Saturday, December 14, 2013

Married to an Unbeliever

Am following up on a previous post from my Adult blog.  Specifically on the Marriage Treatise of Martin Luther.  Am following it up here because it is more for general consumption.  For the consumption of believers as well as non-believers.
At that blog I recommended reading Luther's  Marriage Treatise, yet surprisingly I do not agree with all of it.

Derek Rishmawy had a good related article about a month ago.  He was responding to yet another good article on this topic by Kathy Keller about two years ago. That Luther treatise would have been a good starting point for both of those articles, though.  So, let's start with that Luther article.

As a polemic against Rome, in Part One of his treatise Luther says-

In the first part we shall consider which persons may enter into marriage with one another.

The particular point we will be addressing in this post is Luther's fifth point. 

The fifth impediment is unbelief; that is, I may not marry a Turk, a Jew, or a heretic. I marvel that the blasphemous tyrants are not in their hearts ashamed to place themselves in such direct contradiction to the clear text of Paul in I Corinthians 7 [:12-13], where he says, “If a heathen wife or husband consents to live with a Christian spouse, the Christian should not get a divorce.” And St. Peter, in I Peter 3 [:1], says that Christian wives should behave so well that they thereby convert their non-Christian husbands; as did Monica, the mother of St. Augustine.

Know therefore that marriage is an outward, bodily thing, like any other worldly undertaking. Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it. You will find plenty of Christians, and indeed the greater part of them, who are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew, heathen, Turk, or heretic. A heathen is just as much a man or a woman-God's good creation-as St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lucy, not to speak of a slack and spurious Christian.

Now, it seems that Luther kind of slipped in that treatise.  Seems to have misunderstood that Paul was actually only speaking of divorcing an unbelieving wife (as had been the case in the "abominations" introduced by foreign wives in the final chapter of Ezra).  Indeed, in Luther's polemic zeal- Luther seems to have misunderstood Paul to be talking about engaging in marriage with an unbelieving wife.  And Luther seems to have misunderstood Peter to be speaking of proselytizing through marrying.  Yet, it seems to me that both passages are speaking of divorcing an unbelieving wife.  Both are speaking of divorcing the foreign, abominable wife.

Unfortunately, Luther neglects to mention a pertinent passage in the subsequent book of Corinthians as well (2 Cor. 6:14).  I find that puzzling.
It seems that Luther only considers such restrictions on unequal yoking as good advice at best.  Luther seems to consider the yoke of marriage as little more than "an outward, bodily thing".  I wonder if his position changed when he got married a couple years later.

However, Luther actually has a very good point about marrying a "slack and spurious Christian".  That too can cause you much grief.  Indeed, many are baptized but few are chosen.  Many say, "Lord, lord" when their belly is actually their lord (cf. John 6).  When they just want to have sex.  When they just want to have children.  A motivation which Luther seems to consider quite sufficient for marriage.

Then almost as an aside, Luther boldly suggests (an endearing quality) that many unbelievers have more Common Grace than slack Christians.  True enough, yet it should be understood that Special Grace is not to be under-rated as it appears Luther did (in fact, Special Grace is to be X-rated :) .  And it should be understood that no true Christian is spurious.  That there is a committed, indwelling-Spirit in Christians rather than the infused, spurious spirit of unbelievers.

As I recall [Haykin?], Jonathan Edwards was asked by a suitor for the hand of his eldest daughter.  Yet Edwards refused the suitor.  The suitor then asked, "Why, is she not in grace?"
"Yes", Edwards replied.  "But you can't handle her grace..."

And as numerous comments in those above articles suggest, though you may be able to handle his or her particular grace for a while... it often doesn't end well.  Yet, with Special Grace  there is a supernatural commitment to end well.  And there is far less "slack and spurious". 

In my own particular situation, I married a girl who was baptized as an infant.  She believed in God and went to church with me both before and during our marriage.  She was very complementarian.

Yet as I grew less "slack and spurious" things changed dramatically.
As I grew in supernatural grace and knowledge, my spouse grew far more distant.
What started very well grew very, very ugly.

What once was complementarian soon became quite egalitarian.
And what once was our "bodily thing" became my "bodily thing".

Where once there was tremendous passion, there evolved passivity and disinterest.
Where once there was joy and peace, there evolved hostility and suspicion

Suspicion and jealousy displaced love and trust.  And that displaced our marriage.

In the final days of our marriage I was reading J.I. Packer while she was reading Deepak Chopra [unintentional alliteration].  I was knowing God while she was knowing self.
I recall reading an article of a Christian married to a Jehovah Witness around that time, and thinking, 'My marriage really sucks but his must be much, much worse... he is seeing overt hostility and anarchy in his marriage while mine is merely surreptitious.  Mine is merely slack and spurious'.

As things evolved, my wife became increasingly "slack and spurious" (despite suggesting some conversion experience some years earlier).  She would take long baths instead of "putting on a face and attend church" with me.
After several years of "slack and spurious", her lightly veiled suspicions and jealousy eventually got the better of her- and she left with the kids.  Indeed, my wife 'couldn't handle my grace'. 

Was there Special Grace in her?  Was she a believer? I doubt it.  Too many contraindications.

Yet, there was still some measure of sanctification infused in her by our marriage (she was not as corrupt as she would have been).  And that seems to be the point that Luther is promoting in his treatise.  That marriage to an unbeliever is 'neither a sin nor a total waste'. That there is 'still some measure of sanctification in such a marriage, even if it is only for chastity or procreation purposes'.

Now, the arguments of those other articles referenced above seem to revolve around 'a severe compromising of your worship' when married to an unbeliever.  That was not true in my particular case.
My worship life was reasonably rich.  And I supported the church that I was attending reasonably well.  In fact, I helped form a worship team at my church around that time (I played bass).
And I supported that church without spending an inordinate amount of time away from my suspicious wife- even though her love had turned quite cold (for all you allegedly pious people, such compromises of time and worship are biblically mandated).
Yet, as the argument suggests- 'fewer worship compromises would be made in the case of two believers'. And as the argument suggests- 'the purposes and the sanctification is likely greater if you are married to a believer'.

However, I am more inclined to consider Inspiration as a better argument against marrying an unbeliever.  I am more inclined to consider Paul as being inspired by God.  To consider 2 Cor. 6:14 as inspired by God.  To consider it as more than just good advice from Paul.

As a result I am currently married to a less-than-spurious Christian.  Married to a Christian because I believe in Inspiration.   And because- to coin a popular phrase, my belief that Christians are supernaturally inspired to "do it better".

So, come on you "slack and spurious" Christians-  do not be yoked with unbelievers (but if you are, here is a very helpful site).  Because contrary to skewed statistics, eager believers are inspired to do marriage far better  than spurious unbelievers!

Indeed, inspired to love Christ and love each other better... because He loves believers better.

Monday, June 24, 2013

A NOT so Novel argument against Homosexuality

As a supplement to a novel argument on my Adult blog, I am now presenting a NOT so novel argument.  Not so novel because this argument has fatal implications.  That's why it is at this blog.

And not just fatal implications because of a statistical increase of morbidity among homosexuals in this life, but because of a certainty of morbidity among homosexuals in the life to come.  A morbidity revealed in numerous biblical passages in the Old and the New Testaments.  

A morbidity revealed in a mandate (to preserve that Jewish culture)- that homosexuals should be put to death in Lev. 20:13.  And revealed in a condemnation in 1 Cor. 6:9- to set apart an  unholy culture.

Now, before you accuse me of being a homophobe (and I again respond by accusing you of being a heterophobe- or worse yet, a genophobe) allow me to say that I am not afraid of homosexuals.  Not afraid of them despite being sexually assaulted by an adult homosexual when I was a child.  A phobia that I got over as a child (unlike others that seem to treasure their victim status).  So quit yer bitchin'.

Now let's examine the argument of 1 Cor. 6:9.  An argument that is suggested in other places as well.  An argument that insists that 'homosexuals will NOT enter the kingdom of God'.  A NOT so novel argument.   

A text that is best seen here.  A 2nd century manuscript held at The University of Michigan [get with the paleography program, Chester Beatty- update].  A fearful text with no real variants among the many manuscripts.
A text with an argument that is insisted on not once-- but twice in this pericope. 
An argument that is largely feared by "Christian homosexuals" (as indicated by this recent  census).  A less fearful argument for non-Christian homosexuals. People who even try to deny the biblical definition. 

Regardless, the argument reveals the reason WHY homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God in verse 11 of this pericope.  It is because homosexuals are NOT washed, NOT sanctified, NOT justified by God.

Yet some homosexuals were actually washed, sanctified and justified by God in Corinth. The aorist "were" is used three times in this translated verse.  A verb that is translated into past tense very sparingly by this translation committee of the NET Bible.  Translated very sparingly by a largely Arminian committee of translators that are reluctant to grant such exhaustive sovereignty to God.  

However, even that committee agrees that this pericope addresses homosexuals that actually were washed and sanctified to desire something quite hetero.  Were sanctified to desire something quite opposite.  And were justified when their desires were changed.
An unholy people who were washed to desire a Holy God... even though they may still struggle with that unholy desire in Corinth.  A people that may still struggle with unholiness in this world- as do other people in the other categories mentioned in this text.

As a case in point, a friend that has questioned me on this several times over the years.  A friend that seems to struggle with one of these categories.
She seems to be convinced that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin.  And that 'her friend' is no worse a sinner than say- a false witness.  
Yet I keep insisting on 1 Cor. 6:9 with her.  That these are 'fatal categories' (more than morbid).  That these are largely categories of inordinate intimacy.  As this text goes on to say, categories of crimes against "the body".  Crimes against "the temple of the Holy Spirit".

Then I insist with her that this pericope also includes alcoholics in its 'fatal categories'- another fatal crime against "the temple". And I repeat my commitment to the truth revealed in that text.  A commitment that I would rather not hold to- because I don't like how it may relate to someone that I  loved.  Someone that I loved dearly.  

It relates to an alcoholic that beat his wife and was subsequently removed from his home.  An alcoholic that continued going to A.A. and continued drinking away from his home.  An alcoholic that several months later rear-ended a snow-plow with his truck.  
The truck was a write-off, yet he was fine.  And he was grateful to be fine. Yet,  three days later he wrote-off  another truck--- into a train.

Did my dad enter the kingdom of God at that point?  Did my father cease to be an alcoholic in those three days between write-offs?  Did his love for God exceed his love for alcohol in those intervening days?  Well, we don't know if he had been drinking when he crashed... an autopsy was impossible.  He was burnt to a crisp.

But that doesn't prejudice my interpretation of this pericope.  Doesn't cause me to introduce some modern-day theological novelty into this pericope.  Doesn't cause me to introduce the novelty that God will actually allow alcoholics etc. into the kingdom of God. And it shouldn't prejudice my friends interpretation regarding homosexuals either... not while she is still on this side of the kingdom. 

My friend should not be deceived.  She should know that her love for God should exceed her love for women (and I think that she does know that).  She should know that God is quite willing to give her over (Romans 1:26) to an unrequited love for women... to the exclusion of Himself.

And I expressed my faith in her God-given ability to give a far greater love to God than women.  My faith in a godly ability that is given to those that were actually washed by God.  

Indeed, I believe in that Holy Spirit ability and as I expressed to her, "I believe in you".

I still pray for her.  I don't believe that she is a train-wreck.  
Just another sinner struggling with ungodly desires.  Lord, help her godly desires.  

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

WHY Jesus Did Not Have A Wife

Promoter of this current controversy- Karen King-  is confident that Jesus did indeed have a wife.  Is confident that this was “not merely a spiritual wife”.   That Jesus did indeed have “sexual intercourse”. 

And Karen seems oblivious to the implications.  Implications which leave her precariously- At The Brink.   Implications which no one seems to be discussing.   

Let’s examine those implications.  Implications that I generally examine at my adult blog... but this has soteriological implications.  Has fatal implications.

Now, as Karen rightly recognizes, the implications of having a wife are indeed “sexual intercourse”.  Are indeed “conjugal rights” (Exodus 21:10 NASB- contrary to some translations which prefer the obscure “marital rights”)… but there are other requirements as well. 

Requirements that are discussed in the above passage in the Old Testament.   Requirements that were re-affirmed numerous times in the New Testament.  Requirements that were pertinent in those times… and remain quite pertinent in our times.   

So, according to Exodus 21:11 (just after the Ten Commandments) there are actually “three things” required for a wife (the NET notes call it a Threefold Maintenance Clause).  The wife is also to be provided with food and with clothing.   
And is to be maintained with food, clothing and sex (and the reasonable enjoyment thereof) by her husband. This O.T. passage suggests that being unable (or ‘unwilling’ in the NASB) to maintain a wife reasonably (and equitably in the case of more than one wife) indicates unfaithfulness and voids the marriage contract.   Permits divorce with no strings attached.

Now, I just don’t see Jesus with the time or temperament of maintaining a wife reasonably in any gospel account (either canonical or apocryphal accounts).  Of providing food and clothing to anyone on a regular basis.  Seems to me that this is a huge gospel opportunity missed- unless of course this scenario was problematic!

And it is problematic.   I just don’t see where Jesus might be under the illusion that he might possibly maintain a wife.  Particularly when he knew that His earthly life would be chaotic.  That His earthly life would be nomadic.  When He knew that the Son of Man would have “nowhere to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20)… let alone lay His wife.

When He knew that His life would be cut quite short.  When He knew that He MUST be in His “Father’s House” from a very early age (Luke 2:49 and no, not ‘a house that His earthly father built’ as some suggest). When He knew that He could spend little time with a wife… let alone children.

And for Jesus to marry based on this foreknowledge… would be fraudulent.  Would be sinful.  Would have disastrous implications.

Now, has Karen King considered those obvious implications? 

If so, how does Karen King reconcile a sinful savior? Reconcile a deluded savior? Well, I don't see how she can… unless she completely denies His claims to foreknowledge.  Unless she completely denies His divinity.  

In contrast, the apostle Paul argues that he was certainly qualified to marry.  Qualified in a general sense.  Qualified- as were the other “apostles and brothers of the Lord” (1 Cor. 9:5).  Yet, the Lord is not mentioned as being qualified to marry.  A far stronger argument that Paul could have used.

An argument from silence, no doubt- yet it is implicit that the Lord was certainly not qualified to marry in the subsequent verse.   That Jesus did not "have a right" to refrain from working as did Paul.  That Jesus must needs work incessantly while He remained on this earth (John 9:4).  That metaphorical "night was coming' for Jesus.

So Paul was indeed qualified to marry- qualified since he was not divine.  Since he was not the Lord, and since he did not have the specific foreknowledge of the Lord.  Of a clear and present "night" coming for Paul.

However,  Paul was disqualified from marriage for a very different reason. Disqualified since it was not Paul’s actual desire to marry. 
Disqualified- since it seems that Paul actually had very little passion for a wife (unlike Gandhi who held contempt for  his wife and women).   
That Paul had no significant “burning” for a wife (1 Cor. 7:9).
Disqualified since Paul was unusually gifted (1 Cor. 7:7) with eunuchy. 
Was actually made a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12).   
That Paul’s actual “burning” was for the earthly minded and a wife was simply ‘no heavenly good’ for Paul.

Now, an earthly wife would have been ‘no heavenly good’ for Jesus either.  And though He may have been somewhat tempted to take a wife (Heb. 4:15) - a wife would have seriously compromised His clear and present mission.  Would have seriously compromised His testimony of a far more intimate relationship. 

As Rabbi Rosenblatt wrote recently,  Judaism celebrates the monogamous, intimate relationship with a spouse as the prototype of the intimate relationship with God”.   And an earthly marriage for the Son of God- would have modeled something far less intimate. 

But mostly, if counterfactuals may be made (and they may even be made by Calvinists :)- an earthly wife would have fatally compromised the Son of God's pre-existing marriage.  A marriage made in heaven.

An existing marriage with the Father and Spirit.  A marriage needing nothing else and no one else.
A marriage needing neither food, nor clothing nor conjugation- since the Father, Son and Spirit constantly feed, clothe and cuddle each other.  Never deprive each other (not even at the cross, where Jesus continued to commit His human spirit to the Father-Luke 23:46).
A marriage of continuous maintenance.  A marriage of consummate maintenance.  A marriage with no Threefold Maintenance Clause required.

What a magnificent marriage to consider. A marriage that we might revel in- when our human spirit is with Christ.
When our spirit recognizes His divinity.  When our spirit recognizes His salvation.

Pray that Karen’s spirit revels in His Spirit- and that Karen be clothed with Christ.
As he clothes the lilies and the nebula.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Is Jesus God- Book Review Pt. 2

Having just critiqued Shabir’s disparaging of “little faith” in the previous post- let’s continue with just a bit more of Shabir’s disparaging of Jesus:

John 10: 22-36-  Here Shabir appears to be contextual but fails to include three verses concluding this paragraph.  Verses which disprove his “points”.   Verses which prove that the Jews understood Jesus quite well… and proceeded in trying to kill Him.  Which prove that Jesus was clearly mocking them as ‘gods that would die like mere men’ (Psalm 82:7)- as well as clearly claiming to be God.  God who would not die like mere men die.  Puny gods.

John 8:58- Here Shabir continues to be unconvinced by those powerful “I AM” statements.  He appeals to the discarded Wellhausen Theory.  Appeals to a peculiar Syrian translation.  Disputes the deeply entrenched canonical tradition of the Jews.  Doesn’t get the Septuagint translation right.  And can’t even get the verse reference right.  A total miss and a total mess.

Isaiah 7:14- “One of the most misunderstood verses of the Bible”.
Shabir then cites yet another  “defective translation” (as if Islam doesn’t have defective translations) to compound the misunderstanding.  He discounts the validity of translating  the Greek parthenos to virgin.  Preferring a very broad and obscure [‘lots of “young girls” have children’] semantic range instead.  Yet parthenos  remains a   current  scientific a term meaning virgin.
And then to further complicate things, Shabir eventually claims that Jesus was actually born of a virgin…because the Qur’an says so.  So there!

Next, Shabir also takes a stab at the semantical range of Immanuel in this section.  Claiming that Jesus was not exactly called Immanuel- therefore he was not “God with us”.  But Shabir is actually only recognizing a very narrow range of the word of “calling/καλέσουσιν (Mat 1:23 BGT)”.  d. Very oft. the emphasis is to be placed less on the fact that names are such and such, than on the fact that the bearers of the name actually are what the name says about them. The pass. be named thus approaches closely the mng. to be, and it must be left to the sensitivity of the interpreter whether this transl. is to be attempted in any individual case-  BDAG lexicon

Isaiah 9:6- Skipping some equally narrow notions, let’s proceed with more Isaiah.  More names of Jesus. 
Shabir denying that Jesus may be called “Mighty God” in this section because he is not “Everlasting Father” either.  But even Muslims recognize Jesus as everlasting (though they would dispute “eternal”).  And Jesus is indeed the Father of salvation… just as He is the founder and perfecter of faith (Hebrews 12:2).  The NET Bible has a noteworthy note here:
19 tn This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the "Son" is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the "Father.") Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of "father" see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of "father" is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850–800 B.C.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: "To some I was a father, to others I was a mother." In another inscription (ca. 800 B.C.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him "a father and a mother" to his people. (See ANET 499–500.) The use of "everlasting" might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king's long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4–6; 61:6–7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title "Mighty God") is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

Shabir then goes on at length to dispute the nature of Jesus.  Citing several heretics and creating numerous straw men to burn… all to deny that Jesus could possibly have a dual-nature.   Yet later in this book Shabir claims that, “it is not difficult for Allah to do anything he wants”.  Except of course, to have a dual-nature if He wanted to, right Shabir?

Numerous other misunderstandings and misrepresentations, but I’d like to close this book review on this chapter.  Close this on Shabir’s final appeal to the Qur’an:
Qur’an 5:77- Say:  O people of the scripture!  Stress not in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of the folk who erred of old and led many astray, and erred from the plain road.

Again, I would like to appeal to Muslims to consider their own works to be exactly that “vain desire” spoken of in the Qur’an.  To consider their own works as being that desperate desire borne completely of their own vanity.  A desire intended to compliment themselves.

And I would also hope that Muslims might recognize- that those who actually place their faith in the work of a glorious other, are actually  devoid of such vanity.   Might recognize that those who actually place their faith in a crucified Christ, are actually eschewing such vanity.   And are actually see their works as complimenting Christ.  Complimenting His already finished work.

The work of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession- Titus 2:13

Now there’s the work of a great God!

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Salvation by Works in Islam

Continuing on the subject of “faith alone”…
Muslims claim that they do not believe in salvation by works. Claim that they actually believe in salvation by faith. And claim the Christian belief in “salvation by faith alone” to be blasphemous and not found in the Qur'an or the Bible.

Having examined some Bible on this in the previous post- let’s now examine some Qur'an on the subject of faith:

This Islamic article describes faith as being “most important” in Islam.  And it later claims that belief actually has “more importance” in the Islamic religion than the importance of works.  It claims that belief  has “more importance” not because of any textual concerns in the Qur'an- but because of the actual “word order” of belief and works in several verses of the Qur'an.  

However, let’s see just how this particular word order actually plays out in the Qur'an:

Surah 5:12-God did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And God said: "I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my apostles, honour and assist them, and loan to God a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude."

Well, here we have works preceding both belief and faith.  The word order is actually reversed… making works primary (quite contrary to the word order theory of that article).

Surah 11:3-"(And to preach thus), 'Seek ye the forgiveness of your Lord, and turn to Him in repentance; that He may grant you enjoyment, good (and true), for a term appointed, and bestow His abounding grace on all who abound in merit! But if ye turn away, then I fear for you the penalty of a great day:

Here we have abounding grace being bestowed on those that abound in merit   (for those that abound in works).  No mention of faith whatsoever.  Faith doesn’t appear to be a factor on that “great day”.

Surah 16:120-Abraham was indeed a model, devoutly obedient to God, (and) true in Faith, and he joined not gods with God:

Here we have obedience preceding faith.  The wrong word order again.

Surah 18:58-But your Lord is Most forgiving, full of Mercy. If He were to call them (at once) to account for what they have earned, then surely He would have hastened their punishment: but they have their appointed time, beyond which they will find no refuge.

Once again, merit (earnings) is called into question rather than faith.

Surah 53:36-41Nay, is he not acquainted with what is in the Books of Moses.  And of Abraham who fulfilled his engagements? Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another; That man can have nothing but what he strives for;  That (the fruit of) his striving will soon come in sight: Then will he be rewarded with a reward complete;

Here the Books of Moses are acknowledged.  Moses books of works, works, and more works! 

And then Abraham is acknowledged as fulfilling some mysterious engagements [though he died before Moses was even born]. As fulfilling some mysterious works.  Acknowledged as someone who has borne his very own burdens… rather than being acknowledged as someone who persevered in his faith.  Faith in God to provide for him.

Yet, Muhammad burdened his followers with even more works.  Burdened them with five more pillars of works… and countless other practices.  Works to provide for themselves.  Making the emphasis on faith even more obscure in the Qur'an.

Meanwhile, Christians continue to recognize that they couldn’t possibly bear their own burdens.  That it must be borne by someone else.  As the above Surah says, ‘borne by someone with absolutely no burdens to bear’.   Someone whom Christians see as Christ.   

So Christians continue to recognize that their faith must wholly be in Christ.  And on the work that Christ graced us with.   That, “He is the one who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not based on our works but on his own purpose and grace, granted to us in Christ Jesus before time began (2 Timothy 1:9).”

Dear Reader, what a marvelous calling.  

A calling before any works began.  Any works whatsoever.  Will you listen to His calling?
As Christ called, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest (Matt. 11:28)”.