THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" Fellow Workers With God (3:5-15) by Mark Copeland


                    Fellow Workers With God (3:5-15)


1. In the church at Corinth, some had an improper estimation of
   a. Resulting in strife and division - cf. 1Co 1:10-13
   b. Manifesting a spirit of carnality - cf. 1Co 3:3-4

2. Paul wrote to correct their improper estimation of preachers...
   a. They were simply servants - 1Co 3:5
   b. They should be regarded as such - 1Co 4:1

[In revealing the proper estimation of preachers, Paul mentions that
those who share God's Word with others are "Fellow Workers With God"
(cf. 1Co 3:9).  In our text, we learn of God's role...]


      1. God provides the opportunity for those who serve Him - 1Co 3:5
      2. The Lord opens doors of opportunity to be of service 
         - 1Co 16:9
      3. Especially for those who have shown themselves ready - Re 3:8
      4. Even when sometimes it is not used - 2Co 2:12-13
      5. Our roles may not be the same (some plant, others water) 
         - 1Co 3:6a
      -- Shall we prepare ourselves to be useful to the Master? - cf.
         2Ti 2:20-21

      1. The Lord seeks to show Himself strong to those who are loyal to
         Him - 2Ch 16:9
      2. Those who hunger and thirst will be filled - Mt 5:6
      3. Those who seek shall find - Mt 7:7-11

[Indeed, the providence of God is at work.  Let us pray as we sometimes
sing:  "Lord, Lead Me To Some Soul Today".  As we cooperate with God's
providence, we also take comfort in knowing...]


      1. It is God who gives the increase - 1Co 3:6-7
      2. His Word is powerful, and will accomplish its intended purpose
         - Isa 55:10-11; He 4:12
      3. Especially in regards to the gospel of Christ, God's power to
         save - Ro 1:16-17
      4. The results will depend upon the soil - cf. Lk 8:11-15
      -- We must make sure that the weapon we use is the Word of God!
         - cf. He 4:12

      1. We are really nothing; just seed throwers and water boys!
         - 1Co 3:6-7
      2. God can use even 'defective' seed throwers - cf. Php 1:15-18
      3. Just as he used Moses and Paul - cf. Exo 4:10-12; 1Co 2:3-4;
         2Co 10:10
      -- We must stop making excuses for not doing whatever we can!
         - cf. Mt 25:24-30

[Finally, from our text (1Co 3:5-15) we learn that...]


      1. God will reward each one according their labor - 1Co 3:8
      2. The more we sow, the more we shall reap - cf. Ga 6:7
      3. Those we lead to Christ will be a source of great joy - cf.
         1Th 2:19-20; 3Jn 3-4
      -- The key is to build on the right foundation:  Jesus Christ!
         - 1Co 3:9-11

      1. The materials (i.e., souls) with which we build vary in quality
         - 1Co 3:12
      2. Only time and the judgment will reveal the true quality of
         those we reach - 1Co 3:13
      3. If our work endures to the end, there will be great reward
         (joy) - 1Co 3:14
      4. If our work does not endure, we are still saved - 1Co 3:15
      -- Like Jeremiah, we might serve many years with little to show;
         but the Lord knows and will reward our efforts! - 1Co 15:58


1. During His earthly ministry, Jesus manifested concern for the lost...
   a. He was moved with compassion - Mt 9:35-36
   b. He called on His disciples to pray for laborers - Mt 9:37-38
   c. He then sent His disciples throughout Israel - Mt 10:1,5-7
   d. He later sent them into all the world - Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15-16

2. What of us who are His disciples today...?
   a. Do we have compassion for the lost?
   b. Do we pray for the Lord of harvest to sent out laborers into His
   c. Do we whatever we can do...either to go or to send? 
      - cf. Ro 10:13-15

The Lord is still working to save those who are lost.  God will provide
the opportunity, the increase, and the reward.  Are we willing to be
"Fellow Workers With God" today...?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

Believing What Jesus Believed by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Believing What Jesus Believed

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

It has become increasingly popular to accept certain parts of the Bible and to reject other parts. Such amazing events as the miracle of Creation, Jonah’s being swallowed by a sea creature, and the Flood of Noah often are brushed aside as mere myth, while more “credible” things such as the teachings of Jesus are accepted as fact. Although this line of reasoning might have some initial appeal to our “enlightened” society that rejects biblical miracles off hand, it contains a major flaw. When the teachings of Jesus are analyzed, it can be shown that Jesus Himself believed and taught the Old Testament stories that some label as myth.
For instance, the story of Jonah has come under attack due to its extraordinary details. According to the Old Testament Scriptures, God’s prophet Jonah disobeyed the Lord and was swallowed by a great sea creature. For three days, he dwelt as a damp denizen of that creature’s belly, until finally he was vomited onto the land and given another chance to obey God. To certain scholars, the story of Jonah finds a place in the Scriptures, not as a factual narrative of a specific historical account, but as a myth or allegory. What did Jesus believe about the story of Jonah? His sentiments in this regard were emphatically stated.
Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here (Matthew 12:38-41).
Quite clearly, Jesus accepted the story of Jonah as an accurate description of a real, historical event. He included not only the fact that Jonah spent three days in the belly of the fish, but also affirmed that the city of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. If the story of Jonah were simply an allegory or myth, Jesus’ entire point about being in the belly of the Earth for as long as Jonah was in the belly of the fish would be weakened to the point of ridiculousness. For, if Jonah wasn’t ever really in the belly of the fish, then what would that say about the Son of Man actually being in the belly of the Earth?
Another story endorsed by Christ is the formation of man and woman at the beginning of Creation. Some scholars, in an attempt to find a compromise between the Bible and organic evolution, have postulated that the Creation account of Genesis need not be taken literally, and that room can be found in Genesis to accommodate the idea that humans evolved gradually in Earth’s recent past. What did Jesus say about this idea?
During His earthly sojourn, Christ spoke explicitly regarding Creation. In Mark 10:6, for example, He declared: “But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them.” Note these three paramount truths: (1) The first couple was “made”; they were not biological accidents. Interestingly, the verb “made” in the Greek is in the aorist tense, implying point action, rather than progressive development (which would be characteristic of evolutionary activity). W.E. Vine made this very observation with reference to the composition of the human body in his comments on 1 Corinthians 12:18 (1951, p. 173). (2) The original pair was fashioned “male and female”; they were not initially an asexual “blob” that eventually experienced sexual diversion. (3) Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning of the creation.” The Greek word for “beginning” is arché, and is used of “absolute, denoting the beginning of the world and of its history, the beginning of creation.” The Greek word for “creation” is ktiseos, and denotes the “sum-total of what God has created” (Cremer, 1962, pp. 113,114,381, emp. in orig.). Christ certainly did not subscribe to the notion that the Earth is millions or billions of years older than humanity.
Accepting the testimony of Jesus Christ further demands that the global Flood of Noah be taken as a literal, historic event. The Lord Himself addressed the topic of the great Flood in Luke 17:26-30 (cf. Matthew 24:39) when He drew the following parallel:
And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed (emp. added).
The Lord depicted an impending doom that was to befall the Jews of His day who would not heed the Word of God. For the purpose of this article, however, note the context in which Jesus discussed the Flood destruction of Genesis 6-8. He placed the Flood alongside the destruction of Sodom, and He also placed it alongside the destruction of the ungodly at His Second Coming. John Whitcomb correctly noted that the word “all” must refer to the totality of people on the entire Earth in Noah’s day, and in Sodom during Lot’s time. Jesus’ argument would be weakened considerably if some of the people on the Earth, besides Noah’s family, escaped the Flood, or if certain Sodomites survived the fiery destruction sent from Heaven (1973, pp. 21-22). It is evident from the text that Jesus affirmed that the same number of ungodly sinners who escaped the Flood will be the same number of disobedient people who escape destruction at His Second Coming—none. From His remarks, one can clearly see that Jesus accepted the Genesis account of a global flood as a historical fact.
The sayings of Jesus contain numerous references to some of the Old Testament’s most extraordinary events. A person cannot consistently maintain a belief in Jesus and His teachings, while denying the details of the accounts that He endorsed as factual. The testimony of Jesus and the factual accuracy of the stories He commended stand together.


Cremer, H. (1962), Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (London: T & T Clark).
Vine, W.E. (1951), First Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” and Those Who Are “Without Excuse” by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” and Those Who Are “Without Excuse”

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

In Paul’s discussion of the sins of the Gentiles, the apostle explained that those Gentiles who refused to acknowledge the existence of a higher power (one that is responsible for the origin of the natural order) had no excuse for their failure in this regard:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:18-21).
If it is the case that those who refuse to believe in God (despite evidence He has presented in the material world) are without excuse, then we would expect to learn of people who, while perhaps lacking special revelation from God, nonetheless applied their God-given rationality to develop belief in a being that is responsible for the physical world. We find just such an example in one of the most famous and important philosophers, Aristotle.
In Aristotle’s Physics, the philosopher addresses the question of motion. After a lengthy discussion on the nature of motion and the immediate causes for motion, Aristotle addresses the remote cause for motion:
If everything that is in motion is moved by something that is in motion, either this is an accidental attribute of the things (so that each of them moves something while being itself in motion, but not because it is itself in motion) or it belongs to them in their own right. If, then, it is an accidental attribute, it is not necessary that that which causes motion should be in motion; and if this is so it is clear that there may be a time when nothing that exists is in motion, since the accidental is not necessary but contingent.... But the non-existence of motion is an impossibility (1984, 1:428, parenthetical item in orig.).
Aristotle, exemplary in his philosophical quest at this juncture, simply asks himself why there is motion. His conclusion, after a lengthy discussion, is essentially this: Because it is undeniable that motion exists, then there must be a first cause for the motion—an unmoved mover, whose movement (or causing of movement) is not an accidental property of His, but rather a necessary component of His being. Whereas each item in the created order is in motion because it has been moved by a distinct mover, the unmoved mover must possess the quality of motion (or the causing of motion). Aristotle lived prior to the Christian age, and was not a Hebrew; yet in his quest to understand the natural order, he was not prejudiced against belief in the supernatural.
Thomas Aquinas would adapt Aristotle’s argument to formulate what we know as part of the cosmological argument for the existence of the God of the Bible (see Maurer, 2010; cf. Jeffcoat, n.d.):
Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.... For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.... It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (1952, 19:12,13, emp. added).
Peter Kreeft summarizes Aquinas’ argument: “Since no thing (or series of things) can move (change) itself, there must be a first, Unmoved Mover, source of all motion” (1990, p. 63, parenthetical items in orig.).
The necessity of the unmoved Mover is obvious. Yet, Paul recognized that some had become so calloused by worldly concerns as to prejudice their hearts against the Creator. So, God “gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness” (Romans 1:28-30). Despite the forceful clarity with which God has revealed Himself to His creation, some will misuse their intellectual freedom and reject Him. May we, on the other hand, willingly receive a simple, yet critical, lesson from Aristotle and Aquinas concerning the necessary existence of our Creator.


Aquinas, Thomas (1952), Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).
Aristotle (1984), Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Jeffcoat, W.D. (no date), “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Cosmological-Argument-for-Exist.pdf.
Kreeft, Peter (1990), Summa of the Summa (San Francisco: Ignatius Press).
Maurer, Armand (2010), “Medieval Philosophy,” Encyclopaedia Brittanica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1350843/Western-philosophy/8653/Thomas-Aquinas?anchor=ref365766.

The "Period of the Judges" and a Young Earth by Kyle Butt, M.Div. Alden Bass Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


The "Period of the Judges" and a Young Earth

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
Alden Bass
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


I read a series of articles you published some time ago in Reason & Revelation on the Bible and the age of the Earth. However, your date for the creation of the Earth appears to be inconsistent with other portions of the biblical text. You apparently failed to take into account Acts 13:17-20, and you therefore have not left enough time for the period of the judges. Recalculate your dates and you will see that they cause the text in Acts to clash with 1 Kings 6:1. How can this problem be resolved?


During the more than twenty years that we have been publishing Reason & Revelation, we have received numerous comments in response to articles that we have written, or stands that we have taken, on various biblical and/or scientific issues. Some letters tender a nice commendation. Some express mild disagreement. Still others offer a stern rebuke. And finally, some simply ask for additional information or clarification. The letter from which the above question was taken, falls into the latter category.
The author of the letter asked a perfectly valid (and an extremely interesting) question that we thought our readers might like to see answered in the pages of Reason & Revelation. This particular inquiry provides an intriguing case study in how alleged biblical discrepancies can be answered—even though arriving at a solution sometimes may require an extra dose of determination and some pretty dogged research. First, we would like to elaborate a bit on the seeming discrepancy between the two passages under consideration. Second, we then would like to explain—as the querist asked us to do—how the problem can be resolved. The two passages are as follows (the controversial portion of the text has been placed in bold type).
The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet (Acts 13:17-20, KJV).
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Jehovah (1 Kings 6:1, ASV).
A concise summation of the putative problem between Acts 13:17-20 and 1 Kings 6:1 was provided by Alan Montgomery in his presentation, “Towards a Biblically Inerrant Chronology,” at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (August 3-8, 1998). As he explained:
A summation of the reigns of the judges and enemy oppressions reveals that there is a major discrepancy with I Kings 6:1, which states that the temple construction began in the 480th year since the exodus. Mauro (1987, p. 41) states that no other era produces “a greater lack of unanimity among chronologists of repute.” ...Neither can Paul’s statement be reconciled to the 480 years. In Acts 13:20 he says that the Israelites wandered 40 years in the wilderness, conquered the seven tribes of Canaan and were ruled by judges for 450 years until Samuel. If, to these 450 years we add 40 for the wandering in the wilderness, about 22 years of Saul after Samuel’s death, 40 years of David and 3 years of Solomon, we arrive at a total of 555 years rather than 480 (1998, p. 401, emp. added).
In short, then, the querist who wrote us was asking this. Acts 13:20 seems to indicate that afterthe fathers were chosen, and after the Israelites emerged from Egyptian slavery, and after they had wandered for 40 years in the wilderness, and after God had helped them conquer the land of Canaan, then God provided numerous judges for a period of about 450 years until the time of the prophet Samuel—who appointed Saul as king, who then was followed by David, who eventually was succeeded by his son, Solomon. Yet 1 Kings 6:1 plainly speaks about the “fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel” being only 480 years after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt. As Montgomery noted, if one tallies the years included in Acts 13, the number is far too high to agree with the 480 years alluded to in 1 Kings 6:1. If Acts 13 effectively places 450 years as the period of Israel’s judges after all the other events that are mentioned, then the conclusion we reached in our articles in Reason & Revelation regarding the age of the Earth (that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old; see Thompson, 1999) does not leave enough time for the reign of Israel’s judges. What is the explanation for this conundrum—or is there one? Yes, there is. Permit us to explain.
As we begin, let us offer a summary of principles that must be considered when dealing with alleged contradictions. First, a contradiction does not exist between passages that refer to completely different persons, things, or events. Second, no contradiction exists between passages that involve different time elements. Third, a contradiction cannot be said to exist between verses that employ phraseology in different senses. Fourth, supplementation is not contradiction. And fifth, in order to negate the charge that the Bible contains a real contradiction, all that is necessary is for the Bible student to show the possibility of a coherent harmonization between the alleged contradictory passages (see Jackson, 1983). Actually, the solution to the problem presented in a comparison of Acts 13:20 with 1 Kings 6:1 involves several of these principles. Again, allow us to explain.
The apparent discrepancy between the two passages under consideration has to do with the fact that certain Greek manuscripts differ from others in their recording of Paul’s statement in Acts 13. When we compare various translations of the verse, it quickly becomes clear that the particular wording of the verse is in question.
And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet (Acts 13:19-20, KJV).
And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years: and after these things he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet (Acts 13:19-20, ASV).
He overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance. All this took about 450 years. After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet (Acts 13:19-20, NIV).
And having destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance. And after these things he gave them judges till Samuel the prophet, to the end of about four hundred and fifty years (Acts 13:14-20, Darby Bible, 1890).
[A]nd having destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He did divide by lot to them their land. And after these things, about four hundred and fifty years, He gave judges—till Samuel the prophet (Acts 13:19-20, Young’s Literal Translation).
Each one of these five translations has the prepositional phrase “about four hundred and fifty years” describing a different set of events. The KJV says the period of the judges lasted 450 years. The ASV indicates that the children of Israel were given the promised land for 450 years. The NIV says that “all this” (the events described in verses 17-19—choosing of the fathers, the Exodus, the wilderness wandering, and the distribution of the land) took about 450 years. The Darby Bible seems to agree primarily with the NIV that all the events happened “to the end of about four hundred and fifty years.” And Young’s Literal Translation simply plops the phrase in the middle of the sentence and does not give much of an indication as to what it describes. It is obvious that the respected scholars who translated these different versions have had some problems agreeing on the exact events that should fall under the phrase “about 450 years.”
In order to solve this “problem” we must realize, as James Jordan has concisely stated,
[t]he proper resolution takes notice of the fact that there is more than one reading for these texts. We have from the early centuries of the Church many manuscripts of the New Testament, and sadly they do not all agree with each other on every point. That necessitates a task called “lower criticism,” which is the study of these various texts to try and determine which reading is correct, or most likely, at a given point of conflict (1998, 10[7]:3, emp. added).
The King James Version was completed in 1611 and then revised several times, one of the latest being in 1769. The Greek text used to produce the King James Version is known as the Textus Receptus. However, after the King James Version was translated and revised, several manuscripts came to light that were older than those used in the KJV translation. C.G. Ozanne assessed Acts 13:17-20 as follows:
In order to appreciate the significance of this reference, it is important to notice that the phrase “four hundred and fifty years” is in the dative case. This is in marked contrast with the two references to “forty years,” which are both in the accusativecase. “The dative implies point of time, not duration” (Bruce). It indicates that at this point in the narrative 450 years had elapsed, dating presumably from the first event recorded in the apostle’s address.... The meaning now is that at the point of time at which the land was given as an inheritance, 450 years had elapsed since the choice of the fathers (v. 17) [1970, p. 32, emp. added].
In order to clarify this, we turn to two modern translations, both of which are based on the Alexandrian text (an older, more reliable text than the Textus Receptus, upon which the KJV is based). The New American Standard Version translates Acts 13:19 like this: “And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land as an inheritance—all of which took about four hundred and fifty years.” The New International Version offers further illumination:
The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that country, he endured their conduct for about forty years in the desert, he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance. All this took about 450 years(Acts 13:16b-20a, emp. added).
The “all” of verse 20 refers to the time of the patriarchs (when God “chose” Abraham and Isaac) until the inheritance of Canaan. Old Testament commentator A.C. Hervey concurs:
The usual explanation of the reading of the R.T. [Received Text—BT/KB/AB] ...is that the years are dated from the birth of Isaac, and the meaning is that the promise to give the land to the seed of Abraham was actually performed within four hundred and fifty years (after the analogy of Gal. iii. 17), which gives a good sense and is not at all improbable (n.d., 18[4]:405, emp. added).
In other words, the 450 years does not point forward to the time of the judges (nor to some period in between the conquest and the judges), but backward to the events preceding the time of the judges. Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost authorities on the Greek New Testament, pointed out that in the original text (specifically the Alexandrian text) verses 17, 18, and 19 are all one continuous sentence, and it was the separating of that one sentence into several English sentences that has caused so much confusion (1994, p. 359).
In a footnote in his commentary on the book of Judges, renowned scholar C.F. Keil, speaking of the Alexandrian reading of the text, stated that the phrase under consideration “can hardly be understood in any other sense than this, that Paul reckoned 450 as the time that elapsed between the call of Abraham (or birth of Isaac) and the division of the land, namely 215 + 215” (1996, 2:203, emp. added).
In his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, well-known Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace stated that “certain formulaic phrases are often employed,...referring to the previous events” (1996, p. 333, emp. added). He then listed Acts 13:20 as one of those instances—and therein lies the key to the alleged discrepancy between 1 Kings 6:1 and Acts 13:20. When the Alexandrian manuscripts are translated properly, it becomes clear that Paul’s statement of “about 450 years” in Acts 13:20 was “referring to the previous events” related in verses 17-19, not the following period representing the time of the judges. The best rendering of this fact comes from the NIV.
The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that country, he endured their conduct for about forty years in the desert, he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance. All this took about 450 years. After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet (Acts 13:17-20, emp. added).
After considering all the possible solutions, it soon becomes clear that no discrepancy exists between the disputed passages. In fact, a concise, important piece of the Old Testament chronology falls into place with a proper reading of Acts 13:20, once again proving that it is just “a matter of time” before alleged biblical discrepancies are put to rest.


Hervey, A.C. (no date), The Pulpit Commentary—Acts, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Jackson, Wayne (1983), “Bible Contradictions—Are They Real?,” Reason & Revelation, 3:25-28, June.
Jordan, James B. (1998), “Puzzling Out the Era of the Judges,” Biblical Chronology, volume 10, number 7, July.
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Mauro, Phillip (1987), The Wonders of Biblical Chronology (Sterling, VA: Grace Abounding Ministries).
Metzger, Bruce (1994), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).
Montgomery, Alan (1998), “Towards a Biblically Inerrant Chronology,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship), pp. 395-406. [This article is the written form of a presentation at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism on August 3-8, 1998, and also is available on-line at: http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.html.]
Ozanne, C.G. (1970), The First 7000 Years (New York, NY: Exposition Press).
Thompson, Bert (1999), “The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Parts I-III],” Reason & Revelation, 19:57-63,65-70,73-79, August, September, and October.
Wallace, Daniel B. (1996), Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Scripture repeatedly testifies that Jesus never sinned. The prophet Isaiah, speaking as if Jesus had already lived and died, said that the Savior “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth” (53:9). The apostle Peter quoted from Isaiah in his first epistle (2:22), and added that Jesus was “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19). Paul wrote to the Corinthians how Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). What’s more, according to Hebrews 4:15, Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). He was “pure” and “righteous” in the supreme sense (1 John 3:3; 2:1). Simply put, Jesus was perfect; He never transgressed God’s law.
If Jesus never sinned, and specifically never lied, some wonder why Jesus told his brothers, “I do not go up to this feast [the Feast of Tabernacles]” (John 7:8, NASB), if later, “when His brothers had gone...He Himself also went” (7:10, NASB)? Some allege that, in this instance, Jesus “broke his word” and “lied” (McKinsey, 2000, p. 787), and thus was not the Son of God as He claimed. What is the truth of the matter?
First of all, several early manuscripts of the gospel of John, including p66 and p75 (believed to be from as early as the late second and early third centuries), have Jesus saying, “I am not yet[oupo] going up to this feast,” rather than “I do not [ouk] go up to this feast.” Thus, it may be that the correct rendering is found in the KJV, NKJV, and NIV, rather than the ASV, NASB, and RSV.
Second, even if Jesus did say at one point to His brothers, “I do not go up to this feast,” but later He went, that still does not mean that He lied. Suppose a co-worker saw me leaving the office at 2:00 p.m. and asked me, “Are you going home?” and I said, “No,” but later went home that day at 5:00 p.m. Have I lied? Not at all. When I left the office at 2:00 p.m., I went to run a quick errand—I did not go home. When I departed the office at 5:00 p.m., however, I went home. “No” is often truthfully used in a time-sensitive manner. Simply because at 2:00 p.m. I said I was not going home, does not mean I could not go home at 5:00 p.m. My “no” meant “I’m not going home at the present.” Similarly, if Jesus used the term “not” [ouk] rather than “not yet” [oupo], He could just as easily been implying the same thing: “I am not going to the feast at the present.”
At the proper time, after Jesus “remained in Galilee” for a while (7:9), He did go to the feast. The proper time was not when his unbelieving brothers told Him to “depart” (John 7:5), but when the Son of God said it was time—a God-appointed time. Furthermore, His attendance at the feast was not for the purpose that His brothers envisioned (to show Himself to the world—7:3-4), rather Jesus went to the feast “not openly, but as it were in secret” (7:10, emp. added).
Just as we often say, “I am not going,” but mean “I am not going yet,” Jesus had every right to use that same kind of language. Although Jesus embodied truth (John 14:6) and always told the truth (1 Peter 2:22), He still used figures of speech and language men commonly understood—some even today.


McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?”

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Some people have realized the implications of the laws of science concerning the matter of origins. Simply put, the laws of science contradict the evolutionary model (cf. Thompson, 2002; Miller, 2007). So, the question is asked by both sincere and unrelinquishing people, “Could there not have been exceptions at some time in the past to the laws of science?”

The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as, “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). In other words, as long as the scientist takes care to make sure that the law applies to the scenario in question, the law will always hold true. According to its definition, a scientific law has no known exceptions, or else it would not be a law in the first place. A “theory,” on the other hand, is merely an “attempt to explain” phenomena by deduction from other known principles (McGraw-Hill..., p. 2129). A theory may not be true, but a law, by definition, is always true. Since there are no known exceptions to scientific laws, would it not be unscientific for evolutionists to assert, without any scientific evidence, that there have been exceptions to the laws of science in the past?

Consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. A perpetual-motion machine is a device which attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 263). Numerous attempts have been made over the years to design such a machine—all to no avail. Such a machine would certainly be worth a large sum of money. However, a prominent Thermodynamics textbook used in mechanical engineering schools says concerning such attempts, “The proposers of perpetual-motion machines generally have innovative minds, but they usually lack formal engineering training” (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Why would the writers make such a statement? The answer is that the Laws of Thermodynamics, which are taught in-depth in mechanical engineering curriculums, prohibit the design of such a machine. According to the textbook writers, to spend time and energy on such a pursuit categorizes the pursuer as unknowledgeable about such scientific truths. The Laws of Thermodynamics have been substantiated to the point that in 1918 the U.S. Patent Office declared that they would no longer accept patent applications for alleged perpetual-motion machines (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Concerning patent application rejections, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website says, “a rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion” (2008, emp. added).

As far as science can tell, its laws have never been violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin of the Universe. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that govern the Universe. The creation model, on the other hand, is in perfect harmony with the laws of science.


“706.03(a) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101[R-5]-700 Examination of Applications” (2008), Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, United States Patent and Trademark Office, [On-line], URL: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Abortion and the Self-Contradiction of Political Correctness by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Abortion and the Self-Contradiction of Political Correctness

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In May 2004, 16-year-old Erica Basoria asked her boyfriend, Gerardo Flores, to stomp on her belly, since she did not want to give birth to his twin sons, and her own efforts to kill her babies had been unsuccessful. Flores complied and subsequently was arrested on the basis of Texas’ 2003 Prenatal Protection Act which extends the protections of the entire criminal code to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth” (“State Homicide Laws...,” 2006). His lawyer argued that the Texas law used to prosecute was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Flores received a double capital murder conviction with two concurrent life sentences, making him ineligible for parole for 40 years—a ruling that was upheld by the Texas Ninth Court of Appeals (Ertelt, 2007).
Wait a minute. If Flores had been to medical school, he would have been legally free to employ barbaric instruments of torture to butcher the children in the womb. Or he could have pulled the babies’ bodies from his girlfriend’s womb, leaving only their heads, jammed scissors into their skulls to make a hole, and then sucked out their brains with a suction tube (see “Abortion Methods,” n.d.). But, no, young Flores did not have access to such sophisticated “education” and “expertise.” He simply stomped on his girlfriend’s stomach. Now he’s doing time for most of the rest of his life, while hundreds of abortion doctors continue to practice their deadly trade to the tune of 54 million+ babies since 1972—while being paid enormous sums of money (“Abortion in the...,” n.d.).
Such is the moral confusion, hypocrisy, and self-contradiction, or shall we say insanity, that grips America by its spiritual throat, brought on by the forces of political correctness over the last half century. The innocent blood that has been shed in the United States of America cries out for justice and retribution—which one day will surely be meted out (Proverbs 6:17). As Thomas Jefferson declared: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever” (1787, Query XVIII). Or as Solomon affirmed: “The violence of the wicked will destroy them, because they refuse to do justice” (Proverbs 21:7). The God of the Bible eventually “administers justice for the fatherless” (Deuteronomy 10:18). “The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed” (Psalm 103:6).


“Abortion Methods” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://readthetruth.com/abortion-methods.htm.
“Abortion in the United States: Statistics and Trends” (no date), National Right to Life, [On-line], URL: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html.
Ertelt, Steven (2007), “Texas Appeals Court Upholds Law Protecting Pregnant Women, Babies,” Life News, January 29, [On-line], URL: http://www.lifenews.com/state2046.html.
Jefferson, Thomas (1787), Notes on the State of Virginia, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.
“State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims” (2006), National Right to Life, December 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html.

Who Killed Goliath? by Joe Deweese, Ph.D.


Who Killed Goliath?

by Joe Deweese, Ph.D.

“And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” (2 Samuel 21:19).
“And there was again war with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” (1 Chronicles 20:5).
The record of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) clearly speaks of the defeat of the giant of Gath by the shepherd boy. This story is used to emphasize faith and faithfulness to the young from their earliest ages. However, some have alleged a discrepancy between the account in 1 Samuel and two other passages (2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5). According to 2 Samuel 21:19, it appears that Elhanan killed Goliah; yet 1 Chronicles 20:5 states that Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. The question, then, is who did Elhanan kill?
First, we must recognize who Elhanan was not. According to 1 Chronicles 20:5, Elhanan was the son of Jair. This was not the same man as Elhanan the Bethlehemite, son of Dodo (2 Samuel 23:24; Keil and Delitzsch, 1996, 2:681). Furthermore, it appears that Jair and Jaareoregim actually are the same person (Barnes, 1998, 2:120). Barnes, as well as the editors of The Pulpit Commentary, noted that the difficulty may have begun when oregim, the Hebrew word translated “weaver” in this passage, ended up being placed on the wrong line by a copyist—something that has been known to happen in several instances (see Spence and Exell, 1978, 4:514). Therefore, Jair, combined with oregim, became Jaare-oregim in order to make it fit with proper Hebrew grammar (Spence and Exell, 4:514).
Second, the phrase “Lahmi the brother of” is absent in 2 Samuel 21:19. The King James Version inserts the phrase “the brother of” between “Bethlehemite” and “ Goliath.” Furthermore, in the Hebrew, eth Lachmi (a combination of “Lahmi” and the term “brother”) appears to have been changed into beith hallachmi (Beth- lehemite). With this simple correction, the two texts would be in clear agreement (Clarke, n.d., p. 369). In other words, “the brother of” and the name “Lahmi” likely were combined by a copyist to form what is translated in English as “Beth-lehemite” in 2 Samuel 21:19. This, however, caused the difficulty when the passage was paralleled with 1 Chronicles 20:5.
In his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer used the same scenario mentioned above to explain this difficulty, and then summed up the situation by noting: “In other words, the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5” (1982, p. 179). A fair, in-depth examination of the alleged difficulty shows that there actually is no contradiction at all, but simply a copyist’s mistake.
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Barnes, Albert (1998 reprint), Barnes’ Notes: Exodus to Esther (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Clarke, Adam (no date), Commentary and Critical Notes on the Old Testament: Joshua to Esther (New York, NY: Abingdon).
Keil, C.F., and F. Delitzsch (1996), Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Spence, H.D.M., and Joseph S. Exell, Eds. (1978), The Pulpit Commentary: Ruth, I & II Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Why do we love Jesus? by Roy Davison


Why do we love Jesus?
“Love is of God” (1 John 4:7).
Why do we love anyone? Love is not easy to explain. Basically, we love someone because of who he is. And, there are various levels of love.
For example, we love our unborn child because he is a little person and because he is our child. After the child is born our love deepens and we love him for who he is.
Why is Jesus the best-loved person in human history? Why did people love Him when He walked on earth? Why do millions love Him now, two thousand years later?
Why do we love Jesus? And how strong is our love? Some have an intense love for Jesus, whereas the love of others is rather weak.
To have a strong love for someone you must know him. In 1958, the love song was popular: “To know him is to love him.” Some of the lyrics were: “To know, know, know him is to love, love, love him, and I do, and I do, and I do.”
This certainly applies to Jesus, more than to any other person who has ever lived. Someone who knows Him, loves Him. It is difficult not to love Jesus. Our love for Jesus grows as we get to know Him better through the Scriptures. We learn who He is: what He is like, what He taught, and what He has done for us. Another line in that song is: “Just to see that smile, makes my life worthwhile.”
To prepare for this lesson I examined what the Bible says about people’s love for Jesus, and I asked some fellow Christians why they love Jesus. So many reasons exist for loving Jesus that only a few can be discussed in this lesson. 

Love for Jesus was not based on physical attraction.
Isaiah wrote of the Messiah: “He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2 ESV). Yet Isaiah also wrote: “Your eyes will see the King in His beauty” (Isaiah 33:17). And in Psalm 45:2 we read about the Messiah: “You are fairer than the sons of men.”
We love Jesus because of His spiritual beauty. He has the most loveable spirit of anyone who ever lived, the Spirit of God! (John 1:32).

We love Jesus because He first loved us.
One brother wrote: “Of course, ‘Why do I love Jesus?’ is answered in my head by the old children’s song: ‘Oh, how I love Jesus, because He first loved me.’ Our love for Him can never match His love for us. Yet, my love for Him is great because I know He sacrificed Himself for me, for us. These expressions are commonplace, but true.”
Indeed, “We love Him because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). “For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again” (2 Corinthians 5:14, 15).

We love Jesus because He forgives our sins.
Jesus made it clear to mankind that God is willing to forgive the sins of the contrite: “And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, ‘This man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ So he said, ‘Teacher, say it.’ ‘There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?’ Simon answered and said, ‘I suppose the one whom he forgave more.’ And He said to him, ‘You have rightly judged.’ Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.’ Then He said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’ Then He said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you. Go in peace’” (Luke 7:35-50).
Sin is a debt no one can pay, whether the debt be large or small. This woman had great remorse for her sins, and she believed that Jesus could rescue her from her terrible state. Imagine how her broken heart was filled with joy when Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven” and “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.” Her love for Jesus was great because the burden of sin He lifted from her shoulders was great.
She obviously knew something about Jesus. Whether she had met Him, heard Him teach, or only heard about Him, we do not know. But her faith was strong enough that she dared to approach Him in tears, and her love was so strong that she dared to kiss His feet. The invitation of Jesus had touched her heart, whether she had heard these actual words or not: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28, 29).
In reply to my question, several said that they love Jesus because He accepts them and forgives them.
One brother wrote: “Perhaps I most love Him because He is willing to, and has, forgiven my sins, my continuing shortcomings and failures and mistakes, and even those things I cannot seem to keep myself from doing.”
Another brother wrote: “As for me personally, I suspect it boils down to my complete trust in his complete acceptance of me. He knows the real me and that real me does not threaten our relationship. I recognize a great sense of, even physical, peace in my relationship with Jesus, that is not always there in my other relationships! Pretty vague, I know! But in short, it is the peace I get from my relationship with Jesus that keeps me coming back for more.”
Another wrote: “Why do I love Jesus? I love Jesus because He secured my eternal salvation. I deserve to die, but He died for me and paid the price so I do not have to die.”

We love Jesus because He gives us eternal life.
“The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son” (1 John 5:11). “And this is the promise that He has promised us - eternal life” (1 John 2:25). Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life” (John 10:27, 28).
When we commune with the body and blood of Christ at the Lord’s table, we have His promise: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).
One brother explained that he loves Jesus because in Him his dear wife, who recently passed away, will live forever: “I love God because he knows how we humans fear Death because it claims to bring to an end all the lovely and honorable dreams we dream; because it claims to obliterate all the lovely people we know, righteous people, compassionate and kind and unselfish, and because it claims that our trust in God through Jesus Christ is profound nonsense. God has mocked all these claims by Death by raising this one man, Jesus Christ, from the dead to die no more. He enables us to dismiss the voice of all the cemeteries of the world. In and through and because of Jesus there’s a day coming when all who are embraced by the saving work of the Lord Jesus will gather and live forever in eternal joy and peace and love of righteousness.”

God’s children love Jesus.
“Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God’” (John 8:42). John explains: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him” (1 John 5:1). They who love the Father also love the Son and all of God’s children.

They who love the truth, love Jesus.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Since Jesus is the truth, He is loved by lovers of truth. “Love ... rejoices in the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). Jesus said: “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (John 18:37). People perish because they do “not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10).
Some comments received were: “Jesus was loved because of His honesty” and “because ‘He spoke not’ as the various religious factions. He spoke with authority, but with love, and not hypocritically.”

How much did Peter love Jesus? 
How would you respond if Jesus said your full name and asked you, as He asked Peter: “Do you love me?” (John 21:15).
This is one of the most touching scenes in the New Testament. Peter had boasted, “Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble” and “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” (Matthew 26:33, 35). As it turned out, Peter was the only one who denied Jesus! And he did so three times! But when “the Lord turned and looked at Peter” he was struck with remorse and “went out and wept bitterly” (Luke 22:61, 62).
Some days later, after the resurrection, by the Sea of Galilee, Jesus prepared breakfast for Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James, John and two other disciples. “So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?’” (John 21:15).
In His question, Jesus uses the Greek word ἀγαπάω that refers to the highest form of altruistic love. Peter replies, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” Jesus accepts his reply and says to him, “Feed My lambs.” But Peter did not use the same word for love that Jesus used in His question. Peter used the word φιλέω that expresses affection. Both words mean “to love” but to clarify the difference, it is as though Jesus asks, “Do you love me?” and Peter replies, “You know that I have affection for you.”
Thus, Jesus asks Peter again, using ἀγαπάω, and Peter replies again using φιλέω. Jesus accepts his answer and says, “Tend My sheep.”
Then, the third time, Jesus asks, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” but this time Jesus uses the word φιλέω that has the force of asking: “Peter, do you have affection for me?” “Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, ‘Do you love Me?’ And he said to Him, ‘Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed My sheep’” (John 21:15-17). Peter still uses φιλέω rather than ἀγαπάω. Peter is no longer boasting, or claiming that he loves Jesus more than others. He understates his love, with the assurance that Jesus knows how very much he loves Him.
Earlier, Peter had said that he was willing to die for Jesus. Now Jesus predicts that he will do just that, and He tells Peter, “Follow Me.” (John 21:18, 19).

How much do we love Jesus?
Jesus is worthy of our highest love. He was a tremendous man. He spoke the truth without compromise. Through His actions and words He revealed the Father. His love for us was so great that He was willing to take upon Himself the death penalty that we deserve, so our sins might be forgiven. He died for us. Are we willing to live for Him? Until our last breath, let us live for Jesus because He, until His last breath on the cross, gave His life for us. Amen.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive