Luke 1:27 (The Virgin’s Name Was Mary)

Artwork by Douglas Kallerson.

Luke 1:27
The Virgin’s Name Was Mary

(Read: Luke 1:26-38) One aspect of churches that hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture is, obviously, their focus on Jesus. He is the Grand Subject of everything going on in the Bible. Therefore, Bible-believing men and women will naturally direct their attention and adoration toward Him and what He has done.

Take Paul, the tireless apostle of Jesus Christ, who stated his thoughts on the matter clearly and precisely in several ways. Concerning the Person of Jesus, he said –

“But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.” Philippians 3:7-11

Concerning the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, he says –

“But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Galatians 6:14

And this is not unique to Paul. Everything about the gospels, the book of Acts, and the other epistles finds its greatest focus on the Lord Jesus and what He has done. All other aspects of Scripture point to Him in one way or another, calling out for us to direct our eyes, our hearts, and our attention to Him.

The unnamed author of Hebrews states the matter so exactingly and concisely, that it is hard to imagine how people miss it –

“Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12:2 (BSB)

Let’s consider these words. Elsewhere, Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Peter then explains that, specifically saying it is the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, by whom the men of God spoke (2 Peter 1:21).

As for Hebrews 12:2, we were instructed to fix our eyes on Jesus and that it is He who sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. It is Jesus, the God/Man, who is to be our focus even though Jesus is sitting at the throne of God.

And this is testified to by the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Holy Spirit inspired what is written, and Hebrews 12:2 says that we are to fix our eyes on Jesus, it means that the Holy Spirit is instructing us to do this. But more, even the Father has explicitly instructed us concerning the Son –

“While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were fearful as they entered the cloud. 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!’” Luke 9:34, 35

Nothing could be clearer. Jesus! It is all about Jesus! We are to hear Him. We are to fix our eyes on Him. We are to boast in His cross. We are to consider Christ as our Source of gain. We are to know Him and the power of His resurrection, and even to fellowship in His sufferings. This is what Scripture tells us.

Text Verse: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” John 1:1-5

John begins his gospel narrative with a note concerning Jesus, the Word of God, tying Him directly to the Creator God, Elohim, of Genesis 1:1. Notice the unmistakable connection –

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

John’s introduction of the Word, Jesus, and his note of the creation wrought by Him is to tell us plainly and unambiguously that Jesus is the Lord God of the Old Testament, having come in the flesh. No wonder the other writers of the New Testament admonish us as they do concerning where our attention is to be directed.

And yet, being misdirected away from this fundamental truth is the main goal of the devil to this day. It may be a direct attack, such as that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses denying the deity of Christ. It may be a diversionary attack, such as that found in the Mormons where Jesus was a man who became a god and that we too can be a god someday, ruling our own little universe.

It may be a subtle dismissal of the authority of Christ as is occurring in almost every mainstream denomination of the church today. Idols of perverted sex or the diminishing the God-ordained church hierarchy have become a substitute for allegiance to Jesus, the Lord God.

Instead, He is relegated to a sappy figure who will tolerate whatever evil inclination of the heart arises to permeate the congregation and, indeed, the entire denomination.

Sadly, another approach is to exalt others to positions of spiritual recognition that belong to Christ Jesus alone. This is a principal tenant of the Roman Catholic Church where the Pope assumes a primary role in mediatorial aspects of the faith, something that directly contradicts Scripture.

This is followed by lesser mediatorial roles assigned to saints and priests as well. But of all of their violations of Scripture, the most damaging is that of the worship and adoration of Mary. It is, literally speaking, a fatal flaw of their faith.

The amount of attention focused on her is so genuinely demeaning of the Lord that it is hard to imagine how those who are caught up in this overt cult will escape their just condemnation. She has supplanted Jesus in innumerable ways through their rites, rituals, and doctrines.

Sadly, this will bring condemnation on many who have never come to a saving knowledge of the only One who can bear their sin debt and who will then mediate for them before the Father. It is truly heartbreaking how misdirected people have become. And the prophetic word exactingly showed us in advance the state of the church as the end times approaches.

Let us hold fast to the faith we profess, meaning the eye-directed, ear-hearing attention that comes through embracing Jesus Christ as the Object of our hope and the Subject of our faith. This is the doctrine that is to be found in God’s superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again, and… May God speak to us through His word today, and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. What About Mary?

For simplicity’s sake, I went online and typed the words, “All References to Mary in Scripture.” The obvious meaning is “Mary the mother of Jesus.” Google, being rather slow at 5am, took 4.77 seconds to come up with “about 7,050,000 results.”

The first site that came up was maryimmaculate.tripod.com and the following was pulled from there. If it is incorrect in one place or another, please blame them. I like to be precise in everything I do, especially in regard to Scripture, but for the sake of the sermon today it isn’t of critical importance if they missed a reference or two.

My guess is that they did not. If they are trying to exalt Mary, they will do their best to ensure they have every possible detail available for that purpose. They appeal to the Old and New Testaments in order to exalt her to a point of adoration and worship. For example, they say that she is noted in Genesis 3:15 –

“And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.” Genesis 3:15

Unfortunately for their argument, this is not speaking of Mary, except in an incidental manner. Mary is a woman and she would bear the Messiah, but the focus is actually on the Seed of the woman as opposed to the seed of man.

In other words, this is speaking less of a particular woman than it is speaking of One born of a woman but not of a man, meaning not having a human father. Therefore, woman is not the relevant point of the verse at all. It is the process involved and the theology behind the coming of the Seed of the woman that is being highlighted.

This is not discernable at this early point in the redemptive narrative, but in understanding the overall context of Scripture, this is what is being conveyed. No matter what, however, the focus is on the Seed, not the woman. This then follows along with the prophecy of Isaiah –

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14

Again, the focus is on the Son. The sign is a virgin who conceives. A sign stands for something else; it is not the thing itself. In other words, her virginity is highlighted, not who she is. And even her virginity is only given to highlight and direct attention to a theological point being made. To understand the limiting nature of Genesis 3 and Isaiah 7, we can cite the words of Jacob from Genesis 49 –

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
Until Shiloh comes;
And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.” Genesis 49:10

The prophecy of Genesis 3:15 excludes the seed of man. Hence, no person born of a union between a man and a woman will be the Messiah. Thus, all such unions are excluded. As noted, this will later be confirmed by Isaiah 7:14 where it explicitly states that a virgin will conceive. No non-virgin will bear the Messiah.

As every female ever born was born as a virgin, it could ostensibly be any woman up until the point that she was no longer a virgin who could bear the Messiah. However, we know from Scripture that a descendant of Abraham would bear the Messiah. Thus, no virgin outside of the line of Abraham could be the Messiah.

From there, that was further refined when Isaac was chosen as the son of promise. One must descend from Isaac to be considered as the Messiah. Again, that was later refined to mean one born of Jacob, who is Israel. Only someone born from the line of Israel could be the Messiah. Any virgin of Israel could potentially be the bearer of the Messiah at this point in the narrative.

With that clearly presented in Scripture, Jacob’s prophecy narrowed this down to the tribe of Judah. Therefore, any virgin of Judah, who is descended from Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham could potentially be the bearer of the Messiah. But this is then further refined in 2 Samuel 7 where the promised seed was to come through the house of David –

“When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.” 2 Samuel 7:12-16

This is why, just before uttering his prophecy concerning the coming Son who would be born of a virgin, Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?” (Isaiah 7:13).

Isaiah specifically addresses the house of David because it was clearly understood from the words of 2 Samuel 7 that the Messiah would come through David’s house. Thus, any virgin of the house of David, which was of the tribe of Judah, and who came from Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham could potentially be the bearer of the Messiah.

Other prophecies within Scripture further refine the timing of the coming of the Messiah, the place where He would be born, and so on. But the focus is always on the coming Messiah.

Identifying Mary as a person to be worshiped based on these and other Old Testament references would be no different than identifying Bethlehem as a place to be worshiped. The attention is on neither. They are simply incidental necessities to identify the Messiah based on the prophetic utterances.

For example, in their quest to exalt Mary as worthy of worship, maryimmaculate.tripod.com cites Micah 5. Think on who is being highlighted and why the other references are given, such as Bethlehem –

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”
Therefore He shall give them up,
Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth;
Then the remnant of His brethren
Shall return to the children of Israel.
And He shall stand and feed His flock
In the strength of the Lord,
In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God;
And they shall abide,
For now He shall be great
To the ends of the earth;
And this One shall be peace.” Micah 5:2-5

The claim by the website is that “she who is in labor” is referring to Mary. Even if this were true, the mentioning is incidental to the One who is being highlighted, just as Bethlehem is. But this incidental entity is not Mary at all. It is a reference that builds upon what was said in the previous chapter –

“And you, O tower of the flock,
The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,
To you shall it come,
Even the former dominion shall come,
The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem.
Now why do you cry aloud?
Is there no king in your midst?
Has your counselor perished?
For pangs have seized you like a woman in labor.
10 Be in pain, and labor to bring forth,
O daughter of Zion,
Like a woman in birth pangs.
For now you shall go forth from the city,
You shall dwell in the field,
And to Babylon you shall go.
There you shall be delivered;
There the Lord will redeem you
From the hand of your enemies.” Micah 4:8-10

It is probable that, like Isaiah 7, the prophecy has a dual meaning. Hence, it could be speaking of the virgin birth. But in this case, Mary as an individual is not even a consideration at this point.

The website pulls out six references that they claim highlight Mary in Scripture. Actually, they only incidentally mention her but the main subject of each verse is the coming Messiah. Mary is never directly a consideration in any of them. After this, the website states –

“I have only included prophetic statements here, not the Old Testament types of Mary such as the Ark of the Covenant and the Daughter of Zion. I omitted the latter from this list because they are only implicit foreshadows – not explicit prophecies – of the Mother of the Messiah in Scripture.  However, they are still part of what God’s holy Word has to tell us about the Mother of Jesus, so the complete Old Testament revelation of Mary is by no means limited to the above six verses!”

This is a person that understands nothing of Old Testament typology. Referencing the Ark of the Covenant as being a type of Mary is as far from reality as would be saying that the Table of Showbread was a type of John the Baptist. The only thing these things foreshadow is Christ, His work, and His church in relation to His work.

The approach of the website’s author is what we might term “pick and choose theology” mixed together with “The Bible says what I want it to say.” In the site’s concluding statements, it claims –

The Old Testament prophesies of Mary in six verses. [Not correct]
The New Testament stories of Mary comprise about 129 verses in all, scattered over seven books. [Incorrect – Mary is incidental in most of them and the references in Revelation are not speaking of Mary.]
Mary’s own words are recorded in a total of fifteen verses. [Mostly magnifying the Lord.]
She is explicitly given seventeen names and titles. [Incorrect – the list repeats some and many are just descriptions.]
So she clearly appears in Scripture a lot more than just “three or four times”! [True, but when she is, it is never to exalt her personally. For example, when she says, “all generations will call me blessed,” it is because she was the bearer of the Messiah. Her favor is a result of her relationship to Him.].

Such evaluations of Mary are forced, they ignore the context of what is being presented, and they violate Scripture by redirecting the focus and attention which should be directed to the Lord and placing it on her instead.

Mary, like Abraham or David, was a person who was used by God to lead to Jesus, nothing more. The adoration and exaltation of Mary is no different than if someone were to adore and exalt one of these men. Let us consider this and never fail to offer our prayers, our praises, and our glory in spiritual matters to God alone, through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I shall put enmity between you and the woman
An on-going battle through lengths of ages
Your seed, the unregenerate human
Who against me reviles and rages

But there shall come One, a Promised Seed
Who will crush your head for what you have done
Your days are numbered so take heed
In my mind the battle is already won

Jesus is coming to make all things new
This word is faithful, and it is true

 In the cross, a victory you will assume
A victory – yes – but not for you
After His cross and His tomb
He will arise and make all things new

Man’s redemption will have been wrought
By the Seed of the woman, My own Son
With His blood He will have bought
The right to man’s soul, the victory won

II. Mary’s Virginity. Why It Matters.

Some years ago, I was working at the wastewater plant on Siesta Key. At the time, we were very short-staffed, and I was working double shifts, sixteen hours a day, seven days a week. This lasted for about three months. In the evenings while working in the laboratory, I would have Christian radio on one of the shows that came on each day, Renewing Your Mind with RC Sproul.

Because of his clear thinking and depth of biblical knowledge, the areas of doctrine that he failed in were really maddening to me. I would often ask myself, “How can he not get this right?” But that goes back to his training in theology.

Unless you are grounded in your understanding of the word you will usually follow the ones who teach you. He did this to a T. Jim once went to a conference where R.C. was speaking and I said to him, “If you see R.C. Sproul while you’re there, please give him a big hug from me and then sock him in the jaw.”

One of the things he talked about one night while I was working in the lab was the virginity of Mary. He used several verses from 1 Corinthians 15 to make his point. There, Paul speaks of the resurrection of Christ and the importance of that to our lives as Christians. Those verses say –

“Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.” 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

R.C. then essentially said, “If you consider the virginity of Mary using this same logic, you understand how important this issue is.” Without attempting to change Scripture, but to make a theological point, he then substituted the resurrection with the virginity of Mary. His thoughts went something like this –

“Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if Mary was not a virgin, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact Mary was not a virgin. For if Mary was not a virgin, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”

Again, this was not an attempt to change Scripture, but to make a point about Mary’s role in the process of man’s redemption. The virgin birth is actually that important. The main reason for this is that of the doctrine of Original Sin. Essentially, this doctrine teaches that our first father, Adam, fell. And in his falling, we fell with him. This is confirmed by David in the Psalms –

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5

As the psalms are a different type of literature, one might be able to say that David was speaking in a poetic manner about the level of corruption he felt in his soul over the offense he had committed. This would be incorrect, but it could be argued if there were no other clear indications of this doctrine in Scripture.

The story of Cain and Abel is strategically placed and carefully worded to reveal the doctrine to us. Immediately after the record of the fall and then man’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the first account we read is that of the births of Cain and Abel –

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.” Genesis 4:1-5

Without any record of sinning on the part of either son, the narrative immediately notes that the sons brought an offering to the Lord, implying that appeasement between God and them was required. This becomes more evident when it notes that one offering was accepted and the other was not.

Unless there was a purpose and an intent that extended beyond the offerings themselves, there would be no need for the statement. As this is readily discernible, and because the record indicates no sin committed by either of the sons, the implication is that they were fallen, just as their parents were.

But these things are only implied in the passage, and it could be argued that we just don’t have the details right in our minds, or we missed some other point that shows this wasn’t the intention of Scripture at all. That would be incorrect, but it is not definitive enough to clearly express the doctrine of Original Sin.

However, we are not left without a clear treatise on the subject. That is found in Paul’s letter to the Romans. There are several key verses, but they are interspersed in an overall context that should be considered –

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 5:12-21

The point of Paul’s words is clear and explicit and it tells us that because Adam sinned, all in Adam have sinned. Because all have sinned, all stand condemned. Adam’s one act of disobedience has spread both sin (the doctrine of Original Sin) and condemnation (signifying the universal need for a Savior) to all human beings. Paul’s words are built upon the theology that is clearly presented in Scripture, and which is explicitly stated by Jesus –

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:16-18

Jesus did not simply pull this out of the wind. He derived it from what is clearly taught from the very first pages of Scripture. With the introduction of the law, this state of sin and condemnation is only highlighted. That is why Paul said in Romans 4, “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound” (5:20).

Original sin is implied in the requirements of the Levitical sacrifices in numerous ways, chiefly in the Day of Atonement observance, and it is hinted at in other ways as well. It is also seen and highlighted in the rite of circumcision as detailed in Scripture. The reason I say, “as detailed in Scripture,” is because other cultures circumcise, but not at the set time found in Scripture nor for the reason given in Scripture. The rite of circumcision was given as a sign –

“And God said to Abraham: ‘As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.’” Genesis 17:9-12

As stated earlier, a sign is not a thing in and of itself. Despite this, it is how the Jews treat circumcision. In essence, they say, “I am circumcised, and thus I am right before God.” In this, they use the physical cutting of the flesh and equate it directly to their right standing.

This is neither the purpose nor the meaning of circumcision. Rather, circumcision is given as a sign anticipating the coming of Christ, and it is why the virgin birth is absolutely essential to what God has done in Him.

Paul has shown that Adam sinned, that death is the result of sin, and that all die because all have sinned. Thus, all stand condemned. This is a simple one plus one type of equation. Adam sinned. Adam knew his wife and they had children. Adam’s sin spread to his children. His children died and their default position is condemnation.

Adam’s sin has continued to spread to each child that has been born since. Each child is born in sin and each child’s default position is condemnation. This is what Jesus explicitly stated in John 3:18 and it is what Paul lays out in detail in Romans 5.

But Jesus is a Man. If Mary was not a virgin, the sin of Adam would have transferred to her child. Her being a virgin is where the sign of circumcision finds its fulfillment. The account in Luke clearly details this –

“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, ‘Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!’
29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.’
34 Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’
35 And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’” Luke 1:26-35

The record of her virginity stands as a witness that the Child born from her did not have a human father. It is also a witness that, like Bethlehem being the geographical point of Scripture’s fulfillment, she is the human focal point of the prophecies fulfilled in Scripture. And more, because the Holy Spirit, who is God, overshadowed her, the Child born to her is the sinless Son of God.

No sin transferred to the child because the sin comes from the union of a man and a woman. Hence, the sign of circumcision. As I said, a sign points to something else. The cutting of the male, in the spot where sin transfers during a union between a man and a woman, is a sign that points to the cutting of that line of sin in the coming of Christ.

Hence, you can see where R.C. Sproul’s logical statement applies. If Jesus Christ had sin, He would not have risen. But sin is not merely something that is committed. It is also something that is received. Hence, the doctrine of Original Sin is what is evident in Scripture, and it is what evidently needs to be corrected.

Jesus Christ was born without original sin, and Jesus Christ – as testified to in the gospel narratives – lived without sinning. As such, death could not hold Him. The first part of the equation is what is dealt with in the virginity of Mary. As stated before, without attempting to change Scripture, but to simply make a theological point about the virgin birth –

“Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if Mary was not a virgin, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact Mary was not a virgin. For if Mary was not a virgin, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”

Without the first half of the sin equation (original sin being imputed), there would be no need for even considering the second half, meaning that of committed sin. But with the first half out of the way, the Child of Christmas was conceived in the womb of Mary, at this exact time of year.

Nine months later, He was born in Bethlehem in the land of Judah. The sinless Son of God was born of a woman under the law to redeem those who were under the law. With that, God’s Christ continued to live without sinning, perfectly fulfilling the law that God had given to Israel.

And in His fulfillment of the law, He gave up His life in exchange for our sins. Thus, He alone fulfills the typology of the Ark of the Covenant. He is the embodiment of the law contained within. He is the incorruptible Man pictured by the acacia wood.

He is the divine God, pictured by the gold covering. He is the place of propitiation, pictured by the golden mercy seat. He is the One revealed in the two testaments of Scripture, pictured by the poles by which the ark is carried. And so on. To ascribe these things to Mary is the epitome of blasphemy because it deprives Jesus of the glory He alone is due.

We can remember Mary and consider the honor she had as the mother of the Son of God, but we can also remember Bethlehem and consider it in light of its honor as the birthplace of the Son of God. Where is our attention rightly focused? It is not to be on such things that are mentioned only in relation to Christ Jesus. Rather, it is to be on Christ Jesus alone. Indeed, let us fix our eyes on Him.

The story of Christmas is twisted, maligned, and misunderstood by so many. The story of Christmas is the moment when the sinless life of Jesus Christ was conceived in the womb of a virgin. He was the hope of Adam, the anticipation of Eve, the point of the rejoicing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Jesus was the One David eagerly expected and He was the Glory heralded by all of the true prophets of God since the world began. He is the point upon which all of time and creation pivots. Without Him, nothing matters. But with Him, everything finds its purpose and value. He is our hope, our joy, our point of rejoicing in all things. He is the Child of Christmas. He is JESUS.

Closing Verse: “So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, 28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said:
29’Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace,
According to Your word;
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,
32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.’” Luke 2:27-32

Next week: Joshua 12:1-6 It’s a place where there’s lots of fun… (An Inheritance Toward the Rising of the Sun) (25th Joshua Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. He sent His own Son into the world to reconcile you to Himself. Remember the enormity of what that means each day of your life. And then, follow Him and trust Him as He continues to do marvelous things for you and through you.

The Zeal of the Lord of Hosts

Unto us a Child is born
A time to rejoice and not to mourn

Unto us a Son is given
The One to lead us from death to a’livin’

And the government will be upon His shoulder
Every eye will see Him; every soul will be His beholder

Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom’s realm
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever – He at the helm
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this

And His name will be called Wonderful
The Counselor and Mighty God is He
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, pure and white as wool
Of the increase of His government and peace, no end shall we see

Do not be afraid, for behold
I bring you good tidings of great joy
Which will be to all people, forever told
The wondrous story, the birth of a Boy

For there is born to you this day
In the city of David, a Savior, it is He
Christ the Lord whom heaven’s hosts obey
The Messiah has come; and now you may go and see

And this will be the sign to you:
You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes
Lying in a manger, a glorious view
The Christmas Child whom our Heavenly Father bestows

A Child like no other has come to dwell among us
He shall lead us in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake
And His name is called out, His name is JESUS
Come, and of the Heavenly Child partake

He is God’s gift and heaven’s treasure
He is Immanuel – God with us
And He bestows upon us grace without measure
The Christmas Child, our glorious Lord – JESUS!

Hallelujah and Amen…

 

 

 

 

Acts 13:14

From Perga to Antioch of Pisidia.

Sunday, 25 December 2022

But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. Acts 13:14

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The previous verse spoke of Paul and those with him going to Perga. At that time John departed from them. Now, it continues, saying, “But when they departed from Perga.”

More literally, it reads, “And they, having passed through from Perga.” In other words, it is speaking of the area that is traversed between Perga and the next location. They left Perga, traveled through the land and “they came to Antioch in Pisidia.” Rather, it should read Antioch of Pisidia. Albert Barnes explains the place and the reason, saying –

“Pisidia was a province of Asia Minor, and was situated north of Pamphylia. Antioch was not in Pisidia, but within the limits of Phrygia; but it belonged to Pisidia, and was called Antioch of Pisidia to distinguish it from Antioch in Syria – Pliny, Nat. Hist., 5, 27; Strabo, 12, p. 577 (Kuinoel; Robinson’s Calmet). The city was built by Seleucus, the founder of the Antioch in Syria, and was called after the name of his father, Antiochus. He is said to have built 16 cities of that name (“Life and Epistles of Paul,” vol. 1, p. 122).”

This area was inland to the north of Pamphylia and Antioch lay at the very northern end of it. Of this area, Cambridge makes an interesting comment –

“Dean Howson (Life and Epistles of St Paul, i. 175) suggests that it was perhaps in this journey that St Paul and his companion were exposed to those ‘perils of robbers’ of which he speaks 2 Corinthians 11:26. Pisidia was a mountainous district rising gradually towards the north, and the quotations given by Dr Howson from Xenophon and Strabo shew that there was a great deal of brigand-like life there even in these times, from which Paul and his company may have been in danger.”

Once they arrived in Antioch, it next notes, “and went into the synagogue.” Again, an aorist participle is used, “and having gone into the synagogue.” Each step is detailed methodically by Luke to give the sense of the journey’s motion for the reader to join in. Once in Antioch and having gone into the synagogue, it next records that it was “on the Sabbath day.”

The words in Greek more precisely state, “on the day of the Sabbaths.” This is what Paul refers to in Colossians 2 when arguing against observing Sabbath days and other things fulfilled through the work of Christ –

“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” Colossians 2:16, 17

It is a way of designating the day as the Sabbath as a recurring Feast of the Lord (see Leviticus 23:2). Now, having arrived at the synagogue and entered it on this feast day, it says they “sat down.” Like going into a church, the people would go in, sit and await the word from the leader of the synagogue or whoever was designated to begin conducting the Sabbath affairs.

Life application: As noted above, Paul clearly argues against the observance of sabbaths in Colossians 2. The entire passage there refers to the work of Christ ending the Law of Moses. The words hinge especially on verse 2:14 when speaking of the abolishment of the law –

“And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” Colossians 2:13, 14

The words “having wiped out the requirements” is speaking of the Law of Moses. To wipe out something indicates its removal, like chalk on a chalkboard. To take something out of the way means it was an obstruction that has now been removed. And the metaphor “having nailed it to the cross” specifically speaks of the death of Jesus Christ, the embodiment of the law. In His death, the law is abolished (see also Ephesians 2:15).

The reason for this detail is that people will argue that the word “sabbaths” in Colossians 2:16 is not referring to the weekly Sabbath. This is entirely incorrect. It is, as noted in the commentary above, the plural term used to speak of the fifty-two weekly Sabbaths. The same plural terminology is found in the Old Testament concerning the weekly Sabbath over 100 times.

Exodus 31:31 for example, while speaking of the weekly Sabbaths, refers to them in the plural. The Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Hebrews 4:3 says that we rest in Him now. Therefore, a Christian is to not let anyone judge him for not observing a Sabbath Day.

As a point of doctrine: There is no such thing as a Sunday Sabbath. The Sabbath is a Saturday, and only a Saturday. Christian tradition eventually started to claim that worshiping on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) had replaced the Saturday Sabbath. The claim is that this day of worship was now the “Sunday Sabbath.” This is incorrect. There is one Sabbath, and it is a Saturday. It is fulfilled in Christ. He is our Sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:3).As such, don’t allow anyone to pull a fast one on you and steal the prize from you. Rest in Christ, trust in Christ, and stay away from law observance, including the Sabbath day observance.

Lord God, help us to accept Your word as it teaches us its progressively revealed truths. We are free from the law, we are free from the bondage it imposes on us, and we are at liberty in Christ who has accomplished all things for us. Now, help us to be obedient to faithfully follow You through the New Covenant that came at such a high cost. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acts 13:13

Travels on the missionary trip.

Saturday, 24 December 2022

Now when Paul and his party set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem. Acts 13:13

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The NKJV is not in accord with the Greek. Instead, the BLB translation will be used –

“And those around Paul, having sailed from Paphos, came to Perga of Pamphylia. But John, having departed from them, returned to Jerusalem.”

The last verse indicated that the proconsul believed the word concerning Jesus. He was astonished at the teaching of the Lord. With that matter now complete, the narrative continues, saying, “And those around Paul.”

This is a new way of referring to those on the missionary journey. Saying “around” is a way of designating a person as the main figure in the narrative. Until now, Barnabas has been mentioned first. Now, Paul begins to take the lead role. Barnabas will be mentioned first again twice in chapter 14, but the overall focus of the events will now be on Paul’s ministry before the Lord. Hence, Luke places Paul first here. As such, the narrative continues with, “having sailed from Paphos.”

This is the location where Sergius Paulus was, as noted in verse 13:6. Having crossed the entire island of Cyprus, they departed from this final city and “came to Perga of Pamphylia.”

This is an area north and a bit west of Paphos on the mainland. Today, it is the area of Antalya, Turkey. Albert Barnes describes the location –

“Pamphylia was a province of Asia Minor, lying over against Cyprus, having Cilicia east, Lycia west, Pisidia north, and the Mediterranean south. Perga was the metropolis of Pamphylia, and was situated, not on the seacoast, but on the river Cestus, at some distance from its mouth. There was on a mountain near it a celebrated temple of Diana.”

There is no record of evangelism in Perga at this time, but they will preach there in chapter 14. For now, and with no reason being given, it next says, “But John, having departed from them, returned to Jerusalem.”

This departure was unexpected and, to Paul, inexcusable. That can be inferred from Acts 15 –

“Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work.” Acts 15:37, 38

As such, it is not as if John had received news of a death and needed to return home. Rather, something caused him to no longer want to be with the company as it traveled. It could be that he missed home, it could be that the pace the others kept up was too much for him, etc.

Looking at the surrounding text, the only things that may provide a clue are:

1) The conversion of Sergius Paulus, a Gentile. John may not have liked this. Adding credence to that would be the changing of Paul’s name from Saul. John is also called Mark and many others had names that accommodated the people of the nations, but Paul’s name was taken directly from his encounter with a Gentile.

2) Paul has taken the central role in the events, at least according to Luke’s record.

If only these events from the text are considered, it would be enough to assume that either John did not like the prospect of evangelizing Gentiles, or he was jealous that Paul had now taken the lead in the party over his own cousin. For one of these reasons, or for some reason that is not elsewhere hinted at, he forsook the company and returned to Jerusalem.

Life application: It is believed that John (Mark) is the same person Paul will later refer to in 1 Timothy 4:11, where he says, “Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.” If this is the same person, it shows that there was eventually a reconciliation between the two.

If, as speculated, John didn’t like the thought of evangelizing Gentiles, he eventually outgrew that. Even if this was not the reason for his departure, it is still a truth that the Jewish believers had to accept. The message of salvation was not limited to them. The scriptural promises of Israel being the head of the nations probably seemed more confusing than ever. How would that come about if the Gentiles were evangelized?

Change can be a difficult thing. It is something that we will often fight against or run away from. But time eventually discloses that despite our protestations, what we initially want may not be what is going to come about. With that understanding, we can then yield to the events and begin to accept them and even participate in them.

Wars decide new borders. Elections decide changes in government. Economic changes determine what companies will flourish and which will flop. We have to accommodate ourselves to these types of things and learn to become productive parts of them. If we don’t, we will simply be harming ourselves. Such events come to pass and there is no point in having a pity party when they do. Change is a part of life that we must accept. And as long as we do so while honoring the Lord with our lives, we will be living responsibly in those new environments.

Heavenly Father, we are often overwhelmed with change and find it hard to process. This is especially so when our lives are negatively affected. Give us wisdom and maturity to accept things that occur, and help us to be productive and prosperous in our new surroundings. Yes, be with us Lord God as we cling to You through such times. Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acts 13:12

Sergio believed.

Friday, 23 December 2022

Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord. Acts 13:12

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

In the previous verse, a dark mist fell on Elymas and he wasn’t able to lead himself any longer. Now, it will explain the reaction to what occurred. The structure of the NKJV deviates too much from the structure of the Greek. It should more rightly read, “Then the proconsul having seen what had been done, did believe, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord” (CG).

Therefore, we begin with, “Then the proconsul.” This is Sergius Paulus, introduced in verse 13:7. He has been described as an intelligent man. Despite that, he had been led astray into the false doctrine of Elymas. Now that Elymas has been overwhelmed by the power of God, Sergious Paulus’ intelligence can be properly directed. And so, the narrative continues with, “having seen what had been done.”

It is obvious that the differences in opinion about the proper ways of the Lord were argued right in the presence of Sergius Paulus. Hence, the blinding of Elymas demonstrated an immediate eyewitness event to the fact that Elymas was not at all what he claimed to be and that his doctrine was false.

Further, it was verifiable proof that the power of God was to be found in the message of the gospel. As such, Sergius Paulus “did believe.”

The verb is a perfect participle meaning: 1) it is a completed action and 2) its results continue to the present. His faith in the gospel had been settled and he was added to the faith, once and for all time. And this was in conjunction with his “being astonished.”

He had seen the verifiable proof of Paul’s words with his own eyes, and his heart was overwhelmed by it. The word translated as “astonished” is ekpléssó. It is a word signifying to strike out of one’s senses. There is a sense of fear mixed with amazement in the word where one will gape in astonishment. And this astonishment was “at the teaching of the Lord.”

Ellicott notes that the use of the genitive case “is, probably, that of the object, the teaching which had the Lord, i.e., the Lord Jesus, as its main theme.” In other words, Paul was doing his job and he was teaching about the Lord Jesus, meaning the gospel. An obvious exclamation to that would be, “Duh, what else would he be doing!” This is what he was called to do.

Of this account, the Pulpit Commentary says, “We cannot, perhaps, conclude positively from this that Sergius was baptized and became an avowed Christian, though the usual language of the Acts rather leads us to infer it.” From there, they proceed to cite scholars who adamantly argue why he was not converted and cite some that take the opposing view.

The argument is ridiculous. First, it is rather certain, based on the renaming of Saul to Paul at this time, that the name change is based on the events now recorded. He was Saul and from this point on he is Paul. But more, to argue against the conversion of Sergius Paulus is to argue against the words of Paul in his epistles –

First, Paul’s citing of the gospel: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures…” 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4

Next, he says what happens when that is believed: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”

Luke records that Sergius Paulus believed. He records it in the perfect tense. And this was “at the teaching of the Lord,” meaning the teaching about the Lord. To argue against the salvation of this man is as ridiculous as using beach sand as an additive to a bowl of ice cream. The purpose of the account is to demonstrate that the gospel was presented, it was presented with power, and the one hearing and seeing believed and was saved.

Life application: Sergius Paulus was given a visual demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit in silencing the opposition of Elymas. This should no longer be expected within the church. The reason for this is obvious. The word concerning what occurred has been recorded. Luke sufficiently explains how the early gospel was communicated and about the signs that accompanied it through the hands of the apostles.

Now that the apostolic age has ended, and with the completion of Scripture, there is no longer a need for such demonstrations of power. As Paul says elsewhere –

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’” Romans 1:16, 17

The word of God carries the power of what it records because it is a true, literal, and accurate account of what it details. It calls for faith in what it proclaims. Having sight, such as seeing what happened to Elymas, does not require faith. Jesus’ words to Thomas show this –

“Jesus said to him, ‘Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’” John 20:29

With Scripture’s completion, we are asked to believe what it proclaims. The Spirit has inspired accounts of Jesus’ miracles as well as the miracles of the apostles. What more do we need? Nothing. What more should we expect? Nothing.

Have faith and believe.

Heavenly Father, thank You for Your precious word. Help us to be reliable in reading it, reliable in attending Bible studies that explain it, and reliable in attending church that glorifies You through the proclaiming of it. What we do reveals where our priorities lie. May our priorities be centered on Your word first and foremost because Your word tells us of Jesus! Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acts 13:11

Honoring the pilgrims of the Mayflower.

Thursday, 22 December 2022

“And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.” And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand. Acts 13:11

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, had just verbally come against Elymas. Now, to confirm that his words were those led by the Spirit, he will utter a divine punishment against him. That begins with, “And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you.”

The meaning is “the chastisement of the Lord.” Saying “The hand of the Lord” is a device known as anthropomorphism. It is ascribing human traits to the divine working of God. In this case, the word epi, or upon, is used. But the meaning of its use is derived from the context. In this case, it means that the Lord is as a foe to him. The word is used in this manner, for example, in Matthew 10:21 –

“Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.”

This thought is expressed in the Old Testament where the hand of the Lord is upon a person for strengthening and power (such as Ezekiel 1:3), or it is against him indicating disaster is upon him (such as in Psalm 81:14). In the case of Elymas, the obvious meaning is that the Lord’s hand was set as a foe against him. And so, he will now be punished. That is indicated in the next words, “and you shall be blind.”

As noted before, the Holy Spirit is speaking through Paul, and the punishment He determines is the same as that which came upon Paul when he was made blind for three days (Acts 9:9). So complete was Elymas’ blindness to be that it next says, “not seeing the sun.”

One can see a similarity to what occurred with Paul. It says in verse 9:3 that light shone around him from heaven. In verse 22:6, it notes that this great light came about noon. The meaning is that the light from heaven was more radiant than the sun itself. In this, the Lord alerted Paul to the error of his ways, blinding him.

Now, the same punishment has come upon Elymas, even if the manner in which it occurred is different. Paul simply spoke out the word to Elymas, but when he did, his words indicate that what occurs is a corrective punishment. This is seen in the continued proclamation, saying, “for a time.”

The meaning and intent of this is that the Lord, even in His judgment, has granted mercy. The punishment will not be permanent, and it is – like that of Paul’s blindness – intended to give Elymas the opportunity to view his conduct in a different manner and in hopes of him changing his mind about the life he has been leading. With that understood, it next says, “And immediately a dark mist fell on him.”

Rather, it is two separate nouns and more correctly reads, “and fell upon him mist and darkness.” The word translated as “mist” is achlus. It signifies a dimness of sight, as if a cataract. It is found in the writings of various classical poets and authors. At times, it is used metaphorically of a mist of the mind. Exactly what came upon Elymas is uncertain, but its effect was total, and it was also immediate, as it says, “and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand.”

These words reveal the suddenness and the scope of what occurred. Elymas had sought “to turn the proconsul away from the faith” (13:8). He acted as a guide on the path, leading Sergius Paulus in the direction he determined, but which was contrary to the straight ways of the Lord. Now, God had frustrated his efforts, causing him to be blind and unable to even direct himself. The contrast is stark and ironic.

Life application: Within the Bible itself certain claims about it are made in various ways and at various times. One of the most memorable is from Psalm 119:105 –

“Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path.”

The sense is that our lives are like a journey. The way we go and the path we are on is confusing and dark. We cannot truly know if we are taking the right way or not without a guide. Parents teach their children, and the children learn from them. Schools educate young minds and form those minds in various ways. But the Bible alone can light up our path of life to reveal where we should place our spiritual feet. The path becomes knowable because of the words of Scripture.

Elymas did not follow the word of the Lord and his walk in life was confused, even if he thought he was walking properly. When the Holy Spirit spoke through Paul, the physical blindness that came upon him was simply a reflection of the spiritual blindness in which he existed. The punishment of the Lord was intended to show him this and bring him to the right path.

Nothing is stated as to whether Elymas came to the truth or not, but he was given the opportunity to hear the word and see its effective power spoken forth by Paul. And we too have such an opportunity. We can see the lives changed by the power of the word. Alcoholics become sober. Brawlers become gentle, kind souls. Adulterers find new love and faithfulness in their marriages.

These things testify to the power of the word. Let us consider it and cherish it all our days. It truly is the light and the lamp that we need to know the proper place where each step we make should be.

Glorious God, we thank You for Your word. It illuminates our path, and it leads us on our trek back to You. May we hold it close in our lives, thinking about it and applying it to our walk every moment. To Your glory, may it be so. Amen.