Ephesians 5:25

Hello WD
John answers this for us here in jn 11

The atonement is defiante and particular....always for the sheep alone...even if they are scattered throughout the world...Jesus seeks and saves His sheep EZK 34 :wavey: All as in not Israel only, but elect gentiles also....whole world,yes, every tribe,tongue,nation... yet not everyone ever born

 

Hmm.. Then you are saying that ALL of ethnic Israel (even those scattered abroad) is saved since the scripture you quoted states specifically that Jesus did in fact die for THAT Nation.. (That Nation = Ethnic Israel)

Note it does not state SOME but 'that Nation'.
This extends itself via the verse to the whole world even and not just dieing the Nation of Israel alone which is why John not only quotes it but states it in such a way as to be specific that Christ died for all.

While redemption is specific and definite, the atonement is general.

 

The husband is to put his own interests, wants, desires, and yes even his life behind those of his wife and children ... that is what is good for them is placed ahead of what may be good for him. His submission to Christ and to his family is greater than their submission, that is mentioned earlier in this passage. This is the part of the passage that far too many men ignore or do not want to hear about.

 

Shotgun,

Are you needing some marital advice? Is everything alright in your home? How can we pray and help?

Randy

 

Balance? What's that? The Bible says not one word about "balance in one's life."

It just sounds like you're disillusioned to me. You probably had some expectations going into this marriage—maybe somewhat unrealistic—and now you don't know what to do. There's probably a little of that on her side too.

Is this maybe a "mid-life crisis?"

There's a very real danger here you need to be aware of, and that's the foolishness of thinking that someone else would please you more. First, it's a lie. Second, it's too late for that anyway.

Third, and most importantly, God is sovereign, and you are now one with the mate He has chosen for you. The command to love your wife is like any of the other commands. It isn't something you can accomplish without the power of the Holy Spirit. Love is more than the cold, dry mechanics of forsaking all others and seeking her good, it is also the warmth of delighting and finding satisfaction in her, and possessing a sincere, kind affection.

The problem with one's heart is, it has a mind of its own. It will love what it loves, and you can command your heart to love something it doesn't as well as you can by taking thought grow wings and fly.

So you need to petition the One who can command hearts, and if you ask Him for good things, will He not give them?

But, I could be dead wrong about your situation. It's hard to know without the details (and I don't want any details). But that's the impression I'm getting, and that's my response.

 

Hello Allan,
Well I would not even consider that an option being there are so many other verses that speak against that idea.
The key to the passage is the children of Godwho are scattered among the nations plural...not just the one nation.
The scripture does not teach that Jesus died for all, unless you are speaking of the all in jn 6;37 all the Father gives me.

I would like to go over the atonement in a series of threads....nice and slow..
looking at any and all verses offered. It could be instructive and remove some misconceptions that exist and continue to resurface.

I intend to use Hugh Martins book.....along with Pinks.....and Owens

 

Good luck with that!

 

Aaron, we should be able to delight in the light and truth of the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ. I would like to explore and examine the priestly work
of our great High Priest.
Perhaps some have not looked at this teaching as much as they should so it can be a helpful study.

1Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

2It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

3As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore

 

I doubted you would and as such didn't actually think that was your argument
However, the problem isn't your view but the text's context which is speaking about the 'whole nation', referencing Israel

I disagree as context doesn't illistrate this a/the Key. The Key is the context

Note verse 52 is a continuation of verse 50:
(50)Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish...(52)and not for that nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Notice his death was 'for':
'the people' = 'the whole nation' (Israel) not part of it (the law of the sacrifice of atonement)
Note also it was Not for that nation Only
THUS - He died for all
Remember.. that sacrifice of atonement was made for or on behalf of 'the nation' (irregardless of faith or not). That does not mean just because it was made it was applied. No.. in fact we find that scripture states the propitiation is applied only by or through faith.

And therefore, in order to extend that covering to other Jews or people that atonement must be made on behalf of 'other nations'. The passage is simply stating that He died not only for the Nation of Israel but all nations that He would bring together into one, the children of God.

First.. that passage says NOTHING about Christ dieing, much less that His death was made only for some.

However the scripture DOES teach He died for all.. in not only the very verse you and I are discussing but also various others including another of Johns writings where he uses the same language again.. though in much more specific wording (1 John 2:2)
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
Or the NLT

There are 2 positions on this verse:
Group one - the 'our' refers to believers and whole world non-believers

Group two: The 'our' referenced there refers to the Jews.. and whole world refers to the Gentiles, all of them (whole).

No matter how it is viewed.. the passage remains the same.. The propitiation was made for ALL.

I think it would do well.
I would say go for it.
It is going through this that is very helpful, especially when we understand Jesus had to fulfill the Law of atonement regarding not only with what had to happen but specifically whom the Law declares it was to encompass.

 

What should be, and what will be are often very different things. Take it from one who's seen countless threads on the subject you wish to discuss. :wavey:

 

Allan,

Just a quick note on your post,,,,,concerning the context of verse 50.
I do not think it is speaking about the atonement. I think it is saying that he wanted Jesus to die.....so the Romans would not slaughter all of the nation.
That is how I have understood that historically...do you agree?

also when you say this;

If all the worlds sins are taken away....why would anyone go to hell?
unbelief, lack of faith, ...if he has taken away these sins..or if His wrath has been turned away.....there is no basis for eternal torment in the second death.
How do you sort this out Allan?

 

His initial statement yes.. but John extends it to give us greater understanding of the event. Note that the scriptures state he 'prophesied' this.. but the prophesy was not about keeping the nation of Israel from being slaughtered and that is why John elaborates on it to reveal the Spirits intent on the meaning and not just the High Priest trying to save his skin.

Simple.. The atonement in and of itself does not and has never taken away anything. Otherwise all those whom God foreknew would be BORN saved.

The propitiation must be received by faith as stated by scripture (Rom 3:25)

 

I think I see your pain showing between the lines and distraction Willie. The husband/wife relationship is supposed to be a picture of our relationship with Christ. That is one reason why broken marriages are such a big deal, because they no longer represent that eternal relationship they were supposed to illustrate.

The answer to the question is you have to love her anyway, even when she doesn’t love you, just like Christ loved us and gave himself for us. I am there myself brother, praying for you.

 

Indeed, one of the first commandments (commandments!) of Jesus is that we love one another. When a married couple cannot fulfill one of the basic commands for all those who are in Christ, they do indeed have issues that are based in sin.

Without making this personal, I often wonder if those who fail to love their wives (or husbands) understand that, even in their anger, they will still stand arm-in-arm for eternity with this one who they have decided to not love. I do not believe that we CAN be angry with another person, including our spouse, without violating one of the most basic commandments of God.

Does that mean that we do not get angry and sometimes do not feel like loving? Sure. We are sinners and live in a sin-filled world where such is easily possible. But, should we work to (quickly) reconcile? Absolutely! To fail in this most basic of tasks is to fail as a believer, for we no longer trust that God can work in one's situation to bring back a Spirit-driven harmony and yes, love.

It is because of the command of God to love each other (in part) that marriage is akin to the gospel. How can we fail in marriage when we need to "at least" love every believer with agape love as a minimum standard?

This is one of the areas where the church is failing our people. Broken love in marriage should be an issue of church discipline if the couple refuses to take steps to resolve and restore the marriage relationship.

 

Actually scripture states.. be angry and sin not.
Illustrating that one can be angry and still 'not' sin.
Anger itself is not sinful.. what we do 'with that anger' can be.

 

'Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither give place to the devil.'

If you hold the anger in, and not confront the cause of it and not try to resolve the conflict, and that soon, it festers and becomes sin and gives a foothold for the devil.

 

Adam Clarke had it right:

 

No such thing as righteous anger? Or perhaps that is what Clarke is describing what he thinks is righteous anger.

Are we ever justified to display the sort of rtighteous anger that the Lord did when He drove out the money changers? Or rebel against taxation without representation? etc., etc.

 

Vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to us.

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: (vs 31)