Prayer, Holiness and Meditation
I Timothy 2
Most of Paul's letters were written to churches in Greece and Asia Minor, churches in places like Corinth, Philippi and Ephesus. It's easy to accept these letters as being intended for all churches in all times, and seek to live our lives according to the instructions given. On the other hand, when it comes to the books called "Timothy" and "Titus," we identify them as personal letters and call them "Pastoral Epistles."
This particular letter, I Timothy, has a lot of significance for me because it was used to confirm my own call into the ministry when I was a very young teenager. It happened during a Sunday evening service when my Pastor, Harold Hanson, was giving a Bible teaching, and asking volunteers to look up and read Scripture verses. The verse I was assigned was II Timothy 1:12, but I mistakenly read I Timothy 1:12, "And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry." (KJV) The Pastor paused a moment, and then said, "Actually Neil has read the wrong verse, but perhaps we should understand that this is to be prophetic." Indeed it was.
Due to the fact that these letters are called "Pastoral Epistles," the tendency of some Christians is to skip over them because, obviously, they are written for church leaders. However, that's really not true because, although these letters were written to Pastors Timothy and Titus, they were intended to help those leaders know how to instruct the members of their churches, as we clearly see in I Timothy 3:14+15, "Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
So while these letters from the Apostle represent a kind of leadership manual for pastors, "here's what to do and how to do it," they are also intended to provide instructions for all Christians.
In this short chapter, I Timothy 2, Paul relates to Timothy what are the responsibilities of both men and women in the church worship services.
Notice how Paul priorities these instructions, "first" for the men, they are to lead in prayer. Why is it, that in a culture which insists that men take the leadership in almost every sector, we let them off the hook when it comes to prayer? Men want to be in charge, men want to make the decisions, men want to be king of their castle and tell the servants (otherwise known as wife and children) what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. No where does the Bible support the idea of a top-down hierarchy for the family - the military model is not at all appropriate for the Christian family. What is called for is leadership in spiritual matters - the husband/father is to be the priest of the home. Then those men who demonstrate their fulfillment of this role in the home are candidates to become spiritual leaders in the church, and a spiritual leader always leads in prayer.
It should be noted that in the Greek language two different words are used for our word "man". The first, "anthropos," is found several times in this passage, and is usually referring to "mankind":
requests should be made for all mankind (v.1);
God wants all mankind to be saved (v.4);
there's one mediator between God and mankind (v.5);
the word is also used of Jesus who came to be the Savior for all mankind (v.6).
The other word is "aner" and specifically refers to the male gender. By the way, there is no gender confusion with God. When He created mankind, He created them male and female with a clear distinction between them, readily observed. We laugh at the silliness of the man who was asked if his wife had a boy or girl. He had just come out of the delivery room, and he responded, "How should I know, the baby didn't have any clothes on." Never has any man been born who was destined to be a mother, or woman to be a husband. In this chapter, the word for husband is used twice - males are to pray, and wives are not to usurp authority over their husbands.
That brings up a thorny subject, women in leadership. Too often this scripture has been used to bar women from positions of teaching and leadership. Is that what "keep silent" means? If we put this teaching in the context of Paul's other teachings, as well as his obvious practice, that cannot be the case.
In New Testament churches, women were allowed to prophesy (Acts 21:9; I Corinthians 11:5), and held leadership positions (Philippians 4:2,3; Romans 16:1; Junia is even called an "Apostle" - Romans 16:7).
Obviously, here, as he often does elsewhere, Paul is giving a directive which is particular to the church situation in Ephesus, not a general directive which should be applied to all churches everywhere. To argue that no women anywhere, any time, should lead or teach will not stand up in the light of the rest of Scripture.
In addition, I'm sure Paul would agree with Peter that men shouldn't "usurp" authority either (I Peter 5:3 and Ephesus 5:21 - "submit to one another"). In fact this is very consistently clear from Jesus on, leadership is always nothing more than servanthood.
Also, no where in Scripture can there be found a mandate to divide the Spiritual gifts along gender lines (teaching and leadership are both on the gift-list), and;
To say only men were disciples and apostles is to ignore the fact that there were women disciples (Luke 8:2) and women were sent ("apostello") to broadcast to the other disciples the most important news of the Gospel, Jesus was alive as He had predicted.
Why then did Paul say, "I do not allow a woman to teach. . . ."? First, notice he didn't say, "The Lord does not allow. . . ." Here was a case of Paul offering his own judgment on the issue, much as he did in I Corinthians 7:6, "I say this as a concession, not as a command." (Also note vs. 12). This is also a directive which was compatible with the law of the land of which he was a citizen, the Roman law (Romans 13:1).
Too often we have fallen into the trap of spending a lot of time arguing about what should not be done, rather than spending our energy on what should be done. This is the Old Testament thinking of "Thou shalt not" rather than following what Jesus taught, "Love your neighbor as yourself." In this case, the positive instruction of Paul has to do with how a woman should conduct herself in the church, and we would say, also in the world, because how one lives in church should also be how one lives outside. According to this instruction, attending church should not be a fashion parade or a way to stir up unholy passions in men. Christian women should dress well and attractively, in a way that draws attention to their natural God-given beauty.
But the call is for "modesty," "decency," propriety" - that clearly means proper covering of body parts which should only be seen by a husband. Butt cracks, pubic hair, breast cleavages and nipples, belly buttons - these are off limits for men's eyes. Why would a godly woman want to display such views in front of men who have gathered in the church to worship the Lord? On the other hand, do we need to go the extreme of the Islamic women who are totally clothed in black? No, and we don't major on taboo lists like we find in some churches such as one in Philadelphia which published this list: "There will be no hair straightening, no glitter in the hair, no hair dying, no hair plaiting, no hair pride of any form! No eye brow arching, or eye brawl pencil. No false eyelashes, no make-up, no powder puff, no lip stick, no earrings, no bracelets, no ankle chains, no necklaces, no finger nail hardener or polish. No toe nail polish, no pants on the girls, no shorts on the boys, no short dresses, no deep cut clothing, and no straight tight dresses. No tight pants on the boys, no TV’s, no smoking allowed or drinking, no nothing, but all Jesus! The Bible is against all these things."
However, it seems we have gone way too far in the other direction, and we too easily follow the lead of the world where modesty has all but disappeared. Paul even goes further to say that the best and most beautiful clothing is not made of fabric, but "good deeds." What godly man would not be attracted to a woman who is busy helping the poor, alleviating the suffering, feeding the hungry, and empathizing with the emotionally hurting?
But lets go back to the men.
It is our conviction that if a man will accept his role as the spiritual (prayer) leader, and seek to express the very character qualities of Christ, sacrificing himself for the benefit of his wife and children, "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25), there will be little hesitation on the part of godly women to follow that leadership. Unfortunately, too many men have viewed their roles to be that of "bread winners" - once they have "brought home the bacon," and "provide a roof over our heads" they think their job is complete. It's time that men stop merely complaining about the "feminist movement" and do something about it, that is, set the pace for faithfulness in prayer, reading Scripture, faithful attendance in worship services, and take on the servant leadership role and wash the feet of family members.
Quickly also notice the focus of prayer for the man - to pray for leaders, and care for the lost.
If I were living and leading a church in California, I would be saying to Christians there, "Instead of spending so much time and money trying to fire your Governor, pray for him - that's the most politically responsible thing you can do." When it comes to the church, let me boldly say that one of the greatest problems in the American church is that the men of the church, instead of being on their knees praying for their Pastor, are acting more like male elk, butting heads. In Paul's day it was the women, led astray into false teaching due to their previously not having been taught the Scriptures, who caused problems and were told to keep silent. In our day it's the men who have not taken on their duly ordained prayer role.
Of course the reason for prayer to be lifted up on behalf of leaders is not to see one political party win over the other, or to get a reduction in taxes, but to provide a context for the successful preaching of the Gospel both at home and throughout the world.
The form of the prayer is with upraised hands. What is the problem here? Men will go to the sports arena, they will yell and wildly wave their hands in support of their overpaid sports idols, but in church, when asked to lift hands in praise and petition, men sit with arms folded or stand with hands in their pockets, incapable of raising their hands above their shoulders. But it's not just about lifting hands, it's lifting "holy" hands. Hands represent our actions and work in the world. We always approach God, like the Priests of old who paused at the laver outside the sanctuary - we come to worship having been cleansed by the "washing of water by the word" (Ephesians 5:26).
Just as prayer has a physical posture, it also has an emotional and spiritual form. The prayer is to be without "anger" and full of humility (without disputing). Most everyone becomes angry when things don't go their way, but please notice that "anger management" classes are mostly populated by men, not women. It's very easy for proactive, "take charge" men to become angry even at God, and forget that He is not our servant to be ordered around and argued with when He doesn't do what we expect Him to do.
Finally, tucked away in the midst of these instructions about how men and women should conduct themselves in church is a very important theological statement in verses 5 and 6, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time." Too often we get hung up on the unending discussions and debates about how people should behave themselves, or dress themselves, in church. While behavior is important, belief is much more important. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? What comes first, belief or behavior? We clearly answer, belief informs behavior.
Of the entire passage, the theological point about Jesus being the only mediator is the most important statement, and one which sets true Christianity apart. The Jewish religion which preceded the coming of Jesus, and the Roman Catholic religion which was established after the first century both insisted on having human intermediaries. Of course it is excusable for the Jewish religion, for theirs was ordained of God to foreshadow that which was to come - the priestly office of the Old Testament finds its fulfillment in Jesus, the Great High Priest. But there is no excuse for Christianity to fall back into this mode of having a human mediator between God and man. It is nothing short of arrogance for some of us to appoint ourselves to stand between the rest of us and God - there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Notice that Jesus is here identified as "the man," but He alone can fill this place, for He, the Son of Man is also the Son of God.
The word "mediator" is easy to understand, it's the go-between, the one who stands between two parties, representing each to the other. In this case, Jesus both represents God to men, as well as He represents man to God. And He's the only one qualified. People within the Protestant tradition find it easy to criticize their Catholic counterparts because they allow for many mediators: Mary the mother of Jesus, the Pope whom they claim is God's representative on earth, the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Priests, all who take up the role of the mediator. But I fear that Protestants do little better. Why is it that people flock to certain "men of God" - Evangelists, Pastors, Prophets, hoping to be prayed for by the man who obviously is so much closer to God than they? No, the statement applies to us all, there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Apart form the obvious, two main ideas are conveyed by this word "mediator."
The first idea connected with "mediator" is "reconciler." Jesus is constantly at work trying to bring warring parties back together. These are people who once had a good relationship, perhaps a parent and child, siblings, or coworkers. But then something went wrong, and one or both parties became angry with the other, and they stopped talking with each other, and perhaps even complained to other people how badly the other had treated them. The anger festers, and grudges are carried for years until someone, perhaps a relative or friend comes along and initiates a reconciliation. This person goes to each party and appeals to them to forgive the other and be restored in their relationship - both parties agree, forgiveness is sought and given. Of course in our relationship with God there is a difference, because God can never be charged with an offense, because He is holy and righteous. However, there are times when people may feel that God has wronged them in some way and needs to be forgiven. In this case, Jesus, the Son reminds the offended party that the Father really is a God of love and ready to forgive, and through Jesus reconciliation is achieved.
Second, Jesus is our advocate, our defense attorney; He's the one who stands before the Judge of all the earth to seek clemency for his clients. Guilt has already been established, and the sentence is about to be passed down when Jesus steps up and makes the claim that the death penalty has already been paid, and it would be a travesty of justice if two deaths were to be required for one crime. And the Judge proclaims to the defendant, "You are free to go, your punishment has already been borne by someone who offered to die in your place." "Who is this?" you want to know. "The One who now stands in your defense, my only Son, who died and rose again. He has taken your punishment, your guilt has been removed and the sentence of death will not be pronounced."
Yes, men should pray, and women should adorn themselves with modesty and good works. But even more importantly, it is necessary for both men and women to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. That's the beginning point, and if there is any religious duty at all, it must be based on simple devotion to Jesus in response to what He has done. By allowing Himself to be stretched out between heaven and earth to die on a cruel Roman cross, Jesus became the bridge between God and man. Whatever attempts we may make to please God through prayer or holy behavior will all be in vain unless we come to God expressing simple faith in Jesus as the Son of God, the "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Most of Paul's letters were written to churches in Greece and Asia Minor, churches in places like Corinth, Philippi and Ephesus. It's easy to accept these letters as being intended for all churches in all times, and seek to live our lives according to the instructions given. On the other hand, when it comes to the books called "Timothy" and "Titus," we identify them as personal letters and call them "Pastoral Epistles."
This particular letter, I Timothy, has a lot of significance for me because it was used to confirm my own call into the ministry when I was a very young teenager. It happened during a Sunday evening service when my Pastor, Harold Hanson, was giving a Bible teaching, and asking volunteers to look up and read Scripture verses. The verse I was assigned was II Timothy 1:12, but I mistakenly read I Timothy 1:12, "And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry." (KJV) The Pastor paused a moment, and then said, "Actually Neil has read the wrong verse, but perhaps we should understand that this is to be prophetic." Indeed it was.
Due to the fact that these letters are called "Pastoral Epistles," the tendency of some Christians is to skip over them because, obviously, they are written for church leaders. However, that's really not true because, although these letters were written to Pastors Timothy and Titus, they were intended to help those leaders know how to instruct the members of their churches, as we clearly see in I Timothy 3:14+15, "Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
So while these letters from the Apostle represent a kind of leadership manual for pastors, "here's what to do and how to do it," they are also intended to provide instructions for all Christians.
In this short chapter, I Timothy 2, Paul relates to Timothy what are the responsibilities of both men and women in the church worship services.
Notice how Paul priorities these instructions, "first" for the men, they are to lead in prayer. Why is it, that in a culture which insists that men take the leadership in almost every sector, we let them off the hook when it comes to prayer? Men want to be in charge, men want to make the decisions, men want to be king of their castle and tell the servants (otherwise known as wife and children) what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. No where does the Bible support the idea of a top-down hierarchy for the family - the military model is not at all appropriate for the Christian family. What is called for is leadership in spiritual matters - the husband/father is to be the priest of the home. Then those men who demonstrate their fulfillment of this role in the home are candidates to become spiritual leaders in the church, and a spiritual leader always leads in prayer.
It should be noted that in the Greek language two different words are used for our word "man". The first, "anthropos," is found several times in this passage, and is usually referring to "mankind":
requests should be made for all mankind (v.1);
God wants all mankind to be saved (v.4);
there's one mediator between God and mankind (v.5);
the word is also used of Jesus who came to be the Savior for all mankind (v.6).
The other word is "aner" and specifically refers to the male gender. By the way, there is no gender confusion with God. When He created mankind, He created them male and female with a clear distinction between them, readily observed. We laugh at the silliness of the man who was asked if his wife had a boy or girl. He had just come out of the delivery room, and he responded, "How should I know, the baby didn't have any clothes on." Never has any man been born who was destined to be a mother, or woman to be a husband. In this chapter, the word for husband is used twice - males are to pray, and wives are not to usurp authority over their husbands.
That brings up a thorny subject, women in leadership. Too often this scripture has been used to bar women from positions of teaching and leadership. Is that what "keep silent" means? If we put this teaching in the context of Paul's other teachings, as well as his obvious practice, that cannot be the case.
In New Testament churches, women were allowed to prophesy (Acts 21:9; I Corinthians 11:5), and held leadership positions (Philippians 4:2,3; Romans 16:1; Junia is even called an "Apostle" - Romans 16:7).
Obviously, here, as he often does elsewhere, Paul is giving a directive which is particular to the church situation in Ephesus, not a general directive which should be applied to all churches everywhere. To argue that no women anywhere, any time, should lead or teach will not stand up in the light of the rest of Scripture.
In addition, I'm sure Paul would agree with Peter that men shouldn't "usurp" authority either (I Peter 5:3 and Ephesus 5:21 - "submit to one another"). In fact this is very consistently clear from Jesus on, leadership is always nothing more than servanthood.
Also, no where in Scripture can there be found a mandate to divide the Spiritual gifts along gender lines (teaching and leadership are both on the gift-list), and;
To say only men were disciples and apostles is to ignore the fact that there were women disciples (Luke 8:2) and women were sent ("apostello") to broadcast to the other disciples the most important news of the Gospel, Jesus was alive as He had predicted.
Why then did Paul say, "I do not allow a woman to teach. . . ."? First, notice he didn't say, "The Lord does not allow. . . ." Here was a case of Paul offering his own judgment on the issue, much as he did in I Corinthians 7:6, "I say this as a concession, not as a command." (Also note vs. 12). This is also a directive which was compatible with the law of the land of which he was a citizen, the Roman law (Romans 13:1).
Too often we have fallen into the trap of spending a lot of time arguing about what should not be done, rather than spending our energy on what should be done. This is the Old Testament thinking of "Thou shalt not" rather than following what Jesus taught, "Love your neighbor as yourself." In this case, the positive instruction of Paul has to do with how a woman should conduct herself in the church, and we would say, also in the world, because how one lives in church should also be how one lives outside. According to this instruction, attending church should not be a fashion parade or a way to stir up unholy passions in men. Christian women should dress well and attractively, in a way that draws attention to their natural God-given beauty.
But the call is for "modesty," "decency," propriety" - that clearly means proper covering of body parts which should only be seen by a husband. Butt cracks, pubic hair, breast cleavages and nipples, belly buttons - these are off limits for men's eyes. Why would a godly woman want to display such views in front of men who have gathered in the church to worship the Lord? On the other hand, do we need to go the extreme of the Islamic women who are totally clothed in black? No, and we don't major on taboo lists like we find in some churches such as one in Philadelphia which published this list: "There will be no hair straightening, no glitter in the hair, no hair dying, no hair plaiting, no hair pride of any form! No eye brow arching, or eye brawl pencil. No false eyelashes, no make-up, no powder puff, no lip stick, no earrings, no bracelets, no ankle chains, no necklaces, no finger nail hardener or polish. No toe nail polish, no pants on the girls, no shorts on the boys, no short dresses, no deep cut clothing, and no straight tight dresses. No tight pants on the boys, no TV’s, no smoking allowed or drinking, no nothing, but all Jesus! The Bible is against all these things."
However, it seems we have gone way too far in the other direction, and we too easily follow the lead of the world where modesty has all but disappeared. Paul even goes further to say that the best and most beautiful clothing is not made of fabric, but "good deeds." What godly man would not be attracted to a woman who is busy helping the poor, alleviating the suffering, feeding the hungry, and empathizing with the emotionally hurting?
But lets go back to the men.
It is our conviction that if a man will accept his role as the spiritual (prayer) leader, and seek to express the very character qualities of Christ, sacrificing himself for the benefit of his wife and children, "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25), there will be little hesitation on the part of godly women to follow that leadership. Unfortunately, too many men have viewed their roles to be that of "bread winners" - once they have "brought home the bacon," and "provide a roof over our heads" they think their job is complete. It's time that men stop merely complaining about the "feminist movement" and do something about it, that is, set the pace for faithfulness in prayer, reading Scripture, faithful attendance in worship services, and take on the servant leadership role and wash the feet of family members.
Quickly also notice the focus of prayer for the man - to pray for leaders, and care for the lost.
If I were living and leading a church in California, I would be saying to Christians there, "Instead of spending so much time and money trying to fire your Governor, pray for him - that's the most politically responsible thing you can do." When it comes to the church, let me boldly say that one of the greatest problems in the American church is that the men of the church, instead of being on their knees praying for their Pastor, are acting more like male elk, butting heads. In Paul's day it was the women, led astray into false teaching due to their previously not having been taught the Scriptures, who caused problems and were told to keep silent. In our day it's the men who have not taken on their duly ordained prayer role.
Of course the reason for prayer to be lifted up on behalf of leaders is not to see one political party win over the other, or to get a reduction in taxes, but to provide a context for the successful preaching of the Gospel both at home and throughout the world.
The form of the prayer is with upraised hands. What is the problem here? Men will go to the sports arena, they will yell and wildly wave their hands in support of their overpaid sports idols, but in church, when asked to lift hands in praise and petition, men sit with arms folded or stand with hands in their pockets, incapable of raising their hands above their shoulders. But it's not just about lifting hands, it's lifting "holy" hands. Hands represent our actions and work in the world. We always approach God, like the Priests of old who paused at the laver outside the sanctuary - we come to worship having been cleansed by the "washing of water by the word" (Ephesians 5:26).
Just as prayer has a physical posture, it also has an emotional and spiritual form. The prayer is to be without "anger" and full of humility (without disputing). Most everyone becomes angry when things don't go their way, but please notice that "anger management" classes are mostly populated by men, not women. It's very easy for proactive, "take charge" men to become angry even at God, and forget that He is not our servant to be ordered around and argued with when He doesn't do what we expect Him to do.
Finally, tucked away in the midst of these instructions about how men and women should conduct themselves in church is a very important theological statement in verses 5 and 6, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time." Too often we get hung up on the unending discussions and debates about how people should behave themselves, or dress themselves, in church. While behavior is important, belief is much more important. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? What comes first, belief or behavior? We clearly answer, belief informs behavior.
Of the entire passage, the theological point about Jesus being the only mediator is the most important statement, and one which sets true Christianity apart. The Jewish religion which preceded the coming of Jesus, and the Roman Catholic religion which was established after the first century both insisted on having human intermediaries. Of course it is excusable for the Jewish religion, for theirs was ordained of God to foreshadow that which was to come - the priestly office of the Old Testament finds its fulfillment in Jesus, the Great High Priest. But there is no excuse for Christianity to fall back into this mode of having a human mediator between God and man. It is nothing short of arrogance for some of us to appoint ourselves to stand between the rest of us and God - there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Notice that Jesus is here identified as "the man," but He alone can fill this place, for He, the Son of Man is also the Son of God.
The word "mediator" is easy to understand, it's the go-between, the one who stands between two parties, representing each to the other. In this case, Jesus both represents God to men, as well as He represents man to God. And He's the only one qualified. People within the Protestant tradition find it easy to criticize their Catholic counterparts because they allow for many mediators: Mary the mother of Jesus, the Pope whom they claim is God's representative on earth, the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Priests, all who take up the role of the mediator. But I fear that Protestants do little better. Why is it that people flock to certain "men of God" - Evangelists, Pastors, Prophets, hoping to be prayed for by the man who obviously is so much closer to God than they? No, the statement applies to us all, there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Apart form the obvious, two main ideas are conveyed by this word "mediator."
The first idea connected with "mediator" is "reconciler." Jesus is constantly at work trying to bring warring parties back together. These are people who once had a good relationship, perhaps a parent and child, siblings, or coworkers. But then something went wrong, and one or both parties became angry with the other, and they stopped talking with each other, and perhaps even complained to other people how badly the other had treated them. The anger festers, and grudges are carried for years until someone, perhaps a relative or friend comes along and initiates a reconciliation. This person goes to each party and appeals to them to forgive the other and be restored in their relationship - both parties agree, forgiveness is sought and given. Of course in our relationship with God there is a difference, because God can never be charged with an offense, because He is holy and righteous. However, there are times when people may feel that God has wronged them in some way and needs to be forgiven. In this case, Jesus, the Son reminds the offended party that the Father really is a God of love and ready to forgive, and through Jesus reconciliation is achieved.
Second, Jesus is our advocate, our defense attorney; He's the one who stands before the Judge of all the earth to seek clemency for his clients. Guilt has already been established, and the sentence is about to be passed down when Jesus steps up and makes the claim that the death penalty has already been paid, and it would be a travesty of justice if two deaths were to be required for one crime. And the Judge proclaims to the defendant, "You are free to go, your punishment has already been borne by someone who offered to die in your place." "Who is this?" you want to know. "The One who now stands in your defense, my only Son, who died and rose again. He has taken your punishment, your guilt has been removed and the sentence of death will not be pronounced."
Yes, men should pray, and women should adorn themselves with modesty and good works. But even more importantly, it is necessary for both men and women to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. That's the beginning point, and if there is any religious duty at all, it must be based on simple devotion to Jesus in response to what He has done. By allowing Himself to be stretched out between heaven and earth to die on a cruel Roman cross, Jesus became the bridge between God and man. Whatever attempts we may make to please God through prayer or holy behavior will all be in vain unless we come to God expressing simple faith in Jesus as the Son of God, the "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home