The recent blog discussions about the Law has once again raised issues concerning translations of the text. Rodney (Australia) was kind enough to suggest this link in the hope of helping us sort out the theological bias from the text itself. We have written and commented extensively on this “Law vs. Grace” issue over the years but apparently it needs more attention. With the Church proclaiming a doctrine that finds its origin in the early Church fathers via Plato, not in Scripture, this is one more example of a paradigm dictating what are the facts. Here’s a link that demonstrates how much the paradigm affects the translation.
Archive for » April, 2011 «
The Boy in the Window: Eutychus in Phoenix (Acts 20:6-12)
A week ago I was in Phoenix. Thursday evening a group of about 45 people gathered around the pool in the backyard of some friends. I spoke about the Genesis account of the formation of Eve, the problem with the Greek view of time and our need to read the Bible in its own cultural context. What I didn’t know was that we had a listener next door – the boy in the window. A few days later Roderick Logan sent me this:
“I have a story for you. This comes by way of Angie and Mike who hosted the Thursday night event.
Living next door to Mike and Angie is a family whose son is 12 years old. Thursday night the mother found her son sitting in their upstairs bathroom with the window open. He was sitting there gazing out over their neighbor’s backyard – the Johnson’s. His mother thought this was a bit weird and inquired why he was eavesdropping on their neighbor’s party. The boy remarked that there was a man in Angie’s backyard talking about a man standing on the bank of a river of time, he was taking notes and recounted to his mother the story of a woman in the Bible named Rahab who was a prostitute. Later this boy told his family nearly all you had to say and it has started a conversation between the Johnson’s and their neighbors. It seems we had one more in attendance than we knew about. The boy in the window is the picture of the next 25 years – the next generation.”
And unlike Eutychus, he didn’t fall out of the window.
I share this story with you first because it is so precious. You never know who’s listening. Secondly, it demonstrates that the impact of face-to-face time is really the most important part of the community and the one piece that is so difficult. So this story and the experience of that evening is my way of saying, “Let’s make more of this happen.”
A few day after this event, the readers in Dayton asked if I could come to Dayton for a weekend conference. Now we have it scheduled – June 17 and 18. If you live within the Dayton metro, contact David Salyer (firstname.lastname@example.org) for information about attending.
Folks in Seattle are asking too. That will probably be in the Fall.
I am now regularly participating with Glad Tiding Tabernacle in New York City. I’ll be there on June 4 and 5, and from July 23 to 31 (with a lot of work on passions and zones).
Of course, I teach the Matthew class at the Winter Garden Methodist Church (Florida) whenever I am home on Sunday.
But this is just a slice of the larger community. Would you like to have some face time where you live? Then let’s figure out how to make that happen. “Have Bible – Will Travel”
And He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins. Luke 21:2 NASB
Copper coins – A lepton was the smallest coin used by the Jews. It had a value of about ¼ of a penny. In common parlance, it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. It’s hard to imagine that you could buy anything for ¼ cent. But the two lepta that the widow deposited into the temple treasury far surpassed the large sums given by others. We have all heard this story as an example of giving, but we may have missed some of the details that make it so important.
First, of course, is that fact that the widow had two coins. She could easily have said, “I’ll give half of my assets to God.” Fifty percent! How many of us even come close to such a sum? If someone came to us and said, “I want to give half of my finances to the Lord,” we would be amazed. Certainly no one would have begrudged the widow keeping only half. The opportunity was there, but she didn’t take it. She gave it all. Everything! Why?
The only reasonable answer is that she had utter confidence that God would care for her. No one would give it all unless God’s sovereign care dominated that person’s faith. The watchword of such faith is trust. Period! Most of us would call such a woman an absolute fool, especially in the first century. A widow – that means no human support, without property rights, left to fend for herself. No welfare, no social services – you get the idea. Without trust in God, she dies.
Second, this story illustrates the Kingdom principle of giving. It isn’t about 100% donations. It’s about tsedaqah. Torah requires tsedaqah toward those in need (Deuteronomy 15:7-8), even if they are strangers (Leviticus 19:34). The prophets declare tsedaqah more valuable than worship rituals (Micah 6:6-8, Hosea 6:6, Proverbs 21:3). When the widow approached the treasury, anyone who witnessed her act should have stepped forward to assist. Allowing her to give all she had without offering tsedaqah exhibited the sinful insensitivity of the audience. The widow’s action honored God and condemned the crowd.
As I write this short study, I feel that same condemnation. I don’t give from my need. I give from my excess. Of course, that is a tithing principle. It’s not 10% and it’s not 100%. The measure of value is determined by the proportion of need. Agape is benevolence toward others at cost to myself. I don’t need to ask the question, “Should I give?” Tsedaqah requires that I give! I need to ask the question, “What is the cost?” If the answer comes back, “I can afford that,” then maybe I don’t really know the value of a lepton.
Topical Index: tsedaqah, lepton, charity, tithe, give, Luke 21:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 1 John 4:2 NASB
In the flesh – Understanding the Bible requires placing the writings within their historical and cultural context. We have learned that it isn’t appropriate to pull a verse from its sitz im leben (life setting) and apply it to our environment. So Paul’s statement about women wearing head coverings is specifically about the situation in Corinth in the first century, not New York City in the twentieth-first century. Most of us get this. We realize that the points made by the authors have to be contextualized. Of course, that applies to both prohibitions and exhortations. While we are pretty quick to recognize Paul’s cultural situation, we aren’t quite a quick to recognize John’s. The battle that John fought with false doctrine isn’t quite the same one that we fight, but if we contextualize John’s argument we might see how it applies today.
The big issue for John is whether or not Yeshua was really a human being. This heresy is called Docetism. It is the affirmation that Jesus was really God disguised as a man. He just looked human but he was really divine (God in the shell of a man). John counters this heresy by telling us that anyone who says Yeshua wasn’t really human is from the antichrist. Yeshua was entirely human (and, as the Church later declares, entirely divine at the same time). He was God come en sarki (in the flesh).
The Church settled this issue centuries ago, but does that mean we no longer have to contend with heretical statements about Yeshua? Unfortunately, no. The enemy simply attacks from the flank. Today we don’t fight about whether or not Yeshua was human. Today we have a different version of the heresy. Today we fight about whether or not Yeshua was Jewish! The enemy lost the battle about his humanity, so the fight simply shifted to the next level. Yes, Jesus is human, but now some believe he is Greek-Indo-European. Think about all the portraits that fill the sanctuaries of Europe. Fair-haired, dressed in European royal robes, this Caucasian “Jesus” is a far cry from a Semite. Furthermore, since the Church moved away from a Torah-obedient Jesus, even the Christian Jesus’ actions do not appear to be Jewish. The Church proclaims that Jesus came to do away with all those inadequate Semitic rules. Jesus is more like Socrates than Moses. He is one of “us.” He certainly isn’t Jewish.
John had to deal with the heresy of Yeshua as a disguised god. We have to deal with Yeshua as a disguised European, or worse, a conservative Evangelical. How should we counter such heresy? Perhaps we need to take a page from John’s playbook. F. F. Bruce issues the warning, even though he never intended his words to be applied to this problem. “Because the philosophy to which [the antagonists] endeavor to accommodate the gospel, depriving it of what makes it the gospel in the process, is current secular philosophy, the prevalent climate of opinion . . . no form of ‘worldliness’ is so inimical to Christianity as this kind of ‘re-statement’.” We agree, except that the form of secular philosophy that perverts the gospel is not an attack on Christianity. It is Christianity – with its reformulation of the truth of Yeshua’s origin, culture and spiritual perspective. Today Christian thinkers are waking up to the fact that Jesus is a Jewish rabbi and the His view of the world is wedded to the Talmud, the Targums and the Tanakh. Yet how are we to convince traditional Christian believers that Jesus isn’t German, Scandinavian or American?
What is the answer? Once again, Bruce provides the needed insight. “The love of God displayed in His people is the strongest apologetic that God has in the world.” What is this love of God? It is “a consuming passion for the well-being of others.” Do you want others to see the vital connection between Torah and the Messiah? Are you burdened by the disaster of the heresy of Israel’s replacement or the tragedy of opposing Law and grace? Do you think that more words will win the day? No, they won’t. What wins the hearts and minds of those who are walking in the dark is compassion for them, here and now. Heaven can wait. By then, none of this will matter. What brings the victory is not what we say. It is what we do to bring the fullness of life to others. Yeshua doesn’t need another mouthpiece. He needs hands and feet willing to carry someone else’s load. How much are you carrying?
Topical Index: heresy, Docetism, en sarki, Jesus, Jewish, 1 John 4:2
 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, Revell, p. 106.
 Ibid., p. 109.
 Ibid., p. 107.
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. Exodus 32:14
Changed His mind – Twelve times in Scripture the words naham YHWH ‘al hara’a describe God’s action. Each one is particularly bothersome. The problem is that the verb naham is primarily about influencing a situation by changing the course of events, rejecting an obligation or refraining from some action. Any of these seem at odds with the doctrine that God is unchanging (immutable), omniscient (knows everything) and perfect (has no need to change at all). This instance is perhaps the most troubling of all of them. Why? Because in this case it appears that Moses argues God out of something that God wanted and intended to do. You might recognize the last word in the phrase, ha’ra. Yes, that’s right. It’s the Hebrew word for “evil” (remember yetzer ha’ra?). God intends to do something which Moses believes is evil, namely, to exterminate the disobedient and rebellious people and start over with Moses. Moses tells God, “No, You can’t do that,” and God changes His mind.
Well, actually the translation “changed His mind” is much more Greek than Hebrew. The Hebrew phrase really means something like “altered His purpose.” Its locus is in the action God is going to take, not in the cognitive decision God makes. What God was going to do He does not do. The problem is two-fold. First, of course, is the difficulty with understanding how a God who knows everything and is unchangeable actually changes. The usual answer is the claim that this is anthropomorphic language (it just appears like a human emotion for our sake). But there are significant issues with this pat answer. The second problem is why God changes. In this case, it appears that God changes in order to placate Moses. What? Can this be true? God alters His behavior based on some argument by a human being? You might say, “But, of course. God does change His plans and purposes according to human conditions and requests.” From the perspective of a believer’s experience, this seems absolutely true. But it drives theologians crazy. This experience with God does not square with most doctrinal statements about God’s perfection or omniscience. If you wonder how all this could have happened and why no one seems to be too upset about it, then maybe you’re ready to read this.
Nevertheless, while we’re wrestling with the theological issues, the phrase naham YHWH ‘al hara’a is a very comforting one. It has three important implications for us. First, it demonstrates that God responds to our concerns. His purposes are not so fixed from eternity that they aren’t subject to modification due to human anxiety. God cares – and He acts on that care. Secondly, this phrase tells us that it isn’t over until it’s over. There is always room for God to change His purposes. His passion to forgive can override our stubbornness – and it often does, thank the Lord. Finally, this phrase tells us to never give up. Abraham doesn’t give up on Sodom. Moses doesn’t give up on Israel. Yeshua doesn’t give up on us. Neither should we. God listens, and naham ‘al hara’a.
Topical Index: naham, repent, change, alter, Exodus 32:14
 The Hebrew phrase is modified in a few cases but the syntagmene is essentially the same.
 The LXX translates the verse “And the Lord was propitiated concerning the harm that he said he would do.” Notice that this translation makes it appear that Moses’ argument appeased God. This puts Moses on the moral high ground, reminding God about being holy. Are we to imagine that Moses has to talk God out of doing something evil?
and also for the innocent blood that he shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon. 2 Kings 24:4 (Hebrew World)
Would not pardon – What is the unforgivable sin? Most Christians would say, “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” citing Yeshua’s remark in Matthew 12. That incident summarizes an ethical reversal of values that displays idolatrous attitudes. It takes time to develop. There is, however, a single act, a moment of violence, that God does not forgive. At least this appears to be the case in the story of Manasseh. That act is the shedding of innocent blood. Manasseh may have prayed to be forgiven, but the Hebrew text says that God would not listen. The phrase is lo-avah. The negative particle (lo) is very strong. It is the same negative particle that precedes the Ten Commandments. “It is never the case that” is the sense of it. The verb, ‘avah, means “to be willing, to consent, to yield, to be positively inclined.” If you thought that God was always ready to forgive, then this verse will be a real stumbling block. God will not forgive the shedding of innocent blood. Payment must be made.
It’s quite instructive that the LXX alters this verse to read “the Lord did not want to be conciliated.” Did you catch the subtle shift? In Hebrew the verse declares that God will not forgive. His justice demands His refusal. He chooses not to overlook this heinous crime. But in the Greek LXX, the implication is that God doesn’t want to forgive – but He still could. In the LXX, the issue is God’s struggle with what He wants to do (not forgive) and what He could do (forgive). There is no struggle in Hebrew. God absolutely will not forgive this offense. The offender cannot receive remission of this sin. He must die.
I realize that this divine resistance is out of character with our cultural characterization of YHWH, but I am afraid that we are the ones who are misinformed, not God. His retaliation against such acts is a constant theme of Scripture (cf. Jeremiah 19:4, Psalm 106:38, Joel 3:19, Proverbs 6:17, Psalm 94:21, Deuteronomy 21:8ff). This is especially troublesome in a world that is convinced capital punishment is morally wrong. Who decided that? Certainly not YHWH! One wonders if the Church’s idea of the all-forgiving God didn’t have some ameliorating effect on YHWH’s requirement for justice.
Most sins can be forgiven. Some cannot. Does this mean some people have acted in such terrible ways that they cannot find reconciliation? I don’t think so. After all, there is David. If any king deserved punishment for the shedding of innocent blood, it was David. Yet God forgave. But someone had to pay. Usually the one who pays is the one who perpetrates the crime. In David’s exceptional case, the one who paid was the child. There are times when any attempt to understand the mind of the Lord seems beyond us, aren’t there? Here’s what we know. God avenges innocent blood. May that blood never touch our hands in any way!
Topical Index: lo-avah, would not pardon, Manasseh, David, 2 Kings 24:4, innocent blood
as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. Philippians 3:6 NASB
Blameless – If we were to use the Josh McDowell technique of “Evidence That Demands a Verdict,” we would have to say that Paul was either a liar, a lunatic or saying something that we can’t imagine to be true. We could throw in the extra possibility that he was simply theologically in error, but since we want to hold that his words are inspired, that would be a hard one to defend. Do you think Paul was a liar? Was he telling the truth when he said he was blameless according to the standard of righteousness found in the Torah? The Greek word isn’t ambiguous. It’s amemptos, literally “without fault.” The same word is used to describe Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6) and the divine intention for every believer (Philippians 2:15). Obviously, human beings can be amemptos. (By the way, the word is only used five times in the New Testament and none of these are about Yeshua). The Hebrew parallel is naqiy, “innocent,” “clean” or “free from blame” (e.g. Genesis 44:10 and Job 22:19). In either language, this is not something we readily attribute to ourselves. So, once again, was Paul lying? Was Luke? It seems that answer must be “No.” Whatever amemptos means, Paul and Luke are using it correctly. Men and women not only should be blameless, they can be blameless.
Wait! What about “in sin did my mother conceive me” and all that Augustinian-Lutheran guilt and sinful nature stuff? Will we quickly rush to the solution that Paul is describing himself before he realized his true spiritual condition and his need for Christ? Was Paul just delusional? He thought he was blameless but he was really blinded by his sinful nature. But what about Luke? Were Zacharias and Elizabeth also insane? Maybe we need to rethink where this is going. Maybe our idea of “blameless” has been influenced by factors we don’t find in the Scriptures.
What does it mean to be blameless? The Hebrew suggests that naqiy means free of liability for an offense (innocent). The word is used to describe proper conduct in normal life as well as ritual purity. It involves both ethical and moral immunity. In other words, it is the human condition that does not need forgiveness. But didn’t Paul himself argue that everyone sins and deserves punishment? Didn’t Paul proclaim that everyone needs forgiveness? Then how is it possible for him to say that he was blameless? Perhaps there is a difference between the righteousness found within the Torah and the idea of sin expressed in Romans 3:23. Could it be that even if I keep all of the Torah I am still in need of a savior? Could it be that my blameless state with regard to executing God’s instructions doesn’t actually have anything to do with my need for grace? Could it be that Torah-keeping is not an alternative to God’s grace but rather directions for living that any man can actually fulfill? Then I could this day proclaim that I too am blameless as to the Law, but I still stand in need of His favor. Maybe, just maybe, we have so mixed up the needed distinctions that we no longer believe men can actually do what God wants. Wouldn’t that be a convenient excuse?
Topical Index: blameless, amemptos, naqiy, Philippians 3:6, Romans 3:23, sinful nature
Conclusions of Ron Moseley on Yeshua and the early church
I thought it would be useful to provide the conclusions that Dr. Moseley articulates at the end of Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church. While the book is a fairly simple introduction to the subject, his summaries are most important.
1. All of the evidence from the earliest period of Church history is both homogeneous and Jewish.
2. The extant manuscripts of the early Church point convincingly to its Jewish roots.
3. The original language, idioms, customs, organizational structure, religious practices, and Scriptures of the early Church were Jewish.
4. Records confirm that the first fifteen pastors of the original Jerusalem Church were Jewish.
5. The ninefold purpose of the Law and its many references in the New Testament and among Christian writers throughout history, argues against many of the misconceptions that have hindered accurate study of the Jewish origin of the Church.
6. An accurate understanding of the proto-rabbis and the Pharisees, along with their background in the Second Temple period, makes their influence on the early Church undeniable.
Moseley concludes with a quotation from Karl Barth. “The Bible is a Jewish book. It cannot be read, understood, or expounded unless we are to become Jews.” Moseley says, “It is inconceivable to me that the early Church was anything other than a fixed part of the Judaism in which Jesus and Paul lived.”
Ron Moseley, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church, pp. 159-160
Moseley’s study (and many others) prompts us to ask the question: Are we exhibiting the faith that was present in the followers of Yeshua or have we become adherents of a tradition that does not reach back to Him? Perhaps we must begin distinguishing Christianity as a religious practice formulated sometime in the third or fourth century from the faith found in Scripture. At the same time, we must also distinguish the faith recounted in Scripture from the contemporary form of orthodox Judaism which owes much of its content to rabbinic influences from the same third and fourth century period.
Followers of the Way today are really practitioners of a faith that has no direct historical lineage. By the time we get to the Middle Ages, Judaism has been reformed in reaction to Islam, Christianity has been reformed under the influence of Greek philosophy – and eventually the Enlightenment, and what was true of the conglomerate Jewish experience in the life of Yeshua has vanished. Bringing back that heritage is not as simple as adopting a form of modern Judaism since Judaism itself no longer reflects first century practice. Nor is it possible to simply strip away the accumulation of Greek metaphysics from the Christian experience. Christianity is religious Hellenism with a Jewish overlay (although not recognizable as Jewish from the perspective of a Jew). We who follow the Way must strike a different path. And the path is not as clear as we would have hoped, but we know what it isn’t.
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1 NASB
Test – When John wrote his letters, the messianic congregations were under attack. Buffeted between Hellenism through Gnostic and pagan religions and the Judaism that rejected Yeshua as the Messiah, the early followers of the Way had to know how to evaluate claims made by teachers. In the past, Moses provided two tests. First, if the words spoken by a man claiming to be a prophet did not come true, then that man was not from God (Deuteronomy 18:22). Second, even if the man’s predictions came true, any man who led the people toward idolatry was not from God (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). Certainly John was aware of these tests, but now he adds another. Anyone who claims that Yeshua did not come in the flesh is a false prophet. John’s test is aimed directly at Gnosticism and its cousin, Docetism. Today this heretical view has all but disappeared among Christians. That makes us think we have met the tests for prophets, but maybe this conclusion isn’t quite right. Docetism may have disappeared, but other false teachings have taken its place.
In John’s day, the teaching that Yeshua only appeared to be a man (but was really God disguised in human form) was a formidable Hellenistic enemy of the faith. On the opposite side was the continued battle with Judaism that Yeshua wasn’t really God at all. He was just another man, certainly not the Messiah. Followers of the Way had to combat both of these opposing views. But that didn’t remove the tests provided by Moses. Those were firmly established in the Torah. Today we have settled the Docetic heresy and we hope that by our way of life we will encourage Jews to recognize Yeshua as the Messiah, but we still have a problem with Moses. John’s use of the verb dokimazo exhorts us to try, to test, to discern and distinguish those teachings that lead to idolatry and reject them and the ones who promote them. The root behind this verb is the idea of accepting what has been received and proved. You find the same thought in 2 Timothy 2:15; the man approved by God who needs not be ashamed. But here’s the catch. What John considered accepted and proved is the Torah observance of Yeshua and the utter reliability and applicability of the Tanakh. In other words, Moses’ second test validates John’s claim of Yeshua’s divinity and His role as the Messiah because it leads directly to a life built on the Torah. Anything else leads toward idolatry. The rejection of God’s instructions for living implies the rejection of the God who gives the instructions.
Now we have an enormous problem. The Church has rejected Docetism, upholding John’s test, but it fails to meet the conditions of Moses’ tests. In fact, one might argue that the Church itself is the great deceiver, suggesting that it is no longer necessary to practice what God said in the Old Testament. Such a claim implies that it is no longer necessary to believe what Yeshua Himself said. Such a claim would have been idolatry for John and all followers of the Way. How we came to accept what the Church taught but reject what Scripture teaches is a very long story, but it doesn’t change the situation. We have failed to test the spirits because we have rejected Moses. We threw out the tests that would have kept us on track and then claimed that we could alter Scripture to fit our own discernment. Unless we take seriously this shift in our own history, we will continue toward idolatry even when we believe the truth about Yeshua.
John wrote about those prophets who denied the human reality of Yeshua. We aren’t fighting that battle. Our concern is much older. Moses wrote about those prophets who spoke true words but lead the people astray. That seems to be our fight. It’s far more subtle and far more dangerous. And few there will be who find the narrow gate.
Topical Index: test, dokimazo, prophets, Docetism, 1 John 4:1
Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Deuteronomy 5:12 NASB
Observe – One of my dear friends sent me an article about the two Sabbath commands. The other one is the more familiar verse, Exodus 20:8. But if you read them side by side, you realize (especially in Hebrew) that they are not identical. The text in Exodus uses the Hebrew verb zakar (to remember) but the text in Deuteronomy uses the verb shamar (to guard). The differences are obscured in many translations, but were the subject of some concern by the rabbis.
Let’s stretch a little. If we think about the rabbinic solution to this difference, we might recall something from our studies in Genesis 2 and 3. Since the homophone of zakar (male) means “to remember,” we suggested that this is a word play on the role of the male. He is to remember God’s command in the Garden and subsequently to remember all of the commandments given by God after leaving the Garden. One of these is to honor the Sabbath. The Exodus passage connects God’s instructions to the assignment in Eden.
But what about the Deuteronomy version? Does the verb shamar also find a home in Eden? The homophone of neqevah (female) is about setting a boundary. We noticed that the role assigned to Havvah was not remembering God’s command. She wasn’t present when the command was given. But she is to establish the boundary for the fulfillment of the command by guarding the man who was given the command. Her job is to take care of him in such a way that he fulfills his assignment. We pointed out that her covenant with YHWH establishes Adam as the beneficiary. She is his protector and guide. She is to establish and guard the fence so that he doesn’t get into trouble.
It seems to me that the Deuteronomy version of the Sabbath commandment suggests the feminine side of the Sabbath. The male side appears in Exodus. Remember. The female side appears in Deuteronomy. Guard. Just as both male and female are required to fulfill the prime directive in Eden, so they are both present in Shabbat. Men are to remember what God commanded about His day of rest. Women are to establish the fence around that day to protect it from encroachment that would defile its purpose. In the home of a married couple, Shabbat cannot occur without the participation of both. It’s interesting that the rabbinic idea concerning the positive and negative commands also finds some parallel in Eden. God gives Adam the first commandment. It has positive and negative elements. “Eat (feast) on all the trees” – positive. “But of this Tree” – negative. Which part of the command becomes the issue for Havvah? Is setting the boundary an essentially positive or negative action? Which part of Sabbath-keeping are you doing? Is it the one assigned to you?
Topical Index: Sabbath, observe, guard, shamar, remember, zakar, Deuteronomy 5:12, Exodus 20:8
THANK YOU to all who are praying for my daughter Rachel in Navy boot camp. Rachel graduated on Friday. She was voted the top recruit of her division by her peers. She was also promoted to E-3, a two step promotion. She received recognition from her Chief and is set to go to A school in Pensacola. I talked with her and she said that she felt all the prayers made a big difference to her. She also wanted to thank everyone who sent mail. She got a lot! She is proud to represent your trust in her and knows God is directing all this.