While reading some bible commentary today, the writer presented an interesting viewpoint. He described the term "disciple" as being broader in scope than "believer." I have always thought of it as the other way around.
Yet, from a historical, biblical viewpoint, I can see where he got this idea. The word disciple in the Gospels did not carry the same connotation it does today.
In 2023, we view disciples as both believers and dedicated pupils of Jesus. But until His death, burial, and resurrection, these first disciples only remained students.
Sure, they believed some aspects of the Gospel, but until Christ revealed Himself alive after His death on the cross, I don't think we could label them "truly saved." I also believe this is why Easter is such an important holiday. As with the first disciples, we must affirm his resurrection before any of it makes sense.
I don't think you can become a disciple without being a true believer. Conversely, I don't think anyone can become an effective believer without being a true disciple.
What are your thoughts?
Yet, from a historical, biblical viewpoint, I can see where he got this idea. The word disciple in the Gospels did not carry the same connotation it does today.
In 2023, we view disciples as both believers and dedicated pupils of Jesus. But until His death, burial, and resurrection, these first disciples only remained students.
Sure, they believed some aspects of the Gospel, but until Christ revealed Himself alive after His death on the cross, I don't think we could label them "truly saved." I also believe this is why Easter is such an important holiday. As with the first disciples, we must affirm his resurrection before any of it makes sense.
I don't think you can become a disciple without being a true believer. Conversely, I don't think anyone can become an effective believer without being a true disciple.
What are your thoughts?
- 1
- Show all