Verses that aren’t in the Bible

“While Jesus was on the cross, the Father turned His face away from Jesus.”

“Jesus took the blame for our sin.”

“On the cross, Christ bore the wrath that we deserved.”

“He lived the life we should have lived, He died the death we should have died.”

“God judged Jesus for our sins.”

“God cannot allow sin into His presence.”

These verses, thoughts, and phrases are not in the Bible. Not anywhere. Not in these words, not in other words. They’re just not.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Verses that aren’t in the Bible

  1. No one (that I’ve ever spoken to) ever claimed those to be Bible verses. Those are applications of Bible verses. For instance, the first one is an application of Christ’s cry on the cross “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.” Is it a bit of a stretch to say the darkness that came over the land was God turning His face away? Maybe, but they get that because Matthew 27 records the darkness and the very next verse records the crying out.

    What lends itself against this interpretation is that the darkness existed for 3 hours before Jesus cried out. But the application of your first phrase can still be implied simply from Jesus’ cry.

    Oh, and as a side grammar note, the way you wrote it sounds like you put God the Father on the cross, not Christ. But I shouldn’t poke too much or it will come back to haunt me because I’m sure my grammar isn’t all that great either. 🙂

  2. Yeah, I don’t think they can be implied from that. It’s a quote from Psalm 22, I am thinking. I see your point about my grammar. I shall make it less ambiguous.

  3. Or rather Psalm 22 is a prophecy fulfilled. Yes it’s a quote, but remember what I mentioned the other day? Taking the simple and using it to interpret the more complex? What do we know about sin? We know that God cannot have part in sin. God cannot condone it, commit it, or fellowship with it. This is why I John tells us we must confess our sins to have fellowship with God. The Bible tells us that Christ took on Himself the sins of the world (I Peter 2:24).

    By doing that, God could no longer have that fellowship with Him. Jesus Christ, the perfect, spotless Son of God who never knew a day of separation from the Father was cut off from Him. It is for this reason that Christ asked God to let the cup pass from Him. Jesus wasn’t talking about the physical torture, He could take that. The thought that He struggled with the most was being cut off from the Father. And yes, Jesus could struggle with that. He was human and was touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Nevertheless, He said, not as Christ willed it, but as God did. He submitted Himself to the separation for the sake of mankind. Because He loves us.

      • Reload the page.
        …And no, they aren’t derived from scripture. They were invented and people came up with scriptures that remotely resembled them. Like far too much bad theology.

  4. Also… No. God the Son was not separated from God the Father on the cross. You’re using those not-verses again, like “The Father turned his face away.” I don’t feel like adding “Jesus was cut off from the Father,” because it’s basically the same thing. Examine what you’ve been taught, my friend. You’re assuming that verses mean what you think they mean because you were taught that that was what they meant. You are assuming that the premises are true because you are assuming that the conclusion is true, and assuming the conclusion based on your assumption of the premises! Dang… a little philosophy class woulda gone a long way here…

    Also… Just because something says if A then B, that doesn’t mean if Not-A, then Not-B. (“If we confess our sins, we have fellowship with one another [not God, btw],” not “If we do not confess our sins, He will not forgive us.”)

  5. I never said that God would not allow sin into His presence. Though, I suppose I did not have to say it for you to be reminded of it. Anyway, Scripture clearly teaches that Satan came before God in the time of Job, and probably still does it. But Habakkak 1:13 also says, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?”

    That verse is in my favor for the Christ on the cross situation. Don’t even start on about the second half of the verse. Habakkuk was asking, much like David, why God wasn’t punish the wicked. God’s wrath will come, and did, but God is patient. The first part of the verse is an affirmation of God’s characteristic and holiness.

  6. This is getting into debate mode. I don’t do debates, they’re pointless. Both sides argue and never give in, bound and determined to make the other side see their view point and ultimately nothing ever changes except now you’ve wasted time and possibly destroyed a relationship. So before it gets there, I’ll stop. Ending with just one comment.

    You’re throwing out interpretation all together. I believe that those applications are proper interpretations of Biblical Scripture. You want to see a chapter and verse state that exact phrase and if it doesn’t, it’s not Biblical. That’s just not true. If no interpretation were needed, pastors would just read Scripture and be done with their service. The Bible wouldn’t tell us to preach. Paul, Peter and Stephen would never have needed to say anything except what Jesus said word for word, or quoting the Old Testament.

    I was going to go on, but I flipped into debate mode too, so I erased my comments. I’m off to a graduation for a friend. Talk to you some other time.

  7. Hope you enjoyed your friend’s graduation 🙂

    Sorry… I just get these ideas that I think are super-cool and i have to test them out in the real world to see how they fly. You have an excellent point about relationships vs arguments. I tend to think that I’m better at arguments than most people, mostly because I’ve worked so hard to hone those skills. Which may not necessarily be for the best, unless i’m using it for good.

    Which I’m not sure that i am.

Comments are closed.