Biblical Commentary        
Acts
2:3
7-40
Acts 2:37
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the
rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  (KJV)


Those Jews who had gathered from various nations to worship in Jerusalem on the Day of
Pentecost were touched in their hearts. They realized that the things Peter had said were true.
They had cried out, at the time of the Passover, for the blood of Jesus. This Man, whom they
had asked to be killed, had performed many wondrous miracles. This Man had fulfilled the
prophecies of David in His death, His resurrection and His ascension. This Man was indeed
the Messiah, the Christ. This Man was the Savior of the world. And they had had Him killed.
They had blood upon their hands, and their consciences.


What can they do to get rid of this guilt? What can they do to make this enormous wrong go
away? How can they now come before God with a clear and clean conscience? Men and
brethren, what shall we do?


Acts 2:38-39
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the
promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call.  (KJV)


In answer to their question, Peter’s answer is twofold, Repent, and be baptized every one of
you. There was not one thing for them to do, there was more than that. They needed to
change their mind and change their standing with God. Repent in its full import calls for a
change of mind which results in a change of action. Baptized (or more properly, immersed)
in its full import creates a change in their standing before God. This is a personal
responsibility – every one of you. It does not vary from person to person. All must do the
same thing. And, they must do it for themselves.


Pardon is the chief want of the human soul, in its most favorable earthly circumstances.
The rebel against God's government, though he lay down his arms and becomes a loyal
subject, can have no hope of happiness without pardon for the past; while the pardoned
penitent, humbly struggling in the service of God, knows himself still guilty of shortcomings,
by which he must fail of the final reward, unless pardoned again and again. The question as
to what are the conditions of pardon, therefore, necessarily divides itself into two; one
having reference to the hitherto-unpardoned sinner, the other to the saint who may have
fallen into sin. It is the former class who propounded the question to Peter, and it is to them
alone that the answer under consideration was given. We will confine ourselves, in our
present remarks, to this branch of the subject, and discuss it only in the light of the
passage before us.


If we regard the question of the multitude, What shall we do? as simply a question of duty
under their peculiar circumstances, without special reference to final results, we learn
from the answer that there were two things for them to do--Repent, and be immersed. If
Peter had stopped with these two words, his answer would have been satisfactory, in this
view of the subject, and it would have been the conclusion of the world, that the duty of a
sinner, "pierced to the heart" by a sense of guilt, is to repent and be immersed.


But if we regard their question as having definite reference to the salvation of which Peter
had already spoken (Ac 2:21), and their meaning, What shall we do to be saved? then the
answer is equally definite: it teaches that what a sinner thus affected is to do to be saved, is
to repent and be immersed.


From these two observations, the reader perceives, that so far as the conditions of
salvation from past sins are concerned, the duty of the sinner is most definitely taught by
the first two words of the answer, taken in connection with their question, without entering
upon the controversy concerning the remainder of the answer. If it had been Peter's design
merely to give an answer in concise terms, without explanation, no doubt he would have
confined it to these two words, for they contain the only commands which he gives.
But he saw fit to accompany the two commands with suitable explanations. He qualifies the
command to be immersed by the clause, "in the name of Jesus Christ," to show that it is
under his authority that they were to be immersed, and not merely under that of the Father,
whose authority alone was recognized in John's immersion. That we are right in referring
to this limiting clause, "in the name of Jesus Christ," to the command to be immersed, and
not to the command repent, is evident from the fact that it would be incongruous to say,
"Repent in the name of Jesus Christ."


Peter further explains the two commands, by stating their specific design; by which term
we mean the specific blessing which was to be expected as the consequence of
obedience. It is "for the remission of sins." To convince an unbiased mind that this clause
depends upon both the preceding commands, and express their design, it would only be
necessary to repeat the words, "Repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins." But, inasmuch as it has suited the purpose of some
controversialists to dispute this proposition, we here give the opinions of two recent
representative commentators, who can not be suspected of undue bias in its favor.
Dr. Alexander (Presbyterian) says, "The whole phrase, to (or toward) remission of sins,
describes this as the end to which the multitude had reference, and which, therefore, must
be contemplated in the answer." Again: "The beneficial end to which all this led was the
remission of sins."


Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: "eiv afesin amartiwn, in
order to the forgiveness of sins (Mt 26:28; Lu 3:3), we connect, naturally, with the both the
preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to
repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion
of the other."


The connection contended for can not be made more apparent by argument; it needs only
that attention be called to it, in order to be perceived by every unbiased mind. It is possible
that some doubt might arise in reference to the connection of the clause with the term
repent, but one would imagine that its connection with the command be immersed could
not be doubted, but for the fact that it has been disputed. Indeed, some controversialists
have felt so great necessity for denying the last-named connection, as to assume that the
clause, "for the remission of sins" depends largely upon the term repent, and that the
connection of thought is this: "Repent for the remission of sins, and be immersed in the
name of Jesus Christ." It is a sufficient refutation of this assumption to remark, that, if
Peter had intended to say this, he would most certainly have done so; but he has said
something entirely different; and this shows that he meant something entirely different. If
men are permitted, after this style, to entirely reconstruct the sentences of inspired
apostles, then there is no statement in the Word of God which may not be perverted. We
dismiss this baseless assumption with the remark, that it has not been dignified by the
indorsement of any writer of respectable attainments, known to the author, and it would not
be noticed here, but for the frequency of its appearance in the pulpit, in the columns of
denominational newspapers, and on the pages of partisan tracts.


The dependence of the clause, "for the remission of sins," upon both the verbs repent and
be immersed, being established, it would seem undeniable that remission of sins is the
blessing in order to the enjoyment of which they were commanded to repent and be
immersed. This is universally admitted so far as the term repent is concerned, but by many
denied in reference to the command be immersed; hence the proposition that immersion is
for the remission of sins is rejected by the Protestant sects in general. Assuming that
remission of sins precedes immersion, and that, so far as adults are concerned, the only
proper subjects for this ordinance are those whose sins are already pardoned, it is urged
that for in this clause means "on account of" or "because of." Hence, Peter is understood
to command, "Repent and be immersed on account of remission of sins already enjoyed."
But this interpretation is subject to two insuperable objections. 1st. To command men to
repent and be immersed because their sins were already remitted, is to require them not
only to be immersed on this account, but to repent because they were already pardoned.
There is no possibility of extricating the interpretation from this absurdity. 2d. It contradicts
an obvious fact of the case. It makes Peter command the inquirers to be immersed
because their sins were already remitted, whereas it is an indisputable fact that their sins
were not yet remitted. On the contrary, they were still pierced to the heart with a sense of
guilt, and by the question they propounded were seeking how they might obtain the very
pardon which this interpretation assumes that they already enjoyed. Certainly no sane man
would assume a position involving such absurdity, and so contradictory to an obvious fact,
were he not driven to it by the inexorable demands of a theory which could not be otherwise
sustained.


We observe, further, in reference to this interpretation, that even if we admit the propriety
of supplanting the preposition for by the phrase on account of, the substitute will not
answer the purpose for which it is employed. The meaning of this phrase varies, according
as its object is past or future. "On account of" some past event may mean because it has
taken place; but on account of an event yet in the future, would, in the same connection,
mean in order that it might take place. The same is true of the equivalent phrase, "because
of." If, then, the parties addressed by Peter were already pardoned, "on account of the
remission of sins" would mean, because their sins had been remitted. But as this is an
indisputable fact that the parties addressed were yet unpardoned, what they are
commanded to do on account of remission of sins must mean, in order that their sins may
be remitted. Such a rendering, therefore, would not even render the obvious meaning of the
passage less perspicuous than it already is.


It will be found that any other substitute for the preposition for, designed to force upon the
passage a meaning different from that which it obviously bears, will as signally fail to suit
the purpose of its author. If, with Dr. Alexander, we render, Repent and be immersed "to (or
toward) remission of sins," we still have remission both beyond repentance and
immersion, and depending upon them as preparatory conditions. Indeed, this rendering
would leave it uncertain whether repentance and immersion would bring them to remission
of sins, or only toward it, leaving an indefinite space yet to pass before obtaining it.
If, with others still--for every effort that ingenuity could suggest has been made to find
another meaning for this passage--we render it, Repent and be immersed unto or into
remission of sins, the attempt is fruitless; for remission of sins is still the blessing unto
which or into which repentance and immersion are to lead the inquirers.
Sometimes the advocates of these various renderings, when disheartened by the failure of
their attempts at argument and criticism, resort to raillery, and assert that the whole
doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins depends upon the one little word for in the
command, "be immersed for the remission of sins." If this were true, it would be no
humiliation; for a doctrine based upon a word of God, however small, has an eternal and
immutable foundation. But it is not true. On the contrary, you may draw a pencil-mark over
the whole clause, "for the remission of sins," erasing it, with all the remainder of Peter's
answer, and still the meaning will remain unchanged. The connection would then read thus:
"Brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be immersed every one
of you in the name of the Lord Jesus." Remembering now that these parties were pierced
to the heart with a sense of guilt, and that their question means, What shall we do to be
saved from out sins? the answer must be understood as the answer to that question. But
the answer is, Repent and be immersed; therefore, to repent and to be immersed are the
two things which they must do in order to be saved from their sins.


The reader now perceives, that, in this first announcement to sinners of the terms of
pardon, so guardedly has Peter expressed himself, and so skillfully has Luke interwoven
with his words the historic facts, that whatever rendering men have forced upon the
leading term, the meaning of the whole remains unchanged; and even when you strike this
term and its dependent words out of the text, that same meaning still stares you in the face.
The fact is suggestive of more than human wisdom. It reminds us that Peter spoke, and
Luke wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That infinite wisdom which was dictating
a record for all time to come is displayed here, providing for future controversies which no
human being could anticipate. Like the sun in the heavens, which may be temporarily
obscured by clouds, but will still break forth again, and shine upon all but those who hide
from his beams, the light of truth which God has suspended in this passage may be
dimmed for a moment by the mists of partisan criticism, but to those who are willing to see
it, it will still send out its beams, and guide the trembling sinner unerringly to pardon and
peace.


If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the
words eiv afesin amartiwn, for the remission of sins, when connected with the term
immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term,
and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection
suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its
meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant,
shed for many for the remission of sins," eiv afesin amartiwn. It is impossible to doubt that
the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object
for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the
object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical
construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to
repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood
of Jesus was shed. The propitiation through his blood was in order to the offer of pardon,
while repentance and immersion are enjoined by Peter upon his hearers, in order to the
attainment of pardon.


The careful reader will have observed that in stating the conditions of remission of sins to
the multitude, Peter says nothing about the necessity of faith. This omission is not
sufficiently accounted for by the fact that faith is implied in the command to repent and be
immersed; for the parties now addressed were listening to the terms for the first time, and
might fail to perceive this implication. But the fact is, that they did already believe, and it
was a result of their faith, that they were pierced to the heart, and made to cry out, What
shall we do? This Peter perceived, and therefore it would have been but little less than
mockery to command them to believe. It will be observed, throughout the course of
apostolic preaching, that they never commanded men to do what they had already done, but
took them as they found them, and enjoined upon them only that which they yet lacked of
complete obedience. In the case before us, Peter was not laying down a complete formula
for the conditions of pardon; but was simply informing the parties before him what they
must do in order to the remission of their sins. Being believers already, they must add to
their faith repentance and immersion.


Before dismissing this topic, we must remark that the doctrine of immersion for the
remission of sins does not assume that immersion is the only condition of remission, but
simply that, it is one among three conditions, and the last of the three. Administered
previous to faith and repentance, as in the case of infants, it is not only absolutely
worthless, but intensely sinful.


        J.W. McGarvey


As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.


A man first thinks about what he is going to do, then he does it. If the mind is preoccupied with
the will of God, that is what the man will do. As his mind is transformed by the will of God, so
will his action show what God's will is. The mind of the man who would change must realize
that it is not to this world he is to conform, but the will of God (the Holy Bible) which is to
transform him into something better, something nobler, something more spiritual — a living
sacrifice.


Repentance means quitting the bad habits, but also creating new good habits. Too often, we
think of repentance in terms of what shouldn't be done, and what has to be quit. It's all "Thou
shalt not's" and no 'Thou shalts." However, Christianity is not a religion of quitting, it is a
religion of doing. Sure, there are things that are not to be done; but, there are also things which
should and must be done. It is not passive, it is active.


Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the tones of
refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord- and he shall send Jesus Christ, which
before was preached unto you: whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of
all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
[Acts-.19-21]


This change of action is not optional. You either change your ways, or you pay the price. Your
choice.


And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now be commands all men everywhere to
repent: because he has appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness
by that man whom he has ordained, giving assurance to all men, in that be raised him from the
dead. [Acts 17:30-31]


Repenting is not difficult. It is a decision that you follow through on. You decide, "I'm not going
to let my anger get the better of me; I am going to control it." And, do it. You say, I am not going
to lie; I am going to tell the truth." And, do it. You say, "I am not going to steal; I am going to
work." And, do it. It is not that difficult. You have help. You have the help of Jesus. You have the
help of God. You have the help of fellow Christians. But, you are the one who makes the
determination to do it. You are the one who makes it work.


They needed to be baptized (immersed) by the authority of Jesus for the remission of sins.  
This phrase is sued by Jesus in ordaining the Lord's Supper as He spoke about His blood
being shed for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28).  For the remission of sins indicates that
what comes before it is necessary for the remission of sins to be received.  Remission of sins
is not possible without the blood of Jesus being shed.  It is His blood that washes away our
sins.  Remission of sins is also not possible without baptism (immersion).  It is where the
blood of Jesus washes away our sins.


Barton W. Stone was a preacher of prominence in the Great Awakening, a charismatic
movement that took place before, during and after the American Revolution.  It was their
common practice to call people to the altar, and have them pray for their salvation, which was
indicated by a manifestation of the Spirit in what they called exercises.  On one occasion, a
gentleman of unquestionable passion zeal and fervor came forward to pray.  Stone prayed with
him and for him for quite a while; but, no manifestation occurred.  Stone said that no one could
question the passion, zeal and desire of the man who had come forward.  Neither could
anyone question that God wished that this man would be saved, for he is not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  Therefore something must be wrong.  
Perhaps it was that they had asked the gentlemen to do something different than that which
Peter had commanded on the day of Pentecost.  For Peter told them to merely repent and be
baptized.


Baptism must be done by the authority of Jesus, or in His name. Compare what Peter says
here and Acts 4:7-12. There is no formula or magic words that must be said when someone is
baptized.


(Acts 4:7-12) And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by
what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye
rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done
to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all
the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified,
whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the
corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven
given among men, whereby we must be saved.  (KJV)


The gift of the Spirit would be dispensed to them after they repented and were baptized by the
laying of the apostles’ hands. See Acts 8:14-20. That is the only way that spiritual gifts were
transferred other than the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, and the Spirit falling
upon the household of Cornelius.


(Acts 8:14-20) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had
received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come
down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen
upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they
their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through
laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying,
Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the
gift of God may be purchased with money.  (KJV)


The “gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38b) is firmly held to be a reference to miraculous gifts
typically received through prayer and by imposition of an apostle’s hands upon a Christian
in the first century. Brother Franklin Camp astutely observed that the word “gift” is used,
referring to the Holy Spirit, in Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17 and Ephesians 3:7; 4:7. Further,
the reference to “gift” in the latter five instances is admittedly miraculous. “Does it not
strike you as being strange that the word ‘gift’ is used six times in the passages that refer
to the Holy Spirit, and that five of them are miraculous and one non-miraculous?” (Franklin
Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit, Robertson & Son, 1974; p. 137). http://www.
gospelgazette.com/gazette/2013/may/page2.html


…gift of the Holy Spirit, I do not believe that it is a reference to what is commonly called a
non-miraculous indwelling. …I do reject the idea that some have that the gift of the Holy
Spirit, which one receives when baptized, operates in him and leads and directs him
separately and apart from the truth. This latter position can only end in one following his
feelings and moods rather than the Word of God. This position would lead one in any
direction and his subjective feelings become the standard, rather than the Bible. …I believe
that the Scriptures teach that the gift of the Holy Spirit refers to miraculous endowments
that belonged to the period when these miraculous gifts were for the purpose of confirming
the apostles of Christ as His apostles and providing the church with inspiration through
these gifts that came through the laying on of the hands of an apostle. (Franklin Camp, Ibid.
p. 130-131)


The miraculous gifts ceased with the completion of the New Testament.


(1 Corinthians 13:8-13) Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall
fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall
vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect
is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.  When I was a child, I spake as a
child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away
childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know
in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity,
these three; but the greatest of these is charity.  (KJV)


(Ephesians 4:11-16) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work
of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro,
and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up
into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined
together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual
working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of
itself in love.  (KJV)


For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many
as the Lord our God shall call.


And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this
untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same
day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:39-42 KJV)


“The promise” is “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Those who
would rely upon His authority, those who would rely upon His work, those who would rely upon
His sacrifice, those who would follow His commands, shall be saved. This is the promise of
God to you (the Jews on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem so long ago), and to your children
(to all who are the descendants of those Jews), and “all that are afar off” (the Gentiles).

Whoever God shall call with the gospel. Whoever God shall call with His word. Whosoever will,
may come. This is not a promise for one day and time, but is the promise of God until the end
of time.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the
glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 KJV)


And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him
that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify
unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if
any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written
in this book.  (Revelation 22:17-19 KJV)


“Whosoever heareth,” shout, shout the sound!
Spread the blessed tidings all the world around;
Spread the joyful news wherever man is found;
“Whosoever will may come.”
“Whosoever will, whosoever will,”
Send the proclamation over vale and hill;
’Tis a loving Father, calls the wanderer home:
“Whosoever will, may come.”
Whosoever cometh need not delay,
Now the door is open, enter while you may;
Jesus is the true, the only Living Way;
“Whosoever will may come.”
“Whosoever will, whosoever will,”
Send the proclamation over vale and hill;
’Tis a loving Father, calls the wanderer home:
“Whosoever will, may come.”
“Whosoever will,” the promise secure,
“Whosoever will,” forever must endure;
“Whosoever will,” ’tis life forevermore:
“Whosoever will may come.”
“Whosoever will, whosoever will,”
Send the proclamation over vale and hill;
’Tis a loving Father, calls the wanderer home:
“Whosoever will, may come.”
        Philip P. Bliss


Peter said more that day, but what it was we do not know. Its jest, however, was ”Save
yourselves from this untoward generation.”


God had done His part in the salvation of man. Jesus had done His part in the salvation of
man. The Holy Spirit had done His part in the salvation of man. Now it was up to man to do his
part. God had provided His Son. Jesus had provided His sacrifice. The Holy Spirit had provided
the message and signs which they saw before them this day. Now, they needed to “repent and
be baptized.” They needed to be obedient to all things Jesus taught. In doing so they would
save themselves in the same manner that a man saves himself by grasping ahold of the rope
that is thrown to him when drowning. If he did not grasp the rope, he would die. If we will not
come in faith to God through Jesus, we will die in our sins.


(40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from
this untoward generation.


The term testify refers to the argumentative portion of his discourse; and the term exhort to
the horatory portion. The latter naturally and logically followed his statement of the
conditions of pardon, and the substance of it is compressed by Luke into the words, "Save
yourselves from this untoward generation." The command to save themselves must sound
quite strange in the ears of such modern theorists as affirm that men have no ability to do,
or say, or think any thing tending to their own salvation. But this only shows how far they
have departed from apostolic speech and thought. Peter had proposed conditions of
pardon which they could comply with, and now their salvation depended upon their
compliance with these conditions. When they complied with them, they saved themselves.
To be saved from that untoward generation was not, as the conceit of Universalists would
have it, to escape the siege of Jerusalem; for the great mass of them escaped that, by
dying a natural death before it took place. It was to escape the fate which the mass of that
generation were destined to meet in eternity, on account of their sins.
        J.W. McGarvey

Members Home Page

Audio Books

Audio Lessons

Commentary

Fundamental Archive

Jokes, Quotes & Illustrations Archive

Links

Photos of Bible Lands

Pillar of Truth Monthly

Questions & Answers Archive

Remarks on Righteousness Archive

Speak as the Oracles Archive

Speak as the Oracles Weekly

Video Lessons
321BibleStudy.net
Home

Remarks on Righteousness

Lessons & Quizzes

About Us

Fundamentals of Faith

Salvation in Christ

The church of Christ

Audio Bible

Jokes, Quotes & Illustrations

Questions & Answers

Calendar of Events

Church Directory

Members Section & Sign-up