1       O LORD, how many are my foes!
      Many are rising against me;
            2       many are saying of my soul,
      “There is no salvation for him in God (Psa 3:1-2).”

I went for a walk tonight.  I was discouraged more than I have ever been.  I walked and walked and walked and walked… until I noticed that I was subconsciously slowing down.  My steps were getting shorter, and my pace was beginning to meander.  There was this incredible urge to just lay down on the sidewalk… just lay down.  I feel so alone.

Today I found out that my exception to a travel restriction has been rescinded by the National Guard Bureau because I’m not vaccinated.  In early 2020 when we thought that COVID19 was going to kill us all, the Department of Defense issued a policy banning all military travel.  It didn’t take them long to determine that some travel was necessary and so they began issuing exceptions to that policy.  I’ve been working on an exception to that policy until today.  I had to cancel a trip this weekend to California in support of the California Army National Guard.

My whole life I’ve only been certain that I was good at one thing, tactical military intelligence.  I know there are other things that I am good at, but I’ve only been certain of that one.  I even worried about going to war.  It seemed to me that God would not give someone a gift without intending for that gift to used.  I was very relieved after my first deployment. It seemed I could put that worry behind me.

Stay with me, I promise I will get to some theology.  Anyway, I could quite literally get on an airplane and travel to California without being tested or my vaccination status being checked.  I don’t believe for a second that the National Guard Bureau is concerned about my wellbeing, the wellbeing of those passengers I travel with, or the wellbeing of those soldiers I would have been working with.  All of that was essential enough to grant me an exception to policy until today. What has changed?

So yesterday, at my companies behest, I submitted my request for a religious exemption.  I was told that my vaccination status would remain private, but earlier I had to fill out a form for the DoD in which my vaccination status was disclosed to them.  If the company I work for grants me a religious exemption, then they could offer an acceptable accommodation and I could continue to train soldiers.  That accommodation could be as simple as getting tested before I leave. But now that the National Guard Bureau, an entity subordinate to the DoD, is no longer granting exceptions to the travel restriction what acceptable accommodation could be made?  The DoD has effectively taken the religious exemption away from any traveling contract employee.  When I was explaining to a friend the incredulity of the situation, that I could still get on a plane and go on vacation at my own expense he reminded me, “Aaron, this hasn’t been about a virus and a vaccine for over a year.”

Anyway, the funny thing is I hadn’t considered why I might be religiously, morally, and conscientiously opposed to a vaccine until they threatened my job.  I was so close to just getting the jab and then I asked the question, “why would someone be religiously opposed to a vaccine?” What I know now can’t be unknown again. I will stand, alone, if necessary, because I am now convinced that the sanctity of the Temple matters.  Then I remembered Ahaz!

In the middle eighth century B.C. Assyria was threatening the middle east.  Israel was already split into two kingdoms with Israel, or Ephraim, in the north and Judah in the south.  Ahaz was king of Judah.  Israel and Syria were concerned with Assyria’s growth and decided that the three, including Judah, should ally against Assyria.  But Ahaz wasn’t in.  This created a problem for Israel especially.  While Israel was distracted with a war against Assyria Judah could attack from the south jeopardizing the whole affair.  As a result, Syria and Israel were descending on Judah to remove that threat.  At the moment Jerusalem itself was being threatened Isaiah was sent to encourage Ahaz (Isa 7:1-3).  In that effort of encouragement God even told Isaiah to let Ahaz pick a sign (Isa 7:10-11).  Any sign that would convince Ahaz God was there for him. But get Ahaz’s response, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test (Isa 7:12).”

Ahaz, trying to sound religious, was quoting from The Law (Deu 6:16).  But Ahaz was not a faithful king of Judah.  He was only trying to justify his own actions. Ahaz wanted to continue in his disobedience. “He even burned his son as an offering, according to the despicable practices of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.  And he sacrificed and made offerings on the high places and on the hills and under every green tree (2Ki 16:3-4).”  Ahaz didn’t want to trust God he wanted to negotiate with Assyria (2Ki 16:7-10) (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown 1997, 437).  J. Vernon McGee puts it this way, “He sounds so nice, but he is one of the biggest hypocrites you will find in Scripture. This sort of thing is sickening, and I believe God feels that way about it (VcGee 1991, 80-81).”  Ahaz didn’t trust God and yet he was trying to sound like he did.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I am not waiting on a miraculous healing in which God protects me from the ravages of COVID19.  That is a characterization of those seeking a religious exemption. No, God is asking me to use the sanctity of His temple to stand for the least of these (Mat 25:40).  It is an act of worship in keeping with the intent of James words, “religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world (Jas 1:27).”  It is only what He has asked of every generation since His first coming. Only this time I find myself standing virtually alone against the power and authority of the U.S. Government’s intent to prohibit the exercise of that religion. I know I’m not alone, in fact, I’ve posted links about many who have already lost their jobs. But it feels alone.

Don’t be fooled.  Our fear of COVID19 is causing us to make the mistake of Ahaz.  Our fear of death is causing us to make the mistake of Ahaz.  Our fore fathers risked everything, including their lives, to ensure us the right to worship as ourconscience dictates.  My conscience has been awakened and my hope is greater than a miraculous cure of any disease.  In fact my hope rests on a promised end to all diseases. But what if I get COVID and God calls me home?

Paul looked forward to that day (Phi 1:21). I believe in that same hope.  And, on that day someone may whisper, “you are only getting what you deserve” I will confidently reply, “no, I am going to what I don’t deserve.  And, by the grace of Jesus who loved me I will be able to stand among those little ones who were cut down selfishly by those who should have loved them.”  What we do in life is only a shadow of reality.  Don’t let fear rob you of your faith in a greater promise!

I choose to put my trust in God and let Him use my life for His glory.  My only concern is that those who died before me in the cause of religious freedom, who died before me in the cause to end slavery, or even those who died before me translating the scriptures into a language people could read will meet me at the gates of eternity and chide me for taking a stand against a disease with a greater than 95% survival rate.  Will we blush in eternity?

That sidewalk almost had me. I better pick it up. God isn’t calling me home yet.

Please, don’t sit this one out.  Take a stand in defense of religious liberty.  What ever that looks like where you are. Even if you simply share these posts as words of encouragement and conviction.  Thanks again for reading and don’t forget to subscribe below. There is no guarantee that the algorithms in the sky will bring us back together.  I do hope very soon to get back to writing on John’s Gospel.  That is why I started this blog and I do intend to return.  God willing.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Vol. 1. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997.

VcGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible Commentary: The Prophets (Isaiah 1-35). Nasville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1991.

“The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice.  A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he Deu 32:4.”

There is a passage in Genesis that seemed peculiar to me.  In it, God discloses to Abraham that He is going to Sodom and Gomorrah because He has heard that their sin is very great (Gen 18:20-21).  The implication is that God is going to do an investigation and if He finds out that they are guilty then He will give them justice.  That God doesn’t know that Sodom and Gomorrah is not in question for me.  This entire passage, and especially Abraham’s words, can be viewed as a soliloquy.  God is all knowing and would not have to go down to these cities and conduct an investigation but by acting out this investigation it is as if God is speaking out his thoughts aloud so that we would gain access to them.  Sodom and Gomorrah are guilty, and God is going to use their guilt to teach us something about His justice.  “The predominant theme of this narrative is justice (Walvoord and Zuck 2004, 59).”

When Abraham finds out that these cities are going to be destroyed, he asks a rhetorical question, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked (Gen 18:23)?”  The answer is no, God would not destroy the righteous with the wicked.  Abraham even elaborates on the answer, “Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!  Far be that from you!  Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just (Gen 18:25)?”  Adam Clarke identifies this as, “an invariable principle of justice, that the righteous shall not be punished for the crimes of the impious (Clarke 1810-1826, 118).”

What is peculiar to me is that if God’s justice were perfect then wouldn’t He be obligated to protect even one unrighteous person from being punished for the crimes of his community lest His righteous justice be sullied?  What is peculiar about this passage is not that Abraham started with fifty righteous people being enough to persuade God, or that Abraham was impetuous enough to negotiate with God five more times to lower the number of required persons, but rather, that Abraham stopped before he reached one righteous person.  I suspect that Abraham’s concern for Lot is what brought him to the number ten.  If God would spare the cities for the protection of ten righteous people, then surely Lot’s family would be safe and so he didn’t need to continue to haggle with God.

Now, keep in mind that this passage is about God’s justice and God’s righteousness as opposed to our unrighteousness.  We know from Paul’s emphasis that, “none is righteous, no, not one… (Rom 3:10).”  However, the context we are dealing with in Genesis is in regard to the specific sin that was committed in Sodom and Gomorrah and the judgment that would follow for that sin.  If there was someone in Sodom and Gomorrah who had not committed that specific sin, then surely it would have been unjust for them to have been judged with Sodom and Gomorrah as if they had.  All of a sudden, this passage struck me as being very relevant for today.  Justice can only be faithfully executed at the individual level lest an injustice be committed!

What does this mean for social justice as an idea?  If we define social justice as an application, “of the more general category of justice” in which the practitioner, “focuses on the common good of the community as it is manifested in such areas as the fair and equal distribution of goods and benefits, as well as in respect for the rights of others (Grenz 2003, 111)” then it starts to fall apart even as an application of the more general category of justice.  In fact, it becomes an application of the more general category of injustice.

There are two parts to Grenz’s definition.  First, the fair and equal distribution of goods and benefits and the Second, a respect for the rights of others.  If we separate those parts, then we are left with an egalitarian ethic and a simple definition of justice.  The problem is with the egalitarian ethic.  “It is economic egalitarianism that seeks to remove the barriers of economic inequality by means of redistribution of wealth (Got Questions Ministries 2002-2013).”  It is the driving force behind socialism and communism.  The ethic is built on the premise, “that the rich have become wealthy by exploiting the poor (Got Questions Ministries 2002-2013).”  If that premise is wrong and wealth is taken from a rich man who did not become wealthy by exploiting the poor, then egalitarianism is no longer justice but rather a false justification for injustice.  What are we to do then with the rich man who does become wealthy by oppressing the poor?  We are to do justice.  But that justice must be done on an individual level.

I do find comfort in this same invariable principle of justice.  It is entirely possible that the fact that justice can only exist at the individual level in part make possible my personal relationship with Jesus.  He, in fact, had to and did die for me personally. 

Thank you for reading.  My only other political post I called “The Gospel of Marx is no Gospel.”  I am a firm believer that your politics should be informed by your worldview.  Christian politics should be informed by a Christian worldview.  Don’t forget to sign up for my e-mail so you won’t miss that content.  There is so much detail in every word of the Bible I hope that these words are encouraging you to dig more into God’s Word.

Photo by EKATERINA BOLOVTSOVA from Pexels

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary On The Bible. Public Domain, 1810-1826.

Got Questions Ministries. Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002-2013.

Grenz, Stanley J. Pocket Dictionary of Ethics. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2003.

Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Dallas: Cook Communications Ministries, 2004.

Recently I saw a post on Facebook quoting from the Book of Leviticus and a passage about leprosy in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic.  We live in such politically charged times and I wanted to leave this topic alone.  However, I found myself fascinated by the original post and the comments that followed it.  How could this passage become so political?  But first, I want to talk about one of my favorite miracles.

Three of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, record the healing of a man with leprosy by Jesus.  “When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him.  And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.’  And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, ‘I will; be clean.’ And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.  And Jesus said to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them (Mat 8:1-4).’”  You can also find the miracle in Mark 1:40-44 and Luke 5:12-14.

Now, here is the passage that was quoted from Leviticus on Facebook, “‘The leprous person who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’  He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease. He is unclean. He shall live alone. His dwelling shall be outside the camp (Lev 13:45-46).’”

While the priestly diagnosis of leprosy and removal of the leper would prevent the infected individual from infecting the rest of the community there is much more going on here.  “Once a man was branded as a ‘leper’, he had to adopt the posture of a mourner by tearing his clothes, allowing his hair to become unkempt, covering his beard or moustache, and crying ‘unclean’. He had to live outside the camp… his existence was nothing more than a living death (Harrison 1980, 148).”  But for the Israelite it was even worse, “…the ‘leper’ would be cut off from spiritual fellowship with the covenant people, and in a real sense would be without hope and without God in the world (Harrison 1980, 148).”

While some scholars debate the comparison or the use of leprosy as a representation of sin it is hard to miss the similarities here between the situation of the leper and the sinner.  In Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son, the prodigal son’s father summarized his lost son’s situation, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found (Luke 15:24).”  And Paul describes our situation before salvation as being, “dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked… (Eph 2:1-2).”  In this situation, our lostness and deadness in our sins, should we not mourn?  David, in the lament of his own sins, wrote, “wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!  For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me (Psalm 51:2-3).”  That need and provision for washing is the second half of the Levitical lesson regarding leprosy.

Jesus has just healed a leper.  Immediately the leper was clean and yet there was still work to be done.  In order for him to be allowed back into the Israelite community he had to perform the sacrifice required to convince the Priests that he could be re-admitted.  The required sacrifice is described in Leviticus 14:1-32.  It is lengthy and involved so I’m only going to discuss a few points.  But just imagine, the priests, Levites, and scribes, all who would later demand a sign from Jesus, would have been fully aware that this leper was cleaned by Jesus and participatory in the very sign that they would later miss.  Their desire to follow the letter of the law would compel them to obey even as it pertains to this leper.  That is what makes it one of my favorite miracles.  How do you demand a “sign” from Jesus even when you have been participatory in the very “sign” that signified His work?

“The ceremony lasted for eight days, and involved elements of the four principal forms of Hebrew sacrifice as well as symbolic procedures reminiscent of the consecration of priests and of the annual day of atonement ceremony (Harrison 1980, 151).”  There is a heavy emphasis on cleansing and at one point all of the leper’s hair, head and body, would be shaved.  His body and clothes had to be completely cleansed (Harrison 1980, 151).  He would then present two living birds (Lev 14:4).  “The bird’s blood, when sprinkled on the individual undergoing the rite, identified him once again with the community, and was therefore symbolic of his restoration to fellowship. In precisely the same manner, the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross reconciles man to God and makes it possible for the sinner to join the household of faith (Harrison 1980, 152).”  Jesus was commanding the leper to act out the very sacrifice Jesus was preparing to offer on behalf of the leper’s real uncleanness and the very priest who would deny Jesus to the cross would participate!  You can’t tell me God doesn’t have a real sense of irony.

“At the end of this part of the ceremony the other living bird was released into the open countryside, presumably so that it could return to its nest. This has been seen as symbolic of the new life which the cured ‘leper’ would now experience, and which would enable him to resume his former existence (Harrison 1980, 152).”  However, he could not return to his home for another week (Harrison 1980, 153).  I can’t help but wonder if that week is representative of our lives in this world after we are saved but before we are called to our real home in His kingdom.

Anyway, there is so much more here in Leviticus that I just don’t have the time or space in this medium to get into.  What I want you, the reader, to know is that these passages in Leviticus, while serving to protect the community from the vile effects of leprosy, bear witness to the uncleanness that pervades not just our community but the community of man from the dawn of time to today.  That is why we find it today in God’s word.  Not because we need to be told to isolate an unhealthy contagion from a healthy community.  Does “modern man” really need these words, recorded in Leviticus and penned by Moses thousands of years ago, to know how to protect our community today?  Is this why we Praise our Lord, because He has shown us how to survive leprosy, and other like diseases, as a community?  No, we rejoice because Jesus has redeemed us from the consequences of our own uncleanness, our own sin!

      7       Truly no man can ransom another,
      or give to God the price of his life,
     8       for the ransom of their life is costly
      and can never suffice,
     9       that he should live on forever
      and never see the pit (Psa 49:7-9).

And yet a loving and merciful God did just that.  He paid the ransom!  He cleansed us from our leprosy.

It is this ransom that assures your eternal life in His presence.  It is that promise of eternal life that allows us to live in a fearful world in a state of fearlessness.  Fearlessness in the face of martyrdom.  It is that hope that allowed the Christian community to fearlessly minister in the midst of the plague knowing full well that if they contracted that disease they too would die.  The same hope that comforts the Afghan Christian in the face of the Taliban.  The hope that to die is gain (Phi 1:21)!  To be afraid from time to time is human to live in fear is to live in disbelief of the hope that is Christ.  How many Christians, that have gone before us today, will stand up and condemn our fear not as that which is natural but that which is unbelief. Fear not!

Lastly, Leviticus is hard.  I don’t and can’t hold it against anyone for missing the Messianic context.  That is between them and God. And, God knows we all have to rely on His Spirit for instruction in His word.  But I do want to conclude by pointing out that even the ancient Israelites knew to isolate the sick from the healthy and this passage seems to support that wisdom.  But that is not what we have done.  In our fear we have isolated the healthy from the healthy and the unhealthy.  I can’t help but wonder if the original “poster’s” intent wasn’t to use Leviticus as justification for isolating the sick from the healthy but rather as justification for isolating those who disagree with the policy in which we isolate the healthy from the healthy and mandate medical protocols on those who dissent.  I’m afraid that casually dismissing the intent of God is to casually dismiss the existence of God.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget to subscribe to my e-mail below.

Image by Bob Bello from Pixabay

Harrison, R. K. Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 3. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980.

This Christmas season I was introduced to an alternative set of lyrics to one of my favorite Christmas Carols, Mary Did You Know.  I will post both the original and alternate below so you can compare them and see if what I am going to say is true.  I fear another Gospel, that of Marx, is being slipped in with the alternate words and we must be sure that we do not, “happily put up with whatever anyone tells [us], even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed (2Co 11:4, NLT).”

But before we do, let me set the stage.  I want to talk first about Liberation Theology.  Liberation Theology, “seeks to interpret the Christian faith from the perspective of the poor and the oppressed (Furguson and Packer 2000, 387).” It is the product of a post-Enlightenment skepticism that struggles with the supernatural in a natural world (Furguson and Packer 2000, 387).  “They, Liberation Theologians, ask, ‘Where is the God of truth in a world of science and technology (Furguson and Packer 2000, 388)?’”  This theology was born out of a Catholic Latin America in which new answers (communism and socialism [ Marx ]) for old problems were being explored (Furguson and Packer 2000, 388).  What Liberation Theologians began to adapt for theological use was the oppression and class struggle of Karl Marx (Furguson and Packer 2000, 389).

They get around their problem with the supernatural by claiming that a theology where ultimate meaning is found outside of the current here and now is idealistic and inconsistent with reality (Furguson and Packer 2000, 389).  What Liberation Theologians argue as ultimate reality is that of Marx, the idea of class struggle and the liberation of the oppressed (Furguson and Packer 2000, 389).  They see Jesus, the Christ, as, “a poor person, a laborer, who preferred the poor, surrounded himself with them, and identified with them” and focus on His kingdom message as material rather than spiritual (Furguson and Packer 2000, 390).  Jesus ultimately came to liberate the people of His historical and cultural context, “from hunger, grief, contempt, and so on (Furguson and Packer 2000, 390).”  According to this theology, Jesus’ death was the result of a diabolical plot by the oppressors of His time (Furguson and Packer 2000, 390).  Therefore, “human wholeness can be realized only through overcoming the alienating political and economic structures of society (Elwell 2001, 686).”  Liberation Theology is Karl Marx in Christian clothing devoid of the supernatural Christian Christ.

Now, that is a lot of academics for a theology blog, but it was necessary to establish that Liberation Theology is different from classic theology.  Most of us born in the western world are at least vaguely familiar with classical theology conversely many of us have never heard of Liberation Theology or would consider that it contained the principles of the atheist Karl Marx.  But lets talk about why it matters.

When Jesus began His ministry, He would teach in the local synagogue.  On one of those occasions the scroll of Isaiah was given to him.  “He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.  And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing (Luk 4:17-21).”

The passage that Jesus quotes centers around three concepts; the poor, the captives, the blind, and those who are oppressed.  At first glance the teachings of Jesus fall right in line with the philosophy of Marx.  However, the poor who are being reference here are the same poor of the Beatitudes where we find, “blessed are the poor in spirit… (Mat 5:3).”  The person who is poor in spirit is the person who is, “deeply sensible of his spiritual poverty and wretchedness (Clarke 1810-1826, Mat 5:3).”  The poor being reference here is not poor in terms of his/her financial position but rather in terms of his spiritual position.

Likewise, the captive here is not a prisoner of an authority or cause but rather the one who is captive to the law of sin and death.  Paul writes that because of the work of Christ, “we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Rom 7:6)… There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:1-2).”

Who are the blind then?  When Jesus calls Paul to evangelize to the gentile world His instructions to Paul are, “to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and place among those who are sanctified by faith in me (Act 26:18).”  The blindness is a spiritual blindness to the truth that was lost and/or abandoned as man moved chronologically away from Eden.  Now it is true that Jesus restored sight to the physically blind.  However, these miracles were to point to the authenticity of the Messiah and the blindness referenced in Isaiah is much bigger than mere physical blindness.

Finally, those who are oppressed.  First, I found it interesting that of the eleven verses I found in the ESV New Testament that contained the word oppressed only three of them were not about demonic oppression.  One was the passage in Luke we are discussing above, one is referencing the time Moses killed the Egyptian who was oppressing an Israelite (Act 7:24), and only one was about the oppression of the poor by the rich (Jas 2:6).  Classic Christian Theology recognizes the reality of oppression of the poor by the rich however, the oppression that Jesus came to bring liberty to is something more.  Paul writing to the Ephesians reminds them and us that, “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12).”  I am not denying that men oppress men.  What I am arguing is that the oppression we need liberty from is a much higher form of oppression.

Now, look at the two sets of lyrics.  Which one is pointing to Jesus and which one is pointing to Marx?  I may be reading too much into the alternative lyrics, I can’t know for certain the intent of the writer, and if that is the case then at least we have had the opportunity to discuss one of the false Gospels of our time.  “…the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared… (2Ti 4:1-2).”

To remove the supernatural from the Gospel is to remove the good news of the Gospel.

Thanks for reading and do not forget to subscribe to my e-mail below.  I am working on some great things and I would hate for you to miss out.

Photo by Maximilian Scheffler on Unsplash

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary On The Bible. Public Domain, 1810-1826.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Furguson, Sinclair B., and J. I. Packer. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

The resources can be found in the Faith, Hope, Love (Life) Store