As I was making a roux yesterday for gumbo, I caught up on two days' worth of Bible reading. The Old Testament reading was a familiar story - the first few chapters of Exodus. In chapter 5 - I read about Pharaoh increasing the work load of the Israelites by forcing them to gather their own straw, but still create the same number of bricks. But verses 8 and 9 caught my attention in a way that I had never before noticed.
You see - Pharaoh wasn't just punishing the Israelites for asking to leave (as I'd always thought) - but he also realized that if the Israelites were working harder - if they were putting in more hours on the job - then they wouldn't have any free time to listen to Moses talk about God. Pharaoh called it "deceptive words" - but to him - that's what talk about God was. And it worked... You see - in verses 20 and 21 - after the Israelites realized that Pharaoh would not relent - many of them turned against Moses - and spoke out against God.
We could learn a lot from Pharaoh. While he made those comments - in an attempt to reduce the worship of God - if we reverse them - we can worship God more and better. You see - many Christians use work (jobs, housework, schoolwork, etc) as an excuse not to worship or not to pray or not to read their Bible. And while most work certainly has to be done - it can never interfere with our relationship with God. In my opinion, the Devil is using the same techniques that Pharaoh did - 3,000 or more years ago - by convincing us that work is more important that God. Our response then - is to be like Moses in verse 22 and following - and turn to God when the work becomes burdensome - and pray for deliverance. Far from pushing us away from God - our work should push us to God.
One final example. I started this post by noting that I was reading the Bible while stirring my roux. I could have stared at the flour and oil mixture for 75 minutes and gotten upset about how long it was taking to turn brown, but instead I chose to read my Bible and then talk to my wife. My work - instead of just filling my day - became an opportunity to grow closer to God. I encourage you to find a way to do the same.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Seventy-Seven or Seventy Times Seven?
One of the passages I'll be using in my sermon this Sunday is Matthew 18:21-22. In it - Jesus is responding to Peter's question of how many times we should forgive a person. As I was reading in my NRSV, I saw that it was written as "seventy-seven times." But I've always heard it quoted as "seventy times seven" - which equals 490. So what is it?
As I was doing some research on the Internet - I came across this blog which asked - and answered - that very question. So if you're interested - take a look:
The Roman Sacristan
By the way - I haven't read anything else from this guy - but this article at least seems to be well-written - and I agree with his conclusions.
As I was doing some research on the Internet - I came across this blog which asked - and answered - that very question. So if you're interested - take a look:
The Roman Sacristan
By the way - I haven't read anything else from this guy - but this article at least seems to be well-written - and I agree with his conclusions.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
One Life for Another
When Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery (Gen 37), they thought they were getting rid of their problems. Instead, they were only creating greater ones. Because when their land came under a great famine, they were forced to go to Egypt to buy grain for their household, and Joseph was the man who sold it to them (although they didn't recognize him).
On their way home after their second trip to Egypt, Joseph had his silver cup placed in the bag of his younger brother, Benjamin. He then accused Benjamin of stealing - and threatened to keep him as a slave and allow the rest to go home. But Judah, another brother, would not allow this. He had promised his father Jacob that he would see to the security of Benjamin. So he pleaded with Joseph (still without knowing who he was) that Benjamin be set free, and offer to let himself be enslaved in his brother's place. He said he was doing this for the sake of his father. (Most of this comes from Genesis 42-44)
Now - while Joseph didn't take him up on the offer - I have to believe that Judah was sincere - that he really was willing to offer his life - for the life of his brother - in order not to grieve his Father.
As I read this, I couldn't help but compare it to the actions of Jesus (a direct descendant of Judah) - who gave his life for each of us - in order to accomplish the will of his Father. Judah was willing to become a slave for another's sake - which Jesus did as well - when he came from heaven to earth to be a servant to the world. But Jesus took it one step further - by dying on the cross for us as well. And the outcome of Jesus' actions are even greater than the good things that came of Judah's offer... Thanks be to God for the great examples he has shown us.
On their way home after their second trip to Egypt, Joseph had his silver cup placed in the bag of his younger brother, Benjamin. He then accused Benjamin of stealing - and threatened to keep him as a slave and allow the rest to go home. But Judah, another brother, would not allow this. He had promised his father Jacob that he would see to the security of Benjamin. So he pleaded with Joseph (still without knowing who he was) that Benjamin be set free, and offer to let himself be enslaved in his brother's place. He said he was doing this for the sake of his father. (Most of this comes from Genesis 42-44)
Now - while Joseph didn't take him up on the offer - I have to believe that Judah was sincere - that he really was willing to offer his life - for the life of his brother - in order not to grieve his Father.
As I read this, I couldn't help but compare it to the actions of Jesus (a direct descendant of Judah) - who gave his life for each of us - in order to accomplish the will of his Father. Judah was willing to become a slave for another's sake - which Jesus did as well - when he came from heaven to earth to be a servant to the world. But Jesus took it one step further - by dying on the cross for us as well. And the outcome of Jesus' actions are even greater than the good things that came of Judah's offer... Thanks be to God for the great examples he has shown us.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Hush Hush
Frequently in the gospels, we read where Jesus heals people - then immediately instructs them to not tell anyone who he was. Matthew 12:15-16 is just one example - that I read this morning. I've always wondered why Jesus was so adamant about telling the people to hush. I've heard a few different interpretations:
1. That Jesus wanted people to make up their own mind about him - and not be swayed by those who already knew him (but then - what does that say about evangelism today?)
2. That Jesus wasn't ready to reveal himself to the entire nation or world yet (but then - why did live and teach and heal so publicly?)
3. That it was some sort of reverse psychology - that Jesus actually wanted them to tell about him - so he forbid it - knowing full well it would make the rumours and stories about him even more prominent. (But where else does Jesus tell people to do something - and actually expect something else? This opens up a huge can of worms...)
But back in Matthew 12:17-21, Matthew gives us a reason by quoting from Isaiah. I have to admit that I'm still left wondering to some degree - but it does help a little...
In verse 19-20 (of Matthew) - the prophecy says that God's servant "will not quarrel or cry out... until he leads justice to victory." While this cannot be taken absolutely literally, since Jesus definitely quarrelled with the Pharisees and made some big public announcements - it can suggest that Jesus deliberately kept a lower profile than possible - until he decided to make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem - a few days before his very public crucifixion (it could also refer to the End Times - when Jesus will come back and establish his kingdom - in the final victory).
But it still leaves me to wonder: Why did he forbid others from talking about him? The quote from Isaiah simply talks about the "servant" - the "Messiah" - keeping a low profile - and not about needing anyone else to hush. Yet Jesus tried to keep others from talking about him as well. But regardless of why Jesus tried to keep the people hushed - we know that it didn't work - because people from all over Israel - and even from neighboring states - knew of him - and flocked to him - to receive teaching and healing. And they still do today...
1. That Jesus wanted people to make up their own mind about him - and not be swayed by those who already knew him (but then - what does that say about evangelism today?)
2. That Jesus wasn't ready to reveal himself to the entire nation or world yet (but then - why did live and teach and heal so publicly?)
3. That it was some sort of reverse psychology - that Jesus actually wanted them to tell about him - so he forbid it - knowing full well it would make the rumours and stories about him even more prominent. (But where else does Jesus tell people to do something - and actually expect something else? This opens up a huge can of worms...)
But back in Matthew 12:17-21, Matthew gives us a reason by quoting from Isaiah. I have to admit that I'm still left wondering to some degree - but it does help a little...
In verse 19-20 (of Matthew) - the prophecy says that God's servant "will not quarrel or cry out... until he leads justice to victory." While this cannot be taken absolutely literally, since Jesus definitely quarrelled with the Pharisees and made some big public announcements - it can suggest that Jesus deliberately kept a lower profile than possible - until he decided to make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem - a few days before his very public crucifixion (it could also refer to the End Times - when Jesus will come back and establish his kingdom - in the final victory).
But it still leaves me to wonder: Why did he forbid others from talking about him? The quote from Isaiah simply talks about the "servant" - the "Messiah" - keeping a low profile - and not about needing anyone else to hush. Yet Jesus tried to keep others from talking about him as well. But regardless of why Jesus tried to keep the people hushed - we know that it didn't work - because people from all over Israel - and even from neighboring states - knew of him - and flocked to him - to receive teaching and healing. And they still do today...
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Did Jesus Ever Condone Violence?
Much ink has been spilled over the past few years over whether or how much the Koran advocates violence to achieve it means. Some Muslims argue that the references to jihad must be taken in context and constitute a "spiritual battle." Most Christians - especially the more conservative ones - aren't buying it... But few of those same Christians are willing to deal with our own passages from the Bible that can be construed to condone or even advocate violence. And I'm not just talking about the Old Testament, but quotes from Jesus himself.
Take Matthew 10 - Jesus is sending his disciples out to the towns of Israel to preach the gospel message that the "kingdom of heaven is at hand" (v10:7). He then gives instructions on what they should and shouldn't take along - and warns them of the coming persecutions on his account. But then we get to v34-36. Jesus states: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth... but a sword." What does this mean? How do we reconcile this with the Beatitudes - esp v9 that says "Blessed are the peace-makers"? How can Jesus advocate making peace at one point - but bringing a sword at the next? Is this where the UN got the idea of calling heavy combat troops "Peace Keepers"? Or the Army nicknaming a Colt .45 a "Peacemaker"?
Jesus follows this statement with another: "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Now earlier, Jesus indicated that it was those opposing the gospel that would turn against the Christians - but here - it's not that clear.
So what do these statements mean? Is Jesus calling for violence in his name? Or is he simply saying that violence will break out - as people oppose the gospel message? I believe he means the latter - that he is not instructing the Christians to engage in violence - but is warning them that they should be prepared for the violence of others against them. This does not preclude defending one's self - but I think Jesus would certainly look down upon initiating an attack.
So does Jesus ever condone violence? I don't think he does from a Christian perspective - although he indicates that violence will definitely be a part of this world - until the End of Time - when he returns and sets things aright again.
Take Matthew 10 - Jesus is sending his disciples out to the towns of Israel to preach the gospel message that the "kingdom of heaven is at hand" (v10:7). He then gives instructions on what they should and shouldn't take along - and warns them of the coming persecutions on his account. But then we get to v34-36. Jesus states: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth... but a sword." What does this mean? How do we reconcile this with the Beatitudes - esp v9 that says "Blessed are the peace-makers"? How can Jesus advocate making peace at one point - but bringing a sword at the next? Is this where the UN got the idea of calling heavy combat troops "Peace Keepers"? Or the Army nicknaming a Colt .45 a "Peacemaker"?
Jesus follows this statement with another: "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Now earlier, Jesus indicated that it was those opposing the gospel that would turn against the Christians - but here - it's not that clear.
So what do these statements mean? Is Jesus calling for violence in his name? Or is he simply saying that violence will break out - as people oppose the gospel message? I believe he means the latter - that he is not instructing the Christians to engage in violence - but is warning them that they should be prepared for the violence of others against them. This does not preclude defending one's self - but I think Jesus would certainly look down upon initiating an attack.
So does Jesus ever condone violence? I don't think he does from a Christian perspective - although he indicates that violence will definitely be a part of this world - until the End of Time - when he returns and sets things aright again.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Swine Massacre
Matthew chapter 8 contains the stories of numerous healings, including: a leprous man, the centurion's servant, and Peter's mother-in-law. While these are great stories, and I've heard a few sermons preached on them, the one that raises the most questions for me is the final healing - of the two demon-possessed men.
The first intriguing part - is when the demons ask Jesus: "What do you want with us? Have you come to torment us before the time?" So my question is: what is "the time?" Some translations put this as "God's appointed time" or something similar, which helps, but I'm still left wondering what it means, and when this time might be. I have a feeling these demons are referring to the End Times, when they know they will be destroyed - and banished forever from the earth.
The next interesting part is where they ask to be driven into the herd of pigs - and Jesus actually complies with their request. Or does he? Yes, they do go from the men and enter the pigs, but Jesus merely tells them to "Go!" - not where they should - or could - go. So is Jesus bargaining with the demons - or simply telling them:"it doesn't matter where you go - as long as you leave me and these men?"
My next question has to do with the fate of the demons - and whether they meant to cause the herd of pigs to drown themselves in the lake. In v28, we saw that the demon-possessed men were so violent that no one could go near them. Why didn't the demons make the pigs behave similarly - to become so violent that no one could go near them? Instead - though - the pigs were killed almost instantly. It makes me wonder if Jesus knew what would happen to the pigs - and that's why he let the demons enter them...
The final verse in the chapter is also interesting - as the people who heard of Jesus's actions - instead of thanking him for liberating the demon-possessed men - the whole town pleaded with him to leave the region - so that they could live in peace (or thier version of it). You have to wonder what they were afraid of - if they were worried that Jesus would slaughter them - just as the pigs had been slaughtered - or if they just completely misunderstood Jesus and what he was doing (or both)...
The first intriguing part - is when the demons ask Jesus: "What do you want with us? Have you come to torment us before the time?" So my question is: what is "the time?" Some translations put this as "God's appointed time" or something similar, which helps, but I'm still left wondering what it means, and when this time might be. I have a feeling these demons are referring to the End Times, when they know they will be destroyed - and banished forever from the earth.
The next interesting part is where they ask to be driven into the herd of pigs - and Jesus actually complies with their request. Or does he? Yes, they do go from the men and enter the pigs, but Jesus merely tells them to "Go!" - not where they should - or could - go. So is Jesus bargaining with the demons - or simply telling them:"it doesn't matter where you go - as long as you leave me and these men?"
My next question has to do with the fate of the demons - and whether they meant to cause the herd of pigs to drown themselves in the lake. In v28, we saw that the demon-possessed men were so violent that no one could go near them. Why didn't the demons make the pigs behave similarly - to become so violent that no one could go near them? Instead - though - the pigs were killed almost instantly. It makes me wonder if Jesus knew what would happen to the pigs - and that's why he let the demons enter them...
The final verse in the chapter is also interesting - as the people who heard of Jesus's actions - instead of thanking him for liberating the demon-possessed men - the whole town pleaded with him to leave the region - so that they could live in peace (or thier version of it). You have to wonder what they were afraid of - if they were worried that Jesus would slaughter them - just as the pigs had been slaughtered - or if they just completely misunderstood Jesus and what he was doing (or both)...
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Who Visited Abraham?
Chapter 18 tells a great story of 3 men who visited Abraham - and the hospitality that he showed them. But it also raises great questions about who exactly these men were - and if they were, in fact, men.
Take the following selected examples:
v1 says: The Lord appeared to Abraham
v2 says: Three men appeared before Abraham
v10 says: The Lord spoke
v13-14 says: The Lord asked a question
v16: refers to men again
v17 and following: refers to the Lord
v20-21 says: the Lord is going to Sodom to check on their sinfulness
And 19:1 says: 2 angels arrived at Sodom
Taking all these different references into account, we see that the reference to "3 men" in 18:2 cannot be entirely literal. They most likely had the appearance of men to Abraham, but it seems that at least one of them was the Lord in the guise of a man (some would say this is an appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament).
As for the other two, they are called both men and angels. While obviously there are angels who are entirely different beings from humans (this is made clear in numerous verses), the Hebrew word for angel literally means "messenger" - and is also used in the Bible to refer to human messengers who served earthly kings. Generally, we make a distinction between spiritual angels who serve God - and earthly messengers who serve men, but does this always have to be the case?
So who were these men? In the end, it is impossible to know with certainty. And frankly, the Bible doesn't seem to care very much - as the message they bring - and the reaction of Abraham and Sarah to it (along with the events in Sodom of chapter 19) are much more important.
Take the following selected examples:
v1 says: The Lord appeared to Abraham
v2 says: Three men appeared before Abraham
v10 says: The Lord spoke
v13-14 says: The Lord asked a question
v16: refers to men again
v17 and following: refers to the Lord
v20-21 says: the Lord is going to Sodom to check on their sinfulness
And 19:1 says: 2 angels arrived at Sodom
Taking all these different references into account, we see that the reference to "3 men" in 18:2 cannot be entirely literal. They most likely had the appearance of men to Abraham, but it seems that at least one of them was the Lord in the guise of a man (some would say this is an appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament).
As for the other two, they are called both men and angels. While obviously there are angels who are entirely different beings from humans (this is made clear in numerous verses), the Hebrew word for angel literally means "messenger" - and is also used in the Bible to refer to human messengers who served earthly kings. Generally, we make a distinction between spiritual angels who serve God - and earthly messengers who serve men, but does this always have to be the case?
So who were these men? In the end, it is impossible to know with certainty. And frankly, the Bible doesn't seem to care very much - as the message they bring - and the reaction of Abraham and Sarah to it (along with the events in Sodom of chapter 19) are much more important.
Did Abraham Love Ishamel?
Based on the treatment that Abraham gave to Ishmael (his son) and Hagar (Ishmael's mother) - I always thought that Abraham was mostly ambivalent to them - that while he did not despise them as Sarah did - that he also did not love them very much. Throughout most of the passages dealing with Ishmael, Abraham seems to treat him more as a servant, than as a son.
But I when I read Genesis 17:20 - I began to revise my thinking somewhat - and saw that Abraham did (at least at some points) take his fatherhood serious. In the middle of God promising to send a child to Sarah and Abraham laughing it off, Abraham makes a comment: "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
I'm not entirely sure what Abraham was thinking with that statement - whether it was just part of him not believing it possible for Sarah to give birth at her old age - or whether it was him telling God how much he loved Ishmael - that he desired to have the blessings of becoming a mighty nation, etc. - brought forth by this son, and not another. Or maybe it some combination of both...
But even though God brought forth Isaac to fulfill his covenant promises - God did not neglect Ishmael, either. There are two prophecies about him - the first that he will constantly be at war with his brothers (16:11-12) and the second that he will be blessed and become a large and mighty nation (17:20). And if we are to believe Mohammad that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, both of these have certainly born true.
But I when I read Genesis 17:20 - I began to revise my thinking somewhat - and saw that Abraham did (at least at some points) take his fatherhood serious. In the middle of God promising to send a child to Sarah and Abraham laughing it off, Abraham makes a comment: "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
I'm not entirely sure what Abraham was thinking with that statement - whether it was just part of him not believing it possible for Sarah to give birth at her old age - or whether it was him telling God how much he loved Ishmael - that he desired to have the blessings of becoming a mighty nation, etc. - brought forth by this son, and not another. Or maybe it some combination of both...
But even though God brought forth Isaac to fulfill his covenant promises - God did not neglect Ishmael, either. There are two prophecies about him - the first that he will constantly be at war with his brothers (16:11-12) and the second that he will be blessed and become a large and mighty nation (17:20). And if we are to believe Mohammad that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, both of these have certainly born true.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
What Had Jesus Done?
I am reading about the Baptism of Jesus this morning, and the standard question kept popping up in my mind: Why did Jesus have to be baptized? The only reason Jesus gives here is: "it is proper." I guess I'm usually so preoccupied with that question, that I can't formulate any others.
But today, I decided that I would put that question aside, which led me to another one: What had Jesus done at this point to deserve God's praise? At the end of the passage in Matthew 3:17, we read a quote from God: "This is my Son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased." Obviously, love can be given from Father to Son without any reason other than the family connection, but saying you are pleased with them usually has a reason. But what had Jesus done, up to this point? According to Matthew, Jesus was born, he went with his family all over the Middle East, and then he came to be baptized. The first two, he didn't have much control over, and the last was something lots of people were doing. So they couldn't have been that significant, in God's eyes.
Think of all things Jesus was NOT doing: He hadn't started preaching yet. He hadn't started healing yet. He hadn't started doing anything outward that we can point to and say: "That's why God is pleased with him." And maybe that's exactly why God was pleased with him then. Because he was humbly following his Father - patiently serving his Lord - always ready and waiting, but never rushing things...
This tells me that God can be pleased with us, even if we aren't doing outwardly great things for him. God is pleased with those who simply follow him - who don't seek the limelight - but only do what he asks - nothing more, nothing less.
My prayer is that we will all hear God say: "This is my child, whom I love, and with whom I am well-pleased."
But today, I decided that I would put that question aside, which led me to another one: What had Jesus done at this point to deserve God's praise? At the end of the passage in Matthew 3:17, we read a quote from God: "This is my Son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased." Obviously, love can be given from Father to Son without any reason other than the family connection, but saying you are pleased with them usually has a reason. But what had Jesus done, up to this point? According to Matthew, Jesus was born, he went with his family all over the Middle East, and then he came to be baptized. The first two, he didn't have much control over, and the last was something lots of people were doing. So they couldn't have been that significant, in God's eyes.
Think of all things Jesus was NOT doing: He hadn't started preaching yet. He hadn't started healing yet. He hadn't started doing anything outward that we can point to and say: "That's why God is pleased with him." And maybe that's exactly why God was pleased with him then. Because he was humbly following his Father - patiently serving his Lord - always ready and waiting, but never rushing things...
This tells me that God can be pleased with us, even if we aren't doing outwardly great things for him. God is pleased with those who simply follow him - who don't seek the limelight - but only do what he asks - nothing more, nothing less.
My prayer is that we will all hear God say: "This is my child, whom I love, and with whom I am well-pleased."
Monday, September 8, 2008
Name of the Lord
At the very end of Genesis 4 (verse 26) - there is a very interesting note:
"At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord." (NRSV) The NLT puts is "people began to worship the Lord by name." This seems to say that before then - people were not using God's name...
So this makes me wonder - if the people are just now getting around to using the Lord's name - what did Adam call God when they would walk together in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:8)? What did Abel call God when he sacrificed the fat of his animals (Gen 4:4)? Just wondering...
"At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord." (NRSV) The NLT puts is "people began to worship the Lord by name." This seems to say that before then - people were not using God's name...
So this makes me wonder - if the people are just now getting around to using the Lord's name - what did Adam call God when they would walk together in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:8)? What did Abel call God when he sacrificed the fat of his animals (Gen 4:4)? Just wondering...
In the Beginning
It makes sense that the first day's reading of the Bible Reading Challenge would contain the account of the very first day - when God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also makes sense that we would read some of the account of Jesus' beginnings.
As I read through these passages, I was struck by some similarities:
1. Both purport to give and account of the "generations" of a creation story.
2. They both culminate in the creation of someone very special - someone with a special relationship with God.
3. Adam, Eve, and Jesus were all directly created by God - and not concieved in the normal fashion.
Does this mean that Jesus was somehow a new creation - that his birth was just as significant as the first creation? Does it mean that Jesus was sent to correct the problems of the first creation - like the sins of Adam and Eve (in Gen 3) and thier children (in Gen 4)?
(By the way - I know the answers to the questions above - but I can't fully answer them without turning to later scriptures - so I'll save the answers for when we get to those scriptures. My point here is just to look at the passages we read...)
As I read through these passages, I was struck by some similarities:
1. Both purport to give and account of the "generations" of a creation story.
2. They both culminate in the creation of someone very special - someone with a special relationship with God.
3. Adam, Eve, and Jesus were all directly created by God - and not concieved in the normal fashion.
Does this mean that Jesus was somehow a new creation - that his birth was just as significant as the first creation? Does it mean that Jesus was sent to correct the problems of the first creation - like the sins of Adam and Eve (in Gen 3) and thier children (in Gen 4)?
(By the way - I know the answers to the questions above - but I can't fully answer them without turning to later scriptures - so I'll save the answers for when we get to those scriptures. My point here is just to look at the passages we read...)
Friday, September 5, 2008
Gustav Postpones Bible Reading Challenge
Since Hurricane Gustav hit south-east LA on the day we were to start the Bible Reading Challenge, many people in evacuation or hunker-down mode (including me) did not start their reading. So after talking with some people - and praying about it - I have decided to postpone the start date by one week: to September 8th. A revised reading schedule has been created (by my lovely wife Alisa) that will allow us to catch up with the original plan by the end of October. It will require reading one or two more chapters a day for the next few weeks, but I think it's still doable. If you want to continue with the original reading plan, by all means do so.
Also due to the storm, I have postponed the first Monday Night Bible Study from September 8th to the 15th.
Download the Revised Bible Reading Challenge Schedule PDF
Also due to the storm, I have postponed the first Monday Night Bible Study from September 8th to the 15th.
Download the Revised Bible Reading Challenge Schedule PDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)