Preaching the Gospel & Feeding the Flock

We would like to thank all of you for your prayers for a successful Church Conference, which ended on Wednesday. We will announce soon exciting new projects to be implemented, to fulfill our God-given duties to preach the gospel and feed the flock.

Did Jephthah sacrifice his own daughter? If so, how could he still be granted access to the Kingdom of God?

The account referred to can be found in Judges 11:30-31, 34-40. We read:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, ‘If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.’… When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah [after having defeated the Ammonites], there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.’ So she said to him, ‘My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth… let me alone for two months, that I… bewail my virginity…’ And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.”

Before addressing whether Jephthah actually sacrificed his own daughter, let us point out that Jephthah will be resurrected, as an immortal spirit being, at the time of Christ’s return, to enter the Kingdom of God, as Hebrews 11:32, 39-40 clearly implies. This fact alone does not answer the question, however, whether or not Jephthah committed the abominable act of killing his own daughter — we understand that EVERY sin can and will be forgiven by God upon true repentance.

Commentaries are divided as to the question whether Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. The Ryrie Study Bible explains:

“Some understand that Jephthah’s daughter was only dedicated to the service of God in a life of celibacy and not actually slain. Others hold that she was killed according to Canaanite practices which Jephthah had embraced.”

Rienecker, Lexicon of the Bible, points out:

“The question of Jephthah’s vow is not clearly resolved. He had vowed to offer to the LORD as burnt offering what (or possibly, according to the Hebrew, who) would meet him upon his victorious return (Judges 11: 30, 31). That was his only daughter. After granting her two months to bemoan her virginity, he did what he had vowed (verse 39). This seems to indicate, in combination with his grief (verse 35), that the burnt offering was actually completed. On the other hand, the law of the Israelites did not allow human sacrifices, but it permitted to redeem a person who had been dedicated to the LORD (Leviticus 27:1-8). Some have concluded that Jephthah, who is mentioned with approval in 1 Samuel 12:11 and Hebrews 11:32, was able to circumvent the literal fulfillment of his vow. Some have speculated that a celibate, withdrawn life (Judges 11:39) could also show complete dedication to the LORD, as a burnt offering would have shown. The right conclusion is difficult, as the Holy Scriptures only report, without expressly judging either the vow itself or its fulfillment.”

The Nelson Study Bible seems to prefer the understanding that Jephthah did not actually kill his daughter. The following is stated in support of that view:

“Some have interpreted Jephthah’s vow ‘whatever comes out of the doors’ as a clear intention to offer a human sacrifice. His surprise then is not that he had to sacrifice a human being, but that the unfortunate person was his daughter. The phrase ‘to meet me’ seems to refer more appropriately to a human than to an animal… Undoubtedly, Jephthah knew that human sacrifice was strictly forbidden in Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2; Deut. 12:31; 18:10; Jer. 19:5; Ezek. 20:30, 31; 23:37, 39), but his foolishness and lack of faith impelled him to make a reckless vow in order to try to manipulate God (11:39).

“… But did Jephthah have to follow through on his vow? Ordinarily the answer would be yes. Vows were made only to God, and they were solemn pledges that had to be kept. People were not forced to take them, but if they did, they had to be honored (Deut. 23:21-23; Ps. 15:4; Eccl. 5:4, 5). But Jephthah had vowed something sinful in itself if his intent was to make a human sacrifice in the literal sense.

“… The text does not explicitly say that he killed his daughter, only that ‘he carried out his vow.’ When the verse goes on to say that ‘she knew no man,’ some take this to mean that she was ‘sacrificed’ by being dedicated to a life of perpetual virginity. Several arguments can be made for this interpretation. First, human sacrifice was contrary to the Law of Moses… Second, the great respect that Jephthah had for God surely would have prevented him from making such a perverse offering. Third, the fact that Jephthah permitted his daughter to bewail her virginity… for two months fits an explanation of perpetual virginity better than human sacrifice. Fourth, the indication that his daughter ‘knew no man’ also seems to be a detail that would support the idea of celibacy. Fifth, the Bible provides evidence that such devoted service for women did exist at the central sanctuary (Ex. 38:8; I Sam. 2:22; Luke 2:36, 37). In ancient Israelite society, the father had the power to prohibit a daughter to marry. Sixth, the conjunction in Jephthah’s pivotal statement in v. 31, that whatever or whoever came out of the door ‘shall be the LORD’s, AND I will offer it up as a burnt offering’ could be translated OR. Thus, if a person came out first, he would dedicate that person to the LORD, OR if an animal came out first, he would offer the animal as a burnt offering.”

However, several problems exist with that interpretation. To begin with, it is possible that Jephthah had strictly an animal in mind, when he made his vow, as Jephthah’s words (in Judges 11:31) can be translated from the Hebrew, as follows: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me…, I will offer IT up for a burnt offering” (compare Authorized Version). It was common at that time for houses to have enclosed courtyards where animals were kept.

In any event, whatever Jephthah’s original intent, the earliest Christian and Jewish commentators all seem to have accepted the story at face value; that is, that Jephthah killed his daughter. It appears that the medieval Jewish commentator David Kimchi was the first to suggest that rather than having sacrificed his daughter, Jephthah merely kept her a perpetual virgin. The New Bible Commentary: Revised explains:

“It has sometimes been inferred… that Jephthah commuted his daughter’s fate from burnt-offering to perpetual virginity, but this is hardly warranted by the narrative. The plain and restrained statement that he ‘did with her according to his vow’ (v. 39) is best taken as implying her actual sacrifice. Although human sacrifice was strictly forbidden to Israelites, we need not be surprised at a man of Jephthah’s half-Canaanite antecedents following Canaanite usage in this matter. The author of Judges does not approve of his action; he may well have regarded it as a symptom of the state of affairs at a time when ‘every man did what was right in his own eyes’ (cf. 17:6; 21:25). The closest biblical parallel is Mesha’s sacrifice of his eldest son (2 Ki 3:27).”

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, agrees with this conclusion. So do Matthew Henry’s Commentary; The Broadman’s Bible Commentary; Unger’s Bible Handbook; Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible; and, apparently, Halley’s Bible Handbook.

It has also been the long-held understanding of the Church of God that Jephthah did in fact sacrifice his only daughter. It is stated in “The Bible Story”: “Though some commentators have thought Jephthah kept his daughter a perpetual virgin, the Jews and most commentators have understood this tragic story as explained in the Authorized Version of the Bible. Jephthah learned a mighty lesson. He discovered, through this tragedy, the real lesson of faith — that one does not have to vow to God in order to have Him perform what He has promised. What God expects is that we learn to trust Him in everything. When Jephthah finally learned that lesson, he became an outstanding example of faith. Paul even referred to him in Hebrews 11:32 as one of the outstanding examples of faith in the Old Testament.”

An older letter from the Letter Answering Department of the Worldwide Church of God added: “Jephthah made a very rash and foolish vow. He further compounded his error by keeping his vow (Judg. 11:39). That, no doubt, was greatly displeasing to God. Nevertheless, Jephthah is mentioned among the faithful listed in Hebrew 11 (see verse 32). This leads us to conclude that — like other servants of God — he ultimately realized the error of his own ways, repented, and received God’s forgiveness.”

In conclusion, it appears that Jephthah, following faulty human reasoning, sacrificed his own daughter. Upon his repentance, God forgave him, and Jephthah will be resurrected to immortal life, when Jesus Christ returns. This fact should give us great comfort and hope. Whatever sins we might have committed in our lives, God will forgive, when we genuinely and sincerely repent of them.

Predestination and the Heavenly Books

On Saturday, February 26, 2005, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Predestination and the Heavenly Books.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Preaching the Gospel and Feeding the Flo

As announced in last week’s Update, please remember our annual Church conference, which will begin on Friday, February 18, 2005. Please pray for safety for all those who will still be traveling to San Diego. Please also pray to God for inspiration during the conference, and that He would give us the wisdom and understanding of His Will for us.

Are there any reliable historical records that show how, where and when the apostle Paul died?

The Holy Scriptures do not record Paul’s death, and although historians agree that Paul was murdered, they are somewhat divided regarding the precise events leading to Paul’s death.

For instance, the 27th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, copyright 1959, writes on page 394, under “Paul”:

“Paul’s fate is hardly obscure. He himself saw that the charge against him, unrebutted by independent evidence, must bring him to the executioner’s sword, the last penalty for a Roman citizen. With this late and century tradition agrees (Tertullian, ‘De praescr. haer.’ 36), namely the very spot on the Ostian Way, marked by a martyr-memorial (‘tropaion,’ Caius ‘ap.’ Euseb. ii 25), probably at the modern Tre Fontane, some three miles from Rome. But the traditional date (June 29) reaches us only on far later authority. Acts simply suggests summer A.D. 62; and we may perhaps imagine Timothy reaching Rome in time to share Paul’s last days.”

Historians are by no means in agreement regarding the actual year of Paul’s death.

“The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,” by James Hastings, copyright 1917, states on page 694:

“The close of Paul’s life, therefore, like its beginning, is enveloped in obscurity. That he suffered martyrdom at Rome there can be no doubt. That it was by beheading, and that the place of execution was three miles outside the city on the Ostian Way, is the consistent tradition of the Roman Church. The date will lie between A.D. 64 and 67, most probably nearer the former date than the latter limit.”

Historians are divided, whether Paul’s death took place immediately after the end of the events described in Acts 28:30-31, that is, around A.D. 62, or whether a few years after those events, that is, between A.D. 64 and 67. The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 10, states on pages 151-152:

“Luke brings his book to a close with a summary account of Paul’s stay in Rome and tells us that he had full freedom in his preaching and teaching… The abruptness of the author’s conclusion has led to much speculation among New Testament scholars. Some believe that the work was unfinished due to the author’s death. Others maintain that the ending of Acts was lost. A few contend that Luke intended to write a third volume…”

We might interject here that some feel that Luke ended the account in the book of Acts in such a drastic way, as he was not inspired to reveal, at that time, the location of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel. The book of Acts does not report the later activities of the original apostles, such as Peter, because, as some contend, they preached the gospel to the lost ten tribes (compare Matthew 10:6).

The Broadman Bible Commentary continues: “Cadbury (The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 333) cites an imperial edict attributed to the reign of Nero which specifies the time limit when cases were dropped. For capital cases in Roman provinces across the sea which were brought to Rome, the accuser and the accused had to appear in court before the maximum limit of 18 months. If the time limit should be exceeded, the case went by default. Perhaps Luke implied that Paul’s case was dropped by telling us that the apostle lived in Rome for two whole years at his own expense. If this was the situation, the author did end his book in a highly dramatic manner. The default was equivalent to an acquittal before Caesar’s court and gave tacit legal approval to the Christian movement…

“Clement of Rome about A.D. 95 says that Paul ‘preached the gospel to the uttermost bounds of the west.’ It is quite possible that Cement’s information is based on Paul’s express hope to go to Spain (Rom. 15:24,28). Tradition also tells us that the apostle, after his release, was arrested again by Roman officials and put in prison at Rome. Further, during the persecution of Christians by Nero in A.D. 64, Paul was put to death by the executioner’s ax. He was spared from crucifixion because he was a Roman citizen.”

Eusebius explains in “The History of the Church,” edited 1965, pp. 98-99, that Paul was spared in his first trial, as he was “rescued out of the lion’s mouth, the reference being apparently to Nero [or Satan, compare 1 Peter 5:8, using Nero as one of his instruments], because of his bestial cruelty.” Eusebius also explains that “Nero’s tyranny did not begin till A.D. 62, when Paul’s first imprisonment was over.”

Frank J. Goodwin writes in “A Harmony of the Life of St.Paul,” edited 1951, on pages 194-196:

“Paul was acquitted after his first trial, and was remanded to prison… After the first trial nothing is certain. ‘That he underwent execution by the sword,’ says Alford, ‘is the constant tradition of antiquity, and would agree with the fact of his Roman citizenship, which would exempt him from death by torture.’ (Proleg., p. 97). Of his last trial and death there is tradition only, but no history (see Conybeare and Howson, II., pp. 488-490).”

Nevertheless, Conybeare and Howson state, in “The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,” reprinted 1976, on pages 782 and 783, that Paul was released from prison after his first trial, but subsequently again arrested and killed by the Romans. They point out: “The death of St. Paul is recorded by his contemporary Clement…; also by the Roman presbyter Caius (about 200 A.D.) (who alludes to the Ostian road as the site of St. Paul’s martyrdom), by Tertullian, Eusebius…, Jerome, and many subsequent writers… The statement that Paul was beheaded on the Ostian road agrees with the usage of the period, and with the tradition that his decapitation was by the sword not the axe.”

A handout on the Epistles of Paul, by the Ambassador College of the Worldwide Church of God, in the fall of 1982, stated the following under “Rome”:

“Rome, an ancient city dating back some 700 years prior to Christ’s birth, was in the time of Paul the powerful capital of a world-ruling empire. The city sat upon seven hills along the Tiber River in what is today modern Italy. The city itself rests nearly fifteen miles inland from Italy’s western coast.

“Paul’s first visit was in chains from Caesarea. He arrived in Rome after a long troublesome voyage and immediately held conference with Jewish leaders there (Acts 28:16-17). His first imprisonment was in his ‘own hired house’ (Acts 28:30). He received Onesimus here (Philemon10) as well as Epaphroditus (Philippians 4:18). He wrote the ‘Prison Epistles’ of Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon probably in 60-61 A.D. He expected acquittal as recorded in Philemon 22.

“Activities between his two Roman imprisonments are rather sketchy. We may wonder if he was able to visit Philippi (Philippians 1:26; 2:24), Colossae (Philemon 22) and Spain (Romans 15:24, 28). We may be rather sure he did visit Ephesus and Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3; 3:14, 15) as well as Crete (Titus 1:5), Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20), Troas (2 Timothy 4:13), Corinth (2 Timothy 4:20) and Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). It was during this time Paul probably wrote Timothy (first epistle) and Titus from Macedonia.

“Finally we come to Paul’s second arrest, his imprisonment and martyrdom. He is imprisoned as an evil-doer (2 Timothy 1:8; 2:8, 9), and writes his final epistle to Timothy in anticipation of death between 65-67 A.D. The epistle gives detail to Paul’s situation during his second imprisonment. It was here in Rome that tradition stated Paul was beheaded.”

In his remarkable book, “The Drama of the Lost Disciples,” edited 1993, George F. Jowett writes on page 127: “In the year A.D. 66 we are told that Claudia, with her husband and children, rescued the murdered body of St. Paul, interring it in the private burial grounds on the Pudens estate [at Rome], where they were all to rest together.” He continues, on pages 179-180:

“But what of Peter and Paul? Did they remain buried at Rome, in the grave where the loving hands of Claudia, Pudens and their children had placed them?… The positive answer is found in a document written by Pope Vitalian to the British King Oswy, A.D. 656. The letter is still in existence. Probably to the astonishment of many, the letter states that Pope Vitalian permitted the remains of the bodies of St. Paul and St. Peter, with the remains of the martyrs St. Lawrence, St. John, St. Gregory and St. Pancras, to be removed from Rome to England and re-interred in the great church at Canterbury. This historic record is beyond refutation… The full facts concenring this amazing incident are related by the Venerable Bede, A.D. 673-735, in his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation.'”

Excerpts from the Pope’s letter to King Oswy read [quoted from Opera Historica, Volume I, p. 501]: “But to your messengers, the bearers of this our letter, we have caused to be given the benefits of the saints, that is to say, the relics of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and of the holy martyrs, Laurence [or Lawrence], John and Paul and of Gregory and Pancras, all to be delivered truly to your excellency.”

It is therefore reasonably certain that Paul was murdered under Nero through beheading. He was buried in Rome, but his body was later transferred to England, where it is today. Paul is still dead, lying in his grave, and waiting for his resurrection at the time of Christ’s return to this earth, in a few years from now.

Split Sermons

On Saturday, February 19, 2005, Rene Messier and Brian Gale will give split sermons in San Diego.

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Preaching the Gospel & Feeding the Flock

A new member letter was written by Dave Harris. It will be sent out on Friday, and has been posted on the Web. In the letter, Dave Harris challenges all of us to make sure that we are not deceived or deceiving ourselves.

Please remember our annual Church conference, which will begin on Friday, February 18, 2005. Please pray for safety for all of those who will be traveling to San Diego, and especially for Rene Messier, who is suffering with a painful back problem. Please also pray to God for inspiration during the conference, and that He would give us the wisdom and understanding of His Will for us.

A new StandingWatch program is scheduled to be recorded on Friday, and should be on the Web shortly.

Is the provision in Deuteronomy 23:2 still valid today? Does it apply to God's Church?

The passage reads, in the New King James Bible: “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”

Before we address the questions whether this passage is still in force and effect today, and whether it applies to the Church of God, let us try to determine what the passage conveys, as worded.

Several translations, including the Authorized Version, the Living Bible, the Revised Standard Version, Lamsa, and the Elberfelder Bible translate the Hebrew word “mamzer” (“of illegitimate birth” in the New King James Bible) as “bastard.” First, what is meant with the word, “mamzer”? The Broadman Bible Commentary explains that the “meaning of the Hebrew word [“mamzer”] translated ‘bastard’ is not really clear. Rabbinical interpretation points to the offspring of mixed marriages such as are mentioned in Nehemiah 13:23.”

Soncino points out: “Some Rabbis defined the term as the offspring of an incestuous marriage, others as non-Israelite (without any reference to illegitimacy). It means, ‘stranger,’ i.e. one whose descent is unknown.”

The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines the Hebrew word, under #4464, as “a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother.” [Of course, Strong’s makes the common mistake to equate an “Israelite” with a “Jew.”] Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible defines the Hebrew word as, “mixed” or “spurious.” It is also used in Zechariah 9:6.

The Nelson Study Bible equates the word with an illegitimate birth and points out that “it may refer to the offspring of an illicit cultic union, such as the child of a temple prostitute (vv. 17, 18).”

The Tanakh renders this word as “misbegotten,” and explains that the meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain; but that in Jewish law, it has received the meaning of the offspring of adultery or incest between Jews. The New Bible Commentary:Revised defines the word as “the offspring of an adulterous or incestuous relationship or marriage.”

As quoted above, the New King James Bible renders the Hebrew word as, “one of illegitimate birth.” The New International Version states, “born of a forbidden marriage.” The New Revised Standard Version states, “born of an illicit union,” while the New American Bible has here, “of an incestuous union.”

The next question is, what is meant with the statement that the person shall not enter into “the assembly of the LORD.” (The Authorized Version says here that the person shall not enter “into the congregation of the LORD.”)

The Broadman Bible Commentary explains that “the assembly of the LORD… is the official gathering of qualified citizens for purposes of annual religious feasts, war, or the determination of justice involving tribes… It also… presumed circumcision as a sign of covenant participation.”

The Nelson Study Bible adds: “In Deuteronomy the word (for assembly) often refers to those gathered before Sinai (5:22; 9:10; 18:16). Exclusion from the assembly means restriction from full participation in religious rites.”

Based on these explanations, some have concluded that the instruction in Deuteronomy 23:2 only forbade the particular person from holding a public office in the nation of Israel or the congregation (compare Matthew Henry’s Commentary).

Whatever the exact meaning of the passage, it is clear from the reasons given below that it is no longer in force and effect today, and that it does not apply to God’s Church. While Israel was a physical, unconverted nation, which did not have God’s Holy Spirit, the Church of God is a spiritual organism, composed of all those who have received God’s Holy Spirit, after genuine repentance and baptism. God does not exclude ANYONE from His Church, merely based on nationality, gender, upbringing, descent or offspring. The sins or mistakes of the parents are immaterial, when God calls a person. God looks at the heart and mind of those whom He calls — not at the actions in which the parents might have engaged.

The Bible makes it very clear that God is not a respecter of persons, and that all persons from all nations are acceptable to Him, when they repent. Acts 17:30 tells us that “God… now commands all men everywhere to repent.” Titus 2:11 adds that “the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” Peter stated in Acts 10:28, 34-35: “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean… In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”

We also read in Galatians 3:28-29: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Even in Old Testament times, this future understanding regarding those who would be called to salvation was already revealed. God raised up Jephthah to judge Israel for six years. Jephthah will be in the Kingdom of God (compare Hebrews 11:32), but he was “the son” of Gilead and “of a harlot” (Judges 11:1); that is, he was an “illegitimate child.” Furthermore, The Broadman Bible Commentary adds the following in its discussion on Deuteronomy 23:2: “One passage in Isaiah suggests that in the future of Israel these restrictions will be lifted so that the eunuch and the foreigner will be welcome (cf. 56:3-8).”

This is indeed the case today. Nobody is excluded from the Church of God, the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). Ethnic, cultural or similar backgrounds of the persons are immaterial, once they repent and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.

The passage in Deuteronomy 23:2, and similar passages, are no longer valid today, nor can they be applied to the Church of God. They served their purpose for the carnal, physical nation of Israel, but they have been superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Who has opened a new way to God the Father, based on personal responsibility and conduct of those who are called today.

Religious Freedom

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Thus begins the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and what is, according to many, that which makes this country so great. Because of this many denominations within America have thrived peaceably for the last two and a quarter centuries. We have all been able to follow or not to follow God as we have seen fit. Americans have even been able to worship in a myriad of ways, or to reject any worship of God, and we have slapped ourselves on the back, congratulating one another in our open-minded approach to religion.

The twist to all of this is that the true and only God is not a believer in so-called religious tolerance. He is not an advocate of worshipping however we want or whatever we want (compare Matthew 15:7-9; Mark 7:6-7). It’s quite the opposite. He is an extremely jealous God (compare Exodus 20:5; Ezekiel 23:25-27), demanding our full attention and requiring that we shun all “rivals” with the utmost intolerance (compare Isaiah 42:8). He requires that we follow His Word to the letter at the very least (compare Malachi 4:4) and beyond that to the spirit of His commands (compare John 4:23; Matthew 5:17-48).

Sure, we still have the freedom to choose one of the ways set before us. Even in the world of tomorrow when Christ returns, people will still have the free moral agency to opt for one way or the other. But make no mistake about it, God has laid out the rules that we are to play by and with it comes cause and effect as well as blessing and cursing (compare Deuteronomy 11:26-28; Galatians 6:7-8).

So let us choose wisely because our immortality is a matter of life and death.

Haters of God

On Saturday, February 12, 2005, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “Haters of God.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

©2024 Church of the Eternal God