Week seven: 3.28-4.7 Paul explains the oneness of believers, both of old and of new

Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

COPYRIGHT 2004

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.

INTRODUCTION:

Please think back to your childhood and remember that relationship you had with your father - probably your "dad" - then mature yourself and consider your relationship with him now. We will look at the Father Son relationship in this lesson. God the Father has opened the way for us to be adopted and made full sons in His family.

Consider what kind of relationship we should have with the Father. Consider your present relationship with the Father. Indeed, if your natural father relationship is lacking maybe you should spend some time considering how you relate to God and apply those truths to your father in this life.

I have heard it said that as your physical father relationship went so will your spiritual Father relationship go. I have found this to be true in many cases. If you have a high regard, respect and awe of your physical father then so will you view God the Father. If you have a close fuzzy relation with your physical father then your spiritual relation will also be close and fuzzy one. What it boils down to is that if you respect your physical father you will have profound respect for God, while if you have little respect for your earthly father there will be little respect for God.

Now, if there are problems between your physical father and yourself, then maybe this is why you have problems with your spiritual father.

Knowing this, try to separate your feelings toward your physical father and concentrate on the Word of God to find out how you should relate to your spiritual Father. You should not make the mistake of forming your relationship with God based on the wrong relation you have with your father. Be sure your concept of God is from the Word and no where else.

28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now, I am told that young Jews of old prayed the following prayer each morning upon rising from their nights rest. "Lord, I thank you that I am not a Gentile, a slave, or a woman." They pray it, I don't okay! The verse we have just read tends to disprove the thought of their prayer.

In short there is no room in Christianity for Archie Bunkers, even though we have some that are close to that mind set scattered through the church.

The word Greek can relate to specifically Greek people, but also it can relate to any nation/people that are different than Jew either in cultural or religion. It is the later thought in this context as Paul is speaking to the Jew/Gentile questions.

Bond in the verse is the normal word for slave - one that is controlled by a master/owner. This is of major note in Paul's day in that there were slaves that had heard the Gospel and had accepted Christ. Philemon is a letter written concerning a Christian slave. There is no label of slave in the church; they are counted as one with all others.

This ought to be a priority in our churches today. There are many clichés and groups that segregate out by all sorts of demographics. The rich stick together, the poor stick together, the professionals stick together, the blue collar stick together, etc. This ought not to be the case.

Just a comment on how one church dealt with the rich poor differences. The rich loved to do their get togethers up in a big way and it usually cost money to attend through tickets. Being one of the poor at the time, we seldom attended these functions. Some of the better off couples made it a habit of buying extra tickets and providing them to those that couldn't afford them. Others would invite other couples to attend with them.

This was a good way for the different groups to get to know each other and find out that they are real people too - in fact they probably had common interests. It was a good time of bringing people of the church together.

There are three sets of groups, each separated by the word "nor" however the final phrase is divided by a different term than the other two. The first two phrases are divided by a term that means simply neither or nor. The phrase "male nor female" actually is divided by a term that is normally translated "and" but is not translated "nor" normally. I assume that the first two divisions are not quite as well defined as the male/female grouping, although in our present American society the differences have been blurred to the point that one must wonder what sex a person is at times the way people dress/act.

That last phrase has a little word in it that is so big in concept; "one" really is a monumental concept to achieve within the church. We are one - declaration - not open for discussion - done deal - completed - over and done with - etc. So, why are we so many categories these days?

Let's just list some categories we separate believers into these days.

Clergy - layman

Church leadership - simple member

Black - white

Brown - black

Rich - poor

Educated - uneducated

Professional - non-professional

Young - old

Middle aged - child

Mature - immature

Outgoing - inward

I have heard lately that they are doing separate youth worship services rather than the usual, everyone together. With the kids in Jr. Church and the youth in their service how could anyone consider the church fragmented?

Just enough to get your thought processes going - all these divisions are improper and unscriptural and we should root them out of the church so that we all can know that we are one with the other.

I have a study relating to the Bible's many passages that speak to the "one another" PEOPLE that we are and should act like.

Just some other passages that relate to this truth:

I Cor. 12.13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Eph. 2.14 "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

Col. 3.11 "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The term "seed" is a figurative use of the term "sperma" which relates to physical generation of life. It is normally translated seed and is the word for the seed that you plant in the ground for life to spring forth from. It cannot mean that any believer is the literal seed of Abraham, for that is a physical impossibility. We are his descendants in a figurative manner. Just what that means we need to consider in the application section.

Just what are we heirs of? Simply we are benefiting from the work of the seed - Christ and his work on the cross.

Heir is simply the people in line to inherit. When a person dies there is usually a will and if not the state divides up the remainder of the estate and gives it to those that are legal heirs, people that legally descend from the person that died. In fact one of the aspects of this word is the thought of partitioning or dividing. It can be translated appointment. It is not only something that is deserved, but it is something that is apportioned correctly and is given as a thing scheduled.

Kind of interesting to view your salvation in this light - as coming from that promise so long ago - God has been working on bringing this to pass for a long long time. It, to me, shows a tremendous love and concern on God's part for insignificant me!

4 :1 Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

In the old days a child was placed under a tutor. The tutor was rule, you did not do anything against him and you did everything he told you to do. This was a control that was delegated by the father for the proper rearing of the child.

This is a picture of the law. The Jew was to do the law and live as if it were his rule for life, for indeed it was. Yet, this was not to be the only way of life, for God had something better yet to come.

This also pictures the fact that there is no respecter between members under the law - all are treated the same. The child of the master is treated the same as the child of the servant - all must be trained and raised properly.

We might suggest this is lacking in our own day. The rich children and the prospered children often are coddled into all their glorious spoiledness while the poor and the lowly are taught the truths from life's hard knocks. It might be good for our society to realize that the spoiling that has gone on by the baby boomer generation has caused its mountain of problems in their children.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

In God's time all came to pass. The "fulness" of time relates to the completeness of time. In God's timing - His perfect timing the cross occurred. Not a moment sooner than planned and not a moment later than planned. The term is used of a ship that is full of not only its load, but loaded with its crew, soldiers and all that is needed for sailing - a full compliment.

In God's full time table, He had His son present Himself to the Romans for crucifixion.

In Bible College a professor took an entire class period to present the fact that Christ came at the most opportune time in history. He presented from history the climate, the geographics, and the politics of the time, and it was obvious that the timing was perfect, the setting was the most advantageous, the Christ was on time. (No, I don't have the notes on the class to share with you, sad to say.)

See also Rom. 8.15; Eph. 1.5 for further study.

I would wonder of the significance of Paul adding the phrases "made of a woman, made under the law," to this verse. Why would he add this information at this point? I have to wonder if there weren't some aspects of the Judaizers teachings that were defective in the humanity of Christ and possibly in the thought of how Christ related to the law. I see no other reason for him to include this information.

It may be to emphasize the fact that in the fullness of God's time He made Christ of a woman, and He made Christ under the law - the fact that God determined all of this, that nothing was accidental or by chance.

Verse five ("To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.") seems to add to the thought that we have considered which teaches that the Old Testament saints were not fully "vested" in their salvation. They still needed redemption and adoption for Paul places them with himself as needing these things. Christ in the fullness of time accomplished these things for the Old Testament saints so that they could finally be that complete "part of God's family."

6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Now, I may step on toes here, but that is life in the theological scene. "Abba, Father" is described by some as an endearing term like "dada" or "daddy,” however I see nothing in the words themselves, nor the context to indicate we should address God as "dada" or even "daddy."

The term "abba" is the Aramaic word for father and the word "father" is the word "pater" which means father. In the lexicon it is mentioned that both words were used of God in prayer and in worship and used in great reverence, not great familiarity and endearment. I may be wrong, but I think "pater" is one of the terms that the Roman church uses of the Pope, certainly not a term they use like daddy!

This whole idea of "dada" is part of the bringing down to man, the God of the universe. It is the making of almighty God into Someone we can bond with, Someone we can relate to, and Someone that we can live with - not Someone that is high and lifted up, not Someone that is our Lord and Master, and not Someone that would be comfortable in the comforts of our wishy washy living style that is akin to the world, and not akin to the heavenlies.

This "dada" thought is akin to the movement that says God wants us to be rich, that says God wants us to be prosperous, and that wants us to never want for anything. If this is so, Paul wasn't very spiritual because he had to work for a living; he had to walk long miles in the dust of the east. Jonah had to take a fish instead of his Corvette - how ludicrous to say that God wants us all rich! He wants us rich in the heavenlies, yet some pastors are telling us to lay up stores here on earth. (And I might say, most of those same pastors set a perfect example by amassing cars and riches.)

7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

We are now full sons, mature and ready to take our place beside our father - full heirs of God through the work of Christ the promised seed.

Again, how can you consider this passage and not sit in awe and wander at the workings of God behind the scenes to bring all this to pass for your worthless soul. You must have a great and wonderful value to the Father and to the Son that gave His life for you.

And we complain about taking a couple three hours out of our week to go to church and learn of his wondrous love for us. Indeed, we have pastors preaching everything under the sun but the Son.

Christians, we are far from worshiping the God that orchestrated our salvation, we are far from worshiping the God of Abraham, and we are far from worshiping the God that yet has plans for the future that will just as surely come to pass - just as surely as our salvation, just as surely as our heirship, will those future events come to pass.

And who do we worship - the god of contemporary music, the god of bringing lost people into the church, the god of convenience, and the god of entertainment and ease. May God have mercy on the church leaders of our day.

APPLICATION:

1. In verse twenty nine we read "And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

We observed earlier that "seed" indicates that all believers are figurative descendants of Abraham. We observed also that a physical link to Abraham is an impossibility, thus we may safely assume that this is a figurative use of the terms.

Just what does this "figurative" link to Abraham mean to the believer? Are we to benefit from any of the promises made to Abraham long ago? Are we to benefit from the future blessings of Abraham in the end time?

We will reign with Christ in the kingdom and whatever that entails, but we won't be with the Jewish folks that will receive the land as promised to Abraham.

2. Just a little further study relating to "abba father."

"Abba” has its origins in the Chaldean language and is Hebrew in nature - it meant "father." It was used as a title for bishops and patriarchs in early oriental churches, thus indicating the thought of honor, respect and position rather than a familiar, endearing term. It became "abbot" in Europe, again a term of description and respect.

Christ used the term of God the Father in a number of passages: Matt. 11:25-26; Matt. 26:39; Matt. 26:42; Luke 10:21; Luke 22:42; Luke 23:34; John 11:4; John 12:27; John 17:24; John 17:25.

In Mark 14:36; Romans 8:15 and here in Galatians the term translated Father is preceded by the term Abba. The Mark passage says "And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."

Some suggest that Paul's use of both an Old Testament word and a Greek term is to also show the lack of difference between the Jew and the Gentile. God is a God of all not just the Jew.

Barnes states: "It is said in the Babylonian Gemara, a Jewish work, that it was not permitted slaves to use the title of Abba in addressing the master of the family to which they belonged. If so, then the language which Christians are here represented as using is the language of freemen, and denotes that they are not under the servitude of sin."

None of the commentaries I checked give any hint that this should carry the thought of papa or dada, but more the idea of respect, position, honor, trust and the other fatherly attributes. As a pet name for God, I think not.

It amazes me that one would take a phrase meaning "father father" and suggest that it should be a term that a child would use of their father such as dada or papa. Two words require two words, not one.

And finally, how can you interpret in the historical context of this passage and understand these terms as dada when the father was supreme in the family. He controlled all aspects of the family and I'm sure the terms abba or father were in the area of respect of the position. Not that there could not be more familiar and loving terms used, but just not these two in my mind.

One further final thought, just what does this phrase "sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." mean. It seems to me that it is the Spirit that is crying to the Father, and I can't imagine the Spirit of God calling the Father dada!

I will point out that it is we, the Christian, that calls out in Rom. 8.15 "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." The next verse seems to tie the Spirits cry to that of the believer. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"

"We cry" is the same terminology as the cry of the Spirit of God - again dada doesn't seem to fit.

Vincent states of the term "crying" "A strong word, expressing deep emotion. The verb originally represents the sound of a croak or harsh scream; thence, generally, an inarticulate cry; an exclamation of fear or pain." Again the term dada doesn't quite fit the context of the usage.

Thayer states the following in relation to the term "abba" "acquired the nature of a most sacred proper name, to which the Greek speaking Jews added the name from their own tongue."

The only authors that suggest the term abba should be understood in a familiar relation suggesting the idea of "daddy” are modern evangelical people like Erickson and MacArthur. I find this of interest when related to all the older commentators and scholars. It would seem that there has been a change of attitude - from one of honor and respect to one of familiarity. They relate their thought to the fact that we are now sons.

I ran across another author that was of the current line of thought that it should be translated "daddy" but he did not go as far as to say it should give the idea of "dada" - only that it should show the intimacy of relationship whereby when we are in trouble we can call upon our dad for assistance. He seemed quite emphatic in saying that this is not the immature child calling "daddy" but the mature son calling "dad."

Again, I see no reason to see this or to translate this as "dada" or "daddy" since the lexicons say it means father - quite two different things in my mind. The above mentioned author (Dr. Constable) goes on to state that the term is used in other literature of a mature person claiming the inheritance left him by his father. Suggestion: Put "dada" in this context and see if it fits. Would you go before a judge to claim your inheritance and say, "I am here to claim my dada's money and property?"

3. It has crossed my mind in understanding the father son relationship in the Old Testament that there is a grand illustration of theology in this part of their life style. The father was the top dog in the Old Testament economy and he could do as he pleased. He could farm out his kids to a servant to raise them, or he could do it himself. The illustration comes when you realize that the father could adopt into the family any child that he wanted to adopt - an illustration of God's choosing or electing some but not others. It is also a grand illustration that he is electing some as sons but not electing others to non-sonship. The non-sonship is not a result of the election of one, it is the constant condition of the non-son prior to and following a man's grace in electing one.

If that was an acceptable illustration, how many arguments might be saved from happening over the profound thought of electing the lost to hell.

I might add that it is not I that chose this illustration, but God through the apostle Paul that used it in God's Word in the letter to the Galatians.

4. Well, now here we go again, getting theological - verse 6 "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." speaks to the theological term "trinity" - note the Father sent the Spirit of the Son - a clear reference to all three members of the trinity. Though the term trinity does not exist in the Bible, the truth that is taught under its name certainly does.

It always amazes me on internet boards when people state that the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible as though that will wipe away the entire teaching in one sweeping statement that really does not relate to the teaching. It is their feeble attempt to cast doubt upon a doctrine that the church has taught for centuries.

This passage also tends to disprove the thought of a single god in three manifestations as the Jesus only cult teaches. They hold that there is only one god but that he appeared as God the Father in the Old Testament, as Jesus in the early New Testament and as the Spirit from the book of Acts on. This cult is one of the hardest to dispute because they use the same verses to attempt to prove their point as we use to prove the trinity.

After many conversations with them on the internet, I feel it is probably a waste of time to discuss the trinity with them. They, like those of the reform faith, assume they have the only true interpretation, so refuse to even consider whether your interpretation might have validity. Their interpretation is what God means and that is the end of the discussion - if you feel it means something else, you are automatically teaching falsehood and are to be rejected as a false teacher.

I have had numerous discussions with people like this on the internet and find that all that it will gain you is frustration and maybe a headache :-)

5. In relation to verse 28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." we need to consider a couple of items. This is not a blanket statement that all differences between Jew and Gentile, between bond and free and between male and female are wiped away.

It only teaches that in the church all are equal; in the family of God all are equal and in value and worth, all are equal. Does it mean that the wife is no longer to be submissive to her husband? No, how can it for that would contradict other, clear teaching of the Word of God. It does not say that all servants should be freed either, for how could it? Servitude was a way of life in this historical context. Female subordinance was also a historical fact, as well as the Jewish/Gentile divide.

This passage does not suggest for a moment that we should attempt to wipe away these differences, it only speaks to the equality ALL have before God in their common salvation.

Feminists might camp on this verse while ignoring others to prove that God is a feminist, but they do so wrongly. ALL of Scripture must be related to this one verse to find the Biblical view of women.

NOR, is this as some might suggest that we should ordain women to the office of elder. It says nothing of the order of the sexes that God has laid out in His word, nor does it abrogate all that God has said of women in the Word. It is only one aspect that is to be considered along with all the other passages relating to women in the Bible.

This passage does speak heavily to the fact that all are equal before God, that all have the same free access to God, and that they are all believer priests before God for themselves. No man that believes in Christ needs to go through any other man to have direct and equal access to God.

NOR, does this passage prove or even speak to the thought that Israel and the Church are an integrated part of one another. They are distinctly separate in the New Testament and nothing can mix them. This only speaks to the oneness that we have in Christ. Indeed, the believing Jew is part of the church body now, rather than a part of Israel. I don't know how all this will work out in the end time, but I do know you have to set the word on its ear to suggest that Israel and the Church are one.

In the first place most of Israel is lost at this point in time, as well as in Paul's time. How can you even attempt to state that Israel and the Church are one, when common sense shows that most of Israel is lost and most of the church is saved?

6. Some suggest that there is a clear distinction that Paul is making in verses 1-3 that show the Jews obeying the law and the Gentiles obeying "the elements of the world." are different. I do not see this difference; Paul is saying that both heir and servant are under the tutors command until the father says differently. Paul goes on to say that we were in the same position - under the tutor, or the schoolmaster that was over us as immature children.

There then is great discussion as to what "elements of the world" might mean. There seem to be five primary suggestions.

a. That the elements are rules and regulations of pagan religions. Though they do not give answer to the idea that not all non-Jews were under a pagan religions influence.

b. Others suggest that this is the Demonic and Satanic influences set upon the world through all time.

c. Yet others suggest that this is basic philosophy and religious teachings.

d. Then there are those that feel these are the fundamental elements of the creation, fire, water, air and earth. Since the context is a discussion of being under the law, jumping clear over into the elements of creation seems a little too large a jump.

e. And finally one author suggests that it is a matter of maturity. The child is under the elemental laws of childhood, while the adult is free from these restrictions.

Take a few moments to read the verses and see if you can determine which of these might be correct.

I might suggest a sixth possible that seems from the context to be more plausible - that the lost Gentile was just under the rules, regulations, and beliefs that he had relating to God in his own individual life.

I might also reject my own possibility for if you watch the pronouns adequately you will note that Paul includes himself as being under these elements of the world. He was a Jew, and could not include himself if there really was a distinction in his mind in this passage. Read the context. "3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

I think that Paul was simply suggesting that all were under the rules and regulations of whatever we were under (elements of the world) relating to this world and all it requires of any person, as opposed to the next world.

Hate to say it, but I think we theologians and teachers make things way to hard by considering the phrase without the context.

Just a little information, the term elements, can and is translated in other translations, as rudiments. It comes from the thought of lining up one after the other - you know when you finally get your life organized you say you have all your ducks in a row - that is the thought of the word originally. It then became related to the thought of the alphabet, thus the thought of elemental or elements.

This gives indication to me that Paul was just relating to the rules and regulations that go with trying to exist in this world without God and how wonderful the salvation is that puts us under God's organizational system.

7. Swete suggests that "The purpose of the Son's mission was to give the rights of sonship; the purpose of the Spirit's mission, to give the power of using them." (The Holy Spirit in the New Testament; H. B. Swete; p. 204.)

8. The overall truth of the text seems to me to be that if we were under the law, then saved from it by the work of the cross, if we were outside the family, then saved into the family by adoption, why in the world would we go back under the law, why in the world would we thumb our nose at the one paying the price, and why in the world would we attempt to remove ourselves from the family by rejecting its freedom and placing ourselves back under the elements of this world?

9. In relation to the Judaizers, it is suggested that they were prone to want to return to the past. This is not uncommon for man. I don't know if this is what the Judaizers did or not for we are not told, but if they did have a "hankerin fer the past" they surely could have come up with this mix of law and grace without too much trouble.

We need to beware that our desire to return to the good ole days doesn't end us up in non-Scriptural areas of doctrine and practice. We need to desire the good of the past, but not to the detriment of the present or the future.

While we are on this subject we need to realize that when looking back we tend to exaggerate the positive and negate the negative to the point that all is glorious in the past. This is not so, for the past is full of pitfalls, and troubles, and problems that made the end seem positive.

10. There is another line of consideration when we come to the divisions within a church body. We tend to blame any divisions on the fact that the groups tend to clump together, and this is true, however there is the back side of this. Many there are in the church that doesn’t feel comfortable associating with those that are different from themselves. This is probably why we tend to clump.

It is wrong - even though we may feel uncomfortable we should attempt to be kind and considerate to ALL people in the church. We should make it a point to say hello to that lowly janitor (I have been that lowly janitor in a church so know the concept well.) Say hello to that rich doctor, say hello to that social climber, say hello to that poor old woman that is trying to get by on social security. "All" is the concept with God; we need to work at that which is right and proper.

Gen. 12.3 "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." shows that God has the whole in mind rather than the individual. One of the great shortcomings of Israel was their lack of inclusion of the world in their great God's plan. They were seclusive and few Gentiles entered into the covenant with them.

11. We mentioned earlier that Christ came at the right time, the proper time, and the appointed time. God is also interested in your own needs and be assured that His time is in His mind for you - He won't forget you, he won't forget your need, and he won't forget to fulfill your need at His time for you.

Often we are way in a hurry to get things taken care of, but He doesn't seem to get it - we keep pestering Him to take care of a need and He just dawdles along while we sweat and worry. Maybe we need to give Him the need, give Him the time He desires and GIVE HIM A BREAK - stop worrying and start resting in His promise to care for you. He will get to it when it is time. He has never been late.

12. This passage is clear and to the point, anyone that believes in Christ is an heir with Christ, we are sons to the fullest extent. We inherit the riches of our Father. Personally, I have never grasped that concept in a personal way, even though I see the clear teaching of the Word. I understand the fact of it, I understand the implications of it, but I don't think I have personalized it.

In the first place, I am saved by the pure grace of God - I was on my way to hell, and He reached down and stopped that progress and drew me abruptly back to be a part of His kingdom. So, where in that is there anything that I have done that would deserve anything else? Indeed, I am not deserving of being in His kingdom. I am His and He decides to shower riches upon me. Go figure. I am just very glad to be on my way to heaven, I don't know that I care about the riches. I am sure when I have them I will enjoy them but they don't seem to excite me like the usual coming attractions.

I suppose some will think back to what I have mentioned about a house full of toys and wonder why I am not anticipating riches, but then that is the disconnect we tend to have between this life and the next.

He will do as He will and I am sure I will enjoy it, but even now, I can't grasp that life of sonship over and above the freedom from hell and ability to walk in righteousness here and now. The anticipation of that next life is filled with knowing Him and understanding all of this life.