Thank you for playing Bible trivia today! i hope you had fun and enjoyed the quiz! Have a blessed day! ❤️

Would you hide me?
Are we being melodramatic? Regretfully, no. Antisemitic attacks have soared since Hamas committed the worst massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust. There was sympathy for Israel for maybe one day, but even before Israel retaliated, there was jubilation about the genocidal attack, and cries of “gas the Jews” in the streets of Europe and America.

When the Nazis carted Corrie Ten Boom and her sister off to the Ravensbrück concentration camp for the crime of helping Jews, their elderly father, Casper, was given the choice to stay at home if he would just promise not to hide any more Jewish people. Here’s what he told them, with no shame at all: “If I go home today, tomorrow I will open my door to anyone who knocks for help… It would be an honor to give my life for God’s chosen people.”

He and his family consistently helped Jewish people, and at one point he was even sternly warned about the dangers of protecting Jewish children by a clergyman. Casper Ten Boom explained, “You say we could lose our lives for this child. I would consider that the greatest honor that could come to my family.” We read in The Hiding Place what happened next: “The pastor turned sharply on his heels and walked out of the room. In the end, Casper ten Boom died in a prison cell, knowing he had done what was just in God’s eyes.”

Click here to read more: https://www.oneforisrael.org/would-you-hide-me-where-are-the-ten-booms-and-bonhoeffers/

“There was a man who had two sons.
And the younger of them said to his father,
‘Father, give me the share of property
that is coming to me’” (Luke 15:11–12).

The request was direct.
It was not framed as rebellion in loud terms.
But within the setting, it carried weight.

To ask for the inheritance
before the father’s death
was to treat what belonged to the future
as if it was already owed now.

The father responded.
He divided his property.
The younger son left.

The movement was outward.
He went to a far country.
He gathered. He spent.

The text was brief.
“He squandered his property
in reckless living” (Luke 15:13).

Then came the turning.
Not immediately. But through lack.
A famine arose. Resources were gone.
He began to be in need.

The one who left now found himself feeding pigs.

The contrast was not explained.
It was shown.
From sonship to survival.

Then the text gave a small phrase.

“But when he came to himself…” (Luke 15:17).

The realization was not dramatic.
It was practical.

There was more than enough
food in his father’s house.
Even the servants
were better off than he was.

So he prepared a return.
Not as a son. But as a servant.

“I am no longer worthy
to be called your son.
Treat me as one of your
hired servants” (Luke 15:19).

He moved back. The direction was reversed.
But before he arrived, the story shifted.

“While he was still a long way off,
his father saw him and felt compassion,
and ran and embraced him
and kissed him” (Luke 15:20).

The father moved first.
Before the speech was completed.
Before the terms were accepted.

The son returned
with a reduced identity in mind.

The father restored
before negotiation began.

Robe. Ring. Sandals.
Even a feast was prepared.

“For this my son was dead,
and is alive again;
he was lost,
and is found” (Luke 15:24).

At this point,
the story could have ended.
But it did not.

There was another lost son.

“And his older son was in the field…” (Luke 15:25).

He heard the music.
He asked what had happened.
He learned that his brother had returned.

And the text told us his response.

“He was angry
and refused to go in” (Luke 15:28).

The distance here was different.

The younger son
had been far in location.
But the older son
remained far in posture.

He spoke to the father.

“Look, these many years I have served you…
yet you never gave me a young goat…” (Luke 15:29).

The language revealed something.

He spoke of service, not relationship.
He spoke of earning, not belonging.

The father responded again.

“Son, you are always with me,
and all that is mine is yours” (Luke 15:31).

The same father.
The same house.
But two different distances.

One left and came back.
The other stayed
but remained outside.

That was where the meaning settled.

The parable was not only
about one son returning.

It was about two sons
who were both distant
in different ways.

One through rebellion.
The other through self-righteousness.
And one father who moved toward both.

He ran to the younger.
He came out to the older.
The initiative remained with him.

Reading the passage carefully,
the focus was not only
on the failure of the sons.

It was on the posture of the father.
He restored without delay.
He invited without force.

Theologically, the parable
did not divide people
into those who were lost
and those who were found.

It showed that both sons
stood in need of the same grace.

And that grace was not earned
by leaving or by staying.
It was received by coming in.

The story ended without resolution.
The older son was still outside.
The invitation remained open.

And that was where the parable pointed forward.

Because later, Jesus Himself
would stand as the one
who brings the lost home.

Not only those who wandered far,
but also those who remained near
without entering in.

Two sons. Both lost.
One father. Still waiting.
Still receiving. Still inviting both to come inside.

~Undaunted Disciple

Highways (3)

How blessed is the man whose strength is in You,
In whose heart are the highways to Zion!

Psalm 84:5

"Angels"

Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
Hebrews 1:14