  I hadn’t really thought about it quite like this until recently, like earlier today.  I suppose in the strictest sense it isn’t a genealogy at all, and yet in a real sense it is.  It’s contained in two verses, though a few other verses add some explanation.  Here it is – you’ll recognize it immediately:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,  ….And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…,” John 1:1, 14.

This is the genealogy, if you will, of Christ’s deity.  In a few words, simple words in the Greek original, John expresses truths that 2000 years haven’t completely plumbed.

“Now, wait a minute!”  I can hear someone say.  “That’s not what John meant at all.  There’s no article before ‘God,’ so Jesus was only ‘a god’.”  People will knock on your door and tell you that.  They also say that the “beginning” John wrote about was the beginning when God created Jesus, that He was “the beginning,” and then Jesus created all the rest. They might take you over to Proverbs, where the writer personifies wisdom and describes its role in creation.  “That,” they say, “is Jesus.”  They might even tell you that He is really Michael, the archangel, brother of Lucifer.

Is that all John meant in these verses?  That Jesus was simply the first thing created by God, and then He created everything else?  That He isn’t “God” at all, just “a god?”

It’s true that John didn’t write, “the Word was the God.”  There is no article, no “the”, in front of God.  There’s no indefinite article – “a”, “an” – in the Greek language, either.  However, Martin Luther pointed out centuries ago, and someone probably pointed it out centuries before he did, that John couldn’t have written “the God,” because then he would have been saying that the Word and the Father are the same, and the Oneness folks would be right.  If John says one thing, it’s that the Father and the Word are distinct from each other.  The One is not just manifesting Himself differently.

There’s another difficulty with the idea that Jesus is only “a god.”  What kind of god is He?  How many of these “gods” are there, or is He the only one?  “Well, in the Old Testament, angels are called ‘sons of God,’ cf. Job 1:6.  As an angel, Jesus is rightly called ‘son of God’.”  So we might be told.  And it’s true that angels are called “sons of God.”  Does this then put them and Jesus in the same class?

The writer to the Hebrews anticipated this idea.  In 1:5 (NKJV), he asks the question, “…to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are my Son, Today I have begotten you’?”  The expected answer to that question is, “There are no angels to whom that has ever been said.”  Not as a Jehovah’s Witness kindly emailed me once and said, “Jesus is that angel” and then quoted this verse to me.  Sorry, that’s not what the writer meant.  In fact, after discussing what the Father did not say to the Son, Hebrews goes on in v. 8 with what He did say: “But to the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”  Some translate that verse: “God is your throne forever and ever,”(New World Translation).  This doesn’t make sense.  Not to be irreverent or anything, but is Jesus sitting on God?  The Greek text reads, “The throne of you, the God, into the ages of the ages.”  Notice the presence here of the article before “God”: “the God.”  The contrast between Jesus and angels could not be clearer.  In fact, in v. 6, the writer to the Hebrews says of angels, “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”  Even older editions of the NWT say that – I have a copy.  Granted, the newer editions say that angels are to do “obeisance” to Him, but even the NWT translates the Gk. word as “worship” when it doesn’t refer to Jesus.

How can two beings both be “God,” in view of all the Scriptures which tell us there is only one God?  There are a lot of illustrations of the Trinity, which is what this is really all about. The best one I know is a cube.  A cube has length, height and width, all at the same time, but it’s not three cubes, just one.  The length isn’t the height or width, the height isn’t the length or width, and the width isn’t the height or length.  And the measurements of the cube don’t manifest themselves as length one day, then width another day, then height yet another day, as some try to teach that it’s one God manifesting Himself in different ways at different times.  The cube has three measurements, but they all coexist at one time in one cube.  Like His creation, God is three-dimensional: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The Father isn’t the Son or the Spirit, the Son isn’t the Father or the Spirit and the Spirit isn’t the Father or the Son.  Three different Persons, for lack of a better word, all different, but all coexisting at the time as one God.  “…the Word was God.”

One final thought on this.  Some say that Jesus never claimed to be God.  Funny, the people who heard Him tried to kill Him because they understood that was exactly what He was claiming in John 8:58, when He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” 

“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…, John 1:14.  Here is the reason for the other two genealogies.  The story of Jesus doesn’t start, “Once upon a time”; it’s rooted firmly in and grounded on the history of Israel as revealed in the Old Testament.  I know there are those who deny that such a man as Jesus ever even existed, but after all the attempts over 2000 years to get rid of Him and He’s still here – must be something “real” about Him.

Notice John’s comparison: “the Word was God”the Word became flesh.”  Nowhere does John or the Bible say that the Word “became,” that is, that it came into existence, or that it became God.  In other words, there has never been a time, if we can speak of eternity like that, when the Word did not exist, or that it did not exist as God.  There was a time, however, when “the Word became flesh.”  Matthew and Luke give us some details of that “becoming.”

“The Word became flesh.”  Four words.

“The Word became flesh.”  Four words, describing an event which has no parallel in history.  Psalm 113:5, 6 says, Who is like the LORD our God, Who dwells on high, Who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in the heavens and in the earth?”  The Lord God “humbles” Himself to look at this speck of dirt off to one side of His creation.  What must it have been like for the Lord Jesus, not just to “look” at this planet, but to live on it?  We think we know so much, with our “Doctors of Theology,” our “books,” our “mega-churches,” etc. [and I’m not opposed to education or “books,” or church] it’s just that I don’t think we know even as much about our Lord’s “humiliation” [to use the theological term] as a babe knows about it’s mother’s agony in birthing it.  How can we?  The Word became flesh…. 

It’s not for nothing that Paul refers to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in 2 Corinthians 8:9, where he continues, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor…. The Lord didn’t come down to this world to be feted in Rome, or to live in a place like the White House or Buckingham Palace or to be listed among the elite of this world.  He came to live in a relatively minor province of Rome, a troublesome province, in a village as the son of a carpenter.  He was totally unknown for 18 years of His life, and in the last three three, “fame” was fleeting, and hostility and opposition were lasting and increasing.  Even though He rose from the dead, as far as the world is concerned, He may as well still be dead.  Even if people class Him with the religious figures of this world, they’re more likely to live by their teachings than His.

So, you see, the third genealogy gives us a more complete idea of Who Jesus of Nazareth really was, and is.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,…and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us….

“Bird blood”

I just visited Yahoo Answers Religion/Spirituality section, and just have to respond to something I read there.  I’m putting a response here because others might have similar questions.  One of the posters made a comment about Leviticus 14 and “bird blood” cleansing a house.  Clearly, he didn’t agree with the concept.

There were several OT sacrifices which involved the use of birds, sometimes because that’s all the offerer could afford, sometimes not.  In the case of Leviticus 14, there are at least two things to keep in mind.

First, it was a health issue.  The Israelites didn’t have the technology to discover whether any particular mold was toxic.  It’s better to be safe than sorry, so every mold was treated as toxic.  They didn’t have bleach – I don’t think Clorox was around back then – so the procedure prescribed was the next best thing: scrape away the infected material and replaster, then, if the mold came back, the house had to be destroyed.  Houses weren’t as complicated then as they are now, so rebuilding a house wouldn’t be so difficult.

Second, there was a moral component.  The house was considered “polluted.”  Even those who entered the house were considered polluted and had to go through ceremonial cleansing.  The sacrifice of a bird was to demonstrate that the house was “clean,” Leviticus 14:48-53: the procedure had worked.  Hebrews 10:4 (NKJV) says “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats [and birds] could take away sin.”  All the Old Testament sacrifices were merely symbolic of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus; they pointed forward to His death on Calvary.  It wasn’t just sacrifice for the sake of shedding blood.  It was to teach the people by picture and symbol the necessity of cleansing from pollution, whether for health, as in the case of Leviticus 14, or personally, because they were all sinners.  So are we.

There are no more sacrifices for sin.  The Lord Jesus died once for sin.  The Old Testament sacrifices were thousands of fingers pointing toward Him.

Abraham and Isaac

This is about one of the more “difficult” passages of Scripture.

Genesis 22:2 (NKJV), “Then [God] said, ‘Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

This is perhaps one of the most controversial chapters in the Bible.  “What kind of God would demand that you sacrifice your son?”  I heard this or something like it a few years ago on a popular TV show.  I’ve mentioned that I spend a lot of time on Yahoo Answers’ Religion and Spiritual section.  Two or three times, I’ve seen the question, “What would you do if God asked you to kill your son?”  You can imagine some of the answers.

It is a perplexing thing to many.  Why DID God require this of Abraham?  Without going into a lot of speculation. let’s see if we can make some sense of all this.  Note that there are three main characters in this scenario: God, Abraham, and Isaac.

God.  What was God doing, asking such a thing of a devoted believer?  Genesis 22:1 says that all this was a “test”.  There are some who use this verse and others like it to claim that God isn’t omniscient, that is, all-knowing.  He was testing Abraham, so these folks say, so He could find out what Abraham would do, what kind of faith he had.  I submit that this test was so that Abraham could find out what kind of faith he had.  It’s easy enough to say, “I believe God” when the Sun’s shining, but not so easy when things go South.

And God didn’t make it “easy.”  Notice the language: “Take now – your son – your only son Isaac – whom you love….”  Making sure that Abraham understood what he was doing.  Besides all that, Isaac was the channel through whom blessings were to flow to humanity.  Yet God said, “Take him and sacrifice him.”  It’s true that God had no real intention that Isaac should die, but Abraham didn’t know that.

Abraham.  Genesis 22:3 has got to be one of the most amazing verses in the Bible: “So Abraham rose early in the morning….”  I wish I could underline this:  “early in the morning.”  No hesitation, no questions, just got up to go and do what God had told him to do.  Four men on a three-day journey.  I can’t help wondering what thoughts went through Abraham’s mind.  

Isaac.  I’ve seen pictures showing Isaac as a young boy accompanying his father on this journey.  Some have pictured him as such, helpless and unable to defend himself from a cruel and heartless father.  However, v. 6 tells us that he was able to carry the wood for the sacrifice.  This was more than just a couple of sticks.  Isaac would have been well able to refuse and prevent his father from laying him on the altar when the time came.  His father was probably 115, or older.  Isaac was probably at least an older teenager; I heard one preacher say that Isaac was 33 years old, like Jesus going to the Cross, but there’s no way to know that for sure.  He was, however, old enough that he had to be willing to go along with his father.

He was also an observant young man.  In verse 7, we read of his asking his father, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”    This brings us back to Abraham.

Abraham, v. 8.  We mentioned a moment ago the thoughts that must have gone through Abraham’s head.  I think that by morning Abraham had already settled his mind on this matter.  Note what he told the two young men who accompanied him and Isaac on this journey.  When they got within sight of their destination, “Abraham said to his young men, ‘Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you’,” v. 5.

 “WE will come back to you….”  The Hebrew text is even stronger: “We are determined to go, we are determined to worship, we are determined to return.”  Was this just something Abraham said to cover a bad situation, or did he really mean it?  Or, perhaps he was  delusional, an old man overwhelmed by a tragic situation?  

We can’t be sure of the exact sequence of Abraham’s thoughts, but the New Testament gives us some insight into them.  Hebrews 11:17-19 says, “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.”

In other words, Abraham knew God, he trusted God.  Now, the rationalists of his day, like those of our day, might have said, “Now, wait a minute, Abraham.  Show us tangible, verifiable evidence that God can raise anyone from the dead.  No one has ever come back from the dead.  It’s not scientifically possible.  When you’re dead, you’re dead.”  Granted, in Abraham’s case, he could have pointed to Isaac, who had been born miraculously, and said, “Here’s my evidence.”  The point is, in this case, Abraham trusted God in spite of “the evidence,” that is, that he was going to have to kill his son, so far as he knew, and no one had ever, up to that time, been raised from the dead.  He knew that God had promised great blessing through Isaac.  Indeed, he was to be the continuation of the Abrahamic line.  Perhaps Abraham reasoned something like this:  if God were to be faithful to that promise, then He would have to raise Isaac from the dead.

Abraham didn’t look at the situation; He looked at God.  God knows what He is doing, even if we don’t.  In fact, when it comes right down to it, how can we know – really know – what God is doing?

But that’s not the focus of this story; it’s on Abraham’s answer to his son’s question; his response to the query about a lamb:  Abraham answered, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering,” v. 8.  This brings us back to God.

God.  God stopped Abraham at the last possible moment, humanly speaking.  He doesn’t always act when, or how, we think He should.  Leaving aside what God told him about his obedience, there was “a ram caught in a thicket by its horns,” v. 13.  God had indeed “provided”.

Centuries later, John the Baptist cried out concerning the Lord Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world,” John 1:29.  The incident of Abraham and Isaac is a foreshadowing, a “type”, of the Lord Jesus.  This is how Paul, in Galatians 3:8, could say that “God preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand.”  Granted, Paul doesn’t specifically mention the death and resurrection of Christ, but it’s only through that death and resurrection that “all nations of the earth shall be blessed,” Galatians 3:8; Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4, where the promise is repeated and verified to Isaac himself.

As that ram became a substitute for Isaac, so the Lord Jesus became a substitute for sinners.  As the ram was sacrificed in the place of Isaac, so the Lord Jesus was sacrificed in the place of sinners.  The Gospel isn’t, “Smile, God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”  The Gospel is that God has provided a substitute and a sacrifice for those who believe on Him.  He has given the answer to our sin problem.  God imputed the sins of those who would believe to Christ.  As it were, those sins became His, even though He was sinless and perfect and holy.  Christ suffered the punishment due those sins.  Conversely, God imputed the righteousness of Christ to believers, though we are anything but righteous.  God looks at believers as being as righteous as Christ, because His righteousness has been credited to them.

When my firstborn son was just an infant, I was someplace where there was a crying baby.  He was having a fit about something, as babies know how to do! I had never liked crying babies, but as I looked at this red-faced little fellow, somehow I saw my own son – and it was alright.  God looks at believers and, instead of seeing our failings, sins, stubbornness and general all-around unworthiness, He sees His Son, in Whom He is well-pleased.  And it’s alright.  Not that we can live as we like, as some charge, or that we don’t have responsibility to live holy lives by the grace of God.  It’s that we’re accepted because of the Lord Jesus Christ, not because of what we do.  God has provided for Himself – and for us – a Lamb.

As I said at the beginning, this is a controversial passage.  I’ve tried to explain it Scripturally.  I hope it’s been a blessing to you.  If you still have any questions, I’d be glad to try to answer them.

“To the praise of the glory of His grace.”