Home » Posts tagged 'Bible studies'

Tag Archives: Bible studies

Christ’s Genealogies: Eusebius / Africanus on Matthew & Luke

April 26, 2024 / Leave a comment

The genealogies in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both record the family history of the Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew traces the Lord’s genealogy back to Abraham, while Luke traces the geneology back to Adam. Critics have argued that there are insoluble contradictions between the two genealogies. This blog has looked at other alleged contradictions in the Bible in other posts. (Also see here, where a video discussing a different attack on these genealogies is referenced; see also the videos here.) Are they correct?

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke

Matthew wrote:

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:1-17)

Luke wrote:

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:23-38)

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: Joseph’s and Mary’s Line?

There are a variety of options Christian scholars have offered to reconcile these two accounts. Gleason Archer, for example, proposes that Luke records the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph. Thus, the Lord Jesus would be part of the line of David through both of His human parents–both His adopted human father, Joseph, and His human mother, Mary, were descendants of king David:

Matthew 1:1–16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned. Notice carefully the wording of v.16: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (NASB). This stands in contrast to the format followed in the preceding verses of the succession of Joseph’s ancestors: “Abraham begat [egennēsen] Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.” Joseph is not said to have begotten Jesus; rather he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine genitive] Jesus was born.”

Luke 3:23–38, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race. This seems to be implied by the wording of v.23: “Jesus … being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was commonly assumed by the public. It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16). Mary’s line of descent came through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba (or “Bathshua,” according to 1 Chron. 3:5), the wife of David. Therefore, Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon. (Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982], 316).

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: The Legal Line and The Blood Line?

Other scholars have offered other solutions. For example, Smith’s Bible Dictionary argues:

The New Testament gives us the genealogy of but one person, that of our Saviour. This is given because it was important to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies spoken of him. Only as the son and heir of David should he be the Messiah. The following propositions will explain the true construction of these genealogies:—

1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i.e. of Jesus Christ as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary.

2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David’s son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon’s crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David’s and Solomon’s throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all.

3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph her husband. Thus: Matthan or Matthat Father of Jacob, Heli Jacob Father of Mary = Jacob’e heir was (Joseph) Heli Father of Joseph JESUS, called Christ. (Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering (Luke 3:23) thus: Jesus “being (as was suppposed) the son of Joseph, (but in reality) the son of Heli.” In this case Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus. Mary’s name was omitted because “ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.” So we often find in the Old Testament the grandson called the son. This view has this greatly in its favor, that it shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom his real descent from David should not be given. (“Genealogy of Jesus Christ,” in William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1884).

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: An Ancient Explanation by Africanus Recorded in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

The early church historian Eusebius records a fascinating option for reconciling the genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Eusebius reproduces information from the Christian writer Africanus, who was born in the second half of the 2nd century A. D. What is this explanation of the two genealogies that derives from the A. D. 100s?

Africanus … [was born] AD 170, or a little earlier, and died AD 240, or a little later. … [He] ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers. … His great work, which was intended to give a comparative view of sacred and profane history from the creation of the world, demanded an extensive range of reading; and the fragments that remain contain references to the works of a considerable number of historical writers. … his letter to Aristides, of whom nothing else is known, [comments] on the discrepancy between our Saviour’s genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. … Africanus insists on the necessity of maintaining the literal truth of the Gospel narrative, and … proceeds to give his own explanation, founded on the levirate law of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the house of Nathan, married the same woman, whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by Africanus), having died childless, his uterine brother Jacob, Matthan’s son, took his wife and raised up seed to him; so that the offspring Joseph was legally Heli’s son as stated by St. Luke, but naturally Jacob’s son as stated by St. Matthew. (George Salmon, “Africanus, Julius,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines [London: John Murray, 1877–1887], 54-55)

Eusebus, in his Ecclesiastical History, records the words of Africanus:

1 Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the account which he had received from tradition in these words:

2 “For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law,—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;—

3 whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.

4 Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.

5 But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.

6 Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.

7 Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.

8 By Estha then (for this was the woman’s name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her, as before said, and begat a son Eli.

9 Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.

10 Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But Luke, on the other hand, says: ‘Who was the son, as was supposed’ (for this he also adds), ‘of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi’; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression ‘he begat’ he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.

11 For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.

12 And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune, was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.

13 But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.

14 A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.

15 Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”

16 And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.”

17 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here. (Ecclesiastical History 1.6.1-17, cited in Eusebius of Caesaria, Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series [New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890], 91–94)

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke:
A Proven Contradiction? Which Explanation is Correct?

This post has looked at three explanations for the differences in the genealogies of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew and Luke. Are they sufficient to set aside the claim of contradiction? Certainly the answer is “yes.” The critic alleging contradiction must prove that there is no possible way of reconciling the two genealogies. He must not only prove that the three explanations given above are unsatisfactory, but that there is no other explanation that ever has been, or ever will, be able to reconcile the two accounts in a satisfactory manner. Such genuine contradictions abound in uninspired religious texts that claim to be from God, such as (for example) the Mormon religious books, which unambiguously teach monotheism in the Book of Mormon and just as unambiguously teach polytheism in the Pearl of Great Price, although both texts are allegedly unchanging truth from the Mormon god (or gods). Unlike such texts, no proven contradictions are found in God’s infallible Word, the Bible.

The three explanations above for the genealogies also illustrate another important fact. There may be simple options, such as the one offered by Archer and the second one offered by Smith, while the truth itself may be a more complicated option that we would not easily think of. Until I read Africanus’ explanation I do not believe it ever crossed my mind–yet, as a very old explanation that claims to have been received from the descendants of Mary and Joseph themselves, it deserves to be taken seriously. Thus, even if we cannot think of a good explanation for an alleged contradiction at the moment does not mean that one does not exist.

So which explanation is correct? I am not sure which explanation is correct, but I am sure that there is an explanation, because God does not contradict Himself or lie. I lean towards the explanation of Africanus as recorded in Eusebius because it seems reasonable that the children of Joseph and Mary would know their own family history and it likewise seems probable that Africanus has reliable information. However, the most important point is not which explanation is correct, but that there is an explanation, for God does not lie or contradict Himself.

–TDR

Books By David Cloud Read Aloud: Can You Help Truth Get Out?

March 1, 2024 / Leave a comment

Way of Life Literature, run by Bro David Cloud, has many excellent resources. David Cloud has also written many excellent books, as well as useful videos one can find on his website. While not infallible, of course, they are well-researched, sound in doctrine, and something I could recommend highly to almost any Christian. I am very thankful for David Cloud’s works. His books, along with those published by Bible Baptist Church Publications, helped me to become a Baptist separatist instead of a mushy evangelical after I was converted by the grace of God.

Today, sadly, many people do not read. Brother Cloud has given me permission to have at least some of his books read aloud and then made available on fora such as YouTube, Rumble, and Audible.

If you would be interested in reading aloud some David Cloud books, such as his works on Biblical preservation, Bible texts and versions:

Faith vs. The Modern Versions

For Love of the Bible

The Glorious History of the English Bible

Bible Version Question and Answer Database

The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame

Why We Hold to the King James Bible

or some of Cloud’s other books, such as:

Dressing for the Lord

The Future According to the Bible

History and Heritage of Fundamentalism and Fundamental Baptists

and you have a good reading voice–speaking clearly, with expression, and not one that will put people to sleep–and enough commitment to finish something once you have started it, please contact me and let me know.

Thank you.

Church Planting Methodology: Where Should a New Church Meet?

February 23, 2024 / 7 Comments on Church Planting Methodology: Where Should a New Church Meet?

In relation to church planting, where should a new church meet? On this blog we have, in the past, learned the history of how Bethel Baptist Church in El Sobrante, CA was started by Jesus Christ; see part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 on that encouraging topic. Grace and Truth Baptist Church is a new church planting work in San Francisco that is seeking to follow the Lord and obey and practice all of Scripture. They currently do not have a building to meet, and the preacher there–a friend of mine for many years–had discussed the qustion with me, and asked us to pray for them, as they sought a place to meet. I asked the advice of a number of Baptist preachers, pastors, and missionaries / evangelists concerning the pluses and minuses of a variety of options concerning places to meet. With their permission, I have shared their responses below. Please feel free to comment on these responses and share any Biblical thoughts or practical experiences you have concerning them. (The response have been lightly edited for things like grammar and material that was not related to this question in this post was removed.) I asked the following question:

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? The Question

… I am wondering if you have any thoughts on the meeting place for a new church plant’s meeting place. What are the advantages of renting a place in:

1.) A store front-type location, vs.

2.) A church building that is in use by a different congregation, vs.

3.) A home?

In terms of #2, do you have any thoughts on a church property that is by a weak Baptist religious organization, vs. some other religious organization (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) or even a cult meeting house (Seventh-Day Adventists that do not use their building on the Lord’s Day)?

I am wondering if a neo-evangelical or even modernistic Baptist congregation that allowed a separatist Baptist church-plant to use its facility could end up confusing visitors to the new separatist church plant. Certainly nobody would want people to end up joining a cult or becoming a Pentecostal by meeting in a church building of those religions, but perhaps the differences would be more obvious and that would be less likely than with a compromised Baptist congregation offering its meeting place (?) I am wondering if many people would not be willing to meet in a home (although Biblically there is nothing wrong with it).

So any Biblical exegesis, application of Biblical principles, or other Biblically-based ideas you have would be appreciated. Feel free to share this email with someone else if you think that that third party brother would have some good advice here. …

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? Reply #1

Just my thoughts based on what I see in the Scriptures and what I have experienced. The place is not the main thing, but the assembly. Therefore, if you start assembling at your house that would be great, or another brother’s house, that is good. If you and the members decide to rent a facility, then, together as a church you can decide to do that and finance that as a church body (Amen). If you decide to rent a space (commercial space or have some type of agreement for a space with another “church” or religious entity – that too is fine (remember Solomon’s porch, synagogues, and the school of Tyrannus – were places that facilitated a temporary meeting place for the churches) – then rent it out as a church, do your best NOT to assume the payment of the rent alone BUT function as a church body (rent it together as a church). THEN, if and when the Lord would add to your assembly – a more suitable and stable place could be acquired (again, at that point you will move on to a building – as a church body, purchasing the building, etc). I see no problem using a SDA building, space, or hotel conference room, nursing home lobby, library hall, community hall, etc. Religious or not. It is the assembly that matters – not the meeting place, per se.

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #2

Hi,

I wouldn’t like renting a false religion place when it wasn’t meeting. I would rather have the storefront. Meeting in the home, I would do that too.

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #3

Meeting in SDA building wasn’t really my original plan. But I’m in a market that is high priced with very few options, and it has worked. We don’t really have any contact with the SDAs here. Most of them are from Africa, as we have a large group of refugees/immigrants in [town]. We use their building on Sunday and for the most part it has worked. The positives are that it is a place to meet that usually is inexpensive, with very little setup, and we put signage out on Sundays to limit confusion. We also put our hymn books and some Bibles in the pews and remove theirs in setting up. We are also careful to leave things better than we found them. So we haven’t worn out our welcome.

As far as negatives, for the most part they keep things kinda tidy but there is often some clean up or cleaning to do before Sunday morning. Also, the building here is rather old.

I think the biggest challenge is communicating to people where your church is. I say clearly that we rent the 7th Day Building on Sundays. Or if we do advertising I put the address and underneath “also the SDA Building.”

Also depending upon how strict your SDA group is they might ask you to not serve pork if you have a meal there.

We have a different building where we try to do special functions like special meetings. We will have a Good Friday fellowship at the other venue. It provides a neutral place for people to invite friends to hear the gospel. Just an idea. We also do a turducken feast in November. Last year it brought over 40 visitors to hear the gospel. My point you don’t have to be limited by a building. We still use multiple locations. It’s not easy but is what we have to work with.

In the summer we do a lot outdoors BBQ’s (it is amazing who will show up for an hotdog and hamburger and some friendship), outreach and midweek Bible Study/prayer meetings.

Unfortunately, people do like an identity with a building. So that in itself is a negative; curb appeal is a big help in church planting but not always possible.

Lastly I will say that a large number of Baptist churches in [our state in the USA] used an SDA building in the beginning. Some had good experience some not. I know of one where some of the SDA members started attending the Baptist church and realized the error that they were being taught hence they lost their welcome. That’s not a bad thing; I try to always have a plan B. I think that if something like that happens God will provide for the next step.

On a personal note we are praising the Lord here. We have almost finished paying off the parsonage and property we have, so we are getting close to having our own building as the Lord provides.

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #4

Just prayed that God would guide and direct you in this matter.

I think each option you listed can have its pros and cons depending on the community and culture of the people you are trying to reach.

A store front can be more visible, but it can often give the vibes of rinky-dink. It could also be a bit more pricey.

A church building that is used by another group can give off the feeling of being “churchy,” but it can put off some people that don’t want to go in a church building. I know of a church planter in [a place] that is using a 7th Day Adventist building. You could ask his opinion on how it is working … However, at the end of the day a building is just a building.

A home can be a good place to hold a Bible study, but I think in today’s culture it could put a great many people off. Have you considered something more neutral such as a community center, school function room, or something similar?

Some practical things to consider when seeking a place to rent:

– location, location, location: easy access, parking, will some people be put off by the surrounding area?

– facilities in the building: kitchen, disabled access, parking

– how long will you be able to meet in that location

When I was looking for a place to rent, I prayed about it and then just started calling different facilities to see where the open door might be. We had a fairly easy decision, because our current location was the only available place to rent.

When I sought the Lord about where to plant a church, I also considered the need of the area. Was there a gospel preaching church in the community? If so, were they active in evangelism and discipleship?

Various thoughts: within the bounds of Scripture, Paul and Barnabas were sent out from an assembly where they were faithfully ministering. Acts 12. Paul adapted how he lived and ministered for the sake of the Gospel, 1 Cor 9:19-23. Paul immediately obeyed the Lord’s leading, Acts 16:10.

I trust God will make the way clear and plain for you.

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #5

Good morning … I have done all 3 of these.

You have some considerations…

if you are looking to save money…the home is best.
If you are looking at most appealing for people to walk into off the street … another church building
If you are looking to start from scratch … I prefer Jesus’ model.

Win people one by one … meet in the house of the key man … man of peace. This will be the person who is the common connection between the ones you are working with and the home will be no problem because they all know this man.

Then keep reaching key men and meeting in different homes with those in that connection group.

Finally combine the groups once you have people saved and committed to following Christ. Now you look for a meeting place.

By far I prefer Jesus’ method … although I realize this is not the American way.

Hope it makes some sense.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Church Planting Methodology: Questions About The Answers

I appreciate the Baptist brethren in Christ who took the time to share these answers with me. In relation to their responses, the following questions come up.

Are there issues about associations in relation to meeting in a place that pertains to a false religion? It is true that Solomon’s porch, synagogues, and the school of Tyrannus (mentioned in response #1) were not places associated with Christianity, but none of them were the Temple of Diana, either. Solomon’s porch and the synagogues were associated with the God of Israel, while the school of Tyrannus was not associated with a specific false religion. It looks like response #2 shares those concerns, in contrast to response #3, which is willing to meet in the building owned by a cult, the Seventh-Day Adventist “Church.”

Is there a difference between utilizing the meeting place of a cult (Seventh-Day Adventism, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostalism) and the meeting place where there are disobedient brethren (non-separatist evangelicals)? How much difference does it make if the people in the false religion, or the disobedient brethren, are around (Sunday meeting) or not (Sabbath worshippers)? Does Paul preaching in synagogues after Christ had already established His church and turned away from Israel as His institution help answer this question?

How does the question of “curb appeal” factor in? Scripture does not teach that one has to have a building at all, but does meeting in a building rather than a home relate to loving one’s neighbor as oneself? How much of a factor is it that more people will be willing to visit in a church building than in a home? Is that even true? (Response #4 suggests it is not necessarily the case). How much of a factor is being “rinky-dink” (as response #4 brings up)?

Response #3 referred to the practices of a number of Baptist churches in that brother’s state. What lessons can be learned from Baptist history on this question? Response #3 also seemed to lean more towards a “go and invite to church” versus “Go ye into all the world and preach” (Mark 16:15) philosophy. How does the question of whether the assembly is a place geared to evangelize the lost, versus a place to edify and equip the saints so they can go into the world and preach to the lost (Ephesians 4:12), impact the question of a meeting place? How is the question of a meeting place affected if a church is seeking to grow by making disciples who can knock on doors and evangelize themselves, versus a church having an emphasis on inviting many children into the building by giving them candy and toys, and inviting targeted groups of adults into the building with various special events and give-aways?

The point in response #4 about building facilities, such as parking, a kitchen, and disabled access are important. I have no idea what laws and regulations relate to a church meeting in someone’s home. Does the home need to be ADA compliant and have wheelchair access (for example)? Does it need to have a certain number of fire extinguishers?

Response #4 also brought up the question of the surrounding area. How do factors such as the crime rate, or racial demographics, impact a meeting place’s location?

How much of a factor is how long one plans to meet, in God’s sovereign timing, at a particular place?

Response #5 was the most different, and, it seems, was advocating something where the method had the most significance. While responses #1-4 expressed a variety of levels of agreement and disagreement, in general the idea was that the location was not all that important (with the exception of some responses arguing that one should not meet in the building of a false religion). However, response #5 is arguing that a specific model is found in the ministry of the Lord Jesus. Who would want to do something other than what Christ did?

In relation to response #5, reference was made to Luke 10:6-7:

And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Does this verse prove that we should be looking for a key man in whose house a church plant should meet? The passage refers to Christ sending out 70 disciples to evangelize Israel. Were churches established in these places, and, if not, how does that affect the application of this passage? Are there dispensational factors here we need to consider? Does the pattern change from the Gospels into Acts and the Epistles? Do we see the evangelists in Acts looking for a “son of peace” in this way? In light of the broad use of the Biblical “son of” language, how much should we conclude from the “son of peace” language? Is there a difference between simply preaching to “every creature” (Mark 16:15) and focusing on reaching key men? Are they inclusive of each other or exclusive, and to what degree the one or the other? In a big city can we be seeking to reach “every creature,” yet meeting in a home not be an issue, because everyone coming to church knows the “son of peace”?

Church Planting Methodology: What Do You Think?

What do you think? How should church planting ministry be undertaken?

–TDR

My Daily Bible Reading: The KJV Bible Read Out Loud, Free

January 19, 2024 / Leave a comment

Do you listen to the Bible read out loud? I have listened through the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, read out loud, numbers of times. (Alexander Scourby is my favorite.) Someone whom we know, mainly as a matter for him to make sure that he is spending time in the Word each day, recorded himself reading the entire Bible aloud this last year on YouTube. He described his YouTube channel’s purpose as:

The goal of this channel is to provide daily accountability to read through the whole Bible and more in one year from January 1 to December 31! God’s Word is a Lamp to our feet and a Light to our path. May this channel help us get strength, encouragement, rebuke, doctrine, and guidance each and every day!

So if you would like a free, albeit non-professional, reading of the entire King James Bible through in one year, feel free to listen to the My Daily Bible Reading channel and prepare to be edified by the Spirit through the Word.

Click here to go to the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube Channel.

I personally spend a certain number of minutes each week reading the Authorized, King James Version and the Hebrew Old Testament Textus Receptus, as well as reading a certain number of verses in the Greek Textus Receptus. I also work on studying through an Old Testament book (I am currently in Proverbs, reading it with Bruce Waltke’s valuable commentary on Proverbs; before that I read Psalms through with Spurgeon’s excellent Treasury of David) and Matthew, reading through the book with a rather brief dispensational Moody Bible commentary, the New International Greek Testament Commentary on Matthew (useful exegetical insights, but generally dry as dust and anti-verbal inspiration because of source criticism and redaction criticism although “conservative”), and Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matthew (helpful exegetical and devotional thoughts if the paedobaptist Calvinism can be set aside). I also spend a certain number of minutes reading the Septuagint or LXX (I am in Numbers and Psalms). Some days I will focus more on one of these and some days more on another, and at the end of the month I see how many minutes I spent on them all in comparison to how many I am supposed to spend; whatever I have spent less time on, I plan to spend more time on the next month, and whatever I have spent more time on, I can focus upon less.

If I listen to the Bible read out loud, I take the amount of time I spend listening and divide it in half, as I find it easier to get distracted when listening to the Bible then when reading it. We should be especially on guard against our flesh seeking to lead our minds to wander when we are engaged in a spiritual activity like reading God’s Word. I can say with Paul: “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me” (Romans 7:21).

In any case, I am thankful for the hours I have been able to spend listening to the Bible read aloud. Perhaps the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube channel will help you to read and/or listen through God’s Word (at least) once this year, meditate upon what you read, and obey it in reverent love.

The books I referenced above that are linked to on Amazon are affiliate links. I would recommend comparing prices on books here and then clicking through a portal as described here if you are going to buy a book online.

–TDR

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Saints and Revelation 6:17

January 5, 2024 / 8 Comments on The Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Saints and Revelation 6:17

Does Revelation 6:17 support, or undermine, a pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints? We have considered other Rapture positions in relation to passages in the book of Revelation in other posts on this blog. Consider the context:

Rev. 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

Rev. 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Rev. 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Rev. 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Rev. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Rev. 6:12 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν ἕκτην, καὶ ἰδού, σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας ὡς σάκκος τρίχινος, καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐγένετο ὡς αἷμα,

Rev. 6:13 καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔπεσαν εἰς τὴν γῆν, ὡς συκῆ βάλλει τοὺς ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς, ὑπὸ μεγάλου ἀνέμου σειομένη.

Rev. 6:14 καὶ οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς βιβλίον εἱλισσόμενον, καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος ἐκ τῶν τόπων αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν.

Rev. 6:15 καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς, καὶ οἱ μεγιστᾶνες, καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι, καὶ οἱ χιλίαρχοι, καὶ οἱ δυνατοί, καὶ πᾶς δοῦλος καὶ πᾶς ἐλεύθερος, ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς πέτρας τῶν ὀρέων,

Rev. 6:16 καὶ λέγουσι τοῖς ὄρεσι καὶ ταῖς πέτραις, Πέσετε ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς, καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου·

Rev. 6:17 ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι;

Rapture / Tribulation Views and Revelation 6:17: Wrath “is come” means what?

Some opponents of the pre-Tribulation Rapture argue from Revelation 6:17 that the wrath of God has not started yet; after all, the verse says that the “great day of His wrath” is only come now at this point, and this is the sixth seal. Thus, they would say, God’s wrath does not come with the start of the Tribulation, but only here, with the sixth seal, and so a “pre-wrath” Rapture, or maybe, if this is the midpoint of the Tribulation, a “mid-Trib” Rapture here, or perhaps, if one distorts the sequence of events in the book of Revelation so that the seals, bowls, and vials are not sequential (although they actually are), even a post-Trib Rapture. What do you think?

Note that the verb translated “is come” in Revelation 6:17 is ἦλθεν, a 3^rd singular 2^nd aorist active indicative of ἔρχομαι, “to come” or “to go.” What would we expect for an aorist in terms of the time of the action? The most common use, at least, is that the action would have started in the past: “Generally, the aorist looks at an action as a whole and does not tell us anything about the precise nature of the action (constative)” (Basics of Biblical Greek, WIlliam Mounce, chapter 22; note that this blog post is an adjusted devotional that I prepared for my Greek students as we were studying chapter 22 on the aorist in Mounce’s grammar). A constative aorist-the most common category for the aorist–would support God’s wrath starting earlier in the chapter, before the sixth seal, namely, at the first seal at which the Tribulation began. However, there is also a rare category called a “proleptic” aorist, which could suggest that the wrath here had not yet started but was only about to begin now; maybe the aorist here is proleptic, leaving room for anti-pre-Tribulation Rapture views?

In response, we should first consider that the constative aorist, the aorist for summary past action, is much more common than a proleptic aorist. The English “whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Romans 8:30) certainly shows that an “-ed” verb in English can be used for something that is yet future, because it is so certain to God, but how often do we speak that way in English, in comparison to using the past tense to describe an event that is actually in the past? Thinking that the aorist here portrays an action that has already started before this point is the natural assumption. To assume that God has not yet started to pour out His wrath in the first five seals (even though things like ¼ of the world’s population dying have already taken place—that is like every single person in North and South America suddenly dropping dead–But is that God’s wrath? Oh no—of course not!) is an unnatural assumption.

We also need to consider who is speaking. Revelation 6:17 is not a statement that God makes; it is not a statement a holy angel makes; it is one the unregenerate earth-dwellers make, the same people who say things like “Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” (Revelation 13:4). If we concede that wicked and unregenerate mankind now begins to understand that God’s wrath is being poured out, that does not mean that this point is when His wrath actually begins; as those who did not have all their thoughts set on God, they did not see His wrath in the famines, the plagues, the Antichrist, the wars, the death all around—but the first six seals actually already were God’s wrath, although wicked men did not see it.

Revelation 6:17: The “Come” verb in Revelation 6

Note as well an important tie-in with the same verb,erchomai, earlier in the chapter:

Rev. 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see

Rev. 6:1 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὸ ἀρνίον μίαν ἐκ τῶν σφραγίδων, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζώων λέγοντος, ὡς φωνῆς βροντῆς, Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε.

Rev. 6:3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

Rev. 6:3 Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν δευτέραν σφραγῖδα, ἤκουσα τοῦ δευτέρου ζώου λέγοντος, Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε.

Rev. 6:5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

Rev. 6:5 Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν τρίτην σφραγῖδα, ἤκουσα τοῦ τρίτου ζώου λέγοντος, Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε, καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδού, ἵππος μέλας, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἔχων ζυγὸν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.

Rev. 6:7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

Rev. 6:7 Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν τετάρτην, ἤκουσα φωνὴν τοῦ τετάρτου ζώου λέγουσαν, Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε.

Rev. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Rev. 6:17 ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι;

As Christ breaks each of the first four seals we see the living creature or beast say, “come!” And then what happens? A judgment! The Antichrist takes power with the first seal, the rider on the white horse, conquering and to conquer; then the second seal, the wars after the short-lived peace of the Antichrist; then the world-wide famine of the third seal; then the death of 25% of the world’s population in the fourth seal. The fifth seal is obviously different, as we see there the martyred saints crying out for vengeance on the wicked, which God promises them He will enact. And then we have the sixth seal here:

In Revelation 6:17 the expression “the day … has come” is an acknowledgment by all people in the context of the heavenly and earthly disturbances of 6:12–14 and the flight to the mountains and caves in 6:15–16. However, within the literary structure of this unit—the breaking of the seven seals—the “has come” (ēlthen) in the sixth vision is an acknowledgment of the results of the summons to come (erchou), which is repeated four times at the beginning of the series. The summons “come” calls forth elements of the day of the Lord. The declaration “has come” looks back over all these elements and acknowledges what has in fact come to be.^[2]

This usage also suits Old Testament Day of the Lord prophecies.

So in Revelation 6:17 even the unregenerate earth-dwellers finally recognize what has been going on since the first seal—the wrath of God poured out upon the earth, wrath which started with the first seal, which comes immediately after the pre-Tribulation Rapture.

We deserve the judgments of the Tribulation for our sins. That is how horrible they are. We deserve the eternal torment in the lake of fire described near the end of Revelation. But the Son of God, by His grace alone, took that very wrath that we deserve upon Himself, suffering and satisfying our infinite debt of sin. By being our blessed sacrificial Lamb He has eternally delivered us from the future wrath of the Lamb on those who reject His glorious sacrifice. For delivering us from the wrath to come, let us say with all the saints: “Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” (Revelation 5:12-13).

^[1] William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. 3d; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 2010), 202.

^[2] Craig Blaising, “A Case for the Pretribulation Rapture,” in Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Alan Hultberg, Second Edition., Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 61.

–TDR

2 Thessalonians 2:3 & Pre Trib Rapture: “Day Shall not Come”

December 22, 2023 / 13 Comments on 2 Thessalonians 2:3 & Pre Trib Rapture: “Day Shall not Come”

People that deny the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints sometimes use 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to argue for their position. Let us examine this verse in its context:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Opponents of the Biblical doctrine of the pretribulational, premillenial Rapture of the saints may argue that “the day of Christ” cannot be “at hand,” that is, it cannot be about to take place, until there “come a falling away first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” That is, the Antichrist has to be revealed before the Rapture can take place, according to this argument.

However, this argument against the pre-trib Rapture is clearly invalid. The phrase translated “the day of Christ is at hand” in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 comes from the Greek hoti enestēken hē hēmera tou Christou. The word enestēken comes from the Greek enistēmi, meaning “to be present”; the sense in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is that “the day of the Lord has come” (BDAG). Some at Thessalonica thought that they were already standing in the time of the Day of Christ; they thought they were already in the Tribulation period, and so they were doing things like no longer going to work at their lawful employments. Paul explains that if they were already standing within the Day of Christ, if they were already present in the Tribulation, then they would see the Antichrist ruling the world, as he is the one who takes power immediately after the Rapture (Revelation 6:1-2). No Antichrist ruling the world? Then they were not in the Tribulation, argues Paul.

The other texts in the New Testament with the verb enistēmi verify this interpretation:

Rom. 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

1Cor. 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

1Cor. 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

Gal. 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

2Th. 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [“the day of Christ is present.”]

2Tim. 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come [Greek future tense: “perilous times shall be present in the future.”]

Heb. 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

While in English we use the phrase “at hand” in a variety of ways, the Greek word in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and its uses elsewhere in the New Testament demonstrate that Paul was warning that if one was actually in the Tribulation period, he would already see the Antichrist in power. Paul was not saying that the Antichrist would arise and then the Day of Christ would start at some point afterwards. Indeed, in the following context, Paul identifies the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer who is holding back the Antichrist until He is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). Notice that the Holy Spirit is referred to with a neuter (KJV, “what” withholdeth, to katechon) in 2:6 and a masculine (KJV, “he” who now letteth/restraineth,” ho katechōn) in 2:7. The neuter is used because pneuma, “Spirit / breath / wind,” is grammatically neuter word in Greek (as are all words ending in –ma), but because the Holy Spirit is a Person, He is referred to with a masculine form in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. When will the Spirit be taken away? When the saints are taken away in the Rapture–and then the Antichrist, no longer restrained, will be revealed.

Thus, in context, 2 Thessalonians 2 supports a pre-Trib Rapture, and nothing at all in 2 Thessalonians indicates that the Antichrist must start ruling before the Rapture can take place.

Many other passages support the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints, and refute a mid-Tribulation or post-Tribulation error, including passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4, which have been discussed in other articles on this blog.

–TDR

Messianic Israel / Jew Evangelistic T-Shirt: Shema & Isa 53

December 8, 2023 / 21 Comments on Messianic Israel / Jew Evangelistic T-Shirt: Shema & Isa 53

God loves Israel! He loves Israel far more than did the Apostle Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. … 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 9:1-5; 3:1-2)

What does God say to those who harm Israel? “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye” (Zechariah 2:8). As with the rest of mankind, Jews who do not believe the gospel will be eternally lost (Romans 11:28a), but nonetheless “as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Romans 11:28b-11:29).

What is the greatest blessing Jehovah has ever given Israel? The Messiah, the Savior of the world, God blessed for ever, Jesus! To that end, we have designed the T-shirts pictured below, which have been added to the collection of evangelistic T-shirts and other materials I posted about some time ago. Both sides of the T-shirt reference the evangelistic pamphlet Truth From the Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim (the Law, Prophets, and Writings) for Jews who Reverence the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, which is online at https://faithsaves.net/Messiah/. The front has this evangelistic website as well as the text of the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4:

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָֹה אֶחָד׃

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

While the back has the evangelistic website and Isaiah 53:8b: “For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”

along with, on both sides, the flag of Israel. (We did not see a way to design the shirt so that the vowels and accents could be included, although we recognize the Biblical and historical case for their inspiration and preservation.)

We believe that these shirts can be blessed by the God of Israel for Jews to embrace their crucified and risen Messiah, Jesus, as well as to help Gentiles come to repentance and faith in Him. If you get to evangelize Muslims because of this shirt, Isaiah 53 is good for them also, since Muslims deny the Lord Jesus died on the cross, claiming the Gospel accounts are fabrications. But Isaiah 53, which clearly predicts His death by crucifixion and resurrection, and which we have physical, pre-Christian evidence for in the Dead Sea Scrolls, cannot be so explained away by Muslims. This T-shirt can also help you explain the powerful evidence for the Bible from prophecy for agnostics and atheists and the powerful impact of Isaiah 53 to both Jews and Muslims. Furthermore, God promises to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel (Genesis 12:1-3). Do you want to be blessed by the living God? Bless Israel!

The immediate motivation for our making these shirts was a pro-Hamas, anti-Jewish rally we saw in Los Angeles. Jew haters there held signs such as “Resistance is not terrorism,” glorifying the murder of 1,200 Jews on October 7, 2023, the largest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust:

They also promoted “from the river to the sea,” advocating the destruction of the Jewish state and the murder of the Jews:

The protesters were part of the anti-Israel hate group, the A. N. S. W. E. R. coalition, who argue that to say “Hamas is a terrorist organization” is a “lie.” (By the way, if you need more reasons to stop using Google as a search engine, note the pro-terrorism, anti-Israel search results that come up first if you search for “answercoalition.org Hamas terrorism”; compare those results with what you get on Duck Duck Go, where the top result [as of the time I am writing this] is the Anti-Defamation League explaining why Hamas is a bloodthirsty terrorist organization that calls for the eradication of Israel.) The protestors also reproduced lies pumped out by Hamas about civilian deaths in Gaza, while saying nothing about the fact that Hamas wants civilians in Gaza to die and Israel does not. Of course, Islam allows Muslims to lie–after all, Allah is the best of deceivers.

They were blocking the street so that we could not keep going on the bus we were on in Los Angeles. Our destination was not far away–a museum in LA. We decided to get off the bus and walk there. A few blocks away we saw an orthodox Jewish man walking in the direction of the advocates of terrorism. We told him about the protest; he thanked us, and re-routed. After we got home from the museum we designed the T-shirts. It is right to stand against terrorism and for the Jewish people. It is especially right to stand for the greatest Jew of all, the resurrected Lord, Jesus.

We saw posters like the following a few blocks away. The anti-Jewish, pro-Hamas protestors did not say anything about these people.

They also said nothing about United States citizens killed by or held hostage by Hamas. They are also not important, it seems. (Let me add that the large majority of inhabitants in Gaza and the West Bank support Hamas’ murder of Jewish civilians–the large majority “extremely support” terrorism, while in a recent survey only 7.3% of survey participants were “extremely against” such terrorism, combined with 5.4% who are “somewhat against” it, for a total of only 12.7% of the population who are against terrorism; it is certainly possible survey results reflect some bias, but the overall picture is likely to be accurate.)

What about here in the USA? When asked if they support Israel or Hamas, 95% of those over 65 support Israel. The percentages get progressively lower the younger people are. Among 18-24 year olds, only 55% support Israel, while 45% support Hamas. This is a terrible trend, and awful evidence of the anti-God garbage taught in the public school and university systems. Maybe consider getting some of these T-shirts for yourself or as presents for others. Perhaps you are afraid of Muslim violence or anti-Jewish violence if you wear one, since true Islam in America–like all true Islam–is violent and bloodthirsty, not peaceful. Perhaps if you are living in Saudi Arabia or Iran it would be unwise to wear one of these shirts; but if you live in the United States of America, and you will allow threats of Muslim violence to curtail your free speech, something is very wrong. Obviously Christians have liberty to wear or not wear a T-shirt like this, and it is perfectly fine not to wear one, but our decisions must be made out of Biblical principle and for the glory of God, not out of fear. If you say you would have protected Jews in the Holocaust, but are afraid to stand for them and against their murderers now, why should we believe you would have stood were you in Hitler’s Germany? There are Biblical principles here. God’s love for Israel is not saying God loves everything the modern state of Israel does–but God still loves Israel, and Scripture still says to bless Israel. (By the way, if you are born again, God loves you with an infinite and special love, but He still does not love everything you do–He does not love your sin, nor does He love Israel’s sin.) Be salt and light: stand up for righteousness. Do not let the wicked pro-terrorist people be the only ones who are making their voices known. Stand for the God of Israel, for the Messiah of Israel, and for the nation of Israel.

Postscriptum:

As FLAME: Facts and Logic About the Middle East points out concerning anti-Israel, pro-Hamas bias in media reports about Gaza civilian casualties:

[T]he media insist on treating Hamas’s notoriously unreliable information feed as fact. Conversely, they refuse to give precedence to proven, reliable sources of information, such as the Israeli or U.S. governments, the latter of which confirmed Al-Shifa’s use as a Hamas headquarters. Israel presents photographs of Hamas blocking exit highways, so Gazans cannot leave the war zone . . . but Hamas denies it, says NPR. Such is the inane, “he-said, she said” pablum we are fed by the media.

The media also steadfastly refuse to ask the questions demanded by the story—and by any curious reader, listener, or viewer. When reporters interview Palestinians on the street or doctors in hospitals, the viewer cries to know: “Do you ever see any Hamas guys around here? Have you seen any tunnels?” But never does the reporter ask this, let alone questions like, “Do you support Hamas? Do you think there should be a Palestine next to Israel? What do you think about the October 7^th attack on Israel?” These are obvious queries that responsible, curious, fact-hungry journalists would and should normally ask their sources. But they never do. Why?

The short answer is that if they asked these questions, the stories they tell wouldn’t fit the narrative they are trying to sell—the narrative in which the Palestinians are an oppressed people, Israel is an evil, colonial aggressor, and Hamas is a product of legitimate Palestinian resistance.

To sell their perverse narrative, international media swallow the wildly inflated death-toll numbers cranked out by the Gaza Health Ministry. For this reason, the media simply repeat the daily growing casualty figures Hamas gives them.

Reuters reports, for example, that as of November 22^nd, Gaza’s Hamas-run government says at least 13,300 Palestinians have been confirmed killed, including at least 5,600 children. But Luke Baker, a former Reuters bureau chief who led the organization’s coverage of Israel and the disputed territories from 2014 to 2017, said on X (formerly Twitter), “Hamas has a clear propaganda incentive to inflate civilian casualties as much as possible.”

Moreover, the media almost never give a breakdown of the casualties. They don’t say how many were Hamas terrorists or how many were human shields, killed in residences schools or hospitals where Hamas were hiding. They never tell how many were killed—not by Israeli forces, but by Hamas and other terrorist groups—because of misfired rockets, or by Hamas shooting at Palestinian civilians heeding Israeli orders to evacuate.

In addition, it’s probable that a significant number of the “children” reported killed or wounded by Hamas are youths aged 13 to 18, who were located in Hamas facilities or even took an active part in the fighting.

If you are not aware of the connection between Soviet communist propaganda and modern anti-Zionist lies about Israel as a colonialist oppressor, please read the article here.

Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?

October 27, 2023 / 2 Comments on Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?

In evangelistic Bible study #1, “What is the Bible?” (see also the PDF here), I (currently) have the statement:

[A]ll but 11 of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament could be reproduced without a single manuscript from the 36,289 quotes made by early writers in Christendom from the second to the fourth century.

I also have this statement in my pamphlet The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible.

I cite this statement from what is usually a highly reliable and scholarly source, Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:

“[I]f we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Norman L. Geisler, “New Testament Manuscripts,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 532).

However, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 228-238 have presented a strong case that this oft-repeated statement is not accurate. On the other hand, the following less specific statement is defensible:

Besides the textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005], 126)

While Metzger and Ehrman’s statement is defensible, unless new evidence comes to light to overturn Hixson and Gurry’s case, the more specific statement in Geisler’s book, which I reproduced in my evangelistic Bible study, is not defensible or accurate. The “11 verses” claim is too specific, and the 36,289 quotations is also too specific. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a quotation from an allusion, a summarization, or other less specific types of reference. I intend to remove the 11 verses statement derived from Geisler’s fine encyclopedia (still a great book, despite this one mistake) from Bible study #1 and from The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible and replace it with the less-specific statement. (I have not gotten around to doing it yet, but that is on the agenda.)

I was wrong to (unintentionally) reproduce inaccurate information. God is a God of truth. Also, please do not use the inaccurate statement yourself, but the accurate one, in the future, and if you are using these Bible studies in your church, please start using the updated and accurate ones once they are available; if you have extra copies already printed that contain the inaccurate statement, you might want to clarify that it is not technically correct.

The overall case for the accuracy of the New Testament remains infallibly certain from God’s promises and overwhelmingly strong from a historical perspective.

–TDR

Is Love a Feeling? The Holy Bible on the Nature of Love

September 15, 2023 / Leave a comment

Is love a feeling?

What do you think?

__ Yes, love is a feeling.

__ No, love is not a feeling.

The Correct Answer Is …

“Yes”!

The correct answer is “yes” to both the question “Is love a feeling?” and the question “Is love not a feeling?” Love involves the feelings and affections, so in that sense love is a feeling. However, love is not merely a feeling, but it involves the will and the actions.

Love Involves Self-Sacrificial and Willful Action

Many in the world assume that love is just a sappy sentimental feeling, or that love is a teenage boy having his heart flutter when a pretty girl looks at him. This is a very Biblically insufficient definition of love. How does God love?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God’s love does not just involve sappy sentimentalism. The Father’s love led Him to give to rebellious sinners what was most valuable to Him–His own Son. His love involved self-sacrificial action. Believers must show this same kind of self-sacrificial, acting, willing, giving love:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

This sort of love is required in other relationships as well:

Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Clearly, love is not just an emotional high, but it involves self-sacrifice, action, giving oneself to the loved one at tremendous cost.

Love Also Includes the Feelings or Affections

At the same time, love is not the self-sacrifice of a drone or robot that follows a computer program to blow itself up and save someone else. Love includes the feelings and affections. We do not love as robots, but as people who have affections and passions. God wants us to love Him with all that we are–that includes our minds and wills, but it also includes our affections or feelings.

God’s love for His people involves His affections in whatever sense He has passions or affections:

Hos. 11:8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.
Hos. 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Zeph. 3:17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.

Human love between spouses involves the affections or passions. In the Song of Solomon the husband and wife–who are to be patterns for marital relationships–are madly in love with each other and passions and affections are coming out all over the place.

Our love for what is of God also involves our passions or affections. Paul said: “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Romans 7:22). “Delight” is a feeling or affection. The Messiah said, as a pattern for all the godly: “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:8).

We could multiple examples for all other sorts of love that are dealt with in Scripture.

So is love a feeling? Yes, it is–God did not make us robots. Is love merely a feeling, or only a feeling, or primarily a feeling? No–it is much more than that, but it involves self-sacrificial action.

So in all your relationships–most importantly with God and secondarily with others–love like God does. Give yourself self-sacrificially to the Lord and to others. That is the most important thing–but don’t be a robot either. God wants you to love with all that you are, and that includes your feelings or affections.

–TDR

Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View

August 4, 2023 / 30 Comments on Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View

According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)

A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife. Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism). There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.

The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage. The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow. However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly. After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years. After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land. Some of them tried, and God was not with them:

39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)

The same situation takes place after a remarriage. The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this?

Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?

Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse

Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates. What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.

Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?

Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse

Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It

Luke 16:18 reads:

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.

The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions. As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones. Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57). The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.

Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.

–TDR

WHAT IS TRUTH

Tag Archives: Bible studies

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

Christ’s Genealogies: Eusebius / Africanus on Matthew & Luke

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: Joseph’s and Mary’s Line?

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: The Legal Line and The Blood Line?

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: An Ancient Explanation by Africanus Recorded in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke:
A Proven Contradiction? Which Explanation is Correct?

Church Planting Methodology: Where Should a New Church Meet?

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? The Question

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? Reply #1

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #2

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #3

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #4

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #5

Church Planting Methodology: Questions About The Answers

Church Planting Methodology: What Do You Think?

My Daily Bible Reading: The KJV Bible Read Out Loud, Free

Click here to go to the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube Channel.

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Saints and Revelation 6:17

Rapture / Tribulation Views and Revelation 6:17: Wrath “is come” means what?

Revelation 6:17: The “Come” verb in Revelation 6

2 Thessalonians 2:3 & Pre Trib Rapture: “Day Shall not Come”

Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta

Tag Archives: Bible studies

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: Joseph’s and Mary’s Line?

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: The Legal Line and The Blood Line?

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: An Ancient Explanation by Africanus Recorded in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: A Proven Contradiction? Which Explanation is Correct?

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? The Question

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? Reply #1

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #2

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #3

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #4

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #5

Church Planting Methodology: Questions About The Answers

Church Planting Methodology: What Do You Think?

Click here to go to the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube Channel.

Rapture / Tribulation Views and Revelation 6:17: Wrath “is come” means what?

Revelation 6:17: The “Come” verb in Revelation 6

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָֹה אֶחָד׃

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Is love a feeling?

__ Yes, love is a feeling.

__ No, love is not a feeling.

The Correct Answer Is …

“Yes”!

Love Involves Self-Sacrificial and Willful Action

Love Also Includes the Feelings or Affections

Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?

Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse

Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So

Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?

Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse

Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke:
A Proven Contradiction? Which Explanation is Correct?