Epaphras, a messenger of the church in Colosse (cf. Col. 4:12), came to Paul in Rome with good news and bad news about the church of Colosse. The good news was that the gospel had born fruit among the Colossians (cf. Col. 1:6), who were continuing in the faith in Christ and in love for their fellow Christians (cf. Col. 1:4). The bad news was the Colossians were being deceived by a new teaching that was contrary to the gospel. The new teaching claimed a profound knowledge apart from Christ (Col. 2:8), an emphasis on following prescribed human rituals (Col. 2:16), the worship of angels (Col. 2:18), and asceticism (Col. 2:18, 20-23). This new teaching invoked spiritual powers rather than calling on Christ in whom the fullness of God dwelt in bodily form (Col. 2:9). To deal with this false teaching, Paul wrote the letter to them. In Colossians 2:8-12, Paul gave four truths that adequately refute the heresy in Colosse (and all false religions). Within Christ Is All Truth Paul warned, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8 cf. Col. 2:4). The word “cheat [spoil, KJV; takes you captive, NAS]” (from sulayogeo, συλαγωγέω) means to make a captive of; to carry off as booty or captive. According to Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,

Have you ever heard an eldership or preacher base a universal policy on “It’s the safest thing”? It might be whether to conduct the wedding ceremony of someone entering their second marriage, even though it is Scriptural, or perhaps not attending or allowing the building to be used for a wedding whose cultural practices (such as “jumping the broom” or a non-lascivious bride/daddy dance) are not like the cultural practices of a majority of the members. Are these “safest thing” policies really based on Scripture or are they an indication of people not studying the Bible for themselves and conforming to the doctrines of men rather than the oracles of God? This article will explore some of the issues and dangers involved in these “safest thing” policies.

If Christians are not careful, they can be carried away into the errors of culture. The subject of homosexuality is one such area. While members of the church may not agree with the behavior, some will see nothing wrong with the “same sex attraction,” or desire, as long as those with such do not engage in the behavior. Is that okay according to Romans 1:26-27? This is but one of the “issues within the issue” addressed in the material covered by George F. Beals in his debate with Andy Oliver (of the United Methodist Church) over the morality of homosexual behavior. In this Harvester article is a brief review of the debate that took place October 27, 2022. A link is also provided so you can watch the debate yourself and make up your own mind.

The term “Messiah” occurs only twice in the New Testament, and both times it contains a brief explanation of what it means.: “Messiah … which is translated, the Christ” (John 1:41), and “Messiah … who is called Christ” (John 4:25). There are good reasons for this as we have shown in this series of articles. The first part of this study examined Old Testament background of the term “Messiah” and how the expectations of “Messiah” changed during the intertestamental period. The second part of this study considered the term “Messiah” in the first century and how it was viewed when the “voice of one crying in the wilderness” broke that silence and what that means for us today. This concluding part examines what “Messiah” meant to the first century church and what it means for Christians today.

Did you know the term “Messiah” is only found twice in the New Testament, and both times there is attached an explanation, “which is translated, the Christ” (John 1:41), and “who is called Christ” (John 4:25)? Why is that? In the first part of this study, consideration was given to some Od Testament background of the term “Messiah” and how the expectations of “Messiah” changed during the intertestamental period. The second part of this three-part series considers the term “Messiah” in the first century and how it was viewed when the “voice of one crying in the wilderness” broke that silence and what that means for us today.

Did you know the term “Messiah” is only found twice in the New Testament, and both times there is attached an explanation, “which is translated, the Christ” (John 1:41), and “who is called Christ” (John 4:25)? Why is that? This first of a two-part article will, among other things, explain why … but it is nothing new, a perfectly scriptural term hardly used because of its cultural corruption into a meaning that God never intended!

Why do discussions about translations, especially when critical of the KJV, often become “fighting words”? Since when is a rational discussion about anything biblical among truth-seeking brethren off-limits? Why have churches split and preachers been hired or fired based on “KJV-only” teachings? This article seeks to lessen controversy and promote unity by addressing three essential things that all translations, biblical or secular, need. When these things are understood, the controversy should lessen. Much of why translations read differently is not “liberal versus conservative,” but what does the evidence support? May we always justify our conclusions based on sufficient evidence!

Too many in the body of Christ, from leadership to new converts, think of the church as if it were a mere secular institution, a kingdom of the world, run by “rulers of the Gentiles.” This attitude shows in many ways, from the way they approach church assemblies to the way “business meetings” are conducted. This article will help us refocus on the spiritual nature of the church and its leaders.

Sometimes people who have only known their culture think it is the moral norm. Thus, any major change to that culture is taken as the end of civilization as they know it. Enter Roe v. Wade. What effect has it had on culture? What effect would its overturning have on culture? Regardless of the “cultural norm,” if God has determined something to be inherently sinful, no culture can make it morally acceptable!

Over the last year, this writer has had several discussions with different brethren who were defending the position that God accepts remarriages that Jesus plainly calls adulterous (Mt. 19:9), as long as those marriages were entered before the couple became Christians. After all, they will say, God forgives sin when people are baptized into Christ. In these discussions, the people so arguing would say something like, “I can’t divorce her [the unscriptural wife] because God hates divorce, and I don’t want to do anything God hates.” Yes, the Bible indeed teaches that “He [God] hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16), but which divorce is it that He actually hates? God Hates Divorce From Scriptural Wives Malachi 2:16 is a passage that is twisted by those defending the position above. Malachi 2:10-16 deals with the corrupted family life of God’s remnant who returned to Palestine from captivity (cf. Ezr. 1:1-4; 7:1-10; Neh. 1:1–2:8). In this section of Malachi, the prophet identified two main reasons why their family life was corrupted. First, their family life had been corrupted by their religiously mixed-marriages (Mal. 2:10-12). Intermarriage with those of the surrounding nations was expressly forbidden under Israel’s law (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3). Solomon’s violation of this law several hundred years prior to this time greatly contributed to Israel’s apostasy (1 Kgs. 11:1-13; Neh. 13:23-27). Since idolatry led to the Exile (cf. Hos. 7:8-10; 13:2), it should have been unthinkable for God’s remnant to tolerate this kind of apostasy again. Malachi reminded them that their common

Prior to becoming Christians, we were enslaved to sin. Now, we are free! From this setting of freedom, we must seek to liberate others captivated by sin!