Watchtower Governing Body: Are They The Exclusive Channel For God??

[savagewind]

Jesus promised to send a helper to the ones he was speaking to, did he not?

Luke 24:49
I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever

John 15:26
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--he will testify about me.

John 16:7
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

If it wasn't the faithful and discreet slave, who was it?

Which part of the Trinity is the Helper? Is it Jesus? Is it Jehovah? Is it The Holy Spirit? Who really is it? According to the question Jesus says it doesn't matter because a question implies that it doesn't matter. Why does it matter?

 

[katiemygirl]

="kjw47, post: 4327790, member: 17724"]

KJW47
So you don't believe Adam and Eve died spiritually the day they disobeyed God?

You never answered my question. In Eph. 2, Paul says, "He made us alive." He's speaking past tense. Doesn't one have to be dead first in order to be made alive?

And you believe that when God said, "In the day you eat....you will surely die," God is using the word DAY figuratively?

Everytime the word DAY is used in the Bible, is it used figuratively? Does it always mean 1000 years? How do you know when to apply literal or figurative?

What in Genesis has told you that God meant DAY in this passage to mean 1000 years?

 

[james2ko]

There is no one earthly organization, group, denomination, or sect (including my own) that is the exclusive channel for God:

Mar 9:38 John said to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw someone using Your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn't in our group [denomination, organization, sect]."
Mar 9:39 "Don't stop him!" Jesus said. "No one who performs a miracle in My name will soon be able to speak evil of Me.
Mar 9:40 Anyone who is not against us is for us. (NLT)​

To claim otherwise is unscriptural.

 

[e.r.m.]

I dont believe that in the slightest because I know its not true. I attend all our meetings and the bible is used throughout. Perhaps you fell asleep at the meeting you attended and woke up at the end when they were putting their books away

I'm not lying. It, happened just as I said. I made no conclusions about other meetings.

 

[savagewind]

I think the question "who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give food at the proper time" is meant to bring attention to the human condition of trust.

Should we trust humans to lead us? The Bible seems to teach trust in GOD. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach trust in humans. Trust the men of the governing body. Trust the JWs to tell the truth. Trust the Bible which was brought by humans. I trust The Bible as a whole. I do not trust the governing body (I hear it is because they treated me badly though I never met a gb member), I do not trust the JWs to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and I do not trust that The Bible has been delivered in its original condition.

 

[savagewind]

Is The Helper whom Jesus promised to send faithful and discreet? Did it obey Jesus' command to come?


Did Jesus ask his disciples "WHO do people say I am"?

WHO really is the faithful and discreet slave?

There is no one more faithful and discreet than Jesus is. Is there?

Did Jesus come as a slave to His Father?

 

[savagewind]

The funny thing is people will say Jesus can't be the faithful and discreet slave because then after that he says ""if ever that evil slave should say in his heart "my master is delaying....""

It's funny because they do not apply the same rule to the men who profess to be it. Isn't it funny?

 

[katiemygirl]

There is no one earthly organization, group, denomination, or sect (including my own) that is the exclusive channel for God:

Mar 9:38 John said to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw someone using Your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn't in our group [denomination, organization, sect]."
Mar 9:39 "Don't stop him!" Jesus said. "No one who performs a miracle in My name will soon be able to speak evil of Me.
Mar 9:40 Anyone who is not against us is for us. (NLT)​

To claim otherwise is unscriptural.

God speaks to all of us through His word. It is our INDIVIDUAL responsibility to read, study and learn what His will is for us. Our spiritual leaders guide us but it is our responsibility to search the Scriptures to be sure that what they teach is God's truth, not their view.

 

[JFish123]

You are quoting an improper translation there. "I will not share my glory with another", is a wrong translation of that verse.

And judging by the clarity of their own Bible translation, that is a strange thing indeed:

Romans 6:
1 "What are we to say then? Should we continue in sin so that undeserved kindness may increase?
2 Certainly not! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how can we keep living any longer in it?
3 Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 So we were buried with him through our baptism into his death, in order that just as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in a newness of life.
5 If we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be united with him in the likeness of his resurrection.
6 For we know that our old personality was nailed to the stake along with him in order for our sinful body to be made powerless, so that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin.
7 For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin." (NWT 2013)

The only thing I can see as a possible reason is that phrase I highlight in red, "we will certainly also be". That can be taken to mean that Paul is talking about something which only happens in the future. And due to other errors in their beliefs.they would likely assume that means after one's literal death. But that is just not so.

esometha is there in the present imperative. It therefore denotes continuing action in and through the present.

This also is more in sink with that word, "alla" which verse 5 should begin with but they left out. If they would put that back into the text where it belongs, verse 5 would read, "But (in the sense of contrariwise, or, "to the contrary") if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we should certainly also [now] be united with him in the likeness of his resurrection [no longer walking in sin].

1 ......Should we continue in sin so that undeserved kindness may increase?
2 Certainly not! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, [so] how can we keep living any longer in it?

It comes down to each individual being willing to see what it really says. For many are fearful to face the facts concerning themselves.

8 I am Jehovah. That is my name;
I give my glory to no one else,
Nor my praise to graven images.
-New World Translation
Again if God won't give his glory to Anyone, why does Jesus have it unless Jesus IS Jehovah

 

[JFish123]

Every christian denomination does that. When a priest or pastor gets up and reads a portion of scripture he puts his own interpretation to it. He tells the people what his views on it are....he explains what his particular brand of Christianity believes it to mean.

In the end, we are required to sift through the vast sea of ideas and interpretations and decide which one convinces me.




Our translation committee never attempted to translate the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They based the NWT on a couple of english manuscripts. So all this hooohaaa about Brothers on the committee not being able to read and write in greek and hebrew is a moot point. They didnt need to have a scholarship in the greek and hebrew languages. They used scholarly translations as the basis or their bible. Look in all of our bible literature for information on hebrew and greek words and you'll find that they quote from many and varied reputable scholars.

I dont buy into baseless criticisms.

I'll keep praying one day your eyes may be opened to the Truth. God Bless

 

[JFish123]

Every christian denomination does that. When a priest or pastor gets up and reads a portion of scripture he puts his own interpretation to it. He tells the people what his views on it are....he explains what his particular brand of Christianity believes it to mean.

In the end, we are required to sift through the vast sea of ideas and interpretations and decide which one convinces me.




Our translation committee never attempted to translate the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They based the NWT on a couple of english manuscripts. So all this hooohaaa about Brothers on the committee not being able to read and write in greek and hebrew is a moot point. They didnt need to have a scholarship in the greek and hebrew languages. They used scholarly translations as the basis or their bible. Look in all of our bible literature for information on hebrew and greek words and you'll find that they quote from many and varied reputable scholars.

I dont buy into baseless criticisms.

1. Genesis.1:1-2--"In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." (New World Translation, emphasis added).
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies that the Holy Spirit is alive--the third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of " . . . the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters," to say " . . . and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."
2. Zechariah. 12:10--In this verse God is speaking and says, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son." (Zech. 12:10).
The Jehovah's Witnesses change the word "me" to "the one" so that it says in their Bible, " . . . they will look upon the one whom they have pierced . . . "
Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems--so they changed it.
4. Col. 1:15-17--The word "other" is inserted 4 times. It is not in the original Greek--nor is it implied. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word "other" to show that Jesus was before all "other" things and implying that He is created.
There are two Greek words for "other": heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah's Witness have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology.
5. Hebrews. 1:6--In this verse they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as "obeisance." Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect--even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33; 28:9.
6. Hebrews. 1:8--This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: "But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" Since the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with that, they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as " . . . God is your throne . . . " The problem with the Jehovah's Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as " . . . Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too.
These are but a few of the changes they've made. It's not about different translations from different denominations. It's about a translation that actively changes what the bible says to fit in their own ideology. That's what every believer in Christ should dislike isn't it?

 

[james2ko]

God speaks to all of us through His word. It is our INDIVIDUAL responsibility to read, study and learn what His will is for us. Our spiritual leaders guide us but it is our responsibility to search the Scriptures to be sure that what they teach is God's truth, not their view.

Amen Katie. I don't condemn JW's for their beliefs, as they are not totally anti-Christ, but I cannot believe Jehovah approves of their arrogance toward exclusivity and their condemnation of everyone who does not believe as they do. Especially given the fact Christ Himself did not believe their group was exclusive. I would like to know who it is the JW's believe is that "other" group in Mar 9:38:40?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Every christian denomination does that. When a priest or pastor gets up and reads a portion of scripture he puts his own interpretation to it. He tells the people what his views on it are....he explains what his particular brand of Christianity believes it to mean.

In the end, we are required to sift through the vast sea of ideas and interpretations and decide which one convinces me.




Our translation committee never attempted to translate the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They based the NWT on a couple of english manuscripts. So all this hooohaaa about Brothers on the committee not being able to read and write in greek and hebrew is a moot point. They didnt need to have a scholarship in the greek and hebrew languages. They used scholarly translations as the basis or their bible. Look in all of our bible literature for information on hebrew and greek words and you'll find that they quote from many and varied reputable scholars.

I dont buy into baseless criticisms.

The NWT is a copy of the New Testament translation by Johannes Greber. That's how they got the "a God", "created all other things". Don't believe me? go to a library and get Grebers copy and compare. Or you can do it on line. The Watchtower ordered a few of his books in 1980. The New Testament and Communication with the Spirit World of God. Honestly, go on line and do a scripture comparison on the 2 Bibles and see what you come up with. I'm sure that's why they claim the translators of their Bible "HUMBLY" want to give the glory to God not themselves!

 

[katiemygirl]

Amen Katie. I don't condemn JW's for their beliefs, as they are not totally anti-Christ, but I cannot believe Jehovah approves of their arrogance toward exclusivity and their condemnation of everyone who does not believe as they do. Especially given the fact Christ Himself did not believe their group was exclusive. I would like to know who it is the JW's believe is that "other" group in Mar 9:38:40?

It is not our place to pass judgement on others. We should, however, question the beliefs of others, which contradict God's word. We are told to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

You make a very good point with Mark 9:38-40. I, too, would like to know who the JW's think that other group is.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

8 I am Jehovah. That is my name;
I give my glory to no one else,
Nor my praise to graven images.
-New World Translation
Again if God won't give his glory to Anyone, why does Jesus have it unless Jesus IS Jehovah

The thought there is not that God does not appoint of his glory to others. For he generously does glorify others that he finds deserving of it. The thought is that he does not de-glorify himself to share that glory to others.

There could be no glory but for God's glory. Have you not thought this through?

I believe Tyndale caught onto that. If you check it out you will find Tyndale is correct:

Isaiah 43:11 I am only the LORD, and without me is there no Saviour. (Tyndale)

KJV butchery: Isaiah 43:11 I <H0595>, even <H9999> I <H0595>, am <H9999> the LORD <H3068>; and <H0369> beside me <H1107> there is no <H0369> saviour <H3467>.

Isaiah 44:6 Moreover, thus hath the LORD spoken: even the King of Israel, and his avenger, the LORD of Hosts: I am the first and the last, and without me is there no God. (Tyndale)

KJV butchery: Isaiah 44:6 Thus <H3541> saith <H0559> the LORD <H3068> the King of <H4428> Israel <H3478>, and his redeemer <H1350> the LORD of <H3068> hosts <H6635>; I <H0589> am <H9999> the first <H7223>, and I <H0589> am <H9999> the last <H0314>; and beside me <H1107> there is no <H0369> God <H0430>.

Isaiah 45:5-6 Even I the LORD, before whom there is none other: for without me there is no God. I have prepared thee or ever thou knewest me:
that it might be known from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, that all is nothing without me. For I am the LORD, and there is else none. (Tyndale)

KJV butchery: Isaiah 45:6 That <H4616> they may know <H3045> from the rising of <H4217> the sun <H8121>, and from the west <H4628>, that <H3588> there is <H9999> none <H0657> beside me <H1107>. I <H0589> am <H9999> the LORD <H3068>, and there is none <H0369> else <H5750>.

Isaiah 45:21 Let men draw nigh, let them come hither, and ask counsel one at another, and shew forth: What is he, that told this before? or, who spake of it, ever since the beginning? Have not I the LORD done it: without whom there is none other God? the true God and Saviour, and there is else none but I: (Tyndale)

KJV butchery: Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye <H5046>, and bring them near <H5066>; yea <H0637>, let them take counsel <H3289> together <H3162>: who <H4310> hath declared <H8085> this <H2063> from ancient time <H6924>? Who <H9999> hath told it <H5046> from that time <H0227>? Have <H9999> not <H3808> I <H0589> the LORD <H3068>? and there is no <H0369> God <H0430> else <H5750> beside me <H1107>; a <H0410> just <H6662> God <H0410> and a Saviour <H3467>; there is none <H0369> beside me <H2108>.

The point is that it takes God to make a god, else that god is nothing.

My point is that the Hebrew word often translated as "beside" as in "beside me" in many of our Bibles, in no way means "beside me".

Even Strong's says it means "besides", a word that implies the thought of being "without", in the sense of not being possible apart from God, opposite what the word, "beside" implies.

H1107 -- bil`adey -- constructive plural from 1077 and 5703, not till, i.e. (as preposition or adverb) except, without, besides: KJV -- beside, not (in), save, without.

Here the same word is used in the KJV: Isaiah 36:10 And am I now come up without the LORD against this land to destroy it? the LORD said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.

KJV got one correct: Isaiah 36:10 And am I now <H6258> come up <H5927> without <H1107> the LORD <H3068> against <H5921> this <H2063> land <H0776> to destroy it <H7843>? The LORD <H3068> said <H0559> unto me <H0413>, Go up <H5927> against <H0413> this <H2063> land <H0776>, and destroy it <H7843>.

 

[savagewind]

The thought there is not that God does not appoint of his glory to others. For he generously does glorify others that he finds deserving of it. The thought is that he does not de-glorify himself to share that glory to others.

There could be no glory but for God's glory. Have you not thought this through?

Excellent!

Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, 1 Peter 5:6

You haven't noticed by now so I think I should say........JWs are taught to take scriptures at their face value.

 

[katiemygirl]

="Mountain_Climber, post: 4328609, member: 57086"]
Isaiah 44:6 Moreover, thus hath the LORD spoken: even the King of Israel, and his avenger, the LORD of Hosts: I am the first and the last, and without me is there no God.

Jesus said He was the first and last. How can both the Father and Son be the first and last? There is only one first, and there is only one last.

Isaiah 45:5-6 Even I the LORD, before whom there is none other: for without me there is no God. I have prepared thee or ever thou knewest me:
that it might be known from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, that all is nothing without me. For I am the LORD, and there is else none.

Isaiah 45:21 Let men draw nigh, let them come hither, and ask counsel one at another, and shew forth: What is he, that told this before? or, who spake of it, ever since the beginning? Have not I the LORD done it: without whom there is none other God? the true God and Saviour, and there is else none but I:

The point is that it takes God to make a god, else that god is nothing.

My point is that the Hebrew word often translated as "beside" as in "beside me" in many of our Bibles, in no way means "beside me".

Even Strong's says it means "besides", a word that implies the thought of being "without", in the sense of not being possible apart from God, opposite what the word, "beside" implies.

H1107 -- bil`adey -- constructive plural from 1077 and 5703, not till, i.e. (as preposition or adverb) except, without, besides: KJV -- beside, not (in), save, without.

Here the same word is used in the KJV: Isaiah 36:10 And am I now come up without the LORD against this land to destroy it? the LORD said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.

When one understands that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE, these verses make sense. It's easy to see why GOD (title representative of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) says there is no other God beside me. There is no god besides GOD!.

◄ 1107. bilade ►
Strong's Concordance
bilade: apart from, except, without
Original Word: בִּלְעֲדֵי
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: bilade
Phonetic Spelling: (bil-ad-ay')
Short Definition: besides

You said, "The point is that it takes God to make a god, else that god is nothing."

Where in Strong's does it say this? It seems you are imposing your spin on what the word means.

You said, "Even Strong's says it means "besides", a word that implies the thought of being "without", in the sense of not being possible apart from God, opposite what the word, "beside" implies.

Where in Strong's does it say this is implied?

Maybe you can cut and paste that part for me because I didn't see it.

 

[JayJayDee]

Amen Katie. I don't condemn JW's for their beliefs, as they are not totally anti-Christ, but I cannot believe Jehovah approves of their arrogance toward exclusivity and their condemnation of everyone who does not believe as they do. Especially given the fact Christ Himself did not believe their group was exclusive. I would like to know who it is the JW's believe is that "other" group in Mar 9:38:40?

There was no "other" group.
What was the religious situation back when Jesus walked the earth? Who was Jesus addressing when he said those words in Mark 9:38, 40?

The ESV translates these verses......"John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us."

There were no "Christians" back then. There were only Jews and Jesus was addressing John, a fellow Jew who was speaking about another Jew who was casting out demons in the name of Jesus.....thus putting faith in him as Messiah. There were no Christian "sects" at that time, but there were Jewish sects. Jesus did not have a good thing to say about any of them. Those Jewish sectarian teachers were the reason why "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" were lost in the first place. So from that perspective, any Jews who were responding to him as Messiah was a good thing....but they would eventually have to become part of the group who were "following" Jesus and his apostles. When the Christian congregation was founded at Pentecost and the Holy Spirit was poured out on Jesus followers gathered in Jerusalem, Christians came together in congregations and came under the leadership of appointed elders who directed Christian worship. (Heb 10:24, 25; 13:7, 17)

Divisive sects are the product of human thinking....Jesus and his apostles promoted unity and dissension was discouraged......unity is certainly not seen in the fragmented state of Christendom. (1 Cor 1:10)

When Jesus comes as judge, he will reject those who failed to "do the will of the Father"...telling them that he NEVER knew them....that means that he has not recognised them EVER! He isn't talking about "Christians" here. He is talking about those who only imagine that they are, fooling themselves that they are doing what Christ requires of them. (Matt 7:21-23) Do any of us want to be one of those?
If we can't identify who the true Christians are, then we can easily be part of the "weeds" (fake Christians) that Jesus said would be planted in the world by the devil.

If we cannot identify "Babylon the great" then we will not be able to heed God's command to his "people" to "get out of her" before he brings her to ruin. (Rev 18: 4, 5)

No one puts us in line for life or death except ourselves. Bottom line.....our choices will result in one or the other. There are only "sheep and goats"...there are only two roads. (Matt 7:13, 14) All of us are on one or the other. We have to weigh up all the evidence in view of the fact that the devil (the master deceiver) is running this show. (1 John 5:19; 2 Cor 4:3, 4)

There is no arrogance in any "exclusivity" on our part any more than there was in the message preached in the first century (Matt 10:11-15).....there is simply a truth that must be told and people will make their decisions based on what is in their own heart. We are messengers of the kingdom...nothing more. Everyone is free to reject the message if they like......its up to them.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Jesus said He was the first and last. How can both the Father and Son be the first and last? There is only one first, and there is only one last.

I assume you are referencing Revelation chapter one. We need to dissect the chapter together.

But in the mean time, what in the world do you expect an image to be but like the one it images? If the one he images was the first and the last then he images that with respect to man, even as Revelation chapter one says.

When one understands that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE, these verses make sense. It's easy to see why GOD (title representative of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) says there is no other God beside me. There is no god besides GOD!.

◄ 1107. bilade ►
Strong's Concordance
bilade: apart from, except, without
Original Word: בִּלְעֲדֵי
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: bilade
Phonetic Spelling: (bil-ad-ay')
Short Definition: besides

You said, "The point is that it takes God to make a god, else that god is nothing."

Where in Strong's does it say this? It seems you are imposing your spin on what the word means.

You said, "Even Strong's says it means "besides", a word that implies the thought of being "without", in the sense of not being possible apart from God, opposite what the word, "beside" implies.

Where in Strong's does it say this is implied?

Maybe you can cut and paste that part for me because I didn't see it.

Where in the Strong's does it say that "beside" is an acceptable translation? "Beside" means something completely different than "besides".

I don't mind having to stop and answer you, besides, I was looking forward to it anyway.

H1107 -- bil`adey -- constructive plural from 1077 and 5703, not till, i.e. (as preposition or adverb) except, without, besides:

In modern English we have broken the word, "besides", down to basically meaning, "beside the point being made", as in an additional way to view the point being made.

But when we see the word, "beside", we think of a place alongside.

Two totally different perspectives.

I mean, I showed you that the KJV does translate it also exactly as does Tyndale.

You cannot have the same word meaning two completely different things. One or the other must be wrong. Whenever multiple meanings are given for the Hebrew or the Greek word's translation into English, they must be understood as always retaining the root sense of the word, which in the case of bil`adey is "not til" or "apart from".

I side with Tyndale because he is clearly correct.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Maybe this will clear up the Romans 6:7 controversy. As the JW's state, that when we die we are set free from sin, it's like we never sinned and get another chance. This is a false belief. Does it make sense if you hear it like this? Remember, the Bible says, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin! Sins are not "FORGIVEN" without being covered by the Blood Jesus shed for us. Think of the following as a letter to you from Paul himself.



Don't you know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried with him by baptism into death and one who has died has been set free from sin. How can we who died to sin still live in it? Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body. Because our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.