Truth Magazine

By Joel Plunkett

In 1953, I transferred from Florida College to David Lipscomb College at a time when the institutional question was a hot topic. I remember some of the excuses that were used by brethren to justify the church supporting human institutions. Do you remember them? Well, they are on the market again and being used by a different group of people to justify ungodly marriages.

Let’s look at the list:

1. Do you remember? “You are making creeds that God did not make.” We could see that when book, chapter, or verse could not be found to support their belief, this was only an excuse. Have you heard this excuse today when one asks for an exception other than the one found in Matthew 19 for divorce and remarriage?

2. Do you remember? “Roy Cogdill and Yater Tant are nothing more that self appointed watch dogs for the church.” Some of us are grateful for them as well as many like them. If not for this type of brethren, we might be in a liberal church today. Some may question the spirit of watch dogs, but thanks be to God that someone cares about what is being taught to God’s people. 

During the conflict over the institutional issues, some preachers took it upon themselves to visit young preachers and small congregations in Middle Tennessee. These preachers asked them to send at least $5.00 per month to the orphan homes so everyone would know where they stood. Have you heard that some are visiting young preachers and small churches to influence them against watch dogs?

Brethren, have you heard someone say, “Some brethren among us are self appointed watch dogs”? Who are they talking about? When you question an ungodly practice concerning divorce and remarriage, does that make you a watch dog? If that is the case, then we need more, not less, watch dogs.

3. Do you remember? “These watch dogs will write you up in their bulletins.” I remember one church in Nashville sponsoring a boy scout troop. They were afraid that they were going to be written up by some watch dogs. Unfortunately, they were not afraid that they might violate some Scripture.

Brethren, have you heard some preacher use the same lame excuse? I agree with brother Aude McKee’s viewpoint on the subject of someone writing up my position. If a person will listen to my position and then sincerely represent my position, then I have no room to complain. Should my conviction be unscriptural, then that is the price I must pay for taking an ungodly position.

4. Do you remember? “When brethren would not be honest about their position when questioned?” I remember some who had preached for over twenty years and were still studying the institutional question. I learned that some believed one thing and said they believed something else. Brethren, have you heard of preachers today that still have not made up their minds about Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 7 as they relate to Matthew 19?

5. Do you remember? “Those so-called conservative brethren have un-Christlike attitudes.” Let me state that there were and always will be those on both sides of any issue who may have a bad attitude. Paul’s attitude was questioned by some in his day. Truth was never determined by one’s attitude, whether good or bad. Brethren, have you heard this statement used today against those who follow the teaching of Jesus on the subject of divorce and remarriage?

6. Do you remember? “Elders have the right to make the decisions about how the money is spent and those outside the local church violate church autonomy when they question this practice.” Brethren, have you heard this saying today when a church determines to keep a fornicator or one like that found in 1 Corinthians 5, give fellowship to a false teacher, or false doctrine? If someone questions them, they accuse that person of violating church autonomy.

7. Do you remember? “What a local church does is between them and their God.” Have you heard the same weak excuse used today in reference to ungodly marriages?

8. Do you remember? “We must attack the doctrine rather than the man.” Have you heard this bad excuse used by people again in the church? Brethren, if we stop false teachers, then false doctrine will die. I’m not sure what the Nicolaitans taught, but I am sure the Ephesians and the Lord hated their deeds. In Romans 16:17, Paul said, “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.”

9. Do you remember? “God is not as concerned with details like he was in the Old Testament. He is not concerned who does the work or how it is done, but that his work is accomplished.” Have you heard that the God of New Testament would never break up a marriage as he did in the Old Testament? Is he not the same God yesterday, today, and forever?

10. Do you remember? “Our young people are too idealistic to be held by the old, traditional church.” Those who said that were right. The liberal church could not hold them. So today they are in the “Community church” or the Crossroads movement.

11. Have you heard, “We’ve lost a generation of young people and we’re not going to do it again”? I must disagree. The church has not lost them, but their parents who were busy making money and giving them things lost them. They were giving them things that they never had, rather than giving them what they did have. As a result, are not some of the conservative churches in Middle Tennessee are more liberal than some of the liberal churches in the 60s?

• When these churches invite preachers for gospel meetings, knowing that they do not teach the truth on marriage and divorce?
• When they conclude that divorce or immodest apparel will not be attacked from the pulpit?
• When they hire a preacher and restrict his teaching on the subject because he has taken an unscriptural stand, yet allow him to continue ministering to the congregation?

Brethren, would we hire an “institutional” preacher and tell him that he could not teach his position from the pulpit? Would we not know that he would teach it from his home or office? 

12. Do you remember? “I’ve never heard him teach any false doctrine.” This pretext was often used in Nashville in the 60s. I am hearing it said again by people who should know better. Would a man not be guilty of murder simply because the jury didn’t see him commit the crime? Why would we refuse to accept the word of others when two or more witnesses are available?

13. Do you remember? “What we need is more brotherly love.” Are you hearing this once more today? We must remember that love for God and love for truth must come before our love for our brethren. Who would question the Lord’s love for Jerusalem and his people when one reads Matthew 23? Love causes one to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. It is with tears, prayer, and much concern that I write this article.

Am I just getting old, or is history repeating itself? It is past time that we as Joshua make up our minds who we are going to follow, God or our loose-minded brethren? Brethren, years ago I took a stand against some of the most lovable people I have ever known to stand with my God. In doing so, I stood with some very unlovable people with poor attitudes. The thrill of pleasing God has far exceeded the small price I had to pay.

8183 Old Charlotte Rd., Nashville, Tennessee 37209

By Mike Willis

We have looked at the Apostles to see their function in the first century church. There are some things that were unique to them that cannot be repeated in another generation. Other things they did were models for men to imitate (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 4:9; 2 Thess. 3:9; etc.). Unless we can discriminate what these were, we shall not know what men are and are not to imitate. Consequently, we continue our study of the Apostles.

Some Things Being An Apostle Did Not Do

Because of mistaken ideas about what being an apostle did and did not do, we need to notice some things that were not results of one’s being an apostle.

1. Being an apostle did not keep one from sin. Peter’s conduct at Antioch shows that conclusively. In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul reported his rebuke of Peter’s hypocrisy in his treatment of the Gentiles, not to belittle Peter, but to confirm that the gospel he preached was approved by the Apostles. As an aside, however, this incident demonstrates that the Apostles fought the same battle with sin as do the rest of us. This battle with sin, described in Romans 7:14-25, did not cease when God called a person to be an Apostle.

2. Being an apostle did not give one authority over a brotherhood of churches. Some brethren appear to have the idea that the Apostles had authority over a brotherhood of churches (church-hood) in a way that no one else does. Their idea appears to be that the Apostles could give orders to a local church in another area of the country and that local church was obligated to submit to the authority of this officer of a brotherhood of churches, much like any local Catholic Church is obligated to submit to the authority of the pope.

 Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 11:28 needs to be considered. The text reads, “Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28). This expression states his mental anxiety about the churches; it does not define a role of an apostle as being a “pope” over all of the churches, or a “bishop” over an ecclesiastical diocese. That same concern is on the hearts of every Christian who witnesses the spread of error or trouble in local congregations.

I know these apostles were not officers over a brotherhood of churches  because of one simple fact: The universal church is not composed of a brotherhood of churches. The Apostles could not hold authority over a brotherhood of churches because there never was a brotherhood of churches in the first century.

Whenever a person does what the Apostles of the first century did in addressing the error in a church of which one is not a member (such as what Paul did at Corinth, the churches of Galatia, etc.), someone is quick to condemn their action saying, “But you’re not an apostle.” The full implication of this argument is that the Apostles could do this because they were officers over a brotherhood of churches in contrast to a local preacher who does not hold that office. That argument is wrong because the Apostles were not officers in a brotherhood of churches. There never was a brotherhood of churches in the New Testament.

The work of the Apostles was to give revelation. Aside from that, these men had no greater and no lesser authority over local churches than any other man. Whereas the Apostles could speak through inspiration to these churches, any other man can follow the Apostles’ example in addressing churches, using the “apostles’ doctrine” in addressing the needs of those churches.

3. Being an apostle did not give one authority to commit sin. We are being told that one is guilty of violating the autonomy of a local church whenever he teaches on errors existing in a local church of which he is not a member. If that is a sin for a person living in the twentieth century, then it was a sin for a person living in the first century. And the Apostles did not have authority from God to commit sin just because they were apostles. Lying is just as much a sin when committed by an apostle as it is when committed by anyone else; hypocrisy is just as much a sin when committed by an apostle as it is when committed by anyone else (Gal. 2:11-14). In the same manner, violating the autonomy of the local church is just as much a sin when committed by an apostle as it is when it is committed by anyone else!

The truth of the matter is that some brethren have a mistaken view of what is meant by the autonomy of a local church. When New Testament examples are cited of an apostle doing the very thing that they are condemning in modern day practice as a violation of congregational autonomy, these brethren excuse what they judge to be sinful behavior on the grounds that an apostle did it. That reasoning is mistaken and absurd. The Apostles did not have a free reign to commit sin because they were apostles.

Undermining Apostolic Examples

Through the years, brethren have understood that God reveals his will to mankind through direct command or statement, apostolic example, and necessary inference. Some of the uses of the “you’re not an apostle” argument effectively undermine the example of the apostles as a means of learning the revealed will of God. 

Let’s remind ourselves of the evidences that the examples of the apostles are to be used to learn what is approved conduct before the Lord.

The plain statement of Scripture emphasizes that their examples are to be imitated. Here are some statements that this is so.

Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you (Phil. 4:9).

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample (Phil. 3:14-17).

Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church (1 Cor. 4:16-17).

And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess. 1:6-7).

Note that these Scriptures reveal that one can learn how to conduct himself in the Lord by imitating what he had seen an apostle do (Phil. 4:9), by being a follower of an apostle (Phil. 3:17), and by imitating the apostles’ “ways” (1 Cor. 4:17).

The argument “you’re not an apostle” presupposes that the examples of the apostles cannot be followed, which is directly contrary to what these Scriptures state — that the examples of the apostles are to be used for our imitation.

We conclude that the examples of the conduct of the Apostles are to be imitated as much as possible, the exception being that the apostles gave divine revelation and confirmed that revelation by miracles, wonders, and signs. Revelation is not on-going and miracles have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10; Jude 3). When this is understood as the limited sphere unique to apostles, prophets, and those possessing other miraculous gifts, what is left in the divine record of the conduct of the Apostles can be imitated and used as an example that men should follow.

By Mike Willis

The word “passion” when used with reference to the “passion of Christ” means “the agony and sufferings of Jesus during the Crucifixion.” This issue of Truth Magazine is a study of the passion of Jesus Christ.

The passion narrative for this issue begins with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Following the generally accepted chronology, this must have occurred late Thursday night (10 p.m. or after). There Jesus agonized in his spirit as he submitted his will to the will of the Father. The intensity of his agony is manifest from his strong crying and tears (Heb. 5:7) and the sweat dropping like blood (Luke 22:44). Having finished his prayers, Jesus returned to the waiting disciples where he was arrested (probably near midnight).

Crossing the Kidron Valley, the mob led Jesus to the house of Annas and then Caiaphas where Jesus was tried before the Jewish     authorities. The Sanhedrin assembled late that Thursday night to try Jesus, concluding that he was guilty of blasphemy and should be executed. The verdict probably was reaching the verdict about 3 a.m. Shortly afterward, Peter denied the Lord and the cock crowed (which gives some indication of the time).

Early in the morning at daybreak (Luke 22:66; John 18:28), the Jewish authorities led Jesus to Pilate for trial. In the hours that intervened, Jesus was tried by Pilate, Herod Antipas, and a second time by Pilate. He was on the cross by the “third hour of the day” (Mark 15:25) on that Friday morning. Jesus’ trials in each incidence must have been short and the action moved quickly. His scourging, which in itself nearly killed a person, left him so weak that he stumbled beneath the weight of the cross.

The ritual of crucifixion, so familiar to first century men, to us is a strange manner of administering the death penalty. We have taken the time to relate what usually happened in crucifixion in its gory details so that one can appreciate the sacrifice that Jesus made for our sins.

After Jesus died at 3 p.m., he was buried in Joseph’s tomb. There he lay through the Sabbath rest until he was raised on Sunday morning.

These hours in Jesus’ life are so significant a portion of the gospel narrative that all of the evangelists give considerable emphasis to them (Matthew gives chapters 26-28; Mark gives chapters 14-16; Luke gives chapters 22-24; John gives chapters 18-20). The fact that they give such a large percentage of their narrative to his crucifixion gives us some idea of how much we should emphasize it. Such a study will certainly point us to the conclusion that we are saved by grace! Paul said, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6-8). Jesus suffered death, even the death of crucifixion, to make atonement for our sins.

Let us join that majestic chorus who sing, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing” (Rev. 5:12). May this special issue evoke such praise of our Savior in each of us.

By Mike Willis

Capital punishment is still practiced in America and that in compliance with the revealed will of God. The Lord revealed, “Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6). Executing murderers in American society is done in as painless a manner as men can devise, and that without regard to how much suffering the criminal caused his victim. We use lethal injection, the electric chair, hanging, and the firing squad. All of these methods of executing a criminal result in virtually instant death and relatively little pain to the one put to death.

When the first century Romans executed a man, they wanted the victim to suffer and they wanted his death to be a public spectacle to the community to prevent others from committing the same crime. One manner of executing criminals used by the Romans was crucifixion, which they borrowed from the Phoenicians.

Jesus’ Death by Crucifixion Was the Fulfillment of Divine Prophecy

Crucifixion was not used by Jews in putting a person to death. Among the methods for execution employed by the Jews were stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling (Mishnah, “Sanhedrin,” 7:1). When Jesus prophesied the manner of his death, he foretold to his disciples that the Jewish leaders would deliver him to the Gentiles (Mark 8:33). Matthew records Jesus’ prophecy of his death when he said, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again” (20:18-19). John records Jesus’ foretelling his crucifixion saying, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (12:32). “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (3:14).

In addition to Jesus’ words prophesying specifically of his crucifixion, there are several Old Testament allusions to it (Zech. 9:9; Ps. 22; Isa. 53).

The Suffering of Crucifixion

We are impressed by the brevity of the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Matthew simply says, “and they crucified him” (27:35); Mark says, “and when they had crucified him” (15:24); Luke says, “there thy crucified him” (23:33); and John, “. . . where they crucified him” (19:18). Those who lived in the first century were fully aware of what these words meant, of the suffering that accompanied such a death — even as we understand death by the electric chair — which might not be understood by someone in another culture and time.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1939 edition) describes death by crucifixion for us:

The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, esp. in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated by the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained position of the body and insufferable thirst. The wounds swelled about the rough nails and torn and lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The mind was confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and death (II:761).

The length of the agony of crucifixion “was wholly determined by the constitution of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours had elapsed. . . . Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the armpit before crucifixion” (ISBE II:762).

The Skeletal Remains of a Victim of Crucifixion

Our understanding of how crucifixion was administered has also been enhanced by archaeology. In 1968, fifteen limestone ossuaries were found in three burial caves at Giv‘at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem. Among the 35 skeletal remains that were found was that of a victim of crucifixion (tomb I, ossuary 4). From a study of these skeletal remains one can confirm several biblical references to crucifixion and learn how crucifixion was practiced in the first century. The crucified body is that of a male, 24-28 years old. The skeletal remains include the heel bones that were “found transfixed by a large iron nail. The shins were found intentionally broken” (N. Haas, “Skeletal Remains at Giv‘at ha-Mivtar,” Discoveries and Studies in Jerusalem 1970, 42). These remains are presently in the custody of the Israel Museum and are the only extant remains from antiquity known to be evidence of crucifixion.

In the remains at Giv‘at ha-Mivtar, the crucifixion victim’s heels show that they had been nailed to a cross. A wooden plaque, in a well preserved state, was situated below the head of the nail, between it and the bones. A single nail pierced the wood, through the right heel, through the left heel and into the cross, where it apparently struck a knot in the wood and bent. The board was used to prevent one’s freeing his legs (intentionally or unintentionally) by pulling the nail through his bones.

    The victim apparently suffered the breaking of the leg bones mentioned in John 19:31 and experienced by the two thieves crucified with Jesus. The right tibia and the left calf bones (tibia and fibula) were broken in their last third. Haas wrote, “The fracture of the right tibial bone (the fibula being unavailable for study) was produced by a single, strong blow. . . . This same blow had had indirect repercussions on the left angle bones. The percussion, passing the already crushed calf bones, was a harsh and severing blow for the left ones, attached as they were to the sharp-edged wooden cross” (57). Judging by the position of the break, scholars concluded that the knees were semi-flexed. The position of the body on the cross is described as follows: “the feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed by a single nail at the heels, with the legs adjacent; the knees were doubled, right one overlapping the left; the trunk was contorted; the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm” (58).

The weight of the body on the cross was supported by a sedecula, a piece of wood attached to the upright beam on the cross, which in the body at Giv‘at ha-Mivtar supported the right buttock. 

In the body from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar, a post mortem amputation of the feet occurred, which scholars believe occurred only after several abortive attempts had been made to extract the nail. The curved shape of the nail suggests that the nail struck a knot in the wood of the cross and bent. When those trying to remove the body from the cross could not remove the nail, they cut off the feet and then removed the nail, plaque of wood and feet from the cross for burial.

Jesus and Crucifixion

From this knowledge of crucifixion, we have a rather clear understanding of what Jesus endured at Calvary. After being scourged by Pilate’s soldiers (see article on scourging in this issue), Jesus was led away to be crucified. His scourging was so intense that he was unable to bear his cross the full distance to Golgotha and stumbled underneath its weight. Simon of Cyrene was compelled into service by the Roman government to bear Jesus’ cross (Matt. 27:32). Jesus was taken to Golgotha (Mark 15:22), also known as Calvary (Luke 23:33).

When the party arrived at Golgotha, the ritual of crucifixion began. The soldiers offered Jesus a narcotic to deaden the pain, which he refused (Matt. 27:34). The vertical post of the cross was placed in the ground. To it was attached a board, a sedecula, to support the weight of the body. The process of crucifixon usually began by nailing the victim’s arms to the cross. Sometimes the nail was placed in the forearm, although Scripture seems to indicate that the nails penetrated Jesus’ hands (John 20:27). Sometimes ropes were used to secure the body to the cross, to prevent one from ripping his hands free from the nails. Then the body attached to the cross beam was raised and attached to the vertical post. At this point, the feet were nailed. A large metal nail, that had already been driven through a board, was nailed through one’s ankles. The wounds of crucifixion were not mortal, although they were painful. Jesus’ rather quick death, after only six hours, points to the severity of his scourging as hastening his death (Matt. 27:45-50). 
One may distance himself from the full impact of these descriptions of death by crucifixion. They are the cold words of mere type on a page. I must relate this to myself in some manner. On two occasions, I have fainted when I was given a shot, a mere needle inserted just below the surface of the skin and then quickly withdrawn. If my flesh flinches and cringes from such minor pain, how could I endure having a nail intentionally driven through my hands and feet? And, given the power to prevent it, as Jesus the omnipotent God possessed and had at his disposal (Matt. 26:53; cf. John 10:18), would I willfully choose to endure it for someone — yea, anyone — else? Imagine the first stroke of the hammer against the nail being driven into one’s hand! One would blurt out an involuntary scream of pain. One would wince and grimace. And, then imagine the next hand being penetrated in the same manner. Oh, the sensations as the rawed nerves rubbed against the rough nail as they raised his body and attached the cross beam to the vertical post. The pain of the nails through the hands was probably less than that of the nail driven through the ankle bones. Trying to support one’s body on the cross without aggravating the pain around the nail holes would be impossible. Locked in one position, unable to move, no doubt produced cramps in various parts of the body. Slowly the life oozes out, until in welcome relief the spirit departs the flesh. Such was the death experienced by our blessed Savior, Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate God.

1. Jesus knew what was involved in crucifixion. Since crucifixion was commonly used as a form of capital punishment, Jesus was familiar with the humiliation and suffering that attended to that. Nevertheless, he voluntarily chose death on the cross that we might be saved from sin.
2. Jesus rejected the narcotic drink. Matthew relates, “They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink” (27:34). The drink was designed to dull one’s senses so that he would not be so sensitive to the pain he endured. Jesus refused the drink, choosing to suffer all of the agony of crucifixion with clear senses.
3. Jesus suffered the humiliation of the cross. The cross was not an emblem of honor to be worn about the neck, as is the case with modern crucifixes. Rather, the cross had the same connotation in the first century as hanging and the electric chair have in this period. Furthermore, the Old Testament said, “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance” (Deut. 21:22-23).
4. Jesus endured mockery as he hung on the tree. Matthew records, 

And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God (Matt. 27:39-43).

 The humiliation Jesus experienced at the hands of sinful men caused Peter to exclaim, “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1 Pet. 2:23). Even before crucifixion, Jesus was treated derisively, being spit upon, slapped, and buffeted (Matt. 26:67). This abuse makes his statement of intercession, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,” even more remarkable.

Conclusion

Jesus endured all of the pain and agony of the crucifixion. He suffered this even though he was not guilty of any sin. He suffered in our place. His death was an atonement for sin, not the worthy punishment administered by the state to criminals guilty of capital offenses. As we read of the suffering Jesus experienced on the cross, we are moved with compassion, sympathy, and empathy even as we are when we read of anyone’s suffering such pains, deserved or undeserved. When we realized he suffered without sin for a crime he did not commit, we are indignant at the injustice of his death. When we think that it was an atonement of sin, the blood of God the Son being shed as the atonement for the sins of the world, we are drawn to him by love — to think that he would endure such agony for me, a sinner. John said, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing” (Rev. 5:12).

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com