La Vista Church of Christ

If Humans Are Just Animals, Nothing Is Evil

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 23 May 2026 00:32:53 +0000

by Andy Diestelkamp
via InLight Media

What happens to morality if human beings are nothing more than highly evolved animals?
If there is no God… then on what logical foundation do we base concepts like consent, human dignity, evil, or justice?

In this thought-provoking video, we explore one of the most important questions about worldview today: Is morality real and objective — or just biological instinct and social conditioning?

Through real-life observation of nature, philosophical reasoning, and key biblical texts, we examine the tension between naturalism and biblical Christianity — and the logical implications of each worldview.

From birds in nature acting on instinct, to the way humans define right and wrong, this message challenges the assumption that humans are simply advanced animals and asks whether that belief can actually support the moral standards we all live by.

In This Video, You’ll Discover:

Why “humans are just animals” creates a moral problem.
What consent means in a purely naturalistic worldview.
Whether morality can exist without God.
How Scripture defines human identity and value.
What it means to be made in the “image of God”.
Why human dignity cannot be explained by evolution alone.
The logical consequences of rejecting a Creator.

Bible Passages Referenced:

Genesis 1:1, 1:27–28
Genesis 2:7, 2:22
Psalms 19:1
Luke 12:24
Proverbs 19:3
Psalms 14:1
Acts 17:24–28

Why This Question Matters

If humans are only animals, then moral categories like “right” and “wrong” become subjective. But if humans are created in the image of God, then human dignity, consent, and justice are not opinions — they are grounded in something objective and unchanging.
This video walks through both conclusions and asks you to consider which one actually makes sense.

Put to Death What is Earthly In You

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 20 May 2026 21:08:50 +0000

by Edwin Crozier

Having explained his own work in ministering the gospel (Colossians 1:24-2:5) and then expounded the need to maintain a stable and steadfast faith (Colossians 2:6-3:4), Paul moves to the third leg of this letter laid out back in Colossians 1:21-23. He describes the need to move from hostility to holiness (Colossians 3:5-4:6).

We don’t want to be taken captive by seemingly plausible arguments of worldly philosophies. We don’t need to be concerned about those who judge us regarding Sabbaths, new moons, festivals, and kosher laws. We don’t need to submit to multiplied rules that have no purpose but to simply restrict us with asceticism and severity to the body. However, we are to eliminate some behaviors and attitudes. And not just “kind of” get rid of, not merely diminish, “put to death.” We are to kill them (Colossians 3:5).

As we learned yesterday, this killing of earthly members is not merely about multiplying restrictive rules to simply deny the desires of our flesh. Rather, it is part of the process of shifting our desires. Because we are transforming from worldly-minded to heavenly-minded, some weights and burdens simply have to be dropped. Not merely because they are “against the rules,” but because they hinder and destroy seeking the things above and setting our mind on things above. They weigh us down and lead us away from Christ (which is why God has made many of these things “against the rules”). As we become increasingly delighted with Christ, we will naturally drop these earthly attitudes and actions. And if we refuse to drop them, we will simply not learn to delight more and more in Christ.

If we want to be renewed in knowledge after the image of our creator, we will abandon sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, covetousness, idolatry, anger, wrath, malice, slander, obscene talk, and dishonesty. No doubt, when we were outside of Christ, we walked in these things because they seemed to lead to what we delighted in. But as our delight changes, these actions and attitudes must change as well. At the same time, our delight won’t change if we continue to court these behaviors and attitudes.

The struggle for us is how the personal choice and the natural growth intermix and overlap. For instance, alcoholics are told they won’t quit being alcoholics if they keep drinking. It seems to go without saying, but it has to be said, they won’t stop drinking unless they stop drinking. At the same time, as long as they are an alcoholic, they will struggle to quit drinking. The recovering alcoholic, however, doesn’t just wait around until the desire to drink goes away. He or she decides to quit. Develops plans to quit. Pours out their stash of booze. Tells others they are quitting. Then, when the desire arises, they have to decide not to drink. Yet, at the same time, this recovering alcoholic does work that transforms his or her attitude toward drink, making the decision to avoid drink easier as long as he or she continues to do that work. They don’t quit drinking merely because it is against the rules; they quit because they know drinking leads them away from what they most desire. As they continue in that work, they seek sobriety and set their mind on sobriety in a way that changes them to be sober. The personal decision and the natural growth intermix and overlap, feeding each other in an upward spiral of growing sobriety.

Further, those involved in overcoming alcoholism learn that half measures avail nothing. They need to put drink to death, or it will kill them. This is a great illustration of discipleship living in general. Half measures avail nothing. We want to be with Christ and like Christ. We must choose to quit behaviors and attitudes that lead us away from Christ. Further, as we continue to grow, our transforming delight will make transformation easier.

But where does it all begin? By putting to death what is earthly. We don’t wait around for the transformation to happen on its own. We take up arms against sin and start cutting off what leads us to sin and away from Christ.

Is there anything you need to put to death today? If we can help you, let us know.

Plant the Word, Not Churches

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 20 May 2026 02:20:16 +0000

by Clay Gentry

In today’s religious marketplace, “church planting” has become a specialized industry. It’s a world of demographic maps, branding consultants, and launch strategies borrowed more from Corporate America than from the New Testament. Some say the secret to reaching the lost lies in the novelty of a new church plant or the polished satellite campus of a distant, larger congregation. But for those who claim to follow the New Testament, we must ask a fundamental question: What are we actually supposed to be planting?

If we look to the Master’s own teaching and the apostles’ pattern, we find a principle as old as Eden and as powerful as the Resurrection. It is the principle of the Seed. We don’t manufacture the Church; we proclaim the Word, and the Word produces the Church.

The Genetic Code of the Kingdom:

In Luke 8:4-15, Jesus offers the definitive manual for growth in the Parable of the Sower. The farmer goes out to sow, and the outcome of his labor depends entirely on the interaction between seed and soil. When the disciples asked for an explanation, Jesus didn’t give them a lecture on church organizational structure. He gave them a biological fact about the Spirit: “The seed is the word of God” (Luke 8:11).

Think about the nature of a seed. A kernel of wheat contains all the genetic information needed to produce a stalk of grain. The farmer doesn’t “build” the stalk and head of wheat; he simply creates the soil conditions for the seed to do what God designed it to do.

When we focus our energy on “planting churches,” we're often trying to build the stalk without the seed. We focus on the look, the feel, and the location, forgetting that the power to change a human soul isn’t found in a congregation’s age or location, but in the DNA of the Gospel.

The Church isn’t a franchise to be managed but a harvest to be gathered. If you plant the Word, the Church is inevitable, but if you plant a Church, the Word is optional.

The Pattern of the Missionary Pioneers:

From a scriptural standpoint, we might think of Paul and Barnabas as the ultimate “church planters,” but a careful study of their first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-14:28) reveals a striking absence of modern church-planting techniques. They didn’t enter a city with a launch team, a massive budget from a sponsoring mother church, or even a three-year sustainability plan.

On Cyprus, at Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, their strategy was singularly focused: Preach the Christ. They planted the Word in the hearts of those who would listen. They didn’t start by organizing a “satellite campus” for their home church in Antioch of Syria; they started by making disciples. The assembly, or church, was the natural byproduct of people washed in the same blood and called by the same Gospel.

Only after the Word had taken root – after the disciples had already been made – did Paul and Barnabas make a return trip to “appoint elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Notice the order: The Word creates the disciples, the disciples form the assembly, and the assembly becomes the organization. Modern methods seek to reverse this by planting the organization, hoping that the people (and the Word) will follow. But you cannot organize life into existence; life must exist before it can be organized.

Paul didn’t go into the world to build monuments to his ministry; he went to sow the Seed, knowing that God’s Word doesn't need a marketing department to turn a sinner into a saint.

The Myth of the “Newness” Factor:

One of the most persistent arguments I’ve heard for church planting is the claim that an unchurched person is more likely to attend a new church plant than an established congregation. I get the impression that this is often treated as a silver bullet to justify starting new works in areas already saturated with sound congregations.

However, this logic has a fatal flaw: novelty is a depreciating asset. Like a new car, a church plant’s newness begins to fade the moment it opens its doors. If a congregation’s draw is its new-car smell, what happens in five years when the paint is chipped and the “launch team” moves on? If you build on the foundation of being new, you’ve built on a foundation that is guaranteed to disappear. The shelf life of the Gospel is eternal, but the shelf life of a church plant’s novelty isn’t. Which one should we be banking on?

The statistics people need to hear are the ones that never expire. Research consistently shows that the unchurched are overwhelmingly likely to attend a religious assembly when personally invited by a friend or neighbor. This method works for a 100-year-old congregation just as well as for a one-week-old plant. The desperate need in our communities is rarely for more church buildings or more brands of Christianity; it’s for more Christians to realize they are the sowers.

If the novelty of a church is what gets a person through the door, you’ve sold him a product that begins to stale the moment he sits in the pew.

Planting and Watering:

In the first century, the church at Corinth began to struggle with the same personality- and brand-driven mindsets we see today. Some followed Paul; others followed Apollos. They looked at the workers rather than the Work. Paul corrected them with a principle that should be the motto of every Christian: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the growth” (I Corinthians 3:6-7).

When someone decides that a specific “new plant” or “satellite campus” is the only way to reach a certain area, we're dangerously close to saying that God’s growth depends on our particular brand or personality. Paul reminds us that the laborers are “nothing.” Whether we’re the ones breaking the ground (planting) or tending the established field (watering), the power for growth is entirely outside of us.

A satellite campus model often suggests that growth is tied to a specific “mother church” or a specific “preacher” beamed in on a screen. But I Corinthians 3 tells us that growth is tied to the Seed. God doesn’t give the increase to the “most innovative campus” or the “newest church plant”; He gives the increase to the faithful sowing of His Word.

We’re not the architects of the Kingdom; we are the farmhands – and a farmhand who tries to take credit for the harvest is a fool.

The conclusion of the matter is this: We don’t need new church plants; we need more Christians sharing the eternal Gospel.

Every time you share a scripture with a coworker, you are planting. Every time you invite a neighbor to join you in worship, you are watering. Every time you live a life of integrity that sparks a question about your hope, you are preparing the soil. We must stop waiting for a “new work” to start and recognize that the Work began at Pentecost and has never stopped. The field is white for harvest, not for rebranding. The Great Commission is a command to make disciples, not to file for a new building permit; if you aren’t sharing the Word now, a new church won’t make you a soul-winner for Jesus.

Rejecting Church Member Recruitment

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 19 May 2026 23:45:03 +0000

by Clay Gentry

In his second letter to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul found himself in an unusual position. He was forced to defend his ministry, not against pagan or Jewish opponents, or Roman magistrates, but against other Christians who had entered the city with slick speech, impressive letters of recommendation, and clever strategies. These so-called “super-apostles” (II Corinthians 11:5; 12:11), as Paul sarcastically called them, were masters of impression. They knew how to market themselves, navigate crowds, and win people over by undermining the work Paul had already done.

Paul’s response to these tactics serves as a boundary line for anyone who claims to do the work of the Lord:

“But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God” (II Corinthians 4:2).

When we look at the modern religious landscape, with its reliance on corporate marketing, launch teams, and strategic recruitment, Paul’s words hit us like lightning. This isn’t merely a critique of new church plants or satellite campuses; it is an indictment of a widespread mindset that has infected established congregations as well. Paul’s words force us to examine not just what’s being done, but how and why it’s being done. In the kingdom of God, the methods must match the Message.

Renouncing Underhanded Ways

Paul begins with a firm declaration: “We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways.” That is, things that advance one’s own agenda at the expense of others. The word “underhanded” refers to things that one’s sense of honor doesn’t allow to come to the light (Curry, II Corinthians, p. 151). It's the opposite of transparency.

Whether a larger church wants to open a satellite campus, a preacher wants to start a new church plant, or an established congregation is simply trying to bolster its own numbers, the temptation is the same: they rarely, if ever, begin by preaching on street corners to the lost. Instead, they begin by recruiting active, dedicated members of existing congregations. If the strategy for starting a new work or bolstering an existing one requires recruiting Christians from other churches, it isn’t evangelism; it’s cherry-pickin’.

How do we know these tactics are inherently “underhanded”? Look at who they target. True missionary work goes after the lost, the broken, and the spiritually destitute. But those recruiting church members don’t go after the spiritual equivalent of the “poor, tired, huddled masses.” They don’t recruit members who will need long-term financial assistance or heavy pastoral care. No, they seek to drain sister congregations of their best resources. They advance their own personal agendas at the expense of other congregations.

We’re told that these recruited members are needed to help the new work get on its feet, or the established church to get back on its feet, to reach the lost. But we must be honest about the math. They take the net-positive contributors and expect an established church to continue caring for the needy with reduced budgets and workers, while bearing none of the burden themselves.

For example, if a new church plant recruits 15 workers from a sister congregation of 150, the sister congregation is left weakened, its ministries disrupted, and its peace fractured, while the new work boasts about its “incredible launch numbers.” This is an illusion of fruitfulness built on the back of division. True growth is measured by how many people leave the world for Christ, not how many people leave one pew for another.

The old preachers used to have a saying for this kind of phantom increase: “You’re not growing; you’re just swelling.” When a body swells, it looks bigger, but it’s actually sick. When a church “swells” by intentionally recruiting or poaching members from neighboring congregations, it isn’t healthy growth – it’s an inflammatory response to a new gimmick.
Sucking the life out of a sister congregation to fuel your own expansion isn’t missionary zeal; it’s a symptom of a deeply sick ministry.

The Open Statement of Truth

How did Paul combat the slick, underhanded, cunning “super-apostles” of his day? Did he launch a counter-marketing campaign? Did he try to out-program them? No. He refused to use “cunning” tactics and relied on “the open statement of the truth.”

Paul had nothing to hide. His life, his doctrine, and his methods were an open book. He didn’t need a “launch strategy” because he had the Gospel. He didn’t need to undermine Apollos or Peter to make himself look good; he simply stood in the public square and preached Christ crucified.

A ministry of integrity commends itself to everyone’s conscience. It doesn’t need to manufacture a “desperate need” in an area where faithful churches already stand. It doesn’t need to tout shortsighted statistics to justify its existence. If there are lost people to be saved, the open statement of the truth can be preached anywhere, by anyone, without requiring the dismantling of neighboring congregations. If an outside group genuinely wants to reach the lost in a community, they don’t need to build a new franchise. They can support the sowers who are already there. They can partner, encourage, and build up.

When they choose instead to compete, recruit, and fracture, they show that they are more interested in building their own kingdom than the Kingdom of God.

Guarding the Flock

For those targeted by these modern strategies, the message of II Corinthians 4:2 is a call to discernment. Be on guard against those who flatter you for your talents while asking you to abandon your local church home. Stand firm, guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and reject any method that values numbers over integrity.

The grass is greenest where Christians are actively submitting to God’s Word, loving their brethren, and sowing the Seed in their own neighborhoods. Don’t allow your loyalty to Christ to be hijacked by the ambitions of others.

Remember, the Great Commission is a command to go into the world, not to go into your neighbor’s congregation; let’s stop playing corporate headhunters and start preaching Christ, and Him crucified to the lost.

Eating Foods Formerly Designated as Unclean

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 19 May 2026 23:20:33 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Romans 14 shows that liberty in Christ has taken all "unclean" foods under the Law of Moses off the list of unclean. However, those who grew up under that Law had a hard time releasing their conscience into such liberties in Christ. If pork were unclean, the Jewish conscience would have a hard time adjusting. Those with a strong conscience were not to despise or tempt or pressure those with a weak conscience in such matters. It was a liberty, but not a sin if a brother did not eat pork. The chapter is all about such liberties and how to treat brethren of a weaker conscience in such liberties.

"Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another" (Romans 14:19).

Since the kingdom of God is about righteousness, and this issue is not a matter of moral right or wrong, and since the kingdom of God is about peace within ourselves and among ourselves, then here is a good way to handle a difference between us. We want peace and edification between us. Pursue the things that make for peace. One thing we can do is be careful not to force a brother to violate his conscience. Give him room to grow. As edification and learning take root, he may, in time, learn that he can indeed consider that there are no foods that God characterizes as unclean in the kingdom. But, as long as he thinks he should refrain from some foods, then don’t tempt him to harm his own conscience.

This does not mean that we are to treat even sinful issues in the same way. For example, Paul did not treat the issue of fornication in I Corinthians 5 the same way he treated the issues of liberty and conscience in Romans 14. Food and days are not the same as moral sins and are not treated the same way. Sometimes, pursuing what brings peace means confronting sinful behavior so that there can be real peace afterward.

A Light that Shines in a Dark Place

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 18 May 2026 12:58:36 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Peter tells us that the prophetic word (our Old Testament scriptures) is now “more sure” since Jesus has fulfilled all that was predicted about the Messiah. Unbelieving Jews are made to doubt their own scriptures since they never got the Messiah their scriptures predicted (in their failure to connect the dots to Jesus).

They handle the same scriptures and fail to see Jesus as the messiah, while Christians handle the same scriptures and see Jesus everywhere prophesied, foreshadowed, and typified. We hold the Tanakh (Old Testament) as “more sure” than ever, since it clearly speaks of Jesus (II Peter 1:16-21). Each prophecy is a glimmer of light in this dark world. Peter says you would “do well to heed” these precious prophecies “as a light that shines in a dark place.”

Maybe you are in a dark place in your life. If you are wandering aimlessly in life with no real vision of your purpose and direction, you are in the dark. If you are feeling depressed and gloomy, you are emotionally in a dark place in your life. You would do well to heed the prophetic word and get a clearer perspective of Jesus.

Jesus is “the light of the world.” To know Jesus is to know light on your meaning and purpose. To heed the glimmers of light that each prophecy of the Messiah gives to your mind, your understanding, the better you can see the path you need to take in life, the better equipped you are to handle the day yoked to Christ as your familiar friend and companion of your heart. Remember that Jesus said if you yoke to Him and learn from Him, your burden will be light. The prophet's word is like stars guiding you through the dark places and bringing you to “the morning star” (Jesus), who rises within your heart and brings you out of that dark phase.

Stars carry you through dark moments, but Jesus is the true light that lights every dark soul with knowledge, truth, facts about life beyond death, hope, purpose, meaning, and direction. If you are in a dark place in life, you would do well to heed the old scriptures and let them lead you to the dawning of a much better day in union with the Light of the world.

To Caesar You Shall Go

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 18 May 2026 12:51:18 +0000

by Hugh DeLong

"To Caesar You Shall Go" — Paul and the Roman Right of Provocatio

When the Roman governor Festus offered to send Paul back to Jerusalem for trial, Paul did something that stopped the proceedings cold. He appealed to Caesar. Festus conferred with his council, and then delivered one of the most dramatic lines in the book of Acts: "You have appealed to Caesar — to Caesar you shall go" (Acts 25:12). In that moment, Paul's fate was sealed — not by his enemies, but by his own words. To understand why this was such a decisive move, we need to understand one of Rome's most ancient legal protections: the right of provocatio.

Provocatio and the Protection of the Citizen

The Latin word provocatio essentially means "a calling out" or "a challenge." In Roman legal tradition, it referred to a citizen's right to appeal to a higher authority — ultimately to the Roman people themselves, and later to the emperor — against the arbitrary punishment of a magistrate. Its roots stretch back to the earliest days of the Roman Republic. The Leges Valeriae, a series of laws dating as early as 509 BC, established that a Roman citizen could not be executed or otherwise punished severely by a magistrate without the right to appeal. By the time of the empire, this right had evolved so that the emperor himself stood as the final court of appeal — the living embodiment of Roman justice.

This was not a minor procedural technicality. It was one of the most jealously guarded privileges of Roman citizenship. To be a civis Romanus — a Roman citizen — meant that the full machinery of Roman law stood between you and the abuse of local power. The famous cry Civis Romanus sum ("I am a Roman citizen") carried enormous weight throughout the empire.

What the Appeal Actually Did

When Paul invoked his right of appeal, several things happened at once.

First, Festus was legally bound to honor it. A governor who ignored a citizen's appeal risked serious consequences from Rome.

Second, the Jerusalem authorities lost their opportunity. Whatever plans they had for Paul — and Acts strongly implies assassination was among them (Acts 25:3) — were now void. Paul could not be handed over to a local court. He was, in legal terms, bound for Rome.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the appeal transferred jurisdiction entirely. Paul was no longer Festus's problem to manage or trade as a political favor. He was now a Roman prisoner awaiting imperial adjudication. This is why Festus scrambles in the very next scene to consult with King Agrippa — he has to send Paul to Caesar with some kind of written explanation of the charges, and he is embarrassingly at a loss for what to write (Acts 25:26–27).

The above was compiled via searches of resources.

So You Disagree?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 18 May 2026 12:46:10 +0000

by Robert F. Turner
via The Gospel Guardian, Vol. 17, 1965, page 205

For 30 years, I have preached and written my convictions regarding the Bible, the church, etc., and for 30 years, people have “disagreed.” Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, and occasionally my brethren “disagree.” That doesn’t bother me — much. At least not enough to cause me to squelch my honest convictions and “sell out” to majority opinions.

Sometimes one disagrees and proceeds to teach me more perfectly the way of truth. I find I have been wrong. Now I dislike being wrong, but not as much as I dislike teaching error. Changing to the truth is a pleasure, and I am grateful to my teacher.

Thirty years of disagreement have taught me something else. Some people say they “disagree” when in reality they know so little about the subject that they can’t explain their own position and know even less about mine. Perhaps they were born in the objective mood and “kickative” case; or, more likely, I have pointed out the error of their ways, and they want to keep going the way they are, regardless of truth or consequences.

Honest disagreement, based upon convictions established through careful study of God’s word, is honorable. I can respect such disagreement even when I am reasonably sure my opponent is in error. Two such persons can study together to profit and will be anxious to do so.

But there is no honor, and I have little respect for the person who seeks to discredit my work with prejudicial name-calling or the glib use of weight-swinging “I disagree.”

You “disagree” with what? Is there a fallacy in my reasoning? Have I misused the Scriptures? Have I overlooked some Bible truth that would alter my conclusion? Give me a specific point of disagreement, and I will be happy to consider it.

A fellow once wrote that all I had said was true (he flattered me), but he feared it would lead to error. Hm! Truth never leads to anything but truth. To fear the consequences of truth is cowardice of the first order, and our disagreement is with God. Let such a one rather fear Hell.

What is the condemnation in I Timothy 5:11-12?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 18 May 2026 01:38:02 +0000

Question:

Mr. Hamilton,

Do you by chance know what I Timothy 5:11-12 fully means in its context? I was wondering because it has something to do with promises. I was talking to someone about these verses, though, and we weren’t sure what is meant by “incurring condemnation” in this instance. Would it have been wrong for the women to remarry? And if they did, would they have had to divorce their new husbands to be right with God? I know this is kind of complicated, and I know you would probably say that their pledge is much more serious since it was to the church and would have several witnesses (if my understanding is correct). I was just wondering if you could provide any clarity on this.

Answer:

If a woman’s husband dies, she is free to marry another (Romans 7:2-3). In I Timothy 5:11-15, Paul urged younger widows to remarry. In I Corinthians 7:39-40, Paul states that widows can remarry, but he does not give blanket approval to any marriage. The marriage must be in accordance with the Lord’s will. The one she is marrying must have the right to be married (Matthew 19:9), and the marriage must not hinder her service to God (Matthew 6:33). This also matches Paul’s concern in I Timothy 5:11-12 over the possibility that younger widows, in their eagerness to remarry, may cast off their faith.

The problem was that young widows had too much time on their hands (I Timothy 5:13) and were getting involved in gossip. Since they were young, they would still desire the pleasures in this world (I Timothy 5:11), which might pull them away from their faith (I Timothy 5:9). Rather than have a potential cause for scandal, they should marry "and give the enemy no occasion for reproach" (I Timothy 5:14). All of this explains why widows younger than 60 or who have family are not put on the list for care by the church.

Our commitment to the Lord when we become Christians is the most logical pledge ("first faith") Paul refers to. However, some commentators assume that the churches provided aid to widows in exchange for a pledge to serve the church. The problem is that this is an assumption that can't be proven from the Scriptures. Besides, the Greek text literally says "the first faith."

Nothing says that the marriage has to end. It is the leaving of the faith that must be corrected.

Revelation

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 18 May 2026 01:09:40 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

When something has been unknown and mysterious in the past, and then God reveals a thing that was once unknown, you call that a “revelation”. The last book of the Bible was not intended to be too secretive and mysterious; else it would not “reveal” anything. While the literary style demands more work, it is designed to reveal things to God’s servants while being complicated to the enemies of God’s people. John was guided by the Spirit to reveal some things that were soon to take place. It was not concerning things 2,000 years distant from the original readers. It concerned something that the first readers were about to experience. Listen to the very first verse of the Book of Revelation:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants — things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John" (Revelation 1:1 NKJV).

Now, read each phrase slowly and carefully: The Revelation of Jesus Christ (it is not to be a secret concerning Jesus, but a "revelation." Something concerning Jesus Christ was being revealed.), which God gave Him to show His servants (those who were not servants of God would not likely get much out of this revelation. God gave it to John to share with servants of God at the time and it would “show” them something) — things which must shortly take place (This revelation was not about the distant future, but about things that would "shortly" take place). And He sent and signified (much of the book uses signs or symbols). It is signified through a style of literature that was apocalyptic in nature. That was a style we see in much of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and other books of the Old Testament. It was signified not to conceal a truth, but to reveal it to certain people. Those people were God’s servants who had already been trained in God’s apocalyptic literature. Thus, the signs of this book are a means of imparting understanding to God’s servants. It was by His angel (messenger) to His servant John (John, the last of the surviving apostles of Jesus, was the servant God chose to share this important revelation with the rest of God’s servants who needed to know something that was “shortly” to take place.

Read the book with a view to seeing what a first-century Christian needed to know. Do not read it through a modern lens, as if it had no first-century applications. This book must first be read with an effort to understand what the first readers needed to know. The book will bless you in a secondary way, but it was designed first for the immediate benefit of the first readers. It concerned things "shortly" to be experienced by the first readers. Keep that in mind as you read this wonderful book.