Results 81 - 100 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Should we sell domestic pets? | 2 Sam 12:3 | rabban | 191476 | ||
I must confess I know of nowhere in Scripture that forbids the selling of animals raised at home. It sounds like an 'old wives tale', although with some truth in it. Indeed many Jews raised animals in their home on the ground floor, and would then sell their offspring. The possible objection would be that it is ungrateful and is to treat a 'friend' too lightly. (Perhaps the 'little ewe lamb' of Nathan is in mind? - 2 Sam 12.3) But my feeling is that people are far more likely to care for their pets properly if they have to pay for them, rather than if they are given them. Why not pass them on lovingly in return for a suitable donation to charity? And you could then give the money to the needy and everyone would benefit :)))). (Just a thought. You are of course quite entitled to give them away :-)))) ). |
||||||
82 | ... | John 16:31 | rabban | 191472 | ||
May I gently suggest that there is no 'alternate rendering'. The Greek is in fact quite clear. It is 'do you then (or 'now' - arti can be either and it makes little difference) believe?'It is their faith that is in question, not what they have been saying. | ||||||
83 | ... | John 16:28 | rabban | 191471 | ||
I presume I am unidentified responder, although as far as I am aware my name is clearly shown (see heading). In John 16.27 Jesus speaks of the disciples as believing that He had come from the Father, and in John 16.28 He says that He had come from the Father. Then in 16.30 in reply to this the disciples declared, 'By this we believe that you came from God.' It is surely quite clear that the Father is being described by the disciples as God. The terms are indeed often interchangeable, although clearly having a different emphasis. I am not sure why you should equate the Father in the New Testament with Jesus. That application only occurs in Isaiah 9.6 where the idea is that He is Father to His people in the same way as David would have been seen as being. As has also been pointed out John 5.18 clearly parallels the Father with God. Where then is the difficulty? I am also not quite sure what you mean by the difference in spelling. Are not 'God' and 'Father' usually spelled differently? It does not appear to me that there is a difference in definition. Just an indication that the disciples were still hesitant about speaking of 'the Father' in the way that Jesus did. They possibly recognised even at this stage the huge difference between themselvess and Jesus. Your other two 'questions' do not appear to be questions at all, so I am not sure what their purpose is. Are you just playing games?. |
||||||
84 | What's Pastor's Responsibility? | NT general Archive 1 | rabban | 191458 | ||
Hi May I just add to the excellent advice given 1 Corinthians 3.6-15; 4.1-5; 9.16-23; 13; 2 Corinthians 4.1-2, 7-15; 10.12-13. |
||||||
85 | Only God can make a promise? | Deut 23:22 | rabban | 191443 | ||
God leaves the question of whether we should make promises an open one (Deuteronomy 23.22). What He does however insist on is that if we make promises we will keep them. (Deuteronomy 23.21; Ecclesiastes 5.4-6; Psalms 15.4; 24.4) See also Proverbs 20.25. |
||||||
86 | Nehemiah 4 | Nehemiah | rabban | 191440 | ||
Like Joseph and Moses, Nehemiah was raised by God to high office in a foreign court in order that he might be ready to carry forward God's purpose for God's people, in his case for Jerusalem. As the king's cupbearer he was one of the most powerful men in Persia. (Compare the Rabshakeh who held a similar position in Assyria - 2 Kings 18.17, 19 ff). It was a position that could only be held by someone who was totally trusted by the king. When the servants brought the king's wine the Cupbearer would take it from them and taste it before passing it to the King. Thus he was the one man who could poison the king. He held high office and would also have great responsibilities. (Becoming governor of Judah would be a demotion). So Nehemiah was a powerful and trusted servant of the king of Persia. Indeed only one who was as trusted as he was would have been allowed to do what he did. Jerusalem had been resettled after the exile by Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1.8)and those who returned with them, and a small temple had been built. But it was little more than a huddle of buildings, unprotected and vulnerable. Most of the returnees probably settled outside Jerusaelm. Jerusalem seemingly came within the province of Samaria, which would be ruled by a governor appointed by the Persians. It was in his interests to prevent Jerusalem from becoming important as a rival to Samaria. And Jerusalem had a reputation for being rebellious. Sanballat was probably at this time the governor of Samaria (he certainly was later).He was probably a syncretistic Yahwist (as we know from his sons' names). Tobiah's name suggests that he also was a syncretistic Yahwist. He was clearly a powerful aristocrat and held high office (as 'the servant') possibly in Ammon. The arrival of Nehemiah with the king's authority would have infuriated them. They dared not openly oppose him, but along with other neighbouring groups (Ammonites, Ashdodites and Arabs) they determined to undermine what Nehemiah was doing. This was why no army is involved. Anything that happened had to be portrayable as performed by bandits. It was after all rebellion against the king's commands. This explains why such a powerful coalition were unable to directly prevent the work. It had to be done surreptitiously as far as the outside world were concerned. Nehemiah the new governor of Judah and Jerusalem set about rebuilding the walls in accordance with the authority given to him by the king. The first attempt against them was one of ridicule. They tried to discourage the local returnee Jews who were supporting Nehemiah Did they not recognise that they were wasting their time. Their walls were pathetic and would only fall down (4.2-3). Nehemiah combated that with prayer (probably public in order to encourage the builders). When that failed Sanballat and his cronies decided that the next thing was to use unofficial armed bands to disrupt the work. The effect of their double efforts was that many men of Judah did become discouraged (4.10). But Nehemiah would not be discouraged and simply arranged that the builders must double up as builders and guards. He also arranged that they would all sleep in Jerusalem so as to protect it at nights. And they slept with their clothes on and their arms ready to hand. The lessons are clear. Ridicule must be combated with prayer. Active interference must be combated by self-sacrifice, wisdom and courage and a readiness for self-defence. This is a very abbreviated account which you will clearly need to fill out, especially with regard to the lessons to be learned from it. . |
||||||
87 | What is hatred? When is it ok to hate? | Matt 5:44 | rabban | 191434 | ||
Hi, it is never OK to hate people (Matthew 5.42-48; 1 John 3.15). It is always OK to hate sin (Romans 7.15; Hebrews 1.9; Revelation 2.6). The Old Testament regularly speaks about abhorring sin. One problem with the verb to 'hate' as found in our translations of Scripture is that in the Hebrew and Greek the word often meant 'love less'. It covered a wide spectrum of hatred, dislike and 'loving less'. This comes out in the story of Jacob. 'And he went in also to Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah.' (Gen 29.30). The position is clear, he loved Rachel more than Leah. Then it says, 'And the LORD saw that Leah was hated.' Here the word should really be translated 'loved less', according to the information found in the previous verse. When Jesus spoke of us 'hating' our father and mother, He was really speaking of 'loving less' than God. When God says of Esau, 'Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated' He then also says, 'the elder will serve the younger' (Romans 9.12-13). It was a matter of degrees of love, not of actual hatred. |
||||||
88 | why suffer in pain | 2 Cor 4:17 | rabban | 191425 | ||
May I say first that I understand fully how you feel. I have a loved one who has suffered continually over the last sixteen years until my heart is almost broken, so I do not speak lightly. But I recognise that pain is the common lot of man (Romans 8.22). And it is of great benefit. It is because they are without pain that many lepers lose parts of their body. But should God interfere especially on behalf of Christians? Would it indeed be just? And besides God uses pain. For many a non-Christian the pain helps them to think of eternity. 'When God's judgments are on the earth the people learn righteouseness.' And on the Christian it can have a sanctifying influence 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.' (2 Corinthians 12.9; Psalm 25.18; Romans 5.2-5). Through the way in which a Christian bears pain a testimony can go out to the world. It was the blood of the martyrs which was the seed of the church. And who knows what good effect pain at the end may have on a person's preparedness to go to the other side? (1 Peter 1.6-7). In all this we have to trust in the love of the One Who Himself died in excruciating pain for us, and would take nothing to alleviate His own pain. He knows and He suffers with us and He understands and He cares. |
||||||
89 | Holy of Holies | Heb 10:19 | rabban | 191424 | ||
Dear Doc. Thank you for your response. I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree.:-))) I do not consider that I am at all confused as to the imperative portion of Hebrew 10.22. If we are to 'be drawing near with a true heart and full assurance of faith' I cannot see 1) how that can posibly be said to be true of all Christians regardless 2) That that can mean any other than our checking the state of our hearts to ensure that we are approaching with a true heart and with our faith attuned. That is my view of the text. Furthermore the cultic reference to the sprinkling (rhantizo) connects it with the water of purification which was intended to be continual in its application to deal with day by day uncleanness. In my view that is precisely what 1 John 1.7-10 also teaches and what is meant here. Christ's perfect work has provided not only our being 'perfected in Him for ever' (Hebrews 10.14) but also a daily means of cleansing. We can compare the exhortation here with 2 Corinthians 7.1 which also speaks of a similar cleansing although there of spirit and body, which parallels heart and body here. You would not I presume make the confession of our faith a once for all event or the stirring up to love and good works. Then why the drawing near? My knowledge of Greek and my experience and awareness tells me that very often the tenses of the verbs say exactly what an expositor wants them to mean. While not as fluid as Hebrew (which as you know has no past tense) Greek tenses vary widely in their use and meaning. One moment, for example, the commentator is stressing that the aorist means a once for all event, and two verses later it is a 'timeless aorist' or a second aorist. The aorist is thus a fluid tense. And similar fluidity applies to other tenses. Of course Christ's blood allows us permanent entrance with confidence into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and nothing further is required. But are you really suggesting that we should therefore come into His presence unprepared? 'If I am regarding iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me.' Jesus Himself said that if we approach the altar and remember that someone has something against us, we must leave our gift at the altar and go and be reconciled to that someone, and then come and offer the gift (Matthew 5.23-24). If that is not timeless, what is? I am not adding to or detracting from the completed work of Christ, nor am I confusing justification with sanctification. Indeed in Hebrews sanctification is often the equivalent of justification (e.g. Hebrews 13.12). There is no doctrine of justification as such in Hebrews. He speaks rather of a once for all perfecting (Hebrews 10.14) or sanctification (Hebrews 13.12) and a continuing sanctification. Compare also 'you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus' (1 Corinthians 1.2; 6.11) which demonstrates that Paul also speaks of a once for all sanctification. That is why we are 'saints'. I agree wholeheartedly with the words of your last paragraph and I would add also 'positional sanctification'. But I fail to see how it affects our interpretaion of verse 22. Verses 19-20 yes, but not verse 22. Surely pressing forward in our sanctification (Hebrews 10.14) does require that we constantly test whether our hearts are true and our faith is 'full'? Because the door is always open it does not mean that I can go in without wiping my feet (Psalm 15). 'He who is bathed need not but to wash his feet'. In Christ |
||||||
90 | THE APOCALYPSE CODE, Have U read it? | Rom 11:17 | rabban | 191412 | ||
Having read the review by Norman Geisler I am afraid that my view is that he is equally as guilty of misrepresentation and glossing over other peoples's views as Hank Hanegraff. Norman Geisler is clearly unaware (I will assume that it was accidental) of the views of many amillennialists and totally misrepresents their position. I am an amillennialist and I would be ashamed to hold the beliefs and interpretations that according to Norman Geisler I am supposed to hold. Unlike him I believe that the Old Testament must be interpreted in the way in which the New Testament interprets it. Nor would I agree that a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 demands a millennium. No millennium ON EARTH is mentioned there. These are gross misrepresentations although I am sure they are due to his lack of knowledge of what other people hold. However to be fair to Norman Geisler he does make clear that he does not fall out with amillennialists over their views as he considers such matters secondary as indeed they are. So it does not seem to me as if there is a divide between the two. If we cannot amicably disagree over a series of doctrines that will affect none of us (hopefully) then there is something very wrong with Christianity. I do not intend to say any more on the topic on this forum, but as my previous posting made clear I believe that the church IS Israel (not just a spiritual Israel). I will not fall out with anyone about it. But I certainly do not believe that God has made any promises that do not apply to the church as Israel. Most of you have your own settled positions on the subject, and that is fine. Stick to them. But please let us not demonise Hank Hanegraff or any who hold amillennial or postmillennial views. If anyone does have quetions raised by what I have said and would like to discuss them please contact me on jonrobb1@lycos.com. I will be happy to discuss them amicably. It is foolish to fall out about a future that none of us can possibly know about. It is equally foolish to say that the people who do not believe our particular angle are not faithful to the word of God. They can (wrongly) say the same about us. That is all I intend to say on the matter. but I did feel it necessary to make this position clear. |
||||||
91 | ... | John 16:31 | rabban | 191408 | ||
Jesus made clear throughout the Gospels that He was fulfilling the Old Testament Scriptures. See e.g. Matthew 5.17; Matthew 11.4-5 compare Isaiah 35.5-6. Thus He would have been disappointed had they NOT believed that He was sent as an emissary of the God of the Old Testament, Who was the God of Judaism. And no, John 16.31 says simply 'arti pisteuete', that is, 'Do you now believe?' There is nothing in the Greek that suggests 'that'. And it would be inconsistent with the whole context. The very point is the contrast of their present confidence with their future failure. |
||||||
92 | ... | John 16:28 | rabban | 191406 | ||
In John 16.27 Jesus speaks of them as believing that He had come from the Father. In John 16.28 He says that He had come from the Father. In 16.30 the disciples replied, 'By this we believe that you came from God.' Note that the change from Father to God is because the speakers are different, but all three refer to the same fact that Jesus came from the Father, that is, from God, and two refer to the disciples' belief in the fact. Clearly therefore God and the Father are the same. |
||||||
93 | Holy of Holies | Heb 10:19 | rabban | 191387 | ||
Hi Doc, Hebrews 10.22 says, 'Let us draw near with a true heart, in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our body washed with pure water.' Thus we need to ensure that our heart is 'true' (compare John 4.24 and see Psalm 66.18) and we need to attune our faith, especially having in mind as we approach the precious means by which we approach 'through the blood of Jesus'. We need to apply the spiritual water of purification ('clean water', i.e. water sprinkled with the ashes of the heifer (Hebrews 9.13-14; compare 1 John 1.7 and see Numbers 8.7; 19.1 ff) ensuring that we approach Him as those who have been 'cleansed' from impurity through His sacrifice for us, and we should wash our bodies with pure water. This last is a little puzzling due to the reference to 'pure' water. It may have in mind Isaiah 1.16-18 where washing with water signifies living a continually reformed life. We can compare also the 'washing of water with the word' in Ephesians 5.26. See also the need for us to continually 'wash our feet' in John 13.10. But the idea of 'pure water'would seem to link up with the water of purification, water that has been purified, again linking with Hebrews 9.13-14 (compare Ezekiel 36.25-27), although in the Old Testament rituals that is used for sprinkling not washing. Possibly he has in mind the outward sins of the body that have to be purified. Or it may have in mind the way that the priests had to regularly wash their hands and feet prior to entering the Holy Place (Exodus 30.19-21). No doubt the water that was put in the laver was seen as 'pure water'. It would be sanctified by being in the holy laver. Thus we must continually be cleansed in the blood of Jesus (1 John 1.7) An alternative is to see it a having in mind Psalm 51.7, 'Purge me with hyssop (with the water of purification which contains the ashes of the heifer) and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.' Compare also 'wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin' (Psalm 51.2). The idea, again in line with 1 John 1.7-10 being a thorough self-examination and admitting to God of our sin so that we might be cleansed. Contrary to many I do not see it as referring to baptism as baptism is not usually seen as washing in the New Testament. Baptism (a rather large subject to deal with here) rather refers to being made alive through the 'rain' of the Holy Spirit. The apparent exception in Acts 22.16 is probably not an exception at all but I will not go into that here. A similar idea is found in Psalm 66.18, 'If I regard iniquity in my heart the LORD will not hear me', and Matthew 5.23-24, where before we approach God we are to ensure that all is right between us and our brothers and sisters in Christ. |
||||||
94 | Those that was in Prison! | 1 Pet 3:20 | rabban | 191383 | ||
Hi, Whenever the term 'spirits' is used in the plural in the Bible in an unqualified way without a genitive it always refers to angels. Thus this is referring to the angels who fell in the time of Noah (Genesis 6.1-4). They are 'in prison' waiting their final day of judgment. This is confirmed in that Peter again refers to them in 2 Peter 2.4. Compare also Jude 1.6. After His resurrection (made alive in the spirit) Jesus went and proclaimed to them His great victory at the cross where He had defeated all the powers of evil and had led them in triumph (Colossians 2.15). Then He went into Heaven with angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him (1 Peter 3.22). Note the parallels 'went and proclaimed --' '---going into Heaven'. Both occurred in close connection. This idea of the defeat of the heavenly powers was an important one for the people to whom Peter was writing, for they had false teachers among them who were encouraging them to gain 'gnosis', special mystical knowledge through contact with such heavenly powers. Look, says Peter, recognise that any such powers have been deal with by Christ (compare 1 Peter 5.8; 2 Peter 2.10-12). They are defeated and therefore irrelevant. Furthermore it is very probable that one of the reasons that they were being persecuted by their masters (1 Peter 3.18-20) was precisely because they would not worship their masters' false gods. They would thus be specifically discriminated against, and even beaten. It would be hugely comforting to know that such demonic gods (1 Corinthians 10.20-21) had suffered defeat by Christ, thus justifying their refusal to worship them. |
||||||
95 | forgiveness | Matt 18:1 | rabban | 191376 | ||
Hi If I may say a word with regard to Jeremiah 31.34b.? The Hebrews had a way of deliberately stating the same thing in two different ways. It is a feature of their poetry and their prose. (If you watch out for it you will see it again and again, especially in the Psalms). Thus we have here: I will forgive their wickedness I will remember their sin no more. It is saying the same thing in two different ways. In Hebrew 'and' actually has little force. It is simply a conjoining letter. But God does not say that He will forget their sins. He says that He will deliberately 'not remember them'. He will erase them from His mind. That is forgiveness. The Greek word for 'forgive' actually means 'to send away, disregard'. He will treat them as if they had never sinned. 'Forgiveness' (aphesis) means 1) release from bondage or imprisonment 2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty. (See Strong). So the concepts are all similar :-))) Best wishes |
||||||
96 | body piercings and why not | Lev 19:28 | rabban | 191370 | ||
Hi You will note that I was replying to your question as to what Scripture your mother had in mind, and I only referred to the one that applied, 'you shall not make a marking on your body'. There would certainly have been no thought of infections in Moses' mind. It was the marking itself that was wrong because it demonstrated that the person was dedicated to other than God. If we just dismiss something because it only applied 'then' we could use the same argument to disregard the Scriptures as a whole. None of it was written in the 21st century. But the point is that it has a permanent and enduring application because it is based on eternal principles and is the word of God. However the principle argument that we should consider is that of the New Testament Paul said that women should 'adorn themselves in modest clothing, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly raiment, but, which is becoming to women who profess godliness, with good works' (2 Timothy 2.9-10). (He did not say 'but they can adorn themselves with less costly adornments'.) We can compare Isaiah 3.18-23. There we find a long list of things which God criticised. The hearts of these women were in the wrong place. What they wanted to glorify was themselves. The point is what is at the heart of what women (and men) wear. Is it in order to genuinely glorify God?. Or is it to glorify and advertise themselves?. (The same, I would hastily repeat, applies to men). Paul emphasises that we should concentrate on the positive of letting our light so shine before men that they see our good works and glorify our Father who is in Heaven (Matthew 5.16). Peter puts it this way. 'Beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear (the fear of God). Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on striking clothing, but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible clothing of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God as of great price' (1 Peter 3.2-4). May I suggest that 'almost every (American) woman has that done' is hardly good grounds for anything. Every woman has also sinned. That is not a good ground for sinning. we must ask, 'what would God have me to do?' However it is not for me to say what women can or can't do (or men either). They may even not take any notice of me (perish the thought) :-))))) What we are seeking to do is study the Scriptures and learn from them. If we inculcate Scriptural attitudes the rest will follow. But what we have to do is ask,'what are they trying to tell me'?. Not, 'now how can I find my way round them?' (I am not in favour of being dowdy. I am not sure that that is glorifying to God, any more than a man is if he is untidy. I have deliberately avoided specific application (or answering your question about pierced ears which might be at peril of my life :-))). For that is a decision that you have to make. I will not be wearing earrings :-))) |
||||||
97 | for what reason can a man divoce his wif | Matt 19:9 | rabban | 191369 | ||
Forgive me for saying so but you appear to have a very easy attitude towards divorce which is totally contrary to the teaching of Jesus. What is important is that we ask what the Scriptures teach about divorce. I have already dealt with your argument that lust can be a grounds for divorce, which has no genuine Scriptural grounds. But you say, 'It is important to remember that God knows about divorce firsthand. In Jer 3:8, God divorced Israel for her faithlessness (abandonment) and idolatry (infidelity). We can know that God identifies with our suffering because He has experienced divorce. This divorce was necessary because the marriage with Israel was dead from a break of faith. It is in the context of faith that we are to be married, and when that is no longer possible, due to the hardness of someone's heart, (Matthew 19:8) divorce is appropriate.' What you have overlooked is that God specifically says that it was because of their adultery that He was divorcing them. Thus He was underlining Jesus' teaching before the event. I do appreciate the sad situation you have found yourself in (assuming I have read it aright). And your one consolation may be that it is unlikely that your 'husband' will not soon commit adultery. But we do not have a right to take clear teaching and manoeuvre it around on the grounds of modern reasoning. It is important that we ask, what does the Scripture teach? Breach of trust is not a Scriptural grounds for divorce. What we must seek to do is restore that trust. Jesus is basically saying that marriage is binding for better or for worse. Adultery is a grounds for divorce, not because it is a breach of trust, but because it is a deliberate break in the union between a man and a woman as described in Genesis 2.23-24 as Jesus makes clear (Matthew 19.4-6). Otherwise Jesus said 'what man has joined together let no man (or woman) put asunder'. As it happens even abandonment is not said to be a grounds for divorce. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.14-16 allows for separation, he does not mention divorce or remarriage. It is just that that is often assumed to be inferred by his words. But Jesus tightened the law on marriage and divorce. He not only set aside Hillel's easy approach, but He also demonstrated that Shammai was inconsistent in agreeing that divorce could only be for adultery or impurity (as a theological position) while still not speaking out against divorce. Jesus spoke out against divorce. He said that it was a no, no, except where adultery had broken the bind that bound the man and the woman. Please note that I am not arguing for my position. It is not for me to say who can divorce and when. I am expounding what the Scriptures say. And they are quite clear on the subject. We can ignore what they say, but it is at the risk of displeasing the One Whose word it is. Because of their divorce Jerualem was destroyed and Judah went into exile. |
||||||
98 | Why divorce at this juncture? | Jer 3:8 | rabban | 191368 | ||
Surely because Josiah was God's last attempt to plead with His people. Once they had failed to respond in the long run to his reforms their fate was sealed. They would be offered no more chances. It was now not just separation, it was final divorce because of their adultery with idols. See the whole passage |
||||||
99 | Holy of Holies | Heb 10:19 | rabban | 191367 | ||
The point is that while the High Priest could only enter into the Holy of Holies once a year, we are privileged through the blood of Jesus to enter whenever we wish as long as our hearts are properly prepared. This is due to the perfection and all pervasiveness of the sacrifice that has been offered on our behalf. |
||||||
100 | forgiveness | Matt 18:1 | rabban | 191366 | ||
You say that you do not recognise the difference between the two levels of forgiveness, the one where someone has repented, the other where they have not? I would have thought that the difference was huge. Central to the forgiveness that Jesus describes in Luke 17.3-4 (compare Matthew 18.21-35) where a brother or sister has said 'I repent' is that the person is reinstated in the position that he or she was in before they sinned. We are saying with God, 'their sins and iniquities I will remember no more' (Hebrews 8.12 and Parallels). We are to treat them as though they had never sinned. They are a repentant brother or sister. Full trust must be restored. But in the case of the person who has not repented, while I will show full love to them (Matthew 5.42-48)I will not show full trust. I cannot trust someone who is likely to do it again. I am not sure that forgiveness necessarily means foregoing a right to justice. I can forgive and still seek justice. What I cannot do is forgive and seek vengeance. The two are incompatible. 'Vengeance is mine' says the Lord. 'I will repay' (Romans 12.19; Hebrews 10.30). |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |