RSS

The Abomination of Desolation

14 Feb
from Google Images

from Google Images

It is difficult to even think of the last days before Christ’s second coming without thinking of an end time strong man, called the beast. Some scholars believe the Bible claims this leader will befriend the nation of Israel and later betray them. He is then supposed to sacrifice some unclean thing or erect an idol in their newly built Temple. Such a sacrifice or idol is referred to as the abomination of desolation. This theology, however, has no Biblical foundation! Unfortunately, much of what is understood as legitimate Christianity has bought into this destructive doctrine. It is a doctrine that has evoked a great deal of fear from the people of God, but the greater tragedy is it takes the emphasis off Christ.

If this theology, concerning the end time desecration of the Temple of God, is not what the Bible teaches, what did Jesus mean when he warned his followers about the abomination of desolation in his Mt. Olivet Prophecy? Was it something Jesus intended for all generations to look for, or was it only for the first century believers? Obviously, he meant his followers to watch for something, and, when it occurred, they were to flee Judea. Whatever that ‘something’ was, it represented grave danger to his people in that day, but would it mean anything for us today? In order to answer this question it would help know what the abomination of desolation is. Can we expect the Scriptures to reveal what the abomination of desolation is? Yes, I think we can.

Defining the Terms

The phrase abomination[1] of desolation[2] in Matthew 24:15 is the same as the abomination[3] of desolation[4] in Daniel 12:11. This phrase concerns the destruction brought upon a person or nation due to idolatry. In view of this we need to take a second look at Jewish history during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes to find out what actually occurred at that time, and who was really responsible for the desecration of the Temple. What if this infamous, gentile king was not responsible for the abomination of desolation occurring in Jewish history, and typifying what many believe will occur in the end times (our day)? If he were not the responsible one for desecrating the Temple, should we be looking for a future ‘strong man’ or something else to fulfill Daniel’s and Jesus’ prophecies? If these prophecies call for something other than a ‘strong man,’ could we have missed its occurrence in history and therefore misunderstand what to expect in our own day, which we believe are “the end times?”

The Hellenization of the Jews

Israel had been ruled by a foreign power ever since she was carried away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Even after being released by Cyrus the Great, Israel had to answer to a foreign king. She was not independent. Daniel 11 records for us the foreign rulers under the titles the ‘king of the north’ (Syria) and the ‘king of the south’ (Egypt). These kings were warring dynasties who came to power after the Grecian Empire was divided upon the death of Alexander the Great.

The inner activity of Israel was very tumultuous at the time of Antiochus Epiphanies. During this period the high priest, though one of Aaron’s descendants, did not come to the office necessarily by inheritance but was often appointed by the ruling king, in this case, Antiochus Epiphanies. A man by the name of Joshua, who changed his name to Jason, was appointed high priest by Antiochus.[5] We are told in 2Maccabees 4:7-17 that he obtained the office by corruption, i.e. by promising the king a great amount of money and that he would bring God’s people into the Greek way of life.

“Jason… brought his own nation to Greekish fashion… putting down the governments which were according to the law, he brought up new customs against the law… For he built gladly a place of exercise under the tower (Temple) itself, and brought the chief young men under his subjection, and made them wear a hat. Now such was the height of Greek fashions, and increase of heathenish manners, through the exceeding profaneness of Jason, that ungodly wretch, and no high priest.  That the priests had no courage to serve any more at the altar, but despising the temple, and neglecting the sacrifices, hastened to be partakers of the unlawful allowance in the place of exercise, after the game of Discus called them forth. Not setting by the honours of their fathers, but liking the glory of the Grecians best of all.” [2Macabees 4:7-17 – parenthesis mine].

Jason’s reign as high priest didn’t last long, however, because the king was persuaded by Menelaus, a relative of Jason to make him the high priest and remove Jason:

“Three years afterward Jason sent Menelaus, the aforesaid Simon’s brother, to bear the money unto the king, and to put him in mind of certain necessary matters. But he being brought to the presence of the king, when he had magnified him for the glorious appearance of his power, got the priesthood to himself, offering more than Jason by three hundred talents of silver. So he came with the king’s mandate, bringing nothing worthy the high priesthood, but having the fury of a cruel tyrant, and the rage of a savage beast. Then Jason, who had undermined his own brother, being undermined by another, was compelled to flee into the country of the Ammonites.” (2 Maccabees 4:23-26)

After his appointment as high priest, Menelaus continued to Hellenize the Jews:

“Now as the former high priest, Jesus (Jason), raised a sedition against Menelaus, who was ordained after him, the multitude were divided between them both. And the sons of Tobias took the part of Menelaus, but the greater part of the people assisted Jason; and by that means Menelaus and the sons of Tobias were distressed, and retired to Antiochus, and informed him that they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king’s laws, and the Grecian way of living. Wherefore they desired his permission to build them a Gymnasium[6] at Jerusalem. And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their own country, and imitated the practices of the other nations.” [Josephus: “Antiquities of the Jews” – Book XII; chapter 5, paragraph 1 (emphasis mine)]

Regardless of who was responsible for the Hellenization of the Jews, Jason or Menelaus, neither of the two was ever motivated by righteousness in anything they did. The very thing that brought about the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus, an act which he later regretted (1Maccabees 6:8-13), was not the sacrifice of swine’s flesh, but was this act of Hellenizing God’s people. The act performed by the king was the role played by man expressing the sentiment of God over what had happened to his chosen people.  Notice:

And so haughty was Antiochus in mind, that he considered not that the Lord was angry for a while for the sins of them that dwelt in the city, and therefore his eye was not upon the place. For had they not been formerly wrapped in many sins, this man, as soon as he had come, had forthwith been scourged, and put back from his presumption, as Heliodorus was, whom Seleucus the king sent to view the treasury. Nevertheless God did not choose the people for the place’s sake, but the place far the people’s sake. And therefore the place itself, that was partaker with them of the adversity that happened to the nation, did afterward communicate in the benefits sent from the Lord: and as it was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty, so again, the great Lord being reconciled, it was set up with all glory. [2 Maccabees 5:17-20 (emphasis mine)]

It was a matter of divine judgment. God brought Antiochus against the Jews, because they wholeheartedly deserted him, just as they had done in the matter of Nebuchadnezzar’s destroying the Temple. Therefore, this matter of abomination of desolation seems to be a national sin led and encouraged by the high priests of the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. What then did Jesus mean when he warned the apostles of the abomination that makes desolate about which Daniel wrote? I conclude this study HERE.


[1] According to Strong’s Concordance abomination (G946) – bdelugma – means a detestation, that is, (specifically) idolatry: – abomination.

[2] According to Strong’s Concordance desolation (G2050) – erēmōsis – means despoliation: – desolation.

[3] According to Strong’s Concordance abomination (H8251) means an idol, abominable, filth, abomination, detestable (thing).

[4] According to Strong’s Concordance desolation (H8074) means “to stun” or “grow numb” i.e. “to devastate” or “stupefy”; “make amazed”, “(be) astonished”, “(be) desolate”, “(lay) waste”.

[5] Josephus: “Antiquities” – Book XII; chapter 5, verse-1

[6] This word” Gymnasium” properly denotes a place where the exercises were performed naked, which because it would naturally distinguish circumcised Jews from uncircumcised Gentiles, these Jewish apostates endeavored to appear uncircumcised, by means of a surgical operation, hinted at by Paul (1Corinthians 7:18).

Advertisements
 
19 Comments

Posted by on February 14, 2010 in 70 Weeks Prophecy, Judgment, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

19 responses to “The Abomination of Desolation

  1. mithrandirolorin

    June 4, 2015 at 14:11

    There are different Hebrew words Translated Abomination. Some refer to kind of Uncleanness (like the one used in Leviticus 18). But the one used here is the word that always refers to an Idol, the ones that call Moloch the Abominaiton of the Ammonites and Chemosh the Abomination of the Moabites.

    Paul Thessalonian Epistles are a commentary on Matthew 24, you won’t understand either if you separate them.

     
    • Eddie

      June 4, 2015 at 20:08

      Greetings again Jared, and thanks for reading my blog and for your comment. In my next blog in this series — The Abomination of Desolation, the Way of Destruction — I show that the Abomination is idolatry. I agree with you on that point. I’m not sure that you would agree with me that the idol is the Man of Sin (Annas the high priest), however.

      Lord bless you in your study of his word.

       
      • mithrandirolorin

        June 4, 2015 at 21:53

        Jesus clearly defines it as standing in the Holy Place, where it ought not. The High Priest is literally the one person who was allowed in there.

         
        • Eddie

          June 5, 2015 at 06:22

          Well, we agree it was the high priest who was the abomination that brought the desolation. Where he stood was in the Temple. Any place in the Temple courts was holy. Jesus called the Temple courts places of prayer when he threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple area. He claimed the Temple and its courts were his Father’s house. Moreover, it is more clearly stated in Leviticus 6:16 and 26 for example. The courts of the Temple are considered holy places. Stephen was tried by the Sanhedrin which met within the Temple compound, and the high priest Annas or Caiaphas led the proceedings (Acts 7:1).

           
        • mithrandirolorin

          June 5, 2015 at 09:02

          No, the Abomianiton of Deoslation is an Idol not a person.

           
        • Eddie

          June 6, 2015 at 06:43

          That’s odd, since you mention that the high priest would be standing in the holy place. Why couldn’t he be an idol, standing between God and man? Tell me, do you consider movie stars and famous musicians candidates for being idols? We often call them idols. Sometimes we refer to them as icons, which can also mean idol. They are people and many of us common folk treat them as idols in every sense of the word as used in the Bible. What makes an idol a thing and not a person? Psalm 82 calls those in authority over us gods. If they are in rebellion, they have a fairly good opportunity to lead people away from God. Certainly they have great power of influence. The high priest, therefore, would be, in one sense of the word, a god—-in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God! Well, anyway, that’s how I see it. :-)

           
        • mithrandirolorin

          June 6, 2015 at 08:33

          The Priest is allowed to stand there, Mark 13 says the Abomination will stand “where it ought not” and Matthew 24 says that is the Holy Place. That is what I was trying to explain.

          Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles where a Commentary on Matthew 24, he explains for us what the Abomination Jesus warned of will be. A Man standing in The Temple proclaiming himself to be God.

           
        • Eddie

          June 6, 2015 at 18:05

          So, you claim the abomination is an unknown man, not the high priest. You try to justify this by claiming that the high priest was permitted in the Temple (the Most Holy Place), so Mark’s “where he ought not” (Mark 13:14) couldn’t refer to the high priest, because he was allowed there (once a year).

          First of all, the text says ‘holy’ place (Matthew 24:15), not ‘most holy’ place. Secondly, anyplace in the Temple courts was considered ‘holy’. Therefore, your criteria excluding the high priest is not justified. It could by him, or it could be anyone else. Third, do you believe the high priest had the right to judge Jesus and condemn him to death? He did it in the Temple, so if he didn’t have the right to stand in judgment of Jesus, he was standing in the holy place where he ought not to be (in judgment of the King). Similarly, when the high priest judged Stephen in Acts 7, did he have a right to do as he did or was he standing “where he ought not” in the holy place judging the work of God? Finally, if the “desolation” that was brought about was the “destruction of the city and the sanctuary” (Daniel 9:26), then we need to ask ourselves: “What brought about the destruction of “city and the Temple” in 70 AD? Did you ever consider that the high priests: Annas and his family of high priests, Caiaphas (son-in-law), Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Ananias (all sons) and Matthias (son of Theophilus, grandson of Annas) were in office whenever a persecution erupted against believing Jews, including Paul and James, the Lord’s brother. In the 60 years Rome directly ruled Jerusalem before the Jewish war Annas or a member of his family ruled as high priest for 43 of those years, and not a single persecution against the saints of God was begun without one of them holding that office. Revelation 6:9-11 claims that the blood of the saints was avenged against those responsible. Who was responsible? According to history it was Annas and his family.

           
        • mithrandirolorin

          June 6, 2015 at 18:35

          Biblical terminology consistently used “The Holy Place” as the inner sanctum of The Temple. Which the Priest can enter any day, he can only cross the Veil on Yom Kippur.

          The term “Abomination of Desolation” has a very specific meaning defined in Jewish thought by hat Eiphanes did. You attempt to quote Maccabees to support your theory of what it means but the books of Maccabees themselves use it solely of the Dios Olympos Idol.

           
        • Eddie

          June 7, 2015 at 07:09

          Greetings Jared. First of all, you try to make a point for “The Holy Place” within the Temple itself and you are very dogmatic about it. Yet, Matthew 24:15 doesn’t have the article. It simply says literally: a “holy place” and that is it. While it it possible that the inner rooms of the Temple is meant, it is also possible that any place in the outer courts is meant.

          Concerning my quote of Maccabees, I was very careful not to misinterpret what was written. The fact is that I chose excerpts to show a logical flow of the author’s view of God’s judgment. The key quote is in the final excerpt: “…had they not been formerly wrapped in many sins, this man, as soon as he had come, had forthwith been scourged, and put back from his presumption, as Heliodorus was, whom Seleucus the king sent to view the treasury. Nevertheless God did not choose the people for the place’s sake, but the place far the people’s sake. And therefore the place itself, that was partaker with them of the adversity that happened to the nation…”

          Probably most of my post is accounted for in quotes of 2Maccabees. How can you say that I’m using Maccabees in error to support my understanding?

           
        • mithrandirolorin

          June 7, 2015 at 08:02

          I believe the KJV of Matthew 24 not any other version.

          You theory is contradicted by how the term Abomination itself is used. In Daniel 11 the Abomination is set up after the wars have started, not before. The killing of Onias is alluded to earlier.

           
        • Eddie

          June 7, 2015 at 13:15

          I quoted the KJV from a Bible suite containing Strongs Concordance with the words. “the” in the English translation is not in the Greek, and I’m referring to the Textus Receptus, which the KJV translators used to produce their work. The Greek does not have the article.

          Concerning the term abomination, in Daniel 11:31 it is speaking of the days of Antiochus Epiphanies. There is no other mention of the term abomination in Daniel 11. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind quoting the verse you have in mind?

           
  2. Bill Foster

    August 4, 2012 at 14:13

    Ed — I should have read the next article before previously posting to this article. You had already stated much of what I attempted to say — although in clearer fashion. Thanks again for your articles. It’s good to know that your blog exists. May God continue to bless your work.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      August 4, 2012 at 14:55

      Bill, thank you very much for your encouragement and prayerful blessing. May the Lord richly bless you and yours, as well.

      Eddie

       
  3. Bill Foster

    August 4, 2012 at 13:58

    Ed — thank you for diligent study of Scripture and your willingness to share your very helpful and enlightened insights. Pertinent to your exchange with Craig (above), I’ll restate something I posted to a different aritcle by you.

    As I’ve been reading your presentation regarding Danie’s 70 Weeks, a light went on. I have often asked myself whle trying to interpret the “Abomination of Desolation”, — “What from God’s perspective, would be considered the most detestable (abominable) act that man could commit? Whatever that thing is must surely be the “Abomination that causes Desolation”. Until now, I surmized that act to be “to reject the Son of God’s sacrificial death”.

    Now, with lights on, I see my error. Christ not only died but was raised and yes God accepted Him as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin — but, there is more, and this is the part I was overlooking: After Christ ascended, He sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost — the New Covenant was not fully initiated until this event occured. Although I’ve known this for years (John 14-16 are some of my favorite chapters in scripture), I failed to see it in the context of the “Abomination of Desolation” and all the associated chronological questions (1260, 1290, 1335 days, 3.5 yrs, times time and half a time). The analogy of faith (comparing scripture with scripture) is SOooooooooo important — and I thank you for helping me to see.

    So, what is the “Abomination of Desolation”? It is Israel’s formal rejection of the New Covenant which couldn’t occur until the New Covenant was fully initiated, which was at Pentecost (50 days after the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus). Yes, Ciaphas and other Jewish leaders brought false witness and forced the crucifixion of Jesus by insisting to Pilate, “we have no King but Caesar”, but, as horrible and eggregious as this was — this was not the most abominable act and it was not the act that caused desoation”.

    The most abominable act was when the same Jewish leadership and their Jewish followers persistently rejected the New Covenant — which, as you pointed out in a different article, reached it’s culmination at the Stoning of Stephen. This persistent rejection of the New Covenant is the unpardonable sin that Jesus warned about in Matthew (blasphemy against the Son can be pardoned but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be pardoned). This persistent rejection of the New Covenant finally reached the point of no return (at Stephen’s death) and this rejection is what eventually resulted in the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

    One other comment: The “Abomination” — whatever it is — must be an act committed by one who has been enlightened by God’s truth. Antiochus IV or the Antichrist/Beast (of the pre-millenial theologians) CAN’T commit a more abominable act than Ciaphas and his ilk — to whom much is given much is required. Ciaphas had light, responsibility and history that made him far more culpable than Antiochus or Antichrist could ever be. The same can be said of the Israelites who rejected the new covenant for those 3.5 years after Christ’s death . . . they, as a people (the covenant people) were more culpable than any other people or nation (inclucing America) could ever be. Thats why I believe Ciaphas and his covenant breaking followers committed the Abomination that causes desolation. Both the abominable act and the ensuing desolation have already occured in history — they are not future events.

     
  4. Craig Jacobson

    March 18, 2012 at 01:52

    He who knew no sin became sin. Jesus, the Son of God, was considered a blasphemer and accursed by men though he pleased God. At the same time, it pleased God to crush Him because He was covered in the sins of man (what was pleasing to us) and offered Himself up as the object for God’s wrath. Jesus took upon Himself all that God considered abomnibable while those He came to save found Him worthy of death outside the city. And as far as desolation is concerned, He stated clearly that He did not come to bring peace to the world but a sword. The desolations being poured out since the time of Christ is the wrath of God being poured out on mankind because of the continual rejection and rebellion against the One who was lifted up at the crucifiction.

    We say that the desecration of the Alter of God by sacrificing swine’s flesh was an abomination, but there are a few problems with this. Jesus said that He would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. His crucifiction removed the temple and His resurrection rebuilt it in the form of Himself. When this ‘desecration’ in the restored kingdom occured, neither the temple nor its’ alter were holy, and the very act of sacrificing anything was a further rejection of Christ. As far as swine’s flesh, the Lord had made it clear to Peter and expressed in greater detail through Paul that there was no longer anything unclean. To sacrifice at the alter was no different than a return to circumcision. As Paul said, there is neither Jew nor Gentile anymore. He who denies Christ will be denied by Christ; Jew and gentile are meaningless distinctions.

    The 70th week is split between the time of John the Baptist through pentacost, and the future ‘abomination that causes desolation’, which Christ foretold in the Gospels, is the second half of the 70th week. But if Christ destroyed the temple and is now in fact the Temple Himself, with those sanctified by His blood now residing in His spiritual body/kingdom, then the rebuilding of the temple on the temple mount will be the final rejection of Christ as the messiah, and the invitation for the world to worship God in His holy temple will be an invitation to the world, including Christians who will participate in mass, to participate in the final rebellion against God. I believe God took very seriously the sending of His only Son to become sin for a rebellious world. To think that rebuilding the temple and turning peoples attention to the days before this final sacrifice is going to please God is to be a forgetful hearer of God’s word. Christ can not be the temple and there also be a rebuilt temple; for that would set up two paths, or the illusion of two paths to God and a rejection of Christ’s testimony.

    As Christ became an ‘abomination’ in that He who is Holiness took upon Himself all the sins of mankind, and ‘desolation’ both terrible and eternal falls upon those who reject Him as the only sancuary from the wrath God, it follows then that the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem will be setting up a likeness of Christ for the purpose of leading the world to participate in the previous rejection of Christ. This likeness will be an ‘abomination’ standing where it should not be; because it took His crucifiction to remove it. Rebuilding King Solomon’s Temple seems so noble, how could it be deception? As far as referring to Christ as an abomination, does He not refer to Himself through His testimony as ‘Sin’? Do we not say, He who knew no sin became sin? If we truly saw what we poured out on the Holy One of God, what would we see? What would we say?

    It isn’t the temple they are going to rebuild, it will be Jericho; for the temple was a fortress to the gentile that stood between us and the Holiness of God.

    Well, we only know in part what we will one day fully know. I am content with that.

    Blessing in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

    Craig Jacobson

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      March 18, 2012 at 12:12

      Greetings Craig, and thanks again for reading and commenting on my blog.

      You use a lot of Scripture to support you idea, but the problem is your idea of Jesus being the “abomination of desolation” is not Scriptural. There is absolutely no support in the word of God for this claim. Moreover, you claim that the Temple and the Altar of God were unholy after Jesus was crucified and all sacrifices that were done there were a further rejection of Jesus. Yet, the Apostles taught daily in the Temple and even Paul decades later sacrificed there.

      You are making statements that are clearly unbiblical. Whether or not a Temple exists in Jerusalem has nothing to do with rejecting Jesus. Jesus taught in the Temple at Jerusalem as did the Apostles, and they sacrificed and worshiped there. Jesus called it his Father’s House, and a House of Prayer for all nations. Why would such a thing be an abominable to God?

      Lord bless you in the understanding of his word,

      Eddie

       
  5. Craig Jacobson

    March 13, 2012 at 18:51

    The abomination that causes desolation was set up outside the temple. It is the most cursed symbol of all creation for the full wrath of God was poured out on it and every sin in the history of mankind covered it, including the final rebellion of mankind that is yet to come; the rebuilding of the temple and making sacrafices to the God whom they rejected and crucified. The abomination of desolation is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, rejected, humilated and nailed to a cross and raised up on Golgatha for all the world to see. The wrath of God follows Christ through history and will eventually fall upon the anti-christ as he declares himself to be God and is worshipped by all but the elect. Yet we know Him as Savior and Lord for by his death and ressurection and blood we have been purchased for God. He is the Holy temple, as are we in whom He resides. But we will become a curse when we reject the new temple built by the hands of men and the New Jericho, I mean the New Jerusalem, no I mean the New Jericho; for they would lay the foundation with the First Born of God and it’s gates with those who refuse peace at the cost of rejecting sacrafice made once and for all. There is no greater abomination imaginable than the murder of God at the hands of those he created and sought to save–and yet He forgives us still. God is merciful!

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      March 14, 2012 at 06:50

      Greetings Craig, and thank you for reading my blog and taking an interest enough to leave a comment. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree with you in that Jesus is never referred to in Scripture as an “abomination”. The word is used four times in the NT, twice in the Olivet Prophecy of Matthew and Mark. There it speaks of the abomination of which Daniel spoke standing in the Holy Place or standing where it ought not to stand. This is hardly Jesus. Luke mentions the word, saying what is pleasing to men is abominable to God, Luke 16:15. Jesus is hardly pleasing to the world and is definitely not abominable to God. It is mentioned in Revelation 21:27 for the fourth and final time in the NT, showing that in the new Jerusalem which come down out of heaven from God shall contain nothing that works the abomination. Therefore, neither could this be Jesus.

      If we look into the OT we find that the first time abomination is mentioned in connection with Israel sinning is when Solomon began to worship foreign gods (1Kings 11:5). Israel never recovered from this sin. It began to destroy the nation immediately after Solomon’s death when the nation was divided in two. It was the sin that destroyed both kingdoms. It represents a national rebellion against God—a national abandonment of following him. It occurred again in the restored kingdom around the time of Antiochus Epiphanes when the high priests (the leaders of the nation) began to lead the nation away from God and into Hellenism, fully embracing the ways of the nations around them. This resulted in the king desecrating the Altar of God by sacrificing swine’s flesh upon it. In the NT it began to occur at the death of Stephen where the nation began rejecting Jesus and persecuting the Hellenist Messianics. Later, phase two occurred in the murder of James the brother of John in Acts 12 and the Apostles had to leave Jerusalem. The final phase of the national abandonment of Jesus as the Messiah occurred when James the brother of Jesus was killed by Ananias the high priest and son of Annas who had Jesus killed. Soon after this the Jews were at war with Rome and Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed.

      Lord bless you to the understanding of his word.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: