In a world of namby pamby Bible studies...

Hard Verses: These Bible Verses are Hard!

Episode 33: Acts 8:18, Laying On Of The Apostles' Hands

Hard Verses Episode 18: You are a Bloody Husband; Exodus 4:24-26. The Problem. Exo 4:20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand. Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: Exo 4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. Exo 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. Exo 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. 1. What is going on here? 2. Moses seems to be sending his family away while he is going to prepare to go to Egypt. 3. The Lord sought to kill him. Who is him and why does God want to kill him? 4. What is the deal with Zipporah circumcising her son and calling her husband a bloody husband? The Solution. Exo 4:20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand. Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: Exo 4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. Exo 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. Exo 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. 1. What is going on? Moses just met God at the burning bush in chapter four. He has met with Jethro his father-in-law and asked to be released to go let God’s people go vs. 18. Now he is on his way to Egypt. 2. Where did his family go? Moses set me on an ass (Septuagint states beasts, Hebrew idiom, the ass to mean even the plural of beasts.) or that Zipporah and baby were riding while Gershom led the beast. It would seem that they stayed at the inn before heading back to Jethro. Ex. 18:2-5 speaks of Jethro bringing the family out to Moses in the wilderness. 3. The Lord sought to kill him. Who is him and why does God want to kill him? It seems that Moses was the one stricken by some severe sickness. Zipporah in seeing this, realized that it was because one of her children was uncircumcised and picked up a sharp rock and circumcised the child and threw it at the feet of Moses on which the Lord “let him go.” 4. What is the deal with Zipporah circumcising her son and calling her husband a bloody husband? It would seem that Moses was unable to perform the procedure and worrying that her husband was about to die, picked up the rock and did a makeshift circumcision. It was probably from her disdain of the procedure that it was not done. This would be the reason for the outburst of the bloody husband remark. Gen 17 actually records the first circumcision with Abram and his household. It states that Abram circumcised everyone, young and old and even himself. It does not necessarily say that Abraham did that to himself. The lesson for us today 1. Don’t wait to do what God wants you to do. 2. Even if things are going to be uncomfortable, if God requires it, do it. 3. God is serious about obeying His command. He was going to kill Moses. 2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; Tools I Used Burton Coffman (e-sword module) Albert Barnes (e-sword module) Adam Clarke (e-sword module) Jamieson Faucet and Brown (e-sword module) Keil and Delitzsch (e-sword module) Call to action. Subscribe and rate. You can also write a review. (Itunes). There are also the podcasts available on Youtube, look for “hard verses” with some additional videos besides the podcast.

Hard Verses Episode 18: You are a Bloody Husband; Exodus 4:24-26. The Problem. Exo 4:20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand. Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: Exo 4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. Exo 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. Exo 4:26 So he let him go: then she s

You are a Bloody Husband; Exodus 4:24-26

Hard Verses Episode 17: Abstain from Meats, Acts 15:29 Welcome to the Hard Verses podcast. Episode 17: Abstain from Meats, Acts 15:29 Hard verses is a podcast not afraid to take on the harder verses in the Bible.&nbsp; Each week we find difficult verses in God's word. The Problem. Act 15:29&nbsp; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.  Are we to abstain from eating meats offered to idols? Other verses would indicate that a strong Christian can eat meats offered to idols. Why the change?  1Co 10:19&nbsp; What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 1Co 10:25&nbsp; Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 1Co 10:26&nbsp; For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 1Co 10:27&nbsp; If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 1Co 10:28&nbsp; But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: 1Co 10:29&nbsp; Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 1Co 10:30&nbsp; For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 1Co 10:31&nbsp; Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. &nbsp;  Are Christians still not supposed to eat blood or things strangled?  &nbsp; The Solution. Act 15:29&nbsp; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. This would be indicative of what was instructed to the Gentiles minus all the junk that the Jews were trying to put in there. The idol meat. The meats offered to idols would have been the remaining meat from the sacrifice of the pagan priests.&nbsp; The meat would go either back to the worshipper and to the priest to sell at the market (Barclay 1976, 116). Barclay would go on to say that “No Christian must risk pollution by eating such meat for it had been offered to an idol” (ibid). The strangled and the blood. The Jews would have looked at animals strangled and not drained properly of blood as unclean.&nbsp; God had said life is in the blood (Lev 17:11).&nbsp; Barclay would go on to indicate that this act would make it possible for Jew and Gentile to be able to come together The law of eating blood predates the law of Moses. &nbsp; Gen 9:3&nbsp; Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9:4&nbsp; But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. Gen 9:5&nbsp; And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. &nbsp; And is also shown to be inspired instruction for the church. Act 15:28&nbsp; For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; Act 15:29&nbsp; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. &nbsp; It is understood that this would make things better between Jew and Gentile, since blood and idol feast offerings would be something of an abomination to a Jew. What about those verses that say that is nothing to it? 1Co 10:19&nbsp; What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 1Co 10:25&nbsp; Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 1Co 10:26&nbsp; For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 1Co 10:27&nbsp; If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 1Co 10:28&nbsp; But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: 1Co 10:29&nbsp; Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 1Co 10:30&nbsp; For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 1Co 10:31&nbsp; Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. &nbsp; It seems that the market place, one would not know if it had been offered to idols or not. Also if you were invited to a house, there would be no way to know if it had been idol food. &nbsp;...

Hard Verses Episode 17: Abstain from Meats, Acts 15:29 Welcome to the Hard Verses podcast. Episode 17: Abstain from Meats, Acts 15:29 Hard verses is a podcast not afraid to take on the harder verses in the Bible.&nbsp; Each week we find difficult verses in God's word. The Problem. Act 15:29&nbsp; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.  Are we to abstain from eating meats offered to idols? Other verses would indicate that a strong Christian can eat meats offered to idols. Why the change?  1Co 10:19&nbsp; What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 1Co 10:25&nbsp; Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 1Co 10:26&nbsp; For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 1Co 10:27&nbsp; If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye b

Abstain from Meats Offered to Idols, Acts 15:29

Hard Verses Episode 15: Baptism for the Dead; 1 Cor. 15:29 Thanks to Patrick Peters for the suggestion. The Problem. 1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? What does it mean when it says they are baptized for the dead? Does that mean that you can be baptized for those that have already died? Prophet Joseph Smith first taught about the ordinance of baptism for the dead during a funeral sermon in August 1840. He read much of 1 Corinthians 15, including verse 29, and announced that the Lord would permit Church members to be baptized in behalf of their friends and relatives who had departed this life. He told them “the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God” (Journal History of the Church, 15 Aug. 1840). https://www.mormon.org/faq/baptism-for-the-dead Proxie baptism maybe. Mormons use this as proof. Can we save those that have gone on before and were not living right? The Solution. Let me give the context, let us read some. 1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 1Co 15:30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 1Co 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 1Co 15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. 1Co 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. 1Co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 1Co 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 1Co 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. Let us not lose the meaning of the passage. Paul is teaching that there will be a resurrection of the dead. There was doubt about this resurrection. The pagans believed that there was corruptness in the body. This meant that purity was to come by shedding this body. Paul was using this practice of baptism (whatever that meant) to teach about the resurrection of the body. Many have suggested that this practice is lost to antiquity because we have nothing else to describe it. He was not teaching that we were to be baptized for the dead. This was just illustrative (Guy N. Woods). Notice the “they” instead of inclusive words like “we” or “us” which would indicate an outside group. Can you be baptized for someone else? Can you proxie other areas of the faith? Hearing the word of God? Believing/faith in that word and in God? Confessing Jesus before men? Repenting of sins? This just doesn’t make sense. So to make baptism go to that area doesn’t make sense. What could it mean? Could have been a practice of the surrounding pagans. Howard Winters (Commentary on First Corinthians, Practical and Explanatory pg. 217) puts it in a modern day saying, “Else what shall they do who violently attack others in order to end violence, if non-violence is their method ? Why then are they using violence?” Burton Coffman states the following: "The Indians bury a dog and a spear with the fallen warrior; and why should they do that, if there is no resurrection?" Both statements use illustrations without condoning the practice used in the example. One of the safest ways to interpret the passage, which lines up with every major doctrine in the NT is the following: The “they” are Christians that were baptized for their dead spiritual condition. To ask, “why are you being baptized to a spiritual death if you are not going...

Hard Verses Episode 15: Baptism for the Dead; 1 Cor. 15:29 Thanks to Patrick Peters for the suggestion. The Problem. 1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? What does it mean when it says they are baptized for the dead? Does that mean that you can be baptized for those that have already died? Prophet Joseph Smith first taught about the ordinance of baptism for the dead during a funeral sermon in August 1840. He read much of 1 Corinthians 15, including verse 29, and announced that the Lord would permit Church members to be baptized in behalf of their friends and relatives who had departed this life. He told them “the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God” (Journal History of the Church, 15 Aug. 1840). https://www.mormon.org/faq/baptism-for-the-dead Proxie baptism maybe. Mormons use this as proof. Can we save those that have g

Baptism for the Dead, 1 Cor. 15:29

&nbsp; Hard Verses Episode 12: Marry only in the Lord; 1 Cor. 7:39 Wanted to thank everyone for sharing and all the positive response.&nbsp; Wanted to thank everyone for all the new suggestions. Wanted to thank Larry White for the suggestion. The Problem. 1Co 7:39&nbsp; The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. What does it mean to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord? Can she only marry another Christian man? Can she only marry in a Christian manner? The Solution. The issue is what does “in the Lord” mean and then modify?  Earlier “in the Lord” is apparent to mean a Christian in Paul’s other writings.  Rom 16:11&nbsp; Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The NIV actually translates this passage this way. 39&nbsp;A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. Looking at other verses that may have to do with this, like being unequally yoked. 2Co 6:14&nbsp; Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2Co 6:15&nbsp; And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 2Co 6:16&nbsp; And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 2Co 6:17&nbsp; Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Is this discussing marriage?&nbsp; Not specifically. The Greek does not seem to indicate this. I had two peer reviewed articles that I received from a search and neither dealt with the issue of verse 39. I went through my commentaries and almost all said that the man has to be a Christian without explaining why.  Did a google search and came up with several church of Christ websites and one Jehovah Witness site (which did not explain the verse, just made an assertion).  The issue is that if this forbidding of marriage to unbelievers is to be taken from this verse 39 then it would be the only verse forbidding this. There is also the issue of how to rectify the situation if this is a sinful act.&nbsp; Will the woman now need to divorce? According to Matthew 19:9, there is only one reason for divorce. Mat 19:9&nbsp; And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Prior verses speak to woman staying married to their unbelieving husbands so that they may be converted. All this would be to point to the “in the Lord” as modifying the act of marrying. The woman would have to be married in a scriptural way.&nbsp; They would not need to be married to someone with several wives.&nbsp; They would also not need to marry someone that would require them to go to Pagan worship. This seems to be the way this is modified.&nbsp; When looking at a very similar passage using “in the Lord,” The modified object is a little easier to spot. Eph 6:1&nbsp; Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Is “in the Lord” modifying Children, parents or the act of obeying? It seems obvious that this means the obedience is to be complete unless it requires a child to go against God’s law. &nbsp;  There is one other argument. This passage only applies because of the upcoming, eminent distress. This would mean that this verse is no longer applicable to us today.&nbsp; Because there will be massive heart ache one needs to find a Christian spouse.&nbsp; I personally don’t see this view.&nbsp; That would make sense to those debating whether to marry or not.&nbsp; Since taking a spouse is an added burden in a time of hardship.  The lesson for us today. We need to be living our lives “in the Lord.” Tools I Used http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/OnlyInTheLord.html  http://westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/diff_quest/only_in_the_lord.html  https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/313-should-a-christian-marry-outside-the-faith e-sword Modules Barnes, Burton Coffman, Clarke, JFB. &nbsp; Call to action. Youtube is up.&nbsp; “Hard Verses.” Subscribe. If you have an Iphone or ipad, then you have Itunes.&nbsp; Go to ITunes to the top right to the search box.&nbsp; What is a search box?&nbsp; It is a white rectangle with...

&nbsp; Hard Verses Episode 12: Marry only in the Lord; 1 Cor. 7:39 Wanted to thank everyone for sharing and all the positive response.&nbsp; Wanted to thank everyone for all the new suggestions. Wanted to thank Larry White for the suggestion. The Problem. 1Co 7:39&nbsp; The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. What does it mean to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord? Can she only marry another Christian man? Can she only marry in a Christian manner? The Solution. The issue is what does “in the Lord” mean and then modify?  Earlier “in the Lord” is apparent to mean a Christian in Paul’s other writings.  Rom 16:11&nbsp; Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The NIV actually translates this passage this way. 3

Marry Only in the Lord; 1 Cor. 7:39

Hard Verses Episode 5: The Graves Were Opened and the Saints Arose (Matthew 27:52-53). Wanted to thank Miriam for the suggestion. She had posted on social media the suggestion.&nbsp; Her post came up first. The Problem. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, truly this was the Son of God. (Matthew 27:50-54 KJV).  At the time of Jesus’ death there are several things that occur.  Darkness over the land. The veil of the temple was torn into. The earthquake. The rocks broke. The graves were opened. Many bodies of the dead saints arose. They came out of the graves after His resurrections. They then went into Jerusalem and appeared unto many.   The centurion and those that were with him that were…  Watching Jesus. Saw the earthquake. Saw other “things that were done. Feared greatly. Saying truly this was the Son of God.     What makes this difficult?  Were there really dead saints that arose? Were they Old Testament saints or those contemporary to Jesus that had recently died? The centurion would not have seen the rent in the Temple. The earthquake and the renting of the rocks would have been on Friday while the resurrection of the dead saints would have had to be after the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday since He is the first fruits of the resurrection of the dead (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20; Rev. 1:5; Acts 26:23; Col. 1:15; James 1:18). Is there any historical evidence of this occurrence outside of scripture?    The Solution. There has to be more than just the witnessing of the earthquake and the renting rocks by the centurion.&nbsp; “…when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done…”  What does this timeline look like? The centurion and those with him witnessed these events.  What are these events that they saw?  The darkness. The earthquakes. The rending of the rocks. The divine meekness of this crucified man. Heard His last words (Father forgive them). The raising of resuscitated saints (not likely).   What would they not have seen?  The renting of the temple veil. The raising of resurrected saints. Them coming to Jerusalem.   Could this be a resuscitation instead of a resurrection? The historicity is good according to many that knew the eyewitnesses (taken from Geisler).  The book itself (Matthew) claims to be an historical account. Many of the occurrences of Matthew are known to be historical from several sources even secular sources.       The events were part of a section of scripture clearly historical in nature (the crucifixion, death, burial, etc.).   Looking back at writers shortly after the Bible of “Church Fathers,” speak of Matthew’s account of the raising of the saints at the resurrection of Christ as an historical event (See Geisler article). The alleged confusion of early writers concerning this section of scripture, is not ambiguous as far as the historicity is concerned.  There are those early writers that debate whether they rose at the death of Christ or at His resurrection. There was dispute as to what the centurion actually witnessed. None of the writers disputed whether it was historically accurate.   The saints were probably those contemporary with Jesus or they would not have been recognized.  &nbsp; &nbsp; The lesson for us today. ???? What you listener should do next. The links to the articles are here (read it, it is excellent): &nbsp;&nbsp; http://defendinginerrancy.com/early-fathers-resurrection-saints/  Website has been updated preacherbryan.com (Give it a look, it is ok). Subscription are slowly being integrated. Let me know if you are not seeing Hard Verses on your favorite player. Itunes, Stitcher, and Google Play Please, don't be antisocial.  Get connected: Facebook- Bryan Cook Twitter- Preacherbryan Google +- Bryan Cook

Hard Verses Episode 5: The Graves Were Opened and the Saints Arose (Matthew 27:52-53). Wanted to thank Miriam for the ...

The Graves Were Opened and the Saints Arose, Matthew 27:52-53

&nbsp; Hard Verses Episode 6: He Preached to the Spirits in Prison (1 Peter 3:19). Wanted to thank Sam Cook for the Intro work, Jordan Gray (actually Don Garey, sorry) for the suggestion and Alan Caudle for the legal disclaimer at the end. The Problem. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.&nbsp; 1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV Who? Who is the “he” in “by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison?” &nbsp; What? Who or what are the spirits in prison? What did He preach to the spirits in prison? When? When did He preach to the spirits in prison? Where? Where were the spirits in prison? Where did Jesus preach to the spirits? Why? Why did He preach to the spirits in prison? Sound Transition The Solution.  The whole purpose of this section is to encourage the brethren about the suffering that was on them. I will give you two “safe”[1] ways to interpret this. Jesus through the preaching of the Apostles and others presented the gospel to those in the same condition as those in Noah’s day. They would be captive and dead in their sin but now multitudes will come to Christ.  &nbsp;  Eph 2:17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.&nbsp;&nbsp; –Jesus did not personally preach to the Gentiles but had his messengers bring the message.   Could it be that Noah’s message to the lost was through the Holy Spirit, (the “in which” refers to the Spirit and not Christ) or that Christ would have been the one preaching through Noah? There are three major sets of beliefs with many subsets concerning this including our “safe” way to interpret this.   A more recent view is what is stated by Pulpit Commentary. The preaching is in reference to men “alive after Pentecost to whom the gospel was preached by Christ through the apostles, men in a natural prison house of bandage to sin and Satan.”[2] An older theory that goes back to the third century AD, is that the spirits who are now in prison are “the disembodied souls of the people who perished in the Flood, and that the preincarnate Christ preached to them through Noah…”[3] The apparent oldest of the theories identifies spirits in prison as fallen angels. There are writings (unscriptural and uninspired) that indicate that this may have been the belief at the time of Peter’s writings. 1 Enoch predates not only Peter’s writings but even the ministry of Christ.  There is additional support for this in that 2 Peter 2:4,5 and Jude 6 discuss the fate of angels and demons.  There is descriptions of Christ being over spiritual beings. There are descriptions of angels and demons being reprimanded and subjugated.   Spirit in these contemporary (inspired writings) is generally shown to describe the supernatural unless described additionally as human. Those early (uninspired) writers all point to the great transgression of the angels as occurring before the flood. (it may be common myth). According to Hiebert, this theory went into disfavor with the fourth century church.     Back to the original questions.  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.&nbsp; 1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV Who? Who is the “he” in “by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison?”  Most would agree this is Christ even if pointing to the antecedent Spirit (the spirit of Christ).  &nbsp; What? Who or what are the spirits in prison?  Disembodied souls of the lost at the time of Noah. (This does not go with other scriptures). The souls in that lost condition of those during the time of the apostles preaching. Angelic beings that were disobedient during the time prior to the ark.  What did He preach to the spirits in prison?  Disembodied souls lost at the time of Noah—  He really could not preach the gospel because His resurrection was not complete. He would be giving them a second chance even though they rejected the message the entire century that Noah preached to them (not likely).   The souls in a lost condition of sin.  Preached the gospel to come out of that. They would be encouraged by this message (remember the purpose of this scripture). Only a few survived on the ark but many more are coming to know salvation through Christ.   Angelic beings that were disobedient during the time prior to...

&nbsp; Hard Verses Episode 6: He Preached to the Spirits in Prison (1 Peter 3:19). Wanted to thank Sam Cook for the Intro work, Jordan Gray (actually Don Garey, sorry) for the suggestion and Alan Caudle for the legal disclaimer at the end. The Problem. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.&nbsp; 1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV Who? Who is the “he” in “by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison?” &nbsp; What? Who or what are the spirits in prison? What did He preach to the spirits in prison? When? When did He preach to the spirits in prison? Where? Where were the spirits in prison? Where did Jesus preach to the spiri

Preaching to the Spirits in Prison, 1 Peter 3:19

Hard Verses Episode 7: Inscription on the vesture and thigh (Rev. 19:16). &nbsp; &nbsp; Wanted to clarify from last week the 1 Peter 3:18-19 (He spoke to the spirits that were in prison was from Don Gary, not Jordan Gray. The Problem. Rev 19:16 “And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Much of Revelation has difficulty in nailing down concrete situations and details because of the symbolic language used. This verse is no different. The book is coded up because otherwise it would not get delivered or cause problems for the messengers. The Solution. Rev 19:16 “And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” The main problem we are having is a lack of historical knowledge on this custom. For time sack, I will not get into the previous and post verses but will focus strictly on this. What is a vesture? What is up with the thigh? “Two images likewise of this man are seen in Ionia, on the way that leads from Ephesus to Phocaea, and from Sardis to Smyrna. The figure is five palms in height; in his right hand he holds a dart, in his left a bow, armed after the manner of the Egyptians and Ethiopians. On a line drawn across the breast, from one shoulder to the other, are these words, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics: Εγω τηνδε την χωρην ωμοισι τοισι εμοισι εκτησαμην· ‘I obtained this country by these my shoulders;’“ i.e., by my own power. Heroditus, Euterpe speaking of the actions of Sesostris. In the Etruria Regalis of Dempster, in the appendix at the end of vol. ii., there is a beautiful female figure of brass, about twelve inches high, the hair gracefully plaited, and the head adorned with a diadem. She has a tunic without sleeves, and over that a sort of pallium. On the outside of the right thigh, close to the tunic, and probably on it, in the original, is an inscription in Etruscan characters. As these kinds of inscriptions on the thigh, the garments, and different parts of the body, were in use among different nations, to express character, conduct, qualities, and conquests, we may rest assured that to them St. John alludes when he represents our sovereign Lord with an inscription upon his vesture and upon his thigh; and had we not found it a custom among other nations, we should have been at a loss to account for its introduction and meaning here. Adam Clark Some suggestions from Pulpit Commentary below. (1) The name, written at length, is written partly upon the vesture and partly upon the thigh itself, where the garment would (in an equestrian figure) fall away from the thigh (Alford). (2) The name is written on the vesture, even (kai) on that part of it which covers the thigh (De Wette, Dusterdieck, Hengstenberg). (3) On the thigh, as the place where the sword usually hangs. (4) A reference to the custom of engraving the name of the artist upon the thigh of a statue (Cic., "Verr.," 4:43; see Wetstein). KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. As in Rev_17:14 (but inverted), where, as here, it portrays the victorious career of Christ over the "kings of the earth." - end of Pulpit Commentary. Studies in the Book of Revelation by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. An excerpt about Rev. 19:16. “Verse 16- On the garment and thigh of the Warrior King was an inscribed name- KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. In the Gospel Advocate Adult Quarterly for the Winter of 1978 we have this fine summary of Revelation 19:16: His Lordship and sovereignty are emphasized here. All are subjects to his power. Kings of the earth, however powerful, are beneath him; lords, however, great, must ultimately answer to him. It is said that in ancient times and in Oriental lands it was not uncommon for men of great power and prominence to have their names inscribed on their garments so that they might be quickly recognized. We must not assume that such was literally necessary for the Lord to do in order that he might properly be recognized; the statement is a figurative one and the reference symbolic; it simply suggests the supreme power and unquestioned sovereignty of the Lord when he triumphs over his enemies (p. 54). &nbsp; What about this name? continued. the number seven finds a place in the scheme of the Apocalypse so often that the following fact is well worth noting: leaving out the "and," by which St. John tells us to add the two titles into one name, the combination "King of Kings, Lord of Lords," in Aramaic [font unavailable to render] adds up to 777.[1] &nbsp; The lesson for us today.  Do we recognize Jesus as Lord of lords and King of kings? Do we recognize His commandments as law or are they just suggestions? Love your enemy, Seek ye first, etc. just suggestions or commandments?  &nbsp; Call to action. &nbsp; Through e-sword (free for download, free to use) I used the following modules: Adam Clarke Burton Coffman Pulpit Commentary &nbsp;  Website has been updated preacherbryan.com...

Hard Verses Episode 7: Inscription on the vesture and thigh (Rev. 19:16). &nbsp; &nbsp; Wanted to clarify from last week the 1 Peter 3:18-19 (He spoke to the spirits that were in prison was from Don Gary, not Jordan Gray. The Problem. Rev 19:16 “And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Much of Revelation has difficulty in nailing down concrete situations and details because of the symbolic language used. This verse is no different. The book is coded up because otherwise it would not get delivered or cause problems for the messengers. The Solution. Rev 19:16 “And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” The main problem we are having is a lack of historical knowledge on this custom. For time sack, I will not get into the previous and post verses but will focus strictly on this. What is a vesture? What is up with the thigh? “Two images likewise of this man are seen in Ionia, on the way

Hard Verses: These Bible Verses are Hard! Videos