"THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN" Introduction To First John (1:1-4) by Mark Copeland


Introduction To First John (1:1-4)


1. When Jesus to earth, He came not only to LIVE a life, but to GIVE life:

      "I have come that they may have life, and that they may
      have it more abundantly." - Jn 10:10

2. The GOSPEL of John was designed to produce faith so that we might 
   have life - cf. Jn 20:30-31

3. However, it is the FIRST EPISTLE of John which discusses the nature 
   of that life in greater detail - e.g., 1Jn 3:14

4. That we might be sure to live the sort of life God offers through 
   His Son Jesus Christ, a careful study of First John is in order

[In this lesson, the first of several on First John, let's begin with some...]


      1. It will be assumed in the course of this study that the author
         is John, the beloved disciple of Jesus
      2. Similarities between this epistle and the Gospel of John 
         certainly suggests INTERNAL evidence for this conclusion
      3. There is also EXTERNAL evidence that this John is the author:
         a. Polycarp, a close associate of John, appears to make 
            reference to this epistle at the beginning of the second 
            century, in a letter to the Philippians
         b. Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp, quoted from it and 
            attributed it to John

      1. No one is specifically mentioned
      2. John may have been in Ephesus at the time, and that this was a
         general epistle to the Christians throughout Asia Minor
      3. However, John's comments in 1Jn 2:20,27 suggests that John 
         may have been addressing a particular group of Christians 
         possessing certain spiritual gifts

   C. DATE...
      1. Estimations range from 60 A.D. to 100 A.D.
      2. Most modern scholarship places it around 95 A.D., but there 
         are also good reasons for believing it was written prior to 
         the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

   D. PURPOSE...
      1. As declared by John throughout his epistle, he wrote it...
         a. "that your joy may be full" - 1Jn 1:4
         b. "that you may not sin" - 1Jn 2:1
         c. "that you may know that you have eternal life" - 1Jn 5:13a
         d. "that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of
            God" - 1Jn 5:13b
      2. While these reasons may state the "positive" side of John's 
         purpose, it appears he was also responding to errors that were
         prevalent at the time - cf. 1Jn 2:26
         a. If not fully developed in John's day, there was at least a 
            precursor to "Gnosticism"
         b. Those who came to be called "Gnostics"...
            1) Claimed to have a superior knowledge (Grk. word for 
               knowledge is "gnosis")
            2) Believed all matter was evil
               a) Therefore God did not create or have anything to do 
                  with the material universe
               b) Therefore Christ could not have come in the flesh - 
                  cf. 1Jn 4:1-3
                  1/ One branch of gnosticism, DOCETISM (dokein, "to 
                     seem"), said that Jesus only "seemed" to be 
                     physical - cf. 1Jn 1:1
                  2/ CERINTHUS taught that "Jesus" was physical, but 
                     that the "Christ" came upon him at his baptism,
                     and left before his death, so that the "Christ-
                     spirit" never suffered - cf. 1Jn 5:6
         c. Their application to everyday living took two different 
            directions; since all matter was thought to be evil...
            1) Some thought one should abstain altogether from anything
               that would satisfy the flesh
            2) Others claimed it did not matter what one did in the 
               flesh (it was evil anyway), and to have full knowledge 
               it was proper to explore everything

[Many of John's comments in this epistle appear to address these false 

With this brief background to the epistle, let's get right into the 
text by considering the first four verses.  They appear to serve as a 
PROLOGUE, and reveal...]


      1. Which was "from the beginning"
         a. John may have reference to the creation of the world - cf. 
            Jn 1:1
         b. Or he may have reference to the beginning of the gospel - 
            cf. 1Jn 2:7,13,24; 3:11
      2. This "Word of life" was...
         a. "heard"
         b. "seen with our eyes"
         c. "looked upon"
         d. "handled"
         -- all emphasizing that this "Word" was "real, in the flesh"; 
            an obvious reference to Jesus - cf. Jn 1:1,14
      1. Which was...
         a. With the Father
         b. And then manifested to the apostles, who had seen and were 
            bearing witness
      2. Again, this is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ
      3. But notice the use of the NEUTER gender throughout this 
         a. The emphasis appears to be on the "life" which Jesus had, 
            especially that which is "eternal" ("that eternal life")
         b. It is this same "life" which we can possess if we truly
            believe in the name of the Son of God - cf. 1Jn 5:11-13
      4. Thus John is focusing on the "eternal life" which Jesus offers
         and made possible by His coming in the flesh

      1. Here is the reason for declaring the "Word of life", the 
         "eternal life"
      2. By declaring this "life" (revealed by Jesus and through
         Jesus), "fellowship" is possible
         a. Fellowship involves the idea of "sharing, communion"
         b. The "sharing, communion" that the apostles have is with the
            Father and His Son
      3. John wanted his readers to participate in this same sharing...
         a. "that you also may have fellowship with us"
         b. I.e., that you can experience what we are experiencing!
      4. Why does John desire this?  Read on...

      1. It is "fellowship" with the Father and Son that makes the 
         "life" of a Christian so full of joy!
      2. And just as Jesus came to give us "abundant life" (Jn 10:10),
         so John now writes...
         a. That we may be sure to have fellowship with the Father and 
            His Son, in Whom is "eternal life" - cf. Jn 17:3
         b. So that our joy may be full!


1. From 1Jn 1:1-4, then, we learn that fullness of joy comes only 
   when we are in fellowship with the Father and the Son

2. Only then do we have that "eternal life", which was first manifested
   in the flesh by Jesus Himself, and now given only through Jesus - 
   cf. 1Jn 5:11-13

3. In our next lesson, we shall see what John says is essential if we 
   are to truly have fellowship with God (1Jn 1:5-2:2)

But if you are not a Christian, let me explain how such fellowship with
God can begin... - cf. Ga 3:26-27

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

What About Those Who Never Hear the Gospel? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


What About Those Who Never Hear the Gospel?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Some have challenged the justice and benevolence of God on the basis of His condemnation of those who never have the opportunity to obey the Gospel: “What will happen to those folks who never are given an opportunity to know Christ and His teaching?” Several factors deserve consideration.
All human beings of accountable age and mind have sinned by violating God’s commands (Romans 3:9ff.,23; 1 John 3:4). Sin condemns a person to an eternal hell—there are no exceptions (Matthew 10:28; et al.). The only way a person can escape the consequences of his sin is to be forgiven by God.
But the nature of deity is such that God cannot merely wave aside sin and forgive. To do so would literally violate His infinitely holy, righteous/just nature. So God had to formulate a plan by which He could forgive human sin in harmony with His divinity. The one and only suitable means of atonement (“propitiation”—Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2) was for God to come in person in the flesh and offer Himself for our sins. He did so through the person of Jesus Christ—God in the flesh. This incredible sacrifice/scheme of redemption is what the Gospel is all about: it is the Gospel—the good news that Jesus opened a way for humans to be forgiven.
However, that tremendous plan of salvation requires an obedient faith response (Romans 1:5; 16:26). That response consists of hearing and understanding the Gospel (Acts 8:30-32; Romans 10:17), believing that Gospel and the One Who offers it (John 8:24; Hebrews 11:6), repenting of sin (Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3), and being immersed in water to contact the blood of Christ in order for sin to be cleansed (Romans 6:3-4; Acts 22:16).
In view of these plain biblical truths, it clearly follows that all persons who do not contact the blood of Christ cannot be forgiven by God. God is, in fact, powerless to forgive them. It would be completely contrary to His nature—and therefore ungodlike—for Him to try to forgive a person on some other basis than the blood of Christ. But the only way to contact the blood of Christ is to obey the Gospel (Romans 2:5-9). Those who do not obey the Gospel will be lost eternally in hell (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17). It unmistakably and logically follows that God cannot and will not forgive anyone who has not been immersed into Christ—since they have not contacted the blood of Christ, the one and only means of atonement. We are forced to conclude that no one can be saved who does not hear the Gospel and obey it (Acts 4:12). If a person can be saved without hearing and obeying the Gospel, then Jesus did not need to come to Earth and die for sin.
With these facts in mind, the issue now shifts to a different question: Is God fair for condemning to hell all those who do not come into contact with the Gospel? The Bible offers a clear response. First, all human beings can and must come to the conclusion that God exists based on the readily available evidence of the incredible Creation that reflects the presence of the Creator. After all, “He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). Indeed, “[t]he heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). “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” (Romans 1:20).
This knowledge should motivate all persons to seek Him, as Paul explained to the Athenians: “that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:27). In seeking Him, they will come into contact with Christianity and the Bible: “those who seek me diligently will find me” (Proverbs 8:17; cf. Matthew 7:7-8). For those persons who possess an honest, noble, and good heart (Luke 8:15), examination of the Bible will cause them to conclude that it is the only book on the planet that possesses the attributes of divine inspiration (John 7:17). Hence, they will learn about the Gospel and the need to obey.
Second, the Bible also teaches that all persons on the planet who have a heart that is receptive to the truth will have access to that truth via the providence of God. God will make certain (without performing any miracles) that they come into contact with His Word. When God spoke to Paul while in the city of Corinth and stated, “I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:10), He meant that there were individuals who would be receptive to the divine message once they encountered that message. Hence, Paul was God’s instrumentality for reaching those potential converts (cf. Acts 10:4ff.; 16:9ff.). World evangelism, i.e., announcing the Gospel to the world, is an ongoing task for the Church. All Christians who are yielded to the will of God, willing to be used in His service, will have opportunities to influence people with the truth. God’s purposes will not be thwarted. In His unfathomable providential dealings in the world, God can interface receptive hearts with those who will introduce them to the good news (Acts 8:30; 10:24ff.; Colossians 1:23). (The Internet has only enhanced this accessibility to the Gospel even further.) He will see to it that receptive hearts are contacted.
Third, observe that all those who will not accept the truth, even if presented to them, need not be confronted with that truth, since God knows they would reject it. So the question, “What about those who never hear the Gospel?” suggests that there are innocent, honest people who would accept the truth if they heard it, but never get a chance to hear it. No such people actually exist. All those who will accept God’s truth will be given an opportunity to accept it via God’s providence and their own honest searching (Matthew 7:7-8). All those who never hear the Gospel would not have accepted it anyway.
A fourth and final observation pertains to the fact that the Bible plainly teaches that the vast majority of humanity throughout the 6,000+ years of world history have not desired the truth and would not have received it if presented to them (Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24; 1 Corinthians 1:26; 1 Peter 3:20). Hence, the task of getting the Gospel to those who will receive it is considerably reduced in magnitude. Indeed, the multi-pronged combination of avenues through which efforts are made to reach the lost, including missionaries, printed materials, word of mouth, radio/TV, Internet, et al., are such that those whose hearts are receptive will have the opportunity to access the truth.
The nature of God is such that He must allow all human beings to act as free will agents and make their own choices regarding their eternal destiny. Hence, He will not interfere with their will. Nevertheless, He has done everything He can possibly do to enable mankind to access the Gospel message so that all can be forgiven of sin and live with Him forever. After all, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” and He “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

Torporific Biomimicry by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


Torporific Biomimicry

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Certain animals, such as the American black bear, exhibit hibernation, a temporary, sleep-like torpor during cold, winter months (see Tyson, 2000). The torpor involved in hibernation is “a state of self-induced reduction in body temperature and metabolic rate” to conserve energy (Harder, 2007; Fury, n.d.). Evolutionists are unsure why animals hibernate (see Luis and Hudson, 2006). How hibernation works remains a mystery. Harder reported for Science News Online:
Researchers still don’t understand how natural hibernators put themselves into torpor or how they bring themselves out of it. But new studies are peeling away the outer layers of that mystery. Far from succumbing to hypothermia, it seems, hibernators exploit it. Experiments are also revealing how animal tissues evade the damage that comes from inactivity and low blood flow, and suggesting that relatively few genes are involved in torpor and hibernation. That’s an auspicious sign for researchers who strive to manipulate the process (2007).
Physiologist Hannah V. Carey, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, added: “These animals have got it right. They know how to use hypothermia to their advantage” (quoted in Harder). Hibernating animals are resistant to tissue breakdown that would kill other animals exposed to frigid temperatures.
The arctic ground squirrel, for example, hibernates over half the year and adopts the lowest body temperature ever measured in a mammal (“Arctic...,” 2006). Researchers at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks have shown that the squirrel’s body temperature drops below freezing, a condition known as supercooling (“Arctic...”). Every two to three weeks, while still in a state of torpor, the hibernating squirrel shivers and shakes for 12 to 15 hours, warming its body to 98 degrees Fahrenheit (“Arctic...”).
Researchers hope to reduce the danger of certain tedious medical procedures, particularly when ill or injured human patients are involved, by inducing torpor. Harder reported that “recent findings in animals point the way toward medical shortcuts that might mimic in people the effects of torpor, although these measures don’t exactly reproduce the biological state” (2007).
In 2005, “[u]sing a natural chemical humans and other animals produce in their bodies, scientists...for the first time induced hibernation in mammals, putting mice into a state similar to suspended animation for up to six hours and then bringing them back to normal life” (Britt, 2005). This achievement, “the first demonstration of ‘hibernation on demand’ in a mammal, ultimately could lead to new ways to treat cancer and prevent injury and death from insufficient blood supply to organs and tissues” (“Buying Time...,” 2005). The mice required no freezing. Instead, “the rodents breathed air laced with hydrogen sulfide, a chemical produced naturally in the bodies of humans and other animals. Within minutes, they stopped moving and soon their cell functions approached total inactivity” (Britt). Mark Roth, affiliate professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington School of Medicine and leader of the mice investigation, said: “Manipulating this metabolic mechanism for clinical benefit potentially could revolutionize treatment for a host of human ills related to ischemia, or damage to living tissue from lack of oxygen” (quoted in “Buying Time...,” 2005).
Humans have gone essentially cold-blooded automatically in some emergency situations, so developing a reliable torporific procedure seems advantageous (see Britt). Clinical applications of induced metabolic hibernation could include treating severe blood-loss injury, hypothermia, malignant fever, cardiac arrest, and stroke (see “Buying Time...,” 2005). The potential medical benefits also include improving cancer treatment by allowing patients to tolerate higher radiation doses without damaging healthy tissue (“Buying Time...”). Roth commented: “Right now in most forms of cancer treatment we’re killing off the normal cells long before we’re killing off the tumor cells. By inducing metabolic hibernation in healthy tissue we’d at least level the playing field” (quoted in “Buying Time...”). Molecular biologist Sandra Martin, of the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, admitted that such applications “lie far in the future” (quoted in Harder, 2007).
While animals already “know” how to use hypothermia to their advantage, scientists, the alleged inheritors of millions of years of evolutionary development, are yet to understand the hibernation process well enough to manipulate it in non-hibernating mammals and harness torpor’s advantages. Man continues his quest to understand and apply God’s masterful design. Often, however, he does so while ignoring or denying the very existence of the Designer (Romans 1:19-22). Will multiplying examples of biomimicry open his eyes? Apologetics Press remains committed to offering him every opportunity to see the truth of the Genesis account and its massive implications for human life and spiritual afterlife.


“Arctic Ground Squirrel” (2006), Denali National Park and Preserve, [On-line], URL:http://www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/arcticgroundsquirrel.htm.
Britt, Robert Roy (2005), “New Hibernation Technique Might Work on Humans,” LiveScience, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/health/050421_hibernation.html.
“Buying Time Through ‘Hibernation on Demand’: Landmark Finding in Mice May Lead to New Approaches for Cancer and Trauma Care in Humans,” (2005), Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, [On-line], URL: http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2005/04/21/roth.html.
Fury, Amy (no date), “Naturalist Notes: Birds in Winter,” Wolf Ridge Environmental Learning Center, [On-line], URL: http://www.wolf-ridge.org/whats_hap/nat_note_archive/birds_in_ winter.html.
Harder, Ben (2007), “Perchance to Hibernate,” Science News Online, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070127/bob9.asp.
Luis, A.D. and P.J. Hudson (2006), “Hibernation Patterns in Mammals: a Role for Bacterial Growth?,” Functional Ecology, [On-line], URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2435. 2006.01119.x.
Tyson, Peter (2000), “Secrets of Hibernation,” NOVA scienceNow, [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/satoyama/hibernation.html.

Three Rules of Human Conduct by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


Three Rules of Human Conduct

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

[The gifted T.B. Larimore (1843-1929) once delivered a discourse titled: “The Iron, Silver, and Golden Rules” (see Srygley, 1949, 1:190-207). That presentation furnished the seed thoughts for this article.]
Jesus had been teaching in Galilee, the northern region of Palestine. Great throngs followed Him, and doubtless He was weary. Accordingly, He took His disciples and ascended a mountain in the vicinity of Capernaum—traditionally, Kurn Hattin, rising 1,200 feet just west of the shimmering Sea of Galilee. It was on this occasion that Christ taught that cluster of exalted truths that has come to be known as “the Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5-7).
Within that presentation is this memorable declaration: “All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do you also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). This saying has been given a metallic designation; it is called the “golden rule.” And that appellation has given rise to two other philosophical canons of human conduct known as the “silver rule” and the “iron rule.” Every rational individual, to a greater or lesser degree, will adopt one of these maxims as a guiding principle for his or her conduct. Let us reflect upon how these schools of thought relate to human activity.


The iron rule is the rule of power and force. Its motto is: “Might makes right.” One can do what he is big enough to do. The principle is alluded to in the book of Habakkuk. God had promised that He would raise up the Chaldeans (Babylonians) to punish the southern kingdom of Judah for its grievous sins. This pagan force was a suitable tool in the providential arsenal of Jehovah to accomplish this mission because its disposition was: “My god is my might” (Habakkuk 1:11). But it is an egregious mistake to deify one’s physical prowess!
Advocates of the iron rule have been legion throughout history. Cain, who murdered Abel because his evil works were in stark contrast to his brother’s (1 John 3:12), and because he had the strength to do it, was the first practitioner of this nefarious rule.
Military leaders have found the iron rule quite convenient. Alexander the Great, known as the greatest military leader of all time, is a prime example. In the short span of twelve years, he conquered the antique world from Macedon to India. An example of his disposition may be seen in his capture of the city of Gaza in southwest Palestine. He took the governor, Betis, bored holes through his heels and, by chariot, dragged him around the city until he was dead (Abbott, 1876, p. 176). The military exploits of Julius Caesar are too well known to need elaboration. His inscription, given after the defeat of Pharnaces II in Pontus, says it all: Veni, vidi, vici—“I came, I saw, I conquered.”
Charles Darwin gave scientific respectability to the iron rule with the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). The full title was: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. “Natural selection” was Darwin’s tooth-and-claw law of the jungle. Species survive, thrive, and develop by destroying their weaker competitors. In a companion volume, The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin vigorously argued the point:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man (1871, p. 130).
Adolf Hitler, in a political way, implemented Darwin’s iron-rule policies before and during World War II. In his ambitious scheme to develop a master race, the mad Fuehrer slaughtered millions of Jews, as well as those who were mentally and/or physically handicapped.
America adopted the iron rule as official policy in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme court, in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, determined that a woman has the right to destroy her unborn child in order to facilitate her own interests. Since that time, millions of innocent, defenseless children have been executed at abortion clinics and hospitals in this nation.
Each lock on every door and window throughout the world is testimony to the iron rule. The penal institutions of the various nations are monuments to the rule of force. Every corrupt political official who manipulates his power for personal advantage lives by this system. Bully husbands/fathers who abuse their families are iron-rule devotees. Even those within the church, like Diotrephes (3 John 9-10), who bludgeon others into submission, are apostles of this system of intimidation.
Few have the effrontery to openly advocate this brutish ideology; but there are legions who practice it—to one degree or another.


The silver rule often has been described as “the golden rule in a negative form.” It is the golden rule without the gold. “What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.” In this mode, it has found expression in the literature of many different cultures. For example, among the Greeks, Isocrates and Epictetus taught the silver rule. The latter condemned slavery on the ground that one should not do to others what generates anger in himself. William Barclay, the famous scholar so long affiliated with the University of Glasgow, has chronicled a number of these cases in his commentary, The Gospel of Matthew (1958, 1:276-281).
The renowned Jewish rabbi Hillel said: “What is hateful to yourself, do to no other.” Some have described this concept as a reflection of selfish egoism that withholds injury for personal reasons (see Lenski, 1961, p. 295). In the apocryphal Book of Tobit there is a passage in which Tobias says to his son: “What you yourself hate, do to no man” (4:16). Confucius (551-479 B.C.), a Chinese philosopher, also taught the silver rule. Tuan-mu Tz’u inquired of him: “Is there one word that will keep us on the path to the end of our days?” The teacher replied: “Yes. Reciprocity! What you do not wish yourself, do not unto others” (Confucius, XV, 24).
The unifying feature of all these sayings is that they are negative in emphasis. They forbid much; they enjoin nothing. The silver rule would forbid you to steal your neighbor’s purse, because such is hateful to you. On the other hand, if one finds a purse containing $200 in the mall parking lot, the silver rule is mute. It, in effect, leaves you with the option—“finders keepers, losers weepers.”
In 1964, there was a case that shook this country at its very foundation. Catherine Genovese was returning from a night job to her apartment in the respectable Kew Gardens area of New York City. As she approached her home in the early hours of that April morning, she was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant. He stabbed her repeatedly, fleeing the bloody scene as she screamed for help, only to return—when no one responded to her cries—stabbing her again and again, until she died. Subsequent police investigation revealed that thirty-eight residents of the neighborhood admitted that they witnessed at least a part of the attack. No one went to her aid; not a soul telephoned the police—until after she was dead!
The nation was incensed. A United States senator from Georgia read the New York Times’ account of the incident into the Congressional Record. Everyone wanted to know, “How could this have happened?” The answer is not difficult to deduce. Many people live by the principle of the silver rule: “It’s not my problem”; “it’s no skin off my nose”; “mind your own business”; and “take care of ‘numero uno.’ ”
Following the Genovese tragedy, two professors from Harvard University wrote an article analyzing this episode. They alleged that their essay was not “intended to defend, certainly not to excuse” the conduct of the Kew Gardens neighbors. On the other hand, they argued: “We cannot justly condemn all the Kew Gardens residents in the light of a horrible outcome which only the most perspicacious could have foreseen” (Milgram & Hollander, 1964, pp. 602-604). With typical academic confusion, the professors reasoned: (a) Big cities are “organized on a different principle.” Friendships are not based upon “nearness”; those who might have helped the unfortunate woman were simply not nearby. (b) It must be borne in mind that these neighbors did not commit the crime; one must focus upon the murderer, not other people. (c) It is difficult to know what any of us would have done in a similar circumstance. (d) Hind sight is always better than foresight. (e) People hesitate to enter a violent situation alone; but organization takes time, and there wasn’t enough time that night. (f) No one knows “the quality” of the relationship that Miss Genovese had with the community. (g) A “collective paralysis” may have seized the neighbors. (h) People in the city are hardened to street life; the “street” is often symbolic of the vulgar. (i) Heroic efforts frequently backfire. A young man named Arnold Schuster, while riding the subway, recognized the notorious bank robber, Willie Sutton. He reported this to the police, and the criminal was arrested. Before a month passed, Sutton made arrangements to have Schuster killed. (j) There are “practical limitations” to initiating the “Samaritan impulse,” and if one acted upon every “altruistic impulse” he could scarcely keep his own affairs in order, etc.
We have detailed the foregoing list of rationalizations because they illustrate a sterling example of “silver-rule” logic!


Finally, there is the golden rule—so designated in the English-speaking world since the mid-sixteenth century. Though some argue that there is little, if any, significant difference between the silver rule and the golden rule, and that the contrast has been “exaggerated” (Hendriksen, 1973, p. 364), most scholars contend that the golden rule marks “a distinct advance upon the negative form” (Tasker, 1906, 1:654). D.A. Carson has noted that the positive form is “certainly more telling than its negative counterpart, for it speaks against sins of omission as well as sins of commission. The goats in [Matthew] 25:31-46 would be acquitted under the negative form of the rule, but not under the form attributed to Jesus” (1984, 3:187). F.F. Bruce commented: “The negative confines us to the region of justice; the positive takes us into the region of generosity or grace...” (1956, 1:132; emp. in orig.). Let us consider several elements of this famous principle.
First, when all facts are considered, the golden rule represents, in a succinct and formalized fashion, a unique approach to human conduct. Jesus’ statement captured the very essence of “the law and the prophets.” While some contend that others (e.g., Confucius) came close to expressing the sentiment of the golden rule (see Legg, 1958, 6:239), most investigators argue that Jesus was the first to state it in its purest form. Barclay asserts: “This is something which had never been said before. It is new teaching, and a new view of life and of life’s obligations.... [T]here is no parallel to the positive form in which Jesus put it” (1958, 1:277,278; emp. in orig.). Professor Harold Kuhn suggested that Jesus’ words on this occasion “inaugurate a new era in person-to-person relationships” (1973, p. 267). Tasker conceded: “[T]here is little evidence of the existence of any pre-Christian parallel to the positive rule” (1906, 1:653). Votaw, in surveying the matter, observed that the negative form, as reflected in ancient Jewish, Greek, Roman, and Oriental writings, suggests the fact that a desire for goodness is innate to humanity; nevertheless, Jesus presented the rule in a positive form and “gave it new force and sphere” that is “peculiar to the Gospel” (1906, p. 42).
Second, the golden rule is grounded in divine revelation, and thus provides valid motivation for its implementation. Jesus said: “this is the law and the prophets.” His statement suggests that the golden rule is a summary of everything the Old Testament attempted to teach in terms of ethical conduct (cf. 22:36-40). Carson made this important observation: “The rule is not arbitrary, without rational support, as in radical humanism; in Jesus’ mind its rationale (‘for’) lies in its connection with revealed truth recorded in ‘the Law and the Prophets’ ” (1984, 3:188). In other words, it is founded on belief in God, and the intrinsic worth of man which issues from that premise (cf. Genesis 9:6). Just where is the logical/moral motivation for noble human conduct apart from evidence-supported divine revelation? It simply does not exist. I have argued this case extensively elsewhere (see Jackson, n.d., 2[3]:136ff.). Additionally, some see the conjunction oun (“therefore”) as connecting the golden rule to what had just been said. In particular, “we ought to imitate the Divine goodness, mentioned in ver. 11” (Bengel, 1877, 1:204).
Third, the golden rule is universal, applying to every segment of life. Jesus said: “All things, therefore, whatsoever....” If legislators enacted all laws premised upon the Lord’s instruction, society would be wonderfully altered. If homes operated on this principle, would there be marital infidelity, divorce, or child abuse? If our schools were allowed to teach the golden rule, with its theological base (which the modern judiciary has forbidden), would not the academic environment be enhanced remarkably?
Fourth, the golden rule requires action. It does not countenance passivity, but says “do you unto them.”
Fifth, the golden rule commends itself to reason. It assumes that an honest person, properly informed concerning principles of truth and fairness, would have a reasonable idea of what is right for himself. Therefore, he should render the same to others (see Clarke, n.d., p. 96). Remember, Jesus is teaching disciples—not someone who has no sense of moral responsibility. The rule contains the presumption of some moral sensitivity.
Finally, we must not neglect to mention that the golden rule is very special in that it is consistent with the other components of Christ’s teaching as revealed in the Gospel accounts (e.g., Matthew 22:37-40). Moreover, the personal character of Jesus Himself was (and remains) a living commentary on the rule in action.


Some, like Dan Barker (a former Pentecostal preacher who converted to atheism), have suggested that the golden rule should be characterized as “bronze,” since it is vastly inferior to the silver rule. Barker argued that if one were a masochist, the golden rule would justify his beating up on someone else (1992, pp. 347-348). His argument assumes that it is rational to be a masochist! Others, not quite so much of the fringe element, have suggested that the golden rule might at least be improved: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Such a view, however, is fatally flawed, and even someone who is as ethically confused as Joseph Fletcher (the famed situation ethicist) has acknowledged such (1966, p. 117). The weak may want you to supply them with drugs, or indulge them with illicit sex, etc., but such a response would not be the right thing to do. If I am thinking sensibly, I do not want others to accommodate my ignorance and weakness.
Suppose a man is apprehended in the act of robbing the local market. A citizen detains the thief and starts to telephone the police, at which point the law-breaker says: “If you were in my place, you would want me to release you. Therefore, if you believe in the golden rule, you will let me go.” Is the thief’s logic valid? It is not. For if one’s thinking is consistent with principles of truth, he would realize that the best thing for him, ultimately, would be that he not be allowed to get away with his crime, that he not be granted a license to flaunt the laws of orderly society. The rule works—when properly applied by those who have some semblance of rational morality.
Even some of the enemies of Christianity have done obeisance to the value of the golden rule. John Stuart Mill wrote: “To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” Thomas Paine declared: “The duty of man...is plain and simple, and consists of but two points: his duty to God, which every man must feel, and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by” (as quoted in Mead, 1965, pp. 192-193).


In his discourse on the three rules of human conduct, T.B. Larimore observed that Christ’s parable of the good Samaritan forcefully illustrates each of these philosophies of life (Luke 10:30ff.).
A certain Hebrew man was travelling the twenty-mile-long road that led through a barren region of crags and ravines from Jerusalem to Jericho. As he journeyed, he fell victim to robbers who tore off his clothes, beat him, and left him half-dead by the roadside. The bandits’ reasoning was: “We are several; you are one. We are strong; you are weak. You have possessions; we want them. Case closed.” Theirs was the clenched-fist rule of iron.
As the man lay wounded, unable to help himself, presently a Jewish priest came by, and then later, a Levite (one who served the priests in temple ceremonies). Both, likely horrified by the bloody scene, crossed to the opposite side of the road, and hastened their steps. Their respective thinking doubtless was: “This tragedy was not my fault. It’s none of my affair, etc.” They did not kick the afflicted Jew; they did not rifle his pockets. They simply passed on. They were silver-rule men.
Finally, a Samaritan (normally, a dedicated enemy of the Jews—see John 4:9) came by. He saw a fellow human in need and was moved with compassion. He tended the injured man’s wounds, set him on his own donkey, and conveyed him to a nearby inn where, amazingly, he paid for more than three weeks of lodging (Jeremias, 1972, p. 205)—and pledged even more! The Samaritan’s code of ethics was this: “But for the grace of God, I could be writhing in agony by the roadside. What would I desire on my behalf if our respective circumstances were reversed?” It did not take him long to find the answer, for his compassionate heart was bathed in the golden glow of divine love.
The golden rule is a thrilling challenge to contemplate. None of us observes it perfectly, but let us never criticize it. Rather, let us applaud it, and strive for its lofty heights.


Abbott, Jacob (1876), History of Alexander the Great (New York: Harper & Brothers).
Barclay, William (1958), The Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Bengel, John Albert (1877), Gnomon of The New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Bruce, A.B. (1956), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Carson, D.A. (1984), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Clarke, Adam (n.d.), Clarke’s Commentary—Matthew-Revelation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).
Confucius, The Sayings of (1958), transl. James Ware (New York: Mentor).
Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man (Chicago, IL: Rand, McNally), second edition.
Fletcher, Joseph (1962), Situation Ethics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Hendriksen, William (1973), The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jackson, Wayne (no date), “Jackson-Carroll Debate on Atheism & Ethics,” Thrust (Austin, TX: Southwest Church of Christ), 2[3]:98-154.
Jeremias, Joachim (1972), The Parables of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Kuhn, Harold B. (1973), Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. Carl F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Legg, J. (1958), Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Mead, Frank S. (1965), The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Revell).
Milgram, Stanley and Paul Hollander (1964), “The Murder They Heard,” The Nation, June.
Srygley, F.D., ed. (1949), Letters and Sermons of T.B. Larimore (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Tasker, J.G. (1906), A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Votaw, C.W. (1906), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), extra volume.

Teachings of Jesus (Part 20) Warning about Greed by Ben Fronczek


Teachings of Jesus (Part 20) Warning about Greed

To start out, here’s some questions for you, ‘Do you consider yourself a greedy person? Do you like to accumulate more and more of what this world has to offer? Do you have a problem letting go of your stuff or any of your money?’
Today we are going to be looking at the 2nd warning Jesus gives in Luke 12. His 1st warning which we looked at last week was a warning about hypocrisy. But today we’ll see that He tells us to beware of GREED   READ 13-14         13 “Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14 Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?”
It seems right after Jesus finished warning them about being a hypocrite someone in the crowd recognized Jesus’ authority and interrupted Him and asked Him to solve a family problem. You see, Rabbis in that day were expected to solve legal matters.
But Jesus refused to get involved. Why? Because He knew that any answer He would give this man would not solve the real problem, which was greed in the hearts of the two brothers. And as long as those two men were greedy, no answer would be good enough for them. Their greatest need was not to have their disagreement settled but rather their heart needed to be changed.
Like many people today, those men wanted Jesus to serve them and meet their personal needs. And like many today it seems as though they weren’t so concerned about the fact that Jesus wanted to save them and transform them.
Greed is an unquenchable thirst for more and more of this world’s goods. We live in a greedy society today and every day the world seems like it wants us to believe that we need to have more to be somebody or make us happier.
Listen to verse 15,  15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”.” “Jesus, you mean to tell me that it’s not true that ‘He who has the most toys wins?’   Let me ask you – Do you believe what Jesus is saying here is true? – that life is not all about what we have and how much we own? If this is what we believe, why do so many in this world, even within the church, spend so much more time, effort, and energy seeking to get more and more things of this world, than things of God?
Some many agree with Jesus’ statement in theory, but in practice many even in the church are living quite the opposite. Far too many have bought into the lie that we need more to be happy and hold our lives together.
Many believe that marriages are held together, and our families and children need the nicest and best we can provide. So moms and dads will work like crazy people, hours and hours a day, wearing themselves out, to buy the nicest home, the nicest furniture, the nicest things they can get. But lives are not held together because we have material things alone; in fact material things make a pretty lousy glue to hold our families together. That’s why many who are wealthy are miserable, unhappy, and their relationships and families are falling apart.
Priorities are messed up. Our families don’t need us to work so much we are never around, just to have more – instead, more than anything else, we need to be there for one another. Kids need quality time with their moms and dads more than they need the biggest house or the latest gadgets. Husband and wives need more quality time together more than a fancy new car or truck.
I’ve known too many families that have broken apart because dad thought it was more important to work endless hours, hardly spending any time home with his wife or kids, to bring home that big pay check. I remember one fellow telling me after his marriage broke up, that his wife and kids should have known how much he loved them by how many hours he spent away from them as a truck driver. But that fact only embittered his wife and kids. She said that she would rather have lived with less and had him home more, to give them more of himself. But he just could not see that. Rather than settling for just a little bit less, he just had to have the best of everything. His priorities we wrong, he ended up miserable; and yes he was a member of the church.
I personally believe that’s why more and more families are breaking up and kids are so unhappy and getting into trouble each year all around our country. Some parents just want more and more, and it’s destroying their families. To illustrate the folly of greed, Jesus continues on and tells a parable about a man who was well off, and the folly of him hording. You see, he was very self centered, and 11 times in 5 verses, Jesus has the man refer to himself as, “I,” “my,” myself, and “himself” to illustrate the point.
This man could fit right easily in to our 21st century American society. He was a man who centered his life around his things rather than God and others.
Someone has rightly said, “This parable shows an honest man being executed by his own estate.”
Listen to the words of Jesus: Read Luke 12:16-21     16 And He told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ 18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’   20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’                    21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
Why does God call this man a fool? It is because he was rich in the things of this world, but he was not rich in the things of God. He had invested all of his time and energy into his farm and things that will not last, because he built his kingdom in that which is temporary, and had completely neglected the eternal.
So basically Jesus said that we are fools, if we …
#1. We do not give God the credit for things He has done.
#2. We are fools if we make plans but leave God out.
#3. We are fools when we live only for the moment and ignore the eternal consequences.
#4. We are fools when we store up our treasure in the wrong places.
The Bible also talks about other fools; for example..
– He Who Trusts In His Own Heart is a fool. Proverbs. 28:26.
– He Who Is Always Right [In His Own Eyes.] is a fool Proverbs. 12:15.
– He Who Despises Wisdom and Instruction is a fool. Proverbs. 1:7.
– He Who Says There Is No God is a fool. Psalm. 14:1
Back to the parable; when the time came for this man to meet God, he was not ready, and all that he collected was left behind. All that he left behind could not help him one bit. And according to Jesus, his end will be the end of all who act the same; those.. “Who stores up things for themselves but are not rich toward God.”
In Mark 8:36-37 Jesus said, What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? Do you have an answer for that?
In Verse 35 He said, 35 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.
Here’s a question for you; how rich are you in the things of God. I ask this because Jesus is saying we are fools if we are not rich towards God, and we are fools if all we care about is acquiring more money, and more stuff for our self, and ignore Him and others in need around us. First of all in our last lesson we saw in Luke 12 that Jesus warns us to beware of hypocrisy and here He tell us that we need to be beware of becoming greedy. I pray that you take these warnings seriously.
For more lessons click on the following link: http://granvillenychurchofchrist.org/?page_id=566
All comments can be emailed to: bfronzek@gmail.com

Are we a church of Christ? by Roy Davison


Are we a church of Christ?

When Roman Catholics assemble, it is called a Roman Catholic Church. Baptists assembled are called a Baptist Church; Lutherans, a Lutheran Church; Methodists, a Methodist Church; Pentecostals, a Pentecostal Church; etc.
What do you call it when Christians assemble?
We call ourselves a ‘church of Christ’. What does this mean? When people hear this, they often mistakenly think: “Oh, a denomination called the Church of Christ.” Simply being a church of Christ is so foreign to most people’s thinking that they have difficulty comprehending the concept.

Why do we call ourselves a church of Christ?

We wish to indicate that we are a local congregation of the church that Jesus built (Matthew 16:18). Jesus promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). We want Jesus to be in our midst, so we assemble in His name as a church of Christ.
As Christians, how can we be anything other than the church of Christ? Biblically speaking, there is only one church, the one that belongs to Christ. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4, 5).

But are we a church of Christ?

It is easy for us to call ourselves a church of Christ, but is it true? How can we know whether we are really a church of Christ? The core of the answer is given in the passage we just read.
If we are in subjection to the one Lord, if the Spirit of the one true God dwells within us, if we hold to the one faith and have been baptized with the one baptism, then we are in the one body of Christ, His church! The one faith is the faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The one baptism is Christian baptism as defined in the New Testament. The one body is the church of Christ as defined in the New Testament.
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:12, 13 RSV).

Are we being presumptuous when we call ourselves churches of Christ?

When we define ourselves as churches of Christ we are sometimes asked: “Is that not arrogant to call yourselves the church of Christ? Do you think that only members of the church of Christ will be saved?”
If we are not the church of Christ, it is indeed arrogant. If by the grace of God we accomplish our purpose of being churches of Christ, it is not arrogant. If we belong to Christ we must confess that we are His!

All the saved are added to the church of Christ.

The church Jesus built consists by definition of all the saved. No one will be saved without being a member of the church of Christ because God adds everyone who is saved to His church (Acts 2:47). When one understands what we mean by church of Christ, no offense may be taken when we say that only members of the church of Christ will be saved.

Is it possible to be a church of Christ?

Of course, most who accuse us of being arrogant, do not believe that we really are the church of Christ. We must examine their criticisms carefully and heed Paul’s admonition: “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5).
In many cases, however, their accusation is merely the result of their own sectarian view of the church. Although Jesus prayed for unity among His followers on the basis of God’s word in John, chapter 17, they mistakenly believe that it is acceptable to God for believers to be divided into many conflicting denominations.
If they admit that it is possible to simply be Christians and churches of Christ, they condemn themselves for being something other than a church of Christ! In New Testament times it was possible to be churches of Christ (Romans 16:16), so it is possible now if we accept the New Covenant as the prescriptive standard.

What are distinguishing marks of the church of Christ?

We already saw that we must confess the one faith and be baptized with the one baptism to be in the one body of Christ. What does this entail?

Christ is the only head of His church.

“He is the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). God “put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body” (Ephesians 1:22, 23). He is the one shepherd of the one flock (John 10:16). We must submit to the one Lord. Submission to centralized ecclesiastical organizations is rejection of the headship of Christ.

Leadership positions must be limited to those Christ has given to His church.

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11, 12 ESV).
The apostles and prophets, with Christ as cornerstone, form the foundation of the church of Christ: “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20).
We build on this foundation - not by falsely appointing modern-day apostles and prophets - but by continuing steadfastly in the doctrine of the original apostles (Acts 2:42; Revelation 21:14).
The doctrine of Christ (revealed to the apostles and prophets in the first century) is now made known to all nations through the Holy Scriptures. The church is now established by “the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith” (Romans 16:25, 26).
For building up the church, Christ has given us evangelists, shepherds and teachers. To be a church of Christ, our leadership must comply with the New Testament. If we have unscriptural offices, or if we appoint leaders who do not meet the Biblical qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9), how can we be a church of Christ?

To be a church of Christ we must remain within the doctrine of Christ.

“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). We must “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We must continue “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42).
The most common cause of apostasy is a rejection of the normative nature of the doctrine of Christ by using some of His teachings to concoct a sauce to flavor and disguise teachings and traditions of men. 
There is no excuse for going astray since God has informed us in the Scriptures how we are to conduct ourselves “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
By definition, a church of Christ must be a bulwark of the truth. We are “sanctified by the truth” (John 17:19). To be saved we must “love the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:10), “believe the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:12) and “obey the truth” (Romans 2:8; Galatians 3:1). We must “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). How can we be a church of Christ if we preach something other than the truth?

To be a church of Christ we must bear fruit.

Jesus said, “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). We must bear the fruit of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22, 23).

To be a church of Christ we must worship acceptably.

We must worship the Father “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23). We must “serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Hebrews 12:28).
If we worship according to our own preferences or according to the traditions of men, we are not the church of Christ but are under the same condemnation that God pronounced on Israel: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8, 9). How can we be the church of Christ if our service and worship are built on the sand by following the teachings and traditions of men?

Let us glorify God as churches of Christ.

Let us submit to Christ as our only head. Let us hold to the one faith and practice the one baptism so we can be in the one body of Christ. Let us abide in the doctrine of Christ and have leadership that complies with the word of God. Let us bear the fruit of the Spirit and worship acceptably with reverence and godly fear. Then God will recognize us as His church. No other recognition is required!
Ephesians 3:21 - “To Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. 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