Writing What is Meant

As a writer of poetry;-)) I can appreciate this story, and I hope you will too.Myfriend, Rijn( not his real name), once told me that heattended a tribute given in honor of thelate Argentinean poet, Jorge Luis Borges.Well, Rijn sayshe had really been looking forward toa reading of the Argentinean's work,and thatall was going as well as expected, until the emceebegan to interpret the poems. Naturally,everyone becameuncomfortable, and looking over at Borges, it was apparent (to everyonebut the emcee) thathe was uncomfortable too. As the night progressed,the emcee continuedinterpretingBorges' poetry,saying, "when you wrote this, you must have meant this or that... ."Borges became increasingly agitated, until in his frustration he shouted, "I wrote what I meant!"

I sometimes wonder if God sometimes feels this way as well. Heauthored the Bible through the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and what He meant to be written has been written. Yes its true that the bible was not written in any current language, but in an older tongue. Still, it is not our job to reinterpret anyteaching that is there. Christ said that if anyone changes even a dot or a tittle he or she would be cursed. That’s why it is imperative that we go to the originallanguage of the scripture when we have questions and are studying. TheHoly Spirit Himself is the teacher and as part of theGodhead, He is the Originator. It is His work to bring all things toour remembrance we've studied, and to connect scriptural concepts one upon the other, "line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here a little there" (Isaiah 28:10, 13).

Let's consider the passage of 2 Corinthians 5:14-- which says, one died for all, therefore all died (NIV).The statement seems relatively clear does it not? Well, the word which we want to pay close attention to is the word "for." You would think that a little word like "for" would not cause any trouble. It is only a preposition. Well, the problem is this:in the English language the preposition 'FOR" has at least 20 different meanings. The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon is not very helpful either. Yes, it reduces the number of definitions from 20 to 3, butwhich one of the three do we choose? Should it matter? Yes, it does, because the wrong definition can lead to heresy.

One of the definitions offered in the Lexiconregarding "for," is "in behalf of." This definition by itself can have threeconnotations such as, "in the name of all'', One died in All's place, and the last is "for the sake of." These three connotations offer variousmeanings to the text. The first one is thatChrist died "in the name of 'all' "(which upon reading the second portion of the text makes no sense, as all have no name, but Christ does, and itpoints toHis character). The second is that "One" died

in the place of all (although how could this be true, because the text continues by saying, therefore all died), and the last is that Christ died "for the sake of all." In a sense this is true. Christ died for our sake that we might have deliverance from sin. But what is more accurate, is that Christ by the incarnation of our corporate humanity in Himself-- took on our nature that He came to save, and crucified it with the lusts thereof upon the cross.In the first Adam we received the sentence of death, because that is all he could pass on to us. In the second Adam (Christ) we receive the sentence of life (See Romans 5:12-21, I Cor. 15:19-23; 45-49) as a free gift.

The difficulty we have with the text comes through the Catholic and Reformationist scholars who have misinterpretedthe text. The Catholic scholars' believed thatbefore God coulddeclare a person righteous He first had to make them righteous, and this

they believed happenedthrough an "infusedgrace." They rejected the Reformist solution of ascribing righteousness to an unrighteous person as illegal, unethical and immoral. The Reformistscholars rejected theCatholic solution of "infused grace," and stated that the life, death and resurrection of Christ was accepted "instead of" the believer's unrighteousness. Both groups of scholars were right, and both were wrong. TheCatholic scholars were right, todeclare an unrighteous person righteous, is illegal and unethical (see Deut. 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, Eze. 18:1-20); and the Reformists were right that the life, death and resurrection of Christ's became the believer's.However, Christ justifyingindividual believers did not happen by an 'infused grace,' orby His doing and dying accepted "insteadof" ours. Christ was able to justify sinners because as all sinned in one man Adam (Its), all humanity corporately obeyed the law in Adam 2 (Christ), and when He died, and was resurrected, we died and were resurrected.

Despite this good news,many are unwilling to accept that God can pardon all Humanity. Why would God forgive the wicked? They are not worthy or deserving of any privileges. Only those who are good are deserving of Gods pardon, they think. But such is the nature of Gods unselfish Agape Love. Such is the nature of Gods perfect mercy. Many suffer from the Elder Brother’s syndrome. If you recall the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Elder Brother did not join in celebratingthe arrival of his younger brother. He thought that he was the one deserving of honor and celebration. Why? Because, he thought that he had worked hardbehaving himself. Thereforehe felt he deservedrecognition for his self-lessness. But in reality he was unlike his father (who was truly self-less). Instead,he was selfish and self-centered. The Father toldthe Elder Brotherthat allhepossessed was his for the asking. Howeverthe Elder Brother was also self-sufficient and thought that asking would reflect a need,whichheconsideredweakness.

Believing in the corporate aspect of Christ's sacrifice is accepting our own condition as sinners, and our solidarity with Him. It is also accepting Gods unconditional love for us. He is not an angry God waiting to be appeased.He is a loving God who wants to save His beloved. Hehasgifted us witha perfect and complete plan to restore us to His kingdom, just as the Father in the parable restored and giftedHis prodigal son. The prodigal son did not get away with anything. He died, in essence when he fed and lived with pigs. Remember, to a Jew, itwas better to die, then to have any contact with pigs. This was death to the prodigal son; because there was repentance in his heart,going back to His Father,was resurrection. To this younger brother's surprise, the Father was waiting and watching for hisreturn. Just so is our heavenly Fatherwatching, waiting and seeking us. He will again send His Son to the earth to gather up for eternal life those who accepted the Righteousness of Christ as their only way of Salvation. I pray not one of us disappoints our Heavenly Father. He wants us there--with Him

Daenne Burgemeestre