53 Sermon Illustrations on Punishment

Sermon on Hell.

1. The modern dilemma of hell.

2. Testimony of Jesus.

3. Purpose of hell.

4. When do we face hell?

5. What is hell like?

6. How long does hell last?

a. Annihilation.

b. Eternal punishment.

c. Universalism.

7. The basis of condemnation.

(Letter from article in issue # 34):

“The concept of an eternally burning hell arose from Persian dualism, and holds that both good and evil are immortal. This is in contrast to the biblical view that eternal life is conferred only to those who accept Christ, while the wicked receive death (John 3:16; Rom 6:23). The eternal fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah reduced the wicked to ashes (Jude 7). This is consistent with other scriptural passages (Mal 4:1-3; Matt 13:40-42) which show a termination of all who have not accepted Christ.”

Warren Christianson

San Bernardino, California

Sermon in Isaiah series. Being an instrument of God. Isaiah 10:5-20

==============

THE ROD OF GOD

==============

I. When you feel like God is beating on you.

II. God can use anyone to do His will. 7:20; 10:5

III. The results of your life do not indicate your relationship with God.

A. Many people have been mightily used by God, only to be rejected.

B. God can use anyone, good and evil, to be his instrument.

IV. How to interpret disasters.

V. Even "rods of God" must be accountable.

VI. God is sovereign. 10:15

A. Everything that happens, has a reason. Romans 8:28

B. Yet God is not compromised. James 1:13

VII. What matters is where you stand in the end. 10:20

#2572

*

Excellent article on the history of crime and punishment. The criminal justice system [as of 1986] never addresses the harm done to victims. Offenders are charged with violating the law, not hurting their victims. If their testimony is not needed, victims in most states are usually not even informed of the case’s results. Things are bad for offenders, too. Prisons are expensive and rarely reform. In Hebrew thought, peace or “shalom” is a positive state of harmony, contentment and reconciliation, not just the absence of conflict. Restitution is important in the OT system of justice, and offenders were seen as having a responsibility to the victim.

The history of English justice is summarized. Current trends emphasize restitution, community service and reconciliation services. An example is given of 18-year-old Stephen Williams, who stole $150,000 worth of goods and went through a restitution process with good results. The offender was held responsible for his action; victims were restored financially and emotionally; the community was restored through reconciliation of the offender and victims - all of which is a glimpse of “shalom,” a vision of what our communities can be.

Susannah Wesley (1669-1742) was a London pastor's wife and the mother of nineteen children, including hymn writer Charles Wesley and John Wesley, evangelist and founder of Methodism. In his journal, John Wesley recorded his mother's rules for the family [paraphrased]:

1. Fear of punishment often leads children into lying, till they get

accustomed to it and cannot stop. To prevent this, my mother made a rule

that whenever someone did something wrong, if they would sincerely

confess it, and promise to change their behavior, they would not be

punished.

2. No sinful action, such as lying, stealing, playing in church, being

disobedient, fighting, etc., would ever go unpunished.

3. No child should be punished twice for the same error, and if they change

their behavior the error should never be mentioned again.

4. Every act of obedience, especially when it went against their nature,

should always be complimented, and frequently rewarded.

5. If any child was obedient or tried to please the parents, even if it

wasn't done that well, the obedience was kindly accepted and the child

encouraged to do even better in the future.

6. The property of the children would be respected, even the smallest object,

and not taken away from them unless they agreed.

7. Promises should be strictly kept. Once a gift is given it could not be

taken back, unless it was a conditional gift and the agreement it was

based on was violated.

From "The Heart of John Wesley's Journal"

===================================

Below is a version found on the Internet, May 27, 1998:

Over 200 years ago a lady named Suzanna Wesley reared 19 children. She was devoted to the task and had 16 rules. They are as follows:

(1) Eating between meals not allowed.

(2) As children, they are to be in bed by 8 PM.

(3) They are required to take medicine without complaining.

(4) Subdued self-will in a child working together with God to save the

child's Soul.

(5) Teach a child to pray as soon as he can speak.

(6) Require all to be still during Family Worship.

(7) Give them nothing they cry for, and only that which they ask for

politely.

(8) To prevent lying, punish no fault which is first confessed and repented.

(9) Never allow a sinful at to go unpunished.

(10) Never punish a child twice for a single offense.

(11) Commend and reward good behavior.

(12) Any attempt to please, even if poorly performed should be commended

(13) Preserve property rights, even in smallest matters.

(14) Strictly observe all promises.

(15) Require no daughter to work before she can read well.

(16) Teach children to fear the Lord.

If a child is to develop integrity, he must be allowed to feel the pain of his own wrongdoing, an educator and author said.

"We want our children to be responsible, but we don't hold them accountable for anything that would upset them, make them feel bad or lower their self-esteem," Madelyn Swift told children's leaders attending a national conference in Nashville, Tenn.

Swift said she believes that if children are never held accountable for a wrongful action -- "if they never hurt enough over it" -- they won't learn to change their behavior.

"We need our children to feel pain, but we don't want to cause it. We want to allow them the pain they earn for themselves."

Swift gave the example of a young man who was expected to water the family's elderly dog while his parents were away. The boy failed to provide water for the dog during a hot, dry summer, and the dog died.

The mother attempted to comfort her son by telling him the dog was old anyway and would have died soon, said Swift, who considered this the wrong method of parenting. The mother should have been there for her son and hugged him, but she should not have tried to make him feel better for his wrong actions, she said.

"Our job is to help a kid live through it, but let him learn his lessons. To deny a child his pain denies him the opportunity to develop character and conscience."

Teaching children integrity and helping them build character requires rethinking some trusted educational paradigms, Swift said.

For example, proximity praise, or publicly praising one child displaying good behavior when the intent is to discipline another child with bad behavior, sends children the wrong message, she said.

"Proximity praise is really terrible even though most of you are taught to do it. The more directly you communicate, the more healthy it is."

Swift suggested teachers simply ask a child who is not paying attention in class to do so rather than praising another child for exhibiting correct behavior.

"Being direct does not mean you have to be ugly. What you are doing is sending the message to the child it was intended for rather than creating ill will by being indirect."

Another misdirected teaching tool, Swift believes, is exuberant praise for successes while making no comments about failures.

"One of the bill of goods we sell our children is that success is very important," she said. "What we are doing here is hooking self-esteem on success and accomplishments. What happens to self-esteem when our children fail or when they make a mistake?" she asked.

She said she believes parents and teachers who treat successes and failures with equal importance are ultimately allowing children to risk failures safely.

"In a healthy child, 85 percent of his self-esteem comes from someplace else besides his successes," she said.

Swift also believes it is wrong for parents or teachers to use the statement, "I like you, but I don't like what you are doing."

"This is a huge integrity conflict," she said.

"First of all, it's simply not true. You cannot separate the deed from the doer."

The key to teaching children accountability is to hold them responsible for what they do, she said.

The intent of teaching children integrity, character and conscience, Swift said, is not to try and make them feel good about themselves, but to help them feel right about themselves.

"If they act wrong, they'll feel wrong. If they act right, they'll feel right."

_______________________________

Swift is author of "Discipline for Life: Getting it Right with Children," a study program on discipline for leaders and teachers of children.

*

Some crows made their feeding grounds on some plowlands newly sown

with wheat. For a long time the Farmer, brandishing an empty sling,

chased them away by the terror he inspired; but when the birds found

that the sling was only swung in the air, they ceased to take any

notice of it and would not move. The Farmer, on seeing this, charged

his sling with stones, and killed a great number. The remaining birds

at once forsook his fields, crying to each other, "It is time for us

to leave; for this man is no longer content to scare us, but begins to

show us in earnest what he can do."

When Jesus came to earth the first time, He repeatedly warned people

to repent and convert because a terrible day of Judgment was coming.

Well, there are simply too many who no longer believe in Hell or

Judgment Day. However, the day will come when Christ will no longer

threaten. Instead, He will come back to judge evildoers and cast them

into hell!

In its issue of January 11, the {New York World} said

editerially: "There hasn't been any reduction in the wages of sin."

Leland Wang, the Chinese evangelist, told of an incident of his childhood which vividly illustrates the substitutionary work of Christ. On one occasion he had been very naughty and his mother, with a stick in her hand, called him to her to be punished. But he ran off, taunting his mother because she could not catch him. She had little chance of catching her small, lively son.

So she stood still and said, “I feel ashamed of myself that I have brought up a boy who is not willing to be disciplined by his mother when he does wrong, so I must punish myself,” and she began to whip her bare arm. This so touched Leland’s heart that he ran back to his mother, threw himself into her arms, and pleaded with her not to hurt herself but to punish him. But no further punishment was necessary.

Mr. Wang says that, as he grew older, the memory of this incident helped him to understand the great love of the Lord Jesus Christ who willingly took our place on the cross.

— Sunday School Times

After analyzing six decades of expert research on corporal punishment, a psychologist says parents who spank their children risk causing long-term harm that outweighs the short-term benefit of instant obedience.

The psychologist, Elizabeth Gershoff, found links between spanking and 10 negative behaviors or experiences, including aggression, anti-social behavior and mental health problems. The one positive result of spanking that she identified was quick compliance with parental demands.

"Americans need to re-evaluate why we believe it is reasonable to hit young, vulnerable children, when it is against the law to hit other adults, prisoners, and even animals," Gershoff writes in the new edition of the American Psychological Association's bimonthly journal.

Her analysis, one of the most comprehensive ever on the topic of spanking in America, was accompanied in the Psychological Bulletin by a critique from three other psychologists.

They defend mild to moderate spanking as a viable disciplinary option, especially for children 2 to 6, but advise parents with abusive tendencies to avoid spanking altogether.

Gershoff, a researcher at Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, spent five years on her project, analyzing 88 studies of corporal punishment conducted since 1938. The studies tracked both the short- and long-term effects of spanking on children.

Gershoff stopped short of endorsing a legal ban on parental corporal punishment, saying the United States was unlikely to emulate a group of European countries in taking that step. However, she urged parents who spank to reconsider their options.

"When they're in a situation where they're considering spanking, think of something else to do - leave the room, count to 10, and come back again," Gershoff said in an interview Tuesday. "The risk is just too great."

Several major national organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have taken an official stand against corporal punishment by parents. The psychological association has not taken a stance, though it is on record opposing corporal punishment at schools and other institutions.

Robert Larzelere, a psychology professor at the Nebraska Medical Center, was one of the three experts critiquing Gershoff's findings. He noted that while she found links between spanking and negative behaviors, she did not assert categorically that spanking caused those behaviors.

Larzelere, in an interview, said he remains convinced that mild, non-abusive spanking can be an effective reinforcement of nonphysical disciplinary methods, particularly in dealing with defiant 2- to 6-year-olds. He shared concerns about spanking that is too severe or too frequent.

Gershoff cautioned that her findings do not imply that all children who are spanked turn out to be aggressive or delinquent. But she contended that corporal punishment, on its own, does not teach children right from wrong and may not deter them from misbehaving when their parents are absent.

"Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use," Gershoff wrote.

_________________

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.

*

Our producer, Scott, has been doing a lot of remodeling in his house lately – including some in 4-year old Garrett’s room. They’ve been building a little room inside his room that will have its own window and a desk – it will sorta be Garrett’s own little space. But right now it’s just a frame with no walls. Dad took Garrett in there the other day to see the work they’ve been doing. The little guy went into the frame of what will soon be his personal space. He came out with his lower lip out so far that he almost tripped over it. Dad couldn’t figure out why this nice thing they were doing for him would make him so sad. He quickly found out why. Garrett said, “Dad – is this going to be my cage for my timeouts when I’m bad?”

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A WORD WITH YOU today about “Released, Not Restricted”.

Poor little guy. He thought his father had built a cage to punish him ... when Dad was really building something special for him. You can smile at a four-year-old’s misread of what his father was doing for him – but all too often we make that same mistake with our Heavenly Father!

Maybe you have a tendency to think that God is usually mad at you; punishing you. But our feelings about God are based way too much on our experiences with our parents, with people who’ve hurt us, and on our immediate circumstances. So we end up missing the love our Heavenly Father is really trying to show us. We expect the worst – like little Garrett thinking he was getting a cage for times when he’s bad.

Actually the plan God is unfolding in your life right now is designed ultimately to release you, not to restrict you. God’s intentions for you are expressed in some words He originally spoke to His Old Testament people – but, if you know Christ, you are one of those God calls “my people” in our word for today from the Word of God.

Leviticus 26:12-13 says, “I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be My people. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt (that’s the place of bondage and despair) so that you would no longer be slaves ... I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high." Your Lord is committed to releasing you from the old habits, the old programming, the old ways of thinking and reacting that have caged you for so long. And He’s committed to taking you through experiences with Him – some painful – to purge some of the ugly stuff, to change your view of Him, to change your view of yourself, and to outfit you to really make a difference in other people’s lives.

Maybe the reason God had to remind His ancient people that He was about releasing them, not restricting them, was that their journey included plagues and wilderness. In order for them to be free, they had to go through all those plagues in Egypt and a difficult trip through the wilderness. Maybe you’ve been having your own share of plagues and wilderness. But that’s not because God doesn’t love you – it’s because He does! Enough to take you through the processes that will set you free and ultimately lead you to the better life He has for you.

So, don’t be confused by the pain or the wilderness. Your Heavenly Father has awesome plans for you – and He’s not building a cage to contain your life. He’s making something very special for you. After all, you are His child – purchased with the blood of His Son! Is there any question how He feels about you?

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

Walter Wangerin tells about an experience he had some years ago with his son. When Matthew was seven years old and in the second grade, he became fascinated with comic books -- so much so, that one day he stole some from the library. When Walter found the comic books in Matthew's room, he confronted him, corrected him, disciplined him, and took him back to the library to return the books. Matthew received a stern lecture from the librarian and his dad.

The following summer, however, it happened again. Matthew stole some comic books from a resort gift shop. Again Walter corrected him and told him how wrong it was to steal. A year later, Matthew once again stole some comic books. Walter decided he needed stronger measures.

So he took Matthew into his study and said, 'Matthew, I have never spanked you before, and I don't want to now, but somehow I've got to get through to you and help you see how wrong it is to steal.” So Walter bent Matthew over and spanked him five times with his bare hand. Matthew's eyes moistened with tears, and he sat there looking at the floor.

His father said, 'Matthew, I'm going to leave you alone for a little while. You sit here, and I'll be back in few minutes.”

Walter stepped out of the study. And he reports to us that he just couldn't help himself. He, himself, broke down and cried like a baby. He, the father, cried and cried. Then he washed his face and went back into the study to talk to his son. From that moment on, his son never stole again.

Years later, as Matthew and his mother were driving home from shopping, they talked about some memories of his childhood. They talked about the incident around the comic books. Matthew said, “Mom, after that I never stole again from anybody and I never will.”

His mother asked, “Was it because your dad spanked you that day?”

“Oh no,” Matthew explained, “It was because I heard dad crying.” Many of us remember as children the pain we felt when we saw one of our parents cry. Even worse was the knowledge that we were responsible for those tears.

================================

Version from Wit&Wisdom, 4/10/06:

Walter Wangerin has a wonderful story, called “Matthew, Seven, Eight, and Nine” about how he tried to stop his son Matthew from stealing comic books. He tried various uses of the law over several years and continued to fail. Finally, he resorted to something he rarely used: a spanking. He did it deliberately, almost ritualistically, and he was so upset when he finished that he left the room and wept. After pulling himself back together, he went in to Matthew and hugged him. A number of years later, Matthew and his mother were doing some general reminiscing, and Matthew happened to bring up the time when he kept stealing comic books. “And you know why I finally stopped?” he asked. “Sure,” she said, “Because Dad finally spanked you.” “No!” replied Matthew, “No, because Dad cried.” Wangerin concludes with these words:

Hereafter, let every accuser of my son reckon with the mercy of

God, and fall into a heap, and fail. For love accomplished what

the law could not, and tears more powerful than Sinai. Even the

Prince of Accusers shall bring no charge against my son that the

Final Judge shall not dismiss. Satan, you are defeated! My God

has loved my Matthew.

________

Walter Wangerin, Jr., THE MANGER IS EMPTY, pp. 116-132.

*

*

When suspects are convicted of a crime and, after years in prison, are proven to be innocent, how does society repay them for their incarceration? The United Kingdom’s Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has an idea of what to do: charge the former prisoners for food and board -- at least 3,000 pounds (US$5,430) per year for the prisoners' “saved living expenses” during their time in prison. A spokesman for the Home Office said the concept “takes into account the range of costs the prisoner might have incurred had they not been imprisoned,” adding, “Morally, this is reasonable and appropriate.” It's not a proposal: the government has already sent bills to some freed prisoners.

A spokesman for the Scottish Miscarriage of Justice Organisation called the program a way to “punish people for having the audacity to be innocent.”

__________

Glasgow Sunday Herald

2 Peter 2:6–8 — Doom of Destructive Teachers (2) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

A. Sodom and Gomorrah 2 Peter 2:6

1. AV – And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

2. NAS – and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter;

3. NIV – if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

4. J. B. Phillips – and if God reduced the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, when he sentenced them to destruction as a fearful example to those who wanted to live in defiance of his laws,

5. NLT – Later, He turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into heaps of ashes and swept them off the face of the earth. He made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people.

6. What precedes: the destruction of false teachers, though it may be delayed is sure; as examples, consider that God did not spare the evil angels nor the world of Noah’s day, …

7. “turning … into ashes”

a. from the noun, “ashes,” meaning to convert into, to change into, or to reduce to ashes

b. hence « – to destroy or consume by fire »

c. how does Genesis 19:24–25 describe it? « — the Lord, yes the Lord rained brimstone and fire destroying the cities, and the inhabitants and all of their crops »

8. “condemned”

a. judicial meaning judgment « – pronounced against or upon »

b. this that judgment

(A) which in verse 3 « – is not idle nor slumbering »

(B) like that in verse 4 « – upon the evil angels »

9. “overthrow” « – Greek, katastrophe, from a verb to turn down or turn under, eg., as the earth with a plough »

a. destruction, be it material or spiritual

10. “example” « – literally, what is shown under{neath the picture} »

a. graphic image of their destruction has an underlying lesson

(A) to serve as « – a warning »

(B) addressed to « – the ungodly »

B. Lot Spared, The Fact 2 Peter 2:7a

1. AV – And delivered just Lot, …

2. NAS – and if He rescued righteous Lot, …

3. NIV – and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, …

4. J. B. Phillips – and yet saved Lot the righteous man, …

5. NLT – But at the same time God rescued Lot out of Sodom, because he was a good man …

6. “delivered”

a. he rescued « ; literally, “drew or snatched to Himself from danger” »

b. same word as the mockers used about Jesus upon the cross, Matthew 27:43 « He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him now »

7. “just”

a. the usual word for just or righteous

b. the same word as in

(A) Romans 3:10 « – There is none R. »

(B) Romans 3:26 « – He might be J. and the justifier »

(C) Romans 5:19 « – obedience of one shall many be made R. »

c. it is a word which can be relative or absolute in its use

8. “Lot” — Abraham’s nephew; a brief history

a. Genesis 11:27 « – the son of Abraham’s dead brother, Haran »

b. Genesis 12:5 « – accompanied Abraham from Haran »

c. Genesis 13:11 « – chose the well-watered plain of Jordan »

d. Genesis 14:12 « – captured with the four kings of the plain »

e. Genesis 19:1-29 – delivered out of the destruction of Sodom

f. Genesis 19:30-38 – became father by his own daughters of

(A) Moab (progeny of a father), ancestor of the Moabites who worship Chemosh (Numbers 21:29) which was the nation that caused Israel such suffering through the advice of Balaam, Numbers 22–25

(B) Ben-Ammi (son of my kin), ancestor of the Ammonites

g. 1 Kings 11:7, how did these nations ensnare Israel further? « – Solomon followed after their gods Chemosh and Molech »

9. what??? Lot, a good man???

C. Lot Spared, The Reason 2 Peter 2:7b–8

1. AV – … vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

2. NAS – … oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds),

3. NIV – … who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) —

4. J. B. Phillips – … in acute mental distress at the filthy lives of the godless — 8 Lot, remember, was a good man suffering spiritual agonies day after day at what he saw and heard of their lawlessness —

5. NLT – … who was sick of all the immorality and wickedness around him. 8 Yes, he was a righteous man who was distressed by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day.

6. “vexed” (1) – worked or worn down; oppressed or afflicted

7. “filthy” – same word as “destructive ways” or “wanton conduct” in 2:2 « – shocking to public decency, which in the Roman Empire of that day is really saying something! »

8. “conversation” – dealing with other men « ; literally “returning,” that is, the way one responds and interacts with others »

9. “wicked” – literally, “without regulation” « – one who breaks through the restraints of law and gratifies his lusts »

10. “dwelling among” – having housed himself down among « – there is a strong contrast here with Abraham in Hebrews 11:8–10 »

11. “vexed” (2)

a. a word used in metal working: to test a metal (gold, silver) by use of a touchstone to test if it is pure

b. then, to question someone by applying torture; then torture « – so here both meaning may be in view: God trying Lot on a daily basis by his seeing and hearing his neighbours »

12. what marks, then, a true believer, even when he dwells among and associates closely with the unbelieving world?

2 Peter 2:9-11 — Doom of Destructive Teachers (3)

D. Lot Spared, The Applications 2 Peter 2:9–11

1. AV – 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities {literally, “glories,” cf. Hebrews 9:5}. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

2. NAS – 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, 11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.

3. NIV – 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.

4. J. B. Phillips – then you may be absolutely certain that the 9 Lord knows how to rescue good men surrounded by temptation, and how to reserve his punishment for the wicked until their day comes. 10 His judgment is chiefly reserved for those who have indulged all the foulness of their lower natures, and have nothing but contempt for authority. These men are arrogant and presumptuous — they think nothing of scoffing at the glories of the unseen world. 11 Yet even angels, who are their superiors in strength and power, do not bring insulting criticisms of such things before the Lord.

5. NLT – 9 So you see, the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials, even while punishing the wicked right up until the day of judgment. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful desires and who despise authority. These people are proud and arrogant, daring even to scoff at the glorious ones without so much as trembling. 11 But the angels, even though they are far greater in power and strength than these false teachers, never speak out disrespectfully against the glorious ones.

a. the “glorious ones” are understood to be evil angels

6. Jude 1:9 gives an example of the great power of these beings; it is therefore worrying when Christians make light of Satan

7. discuss the application here for the godly.

8. discuss the application here for the ungodly, false teachers.

Keyword: Visitation

Chapters: 3

Prophet Number 1

Southern Kingdom

Date: Possibly 837-800 B.C.

Fourteen men mentioned in the Bible have the name Joel. It is compounded of two divine names, Yahveh (Jehovah) and El, and it means “The Lord is God.”

The author of this writing ministered either early or late in relation to the other writing prophets. Both views are contended for. If we accept the early date for this prophecy, Joel was contemporary with Jonah, Amos and Hosea. In any case, his message is to Judah, and not to Israel.

The style is classical, clear and impassioned, and must be given a high place in Hebrew literature.

The book falls into two main parts. In the first, Joel speaks, and in the second, Jehovah. The first part is historical, and the second, prophetical. The first tells of desolation, and the second of deliverance.

EMBLEMS OF WORLD FORCES

The interpretation of the locusts may be actual, allegorical, or apocalyptical. Without doubt it is the first, and in all likelihood the other two also, the one pointing to an invasion of the land by hordes of enemies, and the other making the locusts emblems of world forces which shall appear in the last days.

The outstanding passages are those which relate to the locust invasion (2:1-11), the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (2:28-32; compare Acts 2:16-21), and the final felicity of Judah (3:18-21).

Other things to note are: references to “the day of the Lord”; references to Tyre, Sidon, Palestine, Greeks, Sabeans, Egypt and Edom; and the relationship of 1:4

to 2:25.

The use which Peter makes in Acts 2:16-21 of Joel 2:28-32 is worthy of consideration. It is clear that Pentecost was in Joel’s prophecy, but it is not clear that Pentecost exhausted that prophecy; verses 30-32 seem to point to a time yet future, a time which falls within the period of the apocalypse of Matt. 24 :29-31.

NO DARK RIDDLES

The Rev. W. J. Deane writes, “All competent critics agree in assigning to Joel a high rank among the Hebrew prophets, placing him but little below Isaiah and

Habakkuk, who are confessedly first in sublimity and elevation of style. For vividness of description and picturesqueness of diction Joel is perhaps unequalled. It would be difficult to find passages surpassing in vigor or coloring the account of the invasion of the locust-army and the desolation wrought by it, and the gathering of all nations in the valley of judgment.

“As we read these verses we feel that we are in thepresence of an accomplished poet, one who was a master in the art of language and understood rhetorical effect. The style is pure and clear; the meaning is expressed simply and distinctly; there is no ambiguity, there are no dark riddles to solve. Brief as Joel is at times, expressing much in a few words, he is always intelligible. Even where he uses only pairs of words to delineate his picture, he is not obscure. See, for instance,

Joel 1:10, which may be translated, ‘The field is wasted, the ground mourns; the corn is wasted: the new wine spoils, the oil decays.’

“He sympathizes with the very cattle in their sufferings from scarcity and drought; in the prospect of better times he cries to them. ‘Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field.’ Of the prevalent sins which have called down the judgment he says little or nothing. This one important element in prophetic addresses is absent from Joel’s utterances. He speaks of chastisement, of repentance, of pardon and reconciliation, of a grand future in store for his people; but he refrains from dwelling upon past misconduct. In the face of the present visitation he is gentle and merciful in rebuke and complaint.”

~~~~~~~~~~

From Know Your Bible by the late Dr. W. Graham Scroggie, © Pickering & Inglis, Ltd., London, with editorial additions.

Isaiah 45, 47 and 48: God’s Dealing with Two Nations

Isaiah: 44:28–45:5

• The pre-natal naming of Cyrus by God — compare: Isaac (Genesis 17:19), Solomon (1 Chronicles 23:9), Josiah (1 Kings 13:2)

• Herodotus describes the 100 brass gates of Babylon, the diversion of the Euphrates

• Darius the Median

° (Gorbyra, Astyages); ‘Maintainer’

° Jeremiah 51:30-31, Daniel 5:3-4

° either a general of Cyrus or his father-in-law

° reigned 2 years, Daniel 6:28

Isaiah 47: God’s Instrument of Punishment, Babylon, Herself to be Punished

• an outcome of God’s essential justness

° Psalm 76:10, the wrath of men to praise God

° wickedness to be punished, ultimately

• verse 1-5: the comedown of Babylon

° reason 1: merciless

° reason 2: pride

° reason 3: wickedness

° result: desolation

Isaiah 48: Why God had to punish Jacob / Israel

• verse 1: hypocrisy

• verses 4, 8: refused to hearken to God; Acts 7:51

• they ignored who God is

° verse 11: jealous of His good Name

° verse 12: eternal, surpassing all creation; their privilege in being His called ones

° verse 16: Triune – the servant, eternal, speaks

° verse 17: their Leader, Guide

• verse 18-19: God’s loving, wooing call: Deut 5:29ff, Psalm 81:10ff; Jesus’ weeping over Jerusalem

• verse 22: the result of wickedness

A fed-up mother had her 12-year-old son arrested for allegedly rummaging through his great-grandmother’s things and playing with his Christmas present early.

The mother called police in Columbia, South Carolina, after learning her son had disobeyed orders and repeatedly taken a Game Boy from its hiding place at his great-grandmother’s house next door and played it. He was arrested on petty larceny charges, taken to the police station in handcuffs and held until his mother picked him up after church.

“My grandmother went out of her way to lay away a toy and paid on this thing for months,” said the boy’s mother, Brandi Ervin. “It was only to teach my son a lesson. He’s been going through life doing things ... and getting away with it.”

Police did not release the boy’s name.

The mother said that her son was found in the last year to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder but that his medicine does not seem to help.

She said he faces an expulsion hearing at his school Wednesday. Rock Hill Police Capt. Mark Bollinger said the boy took a swing at a police officer assigned to the school last month. He has been suspended from school since then.

The boy’s case will be presented to Department of Juvenile Justice officials in York County, who will decide what happens to him, Bollinger said. His mother hopes he can attend a program that will finally scare him straight.

“It’s not even about the Christmas present,” she said. “I only want positive things out of it. ... There’s no need for him to act this way. I’d rather call myself than someone else call for him doing something worse than this.”

A man who sexually assaulted a University of Virginia student in 1984 and apologized to her two decades later as part of the Alcoholics Anonymous program was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

William Beebe, 42, wrote Liz Seccuro a letter of apology in 2005 in an attempt to make amends for the assault as part of AA’s recovery program. The program’s ninth step calls on alcoholics to make amends to those they have harmed -- unless doing so would cause further injury. In an exchange of e-mails that ensued, Beebe wrote: “I want to make clear that I’m not intentionally minimizing the fact of having raped you. I did.”

In November 2006 Beebe accepted a deal and pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual battery for his attack on Liz Seccuro. “I’m not trying to excuse my behavior, but I was a different person then,” Beebe said. “I have a purpose, and that gives life meaning. I didn’t have that then.”

Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Edward Hogshire ordered a 10-year prison sentence with all but 18 months suspended, as long as Beebe performs 500 hours of community service related to issues of sexual assault and alcohol abuse on college campuses. Prosecutors had recommended two years.

After the hearing, Seccuro shared a long hug with her husband. Outside court, she said she thought the sentence was “very fair.”

Seccuro, who says she has forgiven Beebe for assaulting her, said an apology is not a substitute for punishment. The attack changed her life dramatically, she said, and she deserves to finally see justice served.

Several people testifying on Beebe’s behalf Thursday said he is a kind and generous friend who often helped other recovering substance abuse addicts.

“Will didn’t tell me what to do, he showed me,” said William Daniel Griggs Jr. of Richmond, who credited Beebe with helping in his recovery. He also said that Beebe helped care for his sick son several years ago.

Judge Hogshire clearly struggled with the sentence, saying what Seccuro went through was horrific, but that Beebe went on to be a leader in the recovery community.

“Is he remorseful?” the judge asked. “I think so.”

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

In their rigid enforcement of community standards, New England’s Puritan punishments often often included the bilbo, the cleft stick, the brand, the ear crop and the letter, scarlet and otherwise.

In Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven Colony, the Puritans cared more for moral behavior and clean living than for property rights. They took their laws from the Bible, rather than English precedent. Consequently, Puritan punishments tended to be doled out less for larceny and more for blasphemy, drunkenness, fornication and smoking.

Puritan Punishments

The Puritans never incarcerated prisoners for a long time. They accepted capital punishment, though, for 12 crimes, including blasphemy, counterfeiting and witchcraft.

Puritan law recognized the principle that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. They also explicitly limited government power. Puritan law prohibited unlawful search and seizure, double jeopardy and compulsory self-incrimination. It also guaranteed bail, grand jury indictment and trial by jury.

Rhode Island, though, proved an exception, taking nearly all of its laws from English precedent.

The Bilbo

The first Puritans took with them the bilbo as a way to punish sinners and lawbreakers. According to Alice Morse Earle, the Spanish named it after its place of origin — Bilboa, Spain. They shipped bilboas with the Spanish Armada in anticipation of all the English prisoners they would have to shackle.

Earle explains,

They were a simple but effective restraint; a long heavy bolt or bar of iron having two sliding shackles, something like handcuffs, and a lock. In these shackles were thrust the legs of offenders or criminals, who were then locked in with a padlock. Sometimes a chain at one end of the bilboes attached both bilboes and prisoner to the floor or wall.

In 1629, the carousing, fun-loving colonist Thomas Morton had the effrontery to erect a Maypole. He did it right under the noses of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony. Myles Standish led a raiding party, arrested Morton and put him in the bilbo.

The Indians, reported Morton, came and looked at him and wondered what it all meant.

The Puritans eventually replaced bilboes with wooden stocks.

The Scarlet Letter

Nathaniel Hawthorne enshrined in literature the Puritan punishment of ordering a sinner to wear a scarlet ‘A.’ But the Puritans had other letters of shame. In 1656 a woman received a sentenced to be whipped at Taunton and Plymouth, fined and forever ‘to have a Roman B cutt out of ridd (red) cloth & sewed to her vper garment on her right arm in sight.’ The ‘B’ stood for blasphemy.

William Bacon in 1636 had to spend an hour in the pillory wearing in public view a great ‘D’ — for drunkenness.

In 1633, Robert Coles had to stand with a white sheet of paper on his back with the word ‘Drunkard’ written in ‘great letters’ on it, and stand as long as the court ordered ‘for abuseing himself shamefully with drinke.’ The next year, Coles received a more severe sentence: He had to wear a D made of red cloth on a white background for a year.

Massachusetts magistrates reproved anyone who interrupted a preacher during worship. If they did it twice, they had to pay a fine of five pounds, stand on a block four feet high with a sign in capital letters, ‘WANTON GOSPELLER.’

Wickednesse

Puritan punishments in Connecticut were even tougher. In 1650 the general court tried a man in Hartford for ‘contemptuous carriages’ against the church and minister. He had to stand upon a four-foot high block or stool on Lecture Day with a paper fixed on his breast with the words, ‘AN OPEN AND OBSTINATE CONTEMNNER OF GOD’S HOLY ORDINANCES.’ The purpose of his punishment: so others would ‘fear and be ashamed of breakinge out in like wickednesse.’

When Joan Andrews of York, Maine, sold a firkin of butter with stones in it, she had to stand in a public place. She also had a description of her cheating ‘written in capitall letters and pinned upon her forehead.’ Around 1650 Ann Boulder of Boston stood in irons for a half hour with a sign pinned to her that said, “PUBLICK DESTROYER OF PEACE.”

Cleft Stick

Slanderers, scolds and liars were liable to have a cleft stick – a stick split at the end – put onto their tongues while they stood in a public place.

In 1639 in Salem, Mass., two men got drunk and lied about it. They had to pay fines and stand by the meeting house door with a paper on their hats ‘subscribed for gross premeditated lyinge.’ Authorities put cleft sticks on their tongues.

Men, women and even children could have their tongues ‘thrust into the cleft stick.’ In Providence, teachers used a ‘whispering stick’ as a punishment for whispering. Disciplinarians tied a wooden gag with holes in it onto a child’s tongue. Many children had a cleft stick placed on their tongues ‘for ill words or untimely words in school,’ wrote Earle.

Branding and Maiming

Branding and maiming were common Puritan punishments, especially for Quakers.

Quaker George Bishop gave an account of a Quaker’s treatment in New Haven in New England Judged by the Spirit of the Lord.

The Drum was Beat, the People gather’d, Norton was fetch’d and stripp’d to the Waste, and set with his back to the Magistrates, and given in their View Thirty-six cruel Stripes with a knotted cord, and his hand made fast in the Stocks where they had set his Body before, and burn’d very deep with a Red-hot Iron with H. for Heresie.

Massachusetts banned Quakers, and the Puritan punishments for returning were painful. Colonial records described in 1657 what should happen to Quakers who came back:

A Quaker if male for the first offense shall have one of his ears cut off; for the second offense have his other eare cutt off; a woman shalbe severely whipt; for the third offense they, he or she, shall have their tongues bored through with a hot iron.

Offenders could try to have their Puritan punishments mitigated by seeking the intervention of clergy. A counterfeiter in Salem, condemned to death, pleaded for a clergyman to help him. As a result, he got only a brand on his hand.

Mary Dyer received the most extreme of the Puritan punishments for returning to the colony after banishment. She was hanged in Boston in 1660.

Abel Buell

Abel Buell of Killingworth, Conn., got caught minting money on homemade plates. Historian John Warner Barber described the price he paid:

The tip only of Buell’s ear was cropped off: it was held on his tongue to keep it warm till it was put on the ear again, where it grew on. He was branded on the forehead as high up as possible. This was usually done by a hot iron in the form of a letter designating the crime, which was held on the forehead of the criminal till he could say the words “God save the king.”

Buell later printed the first map of the United States of America.

Is shouting the new spanking? For some parents it is. A recent New York Times story describes the growing phenomenon where parents, believing spanking to be wrong or at least socially unacceptable, try everything else to get their children to behave and finally end up yelling at them.

Even Dr. Spock, the paper noted, called shouting “inevitable from time to time.” But most of the parents in the Times story feel just awful after having screamed at their kids. Times writer Hilary Stout points out that the current generation of parents prides itself on providing organic snacks, extracurricular sports and activities, and tons of self-esteem-boosting encouragement. But, she says, “this is a generation that yells.”

Amy McCready, founder of Positive Parenting Solutions, says, “This is so the issue right now.” Parents who nag, impose timeouts, and count to three soon realize these strategies “don’t work to change behavior,” the Times story said. They get frustrated, then angry. Then they yell. They don’t want to. But they keep doing it.

The story describes one New York writer and actress who gave up yelling for Lent. It didn’t go well. She tells the story in a book, out next year, entitled “When Did I Get Like This?”

The Times piece cites a survey in which two-thirds of parents named yelling as their “biggest guilt inducer.” Some of this yelling stems from the parents’ overcommitted schedules, from stress or from underlying anger. None of that should be taken out on kids. But it happens.

Yelling, though it may scare kids into better behavior, is not a good tool for the training of children. First, it’s ineffective because kids tune it out. And when the tone is angry, insulting or sarcastic, it feels like rejection. The Times’ Stout quotes one psychology professor who told her, “There is no group of Americans who advocate yelling as a parenting style.” And who wants their kids to grow up remembering them as a yelling parent?

Spanking is a more humane and effective way to discipline children. Though the major medical and psychological associations reject spanking, the Bible recommends it. But we should never spank in anger. Instead we should implement a calm, well-thought-out process. The child should know beforehand that spanking will be the consequence of rebellious behavior.

The Bible contains many references to the rod. This is a literal instrument. It has a sort of redemptive purpose. When a child does something he knows is wrong or willfully disobeys the parent, there is guilt. The quickest, clearest way to deal with that guilt is to calmly spank him or her with a flexible instrument shorter than a belt. It should sting enough to outweigh the pleasures of sin. Doing this consistently engenders in children respect for authority. A parent could not offer a greater gift.

The Bible teaches us about sin mainly through stories, and its most complete story of sin involves King David and Bathsheba. From it we can learn a lesson about the complete cycle of sin. We move through five stages of this to come to complete spiritual healing. (Sin, guilt, repentance, punishment, forgive.)

1. Sin.

It is common to view individual sins as nuisances that, like parking tickets, will cause problems only if you accumulate too many. The Bible has a far different perspective on sin, which it views more as cancer cells. One or two here and there do make a difference - often the difference between life and death. Cancer cells grow, multiply, and take over, and they may ultimately require major surgery. Sin, no matter how insignificant, can lead to terrible consequences. That is why the Bible takes individual sin so seriously.

2. Guilt.

False guilt occurs when a person punishes himself or herself for not measuring up to somebody else’s standards: a parent’s, the church’s, or society’s. True guilt occurs when a person does not measure up to God’s standards. There is a healthy place for true guilt. It follows sin as naturally as pain follows injury. If our consciences convict us then we dare not avoid or repress that guilt. Guilt is not a “state” to cultivate, like a mood you slip into for a few days. It is directional, first pointing backward to the sin, and then pointing to the next stage.

3. Repentance.

To David, restoring a right relationship with God was far more important than maintaining his reputation as a ruler. (Ps 51) He understood that the objective of repentance was to bridge the gulf between the sinner and God.

4. Punishment.

The Bible records some instances of God’s direct intervention in punishment. But more often the punishment flows naturally as a result of the sin. Get drunk enough and your liver will bear the punishment. Live a life of debauchery, and you may end up with venereal disease. Tell lies, and you’ll find yourself isolated and untrusted.

If you flout God’s rules, you risk bringing down punishment on yourself, whether it takes the form of physical harm, fractured relationships, or a spiritual void.

5. Forgiveness.

No one can avoid sinning. But when we do sin, we face choices on how to respond. We can yield to the temptation and sin for all we’re worth, risking our self-destruction in the process. We can wallow in remorse and live under a constant cloud of guilt. Or we can advance from guilt to repentance and then forgiveness, and take God at his word.

Sermon on Hell.

1. The modern dilemma of hell.

2. Testimony of Jesus.

3. Purpose of hell.

4. When do we face hell?

5. What is hell like?

6. How long does hell last?

a. Annihilation.

b. Eternal punishment.

c. Universalism.

7. The basis of condemnation.

Some crows made their feeding grounds on some plowlands newly sown

with wheat. For a long time the Farmer, brandishing an empty sling,

chased them away by the terror he inspired; but when the birds found

that the sling was only swung in the air, they ceased to take any

notice of it and would not move. The Farmer, on seeing this, charged

his sling with stones, and killed a great number. The remaining birds

at once forsook his fields, crying to each other, "It is time for us

to leave; for this man is no longer content to scare us, but begins to

show us in earnest what he can do."

When Jesus came to earth the first time, He repeatedly warned people

to repent and convert because a terrible day of Judgment was coming.

Well, there are simply too many who no longer believe in Hell or

Judgment Day. However, the day will come when Christ will no longer

threaten. Instead, He will come back to judge evildoers and cast them

into hell!

Is shouting the new spanking? For some parents it is. A recent New York Times story describes the growing phenomenon where parents, believing spanking to be wrong or at least socially unacceptable, try everything else to get their children to behave and finally end up yelling at them.

Even Dr. Spock, the paper noted, called shouting “inevitable from time to time.” But most of the parents in the Times story feel just awful after having screamed at their kids. Times writer Hilary Stout points out that the current generation of parents prides itself on providing organic snacks, extracurricular sports and activities, and tons of self-esteem-boosting encouragement. But, she says, “this is a generation that yells.”

Amy McCready, founder of Positive Parenting Solutions, says, “This is so the issue right now.” Parents who nag, impose timeouts, and count to three soon realize these strategies “don’t work to change behavior,” the Times story said. They get frustrated, then angry. Then they yell. They don’t want to. But they keep doing it.

The story describes one New York writer and actress who gave up yelling for Lent. It didn’t go well. She tells the story in a book, out next year, entitled “When Did I Get Like This?”

The Times piece cites a survey in which two-thirds of parents named yelling as their “biggest guilt inducer.” Some of this yelling stems from the parents’ overcommitted schedules, from stress or from underlying anger. None of that should be taken out on kids. But it happens.

Yelling, though it may scare kids into better behavior, is not a good tool for the training of children. First, it’s ineffective because kids tune it out. And when the tone is angry, insulting or sarcastic, it feels like rejection. The Times’ Stout quotes one psychology professor who told her, “There is no group of Americans who advocate yelling as a parenting style.” And who wants their kids to grow up remembering them as a yelling parent?

Spanking is a more humane and effective way to discipline children. Though the major medical and psychological associations reject spanking, the Bible recommends it. But we should never spank in anger. Instead we should implement a calm, well-thought-out process. The child should know beforehand that spanking will be the consequence of rebellious behavior.

The Bible contains many references to the rod. This is a literal instrument. It has a sort of redemptive purpose. When a child does something he knows is wrong or willfully disobeys the parent, there is guilt. The quickest, clearest way to deal with that guilt is to calmly spank him or her with a flexible instrument shorter than a belt. It should sting enough to outweigh the pleasures of sin. Doing this consistently engenders in children respect for authority. A parent could not offer a greater gift.

The Very Reverend Dr. Jeffrey Philip Hywel John believes that the church’s traditional understanding of the cross of Christ is both “repulsive” and “insane.” His comments on the cross and atonement ignited a firestorm in Great Britain and the controversy has now spread to America as well. Anglicanism does not seem to have whatever it takes to deal with heretics these days, and so the church simply leaves them in places of influence, such as Dr. John’s position as Dean of St. Albans.

As a report published in THE TELEGRAPH [London] makes clear, the controversy over his latest comments came even before his message was broadcast on the BBC:

The Very Rev Jeffrey John, who had to withdraw before taking up an appointment as bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a long-term homosexual relationship, is set to ignite a row over one of the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief.

Clergy who preach this Easter that Christ was sent to earth to die in atonement for the sins of mankind are “making God sound like a psychopath”, he will say.

In a BBC Radio 4 show, Mr John, who is now Dean of St Albans, urges a revision of the traditional explanation, known as “penal substitution.”

A look at Dr. John’s message will reveal that he does not call for a revision of the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement. Instead, he calls for its repudiation. Here he describes what he was taught as a child:

The explanation I was given went something like this. God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price of our sins, and because of him God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him.

In other words, he was taught the biblical understanding of the cross and its significance. Now, this is the very understanding he describes as “insane.” In his words:

Well, I don’t know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we’d say they were a monster.

Well, I haven’t changed my mind since. That explanation of the cross just doesn’t work, though sadly it’s one that’s still all too often preached. It just doesn’t make sense to talk about a nice Jesus down here, placating the wrath of a nasty, angry Father God in heaven. Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate. As he said, ‘Whoever sees me has seen the Father’. Jesus is what God is: he is the one who shows us God’s nature. And the most basic truth about God’s nature is that He is Love, not wrath and punishment.

So Dr. John will now discard the idea that Jesus died on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice, and will invent a meaning for the cross more in line with his own theological prejudices.

What Dr. John repudiates is precisely what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not merely assert that Christ died on the cross for our sins -- it goes on to explain why this substitutionary death was necessary. In Romans 3, the Apostle Paul explains that God put forth Jesus on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. God’s love is demonstrated in the fact that, even as his own righteousness demanded a perfect sacrifice for sin, He determined to send the Son as that perfect sacrifice. In Paul’s words, this means that God is both just AND the justifier. He rightly DEMANDED an acceptable sacrifice in order to satisfy His wrath, but He also PROVIDED that same sacrifice.

This same understanding of the cross is taught by Jesus as He told the disciples of his impending death FOR sinners. It is the logic of the link between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the sacrifice of the very Son of God, the foundation of the new covenant. This is the teaching of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost and of the entire book of Hebrews.

There are really only two options available for explaining what the Son of God was accomplishing on that cross. The first option is that taught by the church for centuries -- that the meaning of the cross is objective, revealing God’s objective satisfaction in accepting the obedience of the Son, even unto death on a cross, as the payment for sin. This is what Dr. John now explicitly rejects.

The second option is to define the meaning of the cross in essentially subjective terms, arguing that Christ dies in order to effect a change in us, rather than in God. This is a foundational teaching of Protestant liberalism, but it creeps into far too many evangelical pulpits as well.

Here is how Dr. John describes the meaning of the cross:

On the cross God absorbs into himself our fallenness and its consequences and offers us a new relationship. God shows he knows what it’s like to be the loser; God hurts and weeps and bleeds and dies. It’s a mystery we can hardly glimpse, let alone grasp; and if there is an answer to the problem of suffering, perhaps it’s one for the heart, not the reason. Because the answer God’s given is simply himself; to show that, so far from inflicting suffering as a punishment, he bears our griefs and shares our sorrow. From Good Friday on, God is no longer “God up there”, inscrutably allotting rewards and retributions. On the Cross, even more than in the crib, he is Immanuel, God down here, God with us.

The ground of our salvation is the substitutionary atonement accomplished by Christ. Our response in faith to Christ is essential to our experience of salvation, but the work of our salvation is fully accomplished by Christ.

What will Dr. John do with Paul’s explanation of the Gospel and the meaning of the cross? Well, probably something like what he does with Paul’s teachings on homosexuality. It takes no genius to detect a pattern here. Dr. John, who entered into a homosexual civil union last year, obviously disregards the Apostle Paul’s very clear teachings on homosexuality. What would keep him from doing the same with an atonement theology he finds to be “insane?” Obviously, the answer to that question is “nothing.”

He explicitly rejects the wrath of God. His authority for doing so is Julian of Norwich, who wrote, “For I saw that there is no manner of wrath in God, neither for short time nor for long;-for in sooth, if God be wroth for an instant, we should never have life nor place nor being.”

The only obstacle to accepting that argument is the Bible. As represented in that quotation, Julian of Norwich denies what the Bible unquestionably declares -- the God will pour out His wrath upon sin.

Writing in THE GUARDIAN [London], Giles Fraser throws his lot in with Dr. John. In his words, “For, once again, what [John] has been saying is nothing other than a truth known by most people in the pews: that the idea of God murdering his son for the salvation of the world is barbaric and morally indefensible. It turns Christianity into “cosmic child abuse”.

We are left with an unavoidable choice. We must stand with the Apostle Paul in seeing the cross as the place where God is shown to be both “just AND the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Or, we must stand with Dr. John and Mr. Fraser in describing the New Testament’s teaching of the cross as “insane” and a form of “cosmic child abuse.” On this question there is no middle ground.

__________

FOR FURTHER REFLECTION:

No model or theory of the atonement can exhaust all the biblical materials on the glory of the cross. We must insist that the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross is central and essential, but that does not mean that we deny that other models can extend and enrich our understanding of the cross.