One of my regular readers, Phil, posted a comment at the bottom of a recent piece, with some great questions on the nature of repentance and God’s judicial hardening. I promised I would try to answer these questions as best I could, but since my response has turned out to be really rather long, rather than posting it on the comment section of that piece, where no-one except Phil will read it, I though I’d post it as a separate piece where a few more might be able to access it. So here goes, with Phil’s questions in bold, and my feeble attempts to answer them underneath.


So when God judicially hardens someone in a sinful lifestyle, are you saying it is not an irrevocable curse? If we plead for mercy, may God reverse this hardening and bring the individual back to repentance?

I think the key to this is to bear in mind Deuteronomy 29:29:

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

Whilst it is true that God sometimes hardens people irrevocably — Romans 9:22 speaks of “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” — you and I cannot possibly know who they are. The Scriptures contain many examples of people who, for all intents and purposes looked like they were indeed sinners hardened beyond redemption, but who did indeed repent.

So think Manasseh, who did “much evil in the sight of the LORD”, who “burned his son in the fire as an offering”, and who “shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another” (2 Kings 21).  Yet 2 Chronicles 33 shows him humbled and repentant. Think Nebuchadnezzar, as proud and lofty as Pharaoh, and yet in Daniel 4 we have evidence of his repentance. Think the people of Nineveh, whom God had appointed for destruction, yet who repented at the preaching of Jonah. Think of the thief on the cross.

In each one of these examples (and more could be mentioned), it looked like these people were vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. Yet they weren’t. God had mercy on them, humbling them and bringing them to repentance.

All of which means that — as I understand it — we can’t say of anyone on earth today that they have been hardened beyond redemption, although in the secret councils of God, it may we’ll be true. And so yes, we pray on.

 

Or is repentance only possible for a sinner who has not yet begun to be hardened? Esau could not obtain repentance even though he sought it with tears.

Regarding Esau, I think we have to ask what it was he was seeking. Here’s the text of Hebrews 12:15-17:

“See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.”

The question is what was it he sought with tears? Did he seek repentance, carefully with tears, only for God to refuse it to him? Or was it the blessing he sought with tears, but which he failed to obtain because he had forfeited it when he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage? I am very convinced that it is the latter of the two for reasons I’ll come to in a moment. But first let’s assume for a moment that it is the former. What would that mean?

Firstly, it would mean that it was Esau and not God who was the driver of repentance. But the Bible teaches elsewhere that it is God that draws us to repentance and not we who are naturally drawn to repent (eg. John 6:44).

Secondly, it would mean that Esau’s determination to repent was genuine, but that God rejected it. However, the Bible teaches elsewhere in numerous places that all those who sincerely repent shall be received and not rejected (eg. John 6:37).

And thirdly, it would make a mockery of the numerous verses where God pleads with man to repent, saying that he has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11) and that he “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

All of which is to say that the “it” that Esau carefully sought was not repentance, but the blessing which he perceived had been stolen from him by his brother. He couldn’t accept that his brother had been preferred over him, and that this had come about not primarily because of Rebekah’s plan for Jacob to take the blessing, but ultimately because Esau had forfeited it when he esteemed his birthright less than a bowl of stew. In the sovereign will of God, he lost the blessing too.

It’s really important to note what that birthright was. It wasn’t just a normal elder brother inheritance deal; it was fundamentally connected with the covenantal promises given to Abraham and to Isaac. And so what Esau gave up for one meal wasn’t just the temporal inheritance due to an elder brother; it was God’s plan of redemption for the whole world that he despised, which is why the writer to the Hebrews calls him unholy or profane.

His shedding of tears wasn’t over his despising of the Abrahamic covenant, but the fact that he missed out on the perks which went along with his father’s blessing. You can see this in his reaction in Genesis 27:34:

“As soon as Esau heard the words of his father, he cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry and said to his father, ‘Bless me, even me also, O my father!’ But he said, ‘Your brother came deceitfully, and he has taken away your blessing.’ Esau said, ‘Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has cheated me these two times. He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.’ Then he said, ‘Have you not reserved a blessing for me?’”

The bitter cry of this passage is the same as the tears that are talked about in Hebrews 12. But they’re not tears of repentance towards God. They’re tears of missing out on the blessing. And most crucial to this discussion, notice that far from recognising his part in it, he actually blames the loss of his birthright on Jacob. “He stole it from us” as Gollum might say. Except that he didn’t. You gave it to him Esau because you didn’t give two figs for it.

In summary, Esau’s tears were not tears towards God seeking repentance only to be denied it; they were tears towards his father, having been denied the blessing, which came about because he had sold the birthright and despised God’s covenant.

 

On another point, the apostasy of the UK is not quite the same as the apostasy of Israel, is it? Israel was, as a nation, God’s chosen people; the UK is not. If the NT church is the equivalent of the OT nation of Israel, then what people prayed for in the book of Judges might guide us about how to pray for the church today, but can we also use it as a template for our prayers for the UK as a whole?

This is a complex question, the answer to which could fill many books (and has done), but I’ll do my best to summarise what I think is the biblical position.

In one sense, it is true to say that the UK and the ancient nation of Israel are not the same. Israel was the people of God in a way that the UK is not and never will be. It had the tabernacle, a priesthood, the sacrificial system, the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. Clearly the UK, nor any other nation is analogous to this.

It is also correct to say that the new Israel is the church. That is, the covenant people of God are not Israel (neither the Jewish people or the state of Israel), but the church of Jesus Christ. We in the church are the ones who believe in the Abrahamic covenant to bring blessing to the world through the seed of Abraham – that is, ultimately through Jesus Christ — and we are the ones who are the recipients of this blessing through the Gospel.

However, this causes some issues. In the death of Jesus Christ, the sacrificial system, the sacrificial priesthood, and the ceremonial law were all fulfilled. And so we don’t need any more animal sacrifices, since the atonement for sins has now been made. We don’t need a priesthood offering up sacrifices, because the great High Priest has offered himself up. We don’t need any ceremonial laws, such as food laws and washings, since God has pronounced all foods to be clean, and our baptisms represent a once and for all washing/cleansing.

What the church is (or is meant to be), is basically a proclaimer of the Gospel – the good news of Jesus’s death, resurrection and ascension –, the discipler of individuals, families and indeed the nations, and the place where man meets with God through worship.

But what about the moral and civil laws? Is it the case that ever since the ascension of Jesus, God has been uninterested in civil and moral government, and the laws of the land? Is it the case that he is happy for laws to be under the control of secular authorities, just so long as the church is allowed to proclaim the Gospel?

The answer is absolutely not. Let me repeat that again: ABSOLUTELY NOT. In Psalm 2, for instance, we read this:

“I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession’… Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.”

This is all connected with the ascension of Jesus, where he sat down at the right hand of God the Father, having received the kingship after his death and resurrection. What is he given? Individual believers? The church? That little corner of peoples’ minds devoted to religious things? Nope. He is given the whole world. Every square inch, as Abraham Kuyper once said.

In other words, Jesus claims not just some people from each nation for himself — he claims the nations themselves for himself. Here’s Psalm 24 testifying to this truth:

“The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein.”

And here’s Jesus himself claiming the same thing:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

Jesus claims the nations, and he will have them. And if he claims the nations, he claims their Governments. And their judiciaries. And their Parliaments. And their media. And everything else you can think of in any nation. By his death and resurrection, God the Father has made him king of all lands and everything in them, and gradually throughout history he will bring them all under his rule until the whole world, the whole creation is submitted to him:

“But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15:25-27)

Of course many, if not most nations, are disobedient at the moment. Yet some nations have covenanted together to recognise the truth of Christ’s Lordship in the past. The UK is one of them. It is constitutionally a Christian nation. Its monarchs have for centuries recognised at their coronation that they rule under the rule of the King of kings. Its MPs have made their pledges to serve with their right hand on a Bible. Its law courts have insisted on witnesses pledging on the Bible too.

The UK can be said to have acknowledged the Lordship of Christ over it in a way that many other countries have not (yet). And it has done so not just in the “religious” realm, or the church realm, but in the civil realm too.

What has happened over the past 50 years, perhaps even 100, has been a national apostasy, including both the church and the civil realm. Britain, which rightfully belongs to King Jesus, has turned its back on him. It has shoved him out of just about every part of life where his authority was once recognised, and it continues to do so. And it is every bit as bad as the apostasy of Israel of old.

All of which means the following: Number one, this is a nation under judgement. Number two, that judgement will increase as our apostasy worsens. Number three, we desperately need to repent before calamity comes upon us. And finally, yes you can, and yes you should be praying for this country in exactly the same way as you could and should have prayed for the ancient nation of Israel, had you been a Jew. Just as you might have prayed that Manasseh stops bowing the knee to Baal, you should be praying that Theresa May and the government she leads stops bowing the knee to Baal (or tolerance’n’diversity as he’s called these days) and serve the Living God and his Anointed One lest — in the words of Psalm 2 — he comes and smashes this nation like a potter’s vessel.

9 thoughts on “Esau’s Repentance? Ain’t Worth a Mess of Pottage!

  1. Many, many thanks Rob for answering my questions so thoroughly.

    Regarding your exposition of Hebrews 12:17, you’ve written loads for me to think through there. I don’t want to make a snap response now but will mull it over and I may come back to you.

    Regarding the parallel between OT Israel and today’s UK, I had never heard it explained like that before. What you say makes sense.

    I am still unclear about judicial hardening. If being hardened in sin is the same as what the Bible describes as when God “gives up” or “gives over” that person to sin, that sounds immutable, as though God has given up on that person and washed his hands of him. Like in baseball, three strikes and you’re out. (I agree we cannot know for certain what God has purposed to do or not do about a particular individual, but I’m trying to understand judicial hardening as a general doctrine.)

    Since repentance is a gift of God (only God can effect true repentance in someone’s heart), what is the difference between an ordinary sinner and a hardened sinner? Both alike are unable to repent. How is a hardened sinner any more helpless or powerless to come back to God than a not-yet-hardened sinner? The only difference I can see is that a hardened sinner may start committing his besetting sin with more gusto, relish, and frequency than the other, thus heaping up for himself a larger debt to account for and greater wrath to incur on the day of judgement, but both alike will perish in their sins.

    1. Hi Phil,

      I definitely don’t think that the phrase God “gives up” or “gives over” implies anything immutable. For instance, in Romans 1, it speaks three times of God giving people up:

      “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.”
      “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.”
      “God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

      However, the types of behaviour they’ve been given up to are exactly the types of behaviour that Paul says some in the Corinthian church used to practice before they found repentance:

      “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

      So it seems clear that sometimes God gives people up, or gives them over, but does later have mercy on them.

      It seems to me that immutable hardening is in a different category altogether, and it’s not a “three strikes and you’re” out deal. (Jesus himself tells his disciples that they should be prepared to forgive 7*70 times and so God’s mercy must be at least that (by the way, if you’re interested, the 7*70 is the same number as the number of Daniel’s weeks – 490 – the period from the decree to restore Jerusalem in around 460BC, to the death and resurrection of Jesus, probably in about 30AD)).

      Jesus mentioned the unpardonable sin, and describes it as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Some people think that this was confined to the 1st century and relates just to the Pharisees saying Jesus was in league with the Devil. I’m not so sure. I think it more refers to a state where a person has so wilfully hardened their heart beyond what is normal, to the point where they make an absolute, wilful and final choice to remain rebels forever.

      With most people – “ordinary sinners” – no matter how sinful their lives and how blasphemous their hearts and tongues, they are not in this state. There is still at least the possibility of appealing to their reason, or their consciences, or their wills at some point before their death. However, there are some people — “the bent” I think CS Lewis called them — who have wilfully put themselves beyond redemption, so that the possibility of appealing to their reason, consciences or wills no longer exists.

      I doubt that this will satisfy what is a very good but immensely difficult question, but it might give a little food for thought.

      Best,

      Rob

      is

  2. “It’s really important to note what that birthright was. It wasn’t just a normal elder brother inheritance deal; it was fundamentally connected with the covenantal promises given to Abraham and to Isaac.”
    Could you give me a reference of this? I’m not convinced that the promise was connected to the first birthright (Jacob’s son Juda wasn’t the first born either and not even Efraïm, the one Jacob chose … I’m somewhat lost here). I’ve the impression it was connected to Abraham’s bloodline.
    If I’m right about this then Esau didn’t cry out over the loss of the divine privilege but over the loss of the more worldly privileges (status, wealth, … I assume here that the first born inherited a lot if not all).
    However if we would isolate the story for a moment, I would see Jacob as the wicked man and Esau as a gullible man who’s only interest is to chase his pleasures but doesn’t really harm his fellow-man (he generously forgives his brother in Genesis 33:4). On the other hand Jacob exploits the weakeness of his brother, lies to his father and cheats on his father-in-law (though he had his reasons but is it not for God to punish? Or was God giving him a dose of his own medecine?). Yes, and he even tried to make a deal with God (Genesis 28:20-22).
    No wonder that we read that Jacob’s ways were not God’s ways (Roman 11:26). Only after he struggled with God, he came to the insight who he really was. He didn’t lie anymore and recognized who he really was (he was Jacob), all his vices included and only then the “man” blessed him, a blessing Esau didn’t receive.
    Jacob thoughts/heart were always with God while Esau hardly thought of Him and when Esau seemed to repent his thoughts/heart weren’t really with God either.
    Mais revenons à nos moutons … it sounds like God knows who’s willing to repent and He will take actions at some point in time to grant him a chance to do so … I’d say just keep talking and asking.

    1. Hi GV,

      I only have time to very briefly answer your first point, so here goes. Can I give you the reference for the claim that the birthright was fundamentally connected with the Abrahamic covenant?

      The short answer to this is no, because there isn’t one. But that by no means negates the point I’ve made, as I’ll hopefully explain.

      There are basically two ways that Christians tend to read the Bible. One, is a very wooden way which always demands a “proof text” for everything. The big problem with this, is that it just isn’t how the Bible is written and meant to be read. And on a practical level, God just hasn’t put proof texts for everything in there (“Is it okay to throw a frisbee on the Lord’s Day?” “Show me where it says it’s okay.” “No you show me where it says it isn’t okay .” Blah blah blah. But of course the Bible says nothing about Frisbees whatsoever :)).

      The proper way to read the Bible, in my opinion, is to spot the narrative running all the way through. And one of the biggest narratives of all starts in Genesis 12, when God brings Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, and promises to bless him, his descendants and through him the whole world. In other words, Abraham is given the Gospel, and told it will come through him.

      Abraham will also be aware of what God promised to Adam and Eve, that through the seed of the woman, the serpents head shall be crushed. But of course Eve’s seed is – shall we say – a huge disappointment, and rather than crushing the serpent’s head, he is on the serpent’s side.

      So when Abraham is promised a seed, he knows of the promise of a seed going all the way back to the beginning. And he naturally thinks it will be Isaac. However, it turns out that it isn’t Isaac either.

      Now it is clear that by the time of Esau’s mess of pottage, he must know all this too. His father Isaac would clearly have told him, as would his grandfather, Abraham, who was still alive at the time. So Esau knows of the promises given to Abraham and Isaac, and he knows that he is the firstborn. In other words, he knows that the promises are now apparently to come through him.

      So when he is given the choice between a bowl of stew and his birthright, he isn’t just being given a choice between a small temporal thing and a bigger temporal thing. His choice is between feeding his stomach now, or being the one through whom the promises given to Abraham and Isaac, and all the way back to Adam and Eve would come. He is the inheritor of the Messianic prophecies, and he esteems it less than a bowl of stew.

      Anyway, I hope that hastily typed answer makes some sort of sense.

      Best,

      Rob

      1. When Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew, did he think he was only discarding the covenantal promise of begetting a messiah but still expected to retain the temporal blessings of being the firstborn? Otherwise, why was it subsequently necessary for Jacob to disguise himself as Esau and trick Isaac into pronouncing a (temporal) blessing over Jacob instead of Esau? Hebrews 12:15-17 seems to conflate the mess of pottage incident with the goatskins-on-the-hands incident, but Genesis 27:34 regards them as having a different significance to one another (the ‘birthright’ in the former case and the ‘blessing’ in the latter). Presumably Isaac knew that Esau had sold his birthright to Jacob but Isaac still intended to pronounce abundant temporal blessings on Esau as though he were still his firstborn son.

        And on another point, when Isaac realised he had unwittingly blessed Jacob instead of Esau, why was his blessing of Jacob irrevocable? In his spirit he had intended to bless Esau. Why did his literal words override his heart’s intentions? When I pray to God, I don’t always articulate my words perfectly accurately but I trust God knows my intentions and he interprets my prayers accordingly, rather than responding to the literal words I use, as though my exact words have a magical power of their own.

        Thanks.

        1. The key here, Phil, is the first verse of Chapter 27 of Genesis:

          ‘”When Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called Esau his older son and said to him, “My son”; and he answered, “Here I am.”’

          Often, when scripture uses a phrase like “his eyes were dim so he could not see”, it is not just a reference to physical blindness, but more a commentary on the person’s spiritual state.
          So the same is said of Eli in the book of Samuel:

          “At that time Eli, whose eyesight had begun to grow dim so that he could not see, was lying down in his own place.”

          What we are being told is that Isaac at that time was basically spiritually blind (that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a believer – just not spiritually discerning). Everything by that time was pointing him to the fact that Jacob, not Esau, was now the one through whom the promises would come. Esau had rejected his birthright for a bowl of stew. And at the end of chapter 26, he marries a couple of Hittite women who not only made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah, but which was further evidence of his despising the covenant.

          But despite all this, when we come to chapter 27 Isaac still favours Esau. Even though Esau has forfeited the blessing, Isaac doesn’t see this, or rather won’t see it because Esau is his favourite, and so he intends to give it to him anyway.

          So the two villains of the piece are, at that time, Isaac and Esau. Esau for despising his birthright, but also Isaac for insisting on giving him the blessing. The hero of the piece – or rather the heroine – is Rebekah. She is the one who truly believes God and his covenant promises, and she knows that they are to come through the one who has the birthright – not the one who rejected it.

          So when she hears her husband concocting his plan to bless Esau, what does she do? She concocts her own scheme to make sure that the right son gets the blessing. And she does so because she, unlike her husband, is walking in faith.

          This will be shocking to many, if not most, Christians who have Rebekah down as the villain of the piece. She deceived her husband didn’t she? Yes she did, but she did so because her husband was being utterly foolish and disobedient to God’s covenant. He was about to put his favourite son ahead of the one whom God had chosen, and he ignored the truth which should have been plain to see.

          And in any case, despite what many Christians would say, deception is not always a sin. Rahab is praised for her faith in the book of James, specifically for her decision to deceive the soldiers of Jericho about the Hebrew spies. The Hebrew midwives are specifically praised for their faith, even though they deliberately deceived Pharaoh.

          And nor was Rebekah at fault because it was her husband. Abigail goes against the wishes of her husband Naboth, but she does so to stave off the bloodshed that is coming from David and his men as the result of her husband’s folly, and she is praised.

          Not convinced? Rebekah’s righteousness is confirmed in the following chapter of Genesis, where we read the following:

          “Then Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and directed him, “You must not take a wife from the Canaanite women. Arise, go to Paddan-aram to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father, and take as your wife from there one of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother. God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. May he give the blessing of Abraham to you and to your offspring with you, that you may take possession of the land of your sojournings that God gave to Abraham!” 5 Thus Isaac sent Jacob away.”

          You see what happened? Isaac, who in chapter 27 was so blind that he could not see who the blessing of God was to come upon, can now see clearly. Not only does he once again bless Jacob, but he instructs him to get a wife the same way that his father got him a wife, and not a Canaanite woman/women as Esau did. But more than this, he also acknowledges that the Abrahamic blessing is to come upon and through Jacob, not Esau.

          In other words, though Rebekah’s actions might at first sight seem to us to be an outrageous deception upon poor Isaac and Esau, read the whole passage carefully and you will see not only that it is Isaac’s actions that are outrageous – insisting the blessing is to come upon the one that God rejected – but that through her actions she not only ensures the blessing comes upon the right son, but she also brings Isaac to repentance so that in chapter 28 he once again sees clearly.

          Best wishes,

          Rob

  3. Wonderful Post!

    What comes to mind concerning UK and for us the USA, is the verse from Psalms 127:1
    “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

    JeSus was, for us, the Perfect Pattern for getting to God. He showed us The Way. What was the way? He loved God, His brethren, even His enemies, He lived by the Laws of God, He was peaceable and meek and never resorted to force, He shared the “talents” He was given by God, the understanding which have brought us into the future, and, most importantly, He always followed the Will of His Father in Heaven. Always!

    The last way is more difficult but if we work at it and walk and talk with Him continually and listen, He will let us know what to do for He has many mysterious ways. He doesn’t want pets, and really our Destination in Time is to work with Him in the Holy City, which revelations describes as being as high, as it is wide, as it is deep, a cube, a mind cube, those thinking with the Lamb, JeSus, and the Lord God Almighty, who we know as Man. JeSus said He was the Son of Man. We also think this is the rapture, Our bodies will not go anywhere, but we will become part of His City.

    The USA and the UK and maybe even the State of Israel, are like Gog and Magog, and presently those in authority there worship another God. We like to joke and say that the State of Israel is Gagog, as it makes us choke when we think that God said, “Thou shall not kill/murder”, but they sure are doing just that. And stealing. It’s not to say the Palestinians are better, for they have sunk into the use of force, but if they had stayed meek and Kept counsel with God, we are sure He would have helped them overcome.

    Delamer Duverus says we can only evolve as a species if we are no longer a threat to anyone or anything. The other mind presence on the Earth, who we refer to the Alien Mind, keeps us in war and chaos because it knows this, knows if it can keep us fighting and creating problems around the world, it wins and God loses.

  4. Interesting to see you choose the same image I did for my Blog Article, ‘JOSEPH AND THE COAT OF MANY COLOURS.’ published October 13, 2016.

    I have to work on it again since this is the last line, ‘Not to be outdone, Leah gave Jacob her maidservant for a wife, and she delivered Jacob his 7th and 8th sons. Then Leah delivered Jacob 2 more sons, now having 10 but the woman of his passion and love was still barren. Finally, Rachel gave Jacob/Israel his love child, his 11th, and named him Joseph’.

    ……to be continued

    I agree with this, “However, this causes some issues. In the death of Jesus Christ, the sacrificial system, the sacrificial priesthood, and the ceremonial law were all fulfilled. And so we don’t need any more animal sacrifices,”

    If that belief is Fundamental to a genuine Disciple of Christ Today, why is there no real discussion of the Temple Movement in Israel that wants to get rid of the Muslim Dome of the Rock/Al Aska Mosque, and replace it with a 3rd Jewish Temple, reinstating the Priesthood and animal blood sacrifice for the Atonement of sin?

    Those Christians who have turned the ‘People of the Book’ who are all dead, into modern day Idols beyond questioning or criticism, are in denial of this part of the NEW TESTAMENT,
    ‘But as many as received him, TO THEM HE GAVE POWER power to BECOME the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
    Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
    John 1

    It is human vanity to think God is not ‘choosing’ other people alive in this World to fulfill God’s Will TODAY.

    As to this view, Rob, “This is all connected with the ascension of Jesus, where he sat down at the right hand of God the Father, having received the kingship after his death and resurrection, I see there is even more involved with True Faith in the Resurrected Christ TODAY.

    Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
    To him that overcomes will I grant to SIT WITH ME IN MY THRONE, even as I ALSO OVERCAME, and AM set down with my Father in his throne.
    He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
    Revelation 3

    That is POWER SHARING I believe in, creating a Real True Level Playing Field, and BECOMING Co-Creators with God and Christ in this material world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.