God is Testing You

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 (New International Version - UK)
Worshipping Other Gods
¹ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, Let us follow other gods (gods you have not known) and let us worship them, ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

James 1:12-14 (New International Version - UK)
¹² Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. ¹³ When tempted, no-one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; ¹⁴ but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.

The LORD your God tests (H5254) you, but does not tempt (G3985) anyone. There must be some difference between testing (H5254) and tempting (G3985). From e-Sword:

H5254
נסה
nâsâh
naw-saw'
A primitive root; to test; by implication to attempt: - adventure, assay, prove, tempt, try.

G3985
πειράζω
peirazō
pi-rad'-zo
From G3984; to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.

Is there a better translation of either of these verses that will resolve this conflict? The word highlighted in red in the LXX translation below is similar to G3985 (it just has a different ending), but I have not been able to find a definition for it. Are there any ancient Greek experts out there?

Deuteronomy 13:3 (Septuagint)
(13:4) οὐκ ἀκούσεσθε τῶν λόγων τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου ἢ τοῦ ἐνυπνιαζομένου τὸ ἐνύπνιον ἐκεῖνο ὅτι πειράζει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε κύριον τὸν θεὸν ὑμῶν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς ὑμῶν

Or is there some other way to interpret what involvement God actually has in verses like Deuteronomy 13:1-3 and 1 Samuel 18:10?

1 Samuel 18:10-11 (New International Version - UK)
¹⁰ The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the harp, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand ¹¹ and he hurled it, saying to himself, I'll pin David to the wall. But David eluded him twice.

I found this excerpt on BLB that seems to answer the question quite well:

Jam 1:13-15 seems to contradict other statements of Scripture in two respects, saying

(a) that 'God cannot be tempted with evil,' and

(b) that 'He Himself tempteth no man.'

But God tempted, or tried, Abraham, Hbr 11:17, and the Israelites tempted, or tried, God, 1Cr 10:9. Jam 1:14, however, makes it plain that, whereas in these cases the temptation or trial, came from without, James refers to temptation, or trial, arising within, from uncontrolled appetites and from evil passions, cp. Mar 7:20-23. But though such temptation does not proceed from God, yet does God regard His people while they endure it, and by it tests and approves them.

[From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 97.]

Keep it Simple

When interpreting scripture, is the most logically parsimonious solution necessarily correct? Or is that just a hang-over from modern rationalism?

Christian Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism

In response to my post discussing whether God the Father left God the Son when He was on the cross, Adam Pastor posted a comment suggesting to watch the video The Human Jesus, which promotes Christian Unitarianism. I thought that rather than derailing that discussion too much, I would make a separate post to discuss this issue. Admittedly, the topic does fall outside of my own guidelines, as outlined in the “Baseline” section of the introductory post, but I think it is important to weigh up any belief against the scriptures.

I have copied my comments from the other post below.

A couple of thoughts about the video:

A major difficultly, is seems, for unitarians is understanding how Jesus can be both fully God and fully human (see video at 25 minutes 30). It is hard for some modern rationalists to understand, I suppose, but the limits of human understanding doesn't limit God. If that were the case, then God is our creation (or at least our servant) — we are God's god.

An interesting point mentioned in the video (23 minutes 50) is that there are verses that seem to promote the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, in apparent conflict with Deuteronomy 6:4. Trinitarians, according to the interviewee (Dan Mages), have tried to come up with a theology that solves this apparent conflict. My question about this is, isn't that what we're meant to do? If there are some apparently conflicting verses, shouldn't we try to work out how to interpret them so there is no contradiction? Otherwise we just have to accept that some of the verses are simply wrong.

It would have saved my time if the weak arguments (e.g., post-biblical era tradition and culture) for both sides of the discussion were omitted and just the solid arguments (that is, basically, just the exegesis of the scriptures) were presented.

About the humanity of Christ: He chose not to exercise His divine privileges while He was on Earth. He chose to subject Himself to the temptations that face mankind.

What I'd find useful, is a table listing all the scripture used to support trinitarianism in one column, and the unitarian rebuttals in another column. Then, a similar table listing all the scripture used to support unitarianism in one column, and the trinitarian rebuttals in another column.

One Jehovah — Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?

Deuteronomy 6:4 (Young's Literal Translation)
⁴Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah;

God cannot look upon sin, and that is why He turned his face away from Christ when He took our sins upon Himself on the cross. Right? That it what I have always been taught.

Come on all you teachers! Do we believe in one God, or not? Do we believe in the Trinity—one God expressed as three Persons? Do we belive in the Incarnation? Because, if we do, we cannot assert that God the Father forsook God the Son, at any time. Below is a short essay on this subject by Bob Passantino.

Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?
By Bob Passantino, © 1991

On the cross Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Many Christians believe this signifies the one and only time that there was a split between the first two persons of the Trinity, that is, between the Father and the Son. The argument asserts that when Jesus "became sin," the Father was unable to look upon him, hence he "forsook" Jesus. This argument seeks to emphasize the great cost to Christ on our behalf. He was even willing to endure separation from the Father to accomplish our salvation. However, I believe such an interpretation, while well intentioned, has heretical implications.^[1] It is a denial of belief in one eternal, indivisible God.

First, if the Father cannot look upon sin, meaning that he had to turn away from the Son on the cross (and I have found no verse which says that), then what does that say about the character and deity of Jesus? Is Jesus somehow less than God, so that he can "look upon" the sin that was laid on him on the cross? Or does he simply have a stronger stomach for sin than the Father? Or perhaps Jesus is more merciful than the Father, able to suffer what the Father cannot even face? It is interesting that in Genesis 6:5, God looked upon the sin of mankind. When scripture says that God cannot "look" upon sin, contextually it means he cannot look with approval upon sin. His consistent reaction to sin is just judgment - against the unrepentant sinner, or through the atonement of Jesus Christ, the one who died in our place and on our behalf.

Second, Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22 when he stated "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The Psalm is referred to previously in the same passage. The common Jewish way of designating an entire psalm was to refer to the opening lines, since the psalms were not numbered at that time. Jesus did not believe God had forsaken him: this would be lack of faith, which is sin (Romans 14:23), and Jesus never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). He was himself God and always in perfect obedience to the Father. Instead, he referred to the psalm in its entirety as a messianic psalm. That he knew God had not actually forsaken him is clear from the same psalm, which says, "He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him, He heard" (verse 24). In fact, Jesus was declaring to his accusers that they were in the midst of fulfilling this psalm, which was commonly understood in His day to refer to the coming Messiah, the Suffering Servant. The psalmist himself understood that the "forsaking" of God was not abandonment, but a lifting of His Sovereign protection according to His divine plan so that the threats of his enemies could be carried out in fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, there were many times during Jesus' public ministry when His enemies sought to kill him (John 5:16; 8:59, for examples). They were not able to because, as He said, His "hour" was not yet come (John 12:23-28). He declared to Pilate, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (John 19:11). On the day of Pentecost Peter declared that no one could have crucified Christ in defiance of God's power: "Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it" (Acts 2:23-24).

Third, when 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that God made Jesus "to be sin," it means that God made the penalty for all sin to fall upon Jesus, not that Jesus himself could become sin, e.g., sinful. As perfect God and perfect man, he could not sin. 1 Peter 1:19 calls Jesus "a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Fourth, is it reasonable to assume that the Father would desert the Son who was acting in obedience to him through every moment of existence, "obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:8)? Is it consistent with the character of God for the Father to reward Christ's obedience with rejection? On the contrary, Ephesians 5:2 says Christ's sacrifice was "an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma."

Fifth, it is actually or ontologically impossible for there to be a "split" between any persons of the eternal Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, simply defined, is that within the nature of the one true God there are three eternal, distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the One God. (We do not believe in a rationally contradictory God of one God in three gods or one Person in three Persons, but one God in three Persons.) While others exist in generic or species identity (such as three humans sharing in humanness), God exists in numeric identity, such that each person is the one God. If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible. Any "split" in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God.

In conclusion, it is fallible humans who think the Father would reject the Son on the cross. The bond between the Father and the Son is inseparable, not only because of their deity, but because of the complete agreement between their wills, desires, mercy, justice, and love for mankind, exemplified in Christ's great sacrifice on the cross. Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, records the erroneous reaction of men to Christ's humiliating death: "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted." Christ's declaration on the cross, far from being a admission of separation or abandonment, is a powerful affirmation of God's essential unity, perfect justice, sovereign power, and matchless grace.

For further information on this problem, I recommend James Oliver Buswell's Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, Vol. Two, pp. 66-69).

This view and my view are not the only possible interpretations of this passage, and there are interpretations other than mine that do not have implicatory problems. However, it is beyond the scope of this essay to address those alternate interpretations.

Answers In Action
P.O. Box 2067
Costa Mesa
California 92628
(949) 646-9042
aia@answers.org
(copied with permission)

This does raise the question of how to interpret “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil”:

Habakkuk 1:13 (New International Version - UK)
¹³ Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

I think we should read this as, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil and approve of it,” or, as the footnotes in the Spirit-Filled Life Bible say, “God’s very nature cannot allow Him to behold evil without punishing the guilty ones.”

If someone takes your laptop, do not stop him from taking your cell phone.

Luke 6:29-30 (New International Version - UK)
²⁹ If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.
³⁰ Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

What a difficult teaching to follow this is. To help us to be obedient to this command, we should try to understand why Christ tells us to act like this.

This sort of “unnatural” behaviour benefits both the victim and the offender. The victim is benefited by the change in attitude that will result from obeying the command. Instead of grieving over what they have lost, they will learn to trust more in God for their provision. They will be reminded that doing the work of God is more important than their material possessions. Through acts of obedience to God's Word, our attitude will grow to become closer to Christ's—it is not so much the case that we must get our attitude right before we can obey.

The assailant, thief or extortionist also benefits from this sort of counter-culture behaviour. Because such behaviour is such a contrast to human nature, they will likely consider why the victim acted that way. We bear witness to the character of Christ by acting like this. This may be a stepping stone for the offender to come to God.

The question is: how should we live out this command in our lives? If someone gets hold of our house key and uses it to burgle us, should we refrain from changing our locks, as that would be akin to “stop[ping] him from taking your tunic?” I think in each situation in which we have been wronged, we should prayerfully consider what action will be beneficial to us in developing our attitude and beneficial to the offender in bringing them to repentance and a (closer) relationship with God. Of course, in every case we need to forgive.

Luke 6:29-30 (The Message)
²⁷-³⁰"To you who are ready for the truth, I say this: Love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer for that person. If someone slaps you in the face, stand there and take it. If someone grabs your shirt, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. If someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

Romans 12:2,14,17,19-21 (New International Version - UK)
² Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is— his good, pleasing and perfect will.
¹⁴ Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
¹⁷ Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
¹⁹ Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord. ²⁰ On the contrary:
If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.
²¹Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Infant Baptism — A Literature Review

Luke 18:15-17 (New International Version - UK)
The Little Children and Jesus
¹⁵ People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.
¹⁶ But Jesus called the children to him and said, Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
¹⁷ I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

The Paedo-Baptist Argument

1. A Case for Infant Baptism by Rev. Scott J. Simmons
   This case mainly stands on the beliefs that (i) the New Covenant follows the same patterns as the Old Covenant and (ii) baptism is the Church's equivalent to Jewish circumcision, which is an external sign of a covenant of which the subject is already a participant. Following from these premises, it states that the credo-baptist proponents need to prove that there is a change in the covenantal structures, with respect to circumcision/baptism, between the Old Testament and the New. Simmons also provides these rebuttals for four common arguments against infant baptism:
   
   
   1. Objection: “Baptism is a sign of the faith already existing in the believer. It is an outward expression of an inward commitment. If that inward commitment is not present, the sign should not be given.”
      Such a theology of baptism is in many ways a man-centered theology. It invests the sign only with a meaning generating from an inward conversion, not God’s grace. The covenant signs are signs of the covenant of grace, not human commitment signs. As with circumcision, baptism is a sign of God’s faithfulness to His covenantal promises in Christ. He promises in the sacrament that He will save the believer. The flip side of this is that should the child never ratify the covenant with his faith, he will receive the curses of the covenant. Furthermore, covenantal signs are communal signs, not individual signs. Baptism does not symbolise one person’s commitment to God as much as it consecrates the person to God by virtue of being included within the covenant family, the family of believers.
   
   
   2. Objection: “Baptism symbolises union with Christ. This union with Christ is only achieved by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptised.”
      This is entirely correct, however, the conclusion that only believers are to be baptised does not follow from the premise. We must not confuse the sign with the thing signified. The sign symbolises union with Christ is given to the children of those who believe and have been united with Christ by faith. The children of believers are part of the covenant Christ has established with His people; therefore, the sign of the covenant is to be given to the children of believers.
   
   
   3. Objection: “In these passages, baptism symbolises purification from sins. This forgiveness and purification is only achieved by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptised.”
      Certainly it is true that baptism symbolises purification from sins (see also Tit. 3:5; Cor. 6:11), but the conclusion that only believers should be baptised is unwarranted; the sign is not to be confused with the thing signified. Children of believers are baptised in anticipation of the day when they will come to faith and receive purification from sins. Furthermore, this objection would also negate the validity of circumcision in the Old Testament. As stated before, circumcision in the Old Testament symbolised purification from sins and circumcision imagery was used to describe that inward “conversion” and consecration to serve and worship the living God. Yet circumcision was administered to infants; therefore, it is not inconsistent to baptise infants as well.
   
   
   4. Objection: “It is presupposed that those who are reading these passages were baptised as believers. Therefore, only believers should be baptised.”
      These letters were written to missionary churches, and the recipients were often the first generation of Christians in these churches, therefore, most of the leaders of these churches were baptised as adult. It is not surprising, therefore, that Paul would assume that the readers were baptised as adults. Since baptism is merely the New Testament expression of circumcision, any theological argument against baptism works equally well against circumcision. However, we have clear indication of the practice of infant circumcision. Therefore, credo-baptists ought to be extremely careful about how they question the practice of infant baptism, for many times they disallow the practice of infant circumcision on the same grounds.


2. Why We Baptize Babies (The Case for Infant Baptism) by Pastor Richard Bucher, Th.D
   Bucher makes a five-pronged argument.
   
   
   1. He considers Christ's command to baptise in Matthew 28:19 (“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” NIV) to be a command to baptise everyone, regardless of age. He appeals to the meaning of the term “all nations”.
   
   
   2. He claims that, because of inherited sin, babies are in need of forgiveness.
   
   
   3. Again, the idea that baptism is a New Testament continuation of circumcision is submitted.
   
   
   4. Bucher then argues that babies are capable of having a saving faith, and makes a logical argument from scripture that Jesus thought babies to be capable of the necessary belief. It is a miracle effected by the Holy Spirit, he says, that enables anyone—adult or infant—to believe. Bucher goes on to claim that “baptism is a special means of God's grace by which He gives faith, forgiveness, and salvation to the infant.”
   
   
   5. Finially, Bucher appeals to the practice of the early Church, explaining that the “fathers of the Church's first centuries speak of infant baptism as a universal custom.”


3. Case for Infant Baptism: The Historic Paedo-Baptist Position by R. C. Sproul
   A transcript of a radio discussion between John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul. Sproul bases his argument on the relationship between circumcision and baptism. He explains baptism as a sign and quotes Calvin: “that which a sign signifies in the Bible may be given before or after the sign is present.”
   

The Credo-Baptist Argument

1. Case for Believer's Baptism: The Credo Baptist Position by John MacArthur
   A transcript of a radio discussion between John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul. A digest of MacArthur's message follows.
   
   
   
   1. Infant baptism is not in Scripture. Scripture nowhere advocates, commands or records a single infant baptism. It is therefore impossible to directly prove or support this rite from the Bible.
   
   
   2. Infant baptism is not New Testament baptism. While the Bible is absolutely silent on the matter of infant baptism, it speaks clearly and repeatedly and precisely on the matter of adult believer’s baptism. Baptism was a ceremony in which a believer was placed into water and taken up out of that water as an outward sign of their salvation.
   
   
   3. Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision; scripture never makes such a connection. Nowhere does the New Testament ever say infant baptism replaces circumcision. Paedo-baptists, nonetheless, claim some inferential evidence connected to circumcision, without any specific statement of Scripture.
   
   
   4. Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church. It leads confusion as to the identity of the church. Confusion stems from the failure to distinguish between the visible local church, including unbelievers, and the invisible universal church which is only believers. In fact, it is true that paedo-baptism strikes a serious blow against the doctrine of a regenerate church. Further confusion lies in the failure to differentiate clearly between what it means to be a little member of the Covenant, as a baby, and what it means to be a true child of God. Scripture teaches the true church is made up of only believers. That’s unlike Israel, so you can’t make a parallel.
   
   
   5. Infant baptism is not consistent with Reformational soteriology.
   
   
   
   


2. Infant Baptism by J. C. Bailey
   Bailey gives the following arguments:
   1. Infant baptism is not of divine origin.
   2. Infant baptism nullifies the law of God.
   3. Whole households were baptised only after the whole household believed.
   4. Luke 18:15-17 has nothing to do with baptism.
   5. Baptism is different than circumcision.
   
   

Infallibility of Scripture vs. Fallibility of Church Fathers

As an evangelical Protestant, I believe in the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. I also believe the bishops of the second to fourth centuries were quite capable of making mistakes. But they were the people who decided (hopefully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) what scriptures were canonical^[i]. Could have they made mistakes in choosing to include or omit certain scriptures? I'm sure this is a very old question, but I am only just coming around to consider it now. I was prompted to think about this by the following quote, which I read on this blog post.

“No New Testament writing was born with the predicate ‘canonical’ attached. The statement that a writing is canonical signifies in the first place only that it was pronounced canonical afterwards by the authorities of the second- to fourth-century church, in some cases only after all kinds of hesitation and disagreement . . . So anyone who accepts without question the idea of the canon places himself under the authority of the bishops and theologians of those centuries. Anyone who does not recognize their authority in other matters—and no Protestant theologian does—is being consistent if he questions it here, too.” -William Wrede, “The Task and Methods of ‘New Testament Theology,’” 71.

I suppose, by faith, we have to believe what is written in [ii]:

The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

References:

1. Wikipedia: Development of the Christian Biblical canon
2. gotQuestions?org: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

Saved through Childbearing

1 Timothy 2:15 (New International Version)
¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This verse has caused some confusion. At first glance it is inconsistent with the majority of scripture. The key to interpreting it is understanding the words “saved” and “through”. From e-Sword:

• saved
  G4982
  σώζω
  sōzō
  sode'-zo
  
  From a primary word σῶς sōs̄ (contraction for the obsolete σάος saos, “safe”); to save, that is, deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.


• through
  G1223
  διά
  dia
  dee-ah'
  
  A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.

So if we read the verse as “women will be protected throughout childbearing,” it doesn't contradict the theology taught throughout the New Testament. This is how I think it should be interpreted.

A lack of problems shows God's approval?

Does a lack of problems indicate that God approves of what you're doing, or many problems indicate that He disapproves? I suggest not. Paul had many problems in his life, but he is regarded as a workman approved by God.

2 Corinthians 11:23-28 (New International Version - UK)
²³ Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.
²⁴ Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
²⁵ Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,
²⁶ I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.
²⁷ I have laboured and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.
²⁸ Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

2 Timothy 4:6-7 (New International Version - UK)
⁶ For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure.
⁷ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

But God's grace was enough to get him through.

2 Corinthians 12:9-10 (New International Version - UK)
⁹ But he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness. Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.
¹⁰ That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

In fact, I believe if we are doing God's will, we should expect difficulties, but He will help us though them.

Matthew 24:9 (New International Version - UK)
⁹ Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

John 15:19-21 (New International Version - UK)
¹⁹ If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
²⁰ Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
²¹ They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.

2 Timothy 3:12 (New International Version - UK)
¹² In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

Psalm 28:7 (New International Version - UK)
⁷ The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped. My heart leaps for joy and I will give thanks to him in song.