Reply #9: It can be looked at in more than one way, [View All]

[darkstar3]

but either way I'd have to say "no."

The first way to view this acrostic is to think of it as applying directly to Jesus himself. As such it should somehow summarize his life, deeds, teachings, or sacrificial death. I don't believe that it does any of this well, first and foremost because I think "expound" is the wrong word to apply to Jesus' actions (especially his death, which was the source of salvation). I also think that Jesus did what he did without joy. If you'll recall, he asked that "this cup pass" from him, and frankly if the story were true I wouldn't blame him one little bit.

But that's just one way of looking at it. The other way, and more likely the way the author intended, is to apply this acrostic to the followers of Jesus. If viewed through this lens, it comes much closer to reaching its goal of summarization, but it still falls a little short. Now this is just the way I was taught, but my reasoning here is simple: Christians can't give salvation to others. To put it another way: Those who joyously expound about salvation have no way to deliver that salvation unto others, as that salvation can come only from Jesus himself.

In short, I think either way you go, this acrostic stretches the word "expound" a bit too far. I also agree with you that the word "sinners" bring its own baggage, especially in context of the second lens I discussed, because it makes it sound as if Christians should be expounding salvation unto a separate, other group.