Any Post or Non-Tribbers in Here?
- Thread starter Lori
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No it isn't.
It's based on the GRAMMAR and the WORDS Paul used in the text itself, and how he used them in the sentences he actually spelled out.
"22...even so in Christ all SHALL BE MADE ALIVE [FUTURE tense]. BUT each in his own order/rank:
[1] firstfruit Christ [as one "rank" under this "future" category],
[2] ONLY THEN [EPeita] those OF Christ in the coming of Him [as another "rank" under this "future" category]."
[3] THEN [eita] the end. [...<snip>...] when he shall have put down all rule and authority and power. FOR he must reign, TILL he hath put all enemies under his feet. The LAST enemy that shall be destroyed is DEATH" [<--GWTj point in time--1000 yrs after His Second Coming to the earth for the start of the MK age; where Rev20:5 had said, "But the REST of the dead LIVED NOT AGAIN UNTIL the 1000 years were concluded" and v.13 says, "And the sea GAVE UP the dead which were in them, and death and hell/hades DELIVERED UP the dead which were in them... [...<snip>...]. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (as I understand it, NONE of "the dead" in this context are "written in the book of life," so are "cast into the lake of fire"... as is "DEATH" and HELL/HADES" cast into it...; ALL "saints" will have been "resurrected" well-PRIOR TO this GWTj point in time... for they are ALL PRESENT *FOR* the MK age time-period. ("Death" will be MUCH MORE RARE in the MK age, reserved ONLY for the rebellious [i.e. unsaved], and they later show up as part of "the dead [/unsaved "dead" of ALL times]" at the GWTj point in time.)]
This completely aligns with the rest of Scripture on this Subject.
It's based on the GRAMMAR and the WORDS Paul used in the text itself, and how he used them in the sentences he actually spelled out.
"22...even so in Christ all SHALL BE MADE ALIVE [FUTURE tense]. BUT each in his own order/rank:
[1] firstfruit Christ [as one "rank" under this "future" category],
[2] ONLY THEN [EPeita] those OF Christ in the coming of Him [as another "rank" under this "future" category]."
[3] THEN [eita] the end. [...<snip>...] when he shall have put down all rule and authority and power. FOR he must reign, TILL he hath put all enemies under his feet. The LAST enemy that shall be destroyed is DEATH" [<--GWTj point in time--1000 yrs after His Second Coming to the earth for the start of the MK age; where Rev20:5 had said, "But the REST of the dead LIVED NOT AGAIN UNTIL the 1000 years were concluded" and v.13 says, "And the sea GAVE UP the dead which were in them, and death and hell/hades DELIVERED UP the dead which were in them... [...<snip>...]. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (as I understand it, NONE of "the dead" in this context are "written in the book of life," so are "cast into the lake of fire"... as is "DEATH" and HELL/HADES" cast into it...; ALL "saints" will have been "resurrected" well-PRIOR TO this GWTj point in time... for they are ALL PRESENT *FOR* the MK age time-period. ("Death" will be MUCH MORE RARE in the MK age, reserved ONLY for the rebellious [i.e. unsaved], and they later show up as part of "the dead [/unsaved "dead" of ALL times]" at the GWTj point in time.)]
This completely aligns with the rest of Scripture on this Subject.
^ The word "EPeita" [similarly to how the phrase "AND THEN [kai tote]" speaks of] is [and are] never used to speak of a lengthy interval between the two things being spoken of.
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1899.htm "EPeita"
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1899/kjv/tr/0-1/ "EPeita"
[distinct from the word "eita" he uses in v.24a]
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1899.htm "EPeita"
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1899/kjv/tr/0-1/ "EPeita"
[distinct from the word "eita" he uses in v.24a]
The bible tells us that is true:
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Nations here is "ethnos":
G1484
ἔθνος
ethnos
eth'-nos
Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
Total KJV occurrences: 164
Ethnos is where we get the English word "ethnic" as in racially different people. There are different races of people. believe God created races like that, and some believe races developed from descendants of Adam and Eve. Either way, the bible supports the idea of different races/ethnos.
I was very clear about Jesus ruling on earth for 1,000 years and then forever on the new earth. Did you read my post?
I have no idea what you are trying to ask here. If you could re-phrase or clarify, I will be happy to explain EXACTLY what I believe.
Again, did you read my post? Do you have 2 Pet 3 in your Bible? Please read the chapter to familiarize yourself with what is coming before you reply.
Thanks.
I have no idea what you are trying to ask here. If you could re-phrase or clarify, I will be happy to explain EXACTLY what I believe.
Again, did you read my post? Do you have 2 Pet 3 in your Bible? Please read the chapter to familiarize yourself with what is coming before you reply.
Thanks.
FreeGrace2 said:
So you subscribe to the stupid theory that there are races of humans then??
Did you miss my use of the word "ethnicities" several times????
Off the rails again. NOT "racially different", as you say, but ethnically different.
Do you disagree with the 2 races that I have noted? The angelic and human races.
There are 2 races created by God, if you believe the Bible. Angelic and human. Period.
To place different looking people into different races is an attack on God's plan and creation.
God didn't create races by changing people's languages. But He did that to separate them so they couldn't build that stupid juggernaut of Nimrod.
So you subscribe to the stupid theory that there are races of humans then??
Did you miss my use of the word "ethnicities" several times????
Off the rails again. NOT "racially different", as you say, but ethnically different.
Do you disagree with the 2 races that I have noted? The angelic and human races.
There are 2 races created by God, if you believe the Bible. Angelic and human. Period.
To place different looking people into different races is an attack on God's plan and creation.
God didn't create races by changing people's languages. But He did that to separate them so they couldn't build that stupid juggernaut of Nimrod.
-
1
- Show all
I like 2 Peter 1
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I already stated that I DO believe that. That was the Subject of verse 20 ("PAST tense [/PERFECT indicative]" regarding Jesus HIMSELF);
... not the Subject of vv.22b-23 (which is "FUTURE tense" Subjects, per the wording of v.22b and the "BUT" CONJUNCTION joining the thought being conveyed with that of the content being spelled out in v.23!)
AND the word "EPeita" as well proves the two items in v.23 are NOT separated by a lengthy interval between the two listed in this v.23, such as a "near-2000-yr" interval between them (as that is not how this word is used).
Simply put, Paul, in v.23, is NOT backtracking to speak AGAIN about Jesus' Own [PAST-TENSE] Resurrection, which he'd already talked about in v.20 (i.e. that is NOT what "firstfruit Christ" speaks to, v.23)
... not the Subject of vv.22b-23 (which is "FUTURE tense" Subjects, per the wording of v.22b and the "BUT" CONJUNCTION joining the thought being conveyed with that of the content being spelled out in v.23!)
AND the word "EPeita" as well proves the two items in v.23 are NOT separated by a lengthy interval between the two listed in this v.23, such as a "near-2000-yr" interval between them (as that is not how this word is used).
Simply put, Paul, in v.23, is NOT backtracking to speak AGAIN about Jesus' Own [PAST-TENSE] Resurrection, which he'd already talked about in v.20 (i.e. that is NOT what "firstfruit Christ" speaks to, v.23)
Yep, God's first instruction to mankind was "multiply and fill the earth", and yet right after the Flood, Noah's descendants did the opposite. They huddled together and founded the first totalitarian regime in human history. Not only did they have one language, they also had one speech (Gen. 11:1), that means the one and only Newspeak narrative like the globalist narrative today. In that situation, God had to intervene by breaking them apart.
-
1
- Show all
Let us look at John 14:1-4
“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself;
that where I am, there you may be also.
And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
Look carefully at what the Lord is saying and after you do read and read again John ch17 and pray.
Then we talk some more - Peace and Good Nite
“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself;
that where I am, there you may be also.
And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
Look carefully at what the Lord is saying and after you do read and read again John ch17 and pray.
Then we talk some more - Peace and Good Nite
vs23 is in direct correlation and is subject to the command of vs20
You cannot have verse 23 without verse 20 precipitating and becoming the forerunner and AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND to verse 23
COMMAND = "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits
SUBJECT = of those who have died"
SUBJECT (vs23)= "But each one in his own order:"
COMMAND(vs20 & vs23a) = "Christ the firstfruits"
INTERVAL(vs23b) = "afterward"
SUBJECT (vs23c) = those who are Christ’s
COMMAND (vs23d) = at His coming.
You cannot have verse 23 without verse 20 precipitating and becoming the forerunner and AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND to verse 23
COMMAND = "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits
SUBJECT = of those who have died"
SUBJECT (vs23)= "But each one in his own order:"
COMMAND(vs20 & vs23a) = "Christ the firstfruits"
INTERVAL(vs23b) = "afterward"
SUBJECT (vs23c) = those who are Christ’s
COMMAND (vs23d) = at His coming.
-
1
- Show all
Do you mean, grammatically? Or because Jesus Christ is OUR "HEAD" and we His "BODY," thus are "connected," in that way?
Note that I never stated that WE will have "resurrection" apart from His having been raised from the dead.
Indeed he has. We already discussed that.
"23... BUT each in the own order/rank" is joined (by means of the "BUT-CONJUNCTION") back to the content of v.22b (the "FUTURE tense" SHALL BE), which verse I see you have conveniently LEFT OUT of your assessment. I wonder why??
[... of your missing v.22b ^ with its IMPORTANT piece of INFORMATION which is KEY to proper interpretation-->
I do not see it in your work anywhere, in the above... because it is that verse which informs us, grammatically (at the very least), that your "willy-nilly" extraction of the two occurrences of the word "firstfruit," bring RIPPED out of their direct contexts, are re-arranged to suit you, from the sentences wherein Paul had placed them, so as to incorrectly surmise what exactly it is that Paul is conveying in this text...
...no differently than to how that one well-known "video-maker" had done this same kind of butchering of the 2Th2 text, completely misconstruing the ACTUAL point that (at least, many) "pre-tribbers" are pointing out about that text. But not by his properly exegeting that text! NO! For he too SKIPS BACK OVER and PAST v.2 of that text, ignoring it[!!] ( ), to incorrectly join the Subject of v.3a ['that day'] TO VERSE 1's Subject, INSTEAD of what it grammatically connects back to: the distinct Subject of v.2 ('the day of the Lord'), in the wording immediately preceding v.3a! (vv.3a and 2 connect by means of a similar grammatical matter!) Most maddening... ]
Believe what you wish, DT.
Note that I never stated that WE will have "resurrection" apart from His having been raised from the dead.
Indeed he has. We already discussed that.
"23... BUT each in the own order/rank" is joined (by means of the "BUT-CONJUNCTION") back to the content of v.22b (the "FUTURE tense" SHALL BE), which verse I see you have conveniently LEFT OUT of your assessment. I wonder why??
[... of your missing v.22b ^ with its IMPORTANT piece of INFORMATION which is KEY to proper interpretation-->
I do not see it in your work anywhere, in the above... because it is that verse which informs us, grammatically (at the very least), that your "willy-nilly" extraction of the two occurrences of the word "firstfruit," bring RIPPED out of their direct contexts, are re-arranged to suit you, from the sentences wherein Paul had placed them, so as to incorrectly surmise what exactly it is that Paul is conveying in this text......no differently than to how that one well-known "video-maker" had done this same kind of butchering of the 2Th2 text, completely misconstruing the ACTUAL point that (at least, many) "pre-tribbers" are pointing out about that text. But not by his properly exegeting that text! NO! For he too SKIPS BACK OVER and PAST v.2 of that text, ignoring it[!!] (
), to incorrectly join the Subject of v.3a ['that day'] TO VERSE 1's Subject, INSTEAD of what it grammatically connects back to: the distinct Subject of v.2 ('the day of the Lord'), in the wording immediately preceding v.3a! (vv.3a and 2 connect by means of a similar grammatical matter!) Most maddening... ]Believe what you wish, DT.
"Each just specifies that the statement applies to every element individually within a set."
"1538 hékastos (from hekas, "separate") – each (individual) unit viewed distinctly, i.e. as opposed to "severally" (as a group)."
I contend that my breakdown of "each" matches the sense of "each" from the translation of hékastos.
My understanding is that this description of usage is describing two different cases of usage ("more than two" vs. "every one"). In most cases a given set will have more than two people, but the usage of "each" isn't restricted to only sets of more than two people. It might be the case that Biblehub is suggesting that hékastos references more than two people in each instance of use (and maybe that's the case), but the word by itself doesn't necessarily imply more than two people. And I would argue that it might not necessarily be the case that each instance of hékastos references any particular number of people (but it could be). It would be a derived context rather than a necessary context.
We can also make present statements with "each".
"Each person in the room is the owner of a car"
The "each" that appears in the KJV of 1 Cor 15:23 seems ambiguous in terms of tense. "All be made alive" refers to a future state of "all" as a group. So there is a future tense for that completion. But "every man in his own order" is an 'each' statement that describes units within groups of which there are two mentioned: "Christ the firstfruits" and "they that are Christ's".
I contend that "Christ the firstfruits" is a group that contains only one unit (Christ Himself).
I contend that "they that are Christ's" is a group that contains multiple units of Christians.
I'm not an expert in Greek grammar. I have to do the same thing of largely just relying on what sites like Biblehub say on the topic, but my first thought is to look at this as the difference between:
"We went to church and after we went for a drive"
"We went to church and afterward we went for a drive"
There doesn't appear to be a functional difference between the two phrases because the utilised context of "after" and "afterward" is the same in these cases. The difference between the two could just be summed down to a choice in poetic style for literary cadence. With that in mind, we can look more deeply at "epeita" vs "eita" to determine if there are functional differences or if it is just a style choice.
If we look at Biblehub again (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15-23.htm) we see that it even notes that epeita comes from eita (then) and epi (upon). NAS concordance defines "epeita" as "thereafter", which makes sense given its origin from eita and epi. Some internet dictionaries define "thereafter" as "after that" or "according to that"
"We went to church and after we went for a drive"
"We went to church and thereafter we went for a drive."
"After" refers to an instance that happens at some subsequent time. "Thereafter" is indicative of something subsequent denoted by the first event. Is there a contextual difference in 1 Cor 15:23, or is it literary emphasis? We can explore both interpretations. "Thereafter" can have a meaning of "from then and on". The context would still be after Christ's resurrection. We could explore "from then and on" as being indicative of men joining the "they that are Christ's" group over the course of time, but it wouldn't necessarily be divided like that (it's just a potential context when analyzing the passage in isolation).
"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." - 1 Cor 15:23 KJV
"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; [thereafter] they that are Christ's at his coming." - 1 Cor 15:23 KJV
If we interpret Christ the firstfruits as a group containing only Christ, the context is that this has already taken place.
If we are following from "Christ is come" as a current event, this part of the verse just refers to anyone that has become Christian any time after His resurrection. The emphasis in that case would be just that resurrections unto life only happen after Christ's resurrection.
I don't see anything that would substantiate that aside from the idea that epeita basically means "after that" while eita basically means just "after". I haven't found anything that would suggest an implied immediacy following from epeita, only that there is notable significance between Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of those in Christ (which goes without saying). I don't see why "Christ the firstfruits" would be a future item.
I agree that the word choice seems intentional, but to me it feels more a word choice based in literary cadence rather than context.
"20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [Future. Object: all]
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." - 1 Cor 15:20-23 KJV
If Christ is resurrected in 1st century AD and all Christians are resurrected on the last day, the statement "in Christ shall all be made alive" would still be true. If all Christians were resurrected piece by piece up until the last day, the statement would still be true because the future status of "all shall be made alive" is different than "each shall be made alive".
I contend that this passage alone doesn't give us enough information to tackle the question of post-trib/pre-trib/no-rapture.
My impression of the passage is that Paul would in fact be referring to Jesus' own resurrection in v23, with an allusion to the imagery of the oblation of firstfruits which initiates the covenant and thereafter (within the covenant) those that are Christ's (following in the footsteps of Christ through death and the resurrection).
Paul notes that "Jesus is become the firstfruits" meaning He became the firstfruits and continues presently to be the firstfruits. He then references Christ with the title of "the firstfruits" to emphasize that function.
And thank you for your thoughtful post in return.
We seem to still have differerent perspectives on:
1) What "Christ the firstfruits" means in v23
2) Whether eita vs epeita implies timing in this case
3) What tense v23 is in (whether Christ the firstfruits is future or present/past)
You might have mentioned some justification before, but there is a lot of thread to check back at if that's the case. If you have time, I'd value an expanded perspective on those three points.
"1538 hékastos (from hekas, "separate") – each (individual) unit viewed distinctly, i.e. as opposed to "severally" (as a group)."
I contend that my breakdown of "each" matches the sense of "each" from the translation of hékastos.
My understanding is that this description of usage is describing two different cases of usage ("more than two" vs. "every one"). In most cases a given set will have more than two people, but the usage of "each" isn't restricted to only sets of more than two people. It might be the case that Biblehub is suggesting that hékastos references more than two people in each instance of use (and maybe that's the case), but the word by itself doesn't necessarily imply more than two people. And I would argue that it might not necessarily be the case that each instance of hékastos references any particular number of people (but it could be). It would be a derived context rather than a necessary context.
We can also make present statements with "each".
"Each person in the room is the owner of a car"
The "each" that appears in the KJV of 1 Cor 15:23 seems ambiguous in terms of tense. "All be made alive" refers to a future state of "all" as a group. So there is a future tense for that completion. But "every man in his own order" is an 'each' statement that describes units within groups of which there are two mentioned: "Christ the firstfruits" and "they that are Christ's".
I contend that "Christ the firstfruits" is a group that contains only one unit (Christ Himself).
I contend that "they that are Christ's" is a group that contains multiple units of Christians.
I'm not an expert in Greek grammar. I have to do the same thing of largely just relying on what sites like Biblehub say on the topic, but my first thought is to look at this as the difference between:
"We went to church and after we went for a drive"
"We went to church and afterward we went for a drive"
There doesn't appear to be a functional difference between the two phrases because the utilised context of "after" and "afterward" is the same in these cases. The difference between the two could just be summed down to a choice in poetic style for literary cadence. With that in mind, we can look more deeply at "epeita" vs "eita" to determine if there are functional differences or if it is just a style choice.
If we look at Biblehub again (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15-23.htm) we see that it even notes that epeita comes from eita (then) and epi (upon). NAS concordance defines "epeita" as "thereafter", which makes sense given its origin from eita and epi. Some internet dictionaries define "thereafter" as "after that" or "according to that"
"We went to church and after we went for a drive"
"We went to church and thereafter we went for a drive."
"After" refers to an instance that happens at some subsequent time. "Thereafter" is indicative of something subsequent denoted by the first event. Is there a contextual difference in 1 Cor 15:23, or is it literary emphasis? We can explore both interpretations. "Thereafter" can have a meaning of "from then and on". The context would still be after Christ's resurrection. We could explore "from then and on" as being indicative of men joining the "they that are Christ's" group over the course of time, but it wouldn't necessarily be divided like that (it's just a potential context when analyzing the passage in isolation).
"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." - 1 Cor 15:23 KJV
"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; [thereafter] they that are Christ's at his coming." - 1 Cor 15:23 KJV
If we interpret Christ the firstfruits as a group containing only Christ, the context is that this has already taken place.
If we are following from "Christ is come" as a current event, this part of the verse just refers to anyone that has become Christian any time after His resurrection. The emphasis in that case would be just that resurrections unto life only happen after Christ's resurrection.
I don't see anything that would substantiate that aside from the idea that epeita basically means "after that" while eita basically means just "after". I haven't found anything that would suggest an implied immediacy following from epeita, only that there is notable significance between Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of those in Christ (which goes without saying). I don't see why "Christ the firstfruits" would be a future item.
I agree that the word choice seems intentional, but to me it feels more a word choice based in literary cadence rather than context.
"20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [Future. Object: all]
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." - 1 Cor 15:20-23 KJV
If Christ is resurrected in 1st century AD and all Christians are resurrected on the last day, the statement "in Christ shall all be made alive" would still be true. If all Christians were resurrected piece by piece up until the last day, the statement would still be true because the future status of "all shall be made alive" is different than "each shall be made alive".
I contend that this passage alone doesn't give us enough information to tackle the question of post-trib/pre-trib/no-rapture.
My impression of the passage is that Paul would in fact be referring to Jesus' own resurrection in v23, with an allusion to the imagery of the oblation of firstfruits which initiates the covenant and thereafter (within the covenant) those that are Christ's (following in the footsteps of Christ through death and the resurrection).
Paul notes that "Jesus is become the firstfruits" meaning He became the firstfruits and continues presently to be the firstfruits. He then references Christ with the title of "the firstfruits" to emphasize that function.
I hope this covered all the points you had addressed.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. = )
Thank you for your thoughtful post. = )
We seem to still have differerent perspectives on:
1) What "Christ the firstfruits" means in v23
2) Whether eita vs epeita implies timing in this case
3) What tense v23 is in (whether Christ the firstfruits is future or present/past)
You might have mentioned some justification before, but there is a lot of thread to check back at if that's the case. If you have time, I'd value an expanded perspective on those three points.
Lori, the tribulation in this world will continue and increase. One reason is because of false teachers and false doctrines. God will send great tribulation upon them. For those who walk in the Light, however, God will grant mercy and peace. So walk in the Light and cast all your cares upon the Lord because he cares about you!
-
1
- Show all