Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry

Good Questions About the Death of Jesus that Make no Sense

By Jeremy Myers
11 Comments

Good Questions About the Death of Jesus that Make no Sense

A reader sent an email today with these questions:

  1. If Jesus died in the place of others, why does everyone else also die?
  2. If the penalty for sin is hell forever, and if Jesus paid the penalty for all the sins of the world, why is Jesus not the only one in hell forever?
  3. Did God punish Jesus by making him die and go to hell, or did God reward Jesus by raising him up from death and lifting him up to heaven?
  4. If Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and rose from the dead by the next Sunday morning, was the penalty for all the sins of the world less than two days dead?
  5. If God punished Jesus for all the sins of others by making him die on a cross, why are Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, and Caiaphas not all heroes and saints for fulfilling the will of God?
  6. If people should rejoice at the suffering and death of Jesus, as if his pain were their gain, should they mourn his resurrection and ascension, as if his gain is their pain?
  7. If we live because Jesus died, do we die because Jesus rose to live again?
  8. If people go to heaven because Jesus went to hell, do people go to hell because Jesus went to heaven?
  9. Did the crucifixion of Jesus cancel the sins of others, or was it really the worst sin of all?
  10. Would God be just if He punished the innocent in place of the guilty?
  11. If Jesus paid the penalty for all the sins of others, and salvation in unconditional, is not everyone saved, no matter what he believes, says, or does?
  12. If the purpose of Jesus was to die, why did his story not end with his death?
  13. If good deeds make no difference, because no one can earn salvation, why did Jesus say so much about what persons should and should not do?
  14. How could the penalty for sins be paid hundreds of years before those sins were done?
  15. If Jesus, like a scapegoat, took away our sins when he died, did he bring back our sins when he came back from the dead?
  16. How could Jesus be a substitute to go in our places and also be a leader and example whom we should follow?
  17. If we do not follow Jesus, but he goes one way so that we can go another way, how do we expect to end up where he is?
  18. If Jesus were God, and God demanded that Jesus die to pay the penalty for the sins of everyone else, did God commit suicide?

As I read through these excellent questions about the death of Jesus, I realized that I couldn’t answer ANY of them because I didn’t accept the presuppositions that were within each question.

For example, with question #1, I do not believe Jesus died in the place of others. I do not believe in “substitutionary” atonement.

With question 2, I do not believe that the penalty for sin is hell forever.

With question 3, I do not believe that God punished Jesus by making him die and go to hell…

And so on throughout the list of questions….

This is the problem with the vast majority of theology today. We are asking wrong questions because we are beginning with wrong ideas about God, Jesus, sin, and hell.

All of the questions above disappear when we learn just a few things from Scripture. Like what?

  1. God does not require punishment for sin, or blood payment to forgive.
  2. God is infinitely gracious, forgiving, and loving.
  3. Jesus didn’t die to appease God or buy forgiveness from God.
  4. Hell isn’t what you think…

Start with those ideas, and the way you read and understand the Bible will forever be transformed. If you want help, here are three books to get you started:

  • (#AmazonAdLink) The Atonement of God
  • (#AmazonAdLink) Nothing But the Blood of Jesus
  • (#AmazonAdLink) What is Hell?

Enjoy!

God is Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: atonement, Bible and Theology Questions, Books I'm Writing, death of Jesus, hell

Advertisement

Christianity IS Reasonable … So Don’t Be Afraid of the Questions

By Jeremy Myers
1 Comment

Christianity IS Reasonable … So Don’t Be Afraid of the Questions

questionsI am currently writing a book about faith, and in it, I briefly address the idea of blind faith, or taking a leap of faith. I show that faith doesn’t actually allow for blind leaps, but instead, our beliefs change as we are persuaded and convinced by the evidence presented to us.

And thankfully, there is strong evidence for the truth claims of Christianity.

Thankfully, Christianity is a reasonable faith.

Yes, many aspects of Christendom are not so reasonable, and can be safely discarded, but the core beliefs of Christianity as founded by Jesus and centered upon Him can stand up to any and all challenges.

This is why I always invite people to investigate any and all questions or challenges that come their way. I say that if what we believe is true, then the questions and challenges will only solidify that truth. But if what we believe is not true, then the questions and challenges will expose our beliefs as lies. Either way, questions and challenges are a “win.”

But you might need to do some reading and study to help answer the various questions.

I know I do.

Evidence that Demands a VerdictThat is why I highly recommend you get a book like Evidence that Demands a Verdict. There is a new updated and expanded version available which provides all the information from the classic volumes into one, along with several updates and new chapters that help respond to more recent challenges.

I first read Evidence that Demands a Verdict in the 1980s, and have benefited from the content of that book ever since. It not only provides a good basis for helping us know how we can trust that the Bible we have today is the Bible that was written by the original authors, but also shows how we can trust the historical claims of the Bible.

Using this knowledge, we can show that Jesus really did live, teach, die, and rise from the dead, as Scripture reveals. These events, of course, are central to Christianity.

So if you have questions about Christianity, I first say, “Good job! Keep asking!” and then I say secondly, “Buy and Read Evidence that Demands a Verdict. It will help answer some of the questions you might have.”

God is Redeeming Books Bible & Theology Topics: apologetics, Bible and Theology Questions, Books I'm Reading

Advertisement

Should Christians Anoint with Oil for Healing?

By Jeremy Myers
27 Comments

Should Christians Anoint with Oil for Healing?

I recently received this question about anointing with oil for healing from a blog reader:

It was an honor to connect with you. Thank you so much for the book, Skeleton Church. It was awesome to glean from it concerning our church. I bless Almighty for having you now in my life.

I am the kind of person who always wants to dig deep, because I am sick and tired of going with the flow without understanding the source or the origin of something.

Through our connection I was able to get your study on tithing [Note: the book can be found here]. Wow, what can I say! This kind of book helps “realign” us from dead doctrines.

Here is my question: For some years and now I have not felt OK with the “Anointing Oil” that many of us use. If you can recommend something on this, I would appreciate it.

Here is my response to this question about using anointing oil for healing:

I wrote a paper on healing over fifteen years ago, and in that paper I dealt with several of the passages that some Christians use today for the practice of using oil to anoint for healing. Here is an excerpt from that paper about James 5:14.

James 5:14 and anointing with oil

anoint with oil for healingJames 5:14 begins by asking, ”Is anyone of you sick?” While some try to explain away what James is writing about by saying that it does not actually refer to someone who is physically sick, but instead someone who is spiritually or emotionally weak, I think it is best to go with the traditional and most common way of reading this text and see it as a a reference to physical sickness.

The reason that this is the best is because of what follows. James says that the one who is sick “should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

Of the two steps listed here, (1) calling the elders for prayer and (2) the anointing with oil, the most important step is the prayer – which is why it is listed first. But in the Greek, it is actually the second step in logical order. A literal translation would read something like “he should call the elders to pray after having anointed him with oil.” The order is anoint first, pray second.

So then, what is this anointing with oil for the sick?

Sadly, the language barrier between Greek and English has caused much misunderstanding of the idea of “anointing with oil” throughout church history.

Many think that the anointing with oil is the type of anointing we see in various places in the Bible where a priest or prophet takes a vial of oil and puts some of it on their head (cf. 1 Samuel 16:13). This kind of anointing is symbolic of God’s choice of a specific person for a specific task. The oil represents the presence and power of God coming upon the person in an unusual way so that they can accomplish unusual tasks for Him.

anointing oil
People sell this anointing oil for outrageous prices! Save yourself the money. You do not need anointing oil.

With this in mind, many have said that the anointing here in James 5 is therefore symbolic of the Holy Spirit at work in the individual through the prayer of faith to heal the sick person. In other words, the anointing of oil in James 5:14 is thought to be sort of a symbol for the healing power of God coming upon the person to delivery them from sickness.

This is a very common view, and one that I held for many years. Recently, however, I have come to a different conclusion about what James is teaching.

How to Truly “Anoint with Oil” for Healing

As indicated above, many people relate the anointing here with the sacred and religious anointing with oil that we see elsewhere in the Bible. But that type of anointing is typically referred to by the Greek word chriō, which does mean “to anoint.”

The word used here, however, is the Greek word aleiphō. This word is primarily a medical term meaning “to rub or massage with oil.” The rubbing of a person with oil (aleiphō) was a common medical practice for the sick or injured to promote and encourage the healing of wounds and diseases.

What this means is that the anointing with oil of the sick in James 5:14 is is not a religious practice at all, but is a medical practice. When James says, “have the elders pray after having anointed the sick person with oil,” we can understand this text to be saying this: “have the elders pray after giving medicine to the sick person.”

To anoint the sick with oil is to give medicine to the sick

When James instructs his readers to anoint the sick with oil, he is telling them to give medicine to sick people. Other texts support this idea.

For example, it should be noted that olive oil (which was what James would have been talking about) does have certain medicinal qualities and is still used in modern medicine. The ancient historian Celsus mentioned its use for fevers, and Josephus said that Herod was given an oil bath in an attempt to cure him of his deadly disease. In the Bible, the Prophet Isaiah wrote of oil as being helpful for wounds (Isa 1:6), and the Good Samaritan mixed oil with wine to treat the wounds of the beaten traveler (Luke 10:34).

So, James is saying that if a person is sick, he should first of all seek medical help, and then ask the elders of the church to come pray.

Objection: But why are the elders involved?

One objection to the view above is that the involvement of the elders proves that this is not just medicine, but is a spiritual anointing with oil. Yet even here, there are very good reasons for the elders of the church to be involved.

First, asking the elders to pray for the sick person shows care for the brethren.

But second, in those days the leaders of the church were often the ones who administered the medicine. Doctors and physicians were not common, and since medical knowledge was not very advanced, many of the remedies could be prescribed and administered by average people. It was only until recently (maybe within the last two hundred years or so) that medical advancements have become so numerous and complex that only doctors can keep up to date on all of them.

In fact, a pastor named George Herbert from the 16th century writes in his book, The Country Parson, that since doctors are so rare, it is a good idea for pastors to know as much medicine as possible and administer it when they can.

The third reason to call for the elders is because of their godliness. James says that the prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much (James 5:16), and James gives the example of Elijah whose prayers kept it from raining for three years, and then prayed for it to rain and it did. The point is that the elders are also supposed to be righteous and godly men, and so their prayer also can be effective in helping the sick person get well.

It is always a good idea to ask others to pray for you when you are sick. James encourages this practice here. But their prayer is not in partnership with some sort of strange magical healing oil which is dabbed on the head of the sick person. No, their prayer is in partnership with the medical practices of that day.

So today, a person who is sick should seek medical treatment and ask for people to pray.

Objection: But this takes glory away from God!

see a doctor for healingWhen some people hear this explanation of James 5:14, they say, “Doesn’t this remove some of God’s glory or take away some of the credit that is due Him if we go to a doctor?”

My response is that is does not. Not in any way! I believe that all medical and scientific advancement is a gift from God, and should be used to the fullest extent possible. Besides, as Dr. C. Everett Koop once said, all healing is God’s healing and the physician is just an instrument.

Besides, seeking out the help of modern medicine is not an attempt to leave God out of it. James is very clear that while getting medical treatment is the first step to take, the most important step is when a Christian approached God with the prayer of faith.

God has blessed men and women today with wonderful knowledge of how the body works and how the healing processes of the body can be supported. But when it all the medicines have been prescribed and all the surgeries have been performed, it is God who helps a person will get well. Knowing this, we do not ignore the medical knowledge which He has allowed to become known, for such things are also the good gifts of God and should not be refused.

So what does James teach about healing in James 5:14?

James instructs the sick person to go seek medical help, and most importantly, not forget to pray and have other godly and gifted people pray as well.

Are you sick and in need of healing? Do not refuse medical help out of some wrong idea that medicine is not spiritual. It is! Go get whatever medical help you can, and also ask others to pray with you for healing. Then, when medicine and faith work together and you are healed, give praise and glory to God, both for what He has done in your body, and also for what He has taught the medical-scientific world about how the body works.

God is Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: anoint, Bible and Theology Questions, healing, James 5:14, sick

Advertisement

Does Jesus condone the death sentence for children in Mark 7:10?

By Jeremy Myers
11 Comments

Does Jesus condone the death sentence for children in Mark 7:10?

A reader recently sent in this question about Mark 7:10.

I was able to pre-order your book [The Atonement of God] and I can’t stop readingaF it! I am now on my third time around. It truly has continued to redeem my thought about our loving God, just like your blog. Thank you so much for blessing us with such a profound book.

Could you please help me with a passage I am having trouble understanding? Maybe you have written about it before, it’s Mark 7:10 where Jesus seems to agree with Moses “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’” I love the way you have taught us to understand the Old Testament, but here it seems like Jesus is agreeing with Moses about “God’s law” to put someone to death if they do not honor father or mother. I now know God is not violent, so what am I missing?

Thank you so much for considering my question.

Mark 7:10Here is an expanded version of how I responded to him:

What I wrote on page 195 in the book helps explain Mark 7:9-11. On that page, I explain that according to the book of Hebrews, one reason Jesus came was to redeem sin, and especially a certain kind of sin, the parabainō type of sin. This type of sin is the sin of misusing the law. This was using the law in a way that allowed people to sin and in so doing, legally do the exact opposite of the spirit of the law.

In Mark 7:9-14 The religious leaders had found a way to obey the letter of the law while completely ignoring its intent. People were dishonoring their parents (and in a way, even cursing them to death), but were not being “put to death” in response. Quite to the contrary, the religious leaders were saying that it was okay for children to not honor their parents and provide for them if the money that would normally be used to do so was given to the temple.

Those who focus intently on the law almost always find loopholes in the law so that they can obey the letter of the law while completely ignoring it’s intent.

This is a parabainō sin, a transgression of the law, and was the main type of sin Jesus was concerned with in His ministry. The “sins” that most of us Christians are concerned with today were never really on Jesus’ radar. He was only concerned with the religiously approved sins which turned the law on its head so that people could “obey the law” while completely disregarding its intent.

So when Jesus quotes the law in Mark 7:10 about putting children to death for cursing their parents, He is not necessarily quoting it with approval, but is instead pointing out how the religious leaders were using the law to do the exact opposite of what the law said. These adult children were dedicating their money to the temple so that they didn’t have to support their parents in their old age. And the way the Corban law worked, they could keep their money until they died.

In effect, these adult children were cursing their parents to death, which was the exact opposite of what the law said they should do.

stoning children

Jesus responds to this situation by saying that if the religious leaders were really going to obey the law, these children who essentially curse their parents to death should themselves be stoned to death.

But then does this mean that Jesus agrees with what the law says on this point? Does Jesus condone the death penalty for children?

Well, first of all, it is the adult children of elderly parents who are in view.

Even still, I don’t think Jesus was saying that people should be put to death if they fail to take care of their parents. He doesn’t seem to be quoting that particular law from Exodus 21:17 favorably.

Instead, I think Jesus was simply pointing out that the religious leaders were not following the law at all, but were instead misusing the law in a way that allowed them to dishonor their parents, which was the exact opposite intention of the law (see 7:13).

What then would be the proper use of the law in these situations? What was the spirit of the law?

The law was focused on life. The goal of the law is life. The law didn’t want either children or their parents to die.

So the spirit of the law in this case would be that the children who had the money would not be allowed to dedicate it to the temple, but would be required by the temple and the priesthood to use the money to support their parents.

“Oh, but then how would the priests pay for the temple?” Maybe they wouldn’t. What’s more important, a building or your parents?

“Are you saying that people shouldn’t give to God?” No. What I’m saying is that giving to a temple is not the same thing as giving to God, and that God Himself seems to prefer that we use our money to support our family than for supporting the “work of the Lord” as the priestly class defines it. In other words, according to God, supporting your family IS the work of the Lord (cf. 1 Tim 5:4, 8).

Children “give to God” by supporting their parents; not by supporting a priesthood.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours? Provide your input in the comment section below.

God is Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: Bible and Theology Questions, capital punishment, Mark 7:10, violence of God, violence of Scripture

Advertisement

Tough Questions on the Old Testament

By Jeremy Myers
17 Comments

Tough Questions on the Old Testament

Walter Kaiser has written a new book on the tough questions about God and His Actions in the Old Testament.

The questions Kaiser addresses in this book are all excellent questions. The answers he provides, however, are not.

Below is a list of the questions Walter Kaiser raises in his book, with a brief summary of his answers and a short statement about why I think his answers are wrong. The primary problem with all of Kaiser’s answers, however, is that he poses false dichotomies. I will try to point some of these out.

1. The God of Mercy or the God of Wrath?

Kaiser’s answer is “both” We cannot go to one extreme or the other. Kaiser understands God’s wrath as an act of love against sin which hurts those He loves. He also says that wrath is always preceded by love, grace, and mercy (p. 25).

Kaiser’s big mistake is his flat-out rejection of the revelation about God in Jesus Christ. He does not agree with those who seek to understand the nature and character of God by looking primarily to Jesus. In the introduction to the book, he called this “Christo-exclusivism” (p. 11).

But again, if Jesus claims to reveal God to us (John 1:14, 18; 14:9-11; 2 Cor 4:4; Php 2:6; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2-3), then why would we ever reject the perfect revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the lens by which we understand the actions of God in the Old Testament? Kaiser’s rejection of the revelation of Jesus as an interpretive grid for the Old Testament almost caused me to stop reading the rest of his book.

2. The God of Peace or the God of Ethnic Cleansing

Kaiser’s answer is that God did command the Israelites to practice genocide against the Canaanites, but this is only because the Canaanites were so evil (p. 29-30). Really, God was doing the whole world a favor by wiping such evil people off the face of the earth.

This is such a tired old answer, I had trouble believing Kaiser was still using it. Any student of history or literature knows that all the arguments used to defend the genocidal slaughter of one’s enemies are the exact same arguments we find in the Bible about why the Israelites went to war with the Canaanites. And we cannot say that “It was okay for the Israelites … because it’s in the Bible.” That won’t fly for anybody except the most close-minded of Christians.

Oh, and Kaiser says that this is WAY different than Jihad, or Holy War, of the Muslims. Why? Because God commanded His wars, whereas Jihad is only commanded in the Qur’an (p. 44). All I can say to that is … What?

tough questions on the old testament

3. The God of Truth or the God of Deception

Kaiser looks at some passages in the Bible where it appears that God deceives others (e.g., 1 Kings 22). Kaiser gets around these passages by providing the definition of a “lie” as intentionally speaking an untruth to people who deserve to know the truth with the intent of hiding the truth from them (p. 52).

Based on this, Kaiser says that God’s deceptions in the Bible are not really “lies” because the people who are deceived didn’t deserve to know the truth, and God didn’t really intend to lie to them anyway.

Again … what? If you are a parent, would you allow this sort of an explanation from your child about why they lied to you? I sure hope not.

4. The God of Evolution or the God of Creation?

Since I am currently doing a Podcast on Genesis 1, I was eager to read what Kaiser wrote.

But his explanation was quite confusing. As far as I could tell, he thinks that Genesis 1 should be understood scientifically, but not too scientifically. It didn’t happen millions of billions of years ago, but at the same time, a “day” isn’t really a 24-hour day (p. 65) and the only real point of the creation account is to tell us that God made mankind in His image (p. 70).

tough questions KaiserI also got somewhat upset when he rejected out of hand the idea that Moses was writing a polemic against the religions of his day. He said that this sort of idea has been “thoroughly discredited” (p. 63). I find this funny, because most of the scholars I have read in my own research and study do not share Kaiser’s opinion.

Overall, I found this chapter highly confusing and unconvincing. After reading it twice, I still was not sure what Kaiser was saying.

5. The God of Grace or the God of Law?

Kaiser’s answer is “God is both!” He uses the “Threefold division of the law” argument to make his case (p. 80) that while Christians should still follow the moral law, while rejecting the others.

But Kaiser knows that this arbitrary divisions of the law is not found within the Bible itself, but is forced upon the text by some scholars who want to keep some portions of the law, but not others.

6. The God of Monogamy or the God of Polygamy?

Kaiser’s answer is that while there are numerous examples of polygamy being practiced in the Bible, the clear New Testament teaching is that polygamy was a sin (p. 102).

I find this approach highly interesting, since earlier, Kaiser said that scholars should not allow the New Testament to guide or direct their understanding of Old Testament texts. I happen to agree with Kaiser, but I find it interesting that he appeals to the New Testament when it suits him.

7. The God Who Rules Satan or the God Who Battles Satan?

Kaiser argues that God created Satan to be good, but Satan rebelled and so God expelled Satan from heaven (p. 116). God allows Satan to continue to exist, just as God allows all of us rebellious sinners to exist.

I really don’t disagree too much with what Kaiser writes in this chapter, though I would have nuanced everything quite differently.

8. The God Who is Omniscient or the God who Doesn’t Know the Future?

Kaiser’s opinion is that God obviously knows everything, and that all the verses in the Bible which seem to indicate otherwise are nothing but anthropomorphisms (speaking about God in human terms).

Kaiser’s problem here is that he has created a false dichotomy. From a philosophical perspective, there are numerous other options, including middle knowledge, and knowledge of counterfactuals, and even the omniscient knowledge of all possible future events without knowledge of which future event will actually occur. In that last case, is it omniscience or is it not? I say yes.

9. The God who Elevates Women or the God Who Devalues Women?

This may be the best chapter in the book. Kaiser believes that all ministries and gifts are for all people in the family of God, both men and women included (p. 154).

I agree with Kaiser on this, so there is no objection from me.

10. The God of Freedom with Food or the God of Forbidden Food?

Apparently, Kaiser believes we still cannot eat pork or shellfish. According to Kaiser, all the Old Testament food laws are still to be followed today. Why? Because the prescribed foods are healthier, and the forbidden foods are unhealthy (p. 169).

Tough Questions KaiserAgain, as with much of the rest of the book, I was shocked to read Kaiser’s answers and the logic he used to arrive at those answers. He completely negated everything taught by Jesus, Peter, and Paul about all foods being clean, permitted, and allowed.

Conclusion

I cannot recommend this book to anyone. Though the chapter on how God values women was worthwhile reading, the damage done by every other chapter in the book to the Gospel, to the character of God, and to the witness of the church in this world makes this book not worth reading.

The saddest thing of all is in the introduction to the book, Kaiser recognizes that the vast majority of those in their 20s and 30s are “the non-attenders at church and the non-religious” (p. 10). Kaiser thinks this is a bad thing (I think it is good), but what Kaiser fails to understand is that it is exactly the kind of theology he presents in this book which has caused most of those people to leave the church and give up on God.

Until our understanding of Scripture and our explanation of theology (and how we live out both in the world) are brought into conformity to Jesus Christ, people of all ages will continue to reject (and rightfully so) the teachings and theology of the church.

[FTC Disclosure: I was given a review copy of this book by Kregel Publications in exchange for an honest review. I hope they don’t regret it!]

God is Redeeming Books Bible & Theology Topics: Bible and Theology Questions, Bible questions, Books I'm Reading, Christian books, violence of God

Advertisement

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 7
  • Next Page »
Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework