For a daily Bible reading listing for the year 2012:

1. Go to Grace Notes.

2. Click on Daily Bible Reading 2012 PDF link. You can download the file or read it online.

With this arrangement, you read the whole Bible in a year but in the chronological order of events.

For example, many of the Psalms are included with the readings for historical books, because they were written at the time of those events. Likewise, the writings of prophets are included with contemporary historical events.

You may make copies of this list or distribute it any way that you wish. I hope that all Christians will read the Bible through this year.

In grace,
Warren Doud

¹⁶ Now two women who were harlots [or possibly innkeepers] came to the king, and stood before him. ¹⁷ And one woman said, “O my lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house; and I gave birth while she was in the house. ¹⁸ Then it happened, the third day after I had given birth, that this woman also gave birth. And we were together; no one was with us in the house [or inn], except the two of us in the house.

So this was one woman’s word against another’s – no other evidence was available.

¹⁹ And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him. ²⁰ So she arose in the middle of the night and took my son from my side, while your maidservant slept, and laid him in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. ²¹ And when I rose in the morning to nurse my son, there he was, dead. But when I had examined him in the morning, indeed, he was not my son whom I had borne.”

The immediate shock of what appeared to be the death of her child might have kept her from carefully examining the baby, but later, more sober, in the morning light of day, she would notice the absence of those subtleties of appearance or manner which a mother might know.

²² Then the other woman said, “No! But the living one is my son, and the dead one is your son.” And the first woman said, “No! But the dead one is your son, and the living one is my son.” Thus they spoke before the king.

Either the story is true – and the circumstance of the two women being alone makes it the only possible explanation of how the woman could have the wrong baby and the baby was dead – or the story is a clever fabrication to get the other woman’s baby away from her.

If the first woman’s story is true, then the second woman has no genuine empathy or conscience, but did have envy toward the first woman for the second woman was careless in the care of her own child, and she cared not for the anguish she induced in the first woman, but was moved with envy and not conscience when she took her child. If the second woman’s story is true, then for the same reasons the first woman has no genuine empathy or conscience, but is motivated by envy. So the question is: which woman has empathy, and which woman has no empathy or conscience but is envious.

²³ And the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son, who lives, and your son is the dead one’; and the other says, ‘No! But your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one.’”

There is nothing in the stories themselves from which Solomon could render a verdict. A test was required.

²⁴ Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the king. ²⁵ And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to one, and half to the other.”

The word of the king is obeyed in fetching the sword. It is expected that the word will be obeyed to cut the child. There is no time to consider whether the king could be pulling a trick. The immediacy of the moment tests the character of the two women.

The woman with empathy would care most for the child’s life and would rather surrender the child though it is hers than cause the division which would kill her child. The envy of the woman with no empathy or conscience would be satisfied with the death of the child – what she least wants is for the other woman to have a child when she does not.

²⁶ Then the woman whose son was living spoke to the king, for she yearned with compassion for her son; and she said, “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” But the other said, “Let him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him.”

By the way they behave in this test, the women testify as to their own character, which reveals to Solomon what really happened. The empathy of the one woman is displayed, and the envy and lack of conscience is displayed in the other woman. The real mother might rather be considered a liar than that her child should be killed. The woman who lied might have a sense of sweet vengeance against the woman who took her to suit over the child and who would thereby expose her as a kidnapper and a liar.

Solomon’s wisdom was in knowing what to look for and how to devise a test which would give telling results.

²⁷ So the king answered and said, “Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him; she is his mother.”

The verdict is certain, for it was a true test of character.

²⁸ And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice.

People fear such discernment, wise judgment, and exact justice. The case was impossible to resolve without this test, but it was impossible to deny once the test was performed. Nobody wants to cross the wisdom of Solomon.

Solomon’s test presented a division which then revealed the true division. In human affairs, we must know how to divide and where to divide — which is the true meaning of judgment.

Ephesians 6:1-4

1. Children, obey. Why does the apostle use the word obey instead of honor, which has a greater extent of meaning? It is because Obedience is the evidence of that honor which children owe to their parents, and is therefore more earnestly enforced. It is likewise more difficult; for the human mind recoils from the idea of subjection, and with difficulty allows itself to be placed under the control of another. Experience shews how rare this virtue is; for do we find one among a thousand that is obedient to his parents? By a figure of speech, a part is here put for the whole, but it is the most important part, and is necessarily accompanied by all the others.

In the Lord. Besides the law of nature, which is acknowledged by all nations, the obedience of children is enforced by the authority of God. Hence it follows, that parents are to be obeyed, so far only as is consistent with piety to God, which comes first in order. If the command of God is the rule by which the submission of children is to be regulated, it would be foolish to suppose that the performance of this duty could lead away from God himself.

For this is right. This is added in order to restrain the fierceness which, we have already said, appears to be natural to almost all men. He proves it to be right, because God has commanded it; for we are not at liberty to dispute, or call in question, the appointment of him whose will is the unerring rule of goodness and righteousness. That honor should be represented as including obedience is not surprising; for mere ceremony is of no value in the sight of God. The precept, honor thy father and mother, comprehends all the duties by which the sincere affection and respect of children to their parents can be expressed.

2. Which is the first commandment with promise. The promises annexed to the commandments are intended to excite our hopes, and to impart a greater cheerfulness to our obedience; and therefore Paul uses this as a kind of seasoning to render the submission, which he enjoins on children, more pleasant and agreeable. He does not merely say, that God has offered a reward to him who obeys his father and mother, but that such an offer is peculiar to this commandment. If each of the commandments had its own promises, there would have been no ground for the commendation bestowed in the present instance. But this is the first commandment, Paul tells us, which God has been pleased, as it were, to seal by a remarkable promise. There is some difficulty here; for the second commandment likewise contains a promise, “I am the Lord thy God, who shew mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Ex 20:5 6).  But this is universal, applying indiscriminately to the whole law, and cannot be said to be annexed to that commandment. Paul’s assertion still holds true, that no other commandment but that which enjoins the obedience due by children to their parents is distinguished by a promise.

3. That it may be well with thee. The promise is— a long life; from which we are led to understand that the present life is not to be overlooked among the gifts of God. On this and other kindred subjects I must refer my reader to the Institutes of the Christian Religion; satisfying myself at present with saying, in a few words, that the reward promised to the obedience of children is highly appropriate. Those who shew kindness to their parents from whom they derived life, are assured by God, that in this life it will be well with them. And that thou mayest live long on the earth. Moses expressly mentions the land of Canaan, “that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Ex 20:12). Beyond this the Jews could not conceive of any life more happy or desirable. But as the same divine blessing is extended to the whole world, Paul has properly left out the mention of a place, the peculiar distinction of which lasted only till the coming of Christ.

4. And, ye fathers. Parents, on the other hand, are exhorted not to irritate their children by unreasonable severity. This would excite hatred, and would lead them to throw off the yoke altogether. Accordingly, in writing to the Colossians, he adds, “lest they be discouraged.” (Col 3:21). Kind and liberal treatment has rather a tendency to cherish reverence for their parents, and to increase the cheerfulness and activity of their obedience, while a harsh and unkind manner rouses them to obstinacy, and destroys the natural affections. But Paul goes on to say, “let them be fondly cherished;” for the Greek word, (ektrefete,) which is translated bring up, unquestionably conveys the idea of gentleness and forbearance. To guard them, however, against the opposite and frequent evil of excessive indulgence, he again draws the rein which he had slackened, and adds, in the instruction and reproof of the Lord. It is not the will of God that parents, in the exercise of kindness, shall spare and corrupt their children. Let their conduct towards their children be at once mild and considerate, so as to guide them in the fear of the Lord, and correct them also when they go astray. That age is so apt to become wanton, that it requires frequent admonition and restraint.

Colossians 3:20-21

20-21. Children, obey your parents. He enjoins it upon children to obey their parents, without any exception. But what if parents should feel disposed to constrain them to anything that is unlawful; will they in that case, too, obey without any reservation? Now it were worse than unreasonable, that the authority of men should prevail at the expense of neglecting God. I answer, that here, too, we must understand as implied what he expresses elsewhere, (Eph 6:1) —in the Lord. But for what purpose does he employ a term of universality? I answer again, that it is to shew, that obedience must be rendered not merely to just commands, but also to such as are [or seem] unreasonable. For many make themselves compliant with the wishes of their parents only where the command is not grievous or inconvenient. But, on the other hand, this one thing ought to be considered by children—that whoever may be their parents, they have been allotted to them by the providence of God, who by his appointment makes children subject to their parents. In all things, therefore, that they may not refuse anything, however difficult or disagreeable—in all things, that in things indifferent they may give deference to the station which their parents occupy—in all things, that they may not put themselves on a footing of equality with their parents, in the way of questioning and debating, or disputing, it being always understood that conscience is not to be infringed upon. He prohibits parents from exercising an immoderate harshness, lest their children should be so disheartened as to be incapable of receiving any honorable training; for we see, from daily experience, the advantage of a liberal education.

John Gill Commentary:

Ephesians 6:1-4

He begins with the duties of children to their parents, which are submission and obedience to them, honour, fear, and reverence of them; the arguments engaging thereunto are taken from the light of nature and reason, from the command of God, and the promise annexed to it. Then follow the duties of fathers to their children, who are exhorted not to use them with too much rigour, and so provoke them to wrath, but to bring them up in a religious manner, that they may serve the Lord.

Ver. 1. Children, obey your parents in the Lord. The persons whose duty this is, “children,” are such of every sex, male and female, and of every age, and of every state and condition; and though the true, legitimate, and immediate offspring of men may be chiefly respected, yet not exclusive of spurious [illegitimate] children, and adopted ones, and of children-in-law; and the persons to whom obedience from them is due, are not only real and immediate parents, both father and mother, but such who are in the room of parents, as step-fathers, step-mothers, guardians, nurses and all who are in the ascending line, as grandfathers, grandmothers to these, children should be subject and obedient in all things lawful, just, and good; in everything that is not sinful and unlawful, by the word of God; and in things indifferent, as much as in them lies, and even in things which are difficult to perform: and this obedience should be hearty and sincere, and not merely verbal, and in show and appearance, nor mercenary; and should be joined with gratitude and thankfulness for past favours: and it should be “in the Lord”; which may be considered either as a limitation of the obedience, that it should be in things that are agreeable to the mind and will of the Lord; or as an argument to it, because it is the command of the Lord, and is wellpleasing in his sight, and makes for his glory, and therefore should be done for his sake: for this is right; it appears to be right by the light of nature, by which the very Heathens have taught it; and it is equitable from reason that so it should be; and it is just by the law of God, which commands nothing but what is holy, just, and good.

Ver. 2. Honour thy father and mother. This explains who parents are, and points at some branches of obedience due unto them; for they are not only to be loved, and to be feared, and reverenced, their corrections to be submitted to, offenses against them to be acknowledged, their tempers to be bore with, and their infirmities covered; but they are to be honoured in thought, word, and gesture; they are to be highly thought of and esteemed; they are to be spoken to, and of, very honourably, and with great veneration and to be behaved to in a very respectful manner; and they are to be relieved, assisted, and maintained in comfortable way when aged, and in necessitous circumstances; and which may be chiefly designed. which is the first commandment with promise: it is the fifth commandment in the decalogue, but the first that has a promise annexed to it: it is reckoned by the Jews the weightiest of the weightiest commands of the law; and the reward bestowed on it, is length of days, as follows.

Ver. 3. That it may be well with thee. In this world, and that which is to come. The Jews say, “there are four things, which if a man does, he eats the fruit of them in this world, and the capital part remains for him in the world to come, and they are these: honouring father and mother, doing acts of beneficence, making peace between a man and his neighbour, and learning of the law, which answers to them all.” And thou mayest live long on the earth: length of days is in itself a blessing; and though men’s days cannot be lengthened beyond God’s purpose and decree; and though obedient children do not always live long; yet disobedience to parents often brings the judgments of God on children, so that they die not a common death, 2Sa 18:14; Pr 30:17.

Ver. 4. And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath. Neither by words; by unjust and, unreasonable commands; by contumelious and reproachful language; by frequent and public chidings, and by indiscreet and passionate expressions: nor by deeds; preferring one to another; by denying them the necessaries of life; by not allowing them proper recreation; by severe and cruel blows, and inhuman usage; by not giving them suitable education; by an improper disposal of them in marriage; and by profusely spending their estates, and leaving nothing to them: not but that parents may, and ought to correct and rebuke their children; nor are they accountable to them for their conduct; yet they should take care not to provoke them to wrath, because this alienates their minds from them, and renders their instructions and corrections useless, and puts them upon sinful practices; wrath lets in Satan, and leads to sin against God; and indeed it is difficult in the best of men to be angry and not sin. Fathers are particularly mentioned, they being the heads of families, and are apt to be too severe, as mothers too indulgent. But bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; instructing them in the knowledge of divine things, setting them good examples, taking care to prevent their falling into bad company, praying with them, and for them, bringing them into the house of God, under the means of grace, to attend public worship; all which, under a divine blessing, may be very useful to them; the example of Abraham is worthy of imitation, Ge 18:19, and the advice of the wise man deserves attention, Pr 22:6.

Colossians 3:20-21

Ver. 20. Children, obey your parents. Both father and mother. in all things; not in things sinful, which are contrary to the law of God, and Gospel of Christ; in things repugnant to the duties of religion, the ordinances of the Gospel, and the doctrines of Christ, parents are to be neglected and disobeyed. God is to be regarded, and not men; but in all things good and lawful, and in all things that are of an indifferent nature, which may, or may not be done, in these things the will of earthly parents is to be attended to; of which there is a considerable instance in the Rechabites, see Jer 35:6-10 and even they are to be obeyed in things that are hard and difficult to be complied with, and which are disagreeable to flesh and blood, as the cases of Isaac and Jephthah’s daughter show. For this is well pleasing unto the Lord; and is a reason sufficient to engage to the performance of the duty; for whatever is grateful and well pleasing to God ought to be done with pleasure by us, from a principle of love to him, by faith in him, and with a view to his glory; and then such an action is acceptable in his sight through Jesus Christ our Lord. The Alexandrian copy reads, “in the Lord”; and so the Vulgate Latin version.

Ver. 21. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged; or disheartened and dispirited; their spirits be broke through grief and trouble, and they become indolent, sluggish, and unfit for business; or, despairing of having any share in the affections of their parents, disregard their commands, instructions, and corrections, and grow obdurate, stubborn, and rebellious.

Alternate renderings:

If it’s a good idea, go ahead and do it. It is much easier to apologize than it is to get permission.

Don’t ask for permission when forgiveness is easier.

Better to say sorry than to ask permission.

Don’t waste your time caring about the needs of others, just do what you want. If they don’t like it, you can fix that by apologizing.

It is often used to describe risk takers — risk taker or someone who just wants to get his own way, consequences be damned.

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new skateboard. Then I realized, the Lord doesn’t work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

Yes! Unwilling sexual participants, here I come! Oh, and could you forgive me?

“I don’t give people respect, they earn it.” I’ve never met someone who lives by that phrase who didn’t turn out to be an as…..

Sometimes it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Break the rules if it is best for the team, then say “sorry.” Be accountable for results, not processes.

Notice that Admiral Hopper never commented on what is better, she just said what is easier.

There may be acts without formal permission which are nevertheless acceptable because of implicit permission. A little child has stepped out into traffic, the sign reads, “Don’t Walk,” but permission is implicitly given in the case of an emergency where waiting for the sign to change will further endanger the child’s life.

But we are talking about deliberate actions which require formal permission, where an act without formal permission is presumptuous. In such cases, because of the immense difficulty placed in the way of determining genuine repentance, forgiveness is much more difficult than permission ever could be. After a willful, lawless, and presumptuous act, repentance would be a mere convenience — a superficial dressing, a cloak to cover one’s ways — and anyone who would readily either seek or grant forgiveness would be diluting the meaning of forgiveness down to a meaningless formality. Genuine forgiveness is always free, but never cheap. Mere words cannot establish someone’s genuine repentance from a presumptuous act. Only a long period of hard labor in the direction of honor and respect can properly restore some level of confidence in a person who has violated the very foundations of confidence. Only a fool readily — if ever — puts the verbally repentant embezzler in charge of the accounts. Indeed, the genuinely repentant would neither seek nor accept such a charge. Anyone who would say that others will have to accept and thereby passively forgive his presumptuous act — they will have to live with it — displays the deep hardness of conscience of a thorough bully who holds in contempt anyone standing in the way of his desires.

The orderly and beautiful process of obtaining lawful permission is much easier than the hard, messy, and ugly business of obtaining genuine forgiveness for presumption.

Romans 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

13 “I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria:
They prophesied by Baal
And caused My people Israel to err.
14 Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem:
They commit adultery and walk in lies;
They also strengthen the hands of evildoers,
So that no one turns back from his wickedness.
All of them are like Sodom to Me,
And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.

15 “Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets:

‘Behold, I will feed them with wormwood,
And make them drink the water of gall;
For from the prophets of Jerusalem
Profaneness has gone out into all the land.’”

16 Thus says the LORD of hosts:

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you.
They make you worthless;
They speak a vision of their own heart,
Not from the mouth of the LORD.
17 They continually say to those who despise Me,
‘ The LORD has said, “You shall have peace”’;
And to everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart, they say,
‘No evil shall come upon you.’”

18 For who has stood in the counsel of the LORD,
And has perceived and heard His word?
Who has marked His word and heard it?
19 Behold, a whirlwind of the LORD has gone forth in fury—
A violent whirlwind!
It will fall violently on the head of the wicked.
20 The anger of the LORD will not turn back
Until He has executed and performed the thoughts of His heart.
In the latter days you will understand it perfectly.

21 “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran.
I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in My counsel,
And had caused My people to hear My words,
Then they would have turned them from their evil way
And from the evil of their doings.

23 “Am I a God near at hand,” says the LORD,
“And not a God afar off?
24 Can anyone hide himself in secret places,
So I shall not see him?” says the LORD;
“Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the LORD.

25 “I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in My name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’ 26 How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart, 27 who try to make My people forget My name by their dreams which everyone tells his neighbor, as their fathers forgot My name for Baal.

28 “The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream;
And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully.
What is the chaff to the wheat?” says the LORD.
29 “Is not My word like a fire?” says the LORD,
“And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?

30 “Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” says the LORD, “who steal My words every one from his neighbor. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets,” says the LORD, “who use their tongues and say, ‘He says.’ 32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” says the LORD, “and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all,” says the LORD.

33 “So when these people or the prophet or the priest ask you, saying, ‘What is the oracle of the LORD?’ you shall then say to them, ‘What oracle?’ I will even forsake you,” says the LORD. 34 “And as for the prophet and the priest and the people who say, ‘The oracle of the LORD!’ I will even punish that man and his house. 35 Thus every one of you shall say to his neighbor, and every one to his brother, ‘What has the LORD answered?’ and, ‘What has the LORD spoken?’ 36 And the oracle of the LORD you shall mention no more. For every man’s word will be his oracle, for you have perverted the words of the living God, the LORD of hosts, our God. 37 Thus you shall say to the prophet, ‘What has the LORD answered you?’ and, ‘What has the LORD spoken?’ 38 But since you say, ‘The oracle of the LORD!’ therefore thus says the LORD: ‘Because you say this word, “The oracle of the LORD!” and I have sent to you, saying, “Do not say, ‘The oracle of the LORD!’” 39 therefore behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you and forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and will cast you out of My presence. 40 And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.’”

The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention originally planned to use what has become the Holman Christian Standard Bible as a replacement for the NIV. They originally chose Arthur Farstad (who edited the New King James Version) as general editor. Edwin Blum replaced Farstad after Farstad’s death. The translation team had a large representation of Southern Baptists. The stated concern which motivated the translation was that modern Bible translations were conforming themselves to the culture and to political agendas, whereas culture and agendas should be conforming themselves to the Bible.

1. The textual basis of the HCSB is the Nestle-Aland Greek text. In my opinion, the N-A Greek text does not follow Biblical criteria for evaluating witnesses. From my point of view, this is a measurable defect.

2. The method of translation claims to strike a balance between Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence, using what it calls Optimal Equivalence. It marks with lower corner brackets many of the words which were added for sense or style. In practical terms, it tries to be less literal and more interpretive than an interlinear, but more literal and less interpretive than the NIV.

3. The English literary style of the HCSB is simplified English, both in structure and choice of vocabulary, though it does retain some theological vocabulary. It uses contractions, omits words and expressions which the editors thought were redundant, and substitutes nouns for pronouns or pronouns for nouns to remove ambiguity. Its English prose style is not proper and dignified, but it is perhaps a little more formal than conversational English. The translation is more gender-neutral than either the NASB or the NIV (but less than the TNIV).

The HCSB has a large number of footnotes which offer alternate translations or more literal translations of the text. There are also some marginal notes on different manuscript readings.

The HCSB is nicely formatted with paragraphing, poetic lining, bold quotations, italicized foreign words, descriptive headings, inter-marginal cross references, and bullet notes which explain certain words.

My overall impression is that the HCSB is a very readable but not a very quotable translation. I have found some places where, in my opinion, the translation was exceptionally good, and other places where it was not so very good. Overall, I do not think it represents a good literary standard for others — particularly students — to memorize and follow. I do appreciate very much the attempt (within the limits of the translation’s own presuppositions) to mark those words which were added for sense and style, and by supplying an abundance of more literal or alternate translations in the footnotes. But, in my opinion, it falls too far short on textual base, method of translation, and literary style. I wouldn’t make it my main English translation, but it may be worth keeping around for purposes of comparison.

Harvey Bluedorn

11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

The Word of God is a tool of discernment to determine the thoughts and intents of the heart. Scripture cuts both ways, and divides the spiritual from the non-spiritual.

Hebrews 5:11-14

11 of whom [Melchizedek] we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Spiritual maturity comes through becoming skilled in the Word of Righteousness by way of exercising and disciplining the human faculties of perception to discern and divide between good and evil – the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2 Timothy 2:14-18

14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing [literally: cutting straight, that is, handling accurately] the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.

The worker who cuts straight – handles accurately – the Word of Truth has nothing to be ashamed of, being approved by God. Scripture must be cut with Scripture – we cannot trust ourselves to accurately handle and interpret any part of Scripture apart from the remainder of Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete [literally: fully functional], thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture is God-breathed – it is living and active because it has the life of God breathed into it. Scripture is both necessary and sufficient to make a man of God fully functional and thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:12-21

12 For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. 13 Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, 14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease. 16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed [Literally: we {apostles} have a more firm / sure / certain prophetic word], which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures of the apostles are more firm, sure, certain than direct eye-witness visions and audible testimony from God. Scripture was not conveyed by man’s will through private interpretations of visions or the like, but the Scriptures were conveyed by the Holy Spirit through holy men.

2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16

1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, … 15 … as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught [literally: un-discipled] and unstable [/weak and unsteady] people twist [/literally: torture to make a false confession] to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

The apostles were self-aware that their epistles were Scripture, eventually to be distributed among all Christians. The Scriptures – particularly more difficult ones – can be tortured to say things which they do not mean, hence we must strive to be stable and steady in the Word.

Audio Treasure

King James

MP3Bible
George Sarris as narrator

Several versions

Bible Gateway

Spanish Bible

Bible Gateway
Spanish NT

Hebrew

Audio Scriptures International

Biblical Greek

CCEL

Well, I looked at John 18, and just like you said, I never even thought of non-resistance when I read it. I think you have to read it into the text before you can read it out of the text. On a second reading, I found three places where I might be able to read non-resistance into the text.

#1
John 18:10-11 “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”

I suppose the non-resistance interpretation would be that Peter should not have had a sword because Jesus had taught them not to defend themselves. But I don’t remember Jesus ever having taught them this — unless He did in Matthew 5:39, but I don’t think so. A man is not to pursue private revenge against someone who persecutes him for following Jesus — he is to patiently bear insult or injury on the lower scale of things — slap on the face, taking a tunic, walking a mile. But he may lawfully defend his life and protect himself from injuries and seek satisfaction from major injuries if necessary by appearing before the civil magistrate for a redress of grievances in order to protect, not only himself, but others in the community as well — indeed, it would be his duty to do so, and evil not to do so. We can compare this with passages in Luke and Matthew.

Luke 22:36-38 “Then He said to them, But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end. 38 So they said, Lord, look, here are two swords. And He said to them, enough.”

Here was the time for Jesus to object to swords. But instead He advised His disciples to buy swords, and did not object when they showed their swords. I don’t believe Jesus means to raise an army, but that His disciples will be traveling all over and will need the ordinary provisions including protection from assault (Luke 10:30), which was to carry a sword under their garment.

Matthew 26:51-54 “And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52 But Jesus said to him, Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

Peter had attempted to defend Jesus and the other apostles by attacking with one measly little sword the whole band which had come out fully armed against them. That’s imprudent, to say the least. It’s a good thing they didn’t choose to respond by slaughtering all of the apostles. But they had another purpose, and were restrained. Indeed, Jesus’ command for Peter to put away the sword may have restrained them from acting. Hence the proverb “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.” — that is, if you engage in sword play with others, then you place yourself in danger of the sword. In this case, were it not for other restraints, Peter’s actions would have invited a massacre. If you don’t believe me, just ask General Custer. Jesus’ words actually may have been meant for the band who came out against him, for that crew would later pick a fight with the Romans, and would themselves perish by the Roman sword in about forty years. Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever told a soldier or policeman to cease to be one. In fact, John the Baptist advised converted soldiers — who served essentially as policemen — to behave respectfully and lawfully.

Luke 3:14 “Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, And what shall we do? So he said to them, Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”

And Paul declared that lawful authorities lawfully bear the sword.

Romans 13:4 “For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”

#2
John 18:22-23 “And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Do You answer the high priest like that? 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?”

At first I thought this is a good example of RESISTANCE — Jesus is calling them to account for their unlawful actions. But then I thought, Well, since He didn’t call out an army of men or more than twelve legions of angels against these officers who struck Him, maybe this could be taken as NON-resistance. But that’s only if I want to find something here to support my own opinion.

#3
John 18:36-37 “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here. 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, Are You a king then? Jesus answered, You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

If the source of Jesus’ kingdom were this world — established on worldly principles, governed by worldly policies, pursuing worldly goals — then Christ would have gathered a worldly army, Judas would not have been allowed to betray Him, and He would not have allowed Himself to fall into the hands of Pilate. With this argument, Jesus convinces Pilate that He makes no claims to a worldly kingdom. So Jesus in this situation does not defend Himself with angelic armies or worldly armies. Why? Because this was His hour to die. He had mustered angelic and (willing or unwilling) human armies before in history. We Christians can neither promote nor defend Christ’s Kingdom with armies — by the very nature of the case. We couldn’t do it no matter how hard we tried. I cannot see what this has to do with individuals or nations defending themselves against calamitous or deadly evil. We might debate what the right course or the best course might be in any given situation, but neither Jesus nor the apostles absolutely eliminated the option of physical force in personal or national self-defense, in fact, they presume its propriety and necessity in many cases.

Harvey Bluedorn

Just a couple of suggestions:

Read aloud from a chronological Bible (helpful for understanding ancient history) — start at the beginning (skip the repetitive stuff)

Read from a daily devotional book like Spurgeon or J.C. Philpot (those are my 2 favorites)