Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • The Search for the Historical Simon Peter

    I’m continuing reading and blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus?, and have just finished chapter 3. This chapter discusses the person of Jesus. I would like to remind readers again that I’m blogging the experience of reading the book and not reviewing it. Thus my impressions result from where I am in reading at the moment. (The previous post in this series is here.)

    One might get the idea that Dr. Witherington is simply telling the story of Jesus and his companions as it can be extracted from the canonical materials. A large portion of both chapters 2 and 3 simply catalog what we have and add some speculation–educated speculation, but nonetheless still speculation.

    What seems to be missing here is the reasoning behind historical conclusions about these individuals. Toward the end of each chapter, however, we begin to get the point. Witherington is developing a profile of the people who are recorded as eyewitnesses to the life and most importantly (I believe) the resurrection of Jesus.

    Witherington is not a fundamentalist, and deals with the text that would not be possible under most common definitions of inerrancy. On page 59, for example, he says:

    . . . In this narrative [the call of Simon] the first words Jesus is said to have spoken to Simon are “You are Simonson of John; you shall be called Cephas.” It is likely that the Fourth Evangelist, in order to introduce his dramatis personae up front, has moved this tradition to this spot, for Simon received this nickname much later in the ministry, according to the synoptics. . . . (What Have They Done With Jesus?, p. 59)

    I would note two things. From the point of view of more liberal scholarship, this places a greater historical weight on the fourth gospel than many would place on it. From the point of most who accept inerrancy, it would have John either in error or lying, because Simon receives the name “Peter” at a different point in history. (Some could quite comfortably accommodate this issue by appealing to the literary genre and noting that readers probably did not expect chronological accuracy in such a document.

    Thus Witherington is by no means in the hard-line conservative camp that essentially constructs a history of Jesus based on harmonization of every detail of the gospel accounts.

    He carries on with a considerable discussion. Many readers will be interested in his discussion of “upon this rock” from Matthew 16, which Witherington does believe apply to Peter, but in particular to Peter who is confessing. He suggests that while in that text it particular it may have meant Peter himself, it can be extended to all those who make a similar confession.

    So why are we going into all this detail with regard to Peter? It is because of this question that I’ve titled my blog post as I have. Witherington moves from the discussion of who Peter is historically to making the assertion that Peter was in a position to know what Jesus confessed about himself in his lifetime. Thus he says:

    . . . These stories about interconnections within the inner circle must make some sense, and they bear a telling witness to the fact that Jesus was seen and confessed as a messianic figure both before and after his death on a cross. No one knew this better than Peter, and no one would have been more vehement in rebuttal of the suggestion that Jesus had not presented himself in an exalted and messianic ight during his ministry. He became a shepherd of Jesus’s flock for a good reason: he knew the Story, he belieed in the Christ, and he accepted his commission. In the next chapter we will see what the post-Easter Peter has to say to us about these things. (ibid. 76)

    Update: It looks like my conclusion is missing. Thus far I see substantial profiles of claimed eyewitnesses presented without sufficient basis for the claim that the canonical gospels themselves are historically reliable at this level of detail. I’m hoping this will be covered further down the line.

  • Christian Carnival #212 Posted

    . . . at The Evangelical Ecologist. Thanks to Don for hosting a fine carnival.

  • What Have They Done with Jesus? – III

    I continue blogging through What Have They Done with Jesus by Ben Witherington with chapter 2. In the first chapter we were introduced to two women, Joanna, whom Witherington connects with Junia (Acts 16:7) and Mary Magdalene. This second chapter focuses on Mary Magdalene and what we can know about her, not to mention things we can know are not so.

    This is a long chapter, beginning on page 27 and ending on page 51. The reason for this is that Witherington has to provide the background of the documents that are used in fashioning various stories of Mary Magdalene. Few characters in literature have received the type of attention that she has. She is seen as everything from a prostitute to the wife of Jesus.

    It’s interesting that I just read Bart Ehrman’s book on Judas, and he also says that pretty much everything said about Mary Magdalene in literature is false. Note that on other points Ehrman and Witherington would disagree substantially.

    So what is Witherington’s approach? First he goes over the background of the gnostic documents and makes his case that they are largely later than the canonical materials. He also contends that they are much too different from the canonical gospels to come generally from the same source. I think he is on fairly solid ground in maintaining that the gnostic materials are late and have little claim to be good sources for the historical Jesus. The one exception here is the Gospel of Thomas, which I think has some value.

    Second, Witherington presents a highly negative view of gnosticism in general and asks why so many modern scholars, and particularly feminists tend to like it. I honestly find many negative things about gnosticism, but there are two potential problems here. First, we can just as easily judge gnosticism unfairly by modern standards. Second, most readers today will have a perspective that is more sympathetic to the orthodox viewpoint as it has been passed down. If we got the orthodox viewpoint in a more raw form, we might be less sympathetic. Asceticism and patriarchy were characteristics of both.

    There are a few pages in which it almost seems that Witherington is trying to give us a negative view of the value of the gnostic literature by means of giving us a negative view of gnosticism itself. That is not, in fact, his argument, but you have to read through the section to get to the point, which is that these folks were not primarily concerned with historical events.

    The one gnostic document that requires more discussion is the gospel of Thomas. I could wish Witherington had spent more time establishing the priority of ‘Q’ over the gospel of Thomas. As it is, the case is reasonable, even though Q is hypothetical. If Q did exist (something of which I’m not 100% convinced), then it would necessarily be quite early, and there is little likelihood that Thomas would be older.

    At the same time it is worth considering that if there were sayings collections, Thomas could also go back to an older source. That would be hypothetical, but certainly not out of the question. I personally would treat Thomas as largely independent source for sayings, though I wouldn’t accept it as sole evidence, and it certainly appears to be a 2nd century compilation.

    It’s a bit odd to discover at the end of this chapter that all this discussion results in the simple conclusion that we know remarkably little about Mary Magdalene. Witherington then makes a number of strong statements about the historicity of the canonical statements about her, and based on those statements about the historicity of the resurrection itself. On this point I think he is on less solid ground. He is right to apply a full measure of skepticism to the gnostic gospels.

    I find it remarkable that so many scholars regard them as highly as they do with reference to the historical Jesus. Yet a historian must use similar skepticism on the canonical gospels. Witherington himself says much the same thing. Yet I don’t see it in practice up to this point. (Please remember that I’m blogging through and not reviewing. I am reporting my state of mind at this point, not my final conclusions.) I will be watching for a similar level of analysis of the canonical sources as I continue to read.

  • Psalm 95 and 81: Interrupting Praise with Prophecy?

    A few days ago I blogged about Psalm 95 and how I felt that Matthew Henry had missed the emphasis. I’ve mentioned before that my current devotional exercise is to read the lectionary texts for coming Sundays starting two weeks ahead until the Sunday in question. Thus I’m continually reading two sets of lectionary texts. These tend to lead me to various interesting sources of study.

    Today, I read Psalm 95 from my New Interpreter’s Study Bible, which has an interesting note. On Psalm 95:8, the point at which the Psalm turns the corner from praise into a call for repentance, there is this note:

    . . . In the very midst of Israel’s worship, it seems, prophets would occasionally interrupt the proceedings and call the people to repentance and amendment of life.

    On consideration of just Psalm 95, I didn’t find that very convincing. I felt (and to some extent still feel) that the combination of praise and a willingness to listen and obey went well together in a context of worship. However, if one reads Psalm 81, to which reference is made earlier in the same note, there is an even more abrupt transition between praise and the call to repentance. There the praise seems almost to be only an introduction to the meat of the Psalm, which is strong admonition.]

    I find this an interesting concept, considering that obedience is scripturally placed above various acts of worship, 1 Samuel 15:22-23 being a good example. Obedience is seen in scripture as an act of worship. I have only seen this sort of thing rarely in modern charismatic worship. Most congregations would regard such a prophetic word as an unseemly interruption of the flow of the service of praise. I have even heard pastors express a strong preference for “words from the Lord” that are positive over those that involve rebuke. I think if one were to survey prophetic words in scripture, one would find that the balance is precisely the opposite.

    In addition, of course, one wonders just how one is to get one’s desired balance of positive and negative words from the Lord. If they are, indeed, from the Lord, one would assume he would set the balance!

  • Review: The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot

    Bart Ehrman’s books tend to get quite a bit of hype around them, but when one actually reads them, one finds the work of a fine, generally balanced scholar. This is true of The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, as it was of Misquoting Jesus, which I reviewed early in a series of posts. Ben Witherington is fairly hard on Ehrman, referring to that same book, and stating that he goes well beyond his evidence (What Have They Done with Jesus?, pp. 6-7). If one goes by he cover, that is likely true, but I would say that the actual contents are much better, both in terms of nuanced claims and of evidence. (I’ve begun blogging through Witherington’s book here.)

    The bottom line is that this is a well-written book, easy to follow, and covering the most essential material. I rarely read a book on a discovery like this one without wishing that the author had spent less time on some things and more on others. Ehrman manages to include enough of the story of discovery to give the flavor. He summarizes the document well, and then looks at its implications.

    Many popular discussions–by which I mean non-scholars discussing the Gospel of Judas–get the focus and implications entirely wrong. It is natural for 21st century westerners to immediately turn to issues of the historical Jesus, and of course the historical Judas. But the fact is that the Gospel of Judas gives us very little additional information on that issue. It is later than the canonical gospels, though earlier than most non-canonical gospels, and it has even less emphasis on historical events.

    But it does have a significant impact on our understanding of early Christianity in its various forms and on gnosticism. That is what could be expected, and it is also what was actually found. Ehrman makes these facts pretty clear.

    He starts by providing us a narrative framework for his own exposure to the gospel which serves to help us understand the process of discovery and preservation (or lack of it) that goes into bringing this type of manuscript to publication. This preface and first chapter illustrates some of the difficulties in dealing with ancient artifacts. Fortunately, unlike most items such as ossuaries, pieces of pottery, and so forth, a printed text retains a good deal of its value even without a well-established provenance.

    The second chapter continues by telling us what is already known about Judas Iscariot and how this is known, as well as discussing the various perspectives on Judas. This is followed in chapter three by a discussion of later Christian literature and its perspective. These two chapters are valuable in demonstrating how a story can grow and change shape over centuries of use. Chapter 4 then tells us what was known previously about the Gospel of Judas in order to prepare for the discovery of the actual text, and chapter 5 finishes the story of the discovery.

    Chapters 6-8 get to the heart of the matter and tell what we learn from the text itself, and how that fits into our understanding of early Christian gnosticism. Ehrman provides good context and well done summaries. He also covers a variety of views on gnosticism. The result is about the best one could hope for in the space allotted.

    Finally, in chapters 9-10 we get what many were probably looking for in the first place–a discussion of the historical Judas, and it turns out that the Gospel of Judas has practically nothing to say about this at all. Ehrman follows with an excellent summary of how historical study is done using ancient manuscripts and other material, and then applies those methods to Jesus and Judas Iscariot. He finds frustratingly little that one can say with certainty, but he is very clear about how he comes to those conclusions. Those interested in the historical Jesus could do worse than to read his summary of the methodology involved.

    Despite the limited historical conclusions about Judas, Ehrman regards the Gospel of Judas as very historically important. Its importance is to the history of early Christianity. In the final chapter he kind of rounds up what has been implied earlier. There are two extremes in views of the history of early Christianity. One holds that a single orthodoxy came from Jesus and the apostles. There were numerous heresies that broke off and threatened the true faith, but ultimately truth (orthodoxy) prevailed. Thus while there may have been disputes, these were either minor ones amongst friends, or fights between truth and error.

    The other extreme represents Christianity as spreading from its origin point in Jerusalem and presumably Galilee in many variations as various groups of disciples did their best to understand Jesus and what he meant. Orthodoxy is “orthodox” because it represents the winning viewpoint, not because it has some ultimate claim to being the most genuine. Ehrman plainly represents the second of these views and sees the Gospel of Judas in that light.

    While I am not fully in agreement with Ehrman on all points, I think this is an exceptionally good popular level book and a good introduction to the meaning of the Gospel of Judas. It doesn’t require any substantial background, because Ehrman provides a clear context throughout.

  • Need for Moderate/Liberal Hermeneutics

    It is sometimes difficult to discuss scriptural issues involved in many modern debates simply because there is so little explicit liberal hermeneutic. It’s not that there is no liberal hermeneutic; it’s simply that so few people are aware of such a thing, and it’s so badly communicated to people in the pews. Moderates have succeeded in producing something they can use with varying degrees of success, but often this is simply exceptions made to the fundamentalist or conservative evangelical hermeneutics we encounter.

    The problem, I think, results from simply telling people not to take the Bible so literally. In many churches, “literal” and “true” have become almost synonymous, and this statements sounds like saying not to take the Bible so seriously. Mainliners end up hanging between Biblical literalists on the one hand, and critical Biblical scholarship on the other, and are uncertain just what to do with scripture. Now I have no problem with critical methodology, but it has a major limitation. Once you’re done discussing the prehistory and history of the text in great deal, just what are you going to do about it?

    This is where many of us fall flat in communicating what we’re doing. The Bible is important to me, but why is that so, and how do I manage to communicate that importance to others? More importantly, just what role does the Bible play in my life, and specifically in the way I answer life’s questions? It cannot play the same role as it plays in the life of a fundamentalist who is looking for specific commands in specific verses. That’s not the way I study or understand it.

    To get a bit more specific, I am frequently asked about Genesis. How can I possible be a theistic evolutionist and still believe the Bible? Is what I practice “Biblical” Christianity?”

    Let’s start with the term “Biblical.” I believe it is horribly abused as an adjective. One cannot answer the question of whether something is Biblical or not without establishing an interpretive framework–a hermeneutic if you please. Thus if someone asks me whether my views are “Biblical” or not, and they are dispensationalist, odds are that I will not appear Biblical to them. Frankly, were I as tense as they are, they would not appear Biblical to me, simply because I see dispensationalism as something imposed on the text from the outside without adequate justification. From my perspective, I’m quite Biblical, but to the dispensationalist, who does believe that dispensationalism is Biblical, and the appropriate way to understand the Bible, I don’t look much like it.

    In response to the question about Genesis and theistic evolution, I don’t see any problem at all, because I simply do not see Genesis as narrative history, or any other form of literature that would make be believe that the events it narrates are historical. Thus I’m reading Genesis differently because of the type of literature it is. If I respond to this question by saying, “I don’t take Genesis literally,” then I really haven’t given much information. There are few literal interpretations that will work, but many non-literal. I have to be more specific.

    So I would say that in order to interpret any piece of ancient literature correctly, you need to find out what type of literature it was, and hopefully what types of questions it was intended to answer, and then read it in that light. In the case of Genesis 1-11, we have largely the language of an origin myth, and these were written in the ancient near east not to preserved historical fact but to establish social order and legitimize governments.

    Today I’m just going to make a few remarks about my view of hermeneutics. I may blog further on individual elements. I believe liberals and moderates need to be more clear about the way in which we get from text to action. If the Bible is important in my life, in what way is it important? How does it change the way I would otherwise act. Obviously I’m not talking simple exegesis here. It is not sufficient to determine what Paul meant to his first audience, but also to determine just how that can be applied in life now.

    My understanding starts with seeing the Biblical literature as the result of a community living their faith. This doesn’t exclude divine inspiration, but divine inspiration operates amongst real people at a specific time and place. Communication with these people must occur in a way that they can understand. Since the literature results from a faith community, the way it is received and created and the way the community handles and transmits it become relevant to understanding it. If the Pentateuch is built from sources that grew up over centuries, I think this is significant. It tells us something about God and the way he works just as the actual text does.

    A corollary to this is that I do not take God’s knowledge or God’s context as the basis for understanding the literature. If it was communicated to and in a community, it lived in that community and was understood by that community. I don’t believe they had a God’s eye view, and I know I don’t.

    But the understanding of that community may not be of value to me today. For example, I believe the community that heard the stories of Genesis first was comfortable with a flat earth, round like a dinner plate, with the dome of the sky above it. That was their cosmology. I know better. Later generations may improve on my understanding. I do not suddenly reread the stories from my new perspective (without other necessary adjustments), on the basis that God already knew the earth was spherical.

    Since the Bible was produced in and by a community, I am also interested in the continuity of community from that time to this, such as it is. In this way I keep connection and continuity in a changing world. I also bring in tradition in this way.

    At the same time I recognize that I understand this through my own experiences, and that my connections to my modern community, especially my spiritual community (a United Methodist congregation) provide a framework in which I understand it. There are, however, ways other than revelation from which I get knowledge, and these are added in as well, by means of science.

    Finally there are two elements that I believe work closely together. First is reason (also part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which some may recognize here in parts), which doesn’t seem to me to be a separate source of knowledge but rather the means by which we comprehend all the rest. Some Christians disdain reason, but you will form doctrines using your reason in any case. The only question is how well you do this. The second of these two elements is the Holy Spirit, guiding us into all truth. I think the Holy Spirit is more active than we often believe, and I think we need to be open to continuing guidance.

    The result of this is often nothing at all like what a fundamentalist or conservative evangelical would get from the text. Yet in order to understand that difference we have to look at how we interpret and apply what what we read.

    I hope to discuss these elements some more. This is such a brief look. As I said there is a great deal of quite good moderate and liberal hermeneutics out there. It just doesn’t seem to filter down to the pews as well as I would like.

  • Christian Carnival #211 Posted

    . . . at Brain Cramps for God. (Now why can’t I think of cool names for a blog like that!)

  • The Myth of the Absent Husband

    The story of the temptation and fall (Genesis 3:1-7) is one of the stories that sustains some complentarians and advocates of male leadership and authority. I use “myth” here in the partial technical sense of a story that explains and reinforces a cultural norm.

    In particular, people point out that Eve was taken in by the snake because she didn’t as her husband or because he wasn’t with her. I’ve heard sermons based on these points. Don’t leave you husband! Follow his leadership! Look what happened to Eve! The same sorts of things can be said about consultation. But these views are not supported by the text itself. They are, I believe, examples of reading the white spaces.

    The problem is that nowhere in the story is it specified that Adam was not present, nor is it stated that Adam did not discuss the matter with Eve. The story itself is typical of Hebrew narrative, especially in the Pentateuch. It is short and to the point, with no unneeded words.

    When Eve does share the food with her husband, it says that she gave it to him “with her.” Now it’s interesting that when I was taught this very early, I remember being told that Eve went to look for her husband and then passed him the fruit, thus reinforcing her aloneness and leaving open the option that male leadership principles have been violated. In case you think I’m making this up, and since I grew up Seventh-day Adventist, let me quote Ellen White on the matter:

    The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger, but dismissed her fears, deciding that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and to withstand it. . . . (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 53)

    And again:

    . . . And now, having herself transgressed, she became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband. In a state of strange, unnatural excitement, with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his presence, and related all that had occurred. (ibid, p. 56)

    That is, of course, entirely gleaned from the white spaces. The text actually suggests that the two of them were together, and gives no indication that Adam objected, or was any more concerned than his wife. The idea that Adam was tempted by Eve comes not from the story of the actual temptation, but from Adam’s excuse.

  • Genesis 2:15-17: Nature and Duration of Evil

    This is a short note on some implications of evil based on a reading of Genesis 2:15-17, which is the first mention of anything even potentially out of order with God’s wonderful new world.

    I’ve heard hundreds of arguments in church, including the question of why God would put just one tree in the garden and then tell the first couple not to eat. Why put such temptation in front of inexperienced people? These extend even to asking what type of fruit it was that the tree bore. Those seem to me to miss the point. There was a possibility to do wrong. When one combines the concepts “choice” and “good” the possibility of a choice that is not-good, or bad, is implied.

    Here are a few quick points:

    1. Potential evil was clearly part of the creation plan.
      The presence of the tree indicates options, and it is the tree of the knowledge (perhaps experiential knowledge) of that evil, so it suggests that there were many options, or at least more than one, for making wrong choices. This also argues in favor of a completely symbolic understanding of the tree. Whatever it is that Adam and Eve did, it was not a matter of eating fruit arbitrarily forbidden to them.
    2. Death was already either known or theoretically knowable.
      If nobody has died, or the nature of death is not known, what is the value of a death sentence. If physical death already existed, then it is not by nature evil. Either some spiritual death, or a specific hold of death (Hebrews 2:14-15) such as fear, is meant by the threat.
    3. A broad range of possible good choices exist/existed.
      There are many trees, but only one forbidden. Good may be more diverse than we have often thought.

    It seems to me that some of the most literalistic interpretations of Genesis may result from not reading the text all that carefully, and passing over the difficulties of one’s point of view.

  • Repentance and Rejoicing

    I’ve written a pamphlet, which I provide free on my Participatory Study Series site, titled Repentance and Rejoicing. With the current lectionary including Psalm 32, I thought I’d reprint it. It is outlined around Psalm 51, but much the same material can be taught using Psalm 32.

    But if we confess our sins to God, he can always be trusted to forgive us and take our sins away.
    – 1 John 1:9

    How can I confess my sins and receive forgiveness?

    Psalm 51 provides an example of repentance.

    1.  Acknowledge – verse 3

    I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt.

    Completely admit to what you have done wrong, without excuses.

    2.  Cleanse – verse 7

    Wash me with hyssop until I am clean and whiter than snow.

    Ask God to cleanse you and make you whole.

    3.  Restore – verse 12

    Make me as happy as you did when you saved me; make me want to obey!

    Ask to be restored to God’s favor.

    4.  Teach – verse 13

    I will teach sinners your Law, and they will return to you.

    You teach others by sharing your testimony about what God has done in your life.

    5.  Praise God – verse 15

    Help me to speak, and I will praise you, Lord.

    Praise God for what He has done. This has the additional effect of reminding you of what He has done and keeping you humble before Him.

    6.  Worship – verses 18, 19

    Then you will be pleased with the proper sacrifices, and we will offer bulls on your altar once again.

    Worship is the natural consequence of a relationship with God.

    I asked for forgiveness and still I feel guilty. What is wrong?

    There are several ways in which repentance can fail.

    • Making excuses instead of fully acknowledging guilt

    See the story of Saul in 1 Samuel 15, especially verses 20 and 21. Instead of acknowledging his guilt, he denies it and adds an excuse. Contrast David’s action in 2 Samuel 11.

    David vs. Saul
    2 Samuel 11-12 1 Samuel 13-15
    Murder and Adultery Disobedience
    Prophet sent Prophet sent
    Admits guilt Denies guilt and makes excuses
    Accepts punishment as just Complains about punishment
    Is accepted by God Is rejected by God

    Before I confessed my sins, my bones felt limp, and I groaned all day long. . . . So I confessed my sins and told them all to you. . . . Then you forgave me and took away my guilt.

    – Psalm 32:3-5

    • Not fully changing your mind about your actions

    To repent means to change your mind. If you are not determined to change, you have not really repented.

    • No desire for cleansing

    Forgiveness is followed by cleansing. If we don’t want the cleansing, we won’t receive the forgiveness.

    • Refusing joy

    Sometimes being sorrowful makes us feel important, so we refuse the joy of restoration.

    Repentance puts us back in line with the heavenly attitude. Refusing joy takes us back off the heavenly attitude.

    Jesus said, "In the same way there is more happiness in heaven because of one sinner who turns to God than over ninety-nine good people who don’t need to."

    – Luke 15:7

    • Unworthiness

    Feeling that you cannot possibly be cleansed or be fit for God’s kingdom. But God has made us fit for his kingdom.

    All of this shows that God judges fairly and that he is making you fit to share in his kingdom for which you are suffering.
    – 2 Thessalonians 1:5

    • Unbelief

    Either you don’t believe that God can forgive you or will forgive you. (See 1 John 1:9)

    If you forgive others for the wrongs they do to you, your Father in heaven will forgive you. But if you don’t forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.
    – Matthew 6:14, 15

    • Unforgiveness

    Unforgiveness includes holding onto our resentments and grudges. We can fail to forgive because we have been hurt to much. We can also fail to forgive because we refuse to admit that we have been hurt.

    You know that you have been taught, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you.” – Matthew 5:38, 39a

    What is the unpardonable sin?

    One of the tasks of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin. If we turn away the Holy Spirit so much that we no longer hear His voice, we will no longer ask for pardon and it will, in fact, be too late.

    I’m still having a hard time. Do I have to rejoice?

    One of the rewards of an ongoing relationship with God is a trust in what God is doing. When we trust God for the final result, we can have peace and joy even in trouble. (Romans 5:3-5)

    We gladly suffer, because we know that suffering helps us to endure. And endurance builds character, which gives us a hope that will never disappoint us.
    – Romans 5:3b-5a

    Scriptures marked “adapted” were translated and adapted by Henry E. Neufeld for this pamphlet.

    All other scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 buy the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

    (This material is available in the form of a pamphlet in PDF or Word format here.)