Useful Q & A

[Beetow]

19» Did Jesus' Mom Expect Him Back From Death?

A search of the names of the women who went out to Christ's grave site on Easter
morning doesn't find her mentioned among them, nor does 1Cor 15:1-8.

None of Christ's original disciples believed he was going to recover from crucifixion,
so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Christ's mom didn't believe either. It's not like
she committed some kind of heinous atrocity or gross sin. Her doubt was simply
status quo among Christ's followers.

There's really very few plausible Bible reasons why Christ's mom wasn't out in the
cemetery waiting to greet her son Easter morning.

1) She didn't believe he was coming back

2) She didn't believe he could come back

3) She forgot he said he was coming back

4) She didn't know he said he was coming back

5) She was indisposed when he came back

6) She was out of town when he came back

In regards to No.1; because normal mothers are so bonded to their own flesh and
blood, this reason seems to me the most likely.

In regards to No.2; the physical mess Jesus was in after his ordeal makes this a
likely possibility.

In regards to No.3; that actually happened to a number of the disciples-- but would
a normal mother forget something like that?

In regards to No.4; it's highly unlikely Jesus would confide such an important
matter with his disciples and not his own mom-- the alleged Queen Of Heaven and
the Mother Of All Christians?

In regards to No.5; there's nothing in the Gospel narratives suggesting Christ's
mom was indisposed.

In regards to No.6; it's highly unlikely Christ's mom would leave Jerusalem if she
knew her boy was going to recover from crucifixion. Any truly loving mother would
want to be on hand when her boy was restored to life and his injuries healed.
Surely that would be just as much cause for a joyous reunion as a son coming
home alive and well from Afghanistan.

I don't know if any hereabouts have children of their own, but I can tell you from
39+ years of parental experience with a very sensitive woman, that if my son were
to be killed, and his mother expected him back in three days; she would have been
camped out in that cemetery all three of those days waiting for him; and threats to
cut her throat wouldn't persuade her otherwise. Any normal mother would have
been out there in that cemetery even if there was only a remote chance their boy
might recover. I know, because I've seen that kind of mother's love right here in
my own home.

If Christ's mom truly believed her boy would recover, and truly expected him to;
then if she was even half the mother my wife is; she would have been out there at
the very least on the third day waiting for him with food and water and fresh
clothing; but alas, she wasn't: not because she didn't love her son; but simply
because she wasn't expecting him to be there.
_

 

[Beetow]

20» What Is Meant By Man As The Image Of God?

According to Gen 5:3 and Heb 1:1-3, image and likeness basically refers to
progeny, i.e. offspring.

Natural children are born in that position. But Man wasn't born from God-- i.e. via
procreation --rather, Man was created, viz: Man exists as God's handiwork, sort of
like how Geppetto made for himself a little wooden son named Pinocchio.

Now, Geppetto and Pinocchio both look human, though one is for real and the other
a doll. But Man's creator isn't human, nor does He look human. God is spirit
whereas Man is physical, and God is eternal whereas Man is temporal, and God is
self-sustaining whereas Man requires sustenance, and God is divine whereas Man is
a critter. So we have to be careful to keep the progeny aspect within reason.

It's likely best to reckon that the creator endowed Man with His image and likeness
rather than Man inheriting the status as a child born in the home.
_

 

[Beetow]

21» Why Is Death The Wages Of Sin?

It's my educated guess that the penalty is so severe because Man was created in
the image and likeness of God.

For example: according to Gen 9:5-6, murderers deserve capital punishment-- not
because murder is wrong per se, rather --because the image and likeness of God
lends Man a degree of honor and dignity as near the honor and dignity of God that
a creature can possibly get.

Had God brought Man into existence as just another organic species like meerkats,
lobsters, chickens, and microbes; then Man's conduct would likely be so
insignificant in regard to justice as to not even be worth God's notice. But the
image and likeness of God makes Man a near-deity and thus magnifies the
consequences of his actions.

The image and likeness of God is definitely something to be grateful for, but at the
same time, it's definitely something to fear.
_

 

[Beetow]

22» Why Didn't God Execute Cain For Murder?

God couldn't haul Cain into court for killing his kid brother Abel because according
to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17; the laws of God aren't enforced
ex post facto, i.e. they're not retroactive. Seeing as God enacted no laws regulating
murder until after the Flood; then it was too late to indict Cain by means of Gen
9:5-6.

In other words; when there are no rules prohibiting a certain practice, then no rules
are broken when somebody does it.
_

 

[Beetow]

23» What is The New Man?

Adam was the first Man. His version of humanity became obsolete when Christ rose
from the dead. From thence, Adam became the old model and Christ the new and
improved model; so to speak.

A sampling of their differences are:

1) The old Man is made from the Earth, whereas the new is made from Heaven.

2) The old Man is susceptible to mortality, whereas the new is not.

3) The old Man is susceptible to temptation, whereas the new is not.

4) The old Man is somewhat righteous, whereas the new is completely righteous.

5) God can't depend on the old Man, whereas on the new He can.

6) The old Man's base nature is human, whereas the new's is divine.

7) The old Man tends to avoid God, whereas the new welcomes His company.

8) The old Man resents God, whereas the new admires Him.

9) The old Man fears God, whereas the new seeks His approval.

10) The old Man is an enemy of God, whereas the new is His ally.
_

 

[Beetow]

The following is a codicil to post No.25

According to 1John 1:8, Christians do sin; whereas according to Eph 4:24, the new
man never sins.

People who've undergone the birth spoken of at John 3:3-5 are an amalgam of old
man and new man. However, the old and the new aren't joined at the hip. By
means of a special circumcision, performed by the hand of God, the old and the
new are separate (Col 2:11)

This is one of Christianity's mysteries that quite a few folk find very difficult to
accept; which I suspect is due to the fact that born-again Christians are readily
aware of the workings of their old man's sinful nature while not so readily aware of
the workings of their new man's righteous nature. Consequently, if the Bible were
not telling born-again Christians that they have the new man's righteous nature, it's
likely many would never discover its presence on their own.
_

 

[Beetow]

24» Why Was Cain's Offering Rejected?

Long story short: God rejected Cain along with rejecting his offering. This is
important because God still does business like that with mankind to this day.

• Prov 15:8 . . Jehovah detests the sacrifice of the wicked

Cain's situation is well illustrated by Isa 1:11-20 where Moses' people were offering
all the covenanted sacrifices, they were praying up a storm, and observing all the
God-given feasts and holy days. God rejected all of it, even though He himself
required it, because the people's personal conduct was unbecoming.

FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?

A: Well, judging by the fact that Cain later murdered Abel; my first guess would be
bad blood between him and his kid brother.

• Matt 5:23-24 . . If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that
your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar.
First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

And Cain's attitude was deplorable too; he was insolent and rude; even to his
maker. (Gen 4:9)

Moral of the story:

"This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light; in
Him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with Him yet walk in
the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. (1John 1:5-6)

NOTE: The Hebrew word for Cain's and Abel's offerings is from minchah (min
khaw') which aren't necessarily sin offerings like the 'olah (o-law') which are burnt
offerings. Minchahs are more like donations and or tributes; and usually bloodless
and voluntary.

Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of
oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of
the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things
before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)

Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the
appropriate minchah, and seeing as how Abel was an animal husbandman, then in
his case a head of livestock was appropriate.
_

 

[Beetow]

25» Where Is Noah's Ark?

• Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters diminished, so
that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to
rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears three more
times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38, and one at Jer
51:27. Ararat in the Bible always refers to a political area-- a country --never a
specific geological feature by the same name.

The Hebrew word for "mountains" doesn't always indicate a prominent land mass
like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range of hills or
highlands; for example:

In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San Diego,
in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There were plenty of
meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was very good ranchland
and quite a few people in that area raised horses and cows. We ourselves kept
about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and calves. We lived in the mountains
of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top of one of its peaks like Viejas, Lyon's, or
Cuyamaca.

So; what happened to the ark? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen
6:15, the ark was shaped like what the beautiful minds call a right rectangular
prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box. So most
of the lumber and logs used in its construction would've been nice and straight;
which is perfect for putting together houses, cabins, fences, barns, corrals, stables,
gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the ark
over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires. Nobody
cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using refined fossil
fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody needed to keep on
hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs.

There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of that
would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's lumber was
treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape and should have
been preserved for many years to come.
_

 

[Beetow]

26» Why Was Canaan Execrated Instead Of His Father?

The curse on Canaan wasn't personal, i.e. it was more or less collateral damage due
to his dad's exclusion from the blessings bestowed upon the other two brothers per
Gen 9:26-27.

As a result of missing that blessing; Ham's posterity became dependent upon
employment opportunities created by his brothers' prosperity, ergo: Canaan's line
became the Bible's very first working class, i.e. instead of moguls, they were
destined to become minions all because of their father's shameful disrespect for
Noah's dignity.

Canaan's fate seems terribly unfair to be caught in the middle like that, but it
wouldn't be the last time a man's posterity was effected by his conduct. For
example God dealt in a similar way with the evil king Jeconiah. (Jer 22:29-30)
_

 

[Beetow]

27» Why Was Meat Added To Man's Diet?

• Gen 9:3 . . Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green
grasses, I give you all these.

It seems plausible to me that the inclusion of meat in Man's diet is evidence that
the human body's strength was declining seeing as how Noah lived to be 950, but
by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased considerably to 175;
which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7-8) so the human body was
obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in Abraham's.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York Times,
scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture all of its own
essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to manufacture all but K
and D.

Red meat has been demonized of late for a number of medical reasons, but it,
along with other sources of meat-- e.g. clams, swine, sheep, fish, and poultry --still
remains an excellent natural source of B12 without which post-Flood folk risk
contracting deficiency diseases.
_

 

[Beetow]

28» God "Came Down" To Inspect The Tower Of Babel?

• Gen 11:5 . .Jehovah came down to look at the city and tower that man had built

That verse presents an interesting theological problem. Wouldn't it make better
sense by saying Jehovah looked down, instead of saying He "came" down? Why
bother to come down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't God
omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything from right
where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see the city and the tower from
Heaven, but He wasn't satisfied. It was His wish to inspect everything up close and
personal; to actually visit the city and the tower in person as an on-site eye
witness. He did it that way again with Sodom and Gomorrah.

• Gen 18:21 . . I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether according
to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.

Why bother to go down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't God
omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything from right
where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see and hear from Heaven
everything he needed to know about the city, but He wasn't satisfied. He had to
investigate, and establish the truth of every fact for Himself in person as on-site
eye witness, before moving against Sodom.

In future, should someone challenge the Lord by saying: How do you know Sodom
was bad? Were you there; did you actually see it yourself? Well; yes, He was there
and did actually see its bad for Himself.

And then there's the offering of Isaac.

• Gen 22:11-12 . .Then an angel of God called to him from heaven: Abraham!
Abraham! And he answered: Here I am. And he said: Do not raise your hand
against the lad, or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you
have not withheld your son, your favored one, from me.

Isn't God omniscient, and doesn't He have an ability to scan the future? Then why
did the voice say "now I know". Doesn't God always know everything there is to
know?

Yes; but knowing things as a spectator is quite a bit different than knowing things
by omniscience. God sometimes favors seeing things for Himself in real time, as an
eyewitness.

Of course God knew in advance that Abraham would go thru with offering his son,
but that kind of knowing doesn't always satisfy God. No, sometimes He prefers to
be on-site and observe things unfold as current events.

So although God knew by His intellect that Abraham would comply with the angel's
instructions, now He also has a first-hand knowledge of Abraham's compliance by
personal experience, i.e. God, via the angel, was there in the bleachers, so to
speak, watching all the action from first to last.

NOTE: Some of the ancient rabbis were baffled by these passages as they seem to
imply there are two Jehovahs. So they nick-named one of them as Metatron: a
celestial being whose name is his master's. Roughly speaking; Metatron is
authorized to speak for God, speak as God, be spoken to as God; and be
worshipped, obeyed, and respected as God.

No human has seen or heard the real God at any time (John 1:18, John 5:37, and
1Tim 6:16). Till Christ came along; Metatron was the closest that humanity ever
came to associating with the ultimate supreme being.
_

 

[Beetow]

29» Isaac Was Abraham's Only Son When He Was Offered?

• Gen 22:2 . .Then God said: Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love,
and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the
mountains I will tell you about.

Abraham actually had two sons at this time: Ishmael and Isaac. But only one of his
boys counted. Here's why.

• Gen 21:10-11 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and her son,
for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac. The
matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his own.

Ishmael would always and forever be one of Abraham's biological sons; that
couldn't be undone with any more ease than recalling the ring of a bell. However; in
the case of slave mothers; there was a way to break Ishmael's legal ties to
Abraham; and the way was actually quite to Hagar's advantage.

The common law of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of
Lipit-Ishtar) stipulated that if a slave-owner disowned his child's in-slavery
biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a
paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her. In order for
the common law to take effect; Abraham had to emancipate Hagar; which he did.

• Gen 21:14 . . Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle
of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent
her away

The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh') which is
a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of
slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she
was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if
Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have retained
his legal status as Abraham's eldest son.

Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9) but in
legal matters relative to inheritance he's no son at all.
_

 

[Beetow]

30» Why Is Jeconiah's Curse So Important?

A curse, back in the Old Testament, leveled at a really bad king in Solomon's royal
line to David's throne reads like this:

• Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said the Lord:
Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be found acceptable;
for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the throne of David and to
rule again in Judah.

The bad king's name was Jeconiah (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah). Jesus' dad
Joseph was one of his descendants. (Matt 1:11)

It's commonly believed that the curse extended to Joseph, so that had he been
Jesus' biological father, it would have prevented Mary's boy from ascending David's
throne.

However, Joseph adopted Jesus and seeing as how adopted children inherit from
their fathers the same as biological children; then had the curse extended to
Joseph, it would have extended to Jesus too whether he was virgin-conceived or
not. In other words: seeing as how Jesus got into Solomon's royal line by adoption,
then of course he would've got into the curse too because the throne and the curse
were a package deal.

However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse on
Jeconiah's royal progeny was limited to the era of the divided kingdom with
Samaria in the north and Judah in the south. That situation came to an end when
Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then later
Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.

When Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction won't be
limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate the entire land of
Israel. So the curse doesn't apply to him.

• Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am going
to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone to, and gather
them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them a
single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one king shall be king of them
all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided
into two kingdoms.
_

 

[Beetow]

31» What Is Matt 22:42-45 Supposed To Mean?

That's a reference to Ps 110:1 which Jesus interpreted speaking of Christ, a.k.a.
Messiah.

• Ps 110:1 . . The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your
enemies a footstool for your feet.

There's two distinctly different Hebrew words translated by the English word "lord"
in that passage

The first is Jehovah (a.k.a. Yahweh); which is a name restricted to God's use (Isa
42:8).

The second is 'adown, which is a common word for superiors in the Old Testament;
both human and divine, for instance: Sarah referred to her husband as 'adown
(Gen 18:12).The people of Heth addressed Abraham as 'adown (Gen 23:5-6).
Abraham's trusted servant referred to him as 'adown (Gen 24:12). Rachel
addressed her father Laban as 'adown (Gen 31:35). And Jacob addressed Esau as
'adown (Gen 33:8). And God is spoken of as 'adown too, e.g. Isa 1:24 and Isa 3:1
et al.

Jesus' interpretation of Ps 110:1 says Christ is superior to David, which is normally
unthinkable seeing as the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God ranks
parents above their children. (Ex 20:12, cf. Eph 6:2)

Now, the thing is: David has no peers relative to kings on earth, seeing as he was
given the rank of God's firstborn son in that respect.

• Ps 89:20-27 . . I have found My servant David; with My holy oil I have anointed
him . . I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

So, in order for one of David's sons to outrank their father, the son would have to
be God's firstborn son in Heaven, viz: David's son would have to be a divine being.
(cf. Acts 2:32-36)

The theologians of Jesus' day knew the Old Testament practically word for word,
but they couldn't always explain it. No doubt they were aware that Psalm 110
speaks of David's son, and that he would be superior to David, and that he would
be a divine being. I'm pretty sure they knew all that. But what they hadn't as yet
figured out is how this one particular man of David's biological posterity could
possibly become so incredibly exalted.
_

 

[Beetow]

32» What Is The "My Church" Spoken Of At Matt 16:18?

Within the global sphere of Christianity is a non-denominational classification of
individuals joined to Christ in such a manner as to be corporately identified as his
body, i.e. his actual body. (Eph 1:22-23 and Eph 5:30)

This concept isn't new. In the beginning it was declared that when a man and a
woman are joined to each other as a permanent couple, they become one flesh, i.e.
one body. (Gen 3:23-24, cf. Eph 5:31-32)

FAQ: How did these individuals bond with Christ's body?

A: Via baptism by the Spirit. (1Cor 12:13)

FAQ: Not by Christian baptism?

A: No; by Spirit baptism. In other words: bonding with Christ's body is by means of
an act of God rather than a ritual, i.e. one's affiliation with a denomination is
merely a name tag.
_

 

[Beetow]

33» How Was It Okay For Abraham To Marry His Half Sister?

I'm not sure we can say "okay" but a codified law prohibiting marriage to a half
sister wasn't instituted till Lev 18:9, which was many years later in Moses' day.

According to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17 the codified law isn't
retroactive so Abraham could get away with marrying a sibling in his day.
_

 

[Beetow]

34» Is Something Important Hinted By Gen 13:7?

• Gen 13:7 . . And there was quarreling between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle
and those of Lot's cattle. The Canaanites and Perizzites were then dwelling in the
land.

How do you suppose that squabbling looked to the pagans? When God's people
can't get along, outsiders become disgusted with them and they sure won't be
influenced for God in a good way when there's fighting amongst themselves like
that.

For example: years ago, when I was a young welder just starting out on my own, I
rented a small room in a daylight basement from a man who was the senior pastor
of a medium sized church in the Portland Oregon area. He and his wife radiated the
luster of polished spirituality whenever I spoke with them out in the yard, but in my
location under the floor of the house, I could overhear their bitter quarrels upstairs
behind closed doors. Was I favorably inclined to attend their church? No.
_

 

[Beetow]

35» What Is Hope Per Christianity?

• 1Pet 3:15 . . Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for
a reason for your hope.

The Greek word translated "hope" in that verse is elpis (el pece') which means to
anticipate (usually with pleasure) and to expect with confidence. Note the elements
of anticipation, expectation, and confidence.

In other words: Christianity's hope is a know-so kind of hope rather than a cross
your fingers hope-- i.e. it's a sure thing, a.k.a. in the bag: signed, sealed, and aboard
the FedEx truck headed your way for delivery (so to speak).

• Rom 12:12 . . Rejoicing in hope.

When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind dreading the
worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; no; but they do have plenty of
cause to fear the unknown.
_

 

[Beetow]

36» What Is Grace?

The common Greek word translated "grace" refers to graciousness; roughly defined
as kind, courteous, sympathetic, inclined to good will, generous, charitable,
merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable,
cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.

*Cordial* stresses warmth and heartiness

*Affable* implies easy to approach, and readiness to respond pleasantly to
conversation or requests or proposals

*Genial* stresses cheerfulness and even joviality

*Sociable* suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others

*Generous* is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous,
kindly, and liberal in giving

*Charitable* means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz: benevolent,
tolerant, and lenient.

*Altruistic* means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others; viz: a
desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels good to do so.

*Tactful* indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain good
relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary conflict.

*Compassionate* speaks of an awareness of others' distress coupled with a desire
to alleviate it.
_

 

[Beetow]

37» What Is Redemption?

A couple of Greek words are translated redemption.

One is lutrosis (loo'-tro-sis) which means a ransoming.

The other is apolutrosis (ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis) which means to ransom in full.

Webster's defines "ransom" as:

1) A consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from
captivity

2) The act of paying the consideration.

In the divine scheme, Christ is the payer; and the life of his body is the
consideration; plus. according to apolutrosis, his life isn't a down payment, rather:
the entire sum demanded leaving no balance outstanding.

FAQ: Who/What is the captor?

A: The architect spoken of by Genesis 1:1

FAQ: God is holding the world hostage?

A: Not quite like that. A better comparison depicts the world as indicted fugitives in
imminent danger of arrest and trial at the great white throne event described at
Revelation 20:11-15.

In other words: Christ satisfies the justice due to the fugitives so they can be
acquitted-- which is much better than parole because an acquittal leaves behind no
record. It's as though a wanted man has never been anything but 100% innocent
his entire life.

I cannot imagine a better way to settle out of court with God than by means of the
redemption that's available in Christ Jesus.
_