Is Genesis 3:15 really the “Protevangelium”?

The question of whether or not Genesis 3:15 is the first proclamation of the Gospel has been the source of much debate. Traditionally, Genesis 3:15 is understood to be the first telling of the Gospel, which is attested to as early as Irenaeus in the second century A.D.1 Walton states in his commentary on Genesis, that based on the hermeneutics, the evidence is ambiguous. By examining this passage in its context and examining the authorial intent, there is nothing here to lead us to a specific Messianic expectation. “The Messianic expectation of Israel developed around a future king of David's line.”2 A passage that transcends its original context would have to be identified with authority elsewhere in Scripture. The New Testament makes no “first Gospel” connection with Genesis 3. The New Testament writers were masters at associating Old Covenant promises with New Covenant truths, yet they are silent on this passage. Walton concludes that because there is no authoritative link between the Messianic expectation of Christ and Genesis 3:15, it is therefore “haphazard to adopt a messianic interpretation of the text.”3

In keeping with the traditional interpretation of Genesis 3:15, Mathews believes this passage points to Christ as the “vindicator of the woman.”4 Because of the language of the passage, Mathews sees Genesis 3:15 as indicative of a “life-and-death struggle.”5 Words like “crush” and “strike” tell of a war beginning between humanity and its vile adversary. When God warns Cain that “sin is crouching at your door,” this alludes back to the struggle, in which the adversary won the first battle. Mathews takes language from the New Testament and makes connections between Genesis 3 and New Testament passages about Christ. According to Mathews, the “seed” in Genesis 3 is a direct reference to the Messiah. Paul used the term “seed” in Galatians 3 when he identified Christ as the “seed ultimately intended in the promissory blessing to Abraham.”6 He says that Jesus alluded to the passage in John 8 when he called the Pharisees “children of the Devil,” when they were supposed to be “the offspring of Abraham.”7 Mathews connects the “red dragon” in Revelation 12 to the serpent in Genesis 3. Because the serpent “opposes the believing community” and is “plotting the destruction of her child, the Messiah,” the serpent is destroyed by God in the end. Clearly Mathews hold that Genesis 3:15 is the prototype for the Christian Gospel.

Towns stands on the side of the traditional view along with Mathews. Throughout his systematic theology he cites Genesis 3:15 as the “first giving of the gospel.”8 He even sees Genesis 3:15 as speaking prophetically of the virgin birth of Christ. He holds that God introduces theological subjects in Scripture embryonically. Doctrines are first seen in “seed” form before they are fully developed.9 Towns says that God introduced the concept of salvation to mankind in the proto-evangelium. Imbedded within that concept, was the foretelling of the birth of the redeemer from the seed of woman. Because God knew the biology of man, He would not have confused this statement. If the birth of the redeemer was to be by conventional means, he would have come from the seed of man. According to Towns, the purpose and means for the death of Christ and the judgment of Satan are wrapped up in this first telling of the Gospel.

On this subject I am conflicted. When I look at the passage from my vantage point, two thousand years after the cross, it makes sense to see the Gospel in seed form. God knew all along that a plan of redemption for Adam and Eve would be necessary. Based on the whole of Scripture, it seems right to see Messianic implications for this passage. It gives me comfort to look at Genesis 3:15 as the proto-evangelium. However, when I look at this passage in light of its original audience, context, and authorial intent, it is not that far reaching. I agree with Walton's thought that Messianic expectations would not be in view before the time of David. If I were a Hebrew living in the tenth century B.C., it would be hard to see all of the things the traditional view claims are contained in this passage. Furthermore, the fact that the New Testament makes no specific reference to the proto-evangelium says a great deal. The goal of the New Testament authors was to tie New and Old Covenants together. Why would they miss such an opportunity connect the New Adam to the Old Adam? I think perhaps Towns has the right idea. God's plan of redemption is there from the very beginning of Scripture. It does not, however come into full view until later in redemptive history. The issue of whether or not Genesis 3:15 is the first telling of the Gospel may be a matter of context and revelation rather than a definitive yes or no question.


1Walton, John H. 2001. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. pg. 234
2Ibid
3Ibid. pg. 235
4Mathews, Kenneth A. 1996. The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26. pg. 247
5Ibid. pg. 245
6Ibid. pg. 248
7Ibid
8Towns, Elmer. 2002. Theology for Today. pg. 162
9Ibid. pg. 185-186

Bibliography:

Walton, John H. 2001. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan. Print.

Mathews, Kenneth A. 1996. The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26. Broadman and Holman Publishers: United States of America. Print.

Towns, Elmer. 2002. Theology for Today. Cengage Learning: Mason, Ohio. Print.

Imago Dei

The “image” of God in mankind is God's spiritual imprint. It is the spiritual quality that man shares with God.¹ Man is distinct from the rest of creation in that he possesses a physical and a spiritual nature. When God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule,”² God established man as the dominant being and the central focus of His creation. Genesis addressed the material aspect of man when it said, “the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”³ The image of God, however, is not the physical. God does not manifest Himself as corporeal being. The image of God, therefore, is restricted to the immaterial nature of man.⁴

Genesis implies that along with God's image comes an element of sonship.⁵ Later, when Adam fathered Seth, Scripture says that Adam “had a son in his own likeness, in his own image.”⁶ To be made in God's image means to be a son of God. God loved mankind enough to endow His very image in him. This communal relationship with God was broken by sin in the Garden of Eden when Adam rebelled, but the image was retained. Adam's sin has been passed on to his posterity, and all mankind stands under the judgment of God. God did not, however, abandon his image bearers. He sent “His own Son in the form of sinful man to be a sin offering.”⁷ Because of grace extended through faith in the sacrificial work of God's Messiah, men can experience renewed relationship with the living God. Now, believers in Jesus Christ “have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.”⁸

The fact that every man, woman, and child in all of creation is crafted into the image of God has huge implications on the life of a believer. People have intrinsic value because of the imago Dei. This erases all propensity to discriminate because of physical differences or limitations. Adherents to Scripture treat all people with equity no matter what their racial, social, political, or physical status. It would be disingenuous for a Christian to degrade or think less of a person whom he truly believes is his or her spiritual equal. The value of a man is not in things gained or lost in this world, it is in the likeness of God.

1Davis, John J. Paradise to Prison. 1975. pg. 81

2Genesis 1:26 NIV

3Genesis 2:7 NIV

4Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today. 2002. pg. 571

5Matthews, Kenneth A. The New American Commentary. 1996 pg. 170

6Genesis 5:3 NIV

7Romans 8:3 NIV

8Colossians 3:10

Bibliography:

Davis, John J. 1975. Paradise to Prison. Salem, Wisconsin: Sheffield Publishing Company.

Towns, Elmer. 2002. Theology for Today. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.

Matthews, Kenneth A. 1996. The New American Commentary. Broadman and Holman Publishers.

My Thoughts on the Doctrine of Sin.

What is the problem of evil?

 The problem of Evil, though not one singular problem, is a perceived inconsistency found in three foundational truths about God. The three truths are: “God is all-loving, God is all-powerful, and evil exists in a world created by such a God.”¹ The issue of evil is a complex one that must be analyzed in more than one way. First, it is a religious problem. When a person is experiencing the effects of evil, their relationship with God is strained. From a philosophical and theological standpoint, one must consider how evil can exist in a world created by an all-loving, all-powerful God.

Define moral evil and natural evil, and illustrate them with examples.

There are two types of evil: moral and natural evil. Moral evil is evil that occurs as a direct result of the actions of moral agents.² Moral evils are violations of the Law of God such as murder, rape, incest, theft, and blasphemy. A scriptural example would be the Israelite Achan keeping some of the devoted things for himself in Joshua chapter seven. Natural evil is the evil that occurs in the natural processes of the physical world as a result of the curse placed on creation after the fall of man.³ Natural Evils are the groanings of creation such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Luke illustrated this in chapter thirteen of his gospel when someone asked Jesus why the tower of Siloam fell and killed eighteen innocents.

Seek to explain why there is sin among mankind (the philosophical problem of moral evil) and why bad things happen in nature (the philosophical problem of natural evil). Consider the various theodicies presented in the reading, and address the merits and faults of each one.

All evil is rooted in sin. Sin is turning from God, resulting in alienation from God. Sin exists among mankind because the father of all men, Adam, sinned. God allowed Adam a moral choice of whether to be obedient, or to rebel. He rebelled against God, and in so doing, he passed sin to all mankind. As a result of Adam's fall, God cursed creation. All creation is polluted by sin, and yearns for recreation. God has allowed all of this to transpire to display the fullness of His attributes to all of creation through His redemptive purpose. Some try to rationalize the existence of evil by contending that God created a world containing evil because it is the best possible scenario.⁴ Though God's will is inherently best, this fails to explain how God is not complicit in evil's existence. One theodicy claims God created man in need of moral development. God created the world with evil, but he will use it to develop man into spiritual perfection, so God is not implicated.⁵ This view does not fit with Scripture, because men who have been born again undergo spiritual development, but those who are lost are spiritually dead. Some theologians say, and I agree, that God created the world free from evil, and evil in the world has been introduced by beings created by God. Those beings exercised their free will and chose rebellion, but in the end God will use evil to bring about good.⁶ This fits the overall message of Scripture, and proves God is not the originator of evil.

Briefly explain why a theodicy must be internally consistent, and defend the internal consistency of your explanation of evil’s existence

Before a theodicy can be considered, it must be able to present views of God, man, evil, creation, and the relationship between them that are internally consistent. If the internal elements of a theological position can not be rationalized, it can not be considered a logical view of the justification of God's relationship to man. My theodicy is that God created a world free from sin, but His creation exercised its free will and rebelled. It is consistent because God's creation of free will is “a value of the highest order.”⁷ The only way God can show all His attributes to man is to grant him free will. A creation full of “automatons”⁸ under God's complete control could not exercise true love for God, or make any decision other than that which is ultimately God's decision. In order to show Himself holy and merciful, He had to give mankind a choice to make and redeem those who choose Him.

Consider how personal experience of evil may affect one’s relationship with God (the religious problem of evil).  Do you believe someone can dispute a certain belief about God without actually attacking God Himself?

Experiencing the affects of evil alienates a person from the communion with God intended in the beginning of creation. Suffering and affliction causes a person to question the goodness and mercy of God. As we see in Job, suffering causes men to analyze their belief systems in light of circumstances. This does not equate to sin though. Man's agonizing over who God is and why He allows evil to befall His creation actually serves to gain man a far greater comprehension of God than can be obtained through prosperity. Although it is mysterious, the experiences in this fallen world serve as a refining fire for those who seek a proper understanding of who God is.

Word count: 774

Bibliography:

Elwell, Walter A. 2001. Evangelical dictionary of theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Paternoster Press.

1Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2001. pg. 413

2Ibid. pg. 414

3Ibid.

4Ibid. pg. 1185

5Ibid. pg. 1186

6Ibid.

7Ibid.

8Ibid.

Materialism and the Progressive Ideal

We live in a materialistic culture that is obsessed with possessions. This is the legacy of Marx, Darwin, and other nineteenth century progressives. The intangibles such as humility, honor, virtue, and spiritual growth are treated as folklore in today's modern world. In Western culture, the driving force in most people's lives is acquiring money. Money is necessary for everyday life, but its acquisition now dominates hearts, minds, and lives. It is sought after for comfort, security, joy, and pleasure. Money has become the means to our materialistic end. This pursuit is in vain, for these are all things that God provides and money steals. Whether consciously or unconsciously, westerners are taught to strive after material things. This finds its roots in the progressive ideal. The pervading idea in the west is that man will improve as his circumstances improve. This is the reason Marx sought to make all things equal. He thought man was a product of his circumstances. Darwin also saw creatures as products of their environment. This is how he formed his evolutionary theories. They have indeed “cast a long shadow” on the modern secular world. Today the progressive ideal is beginning to crumble. We see from the failure of social systems such as Communism, that man is far more complex that Marx and Darwin estimated. In America, entitlement programs have proven the sinfulness of man, and his willingness to work the system rather than improve it. Perhaps we will pay attention to history before Democracy goes the way of Communism. Whether we do or not, God is still on His throne. He reigns and rules whether men recognize it or not. Thanks be to God that He hold Kings and governments in the palm of his hand!

My thoughts on the origin of Satan and of Evil

Short Essay on Angelology and Satanology

Ethical dualism is the belief that there are two opposing forces in the universe. One is good and the source of all good, the other evil and the source of all evil. The two forces are said to be eternal and equally matched; locked in never-ending struggle. Dualism asserts a cosmic balance; like yin and yang or sacred and profane. Most religions are influenced by some form of dualism.¹ The Christian world view accepts a “modified moral dualism” recognizing God as good by nature, and Satan as inherently sinful and bent on thwarting and perverting the plans of God in every way.² The difference between the two is the Christian affirmation of God as eternal and uncreated, and Satan as a created being fallen from grace and destined for destruction.

The Biblical account of the fall of Satan contradicts the popular belief in ethical dualism. If Satan was created, he cannot be eternal or equal to God. Ezekiel tells of the day Satan was created, how he was beautifully adorned and full of wisdom.³ At some point in history, unrighteousness developed in the heart of Satan, and he sinned. Isaiah says he sought to ascend to the throne of God. In his heart he said, “I will make myself like the Most High.”⁴ At the fall of Satan, his eternal destiny was sealed. Ezekiel tells us that God cast him to the ground, consumed him with fire, and turned him to ashes. Ultimately he “shall be no more forever.”⁵ This sure eternal destiny exposes the falsehood in the idea that God and Satan are equal, and that their struggle will continue eternally.

Many theologians object to this interpretation of Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14:12-17 because they are addressed to earthly kings. Ezekiel 28 was written to the king of Tyre, Isaiah 14:12-17 to the king of Babylon.⁶ These passages, however, transcend any earthly being. No earthly creature could ascend to heaven, as Isaiah describes, or approach the throne of God apart from the aid of God himself.⁷ Ezekiel asserts that the recipient of this prophecy was anointed “guardian cherub” and “placed on the holy mountain of God.”⁸ The word “cherub” is proof this passage is speaking of an angelic creature, and no man could have been placed on the holy mountain of God. Finally, consideration must be made that both Babylon and Tyre are an integral part of Satan's kingdom on earth, and were monuments of his power.⁹

Evil originated in Satan, and was not part of God's creation. Satan was created perfect and holy, but with free will. In order for a being to truly worship God, it must have free will.¹⁰ The will to choose allowed Satan's heart to turn from The Most High to seek personal gain. Thus, evil came from the heart of Satan. Everything that proceeds from the hand of God is good, as his nature is good. Corruption comes with the choice to turn from God to sin.

Satan has a vast dominion, but he is neither omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. As a created being, Satan is subservient to God. He cannot operate outside the permissive will of God. Job gives us a picture of Satan appearing before the throne of God and receiving permission to persecute Job.¹¹ Satan cannot truly usurp God's will. Even the evil done by Satan plays a part in God's redemptive plan. Commenting on the treachery of his brothers, Joseph enlightens them on God's sovereignty, “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.”¹² All of Satan's best efforts serve only to further the ultimate plan of God.

In light of all this, man is still responsible for his or her own sin. Satan is the originator of evil, but man is accountable for his choices. David tells us that it is against God alone that sins are committed, for God is man's judge.¹³ God has given his creatures free will, and endowed them with the choice to chose obedience or rebellion. This matter, the decision to trust in Christ or reject his saving grace, is a matter strictly between man and God. Sin carries the consequence of death because of God's wrath against sin. Only one can stand in the place of a man, and take God's wrath due sin; He is Yeshua Ha'mashiach...Jesus the Messiah.

1Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2001. pg. 357

2Ibid.

3Ezekiel 28:12-13 ESV

4Isaiah 14:12-14 ESV

5Ezekiel 28:17-19 ESV

6Elwell. pg. 1054

7 Isaiah 14:13 ESV

8Ezekiel 28:14-16

9Elwell. pg. 1054

10Towns, Elmer. The Gospel of John: Believe and Live. pg. 366

11Job 1:6-12 ESV

12Genesis 50:20 ESV

13Psalm 51:4 ESV

My thoughts on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Short Essay on Pneumatology

Spiritual gifts are God given endowments enabling the Christian to fulfill his or her particular calling. With this divine spiritual empowerment, the Christian is able to complete something he or she could not otherwise accomplish. The manifestation of these gifts is divided into miraculous and non-miraculous, but both groups universally edify the church.¹ Their specific purpose is to empower the believer to do the work of Christ on Earth. In every aspect of ministry, preaching, teaching, evangelism, and admonishing the Holy Spirit is there working through the believer.

All believers receive at least one spiritual gift, some receive more than one. The Holy Spirit, “apportions to each one individually as he wills.”² God decides what each believer will be gifted to do, and distributes power at his discretion. The Fruit of the Spirit is entirely different. In Galatians chapter five, Paul cited them as: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.”³ The Fruit of the Spirit are those aspects of the nature of Christ which so infiltrate the heart and life of the believer that they overtake his character and personality. This is not given at conversion; it comes with maturity. Fellowship with the Savior and abiding in Christ sanctifies the believer; molding him into the new creature promised by the Word of Christ.

The gift of speaking in tongues has a twofold purpose in Scripture.⁴ In Acts it served to usher in the age of the church at Pentecost. Representatives from many nations were present and they heard the Gospel preached in their native tongue. During the age of the Apostles, it served to authenticate the presence of the Holy Spirit in new converts . Second, tongues is listed among the different spiritual gifts given to “sovereignly chosen believers” to carry out the work of the Church.⁵ Paul indicates the reason for speaking in tongues is to build up oneself, and to build up the Church. He also requires that tongues spoken publicly be interpreted, so the message may be clearly communicated to the individual it is directed to, or the entire congregation.⁶

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling by the Spirit of God in the life of a new convert. It is this event that causes all believers to be, “baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free– and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”⁷ Contrary to the charismatic view, I believe when a man places his faith in Christ he receives the Holy Spirit and is thereby baptized in the Holy Spirit. As he begins to grow in Christ and experience him more fully, he receives the fullness of the Spirit. Paul instructed Christians to “be filled with the Spirit.” This instruction is given to those who have already received the seal of the Holy Spirit. The more activity the Spirit exhibits in the life of the believer, the more “filled with the Spirit” the believer is said to be. The phrase “filling of the Spirit” does not describe a second indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it gives evidence that the believer is in the process of being sanctified by the Spirit. Ephesians four testifies just as there is but “one Spirit” and “one Lord,” there is only “one baptism.”⁸

Speaking in tongues is not a necessary sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. While the initial indwelling of men by the Holy Spirit was evidenced by speaking of tongues, many subsequent conversions bore no such proof. Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to be saved, “one must be born of water and of Spirit.”⁹ The first birth is of natural means, the second of supernatural. He made no mention of speaking a foreign language. Furthermore, in the same conversation Jesus said that all those who believe on him will be saved.¹⁰ Those who are saved must have the Spirit of Christ, tongues or not. Paul reminds us that, “anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”¹¹

Speaking in tongues is valid where the Spirit leads and where there is accurate interpretation. Tongues served its primary purpose in the days of the Apostles when the supernatural had to be attested to. In 1 Corinthians thirteen, Paul tells us that tongues, prophecy, and knowledge are partial, and, “when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” ¹² The Church's current state of imperfection makes these gifts necessary, but it will not always be so. One day the Savior will return, the dim mirror will become blinding clarity, and the Church will be made perfect.¹³

Bibliography:

Elwell, Walter A. 2001. Evangelical dictionary of theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Paternoster Press

Towns, Elmer. 2002. Theology for Today. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Biblos.com. Web.

1Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2001. pg. 1135

21 Corinthians 12:11 ESV

3Galatians 5:22 ESV

4Elwell. pg. 1206

5Ibid.

61 Corinthians 14:4-12 ESV

71 Corinthians 12:13 ESV

8Ephesians 4:4-5 ESV

9John 3:5 ESV

10John 3:16 ESV

11Romans 8: 9 ESV

121 Corinthians 13:10 ESV

13 Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible.

My thoughts on Christology

The biblical basis for the humanity of Jesus presents itself both directly and indirectly. The direct references in the New Testament begin with the Gospel of John. He bears witness to how Jesus, the eternal Word, “became flesh and dwelt among us.”¹ Paul testifies that Jesus is “born of woman, and born under law,”² just like all men since Adam. Jesus' humanity is implied by his physiological condition. The simple fact that he is born of a woman, gives evidence that he entered this world in the conventional manner. He experienced life in the same way that all men do. He had to learn how to crawl, walk, eat, and talk as all children do³. His forty day fast and subsequent test in the wilderness with Satan revealed that Jesus was subject to human needs. He felt hunger, fatigue, and carnal temptations associated with power, and pleasure. His agony over facing wrath and separation from God in Gethsemane shows emotional pain and affliction. At the culmination of his life and ministry he faced and conquered the destiny of all men: physical death.

The deity of Jesus is summed up in one sentence by Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians. “He is the image of the invisible God.”⁴ The Gospel writers quote Jesus referring to himself as “Son of Man” more than any other title. This is a messianic title for the “preexistent one who will come at the end of the ages as judge and as a light to the Gentiles.”⁵ At his baptism, and transfiguration, Jesus is called another messianic title, “Son of God.” Paul frequently refers to Jesus as “Lord,” which is a title reserved only for Yahweh himself. John calls Jesus the “Word” who was God in the beginning.⁶ He records Jesus saying “ego eimi,” or “I Am”, eight times in his Gospel.⁷ Jesus removed any doubt that he is anything other than Yahweh, the eternal God of Israel.

Jesus is both human and divine; theanthropos: the God-man.⁸ At the incarnation of Christ, the moment when God took on flesh, his divine nature was joined with his human nature. Jesus is fully God, and fully man. God is one, thus both natures exist together and complete. Hence, Jesus is, “consubstantial with the Father.”⁹ This means that they are of the same substance, and the immutable nature of God is not changed at the incarnation of Jesus. We must not overstress either nature of Christ. If we believe Jesus was simply a man sent by God, his own claims to be the great “I Am” would be false. If he were a celestial being that shared no common thread with mankind, he would not have been able to be a propitiation for man.

In order for men to be redeemed, God had to raise up a man to fulfill his Law completely. God's plan of redemption made provision for sin to be paid for by blood; and only by blood. Only a perfect, sinless man was qualified to be the ultimate sacrifice for the sin of mankind. Jesus Messiah, the “stump of Jesse,” left the throne of heaven, poured himself into human flesh, and paid the price for our salvation. The author of Hebrews said that we have a “great High Priest” who can sympathize with us in every way. He has felt what we feel, was tempted as we are tempted, yet without sin.¹⁰

There are some common objections to biblical Christology. Monarchianism held Christ as a “second God besides the Father.”¹¹ Christianity is monotheistic. God is clear in describing himself as one, without exception. Arianism said that Christ was made or created before time. A proper view of the trinity gives clarity to this teaching. Christ is eternally begotten, uncreated, preexistent. Therefore, he was not made at any point in eternity past. Apollinarianism denied that Jesus had complete manhood, which is contrary to what Hebrews says about his identification with man. Nestorianism said that the two natures of Christ existed side by side. This denies the unity of the nature of God and therefore denies that “the impassible Word” died for humanity.¹² All these false teachings err in their assertion that there is some separation in the nature of God. God is unified “without confusion, without conversion, without division, and without separation.”¹³

 

Jesus presented the perfect example of living a holy, sacrificial life that is pleasing and perfect to God. He faced pain, ridicule, rejection, and death, all for the sake of reconciling mankind to the Father. He gave all of himself for those who Scripture calls his enemies. It makes me ask myself if I would do the same?

Bibliography:

Elwell, Walter A. 2001. Evangelical dictionary of theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Paternoster Press

Towns, Elmer. 2002. The Gospel of John: Believe and Live. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers

1John 1:14 ESV

2Galatians 4:4 ESV

3Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2001. pg. 239

4Colossians 1:15 ESV

5Elwell. pg. 240

6John 1:1 ESV

7Towns, Elmer. The Gospel of John: Believe and Live. pg. xvi

8Elwell. pg. 584

9Ibid. pg. 219.

10Hebrews 4:14 ESV

11Elwell. pg. 241

12Ibid. pg. 242

13Ibid. pg. 243