“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matt 7:1-2).
Meet this era’s favorite Bible verse. Of course, they misunderstand and misuse it.
“Do not judge” is the only command in the Bible they believe to be absolute. Do not judge, no ifs ands or buts. Jesus does say that, but he says it in context, and we have to consider everything he says on the matter.
I was scrolling through my Facebook feed recently and saw two posts right next to each other.
The first: "Virtually Wiped Out": 95 Christians Killed in Mali Village
The second: "The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still" (Ex 14:14).
I couldn't help but ask "What happened? Did God forget to fight for them?" What's going on here? Of course God didn't "forget" to fight for them. But he also didn't promise to fight for them.
Christians love to quote the promises of God, and there are lots of books containing such promises. It's common in certain circles to hear that "all the promises of the Bible are for you."
No they're not.
For some reason, I never hear people try to claim this promise:
“I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:2-3).
Everyone knows that was God's promise to Abram, and no one tries to appropriate it. But for some reason they try to appropriate promises made specifically to other people.
Many, maybe most, promises in the Old Testament are made as part of the old covenant. The beloved Jeremiah 29:11 ("For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD...) was made to people under the Law, in the context of the Law. These promises do not apply to you unless you are under the Law of Moses. (Hint: You don't want to be.)
Many promises were made only to specific people and/or only for specific occasions. Ex 14:14 above ("The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still") was made to Israel as they were leaving Egypt when they found themselves trapped between the Red Sea and the Egyptian army. It wasn't even a blanket promise to Israel. On some occasions God expected Israel to fight. On some occasions he left them to their own devices (eg, Josh 7) — which didn't go well for them. It certainly was not a promise to modern Christians.
Why does this matter? I'll simply point to the example I gave above. If you tell people "God will fight for you" and he doesn't:
A. You have lied about God.
B. You have caused the people to whom you lied to now doubt God.
C. You may destroy the faith of weaker brothers and sisters by doing this.
D. You make Christianity look ridiculous to outsiders.
On a related note, when prosperity preachers use OT "promises" to tell people that God will make them rich and/or healthy and he doesn't, it drives people away from the gospel (while making these preachers rich).
There are lots of promises in the Bible that apply to the NT believer. Most of them are in the NT.
God's word to us today is good. He said, "Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." He said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." He said, "neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." He has given us "his very great and precious promises" in Christ Jesus. We don't need to steal old promises from the old covenant.
If you're going to "stand on the promises," make sure they're promises God actually made to you.
---------
Related: Never Read a Bible Verse
Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality. To religious liberals, this means he had no problems with it.
Of course, he never condemned rape, and no one thinks he's OK with that. He never talked about health care reform or immigration, but people are sure his teachings should inform our views on that. But the fact that he never mentioned homosexuality is supposed to be a license to support it, legalize it, and bless it.
I recently came across an STR podcast that talks about this issue, claiming that Jesus' silence on the issue proves the conservative view. The argument is that Jesus modified Old Testament teachings (eg, Mark 7:14-19, Matt 5:31-32) and/or the contemporary understanding of OT teachings (eg, Matt 5:38-48) whenever he disagreed with them.
The fact that he said nothing about homosexuality means he agreed with their understanding of the OT rules on the subject.
I recommend checking out this podcast for Greg's discussion of the issue and their other podcasts — they've got a lot of great stuff on their website.
---------
Related:
Did Jesus Say Nothing About Homosexuality?
One Among Many
This is one of those passages where what it doesn't say is as important as what it does.
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons ..." (Deut 7:1-3).
First, what it doesn't say.
How does the command to love our neighbor as ourselves relate to illegal immigration?
Should Christians support an open border policy or amnesty or something like that? Aren't these people just looking to make a better life for themselves and their families? They just want the opportunity to work and feed their kids. Wouldn't we do the same thing if we were in their place? How can we deny them that chance? We shouldn't discriminate against them just for being born on the other side of an imaginary line. If we want the poor to help themselves, what more can we ask than these people who simply want to come here and work?
Is that what the golden rule requires? If so, we're in heap big trouble.
If loving our neighbor requires allowing anyone to come here, we certainly can't limit that to those born in Mexico or even South America. Why should we discriminate against those who were born in Africa or China. Don't they deserve the same chance to strive for a better life?
But if we say anyone anywhere who wants can come here, how can we limit that to those who have the means to get here? If we care about the poor, how can we neglect the poorest of the poor who could never afford to travel here? We will have to go get anyone who wants to immigrate here and bring them back.
How could it be otherwise?
Now, if you want to say we should do all of this ... well, at least you're consistent.
But does loving your neighbor really require such open immigration policies? I don't think so. There are three things we need to consider as we approach this problem.
1) Borders like we have today are a relatively modern invention. Nothing in the Bible directly addresses the issue because it didn't exist then.
2) While we're loving our Mexican, etc, neighbors who want to move here, we still have to love our Mexican, etc, neighbors who don't want to. Is the best thing for the people of Mexico to make it easy for their young, hardworking, talented people to abandon their country and come contribute to ours? Wouldn't open borders just be putting a band-aid on the real problem — a third-world country existing next to two of the most prosperous nations in history?
3) While we're loving our neighbors who want to immigrate illegally, we have to love our neighbors who did it legally. If we just throw open the borders, what do we say to someone who waded through the paperwork, waited for permission, fought with the bureaucracy, and otherwise obeyed all the rules? "Yeah, great, but this guy wants to be here, too."
It's easy to treat the Golden Rule as a feel-good, bumper-sticker slogan that can be tossed out to trump someone else's argument, but when thought through, it doesn't present much of a solution to our immigration woes.
I'm not prescribing any particular solution to the illegal immigration situation — right now, at least. I just want people to stop abusing "love your neighbor as yourself" as justification for their liberal views.
------
Related:
Immigration Reform and Christianity 1: Justice
Immigration Reform and Christianity 2: Mercy
Immigration Reform and Christianity 3: Pragmatism
Immigration Reform and Christianity 4: Solutions
"Pay attention, and listen to me;
be silent, and I will speak."
I've seen this verse from Job used a few times lately to say God will speak if we'll only listen. Do we have that promise from God?
Not from this verse. It's Elihu speaking to Job.
This is a danger inherent in using concordances and Bible search programs — it's too easy to find something that falsely appears to support your position when removed from its context. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to take verses out of context too.
Why is this a big deal? When people mistakenly take statements in the Bible to be promises to them, they are frequently disappointed. They're disappointed with God, even though He never made them a promise.
Remember, never read a Bible verse. Read a paragraph or more to be sure you're reading in context.
It's no small thing to decide to live your life after the precepts of the Bible. Let's make sure we're living by what it actually says.
--------
Related:
All for Good?
Bad Verses on Tithing
A friend sent me an article where some teachers of the "prosperity gospel" claim Jesus was not poor. I shouldn't be surprised — this is natural considering what they teach — but I am; the picture painted in the Gospels has been understood for almost 2000 years to mean Jesus was poor.
I can't believe Jesus was rich when He was described as living off others' charity (Luke 8:3).
But the bigger issue here is one that anyone can fall victim to.
These folks are torturing the scriptures to make them conform to a pre-determined theology. I'm sure they'd say their theology is based in the scriptures (everyone does), but the problem comes when, after getting your system down, you start to judge the scriptures by your theology rather than your theology by the scriptures.
Don't get me wrong — there are difficult passages in the Bible that only make sense when interpreted in light of other, understood passages. That's normal and necessary.
But we must always be willing to re-evaluate our theology in light of scriptures we haven't considered before (or recently).
Mary and Joseph offered the sacrifice of a poor person (Luke 2:24, c.f., Lev 12:8) after the birth of Jesus. They were then given valuable gifts (though we're not told how valuable) that certainly made the flight to Egypt easier. But how long did that last? We don't know.
But we do know that the adult Jesus is described as homeless (Matt 8:20) and dependent on the charity of some of His disciples. He died a slave's death and was placed in a borrowed tomb. He had to ask someone to take care of His mother, and His apostles all lived off charity.
Is this the description of a rich man? Only if your theology requires it to be.
---------
Just Eisegesis
Debt Relief and the Jubilee
All for Good?
A new(-ish) specialty Bible is about to hit the market. "The Poverty and Justice Bible is your guide to explore God’s messages and challenges regarding the poor," according to Bibles.com. "It highlights more than 2,000 verses that spell out God's attitude to poverty and justice."
And when they say "justice," they mean "social justice," by which they mean helping poor people — a good thing as long as it's properly done.
But I have my doubts about this product. The sample on their website shows a highlighted scripture on justice:
"The Spirit will come and show the people of this world the truth about sin and God's justice and the judgment. The Spirit will show them that they are wrong about sin, because they didn't have faith in me. They are wrong about God's justice, because I am going to the Father, and you won't see me again. And they are wrong about the judgment, because God has already judged the ruler of this world" (John 16:8-11 CEV).
Is Jesus talking about poverty and "social justice" here? No, clearly not. But it's got the word "justice" in it, so they highlight it. This is hardly a representative sample (they claim the Bible has over 2000 verses on poverty), but given this and all the other scriptures I've seen these kinds of folks abuse, I fear many verses will be misrepresented as refering to charity and welfare.
They also have a section of essays on poverty related topics including ... military spending?!
"Since 1945, the United States has spent more than $19 trillion on defense. If you were to spend $26 million per day since the birth of Christ, you still would not have spent as much as the United States has spent on defense since the end of World War II."
Um, how much more poverty and suffering would there be in the world if we'd lost the Cold War?
This is not the only essay reflecting such shoddy thought. I don't think I'd want to put this thing in the hands of an impressionable young person.
I'm glad these folks want to remind Christians of our duty to the poor. I'm glad they're trying to help folks understand the Bible. I just don't think they're very good at it. I don't hold out much hope for this product which is looking like the same old Christian Left eisegesis.
(HT: Tim Challies)
----------
Related:
Debt Relief and the Jubilee
Helping the Poor Biblically
Loving Neighbors 7000 Miles Away
Tithing is a difficult subject for pastors first and foremost because it’s an unpopular subject to most of the people in the pews, but money is necessary to pay salaries and bills, and a great many Christians give very little to their church. Somewhere in all that drama pastors who are generally careful, conscientious preachers often fall victim to the temptation to use the “standard” verses on tithing, many of which are totally inappropriate for the topic.
I should explain what I mean by “tithing.” In modern Christian use, a “tithe” is a) 10% of your income b) given to your local church c) to pay for salaries, bills, and programs of the church (whether Sunday school, missions, or a soup kitchen).
Sermons on tithing generally use scriptures that can be divided into two categories:
VERSES THAT DON’T APPLY TO US
Most sermons on tithing head straight to the Old Testament. Though the OT has lots of great material that I love, it also has lots of stuff we say doesn’t apply to those under the new covenant. We should be hesitant to try to invoke any OT rule that the NT doesn’t specifically reiterate.
Lev 27:30
“A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD.”
In this and any other quotation from the Pentateuch, the tithe looks little like the “tithe” we preach today – it goes directly to feeding the priests and Levites and the poor. Offerings for the materials in the tabernacle/temple were separate. More importantly, though, this is part of the covenant with theocratic Israel, not the NT church.
Malachi 3:8-10
“Will a man rob God? … Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse… Test me in this… and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.”
This is everyone’s favorite tithe passage, but besides referring to the tithe in Leviticus, this passage has the added problem that nowhere does the NT suggest that our obedience will result in material blessings – something that was part of the Mosaic covenant.
Luke 11:42 (and parallel in Matthew 23:23)
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.”
Some may object that Jesus specifically endorsed the tithe here, but that’s not what happened. Jesus said to people under the Law that they had only fulfilled half of the Law. He is not applying the tithe to the new covenant; He’s pointing out that they hadn’t followed the old one.
VERSES THAT AREN’T ABOUT TITHING
There are lots of instructions in the NT about money, but if closely examined they refer to a different kind of giving than we have in mind when we talk about “tithing.”
1Cor 16:2
“On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.”
This is the favorite NT verse on “tithing” for obvious reasons: give a percentage of your income (10%, of course) on Sunday. It doesn’t get more obvious than that, right?
In context, though, it’s not so useful:
“Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem” (1Cor 16:1-3, emphases added).
This collection was not for the running of the local church; it was charity that was sent to the poor Christians in Judea.
2Cor 9:7
“Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
It surprises me that this on gets used at all. Yes, God loves a cheerful giver. And that giver gives “what he has decided in his heart to give,” not 10% of his gross.
WHAT I'M NOT SAYING
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t give to our churches. I’m not saying that you can use every dime you make on yourself.
But this 10% rule is not scriptural. If we can’t make a case for giving to the work of the Church without using Bible verses taken completely out of context, we’re in trouble.
And we’re not in trouble. Next time I will do just that.
-------
Related:
Never Read a Bible Verse
There is a movement attempting to convince Western governments to forgive the debts of poor countries, particularly in Africa. Religious supporters of this idea often invoke the biblical Jubilee as an example and also as justification for large-scale debt relief.
I’ll let other people argue the merits of African debt relief. I’m more concerned about the references to the Jubilee. Is it appropriate to use the term in this way?
What is a Jubilee?
The Jubilee first appears in the Bible in Leviticus 25. The Israelites were to celebrate the Jubilee every 50 years:
“Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. … Each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan” (Lev 25:10).
The Jubilee year was to be a Sabbath for the land (v11), but more to our point, in that year all land that had been sold reverted back to the original owner (v28) and all Hebrew slaves were freed (v41) – which is interpreted by many as the forgiveness of debts.
But it is obviously forgiveness of very particular debts. Specifically, if you’ve sold your land or yourself to pay your debts, you get that back. If, however, you simply borrowed money from someone, that does not appear to be mitigated by this passage (or any other I can find).
This concept was built into their society. The sale (or more accurately, lease) price for land was based on the length of time until the next Jubilee (v15). Everyone knew when the Jubilee would come and what would happen.
Liberty for All
Another notable feature of the Jubilee was its universality. Everyone’s land reverted back to the original owner, even the land of the rich (c.f., Ez 46:17). You may recall the biblical injunctions against favoring the poor over the rich (Ex 23:3, Lev 19:15); every single person was supposed to have the exact same rules to follow.
Is This a Jubilee?
Given the above, does this concept of debt forgiveness for poor countries correspond to the biblical Jubilee? I don’t think so.
First, we’re talking about general debts, not the specifics mentioned in the Bible. Second, this, like bankruptcy, involves someone eating the debts as opposed to the graduated system used as the Jubilee approached. Third, to be a “Jubilee,” it would have to involve everyone, not just the poor; no one is suggesting the US be forgiven its debts.
So Why “Jubilee?”
Why do people use the term when it clearly doesn’t apply? I think there are two possible reasons.
The first is simple intellectual laziness. Some say, “Forgiveness, forgiveness, we got a match, let’s go.” They simply don’t look that close. Some of those who use this term are not generally associated with intellectual laziness, but it can happen to anyone, especially when they step out of their usual field of study.
The second is a bit more sinister. Biblical language can get the faithful to listen to you when they might not otherwise. Moreover, it can get the faithful to go along with you when they might not otherwise.
Is the use of “Jubilee” an attempt to get people to accept the notion of debt forgiveness without critical thought? It may well be.
“I’m not sure I’m comfortable … oh, it’s biblical; ok.” It can be a very effective way to cut off debate.
Is this what’s happening? I’ve seen this term used to stop disagreement – the implication being that if you’re not on board you’re disobeying God.
Am I over-reacting? Is there another explanation? Is this nothing? Or are people coopting biblical language to stifle debate? Of course, I’m assuming that’s bad; is it ok to give new meaning to biblical terms like this?
“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6). These words give us an important glimpse into the heart of God. Jesus even quoted them on two occasions. Unfortunately, some have used them as “proof” that substitutionary atonement is false, that this notion is “just what Christ resisted.”
Our first rule in biblical interpretation is “Never read a Bible verse.” We have to look at the verse in its context. In this case, you only have to read the rest of the verse to start getting the idea:
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”
In the parallelism of this verse, we see mercy equated to the acknowledgment of God. Look farther out and we see God complain that their love is as fleeting as “the morning mist” (v4), they have broken the covenant (v7), and they have become wicked and defiled (v8ff).
Like in Isaiah 58, God is complaining that the people of Israel perform religious rituals without concerning themselves with those matters that are important to God – loving people and obeying God in every matter.
This is how Jesus applied this passage in Matthew 12. The Pharisees were more concerned with rules than with feeding the hungry, and Jesus showed them that even God’s law could bend to show kindness to people.
Jesus was not telling us to ignore God’s laws but warning us that sacrifices, tithes, and fasting are no substitute for “the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Matt 23:23).
If in everything we do we seek to love God and love people we’re going to be ok because “love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).
-------
Related:
2 Bad Arguments Against Substitutionary Atonement
All for Good?
Will God Give You What You Desire?
“…we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Rom 8:28).
We hear this quoted a lot, usually in reference to something bad that’s happened to someone, and it’s usually used to suggest that everything’s going to work out fine.
Had a bad day? It'll all work out, they say, because “God works for the good of those who love Him.” Lost some money? It probably went to someone who needed it, and you’ll get it back some day. Lost your job? You get the idea. I’ve even heard this applied to lost limbs.
Is that what the author intended? Is that truly what God’s promising? Let’s examine this verse in context: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom 8:28-29).
This working things out for good seems to involve our being like Christ and being children of God. There’s something just a little bit back in the same chapter with a similar idea: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed” (Rom 8:18-19).
Our present suffering is contrasted with the fact that we will be revealed to be sons of God. Hmm. There’s something similar to that just a little farther back still: “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory” (Rom 8:16-17, italics added).
Obviously Paul is encouraging his readers in the midst of their suffering for Christ. He promises them that their suffering will result in good for them – specifically that they will be conformed to the likeness of Christ. They’re not being promised that everything will go their way in this life; they’re being promised that everything they suffer here will benefit them in the world to come.
The same promise is made to us: Every trial, every hardship, every persecution, every loss, every wrong, every shot the world and the devil takes at us will be used by God to make us more like Jesus. I think that’s a promise to cherish.
-----
Related: Never Read a Bible Verse
[update] Just ran across this: Do All Things Really Work for Good?
“Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart.” (Psalm 37:4)
This verse is often quoted to prove that godly people can have pretty much anything they want. The purveyors of the health and wealth gospel use it often – and they’re often not as concerned about that “godly” part. This is a gross misuse of that verse. It ignores both its scriptural context and its theological context.
That this doesn’t promise wealth is demonstrated by its neighboring verses. “Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun” (37:5-6). Does this sound like a promise of material gain? I don’t think so. But the best is this:
“Better the little that the righteous have than the wealth of many wicked” (v16).
Clearly, this passage is not teaching that believers, or even those who “delight” in God, will get whatever they want.
This use of the passage does not just ignore the neighboring verses; it also ignores the effect of delighting yourself in God. Here is a survey of my electronic commentary collection regarding this verse.
“What is the desire of the heart of a good man? It is this, to know, and love, and live to God, to please him and to be pleased in him.” – M. Henry
“When the righteous have desires that spring from the Lord, the Lord will surely fulfill those desires.” – Nelson commentary
“I am not sure that He is going to bless your business, but He has already blessed you with spiritual blessings, and He will shower on you all of the spiritual blessings you can contain.” – J. Vernon McGee
“When believers delight in the Lord, his desires become their desires.” – Tyndale Bible Commentary
“Distinguish the ‘desires of thine heart’ from the desires of thy flesh; distinguish as much as thou canst. It is not without a meaning that it is said in a certain Psalm, ‘God is’ (the strength) ‘of mine heart.’ For there it says in what follows: ‘And God is my portion for ever.’” – St. Augustine
“The desires of God, and the desires of the righteous, agree in one; they are of one mind in their desires.” – John Bunyan
“Men who delight in God desire or ask for nothing but what will please God; hence it is safe to give them carte blanche. Their will is subdued to God's will, and now they may have what they will. Our innermost desires are here meant, not our casual wishes;” – C. H. Spurgeon
The point is this: If you delight yourself in the Lord, the desires of your heart will be different.
I don’t want anyone to think that I’m saying material possessions, or even a moderated desire for them, are bad. But the Bible does not promise Christians material plenty – in fact the best among us often do with the least. No one should teach that we deserve whatever we want, and they especially should not abuse this verse to do it.
There is no God. The Bible says so in Psalm 14:1.
Oh, you say that it says, “The fool says … there is no God.” Does that make a difference? Of course it does. You can’t rip something out of context and make it say whatever you want it to say.
And yet Christians do it all the time.
Oh, they don’t rip phrases out of verses like I did above. What they usually do it rip verses out of passages, and the same kind of error can occur.
This one is a personal favorite. People like to quote Jesus’ saying, “I, when I am lifted up … will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32). This is used to show that when we worship Jesus, it will draw people to Him. Singing can become evangelism! Only that’s not what Jesus was saying.
“But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'?” (John 12:32-34)
Clearly, Jesus is talking about His pending crucifixion, not worship, and yet even Charles Spurgeon took this verse, out of context, to refer to worship.
Skeptics do this frequently. When you come across a list of Bible “contradictions” or passages that “don’t make sense,” you can bet that 90% of them are simply taken out of context. Which leads me to my reason for bringing this up: Here are two rules for dealing with Bible verses.
First: When non-Christians throw a verse at you as a contradiction or other Bible difficulty, look at it in context. That will almost always clear things up.
Second: When Christians quote a verse to you (in text or verbally), look at it in context.
If those two rules sound similar, well, they are. So let’s boil it down into one simple rule:
Never read a Bible verse. Always read at least a paragraph.
And if you catch your pastor misquoting a lot, bring it up – gently.
(Note: I’m not saying never quote a Bible verse. It’s just not practical to quote large chunks of Scripture when you only need a sentence. But take every care that you quote a verse consistent with its context, and expect your readers/audience to read it in context later.)
For more on this topic, Stand to Reason’s president Greg Koukl has written a good bit. Here’s a link to a free article on their website: Never read a Bible verse. They also have some more in-depth resources you can purchase.
