Paul, in the last episode, Jim challenged you on your use of the word idle and how many

interpret the Bible literally or metaphorically.

Today's question is similar and it comes from Sandy who's reading everyday gospel.

Both Jim and Sandy were very respectful in their challenge and appreciative of your ministry

and writing, but they firmly disagree with you. Sandy's disagreement comes out of everyday gospel

in the May 24th entry where you wrote, without Esther, the Jewish people would have been

destroyed, and there would have been no birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, no righteous life of Jesus,

no substitutionary death, no victorious resurrection, and no ascension to the father to intercede

for his own. The world would have been trapped in sin and doomed with no hope. Sandy says, yes, you did

explain it in the next paragraph, but as you know, that comment is

definitely not true. What if somebody walks away with this as their last sentence? What if they think,

thanks to Esther, we have Jesus? We know that without Esther, God would have made another way.

Then could someone say, without Mary, there would be no birth of Jesus? Without

Judas, Jesus wouldn't have died. I always appreciate your writing and love the way you teach

biblical truths, but this one baffled me, so I would love to hear your thoughts. When you're

writing and you're speaking, you say things to get attention, and you say things to get attention

and you say things to make people think

and I'm glad that did that for this person who asked this question

because of the tension of it's my intention in those moments

to give you pause I don't mean that to be

inflammatory, but I think at times that's important. When I said that without Esther,

the Jewish people would have been destroyed and there would have been no birth

...