We only send this newsletter to those who have requested it. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter, or are receiving it in error, you can un-subscribe. Just reply to this e-mail and write the word "Un-Subscribe" in the subject window.

Q: I was wondering about the passage in I Cor. 11:30: "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Also, in Hebrews 12:6, what about the word "scourgeth"? Would this not be like a whipping for sinning? I take it you are not an advocate of keeping short accounts and I John 1:9.
- Henry

A: A key to understanding I Corinthians 11:30 is found in chapter 7:1 where Paul begins a new section answering questions sent him by the Corinthians - some from predominately Gentile assemblies (I Cor. 12:1,2) and some from predominately Jewish assemblies (I Cor. 10:1-ff.). Repeated use of the definite article in chapter 11:25-28 proves that the cup in view is "the cup of blessing" of 10:16. No definite articles would have referred to cups in general. The definite articles identify something specific in context, in this case "the cup of blessing" which is the third of four cups in the Jewish Seder, the Passover meal which Christ and the eleven were observing. These Jewish Corinthian believers were observing Passover! Surprising? How about the Jewish believers, including James and Paul offering animal sacrifices thirty years after Pentecost (Acts 21:15-26)? The sick and dying of I Cor. 11:30 are the same people who are gluttonous and drunken in 11:21. Drunkenness and gluttony bring unnecessary sickness and premature death.

Regarding Hebrews 12:6
"for whom the Lord loves He chastens, and He scourges every son whom He receives."

The individual believer's scourging has taken place already (Heb. 12:2) and God the Father is perfectly satisfied with the substitutionary work of God the Son on Calvary (Heb. 10:14 encapsulates the entire book of Hebrews)! All chastening (lit. "child-training) for today's believer is done perfectly and completely by the Word ("instruction," II Tim. 3:16,17).

Regarding I John 1:9, no one has ever kept short accounts! The teaching of I John 1:9 not only does not advocate short accounts but militates against it. The contrast in I John 1:8-10 is not between a believer practicing "short-accounts" and a believer in total forgiveness who makes no attempt to keep short accounts, but a contrast between one who acknowledges his sin nature ("sin," singular) with its consequent sins (plural) and one who denies having a sinful nature and/or sins (the Gnostic).
Short - accounts, though not even required by the Law, is legalism. Every believer must be dead to legalism before he can live to God.

"So, my brothers, you also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ so that you should be married to Another, even to Him raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God." (Romans 7:4)

Back to the top

The record books tell us that the Bible is the best selling book of all time. It is the unique book of history, and most households have several copies. What other book requires that we specify color, cover type, type of paper, print size, version, and did we want it indexed and personalized with our names, when we order it? But how many of us have actually read our Bible, far less studied it? It claims to be God's written revelation to us; His instruction book for life. Something that important ought to be read and understood! Most of us start to read it, but give up quickly because we do not understand what it says.

If this has been your experience; if you have started to read the Bible only to get lost in it; if it has seemed confusing and even contradictory at times; take heart, there is hope. God has given instructions for reading and studying His Word in the Bible itself, and when we follow those instructions, all the imagined contradictions disappear, the fog of confusion lifts, and we see the way that leads to understanding and enjoyment of this precious gift from God-perhaps for the first time in our lives.

The most basic rule God gives regarding the study of His Word is found in II Tim. 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." According to this verse, meaningful Bible study requires that we "rightly divide" it. But what does that mean? How do we "rightly divide" the Bible so that we can read and study and apply it to our lives intelligently in the way God intended? Let's see "rightly dividing" in action by looking at two messages, one by the Apostle Peter and the other by the Apostle Paul. Read along in your Bible and note the following things Peter preached in Acts.

"Ye men of Israel . . . those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets… when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began . . . Ye are the children of the prophets . . . in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." (Acts 3:1ff)

While there are many things to learn from this passage, three points stand out. First, note that Peter (and the 12) addressed himself to the men of Israel, the Jews. The other nations came into the picture only in a secondary sense through Israel. Second, note that he went out of his way to stress that what he referred to was something they should have known about because God had revealed it through His prophets "since the world began". And third, note that he connected his message to the earth. Jesus was then in heaven only until Israel accepted Him as Messiah, at which time He would return to earth and usher in the "times of refreshing" for the world. Therefore, Peter spoke of a divinely originated purpose that involved the earth, a divinely originated program revealed since the beginning of the world, and a divinely originated people, the nation of Israel.

Now read along in your Bible and note what Paul preached in Ephesians many years later:

"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery…Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit…that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ…the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God…that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God…" (Eph. 3:1ff).

Comparing this with Peter's, it is startling to see that they are stated in similar but very contrasting terms. Note first that Paul addressed all men without regard for nationality, especially Gentiles. Second, note that he went out of his way to stress the fact that his message had been kept secret ("mystery" simply means secret) and had not been revealed before. Instead, it had been hid in God's heart (not the Old Testament) until God made it known to Paul through direct revelation. Third, note that his message involves the heavenly sphere and its ruling government there. Therefore, just as forcefully as Peter proclaimed a message that had to do with God's prophetic program for fulfilling His earthly purpose through His nation Israel, Paul proclaimed a message that had to do with God's mystery (secret) program for fulfilling His heavenly purpose through His Church, the Body of Christ.

This is the starting point of "rightly dividing" the Bible; the dotted line we follow to cut straight the fabric of God's Word. Doing this, we place each passage in its proper context by making the same distinctions Peter and Paul made between the purposes of God (one for the earth and one for heaven), the programs of God (one revealed in prophecy and one kept secret until Paul), and the peoples of God (Israel and the Church), which work together unto the ultimate goal of displaying God's glory perfectly throughout the universe.

With Israel's rejection of Jesus Christ, her Messiah, 2000 years ago, God stopped His prophetic clock, postponing for a 'time' the fulfillment of His purpose for the earth and, in a surprise move, started a new, secret program by which He would re-establish the heavenlies unto His glory through the Church. Therefore, we "rightly divide" the Bible when we recognize that Paul's Epistles consist of previously unrevealed truth that has to do with His purpose for the heavenlies and the Church, which pertain directly to us today. Start at Romans, study Paul's Epistles and view the whole Bible through the lens of his teachings. Then see if the Bible does not open up to display what God is really doing today, bringing satisfying joy to all who partake in that!

Back to the top

In just one of many passages the Apostle Paul in the admonition above expresses the divine will for the body of Christ, to respect divinely established authority and to be grateful for it, to be characterized by peace and patience and to always pursue the good - for the sake of the "work."

Sadly, groups devouring groups, schisms, splits, hirelings and wolves that have wreaked havoc on the flock, characterize the history of the body of Christ from Paul's day onward. Instead of the ideal that Christ put forth to his followers, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another," Christians are often more clearly recognized "for arranging their firing squads in a circle."

Just about any local assembly that has existed for more than five years has had its share of controversy or insurrection, possibly even a church-split. After all, heaven is the only place where man will check his sin nature before entering; and the local assembly for sure has its share of old natures at work. The clash of personalities, the spirit of faction the rise of cliques and the rejection of authority will soon work its way into any and every place in Satan's sin cursed world - and the local assembly is no exception. If these errors go unchecked, and Bible doctrine is ignored or rejected, the functional unity of the body of Christ will be sacrificed bringing shame to professing Christianity, turning unbelievers away, and blocking the spiritual growth and effectiveness of the local assembly and the individuals that make it up.

These unfortunate episodes within the church come to us because people, often well-meaning people, put a higher premium on their own agendas then on God's word and His plan for the fellowship of Believers, in time. Instead of realizing divinely inspired humility - "not my will, but Thy will be done," arrogance and selfishness establish manmade imperatives that distract the believer from having "the mind of Christ" and sheep become wolves. God did not design the body of Christ to be a hydra or even the Frankenstein experiment, but a group of individual believers with differing gifts (diversity), with differing degrees of honor or responsibility, but with a single cause (unity), and with Christ as the head. The body of Christ cannot function effectively without adhering to the principles given in Scripture that speak to authority, order, and attitude.

I find myself writing this article as yet another Pastor in the Chicago area finds his ministry maligned and under attack, not because he does not measure up to any of the characteristics which God puts forward in the Pastoral epistles for those who qualify for ministry in the pulpit, but because a handful of "well-meaning" people have had their nose bent out of shape for personal reasons and have chosen to tear down a man's ministry for their own gain. He hasn't committed any gross sin that would disqualify him from ministry other than somehow offending some distracted former members. Maybe he challenged their pride or checked their agenda somehow, but they don't make any claims that the Pastor doesn't meet the requirement of I Timothy 3:1-8. Christians all over the world would do themselves and the cause of Christ a great service if before they did or said anything they would just ask themselves the question, "Will what I am about to do or say bring Glory to God?" Sadly, the answer in 99% of these cases is that it will bring shame to themselves and the professing Church, and what they are really trying to do consciously or not, is to bring glory to themselves or their group. They suffer from a lack of respect for authority, or from power-lust, or approbation-lust and will bully fellow believers within their own assembly and if a Pastor gets in the way they will target him. There is a reason God gave the staff to the Pastor and not to the sheep. While the Pastor must remember that he "leads" the flock and doesn't drive it, and that God gave him a staff and not a whip, it is often insurrection from within that does the greatest damage to the cause of Christ. Forget about the atheists trying to remove "under God" from the pledge, or even the assault of secular humanism, the new age, or any other religion; Christianity's greatest foes have always worked their harm from within. After all, it was the religious leaders who led Christ to Pilate.

Let's take a brief look at the doctrine of Establishment as God intended it for our age:

• The Authority of Jesus Christ is supreme. (The Good, Great, Chief Shepherd)
  • The Apostles held the highest spiritual authority ever given to human beings. (2Cor. 10:8)
  • It was necessary for this authority to establish churches, to train and appoint Pastors, to regulate doctrine, and especially to write Scripture.
  • In 96 A.D. the gift of Apostleship was permanently removed.
• The authority of the written Word of God has replaced the function of Apostleship and the Pastor Teacher is now the final human authority in the local church. The Bishop is the Elder is the Pastor-Teacher is the leader. (2Tim 4:1; Acts 20:17, 28-30; I Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-11; I Peter 5:1-4; Hebrews 13:7, 17, 20)

Be concentrating on them (your right pastor -teacher), who themselves are ruling over (guiding by teaching) you all, pastors who have communicated to you the Word of God (Bible doctrine), whose doctrine be emulating. Be carefully considering the issue of their way of life. (Exp. Trans. Hebrews 13:7)

• Those who have communicated to you the word of God are the only ones who have authority over you.

Keep obeying those pastors who themselves are ruling over you and submit to their authority; for these same ones (pastors) keep watching for the benefit of your souls as those having to render an account. Keep obeying in order that they may do this accounting with joy and not groaning. For this accounting with groaning would be unprofitable to you. (Exp. Trans. Hebrews 13:17)

• See also Heb. 13:24; James 3:1; I Peter 5:1-4; I Thes. 5:12, 13
• The pastor is the shepherd of his flock and is directly accountable to Christ, the Chief Shepherd. (Heb 13:20; I Peter 5:4; I Cor. 3:13-15; James 3:1)

Col. R.B. Thieme Jr. says, "The pastor must be alert to shield his sheep from bullying by others in the flock and to protect their privacy and rights by removing those believers who are unruly, who gossip, malign and intrude into the affairs of others. His authority therefore, assures the privacy of believers and makes it possible for them to learn doctrine in the public assembly. He must also be on guard to eliminate false doctrine." As believers in the pew we have a responsibility that God and Paul point out in I Thes. 5:12-15 to warn those who are unruly; in Romans 16 we are told to steer clear of those who sinfully cause divisions, the admonition for those who serve within an assembly is not to be double tongued (two faced) and when speaking to the women who serve Paul says in I Timothy 3, not to be slanderers (gossips, false accusers). God and Paul felt so strongly about this that the word translated "slanderer" in the King James is the same word that is translated "Satan" elsewhere - diabolos.

So next time friend that a "well-meaning" fellow believer approaches you with something to say about anyone in the body, let alone your Pastor, make sure you ask yourself and your friend, "Is this going to bring Glory to the cause of Christ? "Does this glorify God or man?" Are these charges biblical reasons to consider or just malicious slander? We in the pew have the responsibility to reject gossip and those who practice it and let us all remember that God always is wary of arrogance and is a promoter of humility. Let's not give the "false accuser" any more ammunition than he already has.

One of the early lessons I learned being a Pastor's son was hearing my Father deflect opportunities people would present him with, to gossip about other men in the ministry. Oftentimes troublemakers either from our church or another would approach him and ask him what he thought of another Pastor or another man's ministry, and he would always say, "Don't ask me what I think about another man, my opinion is neither important nor appropriate, ask me what I think of a particular doctrine." We in the body of Christ all have responsabilities to Christ and to each other, let us offer our reasonable service with pure motives, building up and not devouring one another.

Back to the top

The following is abridged from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College seminar in Naples, Florida, on March 19, 2002.

The United States is well on its way to winning the war against terrorism because the United States, under President Bush, has espoused three clear principles.

The first principle is moral clarity. President Bush said in his remarkable speech right after September 11 that there are no good terrorists, only bad terrorists - that terrorism is always evil. In saying this, he was saying that nothing justifies terrorism. It is important to state this point clearly and to elaborate on it, because the main weapon that terrorists use against the West is not bombs or guns, but moral obfuscation: "You're terrorists, because you kill civilians, too. America, Britain, Israel - all terrorist states." We must harden ourselves against this amoral and debilitating charge.

Terrorism is not defined by the identity of its perpetrator. Nor is it defined by the cause, real or imagined, that its perpetrators espouse. Terrorism is defined by one thing and one thing alone. It is defined by the nature of the act. Terrorists systematically and deliberately attack the innocent. That is a very different thing from the unintentional civilian casualties that often accompany legitimate acts of war.

Fro example, in 1944 the British Air Force set out to bomb the Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen. The British pilots missed, and instead of hitting the Gestapo they hit a hospital and killed 83 children and four nuns. That was not terrorism. That did not make Britain a terrorist state. That was a terrible but unintentional accident of the kind that accompanies every war. But terrorists don't accidentally kill civilians. The deaths of innocents are not an unintentional byproduct of their strategy. Terrorists deliberately target the innocent. They intentionally cross the lines that define the conventions of war that have been developed, in accordance with basic morality, to try to limit and regulate conflict. They willfully try to kill as many innocent civilians as they can. And this is never justified, regardless of the cause.

Going back to World War II, consider this hypothetical: You're an American officer. You're fighting for the most just cause in history. But you come into a German village - maybe even a village next to a concentration camp - and you line up the women and children in that village and kill them with a machine gun. You have committed an act of terrorism. You have committed a war crime and you will be judged guilty and executed, and properly so. Not even the most just cause can justify terrorism. It is always illegitimate, always criminal.

Allow me to add one other observation - I think an important one - on this point. It is not merely that the goals of terrorists do not justify their means. In addition, the means that terrorists use tell us something about their real goals. We can see this very simply by looking at what happens when terrorists come to power. They don't establish free societies. They don't establish governments that respect human rights. They establish dictatorships that trample human rights. It's the same whether we look at Cuba or at Iran or at Libya or at Afghanistan under the Taliban. Terrorist movements may talk about fighting for democracy and freedom, but if they're in the business of terror, you can bet they plan, when they come to power, to grind human rights into the dust.

So again, terrorism is always criminal, whether practiced by Israel, America, or the Palestinian Authority. The deliberate and systematic assault on innocents is evil. Nor do ratios count. In Afghanistan, when the final tally is over, America will probably have killed a lot more Afghans than the number of Americans slaughtered in New York and Washington. But that doesn't make the Taliban cause just, or America's cause unjust.

I think the United States is not and will not be cowed by arguments that try to delegitimize its war against terrorism - arguments that equate terrorism with the unintentional killing of civilians. That's what I mean when I say that President Bush and the American people have moral clarity.

That brings us to the second principle - strategic clarity. I think the United States understands that fighting terrorism doesn't really mean fighting the terrorists. Of course it is necessary and right to go after them. But they are not really the most important target. If you want to fight terrorism - and I've been saying this for over two decades - you don't go out looking for the needle in the haystack. You go after the haystack.

To use a different analogy, if you have kamikaze pilots coming at you, you can shoot down a kamikaze pilot here and there. You can even go after their squadron leader. But you will still have kamikazes coming in. The only way that you can stop the attacks from continuing is to go after the aircraft carrier that is their base. Likewise, if you want to stop terrorism, you have got to go after the regimes that stand behind the terrorists. You have to understand that the terrorists are not floating up in space. They have to take off from a certain place and go back to it. They have to have a location to hatch their grisly plots, and to equip and train themselves. That haven is always the territory of a sovereign state. If you take away the support of that sovereign state, the whole scaffolding of international terrorism will collapse into the dust.

That's exactly what the United States is doing now. It went after the Taliban and Al Qaeda began to crumble. There are remnants in Afghanistan. There is perhaps even a residual terrorist capacity. But when the roots are cut off, the grapes left on the vine wither and die. And this is fairly easy to do, because the whole terror network consists of a half-dozen states with about two dozen terrorist organizations affiliated with them - sometimes working directly for them. If you take care of those states, the rest is easy. And there are only two things you can do with terror-sponsoring states: deter them or dismantle them. That means giving them a choice. This choice was well articulated by the British Prime Minister, speaking to the Taliban: "Surrender terrorism, or surrender power." They didn't surrender terrorism, and out they went. There is no third choice.

I think the United States is well on its way to handling two other terrorist regimes. One is practicing terrorism this very moment, inciting radicalism and terror and militancy from the Philippines to Los Angeles. I'm talking about Iran. But the first target will be Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both of these regimes, if unattended, will succeed - fairly rapidly - in the programs they have launched to develop atomic weapons, these two foundations of the terror network could threaten the world and our civilization with a terror that we cannot even imagine today.

President Bush is absolutely right in boldly naming these two countries and going after them - or in the case of Iran, perhaps, waiting for the implosion of its regime after the collapse of Saddam Hussein. So in addition to the moral clarity to identify all terrorism as illegitimate, the United States is demonstrating strategic clarity in moving to root out the terror-supporting regimes.

Which brings me to the third principle: the imperative for victory. And when I say this, I don't just mean that the United States wants to win. That's obvious. I mean that the United States understands that the only way to defeat terrorism is actually to defeat it. That sounds redundant, but it isn't. There is a very powerful view today, after all - held even by some former Presidents - that says the root cause of terrorism is the deprivation of national rights or civil rights. This deprivation, according to this view, is what's driving terrorism - which is, of course, what the terrorists themselves say. Anyone who knows modern history, however, can enumerate several hundred battles, struggles, conflicts, and wars that were aimed at the achievement of national liberation, independence, or equal and civil rights, and that did not employ terror. Indeed, one has to look very hard to find the use of terrorism in these conflicts.

For example, if we ask what is the worst occupation in history - the very worst - I think most of us would agree that it was the Nazi occupation of Europe. Yet when we look, we're hard pressed to find one example of, say, the French Resistance using terrorism. They had plenty of opportunities, but they never once targeted the wives and children of French collaborators, or event the wives or children of German officers stationed in France. Why didn't they? Because they weren't terrorists. They were democrats. Or take an example closer to home: the struggle of blacks for civil equality in the United States during the 1950s and early 1960s. That struggle never employed terror either, because it also proceeded from a democratic mind-set.

The only way to persuade people to obliterate buses full of children, or buildings, or cities - the only way to persuade people to abandon the moral constraints that govern human action, even in war - is to inculcate in their minds the idea that there is a cause higher or more important than morality. That cause could be racial. It could be religious. It could be ethnic. It could be social. But whatever it is, it must be total if it is going to allow people to circumvent morality even to the point of intentionally blowing up children. That kind of thinking proceeds not from a democratic, but from a totalitarian mind-set. That's why, from its inception, terrorism has been wedded to totalitarianism. From Lenin to Stalin to Hitler, down to the Ayatollahs, terrorism is bred by totalitarianism. It requires a machine that inculcates hatred from childhood, grinding it into peoples' minds and hearts until they are willing even to blow themselves up for the purpose of murdering innocents.

So the root cause of the kind of systematic terrorism we confront today is totalitarianism, and in order to defeat totalitarianism we have to defeat the totalitarian regimes. That was accomplished through war in the case of Nazi Germany. In the case of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan won bloodlessly in the end. But he won. Victory over Nazism and communism were imperative for freedom. And in the case of militant Islamic terrorism, the same sprit is required.

Of course, the United States and its allies are often told that if they fight this war, they'll get hundreds of millions of people angry with them. For instance, many said that if America bombed Afghanistan during Ramadan, tens of thousands of Islamic activists would stream into Afghanistan to help the Taliban. Wrong. The United States bombed Afghanistan during Ramadan, but people who oppose America are streaming out of Afghanistan, not in. And what about all the governments in the area? Are they attacking the United States or are they trying to line up, because victory breeds victory and defeat breeds defeat. Insofar as the war against terrorism is victorious, it will compress the forces of Islamic militancy and terrorism and make it harder for them to draw recruits.

With these three principles - moral clarity, strategic clarity and the imperative for victory - the defeat of terrorism is not as distant as many people think. Beyond that, if I had to point to the one thing that is needed in the Arab and Muslim world to ensure that the next century will be better than the last - for them and for us - it would be to promote democracy, a free press, debate and dissent. In the end, the only antidote to terrorism is the antidote to totalitarianism. It is freedom. It is what the American flag represents to me and to billions in the world. It is the key to securing not merely peace of mind, but peace between peoples. This peace is within our power. Now we must show that it is within our will.

Benjamin Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv in 1949, grew up in Jerusalem, and spent his high school years in the United States, where his father taught history. In 1967, he enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces and served in an elite commando unit. Wounded in the rescue operation of hijacked Sabena Airline hostages at Ben Gurion Airport and later cited for outstanding operational leadership, he was discharged from the I.D.F. in 1972. Mr. Netanyahu received a B.S. in Architecture and studied political science at M.I.T. and Harvard University. He was employed by the Boston Consulting Group, an international business-consulting firm, and later joined the senior management of Rim Industries. In 1979, he organized an international conference against terrorism under the auspices of the Jonathan Institute - a private foundation dedicated to the study of terrorism and named after his brother, who gave his life leading the famous and daring Entebbe rescue mission. Mr. Netanyahu served as Deputy Chief of Mission in the Israeli Embassy in Washington from 1982 to 1984, and as Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations from 1986 to 1988, when he was elected to the Knesset as a Likud member and became Deputy Foreign Minister. In 1996, he was elected Prime Minister of Israel. Mr. Netanyahu is the author of three books: 'Terrorism: How the West Can Win', 'A Place Among Nations', and 'Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism.'
Reprinted by permission from 'IMPRIMIS', the national speech digest of Hillsdale College (www.hillsdale.edu)

Caveat from the Editor
While the observations of Mr. Netanyahu are particularly strong, his conclusion seems to be the optimism of a wishful politician who "practices" only secular Judaism. That the solution to terrorism and totalitarianism is freedom has been demonstrated time and again throughout history, however, that the Arab and Muslim world would ever promote democracy, a free press, and debate and dissent, is either political sophistry or naivite. For the Arab world to embrace these things would mean that they would have to reject their own culture and religion, because Islam and individual Liberty are at swordspoints to one another. One needs only to view the Arab world from the inception of Islam to the present to realize that Islam has never embraced democracy and has actively been hostile to said political doctrine. Look at the countries whose governments are Islamic today and you won't find debate, you may find dissent but it will be put down and in some cases with chemical weapons, no diverse religious freedoms, or democratic forms in any way. As a matter of fact, if one goes to the State Dept.'s Web site and does a search of those countries that are still in our day active in slavery and slave trafficking, you will find that nearly all of them are predominately Islamic nations. As for the Middle East, as Christians we know that peace will only be established on a temporary basis by a coming world ruler, and that there will not be a lasting solution until the personal return of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jerusalem, the "City of Peace," will remain a 'cup of trembling' while man attempts to bring peace with secular and political solutions apart from God, but we thought it worthy to print Mr. Netanyahu's perspective, even though he is a secular Jew, he has embraced some Biblical solutions to achieving peace in Satan's sin-cursed world.
-John Kirkwood

Back to the top

Tools and Tips is a column devoted to offering Bible study aids to the serious student of the scriptures. While the Grace Perspective may make recommendations of books, tapes, software, web pages, or even advice on personal bible study, it does not endorse every view of any author, site, or program.

This months Bible Study tip is a web site that archives articles on any number of different doctrines that the student might want to study in more depth.

e-Grace is a reference sight that links the Bible student to the perspective of some of the more well known scholars and theologians of today and yesterday. The webmaster has given us the following definition of this most helpful site that is truly a blessing to the new believer and the elder alike:

The e-Grace ministry was carefully and prayerfully put together to provide a safe place for the study of Bible doctrine online. e-Grace contains hundreds of links, organized by each particular doctrine, to online articles - all of which have been written from the Biblical free grace, dispensational perspective.

Back to the top