This broadcaster has 586 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
September 23, 2020 8:00 am
It's a clever ploy when two groups of people are attacking you with the same time. Do something that will turn them against each other.
That's exactly what Paul did when the Pharisees and Sadducees were ganging up on him in Jerusalem. He pushed their hot button by mentioning the resurrection, and it was all over but the shouting to the Bible study our radio and Internet program with Dr. James Boyce preparing you to think and act biblically the next 22 Paul is in big trouble with the Jews were preaching about God's plan for the Gentiles is now in Roman custody and continues to cause a stir among the Roman soldiers and his Jewish attackers alike. Let's listen now to Dr. Boyce our last few studies in the book of acts have shown us how they apostle Paul who up to this point had been joyed nearly 20 years of freedom as an ambassador for Jesus Christ, largely among the Gentiles past into Roman hands, and from this point on is seen in the book of acts as a captive from a human point of view that was hardly a good situation, though in Providence of God. It was greatly used in bringing the gospel to certain segments of the Roman population that probably would not have been reached. At this early time. Otherwise, but it was nevertheless difficult for Paul. We would think.
I am sure that being Roman hands would be far worse than being in Jewish hands. For example, and yet we're going to see as we look at this next section of acts that Paul was far better off in the hands of the secular authorities than he was in the hands of his own people give you an outline to these verses that we're going to look at and then go through it section by section that falls into three parts. First of all we see Paul and the Romans, and there's some interaction there that is in chapter 22 verses 23 to 29. Secondly, we see Paul in the Sanhedrin as the leaders of his own people, and that story is an acts 2230 through acts 23 verse 10. Then finally, the third part of this outline, we see Paul and his Lord, that is important though stated quite briefly in acts 23 verse 11 hellos go together as I hope to show the first portion of this concerns Paul and his Roman captors. We know the story, we know how we got to that point he had been attempting to go into the temple precincts in order to complete the bow that he had taken upon himself and to offer a sacrifice together with a number of men who were undergoing a rite of purification whether were Jews from Asia, perhaps from Ephesus where Paul was very well known who started a riot saying that the Jew had gone into the temple area that was all right, but that he had taken the Greek with it. That was untrue. As Lou points out but nevertheless that's what set these Jews from Asia stirred up such a riot that the commander of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem had to dispatch to centurions with their soldiers. That is at least 200 men down into the temple area to rescue Paul. I took him into the barracks as they were pleading them away. Paul asked to have a moment to speak to the people began in their own Aramaic language which initially quieted them down. But when he got to the plaintiff recounting how the Lord Jesus Christ had appeared to him and had instructed him to go to the Gentiles with the mention of that one word Gentiles. The riot broke forth again and Paul was in danger once again of being killed in the Romans once again had a necessity of intervening and Paul was led away on the commander was hidden bits of a dilemma. His job was to keep order in the city in order to do that and understand what was going on. He had fought no doubt that when Paul stood up and began his address to the people in Aramaic having first spoken to the commander in Greek. Obviously, recognizing that he was a very learned man he perhaps thought that the worst was over all by addressing the people in their own language and quieted them down. He probably didn't understand Aramaic, or at least didn't understand it well.
Suddenly, this great commotion broke forth again, it must puzzle the commander even if he had understood Aramaic, he would've understood why it was when Paul got that particular moment in his address, explaining how the Lord of glory, and appeared to him and given him a commission to bear the gospel to the Gentiles at suddenly at that point the commotion should start all over. The thoughts must've thought that there was something underneath all this that had just not been said something. The apostle Paul was guilty but had not confessed, Zoe said the only way were going to get to the bottom of this is by torture we have to force them to tell what it is that's causing the trouble and I have to do that because until I get to the bottom of it.
I'll never be able to restore order in the city so they took Paul were told about it in the section. They stretched about to flog him. This was not the normal Jewish blogging which was bad or the way in which has Paul says on other occasions he had been beaten by rods by other Gentile authorities. This was the dreaded Roman flagellin was beating so severe that in some cases it produced death and the victim. It's what was done to Jesus before his crucifixion and so we condemn but he apparently strongman was after the flagellin unable to bear his cross to Golgotha right this is what they were about to do the Paul ball was stretched out his hands were tied and as they were about to begin this dreaded punishment all ask a simple question. He said, is it legal is that lawful for you to beat one who is a Roman and who has not been found guilty by formal trial. I would was not lawful. Paul of course knew that and the commander know which and the soldier that was in charge of the beating knew it.
So when he heard it immediately left off what he was doing. He went to the commander and he said you better be careful what you do know this man is a Roman commander went down intervened. He said business drove what I hear your Roman Paul said yes. That of course was something that man would not lie about.
Sometimes people of said why did the commander simply believe it when he said so wouldn't anybody claim to be a Roman citizen under those circumstances, the answer is no because the claim that on unjustified grounds was something which in itself merited the death penalty is didn't do that under Roman law. So if he said it was true, and no doubt Paul could've proved it so this commander now with quite different attitude recognizing now that he's dealing with one who like himself as a Roman citizen began to enter in to a dialogue questioning Paul as to how he secured his citizenship volunteered the information.
He said I had to pay a great price for we saw on our last study. The judge by his name. His name was Claudius Lucius that he was a Greek who had no doubt procured his citizenship under Claudius who was raining this time and he said I secured my citizenship by the payment of a great price commentator say that this fits well perfectly with what was going on under the reign of the Emperor Claudius is a something was happening quite often. At that time in order to raise money for the state.
At any rate, this man had not. Paul replied that it was not a question of having purchased citizenship on his part, but rather he was free born means that his father was a Roman citizen. How did his father become a Roman citizen. We don't know. It might be that he was awarded it because of some great service to the state, it might be that his father before him had been a Roman citizen. It might be that Paul's father hadn't south purchased his citizenship, in which case Paul would've come from a family of some means which we have reason for thinking on other grounds.
We don't know the answer. All we know is that Paul was a citizen on the basis of laxity was immediately released because it certainly was a crime to punish Roman without trial is even a crime to abound without trial, the lesser offense was, of course, forgotten, and Paul was not about to present now when we read this portion of the story and reflects on the behavior of the Romans in the circumstances.
What we are impressed with is the wisdom by which this commander conducted this entire business of being when we look at the Roman state in the circumstances we find here the secular state functioning as it ought what is the role of the states.
All we have great ideas of what we think the state should do for us today. The role of the state, at least as the Bible speaks about it, is twofold.
The state exists to establish, maintain and assure justice.
That's the first thing and to provide for the defense of the citizens or as we would say, promote the general welfare, justice and defense. Of course, this is exactly what this Roman commander operating on behalf of the government in Rome itself had done or at least was in the process of doing. There can be different kinds of disorder that can be disorder without menu have to defend against enemies or can be disorder within and then you have to defend against this order within the state.
This case there was disorder within this Roman had behaved himself quite admirably. It intervenes rescue Paul inquired of the citizens of now, as we say he's going to proceed further.
Moreover, he was concerned with justice. That is, he was operating arbitrarily was operating under the strictures of Roman law, and deed strictly under the strictures were going to say that when he called the Sanhedrin together to find out what their accusation against Paul may have been. He was trying to pursue this concern for justice, even a step further problem today you say is that we look to the secular state for things that the state was never intended to do, and the state, perhaps in part by its attempt to do those things sometimes neglects that for which it is chiefly responsible we have entered into day in American life history American culture where we look to the state to provide us with all things. We speak of Social Security and that is much more than a program we really mean it. We expect the state to guarantee a security to take care of us to take care of us from the birth to the gray and the state was never meant to do that, we think of ourselves as having rights not merely rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is our Constitution says, but rather the right to be cared for right to be preserved from even the consequences of our own deeds and the state was never created by God to do those things. Matter fact, when we are talking about the care of people that duty is a duty which God has passed upon his people upon the church and upon families to care for their own.
It's not something that the state is to do and as I say the tragedy of our day is not only that we look to the state to do things which actually we're supposed to do and to do much better if we would do it, but that the state also is failing to do the things that God created it to do may be that we have a certain defense from enemies without the dates chiefly in the area of justice in our system fails, I think we need to face that is a matter of fact I believe are going to have to face it increasingly in years to come. You know, as I look back over a period of 10 or 20 years. I can remember a day when the minorities in our country were saying something like this.
They were saying you know you all speak of justice that you think you live in a country that provides for justice, but that is only because your well-off minorities don't get justice. The poor don't get justice. Only the rich get justice. I remember hearing that 10 or 20 years ago and thinking that it was basically unfair may be true. I thought that there are miscarriages of justice among the poor, and certainly don't get quite the same attention, but I said it is really right to say only the rich get justice certainly were a nation ruled by law, I must say, as the years gone by. I have become increasingly aware that that is true. Or at least it strode to a far greater measure than we would like to think most of us have never been in the legal proceedings and therefore we don't know how much money it takes to just get sued for example and find out how difficult it is to defend yourself in a court of law question at that point for many people to dialogue costing what it does, being merely a matter of time or justice boils down to a question of money do you have enough money to sustain your case. I know the Christian organization that was in my judgment wrong way utterly wrongly sued by an organization that was simply trying to destroy it because of what it was saying the students $400,000 on behalf of the Christian organization just in the period of discovery. In law we are trying to get out the facts of the reason was that this other organization was trying to destroy it. Had means at its disposal, and just kept it up and kept it up and kept it up until $400,000 were gone. On the other side.
The time came when it's time to appear in court court was going to cost another hundred thousand dollars of this point the Christian organization would simply run out of money. They had no more money, and all they could do at that point was going to chapter 11 to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't proceed. That's why I say it is not justice.
And yet that is the way our legal system is functioning increasingly in our day.
We look at this Roman empire and we say oh what a cruel empire. It wasn't, of course, it was capable of great cruelty.
I look at this instance that I find here states, which for all its ignorance of the true God was nevertheless operating correctly and perhaps in a way which is an example. Even though our own.
So that's the first thing Paul and the Romans removed the second stage of the story and here we find Paul his own people. Paul and the Sanhedrin because the commander of the Roman garrison, recognizing that he still didn't have the story and couldn't understand why it was they were so incensed against Paul commanded the Sanhedrin and the chief priests of the people to assemble.
He said to himself. I bring Paul before the molecular argue their case and then when they have an actual concrete accusation. The main thing we can proceed with. It seems best interesting contrast is contrast between the Romans in one hand into hooves's custody ball and fallen in the Sanhedrin, the so-called people of God and the leaders of the people of God and the other I spoken of the proper function of the state. States job being the promotion of justice, and the maintenance of order here. When we come to the Sanhedrin, the leaders of the Jewish state, such as it was in that day, we find that neither of these two elements were present, not justice. Certainly, they were interested in justice. They just wanted to get rid of Paul and not order, either because the disorder that Ted taken place out of the courtyard of the temple earlier and was repeated even after Paul's rest of the people in Aramaic now is were going to see burst forth. Also on the floor of the courtroom on this very gust body story is worth pursuing.
Paul was brought before the man given a chance to speak and he began as we read in verse one of chapter 23, my brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience. To this day that undoubtedly was an opening line of an address that Paul certainly hoped to deliver but he didn't get a chance to deliver it high priest who was there.
Ananias most ungodly man and a man who perished. Eventually, even at the hands of his own people at the time of the Jewish rebellion ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Paul retorted God will strike you you whitewashed wall. You sit there to judge me. According to the law that you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck justice going to get justice. It would be far better in this situation to get at the hands of the Romans and get in the hands of this high priest of the only true God always, probably referring to verse in the 19th chapter of Leviticus which said that if you strike at Israelite on the cheek is in effect striking at the glory of God.
I don't know what he was referring to, but it was probably that verse at any rate, when he had spoken his word.
Somebody was standing nearby, reproved him for speaking in a disrespectful tone to the high priest of the high priest may have deserved it. But Paul was aware that that was improper. Indeed, it was against the law is only defense was that he had not recognize that it was the high priest so in effect, he apologized acknowledging that what he had done was contrary to the law of God, since in Exodus 2228 it says do not speak evil about the ruler of your people commentators 10 Bible students have raised the question why Paul didn't recognize the high priest, after all, he was standing there as it says in verse one, looking straight at the Sanhedrin. I didn't Paul recognize it well several answers of been given. I'm not sure it really matters a great deal, but in case raising the question here the answers some of suggested the ball couldn't see very well. We have reason for suspecting that on other grounds, because for example, at the very end of Galatians is a verse which says see I am writing this myself. Even I Paul, with large letters that obviously is personal signature to the letter letter that was being written by a scribe for Paul in amanuensis and hear Paul at the end in his own handwriting authenticates what was written so they know it was from Paul. The puzzling thing about that is the reference to large letters. I would may be that all that means is that they were un-trained letters, Paul was not a professional scribe and may mean large and if that's the case within Paul couldn't see real well and so very carefully's writing out with large letters and number of people of thought that that's the case Paul here in the Sanhedrin looking at them may not actually recognize the high priest second explanation is that Paul is being sarcastic. Paul says I didn't realize that he was God's high priest.
What he means is the true high priest would never talk like that, why, when he spoke about why I hardly realize that was the high priest something of that nature bird! Probably the best one is that Paul is simply been away from Jerusalem for 20 years and he didn't know Ananias personally had been there. Among leaders of the people at a much earlier. But perhaps he didn't know Ananias personally, we find that hard to imagine today because our leaders have their pictures in the newspapers we see them on television.
All that happened in those days. Of course, Paul wouldn't have mingled freely. These people and perhaps Louis was there. He didn't actually recognize some people of said well he must've been wearing the high priest's robe. She would've been wearing those set this had been a formal session but it probably wasn't. This was a session of the leaders called by the commander of the Roman garrison and that certainly would not be recognized as a formal court session by the Sanhedrin itself, any right, he didn't recognize him and when he was rebuked he immediately placed himself beneath the law which he himself was most anxious to uphold curses interesting points. All we are told, recognizing that some of them were Sadducees that is the materialists or modernists of the day and the others Pharisees that is the conservatives of the day brought up the point which was a contention between them and he said brothers I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee and I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.
That was a blatant appeal to pharisaical support. I worked because the Pharisees hearing that the basis of his appeal was something that they maintained over against their more liberal brother and said naturally why the spell is all right we don't find anything wrong with him and the Sadducees were thus confronted by what they regarded as a heresy immediately took logs and so there was a falling out.
Third great commotion and that portion of the trial is over.
I don't want to turn back to two things that are in this account. I've told the story, but let's look at just two things. First is this in verse one, Paul says, my brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience. To this day really is a very striking statement on the bold one. Paul saying before the Sanhedrin.
I have lived in good conscience before God. Until this very day my life until this very moment, people looked at that and said well how in the world could Paul say that one of the world was he thinking of all had been a great error during his days in Judaism, even though the degree of turning his attention against the church of Jesus Christ persecuting it even falling off some of the Christians to arrest and eventually the death he had been present when Stephen first martyr was stone. How could he say I have done that, in good conscience answer that question is that Paul did indeed do all of that in good conscience was very wrong of course and it required the intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus to show him how long he was in those early days, he didn't think he was wrong. Always operating in good conscience, so far as he knew, according to his understanding of the laws of his people. That is why he could say when he summed up his life in Judaism so far as the righteousness that is in the law is concerned, I was blameless, blameless in God's sight. He was a sinner like the rest, but so far as you know a good conscience to be at All those things reason I come back to that is to say that while conscience is something to which we could listen and should listen.
It is not an infallible guide conscience will tell you that you shouldn't do. What's wrong with conscience cannot tell you what is right when we need is the word of God where alone. We learn what is right and then when we have the word of God and have the Holy Spirit shining upon us, teaching us what it really means and conscience will tell you that you ought to do it but if you don't have the word of God. You don't have a true God, which only the word of God provides.
Then conscience will tell you to do the right, but you won't know what the right is and so you could easily be led into the same kind of error that the apostle Paul was in his early days say Christians don't count on your conscience good thing to follow, but only when it is wedded to the word of God, to seek what God says in Scripture and the second thing I want to focus on in this section were dealing with is this matter of the resurrection which Paul appealed and which divided the Pharisees from the Sadducees. Some of the commentators are very unhappy with this one man WA Florence taken issue with Paul here saying it was hardly worthy of a man of his character to do something like this was to bring to a dirty trick to throw out something that was irrelevant unless by the court before which he was a peering when I want to suggest is that that was not the case. It is true that the accusation that because the riot was that Paul had brought Greek into the temple area that was against the Jewish law law are recognized even by the Romans, but of course probably not done that.
Of course, fundamentally, that was not the real problem real problem actually was summarized by this matter of the resurrection and the real issue. The issue of the day was the very issue that had divided the Sadducees from the Pharisees.
We talk about the resurrection you say one Paul talked about the resurrection.
He was talking not merely and certainly the way in which he presented it here was not merely a matter of unique resurrection. That is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Though it had bearing upon it, but rather the matter of the resurrection of the dead itself. What that means to put it into our kind of terms is that there is life beyond what we see and know now we live in an age which focuses on what's visible believes and what can be seen in what can be measured. The great division in Paul's day, as well is in our own time is a division between those who are willing to be bound only by what they can see measure in touch and feel and those who believe that there is something beyond the tangible that which is in tangible eternal life God and values that flow from those sources that's involved in the resurrection you say because if a person dies and then if they come to life again. Obviously, there was an existence of the soul or spirit of the individual somewhere in some form beyond the tangible tangible is dead and if they leave the body and are gone. And then they come back in the body is raised again, but that in itself is proof of the fact that there is an intangible order reason I come back to that is to say, and say strongly as I can that that is the problem we are increasingly facing our age.
Let me refer to something Francis Schaeffer said when he first began to write 20 or 30 years ago Francis Schaeffer.
That point spoke of a line which he called the line of despair which divides reality and divides it in this way above the line is the area of faith and that which is in tangible and below the line is that which concerns the area of reason and which is tangible. Schaeffer pointed out that this line of despair has been drawn historically in philosophy through the work of Hegel, but also in art and literature and all other things that flow from it before. That line was drawn unsaid. Schaeffer man and women regarded all things as subject reason as to say you could reason even about spiritual things you can reason about God to be good reasons for his existence. That sort of dialogue could take place. Once that line was drawn, the region of faith was separated from the area of reason and how while it is true that you could talk about God or believe in God. That's not the sort of thing that you can actually work with in any tangible or rational way and Schaeffer bemoaned that saying that, of course, that was a great decline and a great loss for Christianity a lot as I said was 20 or 30 years ago when Schaeffer began to think and write.
Along those lines people had divided the two realms of reality area of faith in the area of reason. Both were tropic you just couldn't apply rational criteria under that which was above the line reason I refer to that is to say that what is happened in the meantime is that that which lies above the line that is the intangible God absolutes and such is not merely now in our day, something that is there to be believed, but which cannot be demonstrated by logical means, but now is no longer something even to be believed, to see if you Talk about it if you can feel it. If you can't measure it while then.
According to the thinking of our age, how even though it exists. You have perhaps heard a lot of people are referred to as of the parable of the British philosopher and theologian Anthony flew he makes a little story that goes like this to explorers are making their way through a jungle and suddenly in the midst of the jungle. They come upon a clearing in their him. The clearing is a garden on explorers as well. Look at this garden sold in order. There must be a gardener somewhere who takes care of it.
Let's stick around here and see if we can meet them so they stop in the area wait for the gardener to appear, but he never does. And yet the garden is tended everything is in order and the other Explorer begins to argue along these lines. He says look we never see this gardener. I think probably there is no gardener also says the first, there must be a gardener garden is well attended.
Perhaps this gardener is invisible. Well, that is certainly hypothesis worth exploring. So they set out to see if they can devise something that will detect the presence of the invisible gardener. I set up traps or line switch. If he crosses he will break and they'll be able to find them in the morning but lines are never crossed her never broken leg set up devices which will give an electric shock to an intruder, but there's never a scream and the nights betraying the presence of someone or some presence who has touched the lives everything they do comes up empty. But still the first six floor believes he says this. There is a gardener, invisible, intangible and sensitive to electric shocks a gardener who has no sentence makes no sound gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden, which he loves which the skeptic, who is now quite distressed that he can't seem to get through to his believing friend replies. What is left of your original assertion is that there is a gardener just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener, or even from no gardener all that's the end of the parable as flu gives it and he says the belief that God and even the existence of God dies by reason of a thousand qualifications.
Let's what is happened today. People in our secular world, particularly in the universities, but elsewhere say as flu does. If you cannot measure him if you cannot see him. If you cannot touch him. If he does not trip your wires, then God does not exist. There is no realm above the line of despair. There are no absolutes and all that exists is what we see and know now what we can touch major. That is the great division of the day we who are Christians stand and say I hope we say as the apostle Paul did.
I am a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee and I am on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead are.
You may say if we can't feel and see and touch the eternal, invisible one. Why should we hold to such a hope the answer, of course, which flu introduces in his parable, but never actually talks about is the existence of the garden may be that the skeptic says your qualifications, at least so far as I am concerned, do away with the need to believe in this great gardener but still there is the garden, and it is being tended and somehow it does grow, say the believer at that point is not operating irrationally, though he's dealing with that which is beyond and above reason, but he is operating in a very rational way.
Indeed, moreover, as we profess. We believe in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
One who was killed but he rose again, who appeared with seem and who has said to his followers. I am coming back again. That's the battle of our time. That's the battle for you and I are going to have to fight increasingly in the days to come.
But let me say this.
I talked about Paul and the Romans, and Paul and the Sanhedrin in the very last verse of the section acts 23 verse 11 we find Paul and the Lord that reason.
One, you say that one whom the skeptical world will not believe in that one, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Paul and reassured him the following night. Verse 11 the Lord stood near Paul and said, take courage as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome. I suppose it when the Lord Jesus Christ spoke those words to Paul.
All he was really doing was giving practical application of what he had said earlier to the original disciples in what we call the great commission very end of Matthew's gospel were told that the Lord when he had gathered his disciples together. Said all authority is committed under me in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go to all the nations teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you, baptizing them in the name of the father, the son of the Holy Spirit. Hello, I'm with you always, even under the end of the world is what Jesus was saying to Paul on this occasion.
On that earlier occasion he is stressed absolutes. He said all authority is given on the me I am sending you to all the nations to teach them all the things that I have taught you. And remember as you go that I am with you all ways. That is all the days until the very end say when Jesus came up. Although Paul now was in custody. Jesus did not say. Well Paul, you did a very good job. Thank you. Now you're off duty because after all, you're arrested and how can you bear witness for me here now. He said I called you to be a witness. Your task as a witness is not something that ends ever in this life. You are to be my witness until the very end until death, even though you're now in Roman hands even though you're a prisoner your to bear witness for me there. Paul did and he was greatly blessed in that witness but said Jesus as you witness, remember that I am with you, take courage, bear witness, and in my power. That witness will be blessed.
I'm glad for that. I must say when I look at the world and the way in which our culture has fallen away not only from spiritual values, but even from rationality because you see if you loose contact with the absolute eventually you lose the ability even to reason because reason is itself billed on absolutes. I look at the culture which is lost the ability even to reason as well as falling away from spiritual values. I almost, at least, humanly speaking, despair. How can you speak to a culture like that how can you speak words of recent works of Scripture which are certainly reasonable, humanly speaking, I don't know how to say these words are for us take courage. Jesus said I courage.
Don't give up witnessing because I am with you and I will bless your witness even under the end of the age when Paul stood before the representatives of Rome, he appealed was citizenship and money stood before the representatives of his own people. He appealed to his conscience over and above all about.
Paul appealed to God and Jesus the son of God blessed them in his witness as he will bless us spray father. We live in difficult times.
Perhaps all the more difficult because we don't always even understand the times in which we live. We Christians tend to live in the past we think in terms of the problems of yesterday not always the problems that people are raising about us. Most problems are immense world in its unbelief has gotten itself into such a state that it requires a major major turnabout even to have people begin to listen to the gospel, let alone believe it. You're able to accomplish that with you.
All things are possible and you have called out simply because we live today and not yesterday and because you call us to yourself. You called us to be a witness to precisely that age give us necessarily the wisdom more than once in this witness, but the courage to do so.
Help us to stand even as the apostle Paul stood in his day had to be blessed in so doing, we pray in Jesus name, amen. You are listening to the Bible study hour with the Bible teaching of Dr. James Boyce listener supported ministry of the alliance of confessing Evangelicals. The alliance exists to promote a biblical understanding and worldview.
Drawing upon the insight and wisdom of reformed theologians from decades and even centuries gone by. We seek to provide Christian teaching that will equip believers to understand and meet the challenges and opportunities of our time and place. Alliance broadcasting includes the Bible study hour with Dr. James Boyce every last word with Bible teacher, Dr. Philip Reich and Dr. Barnhouse in the Bible featuring Donald Barnhouse. For more information on the alliance including a free introductory package for first-time callers or to make a contribution. Please call toll-free 1-800-488-1888. Again, that's 1-800-488-1888.
You can also write the alliance at Box 2000, Philadelphia PA 19103, you can visit us email@example.com for Canadian gifts mail those 2237 Rouge Hills Dr., Scarborough, ON M1 C2 line 9 ask for your free resource catalog featuring books, audio commentaries, booklets, videos, and a wealth of other materials from outstanding reformed teachers and theologian. Thank you again for your continued support and for listening to Bible study hour