Science of arranging events in order of occurrence
POPULARITY
Categories
360 episodes with chronologically
58 episodes with chronologically
18 episodes with chronologically
4 episodes with chronologically
20 episodes with chronologically
3 episodes with chronologically
3 episodes with chronologically
3 episodes with chronologically
3 episodes with chronologically
Julia Sneeringer's book provides a concise overview of developments in the Federal Republic of Germany from the end of the Second World War and Germany's division, to the unification of East and West Germany in 1990. Within the framework of key political and economic moments, it illuminates how West Germans experienced social, economic, and cultural change across four decades. Chronologically structured and supplemented with timelines, each chapter in the book presents the major themes, events and developments occurring during the period. A focused bibliography is also included to offer guidance on further reading. Among the notable topics covered are: - The redefining of German identity after Nazism- Democratization- The explosion of consumer culture- The protest movements of 1968- Changing gender and sexual roles- Immigration and multiculturalism- Pop culture- Environmentalism- Terrorism- The return of the right in politics West Germany in Focus is a peerless introduction to West Germany for anyone looking to understand the complexities of German history since 1945. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
Julia Sneeringer's book provides a concise overview of developments in the Federal Republic of Germany from the end of the Second World War and Germany's division, to the unification of East and West Germany in 1990. Within the framework of key political and economic moments, it illuminates how West Germans experienced social, economic, and cultural change across four decades. Chronologically structured and supplemented with timelines, each chapter in the book presents the major themes, events and developments occurring during the period. A focused bibliography is also included to offer guidance on further reading. Among the notable topics covered are: - The redefining of German identity after Nazism- Democratization- The explosion of consumer culture- The protest movements of 1968- Changing gender and sexual roles- Immigration and multiculturalism- Pop culture- Environmentalism- Terrorism- The return of the right in politics West Germany in Focus is a peerless introduction to West Germany for anyone looking to understand the complexities of German history since 1945. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
Julia Sneeringer's book provides a concise overview of developments in the Federal Republic of Germany from the end of the Second World War and Germany's division, to the unification of East and West Germany in 1990. Within the framework of key political and economic moments, it illuminates how West Germans experienced social, economic, and cultural change across four decades. Chronologically structured and supplemented with timelines, each chapter in the book presents the major themes, events and developments occurring during the period. A focused bibliography is also included to offer guidance on further reading. Among the notable topics covered are: - The redefining of German identity after Nazism- Democratization- The explosion of consumer culture- The protest movements of 1968- Changing gender and sexual roles- Immigration and multiculturalism- Pop culture- Environmentalism- Terrorism- The return of the right in politics West Germany in Focus is a peerless introduction to West Germany for anyone looking to understand the complexities of German history since 1945. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies
Julia Sneeringer's book provides a concise overview of developments in the Federal Republic of Germany from the end of the Second World War and Germany's division, to the unification of East and West Germany in 1990. Within the framework of key political and economic moments, it illuminates how West Germans experienced social, economic, and cultural change across four decades. Chronologically structured and supplemented with timelines, each chapter in the book presents the major themes, events and developments occurring during the period. A focused bibliography is also included to offer guidance on further reading. Among the notable topics covered are: - The redefining of German identity after Nazism- Democratization- The explosion of consumer culture- The protest movements of 1968- Changing gender and sexual roles- Immigration and multiculturalism- Pop culture- Environmentalism- Terrorism- The return of the right in politics West Germany in Focus is a peerless introduction to West Germany for anyone looking to understand the complexities of German history since 1945. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies
This Sunday, we'll explore what “success” means for a disciple of Jesus in Mark 6:14-29. Last week, we saw Jesus send out the disciples to preach repentance, relying only on God to meet their needs. Jesus also instructed them on how to face rejection. The Twelve return victoriously in verse 30, celebrating their accomplishments. Yet, between their mission and return, Mark sandwiches the sobering account of John the Baptist's execution—a powerful reminder that faithfulness, not earthly victories, is the true measure of success. Chronologically, John the Baptist had already been executed by the time Jesus sent out the Twelve. Mark could have included John's execution in chapter 1 when he told us John was arrested. However, Mark places the account here as a flashback to explain why Herod initially believed Jesus was John raised from the dead. John the Baptist's faithful testimony had a profound impact on Herod, despite the imprisonment and execution that followed. As the Twelve return with stories of their success, Mark reminds us that a “successful” disciple is one who is faithful regardless of the earthly trials in which they find themselves. John's witness, even his death, was used mightily by God. On Sunday, we will read v. 14-30 as it is written, but to unpack the significance and flow of Mark's intent, I will examine the flashback to John's execution (v. 17-29) first, and then show the effect this event had on Herod (v. 14-16). I would strongly encourage you to read Mark 6:14-30 several times to become familiar with the text before we come together to worship through its exposition. I. Faithful Disciples Will Face Opposition (v. 17-20) II. Faithful Discipleship May Cost Everything (v. 21-29) III. Faithful Disciples Are ALWAYS Used By God (v. 14-16)
![[Podfic]](https://ivyfm.s3.amazonaws.com/i320/915033.jpg)
A Good Omens fanfic by ImprobableDreams900.Music: Voice In The Night by Rafael Krux (filmmusic.io standard license)For tags and other details, to leave kudos and comments, please visit the corresponding post on archiveofourown: https://archiveofourown.org/works/63303658!
Rose Wang is the COO of Bluesky Social, bringing a wealth of experience in tech, entrepreneurship, and sustainability. Previously, she was Head of Customer Experience at AI platform Forethought and the CEO/co-founder of Chirps, a sustainable cricket protein food company. On The Menu:1. Builds a new social web where no single entity controls content decisions.2. Ensures seamless user experience despite rapid expansion through robust infrastructure.3. Implements proactive moderation tools to enhance online security.4. Uses content filtering and unique post-quoting mechanisms to reduce toxicity.5. Encourages organic social interactions instead of algorithm-driven echo chambers.6. Focuses on user experience over advertiser demands, reshaping the digital landscape.Click here for a free trial: https://bit.ly/495qC9UFollow us on social media to hear from us more -Facebook- https://bit.ly/3ZYLiewInstagram- https://bit.ly/3UsdrtfLinkedin- https://bit.ly/43pdmdUTwitter- https://bit.ly/43qPvKXPinterest- https://bit.ly/3KOOa9uHappy creating!#RoseWang #BlueSky #Outgrow #SocialMedia #Marketing #Digitization #MarketerOfTheMonth #Podcastoftheday #Marketingpodcast
Start Artist Song Time Album Year Intro Track One Phil Collins 0:01:11 Genesis For Absent Friends 1:40 Nursery Cryme 1971 2 Track Two Phil Collins 0:03:00 Genesis More Fool Me 3:04 Selling England by the Pound 1973 3 Track Three Phil Collins 0:06:16 Genesis A Trick of the Tail 4:19 A Trick of the Tail […]
Nuances of Baptism by Autumn Dickson Let's talk about historical context again quickly so that we can have a reference for what we read this week. Chronologically, Section 21 came before Section 20. Section 21 came on the day the church was organized, and it talks a lot about how Joseph was called as a […] The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 20–22 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Brooke and Tyler call in the cool kids to finalize our journey through Rosharan timelines. Everyone gets their time in the spotlight as we recap the stories of Navanni, Venli, Lift, Szeth, and Adolin. #AllSpoilers Cosmere Questions: Does lifesense granted by Heightening allow someone to "hear" the tones of Roshar? (50mins) What happens to the Stormfather if Dalinar breaks their bond? (1h30m) Support this podcast by becoming a Patron on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/CosmereConversations) Original music by David Gruwier (https://twitter.com/DGruwier). "Radiant" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5CFAZUv4C0) by David Gruwier.
Brooke and Tyler hide the Horneater White as we look back in time through the life of Dalinar Kholin. Psychopath, Hero, Tyrant, Murderer, Radiant. We explore one of Roshar's most complicated and controversial characters from his time as a teenager to the final day before the start of Wind and Truth. #AllSpoilers Cosmere Questions: 1. What are the important secrets or meanings behind Dalinar's meeting with Ahu (Jezrien)? (29m18s) 2. When would you agree to work with Dalinar throughout his entire life? During the conquest? After Gavilar's murder? Never under any circumstance? (45m10s) 3. Does Odium know that Hoid is on Roshar and working so closely with the Coalition? (1h19m38s) Support this podcast by becoming a Patron on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/CosmereConversations) Original music by David Gruwier (https://twitter.com/DGruwier). "Radiant" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5CFAZUv4C0) by David Gruwier.
John 21:14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead. 15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs."16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. 18 "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish." 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me." Today we look a little closer at the three do you love Me statements and what they mean to us in practical terms of what we need to do and how we need to live in light of these questions. Peter is like us in that he is not willing to totally commit to something unless we are sure WE can pull it off. So, Jesus gives a prophecy of how Peter will die. He tells Peter that he will live to be an old man and then they will put him on a cross. That he will glorify God through his death. That is just like God to let us know, yes you have failed, yes you are hesitant to fully commit now because of your failure, but I am going to use you anyway. Also, I want to let you know that when it comes time to stand up for me, you will not fail, you will not make the same mistake again and you will ultimately do the will of God as you are supposed to when it really counts. 2Co 9:15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! 14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead. Joh 20:19,26 John said that this was the third post-resurrection appearance "to the disciples" (i.e., the apostles, cf. 20:19-23, 26-29). Chronologically this was at least Jesus' seventh post-resurrection appearance (cf. 20:11-18; Matt. 28:8-10; 1 Cor. 15:5; Luke 24:13-32; John 20:19-23, 26-29). Nevertheless it was the third appearance to the disciples, and the third appearance to the disciples that John recorded. John viewed this appearance as further proof of Jesus' resurrection. Perhaps he viewed it as completing a full complement of testimonies since he drew attention to its being the third appearance to the disciples. The number three in Scripture sometimes connotes fullness or completeness (e.g., the three Persons of the Trinity). However by calling this appearance a "manifestation" (Gr. ephanerothe, cf. v. 1) John indicated that he also viewed it as a revelation of Jesus' true character. So far Jesus had reminded these disciples of lessons that He had taught them previously that were important for them to remember in view of their mission. He had also set the stage for an even more important lesson that would follow. I believe there are lessons to be learned from this miracle in the light of its similarity to the great fish harvest of Luke 5. Because of the fishing miracle in Luke 5, Peter and the other disciples came to see Jesus (and themselves) in a whole new light. There, Peter realizes he is not worthy to be in the same boat with Jesus. In John 21, Peter and the others are once again awed by our Lord and His works. In both texts, these professional fishermen were not able to catch anything on their own, even though they were laboring in the area of their expertise. Jesus taught them that He is the source of their success, He is the One Who, when obeyed, makes men fruitful fishermen. In Luke 5, the disciples were called to leave their fishing boats and to become “fishers of men” (5:10). I believe that John 21:1-14 is a reaffirmation of that original call. The disciples are all waiting around, wondering what to do with their lives. I believe that by means of this miracle Jesus reiterates and reinforces their original call, which came in Luke 5. There are some interesting differences in these accounts as well—and lessons to be learned from them. The most obvious (and probably the most important) difference is that in Luke 5, Jesus was in the boat. In John 21, Jesus is on the shore. You may think I am pressing the limits of this story, but there is a lesson here: “Jesus is able to guide, to provide for, and to watch over His disciples just as well (better?) from a distance, as He is able to care for them “up close and personal.” From 100 yards away, Jesus knew they had caught no fish. From 100 yards away, Jesus could guide them to an abundance of fish. Even before they saw Him, Jesus was prepared to provide for their needs. He had breakfast “on the table,” so to speak, when they arrived on shore. Were the disciples uneasy about Jesus going away, about Jesus leaving them to return to His Father? Such fears are unfounded. He is just as able to care for them when He is in heaven as He was to care for them while He was on earth. I think this was a significant part of the lesson He wanted them to learn. That is why this story is included here -- to teach us that in the work of evangelizing, whether through mass evangelism or individual witnessing, God himself is working with us and will supply far more than we ever dreamed. Both of these accounts refer to Peter as "Simon Peter." Recall that when the Spirit of God uses the name "Simon" Peter, the natural Peter, the one with whom we feel a kinship, the Peter in us all, is in view. And three times, Jesus is going to ask Peter the same question, or at least, we think it’s the same question, but as we’ll see as we move through this there’s actually a subtle shift in this question that we can’t see in our English Bibles, right? It’s a rich picture of how intimately Jesus knows His friend, Peter, and by implication, how He knows us. So, not only the guilt of, “Oh, I failed, and I didn’t respond well,” but, “Let me restore you to a place of usability that’s far beyond your wildest imagination.” We need to keep this in mind as well, especially those of us who are very aware of our own sins, and how we have failed… No matter how great a person is, he may fall (cf. 1 Cor. 10:12).[i] Would you begin to understand that nothing you will ever done will make Him love you more, -and nothing you have ever done will make Him love you less. And when you start there, I believe the prayer thing is going to take care of itself.” But we’re all in this performance quota, “I have to do this before God will look on me favorably.” He could not have demonstrated His love more profoundly than He already has. Why would He then change that conditionally based upon our works? So the motivation is, “I love you, and I want to respond well to you.” Not, “I need to pray more, I need to be more faithful, I shouldn’t have done that.” What a terrible way to live the Christian life. Ultimately, that performance mindset that you’re talking about is legalism. It’s an attempt to self-justify and we have to come back and say do we believe that Christ has paid it all, and that we’re accepted not because of what we do, - but because of what He has done? And Peter had to realize that as well. As we pick up this account in John’s Gospel, Jesus has just finished cooking breakfast for His friends, and He’s about to have a conversation with Peter. to follow Christ as maybe we have promised to do. Jesus is in the business of restoration. I am inclined to understand verses 1-14 in terms of evangelism—being fishers of men. But it is not enough to simply bring a lost sinner to faith in Jesus Christ; that person should also be discipled, and thus brought to maturity in Christ. This seems to be implicit in the Great Commission: Lu 24:33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" Mr. 16:7 "But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you." Jesus is not seeking to correct (or even rebuke) Peter here for his three-fold denial. Jesus personally revealed Himself to Peter, probably before He appeared to the disciples as a group (1 Corinthians 15:5; Luke 24:34; Mark 16:7). I believe it is there that our Lord dealt with Peter’s three-fold denial, and forgave him. In our text, Peter is eager to be with our Lord. I believe this is because Peter’s sins have already been confronted and forgiven, and thus he has already been restored to fellowship with the Master I am not even inclined to see this text as Peter’s restoration to leadership. There are some scholars who hold that Peter was restored to fellowship in his private interview with Jesus, and that this incident is his public restoration to leadership. I see the emphasis of this passage falling on humble service, not on leadership, per se.????????? this passage is more about love than about leadership. Love for Jesus is demonstrated by faithfully caring for His sheep. So, too, when we care for the sheep whom our Lord loves, and for whom He gave His life, we show our love for the Shepherd. caution should be exercised in making too much of the two different words for “love” which are employed in this text. The two verbs are agapao and phileo. The first two times Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him, the word for love is agapao. The third time Jesus asks, He employs the term phileo. Every time Peter responds to Jesus’ question, indicating his love, he employs the word phileo. The distinctions that some make between these two terms may hold true in some cases, and for some authors. They do not seem to hold true for John, who often uses different terms for the same concept. When commentators do seek to emphasize the distinctions between the two Greek words John uses, they do not agree as to what the meaning and emphasis of these terms are. We should keep in mind that when Jesus spoke to Peter and asked him these three questions, He spoke not in Greek (the language in which the Gospel of John is written), but in Aramaic, the language spoken by the Jews of that day. The change in words may have some significance, but I hardly think it is the key to understanding the passage. Jesus began by addressing Peter as Simon the son of Jonas. In the Gospels, Jesus addressed Peter this way on only the most important occasions. These were his call to follow Jesus (1:42), his confession of Jesus as the Son of God (Matt. 16:17), and as he slept in Gethsemane (Mark 14:37).???????????? When Jesus addressed Peter this way here, Peter probably realized that what Jesus was about to say to him was extremely important. "His [Peter's] actions had shown that Peter had not wanted a crucified Lord. But Jesus was crucified. How did Peter's devotion stand in the light of this? Was he ready to love Jesus as he was, and not as Peter wished him to be?" His will is content with following. His work is compelled by love. His way is committed to God. And his work, or his will is content with following, but his words are about Jesus. Number one, his work is compelled by love. A real committed Christian operates on the basis of his love for the Lord. Two, his way is controlled by God. He has learned how to give his life totally to God and trust Him for it. His will is content with following. He's happy to do what Jesus leads him to do. Fourth, his words are concerning Jesus. His work is compelled by love. His way is controlled by God. His will is content with following. And his words are concerned with Jesus. A committed Christian operates on the basis of his love for the Lord. 15 ¶ So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." Each question begins with Simon, son of John. It’s funny to me that He names him Peter, but He never calls him Peter but one time. At least, it’s only recorded one time that He calls him Peter. He still calls him Simon. I think it has to do with the person of him before the Holy Spirit indwells him because in Acts he’ll be known primarily as Peter. But now, Jesus still calls him Simon. Called Him Simon Peter every time something important occurred. Original calling, garden of gethsemane, and now. Peter had denied that he was one of Jesus' disciples and that he even knew Jesus three times. Thus Jesus' question was reasonable. He wanted Peter to think about just how strong his love for Jesus really was. "There can be little doubt but that the whole scene is meant to show us Peter as completely restored to his position of leadership. . . . It is further worth noting that the one thing about which Jesus questioned Peter prior to commissioning him to tend the flock was love. This is the basic qualification for Christian service. Other qualities may be desirable, but love is completely indispensable (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-3)." Our Lord’s addition of the words, “more than these do,” really got to the heart of the matter. Our Lord’s prediction of Peter’s denials came in the midst of Peter’s confident boasting that even if all the others denied Jesus, he certainly would not. In other words, Peter was claiming a higher level of devotion than the rest. Jesus is simply asking him to re-evaluate his boastful claim. And this Peter did. Peter could truthfully affirm that he did love Jesus, but he would not go so far as to claim that his love was greater than that of his fellow-disciples. He also speaks of his love in terms of the Savior’s assessment of it: “Yes, Lord, You know I love You.” To this our Lord replied, “Feed My lambs.” There is some discussion over what Jesus means here. The verse could be translated (and understood) in several ways. (1) “Peter, do you love me more than these fish, more than this boat and the nets, and the things which represent your life of a fisherman?” (2) “Peter, do you love Me more than you love these men?” (3) “Peter, do you love me more than these men do?” But a comparison of these two accounts reveals that what he means is, "Do you love me more than these men love me?" Before he denied Jesus, Peter had inferred that he loved Jesus much more than they. "All men will forsake you, Lord, but I will lay down my life for you," he had said. Clearly he regards himself as more faithful and more committed than the others, whom he expected would desert the Lord in a time of danger. Thus Jesus addresses these words to him, "Do you love me more than these?" When we bring that into our context, taken together, “Peter, now that you’ve denied me three times, remember I told you you’d deny me? Now that you’ve denied me three times, can you tell me that you love me more than these people love me?” That’s the question He’s posing to him. And Peter is saying, “Look, Lord you knew I was going to deny you three times, you know if I love you or not, Lord.” Now, Peter is starting to develop a fuller Christology. This Jesus Christ knows everything about him. And He knows everything about him now. That’s why it grieved him, I think. Three times, “Lord, you know I love you. You know everything.” Peter has learned some painful but necessary lessons. He does not judge himself in relationship to the others, but reads his own heart and replies, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." He makes no mention of the others. Here is a great lesson on how we are to look at others. Peter indicates he has learned to read his Lord's mind better. In the Garden of Gethsemane he felt that his love for Jesus required that he assault the enemies of his Lord, but here he learns that he is responsible to feed the sheep of Jesus. That is the correct manifestation of love. Jesus responded graciously by giving Peter a command, Tend My lambs” This is an PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE. All three of these statements are the same grammatical form. Note that Christ gives Peter a new commission: he is now a shepherd (pastor) besides being a fisher of men. (See 1 Peter 5.) He is now to shepherd the lambs and sheep and feed them the Word of God. All Christians are expected to be fishers of men (soul-winners), but some have been called into the special ministry of shepherding the flock. What good is it to win the lost if there is no church where they might be fed and cared for? When Peter sinned, he did not lose his Sonship, but he did fall away from his discipleship. For this reason Christ repeated His call, “Follow Me.” Christ also confronts Peter with the cross (v. 18), indicating that Peter would one day be crucified himself. (See 2 Peter 1:12–14.) Before we can follow Christ, we must take up the cross. When you recall that earlier Peter tried to keep Christ from the cross, this commandment takes on new meaning (Matt. 16:21–28).[ii] He told Peter to tend (Gr. boske, feed) His lambs (Gr. arnia). Previously Jesus had referred to Himself as the Good Shepherd (10:14). Now he was committing the care of His flock to this disciple who had failed Him miserably in the past. Jesus had formerly called Peter to be a fisher of men, an essentially evangelistic ministry (Matt. 4:19). Now he was broadening this calling to include being a shepherd of sheep, a pastoral ministry. The image, however, changes from that of the fisherman to that of the shepherd. Peter was to minister both as an evangelist (catching the fish) and a pastor (shepherding the flock). It is unfortunate when we divorce these two because they should go together. Pastors ought to evangelize (2 Tim. 4:5) and then shepherd the people they have won so that they mature in the Lord. Here is the chief work of a shepherd. Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my lambs"; "Tend my sheep"; "Feed my sheep." Three aspects of feeding are suggested here: "Feed my lambs." Teach the children. Do not wait for them to grow up. Teach children from the Word what life is all about. Peter was grieved because Jesus found it necessary to ask virtually the same question three times. I do not like to be asked the same question repeatedly. I conclude that either the person asking the question wasn’t paying attention (this could not be the case with Jesus), or that my answer was not acceptable or credible. The three-fold repetition must have registered with Peter as being related to his three-fold denial. Peter was grieved because he realized that the bold and even arrogant claims he had made proved to be empty. Peter is not distressed with Jesus; he is grieved over his own sin. Jesus is not attempting to shame Peter; he is seeking to reaffirm his call to service. Did Jesus question Peter about his love for Him three times? Then note that three times Jesus instructed Peter to care for His sheep. Does Peter fear he has been cast aside as useless? Jesus tells him to return to His work, three times! Peter really did love Jesus. But Peter needed to understand that his love for the Savior was not as great as he thought, just as his ability to catch fish was not as great as he seemed to think. In loving, and in landing fish, Jesus was supreme. Even in the thing Peter did best (fishing), he could not hold a candle to Jesus, who proved to be far better at fishing than he. Peter sought to prove his love for Jesus by boasting about it, by arguing with his fellow-disciples about it (see Luke 22:24), and by being the first to draw his sword and lop off an ear, or perhaps even by being the first man into the water and onto the shore. These were not the benchmarks our Lord had established for testing one’s love for Him. The proof of one’s love for God is sacrificial service —feeding our Lord’s sheep. The way I understand verses 15-19 is something like this: “Peter, do you really love Me as much as you say? Then prove your love for Me by taking care of My sheep.” Jesus is the “Good Shepherd,” Who cares for His sheep (see John 10). If Peter really loves his Lord, then his passion will be the Lord’s passion. The circumstances must have reminded Peter of the scene of his denial. And if the circumstances as such did not remind him of this, what was about to happen was bound to do so. Note the following resemblances: 1. It was at a charcoal fire that Peter denied his Master (18:18). It is here at another charcoal fire (21:9) that he is asked to confess (his love for) his Master. 2. Three times Peter had denied his Master (18:17, 25, 27). Three times he must now own him as his Lord, whom he loves (21:15-17). 3. The prediction with reference to the denial had been introduced with the solemn double Amen (13:38; see on 1:51). The prediction which immediately followed Peter’s confession was introduced similarly (21:18). Ps 1:1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But it has been shown that the resemblance is even more pointed. In reverse order the same three ideas—1. following, 2. a cross, 3. denying—occur here in 21:15-19 as in 13:36-38.” William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, II , p. 486. John 21:15-17 is more about love than about leadership. “Peter if you’re going to love me, part of that will be shepherding and feeding and caring for my sheep, but the manifestation of those attributes come connected to your love to me. If you love me, Peter, you will shepherd the flock that I will give to you. My passion, Peter, will be your passion. The things I’m concerned about, Peter, will be the things you’re concerned about, if you love me.” 16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." Ac 20:28; Heb 13:20; 1Pe 2:25; 5:2,4 Now the first and third words for “feed”, “Feed my sheep… feed my lambs… “ is the same word. The middle word is the word I want to talk about. The middle word is the word shepherding. Some of your translations use the word “care for”, and it has the root of a pastor. In fact, the word that Jesus uses here for Peter to shepherd is the word for pastoring and for eldering. Pastoring is the gift, eldering is the function. It is a shepherd; one who cares for people. The shepherd-sheep relationship describes the spiritual task of leaders of God’s people. The command ‘to shepherd’ includes guiding, guarding, feeding, protecting. Then, "Shepherd my sheep." The word means, watch over, guard them. In Peter's first letter he says to the elders to whom he is writing, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, watching out for them," (1 Peter 5:2). Try to discern where they are at, apprehend the coming dangers, warn and guard them. That is the work of a shepherd. The verbal tense conveys urgency. It calls upon the elder to have the official life of devotion to serving the flock of God.” 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. Joh 2:24-25; 16:30 Jesus is the “Good Shepherd”; He is the Shepherd who came to lay down His life for His sheep. If Peter really loves Jesus, he will care for the Master’s sheep, and he, like the Master, will lay down his life for the sheep. Love manifests itself in service—humble, sacrificial, service. You become like the people you love. The things they love, you love. If Peter really loves his Lord, Who is the Good Shepherd, then Peter will surely seek to shepherd in the same way. He will seek the lost sheep (evangelism). He will feed and tend the young and vulnerable lambs (discipleship). And, like the Good Shepherd, he will lay down his life for the sheep. That is why the Lord moves so quickly and easily from verses 15-17 to verses 18 and 19. Peter had assured his Lord that he was willing to die for Him (Matthew 26:35), and so he will. But he will not die in the manner that he once supposed—seeking to keep His Master from being arrested and crucified. Peter will die, as the Savior did, as a good shepherd, and for the sake of the gospel. Finally, "Feed my sheep, my grown-up ones." The instrument of feeding, of course, is the teaching of the Word of God. Open their minds to the thoughts of God. This is the missing element in the church today. The primary function of shepherding is in teaching and explaining the Gospel and the Word to the flock of God. People are not thinking the thoughts of God, not looking at life the way God sees it, but following blindly after the fantasies and the illusions of the world. What is necessary is the unfolding of the mind of God in obedience to the word of Jesus: "Teach the word." The weakness of the church flows from a famine of the Word of God. Peter had learned not to make rash professions of great love. Therefore he did not compare his love for Jesus to the love of the other disciples as he had done before. He simply appealed to Jesus' knowledge of his heart. Notice that throughout this interchange Jesus consistently referred to the sheep as His sheep, not Peter's sheep. Moreover Jesus described Peter's ministry in terms of acts, not in terms of an office. Later Peter wrote to elders urging them to apply these same viewpoints to their pastoral ministry (1Pet. 5:1-4). The Greek word for “sheep” at the end of John 21:17 means “dear sheep. A committed Christian’s way is controlled by God. Having loved Jesus Christ to that extent that you'd give your life for Him, it's no problem to hand Him your life and let Him keep it. Didn't Paul say, "I'm confident that what I've given the Lord He'll keep till the day of Jesus Christ?" And as a Christian, you can say, "All right, Lord, I love You, here's my life, You've got it now, it's up to You to do what You want." Are you willing to say that? Whatever God's will is, he'll do it. The committed Christian yields the control of his destiny to God, no questions asked. Psalm 37:5 puts it this way, "Commit thy way unto the Lord, trust also in Him." Just let it go. Here's my life, God, and it's Yours, do whatever You want. And Paul says, "If I live, I live unto the Lord. If I die, I die unto the Lord. So, if I live, if I die, I'm the Lord's." See. I gave myself to Him. 18 "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish." Joh 13:36; Ac 12:3-4 Peter had been learning how his self-confidence led to failure and how he needed to depend on Jesus more (i.e., "You know vv. 15, 16, 17). Jesus reminded Peter that as time passed he would become increasingly dependent on others even to the point of being unable to escape a martyr's death. Therefore, Jesus implied, Peter should commit his future to God rather than trying to control it himself as he had formerly tried to do. "The long painful history of the Church is the history of people ever and again tempted to choose power over love, control over the cross, being a leader over being led." For Peter, following Jesus would involve more than teaching, it would ultimately involve pain, suffering, deprivation, and death. This was historically fulfilled. Clearly this book was written after the death of Peter, as John records the way Peter would die. Eusebius, the church historian, tells us that when Peter went to Rome at the close of his life (by the way, he did not found the church at Rome at all; he went there much later), he was finally imprisoned, his hands were bound and he was led out to the place of execution, and there he was crucified. At his own request he was crucified upside down because he did not feel he was worthy to share the manner of his Lord's death. Jesus is saying that preaching and teaching the Word of truth in a mixed-up world like ours will call for sacrifice. It may mean living in primitive conditions, under difficult circumstances, and not feeling harassed, but privileged, to teach and to suffer for the sake of the Word of God. Peter found this to be true. He ultimately obeyed his Lord. He had said, "I will lay down my life for you," and Jesus replied, "You will indeed, not like you once thought, not in defense of me with a sword, but in the teaching and preaching of the Word. Eventually you will lay down your life for me." A committed Christian’s will is content with following. 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me."2Pe 1:14 Follow Me” This is a PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE as is v.22. This is related to the renewal and reaffirmation of Peter’s call to leadership Our Lord’s words, “Follow Me!” must have brought new joy and love to Peter’s heart. Literally, Jesus said, “Keep on following Me.” Immediately, Peter began to follow Jesus, just as he had done before his great denial. Peter later wrote that Christians who follow Jesus Christ faithfully to the point of dying for Him bring glory to God by their deaths 1Pe 4:14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people's matters. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. He lived with this prediction hanging over him for three decades 2Pe 1:14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Notice that Jesus does much more than predict Peter’s death. John wishes us to understand that Jesus went so far as to predict the way in which Peter would die: “(Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.)” (verse 19). Peter’s previous effort to resist the arrest of Jesus was contrary to the gospel, and this is why Jesus rebuked him and abruptly ordered him to stop resisting His arrest. The death which Peter will experience is a death that will glorify God. Jesus also indicates that Peter will die in his old age, and thus he is informed that his death is not imminent. But his death for the Savior’s sake is certain: Notice it says that his death would glorify God. How? Because anybody who dies for their faith in Jesus Christ is a glory to God. I agree with those who see here a prophecy that Peter truly will follow Jesus, by dying on a Roman cross: More important is the way stretch out your hands was understood in the ancient world: it widely referred to crucifixion (Haenchen, 2. 226-227). … Bauer (p. 232) proposed long ago that this ‘stretching’ took place when a condemned prisoner was tied to his cross-member and forced to carry his ‘cross’ to the place of execution. The cross-member would be placed on the prisoner’s neck and shoulders, his arms tied to it, and then he would be led away to death. The words, “Follow Me,” constitute the first calling of the disciples (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17; John 1:43). As time passed, these words took on a much deeper meaning. Following Jesus meant putting Jesus above family (Matthew 8:22). It meant a whole new way of life, where former practices would be unacceptable (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14). Before long, Jesus let His disciples know that following Him meant taking up one’s cross (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34). (At this point in time, our Lord’s reference to “taking up one’s cross” was, at best, understood symbolically.) For the rich young ruler, it meant giving up his possessions (Matthew 19:21; Mark 20:21). And now, for Peter, it means not only carrying on the Master’s work, but taking up a very literal cross. It would seem that at every point where following Jesus is more precisely defined, another challenge to follow Him is given. So it is in our text. I fear that Christians today understand these two words, “Follow me,” in a superficial way. When Paul writes, “For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21), we interpret his words in a somewhat self-indulgent fashion. We suppose that Paul means living as a Christian is glorious, trouble-free, and fulfilling. It is, to put it plainly, “the good life.” In other words, we get to live it up here, and then when we die, it gets even better. There is a certain sense in which this is true. But we must understand Paul’s words in the light of what Jesus is telling Peter here, in our text, about following Him. To follow Christ is to walk in His steps, to live as He lived, to serve others as He did, and to lay down your life for the sheep, like Him. In Philippians chapter 1, Paul is therefore saying, “For me, to live is to live just as Christ did, taking up my cross daily, laying down my life for His sheep.” "Obedience to Jesus' command, Follow Me, is the key issue in every Christian's life. As Jesus followed the Father's will, so His disciples should follow their Lord whether the path leads to a cross or to some other difficult experience." Peter got the message. He was willing to lay down his life for the Savior. Do you know what Jesus is saying to him here? "Peter, you're going to grow old, “because He says, "When you’re old, so you're going to have a full life, Peter. And when it comes to the end of your life, you're going to be crucified." That means, to Peter, that when it comes down to the crux at that hour, he's going to confess Christ and die for Him, right? Now don't you think that's good news to Peter who last time he had a chance to die for Jesus blew it? And so He says, "Peter, I'm going to give you another chance, you're going to live a full life and then at the end you're going to hang in there, it's going to come down to a life/death issue and you're going to stand up and say I believe in Jesus boldly and you're going to die for it." Now I can imagine the thrills were shooting up Peter's back like crazy because he was going to get a chance to prove his love for Jesus. Peter committed his life to Christ and Christ said, "Peter, you'll live for Me and you'll die nailed to a cross." That's the destiny that God had designed for Peter. That's a beautiful promise. O Peter I'm sure in his heart just was saying over and over again...if I only had another chance...if I only had another chance to show the Lord I could be faithful in a crucial situation...if I only had one more chance to show Him my love in a life/death thing, O I'd do it, I'd do it. And so the Lord says, "Peter, you'll do it...you'll do it." And, you know, it's a good thing He told Peter cause Peter would have lived his whole life a nervous wreck thinking that every time he came to a real issue he'd blow it. And a leader with no confidence is no leader at all. And the Lord knew that Peter would worry himself about this so the Lord says, "Peter, you can relax through your whole ministry. When it comes to the end, you'll proclaim My name, you'll die a crucifixion death, don't worry about it." Following Jesus means being where He is. Jesus said in John 12:26 that, "If any man serve Me, let him follow Me that where I am, there will My servant be also." In other words, Jesus wants servants to go where He goes. That's the first thing about following. You go where He goes. Real simple. And in all the days of your life, in all the circumstances of your life, in all the places of your life, in all the relationships of your life, you should be able to say when asked, "Why are you here?" I'm here because I'm following Jesus and this is where He's led me today. Following Jesus means to pattern our lives after His attitudes. His holiness and His purity and His obedience to God becomes the pattern for us. Jesus said in Matthew 5:48, "Be ye perfect even as I am perfect." We are to pattern our lives after Him. As He was faithful to the Father and obedient, so are we to be faithful and obedient.. Thirdly, following Jesus means a willingness to suffer sacrifice for His sake. That's the nitty-gritty. Are you willing to do that? In Matthew 16 Jesus said, "If any man follow Me, take up his cross," right, "and follow Me." Now that's talking about the suffering sacrificial side of following Jesus. But what does it mean to take up your cross, to bear your cross? in those days the victims of crucifixion bore the crossbeam of their own cross on their back as they marched to crucifixion. And in Matthew, as this was being spoken, the people in Galilee would well understand it because when the Roman General Varus had broken the revolt of Judas of Galilee, he crucified as a punishment two thousand Jews and he placed their crosses along all the roads leading through Galilee so that everywhere that everybody went they saw people hanging on crosses, two thousand of them. And all these people had borne the crossbeam on their back to their own death. What Jesus is saying here is that means to be willing to sacrifice yourself for a cause. That's what it means. And Jesus is saying the same thing, are you willing to sacrifice everything you hold dear, everything you love, all the stupid little things that occupy your time, all your dreams and all your ambitions to be obedient to His cause? That's the real issue. Mark 8:36 "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Have you trusted Him as your Savior? He can Save you if You ask Him based on His death, burial, and resurrection for your sins. Believe in Him for forgiveness of your sins today. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” -John 8:32 Our mission is to spread the gospel and to go to the least of these with the life-changing message of Jesus Christ; We reach out to those the World has forgotten. hisloveministries.podbean.com #HLMSocial hisloveministries.net https://www.instagram.com/hisloveministries1/?hl=en His Love Ministries on Itunes Don’t go for all the gusto you can get, go for all the God (Jesus Christ) you can get. The gusto will get you, Jesus can save you. https://www.facebook.com/His-Love-Ministries-246606668725869/?tn-str=k*F The world is trying to solve earthly problems that can only be solved with heavenly solutions [i] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Jn 21:15–17). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. [ii] Wiersbe, W. W. (1992). Wiersbe’s expository outlines on the New Testament (270). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Welcome to THE TARDIS CREW: a Doctor Who podcast. In the second part of an epic discussion on River Song in journey in Doctor Who, hosts Baz & Ben Greenland, and guest Rob Turnbull continue to explore her timeline - chronologically! From adult River in The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon to her farewells in The Husbands of River Song, Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead and The Name of the Doctor - and a fun jaunt through series five - there's plenty to cover in the lifetime of one of modern Doctor Who's most iconic recurring characters! Hosts Baz Greenland, Ben Greenland Guest Rob Turnbull Editor Baz Greenland Executive Producer Tony Black The TARDIS Crew: Twitter: @CrewTARDIS Instagram: @TheTARDISCrew Threads: @TheTARDISCrew Bluesky: @TheTARDISCrew.bsky.social UNIT: A Legacy in Doctor Who (by Baz Greenland): UNIT: The Legacy of Doctor Who (freewebstore.org) Film Stories: Twitter: @FilmStories Instagram: @Filstoriesmagazineuk Website: www.Filmstories.co.uk Rob Turbull (Twitter): @Forducks You Have Been Watching (Twitter): @YHBWPod Join our Film Stories Discord: https://discord.gg/U4bDzXNyvG Title music: Science or Fiction (c) Blackout Memories via epidemicsound.com Artwork: Quill Greenland Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
John 21:10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish which you have just caught." 11 Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. 12 Jesus said to them, "Come and eat breakfast." Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, "Who are You?" --knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish. 14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead. 15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." 16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. In this very familiar section of Scripture we see Jesus telling the disciples after they have fished all night to cast the net again and they catch so many fish they almost sink the boat. They need to recognize without Him they can do nothing, as do we. Then He feeds the disciples with fish He has created for their breakfast in the same fashion He multiplied the fish and the loaves at the feeding of the 5000 men and their families. He then proceeds to restore Peter by asking him three times do you love me. That is the question of all time, do we love Jesus more than others, more than things, more than anything. As the old song says I would rather have Jesus than silver or gold, than riches untold, I rather have Jesus than anything this world affords. Is this true of you? Jesus invites us to labor with them, Little boy brought his fish and bread, they caught it and hauled it in. The “fire of coals” would certainly remind him of the fire at which he denied the Lord (John 18:18). It is good for us to remember the past; we may have something to confess. 10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish which you have just caught." Even though there was already one fish (Gr. opsarion, singular) on the fire Jesus instructed the disciples to bring some of the fish (plural) that they had caught. He would not provide for their physical needs by multiplying the food miraculously as He had done in the past. Now He would use the product of their labor to satisfy their need. Nevertheless it was clear that their fish had been the result of His miraculous provision. Perhaps this was all symbolic of how Jesus would carry out His mission through His disciples in the future compared with how He had done it during His pre- cross ministry. But notice that Jesus then invites the disciples to bring the fish they have caught. This beautifully suggests the way God works with man. As I read through the Scriptures I am continually astonished at the privilege given us by God of being co-laborers with him. Human labor was involved in almost all of the miracles of Jesus. For instance, our Lord multiplied the bread and fish which the boy had to feed the multitude, but he first sent the disciples searching through the crowd to see what they could supply. The wonder of this is that God, who could easily do it all himself, nevertheless gave them the great privilege of being co-workers with him. What he invites you to do may be a very simple thing. You may have opportunity to share your faith with your neighbors. While that may seem an insignificant thing now, when history has come to an end and we are all gathered on the shore with Jesus this may well become the greatest thing you have ever done. We will see ourselves as tremendously privileged to have worked with God in what he was doing in this world. 11 Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. A spiritual lesson here is that great blessing comes to one’s efforts when he follows the Lord’s will. Peter either organizes the landing of the fish or he's the one who hauls it in. Now, if you've ever been in the water playing with your children when they're small, you can have two or three of your small children kind of hanging on you and you can still get around the water, right? Because the buoyancy displacement makes them not as heavy as if you were on land. On land you might be able to move a step or two but you sure can't haul them around the water, right? So you envision Peter. They can't get over the gunnel of the ship because it's so heavy, but he can sort of man handle it in the water up to the side and then the disciples would organize the getting of all the fish out before they could slip back into the Sea of Galilee. Why 153 fish? Well it's almost comical, commentators write pages of what the number 153 means. They have spiritualized allegorizations into all kinds of things in the Bible and it's almost comical to read, but unfortunately they happen to believe the stuff they write. I am one hundred percent convinced that it means there were 153 fish. And if you know anything about fishing, what does any good fisherman do? You count your fish. Notice the text says large fish? No one ever says, "I caught 153 little fish. John tells us it was 153 large fish. Much has been made of the number 153, but it may be enough to note that the author knew the exact number of fish caught, and that it was a great quantity. Such details give credibility to one’s testimony, and John certainly provides us with details. There have been many symbolic explanations of the meaning of the 153 fish. One of the more credible of these is as follows. Jesus formerly told His disciples that they would become fishers of men, an obvious metaphor (Mark 1:17). If the fish here represent the converts that Jesus would miraculously provide for His disciples to "catch," perhaps their large number represents many converts and the fact that Jesus is the one who is responsible to bring the converts in to us. Mt 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, 48 "which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away. 49 "So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, Mt 25:32 50 "and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." The fact that the net did not break may symbolize the capability of the gospel to "catch" many people without failing. We are blessed by Laboring with the Lord They have much patience and persistence, and they will not quit. They know how to cooperate with one another, and they are skilled in using the equipment and the boat. What examples for us to follow as we seek to “catch fish” for Jesus Christ! We are indeed “fishers of men,” and there are “fish” all around us. If we obey His directions, we will catch the fish. But the main emphasis in this account is: success cannot occur without the recognition that the power of God is needed. This is not new truth. In Psalm 127 the psalmist said, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it. Except the Lord guard the city, the watchman watches in vain," (Psalms 127:1 KJV). But it is very common in the church today to see people rely on strictly human methods, with no recognition of the fact that God must supply. Eph 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us 12 Jesus said to them, "Come and eat breakfast." Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, "Who are You?" --knowing that it was the Lord. Ac 10:41 Jesus, as the host, invited the disciples to dine with Him. Perhaps He was reminding them of their last meal together in the upper room just before His arrest. In the ancient Near East a host who extended hospitality to others and provided food for them was implying that He would defend them from then on. Consequently Jesus' invitation may have been a promise of commitment to them like the oriental covenant meal. Such a meal involved acceptance, forgiveness, and mutual commitment. By accepting His invitation the disciples were implying that they were committing themselves to Jesus afresh. "Three 'invitations' stand out in John's Gospel: 'Come and see' (John 1:39); 'Come and drink' (John 7:37); and 'Come and dine' (John 21:12). How loving of Jesus to feed Peter before He dealt with his spiritual needs. He gave Peter opportunity to dry off, get warm, satisfy his hunger, and enjoy personal fellowship. This is a good example for us to follow as we care for God's people. Certainly the spiritual is more important than the physical, but caring for the physical can prepare the way for spiritual ministry. Our Lord does not so emphasize 'the soul' that He neglects the body." Jesus then invites the disciples to join Him for breakfast. We are not actually told that they ate some of their fish for breakfast, and I am inclined to believe that Jesus supplied their entire meal. This was true of the bread, it would seem, and I think it was true as well for the fish. If Jesus had not already prepared a sufficient quantity for all these men (something a little hard to believe), then He could simply have fed them the same way He fed the 5,000, on the other side of the sea. These men had worked hard to provide for themselves, and they had nothing to show for it. Then they come to Jesus, who has more than enough to meet their needs. And in the process, He provides this great catch, enough to supply for their future needs. I suspect that Jesus had them bring some of their fish so they could actually see how great the catch was. Once again, it would seem as though Jesus did not look exactly as He did before His death and resurrection. Even after the disciples had gotten close enough to get a good look at Jesus, they were still wondering to themselves, “Is this really Him?” They wanted to ask, but no one dared. They knew it was Jesus, but He probably did not look exactly as He had before, and so they just found it hard to believe. "Come. Have breakfast. You've been fishing all night. You're worn out. Come. Have breakfast." There's a charcoal fire and the smell of fish grilling on it. There are hunks of bread by the stones there maybe. It is a great picture. I think we lose, again, a sense of the idea that the disciples, these appearances by Jesus were not every day or commonplace. There was still awe and wonder at when He appeared and what He had come to tell them. Try to envision yourself coming off this boat, you know with your particular first century garb. You are wet, tired, cold and hungry and you haven't had the advantage of a thermos full of coffee. You've been out there on the water all night. It's cold and you’re weary and you have nothing really to show for it. Then you come in and here's Jesus. And of course Peter is thinking to himself, "I've been here before. This has happened to me before." Because back at his conversion this is how Jesus called him. He had a night where he had fished and hadn't caught anything and Jesus sends him back out in the morning and he catches a boatload of fish and he comes before Jesus and he says, "I am a sinful man." And Jesus says, "Follow Me." 13 Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish. 14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead. Joh 20:19,26 John said that this was the third post-resurrection appearance "to the disciples" (i.e., the apostles, cf. 20:19-23, 26-29). Chronologically this was at least Jesus' seventh post-resurrection appearance (cf. 20:11-18; Matt. 28:8-10; 1 Cor. 15:5; Luke 24:13-32; John 20:19-23, 26-29). Nevertheless it was the third appearance to the disciples, and the third appearance to the disciples that John recorded. John viewed this appearance as further proof of Jesus' resurrection. Perhaps he viewed it as completing a full complement of testimonies since he drew attention to its being the third appearance to the disciples. The number three in Scripture sometimes connotes fullness or completeness (e.g., the three Persons of the Trinity). However by calling this appearance a "manifestation" (Gr. ephanerothe, cf. v. 1) John indicated that he also viewed it as a revelation of Jesus' true character. So far Jesus had reminded these disciples of lessons that He had taught them previously that were important for them to remember in view of their mission. He had also set the stage for an even more important lesson that would follow. I believe there are lessons to be learned from this miracle in the light of its similarity to the great fish harvest of Luke 5. Because of the fishing miracle in Luke 5, Peter and the other disciples came to see Jesus (and themselves) in a whole new light. There, Peter realizes he is not worthy to be in the same boat with Jesus. In John 21, Peter and the others are once again awed by our Lord and His works. In both texts, these professional fishermen were not able to catch anything on their own, even though they were laboring in the area of their expertise. Jesus taught them that He is the source of their success, He is the One Who, when obeyed, makes men fruitful fishermen. In Luke 5, the disciples were called to leave their fishing boats and to become “fishers of men” (5:10). I believe that John 21:1-14 is a reaffirmation of that original call. The disciples are all waiting around, wondering what to do with their lives. I believe that by means of this miracle Jesus reiterates and reinforces their original call, which came in Luke 5. There are some interesting differences in these accounts as well—and lessons to be learned from them. The most obvious (and probably the most important) difference is that in Luke 5, Jesus was in the boat. In John 21, Jesus is on the shore. You may think I am pressing the limits of this story, but there is a lesson here: “Jesus is able to guide, to provide for, and to watch over His disciples just as well (better?) from a distance, as He is able to care for them “up close and personal.” From 100 yards away, Jesus knew they had caught no fish. From 100 yards away, Jesus could guide them to an abundance of fish. Even before they saw Him, Jesus was prepared to provide for their needs. He had breakfast “on the table,” so to speak, when they arrived on shore. Were the disciples uneasy about Jesus going away, about Jesus leaving them to return to His Father? Such fears are unfounded. He is just as able to care for them when He is in heaven as He was to care for them while He was on earth. I think this was a significant part of the lesson He wanted them to learn. That is why this story is included here -- to teach us that in the work of evangelizing, whether through mass evangelism or individual witnessing, God himself is working with us and will supply far more than we ever dreamed. Both of these accounts refer to Peter as "Simon Peter." Recall that when the Spirit of God uses the name "Simon" Peter, the natural Peter, the one with whom we feel a kinship, the Peter in us all, is in view. And three times, Jesus is going to ask Peter the same question, or at least, we think it’s the same question, but as we’ll see as we move through this there’s actually a subtle shift in this question that we can’t see in our English Bibles, right? It’s a rich picture of how intimately Jesus knows His friend, Peter, and by implication, how He knows us. So, not only the guilt of, “Oh, I failed, and I didn’t respond well,” but, “Let me restore you to a place of usability that’s far beyond your wildest imagination.” We need to keep this in mind as well, especially those of us who are very aware of our own sins, and how we have failed… No matter how great a person is, he may fall (cf. 1 Cor. 10:12).[i] Would you begin to understand that nothing you will ever done will make Him love you more, -and nothing you have ever done will make Him love you less. And when you start there, I believe the prayer thing is going to take care of itself.” But we’re all in this performance quota, “I have to do this before God will look on me favorably.” He could not have demonstrated His love more profoundly than He already has. Why would He then change that conditionally based upon our works? So the motivation is, “I love you, and I want to respond well to you.” Not, “I need to pray more, I need to be more faithful, I shouldn’t have done that.” What a terrible way to live the Christian life. Ultimately, that performance mindset that you’re talking about is legalism. It’s an attempt to self-justify and we have to come back and say do we believe that Christ has paid it all, and that we’re accepted not because of what we do, - but because of what He has done? And Peter had to realize that as well. As we pick up this account in John’s Gospel, Jesus has just finished cooking breakfast for His friends, and He’s about to have a conversation with Peter. to follow Christ as maybe we have promised to do. Jesus is in the business of restoration. I am inclined to understand verses 1-14 in terms of evangelism—being fishers of men. But it is not enough to simply bring a lost sinner to faith in Jesus Christ; that person should also be discipled, and thus brought to maturity in Christ. This seems to be implicit in the Great Commission: Lu 24:33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" Mr. 16:7 "But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you." Jesus is not seeking to correct (or even rebuke) Peter here for his three-fold denial. Jesus personally revealed Himself to Peter, probably before He appeared to the disciples as a group (1 Corinthians 15:5; Luke 24:34; Mark 16:7). I believe it is there that our Lord dealt with Peter’s three-fold denial, and forgave him. In our text, Peter is eager to be with our Lord. I believe this is because Peter’s sins have already been confronted and forgiven, and thus he has already been restored to fellowship with the Master I am not even inclined to see this text as Peter’s restoration to leadership. There are some scholars who hold that Peter was restored to fellowship in his private interview with Jesus, and that this incident is his public restoration to leadership. I see the emphasis of this passage falling on humble service, not on leadership, per se.????????? this passage is more about love than about leadership. Love for Jesus is demonstrated by faithfully caring for His sheep. So, too, when we care for the sheep whom our Lord loves, and for whom He gave His life, we show our love for the Shepherd. caution should be exercised in making too much of the two different words for “love” which are employed in this text. The two verbs are agapao and phileo. The first two times Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him, the word for love is agapao. The third time Jesus asks, He employs the term phileo. Every time Peter responds to Jesus’ question, indicating his love, he employs the word phileo. The distinctions that some make between these two terms may hold true in some cases, and for some authors. They do not seem to hold true for John, who often uses different terms for the same concept. When commentators do seek to emphasize the distinctions between the two Greek words John uses, they do not agree as to what the meaning and emphasis of these terms are. We should keep in mind that when Jesus spoke to Peter and asked him these three questions, He spoke not in Greek (the language in which the Gospel of John is written), but in Aramaic, the language spoken by the Jews of that day. The change in words may have some significance, but I hardly think it is the key to understanding the passage. Jesus began by addressing Peter as Simon the son of Jonas. In the Gospels, Jesus addressed Peter this way on only the most important occasions. These were his call to follow Jesus (1:42), his confession of Jesus as the Son of God (Matt. 16:17), and as he slept in Gethsemane (Mark 14:37).???????????? When Jesus addressed Peter this way here, Peter probably realized that what Jesus was about to say to him was extremely important. "His [Peter's] actions had shown that Peter had not wanted a crucified Lord. But Jesus was crucified. How did Peter's devotion stand in the light of this? Was he ready to love Jesus as he was, and not as Peter wished him to be?" His will is content with following. His work is compelled by love. His way is committed to God. And his work, or his will is content with following, but his words are about Jesus. Number one, his work is compelled by love. A real committed Christian operates on the basis of his love for the Lord. Two, his way is controlled by God. He has learned how to give his life totally to God and trust Him for it. His will is content with following. He's happy to do what Jesus leads him to do. Fourth, his words are concerning Jesus. His work is compelled by love. His way is controlled by God. His will is content with following. And his words are concerned with Jesus. Mark 8:36 "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Have you trusted Him as your Savior? He can Save you if You ask Him based on His death, burial, and resurrection for your sins. Believe in Him for forgiveness of your sins today. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” -John 8:32 Our mission is to spread the gospel and to go to the least of these with the life-changing message of Jesus Christ; We reach out to those the World has forgotten. hisloveministries.podbean.com #HLMSocial hisloveministries.net https://www.instagram.com/hisloveministries1/?hl=en His Love Ministries on Itunes Don’t go for all the gusto you can get, go for all the God (Jesus Christ) you can get. The gusto will get you, Jesus can save you. https://www.facebook.com/His-Love-Ministries-246606668725869/?tn-str=k*F The world is trying to solve earthly problems that can only be solved with heavenly solutions [i] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Jn 21:15–17). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
In today's Daily Fix:Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 isn't even out yet, but of course we're getting possible info on the next CoD. According to the latest rumor, 2025's Call of Duty will be another Black Ops game, but will be a sequel to 2012's Black Ops 2. Wouldn't that be 2015's Black Ops 3, you may ask? Chronologically, Black Ops 2 was set in the 1970's and 2025, while Black Ops 3 was set in the 2060's, while next year's game take place in the 2030's and once again star David Mason. In other news, Like a Dragon: Pirate Yakuza in Hawaii will be arriving in port a week sooner than expected. This is likely to get out of the way of Monster Hunter Wilds. And finally, Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered is more than just a facelift of the original PS4 game, it'll have more random people in settlements—and more geese!
Brooke and Tyler split themselves among the many timelines of Shallan Davar to discover the mysteries hidden within. The tale is sometimes confusing and contradictory but within the depths of Shalln lies many secrets to understanding the Stormlight Archive. #AllSpoilers Cosmere Questions: 1. Who is Shallan's mother and what impact will that revelation have on Stormlight Archive? 2. How do you think Shallan's story will conclude? Support this podcast by becoming a Patron on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/CosmereConversations) Original music by David Gruwier (https://twitter.com/DGruwier). "Radiant" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5CFAZUv4C0) by David Gruwier.
Welcome to THE TARDIS CREW: a Doctor Who podcast. To celebrate 100 episodes of The TARDIS Crew (excluding a few mini bonus episodes), hosts Baz & Ben Greenland welcome back returning guest Rob Turnbull to talk River Song. In the first of a 2-part discussion, they talk Alex Kingston's performance, River's impact on Doctor Who, and delve into her journey - chronologically -starting with the birth of Melody Pond in series 6's A Good Man Goes to War, and ending back with River's revelation in...A Good Man Goes to War! Hosts Baz Greenland, Ben Greenland Guest Rob Turnbull Editor Baz Greenland Executive Producer Tony Black The TARDIS Crew: Twitter: @CrewTARDIS Instagram: @TheTARDISCrew Threads: @TheTARDISCrew Bluesky: @TheTARDISCrew.bsky.social UNIT: A Legacy in Doctor Who (by Baz Greenland): UNIT: The Legacy of Doctor Who (freewebstore.org) Film Stories: Twitter: @FilmStories Instagram: @Filstoriesmagazineuk Website: www.Filmstories.co.uk Rob Turbull (Twitter): @Forducks You Have Been Watching (Twitter): @YHBWPod Join our Film Stories Discord: https://discord.gg/U4bDzXNyvG Title music: Science or Fiction (c) Blackout Memories via epidemicsound.com Artwork: Quill Greenland Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome back to The Movie Draft House as we enter spooky season for the month of October 2024 as we're reviewing films that feature one of the four greatest slashers to ever grace film...and this week we had an out-of-the-box pick of the Leprechaun from the film of the same name from 1993 starring Jennifer Anniston and Warwick Davis. This episode is also our first ever cross-over podcast with the boys from Chronologically and All Things Being Sequel, Eric and Elliot! Tune in! Follow the podcast across all social media! Twitter Instagram TikTok YouTube
Brooke and Tyler roll back the clock to review Kaladin's character journey blow by blow. This one-stop-shop goes through each of Kaladin's major plot points starting with his earliest moments in Hearthstone to his final triumphs and heartaches in Rhythm of War. #AllSpoilers Support this podcast by becoming a Patron on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/CosmereConversations) Original music by David Gruwier (https://twitter.com/DGruwier). "Radiant" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5CFAZUv4C0) by David Gruwier.
Sunday, 25 August 2024 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, Matthew 3:1 “And in those days, comes John the Baptist, proclaiming in the desolate of Judea,” (CG). The previous verse ended Chapter 2, noting that Jesus was settled in Nazareth, thus He would be called a Nazarene. Now the narrative changes direction and introduces a new figure. Chronologically, he has already been introduced in Luke's gospel, but Matthew begins his arrival on the scene many years later, beginning with, “And in those days.” The meaning is “in the days when Jesus dwelt in Nazareth.” Even though this is quite some years later, it is during that time. This is evidenced by Matthew 3:13 which says, “Then Jesus came from Galilee to John.” He will leave the area of Nazareth to begin His ministry at this time, a point which begins with the ministry of John the Baptist. The exact time of this appearance by John is noted in Luke 3:1, 2 – “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, 2 while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” The name John is from the Hebrew name Yokhanan. That is derived from Yah, a shortened form of the divine name, and khanan, a verb meaning to be gracious. Thus, the name means Yah is Gracious or Yah Has Been Gracious. Of those days when Jesus still dwelt in Nazareth, it next says, “comes John the Baptist.” The title is a transliteration. It literally means “John the Immerser.” However, as “Baptist” is the common usage in English, that will be retained in the translation. As for the verb, it is present tense, thus aligning the two thoughts as occurring together. Jesus is living in the area of the Galilee and John comes forth at that time. This type of writing is known as a historical present. It brings the narrative alive in the mind of the reader. The purpose of such literary tools is obliterated when translators ignore them. At the time he comes, it next says that he is “proclaiming in the desolate of Judea.” The Greek word is kérussó, to proclaim, preach, or herald. In this case, John is making his proclamation that the Messiah is about to be revealed. It was his job to be the forerunner of the Messiah, preparing the way. As for the word “desolate,” this does not necessarily mean a barren wasteland devoid of any life. Despite being translated as a noun, wilderness, by almost every translation, the Greek word is an adjective. Thus, “desolate” fits in meaning and intent. It is a place that is uncultivated and unpopulated, thus a deserted area. Shepherds feeding their flocks would occur in such a place. In the Bible, it is a place of God's grace and of closeness to God, but it is also typical of a place of testing. The Hebrew word is a noun, midbar, coming from davar, to speak. The sense is speaking as in driving a flock. In the Song of Solomon 4:3, using the word midbar, it says this – Your lips are like a strand of scarlet, And your mouth [midbar] is lovely. Your temples behind your veil Are like a piece of pomegranate. Solomon is poetically taking the mouth and calling it a wilderness. This shows the closeness in thought between the words. This gives us an idea of what John has come to do. He has come to speak in the open to the pasture of God's people, driving them to be prepared for the coming of the ministry of Jesus. Life application: When the books of the Bible were written, there were no chapter and verse divisions. These were simply scrolls that were written and maintained as complete books. Even if the beginning of Chapter 3 seems disconnected from what was said in Chapter 2, it is not. Rather, it is a new direction built upon what was just said. Thus, it is a logical point to make a chapter break, but it is still good to see the ongoing connection between the two. At times, what is helpful in considering the narrative is to stop and pretend there is no chapter division in what you are reading. Imagine that you are simply reading a continuous scroll. That can help eliminate confusion in what is being said. For example, you may read a scholar who says that the words of Matthew 3:1 cannot be connected to the words of Matthew 2:23 because Matthew 2:23 referred to a time when Jesus was just a young child. This thinking is actually bolstered by the chapter division. Our minds can make a full stop and then start again. But this is not Matthew's intent. By imagining there is no chapter division, that type of thinking can often be cleared up. From there, going forward and seeing that Jesus departed Galilee to meet up with John then solidifies the notion that the narrative did not break. It simply redirected. Consider what you are reading as you go. The Bible is a marvelous book that will keep instructing you and informing you as long as you continue to ask it questions as you go. Glorious God, it is a joy and a delight to read the word that You have given to us. The stories of times past come alive as if they are happening before our eyes as we read. And all the while, we are communing with You through Your word. What a treasure and what a pleasure. Thank You for Your precious word that tells us of Jesus. Amen.
Proverbs 3
The Gospels record 37 miracles of Jesus, and 28 of the 37 (over 75 percent) involve him healing people. Jesus healed friends, strangers, and even opponents. He continued to heal people until the very end of his life. In his last hours, he heals the high priest's servant sent to arrest him. Chronologically, this passage is the first healing miracle of Jesus. And what was the purpose? That we would believe: “The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” And he himself believed, and all his household.” (Jn 4:53) Take-Home Message: Jesus heals so that we will believe.Jesus Heals an Official's SonThe Context (43-47)The Conversation (48-51) The Official Was… DesperateDeterminedDecisiveThe Conversion (52-54) Scripture: Jesus Heals an Official's Son Scripture: John 4:43-54 Simple. Authentic. Jesus. Prairiebible.org
Eric and Jeff are joined by Tessa to kick off season 4 of Chronologically. This time looking at movies adapted from the works of Stephen King.Eric on Twitter:@eric_hauter Jeff on Twitter:@podcastsbyjeff Eric onYoutube. Check outGaming Nexus Jeff can also be found onThe Movie Draft House
Are the Psalms individual isolated poems that have no connection to one another, or are they a unified, edited story that we are supposed to notice? Wyatt Graham answers these questions and more in this conversation about how to think deeply about the Psalms, and what sort of connections should we expect to see from one chapter to the next. Currently, he serves as the executive director of the Gospel Coalition Canada. He has spoken in a variety of ecclesial and academic settings and regularly writes a column called DeTrinitate for TGC Canada on the intersection of life and theology. He is married to Leanne, and they have one daughter and one son. Follow him on Twitter (@wagraham) and Instagram (@wyattagraham). PhD, Biblical Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ThM, Church History/Patristics, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ThM, Old Testament, Master's Seminary MDiv, Old Testament, Master's Seminary BA, Philosophy and Religion, Liberty University To hear Wyatt's sermon on Mark 14 that was discussed at the end of the episode you can view it here: https://www.pbfchurch.ca/sermons/sermon/2024-02-25/its-all-in-gods-control Recommended Episodes: Preaching the Psalter as a Book - Lindsay Kennedy: https://expositorscollective.org/expositors-collective-podcast/preaching-the-psalter-as-a-book-lindsay-kennedy/ Preaching Christ from the Psalms - Lindsay Kennedy: https://expositorscollective.org/expositors-collective-podcast/preaching-christ-from-the-psalms-lindsay-kennedy-part-2/ Lindsay Kennedy's Bibliography for further reading: Bibliography: Psalmcast podcast I recorded this several years ago but am still pretty happy with it all! Robertson, The Flow of the Psalms The best introduction to reading the Psalms as a book. Great place to start. Rydelnik and Blum (eds.) The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy The Psalms essays are top-notch and closest to my view from anything I've read. Jim Hamilton's Psalms Vol 1 and Vol 2 (EBTC, forthcoming) Though Hamilton is heavy on typology, his is the best commentary that reads the Psalms as a book. Reardon, Christ in the Psalms He reads Jesus in every Psalm in the tradition of the Fathers. Quite devotional though and he doesn't defend his approach enough to convince the skeptical. On that note, Irenaeus' On the Apostolic Preaching, Augustine's Psalms commentaries, and Athanasius' To Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms are all incredible and show that what I'm saying about Jesus in the Psalms is far from new (even if I don't quite "get" everything they're seeing!) Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter The most impacting book on my interpretation of the Psalms. Incredibly provocative and unique. Dense though. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity Prosopological exegesis as practiced by the Fathers was the missing piece for me. Very dense though. You can find Wyatt's book - The Promised Davidic King: Psalm 108's Canonical Placement and Use of Earlier Psalms (at a discounted rate) here. https://lexhampress.com/expositors Pleasanton, California Expositors Collective Training Event May 24th & 25th We're excited to be partnering with Valley Community Church to host our first training seminar in the Bay Area. We have a lot of friends (and podcast downloads) in that part of California and we know that it is going to be a great time! To register or for more information visit https://expositorscollective.org/gatherings/ The Expositors Collective podcast is part of the CGNMedia, Working together to proclaim the Gospel, make disciples, and plant churches. For more content like this, visit https://cgnmedia.org/ Join our private Facebook group to continue the conversation: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ExpositorsCollective Click here to support Expositors Collective
Episode 250 – Archeology and the Bible – Part 6 – Names We Know 2 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: … [in] the fourth month of Zedekiah’s eleventh year, the city wall was broken through. … the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer …and all the other officials … of Babylon. . Jeremiah, Chapter 39, verses 1 through 3, New International Version ******** VK: Hello and welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. I’m Victoria K. This is the 6th episode in our series on archeology and the Bible. At Anchored by Truth we think most people understand that archeology is generally relevant to the study of the Bible - but they have a limited understanding of what the relationship is. But if we take the Bible seriously – which we definitely do at Anchored by Truth - we all need to know a little bit about archeology. That’s because archeological explorations and finds have supplied an abundance of evidence that confirms that the history contained in the Bible is real history. That’s why we decided to do this series. Despite the fact that popular culture has tried to dismiss the long-standing relationship between the Bible and archeology the truth is that archeology as a whole has done much to provide evidence of the Bible’s trustworthiness. To help us continue to explore this topic, in the studio today we have RD Fierro. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books RD, throughout this series you have pointed out that despite the skepticism we often hear many scholars, including ones who aren’t Christian, have used the Bible as a source document when planning or conducting archeological explorations. In fact, the Bible’s history has regularly been shown to be accurate even when doubted, right? RD: Right. And during our most recent episodes of Anchored by Truth we have been covering specific examples of times secular history doubted what the Bible reported but archeology proved that the Bible’s report was right. Today we are going to continue in that same vein and provide another example of an archeological find that shows that the Bible not only gets the “big things” right but is also accurate in details that most people wouldn’t even consider are significant. VK: Well, perhaps we should start by briefly discussing one of the specific criticisms that is frequently hurled at the Bible – the idea that many of the books of the Bible weren’t actually written by the person whose name is associated with that particular book. This would include books like Daniel and Jeremiah but it extends to the first five books of the Bible which are historically attributed to Moses. RD: One of lines of evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God is that the Bible contains a large body of fulfilled prophecy. We have provided a lot of examples of successful prophecies in many of our different series on Anchored by Truth. We have talked about the fact that the prophet Isaiah provided the name of the Persian king who would conquer the Babylonian Empire about 200 years before that happened in history. VK: For anyone who wants to verify that prophecy for themselves they can go chapters 44 and 45 of the book of Isaiah. For example, Isaiah, chapter 45, verses 1 through 3 say, “This is what the LORD says to Cyrus, his anointed one, whose right hand he will empower. Before him, mighty kings will be paralyzed with fear. Their fortress gates will be opened, never to shut again. This is what the LORD says: “I will go before you, Cyrus, and level the mountains. I will smash down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. And I will give you treasures hidden in the darkness—secret riches. I will do this so you may know that I am the LORD, the God of Israel, the one who calls you by name.” RD: Yes. A simple internet search of the question “who conquered Babylon” will bring up the name “Cyrus” or, as he is often called, “Cyrus the Great.” Isaiah is the first of the so-called “Major Prophets” and prophesied from approximately the years 740 BC to about 700 BC. So, the latest his prophesy about a coming conquering king named Cyrus can be dated is 700 BC. But Babylon didn’t fall to Cyrus until 539 BC. So, Isaiah’s prophecy predates the fulfillment by 170 to 200 years. VK: And since that we can’t successfully predict who will win the next election, Super Bowl, or World Series, a successful prophesy given 200 years before the event is pretty compelling evidence of supernatural inspiration and insight. RD: Right. Another example of a successful prophesy given hundreds of years ahead of time is found in the book of Daniel, who is the last of the Major Prophets. In chapters 2, 7, and 8 of his book Daniel prophesied about a series of empires that would control what was, for the ancient Hebrews, the known world – essentially to us eastern Europe, north Africa, the Mideast, and western Asia. Daniel prophesied that a series of 4 empires would dominate that territory. We now know from history that those empires were the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greeks, and the Romans. Rome conquered Palestine and Jerusalem around 63 BC but Daniel had given his prophecy around 540 BC – almost 500 years earlier. VK: Again, none of us know what the price of gas will be next month much less next year. We don’t know what level the stock market will be at in a year and we can’t even be sure what the weather will be like two days from now. So, for a human, unaided by God, to successfully predict a major military and political event 500 years in the future is simply impossible. But what is impossible for people is possible for God. But it is possible only for God. That’s one of the big reasons we can be sure the Bible was inspired by God. God inspired His writers to record things hundreds of years before they would happen. And that then becomes strong evidence that while a human hand pushed a pen or stylus the information was coming straight from a divine Being. RD: Yes. These are just two examples of the hundreds that could be cited to illustrate that the Bible writers were given supernatural inspiration by God Almighty. And this evidence is so compelling that the critics of the Bible must find a way to discount the evidence. The most common way they do that is to assert that the books weren’t written when they were. To discredit the prophecy the critics must turn the prophecy into history. So, the critics will claim that the book of Daniel was not written in the 6th century BC but rather the 1st or 2nd century BC. And they claim that while portions of the book of Isaiah were written in the 8th century BC they claim that other parts were written much later such as the 5th or even 4th century BC. By doing so, they claim that rather than the books containing successfully fulfilled prophesies all the books were doing was presenting historical events as prophecy. VK: That calls to mind the medieval notion that it was possible to turn iron into gold. It was called alchemy. But, in this case, the critics want to turn the golden evidence of fulfilled prophecy into the common element of recent history – a sort of reverse alchemy. The critics can plainly see the implications of a book that contains prophecies given hundreds of years before the events prophesied. Human beings can’t do that. Only God could. So, to get rid of the evidence they turn the evidence into something else. Re-date the book and “poof” – prophesy becomes history. RD: Yes. So, that’s one of the most common forms of criticism that’s hurled against the Bible. The books of the Bible weren’t written when claimed. It’s a pernicious form of criticism because the critic doesn’t deny the content of the book – just claims the book doesn’t mean what we thing because it’s been “misdated.” VK: But one of the ways the Bible defends itself against such criticism is that it frequently contains language or details that wouldn’t have been used or known to a later writer. And that detail or language has now been confirmed by archeology. For instance, with respect to the false assertion that the book of Daniel was written in the 1st or 2nd century BC Biblical Scholar Dr. Gleason Archer in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties has written this: “… it seems that a second century date for the Hebrew chapters of Daniel is no longer tenable on linguistic grounds. In view of the markedly later development in the areas of syntax, word-order, morphology, vocabulary, spelling, and word-usage, there is absolutely no possibility of regarding Daniel as contemporary [with the sectarian documents][of the second century BC…] The complete absence of Greek loan-words apart from musical instruments … point unmistakably to a time of composition prior to the Alexandrian conquest.” RD: What Dr. Archer is saying is that, just as today, language changes through time. We know longer use phrases like “Daddy-O” or “23 skidoo” … VK: “23 skidoo” … really? RD: Really. “23 skidoo” was an American slang phrase that appeared early in the 20th century. It was often used to mean “I’m leaving quickly.” According to the Wikipedia entry “23 skidoo” was actually the conjoining of two earlier expressions, “‘twenty-three’ (1899) and ‘skidoo’ (1901), both of which, independently and separately, referred to leaving, being kicked out, or the end of something.” The point is that language changes through time. “23 skidoo” is slang from over 100 years ago. If someone sees it in a document we can have high confidence about roughly when that document might have been prepared. The same thing is true about ancient languages. They changed through time. In the case of the language used in the book of Daniel it does not resemble the language used by the Jews in the 1st or 2nd century BC. And we can have high confidence about that in large measure because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VK: The point is that the language of the book of Daniel defeats the critics’ attempts to date it at a time when its prophecy would have become history. And today we are going to cite an example where a name in the text of the book of Jeremiah defeats the critics’ attempt to turn its successful prophecies into history. Remember, our opening scripture came from the book of Jeremiah. RD: Exactly. So, let’s set the stage so we know what is going on – both in scripture and in history. VK: Jeremiah is the 2nd of the Major Prophets. Jeremiah wrote during a period starting in 626 BC and lasting until about 586 BC. He is sometimes called the “weeping prophet” because he had the sad task of warning the people in Judah and Jerusalem that they were going to be destroyed by the Babylonians because of their idolatry. Jeremiah did not want to see them destroyed but he faithfully reported that because the people would not give up their idolatry they were going to suffer. He made a number of famous prophecies. He not only prophesied that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed but he also prophesied that the captivity of the exiled Jews was going to last 70 years. RD: And he was proven accurate on both counts. Nebuchadnezzar, the most famous of the Babylonians kings, destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BC and sent most of the people into exile around Babylon. Only the poorest were permitted to remain in their homeland. Jeremiah was also right about how long the Jews would remain in exile. The first time Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem was 597 BC but before that Jerusalem had become a vassal state of Babylon. Many scholars date the start of the 70 years to 605 BC when Judah first swore allegiance to Babylon. Cyrus defeated Babylon in 539 BC but it took a little while before the exiled Jews were able to begin their return to their homeland. So, all told, the exile of the Jews in Babylon lasted about 70 years. VK: But a skeptic might say that these two prophecies were not really prophetic. Nebuchadnezzar began his control of Judah during Jeremiah’s lifetime and so the prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would one day destroy Jerusalem might have just been an educated guess. Or a skeptic might assert that the writer of Jeremiah just wrote about the destruction of Jerusalem after it happened. While the book of Jeremiah does contain information about when various prophecies were given it’s not impossible that the writer might have deliberately misdated the material to appear prophetic even if it were not. RD: But, that would still leave a successful prophecy about the length of the period of exile. Chronologically, the book of Jeremiah ends right after the final destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. But Cyrus would not defeat Babylon for almost another 50 years. So, even if the critic asserts that the writer of Jeremiah was writing history when it came to the fall of Jerusalem the writer would have no way of knowing if or when that period of Babylonian captivity would end. VK: So, to get around that possibility the critic would say that a later editor of the book of Jeremiah just added that detail after the period of the exile ended. That, in fact, is a very common line of criticism with respect to many of the books in the Old Testament. Many critics assert that many books of the Old Testament, including the first 5 books, were not written until after the period of the Babylonian captivity and the Jews had returned to their homeland – sometime in the late 6th century BC or early to mid 5th century. The assertion is that the returned Jews were trying to create a sort of noble history for themselves because the whole nation was in such desperate condition. The critics assert that the returned Jews either just outright fabricated books such as Genesis at that time - or they took earlier works and just added a bunch of details to give them the appearance of supernatural inspiration. And one way they supposedly did that was to put prophecies in the books that were really historical events that had affected the Israelites. The idea is that by doing so the national or religious authorities could fool their population into believing their holy books contained prophecies that had been fulfilled. The general idea is that these pious fictions would have inspired the Jews, who were then in a pretty sad state at that time. RD: And that’s where today’s opening scripture becomes relevant. Our opening scripture includes the names of two Babylonian officials who were present at the time the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem. “Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim.” Nebo-Sarsekim is described as being “a chief officer.” VK: Ok. Let’s focus on what’s going on within the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah has been warning the people – probably for decades at this time – that if they don’t give up their idolatry they are going to be punished by being defeated militarily. And Jeremiah even tells them that their defeat will come at the hands of the Babylonians. But the people don’t listen and the defeat comes about. So, Jeremiah is now describing what was happening at the time that the Babylonians broke through the walls of Jerusalem. RD: Right. Now what is interesting, amazing even, about this passage from Jeremiah is that he has gone to the trouble of recording the names of Babylonian officials who weren’t the king or part of the royal family. Now it would not be unusual for a careful and honest historian to record the names of important people who present at a significant event – like the breaching of the walls of your capital city. But why would someone who was making up or editing a book to somehow give it the air of supernatural inspiration do that? VK: I suppose someone would say that adding the names of officials would increase the level of credibility to the account they were concocting. Good fiction writers always want to make their fiction believable. RD: Someone – a critic – trying to cast doubt on the book might say that. But let’s explore that idea for a second. Let’s suppose that a religious authority in Israel is trying to somehow add weight to a book that they are creating. So, to add that weight they start throwing in a bunch of details about a dramatic event. It makes little sense that one of the details they would throw in would be the names of a couple of people from the invading army who sat down in a city gate just after the invaders had breached the wall. But even if they did decide to throw in a couple of names how would a writer writing decades after the actual event know which names to toss in? Remember the idea we’re examining is whether it is reasonable to suppose that the book of Jeremiah was written decades after the events that it records – because that’s what it would take for a later writer to have made it seem like Jeremiah knew the length of the Babylonian captivity. VK: Or is just more reasonable to conclude that the book of Jeremiah was written by an eyewitness of the events recorded in the book. An eyewitness could easily know the names of high ranking officials who took part in the capture of the capital city. But details get lost in as time passes by. So, the likelihood that a later religious figure would know which lesser officials happened to be present when Jerusalem fell starts to strain credulity. Which possibility is more likely really comes down to whether the names recorded in Jeremiah are accurate. RD: And thanks to archeology we now have solid evidence that the writer of Jeremiah got the names right. A clay tablet that is in the British Museum contains a receipt issued by a high official of Nebuchadnezzar, who was the King of Babylon that conquered Jerusalem. This tablet is a receipt is for gold donated to a temple in Babylon. The full translation reads: “‘(Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.” The tablet is dated to the 10th year of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon (595 BC) or 8 years before the siege of Jerusalem. Many Biblical scholars have now realized that the name mentioned in the tablet is the same name as contained in Jeremiah, chapter 39. VK: And that’s pretty remarkable. As we’ve said frequently during this series one test for whether a historical record is accurate is whether the record gets the names and titles right. And it is one thing for a writer to get the big names right. But it is even better when the writer gets the names of lesser officials right. Everyone remembers Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. But how many people would know who was on their staff. How many would remember the people who were, in essence, just supporting actors. RD: Yet, over and over again, we find that from the Bible that the Bible writers get even the small details right. In this case the Bible describes Nebo-Sarsekim as being a “chief officer” of the king of Babylon. The tablet from the British museum tells us that Nebo-Sarsekim was the “chief eunuch.” That title doesn’t mean anything in our society but in that day the chief eunuch would have been a very important Babylonian official. It would take too much time today to describe why that was true but we can get some idea of his importance and wealth by noting that the tablet indicates he gave gold to the temple that was worth over $50,000 today. VK: And how many people today can afford to give away $50,000? It’s little wonder that someone kept a receipt of the donation. And by the grace of God we now have that receipt as additional evidence that the book of Jeremiah wasn’t written hundreds of years or even decades after the events it records. An eyewitness of the events could record details accurately. A writer at a far distant time wouldn’t have reason to include the names of lesser officials. By that time the relevance and value of such people would have faded into the distant past. RD: Right. The book of Jeremiah contains lessons that would have been important for the people of his day – and for us today. Jeremiah warned his people about the dangers of idolatry. An idol is anything we value more than God and lots of us have things that we value more than our relationship with God. Jeremiah was a genuine prophet of God and we can be sure of that because prophecies he passed along to his people came true. And today we’ve only mentioned a couple of those. There are a great many more that time precludes us from discussing in these brief episodes. At Anchored by Truth our purpose is to help people understand that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Archeological finds like the tablet we’ve talked about point to that fact. The history in the Bible is reliable and the Bible contains a large body of fulfilled prophecies. Human beings can write accurate history but only a supernatural God can provide knowledge to His people of events that won’t occur for decades or centuries. VK: And that is what we are illustrating in this episode and in this series. Archeological discoveries have repeatedly supported the history contained in the Bible. And that accurate history tells us that the Biblical authors were eyewitnesses to most of the history they record. So, the times indicated by their place in history tells us their prophecies were given far before their fulfillment. This sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer that our children who are in school and many of them facing tests. Most of us have put such tests far behind us but it always appropriate for us to help the next generation as they walk the path behind us. It is also appropriate for us to ensure that just as we care about their formal education we also take care to pass along our faith in our Lord Christ Jesus. ---- PRAYER FOR TAKING A TEST (RANNI) VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New International Version) Jeremiah, Chapter 39, verses 1 through 3, New International Version New archaeological find affirms Old Testament historicity (creation.com)
Please join me as we read about Esau and Jacob!!
In Episode 126 of Theology In Particular, Dr. James Renihan joins me to discuss different approaches to Bible reading. This is the first of three episodes on this subject. In this first episode we talk about the importance of reading the Bible chronologically, or redemptive historically. Links: International Reformed Baptist Seminary: irbsseminary.org If you have feedback, questions, or suggestions, please email Joe at: tip@irbsseminary.org Recommended Resources: Bible Reading Plans For 2024 from Ligonier Ministries
In this new year, trust and obey him. Keep walking in the light of God's Word because it's the best and only way to be happy in Jesus throughout the year. -------- Thank you for listening! Your support of Joni and Friends helps make this show possible. Joni and Friends envisions a world where every person with a disability finds hope, dignity, and their place in the body of Christ. Become part of the global movement today at www.joniandfriends.org. Find more encouragement on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube.
In Living in Houses: A Personal History of English Domestic Architecture (Lund Humphries, 2022), Dr. Ruth Dalton presents a rich and rewarding history of houses in England through the stories of nine houses, dating from the 1600s to the 1980s, which have been inhabited by the author, an architect and academic. Chronologically ordered, the book covers rural vernacular houses from the 17th Century, Georgian and Victorian townhouses, villas and converted industrial buildings, Edwardian semis and 20th-century council housing and mixed tenure new developments. Firstly reflecting on the author's own experience of the house, each chapter then examines its historical context, before making a detailed analysis of the buildings design and layout, usefully illustrated with architectural drawings. Each chapter concludes with a useful discussion of lessons learnt from each house/historic period and compares them with contemporary houses which use similar materials, construction techniques or ideas. It not only details the evolution of the design and construction of houses through the centuries, but also includes concise but highly informative sections on the history of various types of construction and materiality, such as brickmaking and timber and steel frame; sections on conversion and adaptive reuse and what works and what doesn't; the evolution of styles; housing density; ownership; and the three broad waves of council/social housing etc. On reflecting on her own experiences, the author provides useful insights into how we relate to our homes, how they shape and affect us and the value and meaning of the home. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In Living in Houses: A Personal History of English Domestic Architecture (Lund Humphries, 2022), Dr. Ruth Dalton presents a rich and rewarding history of houses in England through the stories of nine houses, dating from the 1600s to the 1980s, which have been inhabited by the author, an architect and academic. Chronologically ordered, the book covers rural vernacular houses from the 17th Century, Georgian and Victorian townhouses, villas and converted industrial buildings, Edwardian semis and 20th-century council housing and mixed tenure new developments. Firstly reflecting on the author's own experience of the house, each chapter then examines its historical context, before making a detailed analysis of the buildings design and layout, usefully illustrated with architectural drawings. Each chapter concludes with a useful discussion of lessons learnt from each house/historic period and compares them with contemporary houses which use similar materials, construction techniques or ideas. It not only details the evolution of the design and construction of houses through the centuries, but also includes concise but highly informative sections on the history of various types of construction and materiality, such as brickmaking and timber and steel frame; sections on conversion and adaptive reuse and what works and what doesn't; the evolution of styles; housing density; ownership; and the three broad waves of council/social housing etc. On reflecting on her own experiences, the author provides useful insights into how we relate to our homes, how they shape and affect us and the value and meaning of the home. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
In Living in Houses: A Personal History of English Domestic Architecture (Lund Humphries, 2022), Dr. Ruth Dalton presents a rich and rewarding history of houses in England through the stories of nine houses, dating from the 1600s to the 1980s, which have been inhabited by the author, an architect and academic. Chronologically ordered, the book covers rural vernacular houses from the 17th Century, Georgian and Victorian townhouses, villas and converted industrial buildings, Edwardian semis and 20th-century council housing and mixed tenure new developments. Firstly reflecting on the author's own experience of the house, each chapter then examines its historical context, before making a detailed analysis of the buildings design and layout, usefully illustrated with architectural drawings. Each chapter concludes with a useful discussion of lessons learnt from each house/historic period and compares them with contemporary houses which use similar materials, construction techniques or ideas. It not only details the evolution of the design and construction of houses through the centuries, but also includes concise but highly informative sections on the history of various types of construction and materiality, such as brickmaking and timber and steel frame; sections on conversion and adaptive reuse and what works and what doesn't; the evolution of styles; housing density; ownership; and the three broad waves of council/social housing etc. On reflecting on her own experiences, the author provides useful insights into how we relate to our homes, how they shape and affect us and the value and meaning of the home. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/architecture
In Living in Houses: A Personal History of English Domestic Architecture (Lund Humphries, 2022), Dr. Ruth Dalton presents a rich and rewarding history of houses in England through the stories of nine houses, dating from the 1600s to the 1980s, which have been inhabited by the author, an architect and academic. Chronologically ordered, the book covers rural vernacular houses from the 17th Century, Georgian and Victorian townhouses, villas and converted industrial buildings, Edwardian semis and 20th-century council housing and mixed tenure new developments. Firstly reflecting on the author's own experience of the house, each chapter then examines its historical context, before making a detailed analysis of the buildings design and layout, usefully illustrated with architectural drawings. Each chapter concludes with a useful discussion of lessons learnt from each house/historic period and compares them with contemporary houses which use similar materials, construction techniques or ideas. It not only details the evolution of the design and construction of houses through the centuries, but also includes concise but highly informative sections on the history of various types of construction and materiality, such as brickmaking and timber and steel frame; sections on conversion and adaptive reuse and what works and what doesn't; the evolution of styles; housing density; ownership; and the three broad waves of council/social housing etc. On reflecting on her own experiences, the author provides useful insights into how we relate to our homes, how they shape and affect us and the value and meaning of the home. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies
In Living in Houses: A Personal History of English Domestic Architecture (Lund Humphries, 2022), Dr. Ruth Dalton presents a rich and rewarding history of houses in England through the stories of nine houses, dating from the 1600s to the 1980s, which have been inhabited by the author, an architect and academic. Chronologically ordered, the book covers rural vernacular houses from the 17th Century, Georgian and Victorian townhouses, villas and converted industrial buildings, Edwardian semis and 20th-century council housing and mixed tenure new developments. Firstly reflecting on the author's own experience of the house, each chapter then examines its historical context, before making a detailed analysis of the buildings design and layout, usefully illustrated with architectural drawings. Each chapter concludes with a useful discussion of lessons learnt from each house/historic period and compares them with contemporary houses which use similar materials, construction techniques or ideas. It not only details the evolution of the design and construction of houses through the centuries, but also includes concise but highly informative sections on the history of various types of construction and materiality, such as brickmaking and timber and steel frame; sections on conversion and adaptive reuse and what works and what doesn't; the evolution of styles; housing density; ownership; and the three broad waves of council/social housing etc. On reflecting on her own experiences, the author provides useful insights into how we relate to our homes, how they shape and affect us and the value and meaning of the home. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society
In Living in Houses: A Personal History of English Domestic Architecture (Lund Humphries, 2022), Dr. Ruth Dalton presents a rich and rewarding history of houses in England through the stories of nine houses, dating from the 1600s to the 1980s, which have been inhabited by the author, an architect and academic. Chronologically ordered, the book covers rural vernacular houses from the 17th Century, Georgian and Victorian townhouses, villas and converted industrial buildings, Edwardian semis and 20th-century council housing and mixed tenure new developments. Firstly reflecting on the author's own experience of the house, each chapter then examines its historical context, before making a detailed analysis of the buildings design and layout, usefully illustrated with architectural drawings. Each chapter concludes with a useful discussion of lessons learnt from each house/historic period and compares them with contemporary houses which use similar materials, construction techniques or ideas. It not only details the evolution of the design and construction of houses through the centuries, but also includes concise but highly informative sections on the history of various types of construction and materiality, such as brickmaking and timber and steel frame; sections on conversion and adaptive reuse and what works and what doesn't; the evolution of styles; housing density; ownership; and the three broad waves of council/social housing etc. On reflecting on her own experiences, the author provides useful insights into how we relate to our homes, how they shape and affect us and the value and meaning of the home. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In Living in Houses: A Personal History of English Domestic Architecture (Lund Humphries, 2022), Dr. Ruth Dalton presents a rich and rewarding history of houses in England through the stories of nine houses, dating from the 1600s to the 1980s, which have been inhabited by the author, an architect and academic. Chronologically ordered, the book covers rural vernacular houses from the 17th Century, Georgian and Victorian townhouses, villas and converted industrial buildings, Edwardian semis and 20th-century council housing and mixed tenure new developments. Firstly reflecting on the author's own experience of the house, each chapter then examines its historical context, before making a detailed analysis of the buildings design and layout, usefully illustrated with architectural drawings. Each chapter concludes with a useful discussion of lessons learnt from each house/historic period and compares them with contemporary houses which use similar materials, construction techniques or ideas. It not only details the evolution of the design and construction of houses through the centuries, but also includes concise but highly informative sections on the history of various types of construction and materiality, such as brickmaking and timber and steel frame; sections on conversion and adaptive reuse and what works and what doesn't; the evolution of styles; housing density; ownership; and the three broad waves of council/social housing etc. On reflecting on her own experiences, the author provides useful insights into how we relate to our homes, how they shape and affect us and the value and meaning of the home. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose forthcoming book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies
Christ, son of David and the Son of God is the meticulous, precise Bible interpreter and also the meticulous, precise Savior. - SERMON TRANSCRIPT - I. A Precise God Speaks a Precise Word Turn in your Bibles to Mark 12. We're looking this morning at verses 35-37. Anyone who knows me knows I have an esteem for church history. I love church history. One of my favorite people to study are the Puritans who were English Christians in the 16th, 17th century. They were remarkable people who accomplished far more than most ever do because they knew the God they believed in, and they sought to orchestrate every aspect of their lives in conformity with what they read in Scripture. They were meticulous and precise in the way that they lived. They were precise in their doctrine, very careful in their doctrine. They were precise in their public worship. They were precise in their Sabbath observances, in their family lives, in their private prayers, in their secular employments, in their politics. They tied everything to the perfect truths they saw in the Word of God. One Puritan pastor, Richard Rogers, ministered in Essex and was told by a wealthy nobleman in his parish, "Mr. Rogers, I like you and your company, your group very well, but I find that you are too precise." Rogers replied, "Oh, sir, I serve a precise God.” We serve a precise God, and evidence of the precision of God surrounds us every moment in the universe that we live in. We see in His meticulous, in His careful creation, evidence of His precision. Advances in science over recent centuries have shown how just precise the universe really is. I was reading a book recently by Eric Metaxas called Is Atheism Dead? He argues that recent advances in science have made atheism more and more unreasonable. In it, Metaxas talks about arch-atheist evolutionist and enemy of the gospel, Richard Dawkins, who is relentless in his hatred of Christianity. He goes all over the world to ridicule and to debunk Christianity, but in an unguarded moment was asked, "Of all of the arguments for the existence of God, which do you find most difficult to overcome?" He said, "That's easy. The evidence of a finely tuned universe, that the universe has physical constants that are so precise, if they deviated even a tiny, tiny amount, life would be impossible. Actually, existence would be impossible, and there's a stacking up of these that makes it difficult to refute the evidence of a precise God who made them all." Classic example of this is what's called the “Goldilocks” planet that we live on. You remember the story of Goldilocks and the three bears, how this wanderer comes into a cabin and finds some porridge, and the first bowl is too hot and the second bowl is too cold, the third bowl is just right. The same thing happens with the chair and with the bed and all that. Earth is like that, it’s the Goldilocks planet. The distance from the sun, Venus is too close, so it's too hot, Mars is too far, so it's too cold. The earth is just right. Also the gravitational force of the earth, the power of gravity is just right to retain the gases in the atmosphere necessary for life. The atmosphere itself is just right. When it comes to oxygen, 21% of the air you breathe is oxygen, 78% is nitrogen. If there were more oxygen, things would be igniting all the time around us, burning, combusting. If they were too little, we would have trouble staying alive. So it is with water. Water is weird. I know we're used to it, but it's just a weird substance. It's got some amazing attributes. For example, simply the fact that the solid form of it floats in the liquid form, ice floats. Because of that, then ice floats to the top in lakes and ponds and rivers and doesn't descend to the bottom where the sunlight could never reach it. And eventually, it would quench out life because of an ice age. So it is with the genetic code of every cell in your body, the DNA, the string of proteins. They are so meticulous and precise that if anything were deviated at all, life would be impossible. These are examples of a precise God and His precision in creations around us all the time. This precise God also had a precise plan for human history and for our existence. All the days ordained for each one of us were written in God's book before one of them came to be. That's true not just of us individually, but it's true of the entire flow of human history. God ordained a precise sequence of nations and empires, kingdoms and smaller nations to rise and fall in exactly the way He ordained. In Acts 17:26, it says, "From one man, He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth." He determined the time set for them in the exact places where they should live. That's a precise God orchestrating all of human history. "This precise God also had a precise plan for human history and for our existence. All the days ordained for each one of us were written in God's book before one of them came to be. That's true not just of us individually, but it's true of the entire flow of human history." At the center of that precise plan by this precise God was a plan for the salvation of sinners like you and me from every tribe and language and people and nation. Peter in preaching on his great Pentecost sermon said this in Acts 2:23, "This Jesus was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. And this one you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." That's a precise plan concerning Jesus, that He would be born, as Galatians tells us, in the fullness of time at just the right time in history, and according to this plan, He was killed. This precise plan was predicted in a precise book. This is the precise book, the Bible, and in it is a set of precise prophecies meticulously laid out in the Hebrew language, in Hebrew letters in the Old Testament. This morning we're going to see the precise son of God, Jesus making a surprising observation and drawing a stunning conclusion from one verse in scripture, a psalm, actually based on one word in that psalm actually based on one letter, the ending letter of that one word. Everything comes down to that one letter. That's the precision of Jesus and the argument He's going to make today. Jesus spoke about the precision of scripture and His esteem for it in the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew 5:17 and 1, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a pen stroke will pass from the law until all is accomplished." KJV has “jot and tittle”. But it's just an iota, which is a Greek letter. But Jesus was actually referring, I believe, to the Hebrew letter, the yod. You can see in Psalm 119 the shape and some of the English translation, the shape of the various letters. It's hard to see the relative size, but the yod is the smallest Hebrew letter. It looks like an apostrophe, like the apostrophe as like the possessive that we use, apostrophe. It's like a little apostrophe. It's pronounced ye, like a Y sound. That's what a yod is. The pen stroke refers to the way that the letters are shaped, like the finishing of a letter, what some printers will call a serif. On the end of a letter, it gives a shape of a letter. Jesus is saying, "Until heaven and earth pass away, not a single yod will disappear and not a single pen stroke will disappear from the law until everything that God ordained in the scriptures is fulfilled." Actually, He said that His own words would outlast heaven and earth. "Heaven and earth will pass away. My words will never pass away." This meticulous Scripture gave rise to a very meticulous Jewish culture. The Jews were very precise over the written word of God. They knew that there were 613 commands in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 613 commands. They knew that 248 of them were positive and 365 were negative. Doesn't it make you wonder what they did with their time? They're there walking through and categorizing that, that’s what they did. The Scribes also counted letters in each of the books that they copied. They meticulously counted the letters. They knew the middle letter of each book and they knew, indeed, the middle letter of the Pentateuch. I bet you're wondering what it is. It's a vav, which is a W in the Hebrew word for belly in Leviticus 11:42. That's the middle Hebrew letter, and they would count forward and count back, and if they didn't arrive at that vav, they knew something was wrong somewhere. That was the precision. Jesus applies this kind of meticulous precision to prophecy in Psalm 110. In Psalm 110 in verse 1, His entire argument comes down to a single letter in the Hebrew. Actually, it is the letter yod, the one I mentioned earlier, the little ye sound, the little apostrophe. With that closing letter in the way the Hebrew words are formed, the word adon, which means Lord, is turned, possessive, adoni, my Lord. The whole thing comes down to that. How is it that David, writing that, called Messiah, His son, my Lord? It all comes down to one letter. That's the precision here. What is the goal? What is Jesus' goal? The goal is the same goal that there is in Scripture. He's not trying to ensnare or trap people or prove His intelligence or His meticulous nature; none of the above. He wants to save sinners. It's salvation; that's His goal. For that is the purpose of scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15 says, “The holy scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.” II. The Central Question: Who Is Jesus? The whole thing comes down to the identity of Jesus. Who is Jesus? That is the focal point of this conversation. Jesus brings it up. It is the final week of Jesus' life. It is the Wednesday of Holy Week. Jesus' enemies are coming at Him in waves trying to trip Him up. They want to condemn Him to death. They're coming at Him concerning His sense of His own identity. That is essential also to our own salvation. All four Gospels, I believe, are written for the same purpose as the Gospel of John. John 20:31 says, "These are written." You can put that on all four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," or perhaps God the Son, "and that by believing that, you may have life," that is eternal life, "in His name." It all comes down to the identity of Jesus. Jesus' enemies are openly challenging Him concerning His identity and His authority. Back in the previous chapter, Mark 11:27, 28, while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priest, the teachers of the law, the elders came to Him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?" They're asking Him His authority to cleanse the temple or to teach. Who do you think you are? This brings us right to Jewish conceptions of the Messiah, the Christ. Throughout history in Jesus' day, even up to our own time, Jewish people have conceived of the Messiah as purely human and only human. He would be a ruler, powerful, mighty in battle, able to defeat Israel, Gentile foes and conquer their lands, bringing in a worldwide Jewish empire of immense power and worldly wealth. That was what He would be. Then, having conquered all the Gentile foes of Israel, He would sit on a throne in righteousness and justice in Jerusalem and rule to the ends of the earth. But it was purely a human conception. He would be militarily powerful and He would bring in worldly wealth to the Jewish nation. Mighty, yes, powerful in battle, absolutely, wise in rulership, of course, but human only. Their fundamental answer, which they give in the text, and we'll walk through that in a moment, is the Christ, the Messiah, is the son of David, which in their mind basically meant another David. What David was, that's what the son of David will be. Maybe better, maybe more powerful, maybe wiser, but still just a human king. That's all. That's how they conceived of it, another David. Certainly not a savior of souls before a wrath-filled holy judge. They didn't think they needed that. As the book of Roman says, they sought to establish their own righteousness by the law. They didn't think they needed any help. They didn't conceive of the Christ, the Messiah being a savior from sin. They didn't think they needed it. They certainly didn't conceive of the Jewish Messiah being a savior for Gentiles so that there would be, in the end, one new people, Jew and Gentile together in one beautiful, worldwide kingdom. They didn't conceive of any of that. The Jewish leaders are there, and they hate Jesus. They're opposed to Him. They're fighting Him. The Scribes, Pharisees, elders, chief priests, teachers of the law, they all banded together in overt hatred of Jesus. Why is that? Jesus had assaulted their concept of religion, He had assaulted their conception of their own righteousness, He openly challenged their interpretations of the laws of Moses, especially on Sabbath regulations He exposed their hypocrisy. He called them lost. He called them blind leading the blind. He said their righteousness was like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but inside full of corruption, so they hated Him with a passion. Furthermore, He had openly exposed their financial greed, how the whole religious system that they ran there at the temple made them a den of thieves. They were jealous of His popularity with the crowds. The crowds were wildly in love with Jesus, and they were jealous of that, so they hated Him. They especially despised His claims to be divine. He said, "Before Abraham was born, I am." They picked up stones to stone Him. When they're questioning Him healing on the Sabbath, Jesus said, "My Father is always working to this very day, and I too am working." They hated Him all the more because He made Himself equal with God, claiming to be God. They considered His claims to be God to be open blasphemy, and they wanted to kill Him. They come on this final week of His life, the Wednesday of Holy Week, with a series of questions, one after the other, wave upon wave. The Pharisees banded together with the Herodians to ask their most devious and dangerous question about taxation. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? They figured they had Him either way. If He said, "No, we shouldn't pay taxes to Caesar," then Caesar will hear of it and, through Pontius Pilate, put Him to death. But if He says we should pay taxes, then they will look on Him as a collaborator, like a tax collector, and they'll hate Him. He'll lose the patriotic Jews. They figure they have Him either way. But Jesus, with His supernatural wisdom and knowledge, gave an answer they couldn't deal with, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God’s. Then the Sadducees banded together, they who deny the resurrection. They come with that ridiculous test case about seven brothers married to one woman, et cetera, and thus proving they thought by the law of Moses that resurrection is impossible. Jesus exposed their error. You're in error because you don't know the Scriptures or the power of God, and proved the resurrection. Then some other Pharisees get together to ask them which law or which commandment is the greatest? The problem was the one they chose you ask actually wanted to know the answer. He actually yearned to know the truth. They have a much more favorable exchange in Mark's Gospel than you see in the other Gospels. Jesus told the man, "You're not far from the kingdom of God,” because the man genuinely wanted to know the answer and wanted to live it out. But now the time has come for Jesus to turn the tables. "You're asking me a series of questions. I have a question for you." He brings up this question. He's not doing it to try to trap them, He's not doing it to try to trick them or to show His superiority, He wants to save them, He came to seek and to save the lost. God has no pleasure in damning souls to hell. Ezekiel says very plainly in Ezekiel 18:23, “'Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?’ declares the sovereign Lord, ‘Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?’" That is the spirit of Jesus. "I don't enjoy condemning people to hell. I would love for you to turn from your wicked ways and live and find salvation." That's His motive. This is exactly why that same week He wept over Jerusalem, as depicted in Luke 19, “As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He wept over it and said, ‘If even you had only known on this day what would bring you peace, but now it is hidden from your eyes.’" Jesus is giving all of them one last invitation to believe in Him as He really is. III. Jesus Makes His Case From Scripture: Psalm 110 So He makes His case from the Scriptures, constantly pointing to scripture as its proof of His identity and His mission. In this case, it's Psalm 110. If we combine Matthew's account from Mark's, we get the whole flow. There's a little more detail in Matthew, so I'll be leaning on both, but you could just listen or follow along in Mark. In Matthew, Jesus raises the question. Matthew 22:41, 42, “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, ‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He?’" They, in Matthew's account, give the answer, an easy answer. “‘Son of David,’ they replied.” That's how it begins in Matthew. In Mark, it reads this way, “While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, He asked them, ‘How is it that the teachers of the law say that Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’ David himself calls Him Lord. How then can He be his son?” That's the whole account in Mark. You get the reactions a little different in Matthew than in Mark. In Matthew 22: 46, it says,"No one could say a word in reply. And from that day on, no one dared to ask any more questions." He's silenced his enemies in Matthew 22:46. They don't know what to say. It's extremely significant that these Jewish experts in the law didn't have an answer to Jesus' question, therefore there isn't one other than the right one. Over the centuries, the Jews have had a chance to look at this question and answer it. There is no answer other than that which points directly to the deity of Christ. But unfortunately, as Paul talked about in Corinthians, the veil covers their faces when they read these scriptures and they can't see the truth, but there's no answer. They have no answer. Mark focuses on the delight of the crowd. Look at verse 37, “The large crowd listened to him with delight.” They're like, "Wow. I never saw that before." Can I just tell you in general, the Bible says more than you think it does. I'm going to give you just a principle for the rest of your life. There's more in the Bible than you think there is, so just keep studying it. There's always more to learn.They were amazed. They're like, man, "I never saw that. I've been reading Psalm 110 my whole life, and I never asked that question." What's going on? Jesus raises a question. Does Jesus answer the issue? No, He doesn't. He raises the question. How can David, speaking by the Spirit, call his own son his Lord? We're putting it simply. How can David's son be David's Lord? Do you have an answer? What's going on there? This is what Greg Koukl would call in his book, Tactics, putting a rock in someone's shoe. What does that mean? Ask them a question they can't answer. Something that jars them, something that keeps them up at night. If you were to die tonight and you were to stand before God and He were to ask, "Why should I let you into heaven?" What would you say? That's the Evangelism Explosion question. That's a rock in someone's shoe. Are you ready to die? Sometimes we feel like as evangelists, we need to kind of clinch the deal. We need to seal the deal. Sometimes all you need to do is put a rock in someone's shoe. In this case, it's this question, how can David's son be David's Lord? The Jews obviously were partially right. The Messiah, the Christ is the son of David. If you go back to, 2 Samuel 7, David has a desire to build a temple for God. He thought the Tabernacle's temporary tent wasn’t sufficent, it was time to build a temple. He wants to build one. Nathan, the prophet, comes with the word of God saying, "You are not the one to build the house for me. But a son coming from your own body will build a house for me." 2 Samuel 7, 12-14, "When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body. And I will establish His kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my name. And I will establish a throne of His kingdom forever. I will be His father and He will be my son." It's called the Davidic Covenant. We know the immediate fulfillment is David's biological son, Solomon, who built the actual physical temple. But we know that the words go bigger than this because the real, final, permanent temple of God in which God dwells by His Spirit is the church of the living God that He builds with living stones through evangelism missions. Jesus is the one who's going to build the eternal and final dwelling place for God. We know that there’s immediate fulfillment and long-term fulfillment. But there is this Son of David theme right from 2 Samuel 7. It just continues on throughout many, many passages in the Old Testament, picking up on this. For example, Psalm 89, 3-4, "You said, I have made a covenant with my chosen one. I have sworn to David, my servant. I will establish your line forever, and I'll make your throne firm throughout all generations." Or probably the most famous, the most well-known is Isaiah 9: 6-7, "For to us, a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on His shoulders. And He will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace, there will be no end." Listen. "He will reign on David's throne and over His kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness. From that time on and forever, the zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this." Isaiah 9 is a powerful prediction of an eternal kingdom of David. In Jeremiah 23: 5-6, “'The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will raise up to David a righteous branch, a king who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.'" This is centuries after David had died, but, "I'm going to raise up to David a branch, a king who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.” “In his days, Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which He will be called the Lord, our righteousness." That's so beautiful, the Lord is our righteousness. That's His name. That's a gospel. Jesus is our righteousness, Jeremiah 23. Or again, Ezekiel 37: 24-26, "My servant, David, will be king over them. And they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant, Jacob, the land where your father's lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David, my servant, will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers and I'll put my sanctuary among them forever." Again, this is centuries after David had died. It means the Son of David will reign on a throne in David's name forever. They weren't wrong. The Gospels prove it as well. The very first fact told us in the New Testament, it's the simplest, shortest genealogy. If you have a desire to memorize a genealogy, may I commend Matthew 1:1, it’s a very good abbreviated genealogy. "The record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." My friends, that's the first fact the New Testament tells us about Jesus. He is, in fact, the Son of David. Then Matthew gives a comprehensive genealogy to prove that Jesus was biologically descended from David through Joseph, His earthly father, Joseph. Luke has a different genealogy, but again, most scholars believe that's Mary's genealogy, also a descendant through David. Again and again in the Gospel, Jesus is called Son of David. He doesn't reject it, He accepts it like the two blind men in Matthew 9:27, “As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, calling out, ‘Have mercy on a son of David.’" Or that Canaanite woman, she cried out, "Lord, son of David, have mercy on me. My daughter is suffering terribly from demon possession,” son of David. Blind Bartimaeus, Mark 10:47, when he heard it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me." Even just recently, at his the triumphal entry, they're all shouting, "Blessed is the one who comes in David's name. Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father, David, Hosanna and the highest." David, David. David, and He accepts it. He is, in fact, the son of David. The Messiah, the Christ, was truly the son of David. IV. What You Must Believe To Be Saved But friends, this is the point. That's inadequate, that’s not enough. You have to think greater thoughts than that to be saved. First of all, over the centuries, David had lots of descendants. There were lots of descendants of David. Joseph was called by the angel, son of David. Joseph isn't our savior, but he is a son of David, and the angel calls Him, son of David. That's not enough. Jesus wants to expand your conception of Himself. If I can just tell you, I believe that will go on for all eternity. Your conception of Jesus will keep growing and growing and growing and growing forever and ever. Jesus will never run out of new ways to show you His glory. But He's pushing at us now by the Scripture and by the Spirit to expand your conception of the greatness of Christ. All of us underestimate Jesus, so He's going to Psalm 110 to reason. He wants to challenge them, He wants to push at them. Let's look at His key exegetical assumptions, the keys to Jesus' argument, and let's walk through it. Key number one is the Davidic authorship of Psalm 110, it’s key to everything. If David didn't write Psalm 110, we're finished. But Jesus asserts it. "How is it then that David, speaking by the spirit, calls him Lord? For he says, "The Lord says to my Lord, if then David calls Him Lord, how can He be His son?"" This is the key to the argument. David wrote Psalm 110. If David did not write Psalm 110, the whole argument falls apart. If Psalm 110 was written some centuries later by some pious Jews, there would be no problem with those pious Jews writing about the Messiah being called “my Lord”. It's no problem. The author of that psalm would have no problem, and it's not an issue. But if it's David, now we have an issue here. Jesus clearly asserted that David was the author of the Psalm, and therefore he wrote the words, “my Lord.” Key number two, David wrote the Psalm under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is key to everything we do here at First Baptist Durham, the inspirational authority of the Bible. We believe every single word in this is written, was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore is free from error. Jesus openly ascribes the statement to the Holy Spirit through David. How is it that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls Him Lord? That guards David when he was writing Psalm 110 from error. He didn't make a mistake. It was really the Spirit that wanted him to say, "My Lord.” The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a stool for your feet." Assumption number three, the fact that Psalm 110 was Messianic, that it's talking about the Christ, the Messiah. Jesus asked, "What do you think about the Christ, the Messiah? Whose son is He?" The one you're all waiting for, the expectant savior that's going to come, the Davidic son. What do you think about it? We're talking about the Christ. How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls Him the Christ Lord, and then they quote Psalm 110? The Jews didn't stop them there and say, "Oh, whoa, wait. That's not even talking about the Christ." They knew it was. It was a messianic psalm. If so, the psalm itself doesn't make much sense. Who's he talking about? “The Lord said to my Lord” what? "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." If that's not the Messiah, then there's some other great personage that we would want to know about. Who are we talking about here? A couple of verses later, the Lord has sworn and will not change His mind. "You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”. The author to Hebrews just works on that for a whole chapter. Who are we talking about? If that's not the Christ, who is it? Someone who sits at the right hand of God whose enemies God crushes, and he is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Who is this? It's Messianic. This is the Messiah. That's key to the argument. Assumption number four, the fact that under the laws of Moses, a son is never greater than his father, especially when it comes to kings and princes. In the 10 commandments, sons are commanded to honor their fathers. Furthermore, a king sitting on a throne, his son, we would call in English a prince. Is there a difference between being the king and being a prince? There's a big difference. Suppose the prince wants to be king. We'll read about it with the rebellion of Absalom. He has to kill his father to do it. Even when at the end of David's life Adonijah wants to usurp and grab, and he makes Solomon his heir, David's not going to be calling Solomon “my Lord.” That isn't happening. Actually, it's the other way around. They say, "My Lord," to him even though he is on his deathbed. Then interesting, like you're all supposed to say to a king, "Oh king, live forever." If you want to be King Solomon, you're hoping that doesn't happen. But at any rate, the fact is you're never going to have the father calling the son, “my Lord.” They knew that. That's the final assumption David calls him “my Lord.” That's the little squiggle, the little yod after the word adon, adoni, “My Lord.” It all comes down to that one pen stroke. If then David calls Him Lord, how can He be His son? That's an interesting question. How can David's biological son be also David's eternal Lord? There's only one answer to that, and that is the mystery, the Christian mystery of the incarnation; that Jesus is both fully human and fully God. Like John the Baptist, David himself could say, "He who comes after me is greater than me because he preceded me." David's son preceded Him. Jesus is, therefore, unique of all human beings that ever lived in that He chose to enter the world, He chose to be born. He told Pontius Pilate that, "For this reason, I was born. And for this, I entered the world to testify to the truth.” Like John the Baptist said, "He who comes after me is greater than me because He was before me." Chronologically, He was born after me, Jesus was born after John the Baptist, six months after, but He preceded him. John knew that because He's a son of God, He's incarnate. He existed before He was human. This is an infinite mystery, the incarnation. 1 Timothy 3:16 says this, "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great. He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the spirit, was seen by angels, was preached on among the nations, was believed on in the world and was taken up in glory." But look at what in the verse almighty God invites David's son to do. "The Lord said to my Lord..." What did he say? "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." This is quoted eight times in the New Testament. That's how significant this verse is, “Sit at my right hand.” Jesus is exalted. After His death on the cross and after His resurrection, He passed through the atmosphere, He passed through the sky, He passed through the heavenly realms until at last Ephesians 1 tells us He was seated at God's right hand, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and given every title that can be given, not only in the present age, but also in the one to come. God placed all things under His feet and appointed Him to be head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way. That's what “sit at my right hand” means. That's what He's invited to do. David's son, His biological son, is invited by Almighty God to share His glory and His sovereign throne. It's also a threat, isn't it? Don't be one of Jesus' enemies because the verse says, "God says to Jesus, ‘You sit at my right hand and I will crush your enemies.’" If you are Jesus' enemy," the text says, "God is going to destroy you." Psalm 2 makes that plain. If you fight against the Lord and His Messiah, He will destroy you. God will put His sovereign power against you. He'll make all of His enemies a footstool for your feet. This is the most sublime and infinitely complex mystery of Christian theology. Jesus is fully God and fully man, biologically descended from David but Almighty God in the flesh. And before Him, every knee will bow, every tongue will swear that Jesus is Lord, that means God, to the glory of God, the Father. That includes David right now, who I believe is absent from the body and present with the Lord. What do you think he's doing up there? Is he not on his face worshiping his greater son, worshiping the glory of Jesus? That's what's going on. Jesus is the radiance of God's glory. He is the exact representation of His essential being. Anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father. In his death, all the attributes, the perfections of God were put on display for all eternity. The justice of God, the love of God, the power of God, the wisdom of God, these attributes are on display in the death of Jesus. That's who Jesus is. If you believe in him, someday you will see His glory with your own eyes. You will see Him face-to-face. You will see Him exalted and radiant and glorious. And you, yourself, will share in His glory because you will shine like the sun in the kingdom of your Father. Yes, son of David, but He's infinitely more than that, He is the son of God. "This is the most sublime and infinitely complex mystery of Christian theology. Jesus is fully God and fully man, biologically descended from David but Almighty God in the flesh." You have to believe this. You have to believe this to be saved. If you confess with your mouth- what? -Jesus is Lord. What does that mean? It means Jesus is God. That's what it means. And believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Or if you can make Thomas' confession. Thomas said very plainly when he saw the evidence of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, "My Lord and my God." That's what David means under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. "The Lord said to my Lord and my God, sit at my right hand." That's what he's saying. Can you make that confession? Can you look at the incarnate Jesus, read about him in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, look at that personage and say to Him from your heart, "My Lord and my God." If you can do that, you'll be saved. Your sins will be forgiven. V. Applications I began talking about a precise God, meticulous God. The God who made this universe and all the physical constants and all that. That's interesting to some people, to other people not because they’re not into science. I get it. But know this: This precise God, someday you're going to stand before Him and give an account for your life. You're going to be assembled together with all the nations and you're going to give an account for everything you've ever done in the body. It says in Revelation 20:12, "I saw the dead great and small standing before the throne and books were open. Another book was open, which is the Book of Life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. And Jesus himself said, ‘I tell you, you'll have to give an account in the day of judgment for every careless word you have spoken.’" That's the precise God you're going to stand in front of. I remember I was sharing the gospel with a coworker once, and I quoted that verse talking about Judgment Day. He said, "I don't remember everything I've said." I said, "That's fine. God's written it down, He remembers." And his eyes got big. That is the precise God that we serve. He remembers everything you've ever done, and you have to give Him an account. No one can survive that without Jesus. It's impossible to survive Judgment Day without faith in Jesus Christ. Imagine on the other hand what it's like to have Jesus own you as one of His own and say, "My righteousness is her righteousness, his righteousness. My name is around him or her. This is one of my sheep. I'm extending. Welcome to this person. Come into the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world by your Father." That's what you need. This is a tender warning. "Sit at my right hand," the text says, "until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." Don't be Jesus' enemy. Flee to Christ, and He will be not just your friend but your brother, He will be the lover of your soul, He will be your Lord and your God. We have opportunity to witness this week. I would suggest find someone and put a rock in their shoe. Ask them a question that they can't shake. I was on an airplane, and woe to people who sit next to Andy Davis on an airplane. Who knows where that conversation's going to go? But I remember we had reached a certain point and I felt like there was nothing more I needed to do in the conversation. The person wasn't ready to come to Christ. I actually said this to this person, who's a businessman. I said, "I'm going to pray that tonight you'll be unable to sleep because of the things we've talked about." And I think that's good. Sometimes all God wants you to do is put a question in someone's mind that they can't shake that they need to think about. Close with me in prayer. Father, we thank you for the opportunity we've had today to study your word, to walk through Jesus' incredible question that He asked His enemies. Lord, I pray that we would not be your enemies, I pray, I thank you that in Christ we are adopted, we are loved. We're part of your bride. We are delighted. But we know that we don't deserve any of those things; it's only by your grace. Father, this week as we assemble with family and friends, as we have the chance to be together, help us, oh Lord, to just give thanks to you, knowing that we don't deserve any of the blessings we have, but ultimately to give thanks for Jesus, our savior of whom we can say by the working of the spirit in our hearts, my Lord and my God. In your name we pray. Amen.
The Pen (القلم, al-qalam) is the sixty-eighth chapter of the Qur'an with 52 verses Quran:68 describes God's justice and the judgment day. Three notable themes of this Surah are its response to the opponents' objections, warning and admonition to the disbelievers, and exhortation of patience to the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[1] Chronologically, this was the first appearance of any of the "disjointed" [i.e., single] letters (muqattaat) which precede a number of the surahs of the Qur'an,[2] while in Quranic order this is the last surah to have the appearance of muqattaat.[3] Summary 1-8 Muhammad not a madman nor an impostor 9-16 Invective against a prominent enemy of Islam 17-34 The example of certain gardeners a warning to the Makkans 35-47 Unbelievers warned of coming judgment48-50 Muhammad exhorted not to be impatient, like Jonah51-52 Extreme hatred of the Quraish towards Muhammad and the Quran exposed
On today's episode we share part 1 of a radio program episode our hosts had the opportunity to record with Bro Aaron Roberts. On this episode they discuss the prophecies in Revelations and events that have been occurring in our world today. Where do we stand? Are we in the end? Chronologically, where do we stand in prophecy? Join us today as we try to make every moment count. *****Please be aware that the views shared in this Podcast are strictly thoughts and open discussion and are not being shared as facts or doctrine. These are also not the views of any particular church, denomination or religion.
Scripture Reading (for the next three weeks): Genesis 1:1-3:24 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”27 God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard'?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.'” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”14 The Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this,cursed are you above all the cattleand all the living creatures of the field!On your belly you will crawland dust you will eat all the days of your life.15 And I will put hostility between you and the womanand between your offspring and her offspring;he will strike your head,and you will strike his heel.”16 To the woman he said,“I will greatly increase your labor pains;with pain you will give birth to children.You will want to control your husband,but he will dominate you.”17 But to Adam he said,“Because you obeyed your wifeand ate from the tree about which I commanded you,‘You must not eat from it,'the ground is cursed because of you;in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,but you will eat the grain of the field.19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat fooduntil you return to the ground,for out of it you were taken;for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.Introduction to the Bible StudyWelcomeWelcome to “season 2” of the Bible study. The fact that we got through an entire book of the Bible, went on break, and are now starting a new book certainly has that “season” feel to it. I'll use that terminology of seasons, but please know that I do so only tongue-in-cheek. This study is not a show or even a podcast—it is meant to be a group of people getting together to study the Bible in an interactive forum. Sure, “episodes” are published as a podcast for anyone who would like to listen afterward, but my main interest is the community. There is enough Christian content being produced for general audience consumption (which is great!); that is not my goal here. So, if you are a new participant, I am glad you are here. If you are a returning participant, I am glad you are here.I would like to begin this second season with some introductory remarks. Inevitably, some of these comments will sound redundant to returning Bible study veterans, but I hope they will bear with me for just a minute. I think that clarifying the scope of an engagement goes a long way in setting the right expectations, avoiding misunderstandings, and ultimately preventing disappointment and conflict. So, with that in mind:(1) Who I Am. I'm just a guy. I'm a fan of Matt and Blonde's show, and I feel extremely privileged to get to lead this Bible study. Professionally, I am an accountant and an attorney. I also have a degree in math. More importantly, I have been a Christian for a couple of decades. I went from outspoken atheist to committed Christian. Ever since, I have spent much of my time studying the Bible, theology, church history, and so forth. My hope is to think just as rigorously and precisely about my faith and the Bible as I do about matters in my profession.(2) What I Hope to Do. Here are the characteristics and goals of this study:a. Scholarship Based. I honestly attempt to base what I teach in solid scholarship. I read scholarly sources and check their citations. I try to say only what I know to be supported by scholarship and no more. I am sure I will fail at times, but luckily there are many brilliant participants who can set the record straight when I make a mistake.b. Nondenominational. I try to remain “nondenominational.” When different Christian traditions offer different interpretations of a passage, I try to present those options and let the participants decide. I worry that the longer we do this study, the more my theological leanings will become obvious. To the extent that outcome is unavoidable, I will try to remain respectful of other theological bents.c. Christian. I believe the Bible is inspired by God and is reliable. I take the facts presented in it to be true facts. If you are a skeptic, you are still very much welcome in this study. You are also more than welcome to add the word “allegedly” before any claim made in the Bible. Feel free to push back on anything I say. All that notwithstanding, I will present the text of the Bible as true.(3) What I Hope We Do. I teach for about the first 45 minutes of each session, and then it is open to questions and comments. Feel free to say whatever you think is appropriate. I only ask that you wait your turn and respect everyone's time.(4) A Quick Note on Bible Translations. For this study, I will use the NET (New English Translation). It was originally published in 2005; it was composed by a committee of 25 scholars; and, it was meant to be a free online English translation of the Bible. As far as I know, this translation does not have a theological bias (i.e., reformed, Catholic, modern, etc.). I particularly enjoy it because of the thousands of translators' notes that are provided along with the English text. However, feel free to use whichever translation you prefer. If you want my advice on Bible translations, I discussed translations at length during an early episode of season 1. Long story short, ideally do not use a paraphrase like The Message, a “modified” Bible like The Passion (the quote-on-quote translator claimed to receive additional divine revelation that impacted his rendering of the English text), and choose a Bible that you can understand. Different translations use different levels of language (i.e., 8th grade level, college level, etc.). There is no shame in reading at your level. In fact, the NIV uses 8th grade English level, and I really like it. I guess my low I.Q. is showing.Season 2: Three Weeks(ish) in Genesis then ActsWhen we finished the first season, we asked the participants which book they wanted to study next. Nearly every response was in favor of studying Exodus or Acts. Since the votes were about equally split, the choice came down to me. I selected Acts for a couple of reasons. Chronologically, it comes right after John. So, studying Acts will feel like a continuation of our last study. Also, Acts was written in Greek, and it takes place in the more familiar Greco-Roman world. Exodus was written in Hebrew, and its action takes place in the much more foreign Ancient Near-East. For most people, myself included, studying Acts is a bit simpler. (However, I am not opposed to studying Exodus in the future. I do hope we have that opportunity.)Then why are we taking a few weeks to talk about Genesis? I have two main reasons:(1) One of the Biggest Objections. Think of the objections that skeptics level against Christianity. Nearly at the top of the list, if not truly chief among them, is the claim that believing in Christianity requires a rejection of modern science. At its worst, the accusation says that to be Christian entails believing that the universe is 6,000 years old, and one must disregard evolution, astrophysics, geology, linguistics, and history. I want to address this objection head on, and that inevitably involves a discussion of Genesis.(2) A Christian Worldview. The first few chapters of Genesis, regardless of whether they are taken literally or figuratively, establish key beliefs of the Christian worldview. Before we get deeper into studying the expansion of the church and nuanced doctrinal issues (i.e., Acts), I think we should stop and discuss those more fundamental points first.(Important clarification: From here on out, when I write about Genesis, I am referring to the first few chapters of it—particularly the first eleven often just to the first three. I did not want to type “the early chapters of Genesis” every time. Everyone agrees that after chapter 11, Genesis is intended as history, so the following discussion would clearly not apply to the entire book or those later chapters.)So, what will our study of Genesis look like? Well, it won't really be a study. It will be more of a primer that hopefully presents some exciting possibilities. That's the key: possibilities. I am not interested in convincing everyone to believe exactly like me. However, I want to give a good-faith, well intentioned “spoiler alert.” Many Christians are deeply committed to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I intend to present a competing alternative, and I know that will be controversial and perhaps even offensive. I respect that. If you do not wish to hear it, that is no problem at all. Simply skip the first few weeks of this study and come back when we are discussing Acts. You can also stay and disagree with me the whole time—totally fine.Ok, ok, let's be practical. Here's the plan to tackle the two goals described above:Genesis: Literal or Not and Its Interaction with Modern Science(1) Read chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis.(2) Discuss some important literary concepts, particularly (a) what it means to read a text “literally” and whether it is more “conservative” to do so, (b) the importance of literary genre, and (c) how these concepts apply to Genesis (and any other text).(3) Discuss whether a non-literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis is plausible based on the text itself (not on modern science).(4) Discuss the interaction between Christianity and science given the different interpretations of Genesis.Genesis: What It Says About God, Us, and the World(1) Recall chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis.(2) Discuss features of God.(3) Discuss features of creation.(4) Discuss features of man.(5) Discuss the effect of sin and the Fall.I hope we can get through all that material in the next two weeks, but it might take an additional week. After that, we will start covering Acts verse by verse. I intend to delve heavily into the cultural and historical context of the text. For that purpose, I have been reading Craig Keener's obscenely lengthy, four-volume commentary on Acts.Questions? Comments?Since this is the introductory session to season 2 of the Bible study, I want to stop for questions and comments before we proceed. If questions and comments run out with time remaining, I have prepared additional material. If Time Allows… Otherwise I Will Move this Content to the Next SessionSince I want to present a nonliteral interpretation of Genesis, I will begin the discussion by addressing some of the concerns that are sure to come up. My hope is that by addressing these concerns at the start, I will bring the “temperature down.” The debate on Genesis can get quite fiery, after all.The More Conservative Way to Read a TextConservative: Minimizing RiskIs reading a text literally generally (or always) the most conservative approach to interpreting that text? First, I need to define my terms. What do I mean by conservative? Conservative can mean different things in different contexts. In politics, it generally means the position held by those right of political center. In scholarly disciplines, conservative can take at least two meanings. It can mean the traditional (i.e., the historical) position or the one held by the most scholars.As I using the term conservative in this discussion, I am not referring to any of the denotations above. There is another possible meaning for conservative, which we use in daily life and in disciplines such as accounting and law. Conservative refers to the attitude, interpretation, or action that minimizes risk. Imagine that you are planning a backpacking trip in a dry area. You need to pack your drinking water. You think that you will need 4 gallons of water. However, you may choose to be conservative and pack an additional gallon. Or, imagine that you are preparing your tax return. You are wondering whether you should deduct a certain travel expense. Since you are not sure whether the deduction would hold up in case of an audit, you choose to be conservative and not deduct it.With that definition of conservative in mind, is reading a text literally rather figuratively a more conservative approach? That is, does reading a text literally minimize the risk of misinterpreting a text? My contention is that the answer is no.Consider the well-known expression: “I love you to the moon and back.” (Apparently this expression originated with Tom Topor's 1979 play Nuts. It grew in popularity in the 90s and 2000s.)Let us interpret this expression literally and consider the outcome. Literally, there are two ways to interpret it. The first would be that I will love you only throughout the duration of a trip to the moon and return to earth. Although not logically entailed in the statement, if I am specifying that I will love you specifically during the voyage, one could infer that I will not love you before or after.The other literal interpretation is that love can be measured similarly to distance. At first glance, this would mean that I love you extensively since the distance from Earth to the moon (and back) is extensive. But notice that the distance from Earth to the moon is infinitesimal compared to other distances within our solar system, not to mention our galaxy or the whole universe. Really what I am saying is that I love you a nearly incomprehensibly small amount in comparison to the vastness of true love.Of course, we know that the two literal interpretations are wrong. Moreover, those interpretations reach nearly antithetical conclusions to what the expression “love you to the moon and back” is attempting to convey, which is the vastness of the affection felt by one person towards another. What this example is meant to show is that assuming a text should be read literally is not conservative—it does not minimize or eliminate the risk of misinterpretation. Proper interpretation of a text requires that one considers the genre of the text.If It's Not Literal then It Doesn't Mean AnythingI think a concern that Christians often have regarding the possibility of reading Genesis non-literally is that doing so neuters the text—it renders the text meaningless. Perhaps the argument is that the text would no longer have any meaning because non-literal texts are subject to so many different interpretations that one can no longer be certain of any one of them.Again, I think we can dispel this concern with some examples. Notice that the expression “I love you to the moon and back,” although non-literal, clearly means something different to, “My love for you is like a flame that has gone out.” Even if both expression have semantic ranges, those ranges do not overlap. They convey distinctly different ideas—and they both do so non-literally.Let's use a more sophisticated example. One of the most popular English poems is Robert Frost's “The Road Not Taken,” written in 1915. Ironically, this is also one of the most misinterpreted English poems.Before we read it, try to recall what the poem is about. I bet you thought the poem was called something like “The Path Less Traveled,” and the point of it is that taking a harder, lonelier path leads to better, more fulfilling outcomes in life.Now consider the actual text of the poem.The Road Not Taken by Robert FrostTwo roads diverged in a yellow wood,And sorry I could not travel bothAnd be one traveler, long I stoodAnd looked down one as far as I couldTo where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair,And having perhaps the better claim,Because it was grassy and wanted wear;Though as for that the passing thereHad worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally layIn leaves no step had trodden black.Oh, I kept the first for another day!Yet knowing how way leads on to way,I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sighSomewhere ages and ages hence:Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference. What is the poem saying? First, let's begin with the title (one of the most important contextual clues when interpreting poetry). The poem is about “the road not taken.” Notice, it is not about the road actually taken—the one less traveled. It is about the other road.The first stanza tells us that the traveler runs into an intersection, and he was sorry he could not travel both paths. The second stanza tells us that as far as the traveler could see, both paths seemed about the same. (One of the paths does not seem more adventurous than the other!)Then, in the third stanza, the author copes with his choice of selecting one path by lying to himself. He tells himself that one day he will return and traverse the road not taken, but he knows that is not true. He will probably never come back.The last stanza, the one everyone remembers, tells us how that lie will grow in time. The traveler will deal with the pain of never knowing what the “the road not taken” was like by telling himself and others that surely he chose the boldest path and it made all the difference—something he could not possibly know since both paths looked nearly identical (“worn . . . about the same”), and his whole regret is not knowing the outcome of taking the other path.What's the point of this exercise? Notice that poetry is a genre of literature that is not meant to be interpreted literally, unlike historiography or technical writings, yet it has a discernible meaning. And people can get that meaning wrong! Robert Frost's poem is not about the positive outcomes from following the “path less traveled” but about the regret of not being able to take all paths in life.Similarly, if we interpret Genesis figuratively, we are not rendering the text meaningless. It can still have a correct interpretation and, by extension, incorrect interpretations. A nonliteral interpretation means that the way the text coveys its message is not direct, not that it has no message.Conservative in Other Ways?There is one last roadblock I wish to remove before we get into the text. Oftentimes Christians will claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the conservative interpretation in the sense that it is the historical interpretation of the text. The claim may also add that the only reason we (modern Christians) are attempting to re-interpret the text is because of our desire to accommodate modern science. We are straying from Christianity's historical beliefs, and we are compromising our view of scripture—is the accusation.So, is a literal interpretation of Genesis a more conservative interpretation given that meaning of the word conservative? Put another way, is it true that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the traditional interpretation of the church? Has the church held to a literal interpretation as a crucial matter of faith? Surprisingly, the answer is no. To make my point I will give one example, although many could be provided.Short of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, no one person has had a bigger impact in the western church than Augustine of Hippo. He lived in the late 300s and early 400s—centuries before the advent of modern science. Did he—literally the patron saint of theologians (according to some traditions)—take Genesis literally? No. Augustine wrote extensively on the book of Genesis (five commentaries!) and after thinking long and hard about the early chapters, he admitted that understanding what the writer of Genesis meant by days is a hard thing. This is already instructive. An early church father, reading nothing but the text without pressure from modern science, could already see that the text does not seem straightforward.Augustine concluded that God created all that exists in an instant. Therefore, the days in Genesis are not (and cannot be) literal. The days are an accommodation to human understanding. They are like a metaphor. They put creation in terms of a human work week so people can understand it.Why would Augustine conclude such a thing? For many reasons, but chiefly among those are three peculiarities in the text. First, light appears in day one but the luminaries (e.g., the sun, moon, and stars) are not created until day four. Second, the dischronology between chapter 1 and chapter 2:4-6. In chapter 1, vegetation is created early on. In chapter 2, there is still no vegetation. Finally, the idea of God literally resting. Augustine argued that God cannot grow weary (there are verses in the Bible that explicitly state this) so the idea that God would literally rest, if taken literally, is nonsensical. The language must be figurative, he concluded.Other church fathers, such as Clement (c. 35-99), Origen (c. 185-254), Didymus (c. 313-398) and Athanasius (c. 296-373), also understood the Genesis creation story as non-literal to different extents.The point I am making is simple: to claim that to interpret the early of chapters of Genesis non-literally is an unprecedent deviation from the church's historical interpretation of those chapters is simply not true. Of course, this says nothing of which interpretation is correct. The point is merely that non-literal interpretations of Genesis are not heterodox per se.There is a related conclusion that one can draw from Augustine and the other church fathers. They were not influenced by modern science. They came to their conclusions by simple observation of the world and from the text itself. So, the accusation that modern Christians are reinterpreting Genesis merely because of their concordist desires (between modern science and the Bible) loses much of its bite.
Do you have to write about a topic in the chronological order that it happened in to understand it better? No, definitely not. In fact - maybe you shouldn't? This episode, we discuss Enjoy Me Among My Ruins by Juniper Fitzgerald (2022). It's a memoir that uses 3 forms (diary entry, flash about an influential woman in her life, and essays) to explore sex work, academic theory, and how having a daughter changed her. Order this book from The Feminist Press here Good Writing is a podcast where two MFA friends read like writers and lay out craft ideas for fellow writers to steal. Co-hosted by Emily Donovan and Benjamin Kerns. Twitter: @goodwritingpod Email: goodwritingpodcast@gmail.com
Chronologically, you get 1 year older every year. But how old are you getting biologically? In order to optimize longevity, you need to understand biological aging. With all the different longevity and biological aging tests, it can be difficult to understand where to start. Fortunately, we got Ryan Smith from Tru Diagnostic on todays episode to guide you on all things longevity and biological aging. In this episode, Ryan highlights the different biological aging tests and which one is the most accurate. He also gives helpful tips on how to reduce your pace of aging, and how that's important for your overall lifespan. Ryan Smith is founder of TruDiagnostic, which has created the largest private epigenetic database in the world with over 25,000 patients tested. From this dataset, they have created many new algorithms to interpret methylation data including algorithms to predict inflammatory markers, disease diagnosis, telomere length, aging pace, immune cell subsets, cellular replication, and more. - Visit trudiagnostic.com - Check out SelfDecode - Join Joe's online community Timestamps: (0:00) - Intro (1:48) - Where does epigenetics fall into aging biomarkers? (21:52) - Different responses in anti-aging protocols (39:44) - epigenetic test vs lab tests (48:42) - How to use biological age tests to improve health (55:09) - pace of aging (1:05:15) - Immune system age (1:09:11) - How to reduce the pace of aging (1:26:39) - How many supplements does Ryan take per day? (1:35:42) - Metformin and rapamycin on aging
When I asked Fred Whiteman how old he was, he replied, "I'm 47 on the outside, 31 on the inside. I've had more trouble that most senior citizens, and I still look at life through the eye of a child." What kind of an answer is that? Chronologically, Fred had seen 47 birthdays. Within his chest cavity beat the heart of a man 31 years old--the result of having had a heart transplant. Has Fred really seen more trouble than most senior citizens?
Let the timer begin. Revelation 1, we looked at, at the beginning of summer, we talked about how there's, just based off that one chapter, there's three ways to interpret the rest of the letter. We learned that St. John is a theologian. What that means is when you read the book of Revelation, it's more important to read it Christologically, meaning where's Christ in this passage, than it is reading it Chronologically, we think the biggest mistakes people make is thinking this was all written in a right order. And now that Revelation 15 just happened last week, now we're ready for 16. It doesn't happen that way. It's all over the map. It's just by which John saw the next vision. It doesn't mean that's when it happened. Another thing we learned is he's a pastor to the seven churches, which means he has a pastoral heart. And so when we read all of Revelation, the focus needs to be on discipleship, not on decipherment. It's not like the National Treasure, where we gotta take a candle, pour some lemon juice on it, and see the secret hidden meaning, and see what happens with the Twin Towers in 2001. None of that. This is, there is a plain message we can read if we're willing to wrestle with the text, and it's to change us. Lastly, we learn in Revelation 1 that John is a poet. Meaning, we read Revelation literarily, not literally. Meaning it's not like a newspaper. It's more like a political cartoon where you see something like a beast. It's not an actual beast. It's communicating something even bigger and much larger, really. That's Revelation 1. That was in a minute and a half. We're in trouble. Revelation 2 and 3, he shows us there's these seven letters to these seven churches, and Jesus has this three point sermon. He affirms each church for what they're doing well. He rebukes them for where they're not, and he motivates them to keep pressing on. We knew. We learned. Those seven letters in chapters two and three are written to the first century church, but hear me, they are for every single century, every church, and we're going to be diving into that in the month of September. When you boil it down, Jesus affirms the type of church who are people of love, who avoid heresy, and endure hardship. How am I doing on time? Okay, I don't know. Revelation 4 through 5, there is now this image of a scroll and the scroll is being passed around and everybody's saying, Who can open the scroll? And everybody's sad because they're saying no one can open it. This scroll is the purpose of your life, but also the meaning of all of history. It's the answer. The answer everyone is looking for. Different philosophies, different religions, and it's bound in this scroll. And there is this moment of like, Oh, no, no one knows the answer. And then there's this lion who was a lamb who comes in and says, Oh, brother, I can open the scroll. I'm the one with meaning. I'm the one with purpose. Come to me. Your life actually does make sense. There is hope. There is a future for you. And so we learned on that day, man, we have hope because of the lamb who was slaughtered because of us, who was slaughtered instead of us. And who was slaughtered for us if any of these things interest you Go to pastor creek church teaching revelation because i'm not going to explain anymore revelation 6 to 18 one week. We talked about judgment We learned, actually you'll see all throughout Revelations a lot about judgment, but that is a good thing. There is evil going on in this world. There is injustice. We want something to be done about that, or else he wouldn't be a good God. And so these, these judgments are seen in three different sets of images. Seven seals, seven trumpets, and then seven bowls. We look together specifically at the seals. And we learn that because God is a God of, who is slow to anger and full of compassion, these judgments, hear me, Are purgative they're meant to be purgative meaning they're meant to purge us They're meant to wake us up and go we don't know how to live life without christ We need to run to him or this punishment comes our way So it's meant to be purgative, but eventually it becomes punitive Eventually, it means if you don't come to jesus, you will suffer the punishment of these judgments. And then we talked about the four horsemen, which are the white horse leading to deception. We see deception in our era today all over the place. The red horse, which is all about violence. Do we not see violence all over the globe? The black horse, which equals famine. We see that everywhere still. And then the pale green horse is sickness leading to death. We have certainly seen that even within the last few years at a cranked up rate. And we ended that kind of... Passage saying, look, the horsemen ramp up when the church stands up, but we're going to have victory. So we have to keep standing up against these horsemen. Revelation 12 through 13. We then introduce the unholy trinity. The unholy trinity is the dragon who is the devil. The sea beast who is the state politics, political powers. And then the earth beast is propaganda. And these three conspire to destroy the church. They've already lost against King Jesus on the cross. At least what they can do is to destroy you and me, those who follow the Lamb. And Michael J. Gorman, he had this great quote about propaganda, which we see every day today. It says, The function of propaganda is to make evil look good, the demonic divine. Violence look like peacemaking. Tyranny and oppression look like liberation. Do we not see that today? Our argument is that you'll see this in every generation. Sometimes other generations, it ramps up. Other times it seems to settle and then it ramps up again. So you'll see this in every generation. One more thing about the unholy trinity, they want the church to either commit violence against other people, make us against anybody, that's not the way of Jesus. They want us to silence, not stand up for what is right. Or they want us just compliance, just to look just like Babylon, to do what everybody else is doing because everybody else is already doing it. Now, Pastor Caleb had the joy of... Bring in good news. Revelation 11 and 14 contains a lot of hope. It's about the witnesses. It's about these three angels. And this whole idea is those three angels promise three things. And we can take hope in this in the midst of really hard times. Number one, the gospel will spread to the ends of the earth. So we should be all about missions because that's the one thing Jesus says it's going to work. Number two, Babylon, which is the city of man, which is any time, we'll talk about in the next thing, just corruption. That's not gonna last. It will end, even though it doesn't look like it today. Number three, judgment will come and all will be made right. This gives us hope to be patient, to endure in suffering, not to give in to violence, silence, or compliance. Are you with me? Do I have any time left? Oh, look at this. I'm getting a full head of hair still today. All right next one revelation 17 through 19 We looked at this last week. We kind of taught out of order, which is kind of important because we wanted to teach you It's not chronological 17 through 19 Babylon is the city where the unholy Trinity uses There the city for destruction. So we talked about last week how Babylon's a prostitute what it's a prostitute do it perverts it deceives It seduces and you and I have to recognize you and I can be seduced by the culture It going against the way of Jesus. The main thrust of what we talked about last week is the prostitute seeks to seduce the church, you and me, by normalizing the sins of Babylon, right? The things that generations ago used to say was completely wrong. Now even the church says, well, maybe it's not that bad. That is what Babylon does. It seduces us to lower the standard that God's word has put in for us. But here's the good news. This city who seeks to be divine, Always becomes demonic and it self destructs babylon will not prevail But the kingdom of god the city of god will rule and reign forever And that's what revelation 20 through 22 is all about This is how it all ends. We have a more compelling answer. Hear me revelation. I want us to come away knowing It's not just about if you were to die today, where do you go? Oh, you're going to be sold Floating in a cloud and a harp in heaven for eternity. That's not the full answer. Pastor. Caleb did a great job talking about that It's much more beautiful than that. The reality is is Jesus is coming back To not destroy the world, but to redeem it, and restore it, and to make it new. There's a new heaven and a new earth. You and I will have resurrected bodies. Our relationships will be reconciled. All these things that we've grown about will one day be made right. We won't have any more tears, any more crying. Any of these pains that we feel so deeply is now washed. Away
Critics are not thrilled with this updated cover of We Didn't Start the Fire. Plus a breakdown on the state budget bill, our everyday hero, and Jen Lada caps the hour talking about her Berlin souvenir
We continue Chinese history chronologically with Qin state trying to sabotage the peace process and Jin State seize the opportunity to crush their long term rival My Twitter acct CarlZha had been hacked! hacker tweeting out 10 laptop scam. Don't fall for it!!! my new Twitter acct RealCarlZha had been suspended for impersonation. Twitter is a joke! I am on Telegram: https://t.me/CarlZha If you'd like to support the channel / 如果你想支持我的频道: ☕ Buy us a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/carlzha8
We continue Chinese history chronologically into Spring and Autumn period. Peace breaks out between two East Asian superpower Jin and Chu state in 579 BCE. Strategic lessons from ancient China that's relevant to modern geopolitical realities If you like this why not subscribe to get access to full episode and more premium content on Silk and Steel Podcast Patreon pages
This is the complete sixth book of the Tarzan Series, Book 6, Jungle Tales of Tarzan by Edgar Rice Burroughs. This is a LibriVox public domain recording. Jungle Tales of Tarzan is a collection of twelve loosely-connected short stories written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, comprising the sixth book in order of publication in his series about the title character Tarzan. Chronologically, the events recounted in it actually occur between chapters 12 and 13 of the first Tarzan novel, Tarzan of the Apes. (Summary from Wikipedia) How did the helpless child of the shipwrecked couple John and Alice Clayton become the superhuman legend that is Tarzan of the Apes, Lord of the Jungle? The twelve archetypal coming-of-age tales that compose this book tell the full story, finding their place alongside the richest and most meaningful allegories of mythology. Tarzan grows to adulthood among the apes of the jungle, facing the dawning realization that he is not like them—he is a man. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/colin-holbrook/support
Episode 147: Chronologically back to back 1970s David Cronenberg films, one of which could be called a Christmas movie, in Shivers (1975) and Rabid (1977).
Dr. Nancy Stella talks about the fear trap and the triggers that keep you stuck. Dr. Stella has been a leading clinical psychologist in the Cincinnati area for over twenty years. And, after a shattering divorce, Dr. Stella found traditional therapeutic approaches wanting. Consequently, she developed the Courageous Brain Process (CBP)—an innovative, science-based method of therapy. Furthermore, this therapy is rooted in the most up-to-date neuroscience. Dr. Stella's proven CBP approach allows clients to experience their own transformations from the inside out. This is because it bypasses the shortcomings of traditional talk therapy and repatterns the way their brains process fear. Her Book: Fear Traps: Escape the Triggers that Keep You Stuck, is an IPPY--Independent Publisher Book Awards award-winning book in mental health and psychology. In this episode, Dr. Stella she shares her story and we discuss: How the lowest, darkest period of her life inspired her to confront and conquer fear. How to recognize fear, an uncomfortable feeling triggered by the belief that something is threatening us. The threat can be physical, emotional, or both. Trigger warnings—how to recognize signs that appear when you're feeling stuck in an ongoing cycle of fear. Falling into a fear trap. Chronologically we are one age, but developmental a variety of ages. Why, as a psychologist, Dr. Stella focuses on fear, not just anxiety and depression. The Courageous Brain Process—a six-step plan to help people overcome the root fears behind anxiety and depression to create lasting change: What mindful meditation exercises can teach us about controlling and overcoming fear. Resources Mentioned: Dr. Stella's website Book: Fear Traps: Escape the Triggers that Keep You Stuck Connect with Emily on LinkedIn Emily Harman Watch Emily's Webinar on Energy Leadership Positive Intelligence Coaching Program Onward Accelerator Coaching Program Onward: Twitter | Onward Movement Facebook Group | YouTube Buy Emily's Best Selling Book Step Into the Spotlight Schedule a Complimentary Coaching Call with Emily Music by Soul Pajamas Enjoyed the show? Please remember to leave a rating and review in Apple Podcasts.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
