Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Joseph And The Pharoah: The Butler Was Loved But The Baker Was Hated! Genesis 40

Posted by Job on March 16, 2011

Genesis 40 provides an amazing story that illustrates the Biblical doctrine of election, that being God choosing to to save and who not save, who to favor and who to disfavor. Now actually, the text is much stronger than that; as the story of Joseph, the pharaoh, the butler and the baker can be used to illustrate Romans 9:13, which reads “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” The parallels are so strong that it can as an allegory to describe first God choosing Israel of all nations to be His elect nation, and then the church from all peoples to be His elect people.

First the story itself: Joseph is cast into a pit by his wickedly jealous brothers, who first plan to kill him and then decide to sell him into slavery. This was specifically done in order to prevent the dreams that God gave Joseph from coming to pass (Genesis 37:20) and by all appearances was the result of evil spirits – using human jealously and anger as a vehicle, agent and lubricant – attempting to stop God’s purposes from coming to fruition with regards to the descendants of Abraham and the recipients of his promise and covenant. Instead, while they took a break from their evil deeds to eat lunch (not exactly the brightest or most focused or self-disciplined bunch of miscreants were they?) Midianites and Ishmaelites come, get Joseph out of the pit, and sell him to slavery in Egypt to Potiphar.

While in slavery in Egypt, Joseph faithfully serves his master and for this is rewarded by God (in keeping with 1 Peter 2:18; please reject the false modern humanistic doctrines and instead heed what the Bible says when confronted with injustice and oppression). Evil spirits act yet again to provoke Potiphar’s wife into attempting to seduce Joseph, and in contrast with the sexual immorality of Reuben and Judah, Joseph resists even to the point of 1 Corinthians 6:18’s command to “flee fornication.” That gives the evil spirits acting through the lust and pride of Potiphar’s wife the opportunity to cast Joseph into prison. (Realize that God was with Joseph, for the offense that he was accused of should have resulted in his summary execution.) In prison, Joseph yet again keeps such doctrines as 1 Peter 2:18 and Romans 13:1-4, and rather than protesting the injustice that he is subjected to, he behaves in an exemplary fashion and is blessed by God for it, who also causes the blessings of man – the prison keeper – to fall upon him.

With that out of the way, here is where the allegory – if you will – begins in earnest. First, let us start with pharoah. As emperor of Egypt, pharoah had unquestioned power over the people in his political domain. He had absolute power over his subjects. In that culture, far removed from the west and long before the Enlightenment, there was no concept of human or civil rights. Also, the law of Moses, which limited the rights and prerogatives of Israeli monarchs and gave citizens human and civil rights, did not exist in Egypt. Instead, just as Joseph was a slave to Potiphar, all of pharoah’s subjects were his slaves. As  emperor of Egypt, his subjects were his people to do with as he pleased: to sell to other nations as slaves (a practice not uncommon in that era), to conscript for his own military or economic service (again, a common practice), to reward with riches and favor, or to kill and take all that was theirs (again, a common practice). So, it is no accident that God in His revelation used royal language (king, emperor, lord etc.) to describe His relationship to Israel, all nations and people of the earth, and all of creation itself because in that time and place, everyone would have immediately known and presumed His complete ownership and rule according to it in a manner that we cannot even conceive in modern times due to Enlightenment thinking.

But it is precisely because of this mindset, one where a monarch had complete authority over his kingdom (and also a patriarch had complete authority over his household, including wife, children, younger brothers and sisters and their spouses and children, servants etc.) and is the representative symbol of all that is his, all that is “called by his name” (whether a nation for a ruler, a tribe for a chief or a household for a patriarch) that doctrines like federal headship (i.e. of Adam and Jesus Christ) work. Start applying such notion as individual rights and individual agency, which again did not apply in those days in a political context unless granted by the king himself, and ideas like federal headship (and things that proceed from it like original sin) break down. So make no mistake, just as God is Lord of creation, pharoah was lord over Egypt! (As a matter of fact, the same Hebrew words for lord were used for both Yahweh and human rulers, and human rulers were also called “god” in that day, including at times in the Bible, see the “ye are gods” passage of Psalm 82:6, the one notoriously abused by the Word of Faith teachers for their false doctrines.) And now you see why it was such a serious, grievous error when the children of Israel rejected God as their Lord and King and instead demanded a human lord and king.

So pharaoh, in every earthly sense “lord” and “god” over Egypt, becomes angry with two of his subjects; the chief butler and the chief baker. The nature of his anger is this: the text says that he was “wroth.” The Hebrew root word used was qatsaph which can mean “to put oneself in a rage.” The same word was used to describe the anger of YHWH at the children of Israel over idolatry, disobedience and other sins in Leviticus 10:6, Deuteronomy 9:7-8, Deuteronomy 9:22, and Zechariah 8:14. What was it that caused the wrath of pharaoh against his subjects? The text does not say. So, using this “argument from silence” (a common tactic of Jewish theologians that was used extensively regarding Mechizedek in Hebrews 7), we can extend this allegory, metaphor or what have you to symbolize the wrath of God against all mankind, one that exists not solely because of any sins on the part of the individual, but rather because of our universal fallen sinful condition, our original sin, because of being in Adam. As Adam is the federal head of all men (indeed, the word “Adam” means” mankind, and the English word is actually the transliteration of the Hebrew word and not a translation), he represents his sinful nation – it is called by his name – just as pharaoh represents the Egyptian nation. So, because all men are called by the name of Adam, Adam’s sinfulness is imputed to all men. (Recall also that Adam named his wife Eve, which is the Hebrew word “chavvah “, which means “living”, according to her being the mother of all humanity.) Because of this, God is at war with the sinful nation that Adam is the head of just as America not so long ago was at war with the Iraq nation that Saddam Hussein ruled.

So pharaoh represents God, and the butler and baker represent humanity, and pharaoh’s anger at them for the unstated reason represents God’s anger at humanity over our original sin. What does pharaoh do? He casts the butler and the baker in prison, and away from their prior positions of serving him. This represents our alienation from God and our absence from His presence because of our sin. God is holy, therefore that which is sinful cannot stand before His presence! This recalls how Adam was cast from his position from serving God as caretaker of the garden of Eden because of his sin (Genesis 3:24) and also how Satan and the demons were cast from their first estates of serving God due to their rebellion (Jude 1:6).

Now just like YHWH, it was well within the rights of pharaoh due to the privileges, power and authority contained within his position and rank to kill the butler and baker, and the fact that the butler and baker caused the lord of Egypt such grievous offense made this fact even more so. Yet pharaoh used his kingly prerogative to spare the life of the butler and execute the baker. The butler was loved, the baker was hated. Why was the butler chosen over the baker? Well, do not believe the many Hollywood depictions of this story – and even some depictions by any number of Christian efforts i.e. children’s videos – that favor the character of the butler over that of the baker (such as the 1995 miniseries starring Ben Kingsley and a cartoon movie starring Ben Affleck that depicts the baker as violently assaulting Jacob) – because these movies, made according to modernistic humanistic tendencies and ideas of fairness, are not justified in the Biblical text. Instead, pharaoh chose the butler over the baker during a feast of merriment for all his servants (reminds one of the marriage supper of the Lamb and the bride of Christ that will be witnessed by the angels!) and therefore did it because it was for his pleasure! Though the king could have killed both, for his pleasure and his own sake he graciously spared one! Just as God’s choosing Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with Jacob’s character, for Jacob was a usurper, thief, manipulator, liar and con artist. Witness, for example, the way that Jacob mistreated his wife Leah, and how he blatantly favored the children of Rachel over the children of Leah and the concubines (sending the latter group first so that if Esau and his army started killing people, Leah, the concubines and their kids would have almost no chance to escape, but Rachel’s would have a chance!). Jacob was just as bad as was Esau, if not worse. Yet God chose him!

It was all according to the wishes, the desire, the pleasure of the pharaoh. Please note that the nowhere does the Bible call the pharaoh wicked for exercising his prerogative in this manner. Quite the contrary, the Bible accounts this pharaoh as being wise for recognizing the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, living within Joseph (Genesis 41:38) and making him ruler of Egypt based on it. He is a clear contrast between the pharaoh of Moses, who resisted this same Holy Spirit due to God’s hardening his heart.

Note that the butler and the baker had no say in this matter. The baker did not reject the grace of pharoah; indeed no such opportunity to accept or reject it. And the butler had no say in this matter either. The butler had no opportunity to call the pharaoh unfair for imprisoning him in the first place. He had no space to reject the grace given to him because he felt that it was unfair that he was saved while the baker was not, and while many other people (including Joseph) remained in prison. The baker could not accept the grace of the pharaoh because no such “free will choice” to do so was given to him. And the baker could not reject the grace of the pharaoh, because as the subject of a potentate with absolute power, authority and dominion over him (if only in a temporal sense, and please recall according to Jesus Christ that the power of the pharaoh over the butler and the baker were given to them by God, see John 19:11 … so yes, as frightening as it is to believe, George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama … oh never mind) he lacked the power and authority because of his own low estate – his lack of power, authority, rank and dominion -with respect to the pharaoh. (See what Psalm 136:26, Luke 1:48 and Romans 12:16 about God’s gracious dealing with His people despite our low estate.)

So, for the butler, the grace of pharaoh was irresistible! So is it with the grace of God towards His sheep; His Son’s bride. The bride cannot say no, because if all members of the bride do say no (not merely a theoretical possibility, especially when both the effects of sin and the nefarious plotting of Satan are involved!) then God’s Son has no bride, and the purposes of God are thwarted. God forbid that such a thing would happen! Make no mistake, just as the “god of Egypt” in this incident had the power to love the butler and hate the baker and exercised it accordingly, God of all creation has the same prerogative – indeed even a greater prerogative for God is greater than the pharaoh – to do with Jacob (all those in Jesus Christ) and Esau (all those in Adam) and has exercised it accordingly before foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), since before Genesis 1:1!

And when did this happen? Genesis 40:20 says that it occurred the third day after Joseph interpreted the dreams of the butler (the dream that he would receive salvation of his live through grace) and the baker (the dream that he would receive neither this salvation or the grace that makes it possible). Now how long was our Lord and Savior in the grave after His death for the sins of His bride on the cross? Three days. Now nothing is in the Bible by coincidence; in it are no superfluous facts. So, the fact that three days after the prophecy, the promise of grace, came by the butler from Holy Spirit of Elohim (the Name that Joseph used to the butler in Genesis 40:8) to the butler was this promise of grace consummated by the butler’s release from bondage (which the Bible often uses with reference to sin) is a clear reference to the work of Jesus Christ. That allows us to elevate this episode from being mere metaphor, symbolism and allegory to typology. In this episode, the pharaoh, in loving the butler (Jacob) and hating the baker (Esau) was a type of the Ancient of Days, God the Father. Joseph is commonly regarded to be a type of Jesus Christ. And of course, the Holy Spirit was within Joseph. So in this story, the Trinity is together and in agreement, whether in actuality (the Holy Spirit in Joseph) or typology (pharaoh as God the Father, Joseph as God the Son).

Keep in mind that just as the butler was saved on the third day, the baker was executed on the third day. So, just as Jesus Christ delivered salvation to the elect with His ministry, Jesus Christ will return again to punish the non-elect on the Day of the Lord and will also serve as Judge of the non-elect before their punishment in the lake of fire (read the book of Revelation). So, the purpose of Genesis 40 is not to be fascinated with metaphor, symbolism, typology and allegory. Instead, it should be used to instruct one of the fact that those in Jesus Christ will be saved (the butler) and those not in Christ will perish in eternal punishment of flame (the baker). In light of that fact, one must make His calling and election sure in accordance with the scriptures (2 Peter 1:10). Repent of your sins (Acts 2:38), confess with your mouth and believe with your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord who died for your sins and is whom God raised from the dead (Romans 10:9) and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) or in the Name of Jesus Christ and in God the Father and God the Son (Matthew 28:19) who indwell Jesus Christ.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

18 Responses to “Joseph And The Pharoah: The Butler Was Loved But The Baker Was Hated! Genesis 40”

  1. Christine said

    Hi Job! Though you are seeing the type(s) you are missing the full import of the meaning, as Jacob and Esau (the Butler and the Baker, in your story) are not types/figures are two different men – one who is saved and the other damned – but of “two men” in whom we are ALL found… FIRST ADAM (THE FLESH or our CARNAL NATURE)…. THEN CHRIST (THE SPIRIT or our SPIRITUAL NATURE). Yes, one dies and the other is saved (even on the same day) but this speaks of the dividing between THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT (the sheep from the goats… the wheat from the tares) when our “OLD MAN” was/is “crucified WITH CHRIST”. And when did this happen? According to Paul, EVEN WHEN WE WERE DEAD IN SINS! We were “baptized into Christ” by being baptized into HIS DEATH (this is “the second death” through with we must ALL pass in order to have part in “the first resurrection” – HIS!). God’s “Elect” IS CHRIST and “the second man” (the ONE NEW MAN “create” IN CHRIST) IS “the Lord from heaven” (we are called by HIS NAME for we are HIS BODY). So it is not about one man being saved and another damned… those “two men” typify TWO NATURES, the two natures that are in ALL MEN! Wherein one is saved (THE SPIRITUAL MAN, THE BODY OF CHRIST, of whom God is the Father) and the other damned (THE CARNAL MAN, which was “fathered” BY FLESH). As IN ADAM ALL DIE, even so IN CHRIST SHALL ALL BE MADE ALIVE. Our “old man” was crucified with Christ and IN HIM was created “one new man”, a corporate body of which Christ is the Head. And though we shall NOT ALL SLEEP (some have NOT this knowledge of the truth) WE SHALL ALL BE CHANGED!

    • Job said

      So, you are universalist then? And gnostic?

      • Christine said

        I believe in the salvation of all men, yes. Not sure why you ask if I am gnostic? Because I used the word “spirit”? Even Paul said he turned a man over to satan “for the destruction of the FLESH that his SPIRIT might be saved in the day of the Lord”. Was Paul gnostic? No, I am not gnostic, though I do not assume to know how you might define the word.

        • Job said

          Because you said “we shall NOT ALL SLEEP (some have NOT this knowledge of the truth)”

          Look, I used to hang out with gnostics in college. Like you, they used word games to alter the text from its intended meaning. Not only were they denying the literal meaning of the text, but they were denying the context of Jesus Christ, Paul and the other apostles’ being Jews operating within the Jewish religion and culture. The Jewish religion didn’t start incorporating secret knowledge and esoterica until long after the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD and Jerusalem in 132 AD, and the ending of their near-term Messianic expectations. So, what you and those like you are doing is supplying a meaning to the text that Jesus Christ and His apostles could not have possibly intended, and that the Jews who heard and read their teachings could not have discerned, because it would have gone against thousands of years of Jewish teachings. Again, note that Jesus Christ and His apostles never explicitly or implicitly denied Jewish teachings, but instead incorporated and advanced them. Universalism most definitely was not a Jewish teaching – and it still isn’t – so there would have been no way for Jesus Christ and the apostles to get that message over to their Jewish followers other than to state it explicitly. Otherwise, their Jewish followers would have simply interpreted their statements as written, which is precisely what Christians – Jewish and Gentile – have done for the 2000 years since.

          Further, the first exponent of universalism who claimed to be Christian was Origen. In order to obtain this doctrine, Origen had to first reject the Jewish worldview of the scriptures and replace it with a pagan Hellenistic one. Further, Origen abandoned the hermeneutics that Jews and Christians had used to interpret the scriptures for a SELECTIVE allegorist method that allowed him to deny the original meaning, intent, text and context of the scriptures and supply his own. Why do I say “selective?” Because no one, whether a universalist, gnostic (whether classical or neo-gnostic like Harvard’s Elaine Pagels), postmodernist, theological liberal, or liberation theologist tries to deny the plain literal meaning of “love thy neighbor” or “turn the other cheek” or “do unto others as you would have them to do unto you” or “thou shalt not kill.” Instead, they employ allegorism, reader-response, hidden keys or other forms of secret knowledge interpretation etc. only to deny or create a new meaning for the things that they disagree with.

          Bottom line: the same methods that you employ to propose universal salvation can easily be used to propose universal damnation, and have been frequently used throughout the past centuries to deny the very existence of a literal heaven, hell, afterlife of any sort, or spirit realm whatsoever. Though I have many disagreements with the deist humanist Thomas Jefferson and the gnostic (after a fashion) Marcion, one thing that I admire them for was their honesty. Those men simply altered the scriptures to remove the texts that they disbelieved, rather than employing some method to change their meaning so that they would fit into their doctrines.

          It would be far better to claim that the references to punishment of the wicked were never in the Bible to begin with, and were instead interpolations into the text by Jewish and Christian religious authorities for the purposes of political, economic and social control, than it is to deny the meanings of said texts. Otherwise, a person would be well justified to use your methods on the Decalogue and go about killing, stealing, lying, committing various acts of sexual decadence etc. based on it.

          • Christine said

            Yes, I said “We shall not all sleep”. I was quoting Paul. Are you not familiar with the passage? And do you not know what it means “to sleep” after a spiritual truth (rather than a carnal one)? I don’t know of any Christian who doesn’t understand that “the dead” can be understoon both physically AND spiritually. So please do not read more into my words than is there just because you “think” you know where I am coming from. Try asking first, rather than jumping to your own conclusion, as it doesn’t even appear to me that anything you wrote here has anythign to do with me (only what you have assumed about me). And, just for the record, Origen was NOT the first proponent of Universalism. Check your facts.

  2. Christine said

    Have you ever considered what I have presented about the two natures of men? Especially in light of this same pattern that appears all throughout the OT, not only in Jacob and Esau but all the way back to Cain and Abel and even Issac and Ishmael… and in relation to “the elder” serving “the younger” and God’s blessings always falling on the younger rather than the older?

    • Job said

      “Have you ever considered what I have presented about the two natures of men?”

      And the wicked natures of Abel, Mary, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek and Joseph were what, precisely? Meanwhile, what virtues did Cain, Nimrod, Jezebel, Herod, Caiaphas and Simon Magus exhibit at any point? Your theological system is at odds with the Bible text.

      God’s blessings did not ALWAYS fall on the younger. Jesus Christ was firstborn of Mary, remember? Instead, the birthright falling on the older was a strong, firm Middle Eastern cultural practice, and moreover a cultural practice that developed entirely as part of contemporary religious beliefs (more on that later). God made a point of choosing the younger as opposed to the elder to show that His blessings came by His Divine election rather than by birthright, and that His blessings were supernatural, and not part of or dependent on the natural order. This was very important because Jews – and God’s chosen before them – operated in a context dominated by pagan animist and spiritist worldviews that were very naturalistic … their religions slavishly followed the natural order (see the Horus/Osiris Egyptian calendar myth, which is a worship system based on the changing of the seasons and agricultural cycles and is never-ending, the “god” of that system is born, grows up, dies and is born the the process starts over again each calendar year) which was impossible to break (even by the gods themselves), and the blessings on the firstborn was part of that natural order. God’s blessing the younger served both as a polemic against the other religions and gods (revealing their false and powerless nature; those people were actually worshiping demons who were con artists capable of only producing a few tricks) and His method of revealing Himself as the Lord and God of creation. Again, where in the false Babylonian, Assyrian, Syrian, Phoenician etc. religions, the gods were immanent – part of creation – and could not transcend it. They had to follow the natural order just like everyone and everything else. They COULDN’T bless the younger and have the elder serve him because that was an abrogation of the natural order – a miracle – of the sort that they were not capable. In those religions, the most that could be done was to devote yourself to naturalism and to its gods with worship and sacrifices and hope for the best. They had to go along with the weather, agricultural, fertility, star etc. cycles. Basically, they were worshiping their limited knowledge of creation that they had gained from observation and the results of trial and error experimentation (i.e. planting crops in the middle of winter when several weeks of freezing cold remain or in late summer when it doesn’t rain doesn’t work). But God, as Creator and Lord of creation, had the power to violate these natural laws, and used it by way of His election of Abel and Seth, Shem, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David etc. And God did this graciously despite the sin nature present in all men through Adam. Where all men in Adam have sin nature, only those in Jesus Christ have righteousness, and even that righteousness is by imputation. (It is not inherent in man or part of man.)

      • Christine said

        What do you know about my “theoogical system” when the question you put to me above it at complete odds with what I actually said? Are you really not aware of the “types” represents in Gen in Cain, Abel and Seth? (Hint: Abel doesn’t represent the wicked/natural/carnal nature, Cain does!) I said nothing about Mary (who, btw, is a figure of the church) but mentioned the birth order of Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau in relation to the topic. So throwing in every other person mentioned in the Bible to “counter” my comment does nothing but the fact that you didn’t understand what I said. I wasn’t actually agreeing with – to a point – just suggesting you take it a bit further and compare SPIRITUAL things WITH SPIRITIUAL (instead of looking on only the outward appearance). There are lots of types/figures/similitudes in scripture. Paul even points some of them out in the NT. If you want to call that “gnosticism” then I guess Paul was a gnostic! The same “many” (ALL BUT ONE) who were “made sinngers” IN ADAM are “made righteous” IN CHRIST. That is scripture! So while you can accuse me of being the one to ignore or twist scripture, perhaps you should do a little bit more research on the dosctrine of eternal torment and find out how/when that doctrine entered the church. Seems you like to do reearch and know something of the history of other religions. Do you know any about your own?

  3. john kaniecki said

    Job,

    Hi hope you are well.

    Please explain this concept Christine is promoting. How one can deny Hell and try to honestly interprate the scriptures is beyond me.

    Looks like the United States and Europe is going to invade Lybia. It seems to me this is the final surge for the New World Order to take it all. Time is working against the pale man with the rise of China and other nations and the decline of the European societies.

    By the way you have been a good friend over the years.

    Love,

    John Kaniecki

    • Christine said

      I don’t deny hell. Nor does disagreement suggest dishonesty. Are you not being “honest” with scripture just because you disagree with others on matters of interpretationn? If not, why assume others are not taking an honest look at scripture just because they disagree with you?

  4. Devon said

    Hi Christine….just wondering…do you hold to universalism as your belief? I’m not quite sure where you are coming from.

    Thanks

  5. john kaniecki said

    Christine,

    Hi hope you are well. It is not your honesty I am questioning. I am questioning somebody who reads the scriputres in it’s entirety and then denies the reality of Hell. Since you don’t deny Hell you don’t fit into that category.

    I am still curious about your believes and I would like you to teach me about your understanding of scripture.

    Love,

    John Kaniecki

    Here is your statement that I interpreted about you not acknowledging hell. “I believe in the salvation of all men, yes.”

    • Christine said

      Hi John, I am well. Thank you. I took exception to your comment because (1) I couldn’t see who else it could have been “about” but me and (2) not only did I not deny the existance of hell, I don’t know a single person who believes the bible to be true who denies hell. So if that is what you think universalism is all about then perhaps you don’t really know enough about it? But how one might ‘define’ a thing (in this case “hell”) doesn’t mean that they deny it’s existance. The scriptues obviously speak of hell and the lake of fire, the second death, etc. And I know no one who denies that, though how one might interpret those things may be different from how you do. That’s not denial, that’s a difference in interpretation. And there would not be as many different Christian denominations as there are if interpretation of the scriptures were not an issue, which is why I also take exception to some of Job’s comments – as one need not accuse someone else of claiming some “speical knowledge” that others do not have when they themselves hold to an interpretation of scripture that is not exactly aligned with “all” Christian believers either. It’s hypocritical. If the scriptures we so “easy” to understand (as many love to claim) there would not be so many differences in interpretation to begin with, nor would the Holy Spirit be required, as there would be no need for “spiritual discernment” or for anyone to “rightly dividing the word of truth”…. anyone who can read can understand. And while it is true that anyone who can read CAN understand what the bible ‘says’ (in a very literal sense), that doesn’t mean that they can understand “as they aught”, in my opinion. Not even Christ’s 12 desciples, who were at his side for over 3 years, understood his teachings. They, too, had to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit was sent to them. Paul made it very clear that what he knew/taught came from God not man. That’s not to say that God doesn’t use men to spread the Good News, but only the spirit of God can understand the things of God and even “babes” in Christ are “yet carnal”, according to Paul. And, according to Peter, Paul’s epistles were “hard to be understood” (not “easy”). So, perhaps, it would do us all some good to realize that and not use our differences to promote schism in the body of Christ, as is so common when people start to believe that ‘they’ know who is and who isn’t a part of that body. Christ did not die for believers, he died for the ungodly. He died for us when were yet dead in sins. And, according to Paul, it was then that we were “quickened together with Christ”. That is what makes Him Lord of both the living AND THE DEAD (the “dead” being those dead in sin… not copses in physical graves). This is also why “the dead” must “rise first”… for if one died for all, then were ALL DEAD.

      All Blessings IN CHRIST!
      Christine

  6. john kaniecki said

    Christine,

    Hi hope you are well. My apologies for confusion. I have met people who say there is no hell. There are people out there who believe a lot of different things. It sometimes amazes me that we are all reading the same book!!

    Please elaborate on your beliefs so I can be educated in what you believe.

    Yes we are all sinners and all Christ died for all of mankind. The way back to the Father has been offered to all men. However not all will choose to take that path. Straight and narrow is the way to salvation and few find it. Broad and wide is the way to destruction and many walk down it.

    Love,

    John Kaniecki

    • Christine said

      Hi John, I have met people who say “there is no hell”, too, but I think that is a very poor choice of words, especially when what they are really saying (in most if not all cases) is there is not place of eternal torment, that that is not what “hell” is. And believing in the salvation of all men doesn’t require you to deny that many are called but few few are chosen. Nor does it require you to deny Mat 7:13-14 (which says nothing of “salvation”… strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth UNTO LIFE). Maybe you don’t see a difference? What do you believe “eternal life” is?

  7. Devon said

    Christine, I am still not following you here….the Bible is explicit in that the majority of humanity is lost and going to Hell….I know you are not denying Hell but are you saying everyone will be saved?

    Thanks

    • Christine said

      Devon, ALL of humanity was lost, that is why we needed a Saviour. And we do “go to” hell, we are “in” hell when we are “dead in sin”. It is “the body of this death” from which we (all) need to be redeemed.

  8. […] Joseph was a type of Jesus Christ. He was, as the pharaoh of Joseph’s time testified of, one in whom the Holy Spirit lived. And the very name Joseph means “YHWH has added”, which means that YHWH had […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: