Tamar And Judah

Matthew 1:3a, And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Tamar. ~ It is a peculiar thing, indeed, that Matthew would list not one, but five women in the genealogy of Christ. 1). Thamar (Tamar), see here, cf Genesis ch 38;  2). Rachab (Rahab), ch1:5 cf Joshua 2:1–3; 6:23–28;  3). Ruth, ch 1:5, cf  O.T. book of Ruth;  4). Wife of Urias (Uriah), ch1:6 cf 2Samuel ch 11;  5). Mary, ch1:16–23, cf Luke 1:26-56. I have already pointed out Matthew’s concern with the number five. Five is the number of grace. Each one of these women have their own stories to tell, each account is in respect to the grace of God. Of the five, three were “strangers” (non-Israelites), one was a harlot, one guilty of incest, one an adulteress. They all found their salvation in the child of the fifth. I will address each narrative in turn. But here it would be good to look at the particular circumstances surrounding Judah's relationship with Tamar. We read Tamar’s story in Genesis ch 38. Tamar was the wife of Judah’s oldest son, Er. Er was an ungodly man and the LORD slew him. According to the custom of Levirate marriage (brother-in-law marriage) if a man dies before he has produced an heir his brother is expected to marry the wife of the dead man and raise up a seed to his dead brother. In this circumstance the child would be considered the offspring of the deceased brother and would assure that his name and inheritance continued in Israel. According to the law of the levirate marriage Judah gave Tamar his second son, Onan. But Onan refused to impregnate Tamar for he knew the potential son would not be his but his dead bothers’. So during sexual relations, Onan would pull out just before ejaculation and spill his seed upon the ground. This thing displeased God, so He slew Onan as well. Judah had one other son, named Shelah who was but a child. He promised Shelah to Tamar as soon as he became a man. Fully expecting Judah to keep his word, Tamar went home to her father’s house and waited for Shelah to grow up. But Judah was disrespectful to Tamar and withheld his third son from her. It came about that Judah’s wife died; after a time of mourning, Judah, accompanied by his friend, Hirah, went “unto his sheepshearers to Timnath”. Upon learning of this Tamar put off her widow’s garments and dressed in a veil and other wrappings and went to a visible place on the road to Timnath; there she pitched a tent and presented herself as a prostitute. Judah approached the tent and requested her services. He did not recognize her as his daughter-in-law because she was veiled. During the negotiations concerning the price, Judah promised to send her a kid from the flocks. She required a pledge of something of value that she would hold until the promise kid was sent to her. In fulfilling her request, Judah gave her his signet ring, bracelet, and staff. He fully expected to receive these back when the kid was delivered from his flocks. Upon arriving at his flocks, Judah kept his word and sent a kid back to the prostitute by the hand of Hirah. But, arriving at the spot to which Judah directed him, Hirah found no tent, and no prostitute. Tamar was gone. Judah was willing to say no more about it, and made nothing more of the issue. In the meantime, Tamar had returned to her father’s house and put back on her widow’s garments. However, in three months time, her pregnancy begin to show. She had conceived by her encounter with Judah. It was reported to Judah that she was with child. Upon hearing of this, Judah became very angry and threaten to have her burned alive for getting pregnant outside of wedlock. She was brought before Judah, and demanded to reveal the name of the man by whom she was with child. At this time she produced the signet ring, the bracelet, and the staff that Judah had deposited with her. When Judah saw these, he admitted to his deed, and confessed that Tamar had been more righteous than himself. There is unrighteousness displayed on both sides of this event. On Judah's side is the truth that he had lied to Tamar and withheld from her his son, which was her right to claim. As to Tamar’s sin, she knowingly had carnal knowledge with her father-in-law, which was strictly forbidden by the Law of Moses (Lev 18:15). This was a form of incest. This created an issue for these children (Grk, Phares/Zara; Heb, Pharez/Zarah), and their descendants for ten generation: the Law stated that “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation, shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD” (Deut 23:2). Jesse could not go, Obed could not go, Boaz could not go. This unhappy situation endured in this pedigree up to the birth of David the king. David's generation was the first in this lineage from Pharez to be able to participate in the full religious life of the nation. (This gives tremendous insight into David’s enthusiasm for the house of the LORD (See Ps 122:1, “I was glad when they said unto me, let us go into the house of the LORD.”) This was Tamar’s doing, and, yet, here she is in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Although Yahweh, Himself, had established the tabernacle and its apparatus of worship, He chose to bring the bloodline of the Savior of the world through these ten generations of outcasts who could not participate in that tabernacle worship that He, Himself, had ordained. There are many within the faith that have backslidden from their former standing in the Kingdom (but have not denied the faith), and are, or seem to be, unwelcome in the house of God. We should not discount them, for God may have a plan that He is working through them even in their state of disfavor. The grace of God is scandalous! 

Apostolically Speaking,

Bp. J. L. Hayes 

TABLE OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FOR BISHOP JERRY L HAYES (Jerusalem/Celtic/Anglican Lineage)

 

TABLE OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FOR BISHOP JERRY L HAYES

(Jerusalem/Celtic/Anglican Lineage)

It has already been mentioned that the Apostolic Orthodox Church Inter- national is in possession of fourteen separate lines of apostolic succession. However, only two are given in this book. In the last chapter we reviewed the Antioch Orthodox Succession; here, in this chapter, we review the Jerusalem/Celtic/Anglican lineage.

This line of apostolic succession begins with the Patriarchs of Jerusalem—starting with James the half brother of Christ, and coming down to John III, who consecrated the Celt, David of Wales, as Archbishop of the British Isles. We then follow this Celtic line until it translates into the Anglican in 1414 when Henry Chichele, the Archbishop of St David’s becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury. From then we follow the Anglican to the present.

1. James the Just (30 to 62) Consercrated bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles. The half brother of Christ. The Roman Catholic suggestion that this James is the apostle, James the Less, is untrue. It was important to this group (Roman Catholic) to deny any other children to Mary, because of their “Ever Virgin” doctrine. However, most all scholars are agreed that this James (whom the Apostles recognized as the Bishop of the Jerusalem Church) was the brother of our Lord. Though it is thought by most that he was not a follower of Christ before the crucifixion, it is obvious that he became a believer shortly thereafter. Because of his association with the apostles, and their deferance to him at the Jerusalem council, one can hardly deny his apostolic office and authority. James was martyred in Jerusalem.

2. SimeonI(62-107

3. JustusI(107-112)

4. Zacchaeus(112-116)

5. Todias(?)

6. BenjaminI(?-117)

7. JohnI(117-119)

8. MatthewI(119-120

9. Philip (?- 124)

10. Senecas (?)
11. Justus II (?)
12. Levi (?)
13. Ephraim I (?)
14. Joseph I (?)
15. Judas (?-134)
16. Mark (134-156)
17. Cassianos (?)
18. Pouplios (?)
19. Maximos I (?)
20. Julian I (?)
21. Gaius I (?)
22. Symmachus (?)
23. Gaius II (?)
24. Julian II or Valens (?) 

25. Maximus II (?)
26. Antonias (?)
27. Capion (?)
28. Valius (?)
29. Dolichianos (?-185)

30. Narcissus (185-212) 

31. Dios (?)

32. Germanion (?)
33. Gordios (?)

34. Alexander (213-251) 

35. Nazabanus (251-266) 

36. Hymeneus (266-298) 

37. Zambdas (298-300)
38. Herman (302-312)
39. Macerius I (312-335) 

40. Maximus III (335- 350) 

41. Cyril (350-386)

42. John II (386-417) 43. Praylius (417-422) 

44. Juvenal (422-458) 45. Anastasius (458-478) 

46. Martyrius (478-486) 47. Sallust (486-493)

48. Elias I (493-516) 49. John III (516-523)

Up to this point we have followed the lineage of the Jerusalem bishops. At some point between the year of our Lord 516 and 523 His Holiness John III, Patriarch of Jerusalem, concercrated David of Wales as Metro- polatian Archbishop of the British Isles. (Rhygyfarch's Life of Saint David c. 1090. states Saint David was anointed as an archbishop by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, a position confirmed at the Synod of Llanddewi Brefi by popular acclaim. “Then, blessed and extolled by the mouth of all, he is with the consent of all the bishops, kings, princes, nobles, and all grades of the whole Britannic race, made archbishop, and his monastery too is declared the metropolis of the whole country, so that whoever ruled it should be accounted archbishop.”)

The church of Wales was British, and therefore Celtic. The church of Archbishop David was the church of the British Isles encountered by Rome’s Augustine, when arriving at Canterbury from Rome in 597. Hence, the Celtic church of the British Isles has apostolic succession from Jerusalem.

50. David of Wales (516-569)

51. Cynog (569-?)

52. Tello (?)

53. Ceneu (?)

54. Morfael (?)

55. Haernynin (?)

56. Elwaed (?)

57. Gurnuru (?)

58. Llunwerth I (?)

59. Gwrgwst (?)

60. Gwrgan (?)

61. Clydog (?)

62. Einion (?)

63. Elfodd (?-809)

64. Ethelman (809-?)

65. Elaunc (?)

66. Maelsgwyd (?)

67. Sadyrnfyw the Generous (?-831)

68. Cadell (831-?)

69. Sulhaithnay (/-841)

70. Nodis (841-873)

71. Idwal (873- ?)

72. Asser (?-906)

73. Arthwael (906-?)

74. Samson (?)

75. Ruelin (?)

76. Rhydderch (?)

77. Elwyn (?)

78. Llunwerth II (?-944)

79. Morfyw (944-945)

80. Eneuris (945-946)

81. Nathan (946-?)

82. Ieuan (?)

83. Arwysti(?)

84. Morgeneu I (?-999)

85. Morgeneu II (999-1023)

86. Erbin (1023-1039)

87. Trehaearn (1039-1055)

88. Joseph (1055-1063)

89. Bleiddud (1063-1071)

90. Sulien (1071-1076) Resigned

91. Abraham (1076-1078)

92. Sulien (1078-1085) Same as above, restored.

93. Rhigyfarch (1085- 1096)

94. Wilfrid (1096-1115)

95. Bernard (1115-1147)

96. David FitzGerald (1147-1176)

97. Peter de Leia (1199-1198)

98. Gerald of Wales (1199-1203)

99. Geoffrey de Henlaw (1203-1214)

100. Iorwerth (1215-1229)
101. Anselm le Gros (1230-1247) 

102. Thomas Wallensis (1248-1256) 

103. Richard Carew (1256-1280) 

104. Thomas Bek (1280-1293)

105. David Martin (1296-1328) 

106. Henry de Gower (1328-1347) 

107. John of Thoresby (1347- 1349) 

108. Reginald Brian (1350-1352) 

109. Thomas Fastolf (1353-1361) 110. Adam Houghton (1361-1389)

111. John Gilbert (1389-1397)
112. Guy Mone (1397-1407)

113. Henry Chichele (1408-1414) (also spelled Chicheley). On June 1414 Henry Chichele was translated to Canterbury as Archbishop of Canter- bury where he served until April 12, 1443. From this point our lineage will descend from the Archbishop of Canterbury. (For those to whom it may be important our lineage at this point picks up that of Augustine of Canterbury who was sent to that place directly and personally by Pope Gregery the Great (597).

114. John Stafford (May 14, 1443 - May 25, 1452) 

115. John Kemp (July 21, 1452 - March 22, 1454)
116. Thomas Bourchler (April 23, 1454 - March 30, 1486)

117. John Morton (October 6, 1486 - September 15, 1500)

118. Thomas Langton (January 22, 1501 - January 27, 1501). Died 5 days after being chosen.

119. Henry Deane (April 26, 1501 - Feburary 15/17, 1503)

120. William Warham (November 29, 1503 - August 22, 1532)

121. Thomas Cranmer (March 30, 1533 - November 13, 1555). Burned at the stake by order of the Pope of Rome.

122. Reginald Pole (March 22, 1556 - November 18/19, 1558)

123. Matthew Parker (December 17, 1559 - May 17, 1575)

124. Edmund Grindal (December 29, 1575 - July 6, 1583)

125. John Whitgift (March 14, 1583 - Feburary 19, 1604)

126. Richard Bancroft (October 9, 1604 - November 2, 1610)

127. George Abbot (March 4, 1611 - August 4, 1633) 

128. William Laud (August 6, 1633 - January 10, 1635) Note: Laud was beheaded and the See was vacant during the Commonwealth until 1660.

129. William Juxon (September 2, 1660 - June 4, 1663)

130. Gilbert Sheldon (June 16, 1663 - November 9, 1677)

131. William Sancroft (January 27, 1678 - Feburary 1, 1690)

132. John Tillotson (May 31, 1691 - November 22: 1694)

133. Thoman Tenison (December 6, 1694 - December 14 - 1715)

134. William Wake (December 17, 1715 - January 24, 1737)

135. John Potter (Feburary 9, 1737 - October 10, 1747)

136. Thomas Herring (October 21, 1747 - March 13, 1757)

137. Matthew Hutton (March 29, 1757 - March 19, 1758)

138. Thomas Secker (March 8, 1758 - August 3, 1768) 

139. Frederick Cornwallis (August 12, 1768 - March 19, 1783)

140. John Moore (March 31, 1783 - January 18, 1805)

As a result of the Revelutionary War in American the Anglican church in America had to separeate from England and become its own church. So on Feburary 4, 1787 Archbishp of Canterbury John Moore con- sercrated William White as the first Archbishop of the Episcopal Church, which was the independant Anglican Cummunion in America.

141. William White, (Feburary 4, 1787); who on October 25, 1827 consecrated

142. Henry Ustick Onberdonk, as the 21st Bishop of The Prostestant Episcopal Church, who on July 7, 1836 consecrated

143. Allan M. McCroskey, the 32nd Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, who on September 8, 1887 consecrated

144. William Earl McClaren, the Bishop of Chicago of The Protestant Episcopal Church, who on June 24, 1898 consecrated

145. William Montgomery Brown, the 186th Bishop of The Protestant Episcopal Church, who was consecrated as the Suffragan Bishop of Arklansas and later became a Bishop in the Old Catholic Church in America, who on Janurary 2, 1927 consecrated

146. William Davis de Ortega Maxey, Bishop in the Apostolic Episcopal Church, who on August 23, 1945 consecrated

147. Lowell O. Wadle, Bishop in the Apostolic Catholic Church, who on June 22, 1957 consecrated

148. Herman Adrian Spruit, Archbishop of the Church of Antioch, who on April 23, 1989 consecrated

149. Timothy Michael Barker, Bishop of the International Free Catholic Communion, who on July 28, 1991 consecrated

150. Michael Rivers Milner Jr., Bishop of the International Free Catholic Communion, who on Feburary 26, 1995 consecrated

151. Michael D. Owen, Bishop of the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, who on Feburary 4. 1996 consecrated

152. Wayne Boosahda, Bishop of The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, who on March 24, 1999 consecrated

153. Lonnie R. Rex, Bishop of The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, who on May 14, 2009 consecrated

154. Gregory Holley, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Orthodox Church of the East, who on January 16, 2010 consecrated

155. Delbert W. Herrin, Archbishop, who on April 4, 2013, with the assistance of Metropolitan Arch- bishop Gregory Holley, Bishop Lonnie R. Rex and Archbishop Jimmy Davidson, consecrated

156. Jerry L. Hayes, Presiding Bishop of The Apostolic Orthodox Church International who was entitled Mar David Ingnatius

     Amen

I Am But A Pilgrim

We are travelers, you and I. Our journey will never end where it began. It is what we
discover along that journey about ourselves and our God, and our response to that knowledge, that determines the case of our eternity.

In this essay, I speak only for myself and the discoveries —I would like to say ”that I have found along the way”, but in reality, I will speak concerning the discoveries — that found me.

I was born into a Christian culture whose church craft included an altar call at the end of every sermon. I cannot remember missing not one call to the altar. Those repeated walks down the aisle to the prayer bench of that country church was the beginning of my personal life’s journey. Again, even then it was He who found me, not I that found Him. He was not lost—I was.

I seem to have been born knowing that I needed, more correctly: wanted God in my life in a very real way. I have often pondered: From where did this “want of God” come? Finally, in a winter revival meeting at my home church in 1963 I was baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit. 

From the moment of Holy Spirit infilling, a burden of the Word of God lay heavy upon my heart. I shared this with my pastor. The next Sunday, Pastor O. T. Cottrell came to my Sunday school class room and announced, “I am placing Jerry in my Bible class from this time forward”. I, then, walked behind my pastor out of the junior class into an association with the Pentecostal ministry. From that day I was my pastor’s shadow, accompanying him to conferences and minister’s meetings, etc.; I was his adjutant. The congregation ordained me as a junior deacon at age 16; then at age 18 I was ordained into the ministry by the laying on of the hands of over 20 pastors.

At age 18 I left my secluded rural community and embarked upon the journey of a full-time evangelist. The churches opened up to the style of preaching that God had blessed me with. The UPCI, ALJC, and PAW all welcomed me into their pulpits. 

In those early days it was customary for the visiting minister to live with the pastor and his family during the duration of the meeting. Consequently, the Lord gave me access to the most spiritual and intellectual minds in the Pentecostal movement at the time. Most every night after the service the conversation between myself and the pastor (often the church elders were included) would go on deep into the morning hours. This was an education that no college or seminary classroom could possibly provide.

I traveled this road of evangelism for over 30 years; coming off the road a few times to establish a new congregation here and there. It was mostly during these church planting years that a formal education was acquired: undergrade studies at Moody, Chicago, Il.; Biblical languages at Milligan, Johnson City, TN.; Master of Divinity, Emmanuel School of Religion, Elizabethton, TN.; Doctor of Ministries, Emmanuel Christian Seminary, also in Elizabethton TN.

By most accounts I am (at the time of this writing) in the winter of my life. Throughout my journey I have had great appreciation for those who have walked the path before me; plus, I am also thoughtful of those who will come up the trail behind me, and of my responsibility to them. I say this because, truth be told, Pentecostalism is a restoration movement. We are attempting to restore the Church to its pure condition of the 1st century. Since the Church is the Body of Christ we may consider the Pentecostal revival of the last century as the renewal of Christ’s church. Permit me to be clear on this point: The true church has never left the world since its beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem AD 30. That being said, there has been a great falling away from the apostolic experience and doctrine by the majority of Christianity, and the presence  of Christ’s true church has been minuscule and its influence has been minor. However, since the tremendous outpouring of the the Holy Spirit (the latter rain of the Spirit) at the beginning of the 20th century, the body of Christ has been undergoing stages of growth. From the Azuza Street revival (turn of the 20th century) to today (first quarter of the 21st century) the Pentecostal movement has grown from infancy to a more mature entity. At the beginning of this renewal most voices that are today considered the pioneers of modern Pentecostalism came from Methodist and Baptist traditions. Consequently, then, much baggage was brought into Pentecostalism from those two paradigms. Now, 100 plus years later, we are still dealing with much of that baggage. Throughout the last century of growth there has been more truth unearth than that with which we began: deeper illumination has brought the Lord's church into a higher stage of growth. We have now reached a point where we may advance from an adolescent stage into a church that is more reflective of our Apostolic roots. 

As a traveler on the path of restoration I see those who have gone before me as having been trail blazers; I benefit from the path they have marked. But, often times the well worn path has revealed the tip of treasures that have been overlooked, gone un-noticed, by those who have gone before. Often I have stumped my toe on some priceless truth that has gone un-recognized by those who have gone before. At other times I have actually tripped over some gloriously astonishing artifact of the church’s past that has been discarded and now is protruding from the surface of the path begging to be unearthed and put back into service. My peers have not always appreciated my spiritual archaeological propensity to recover and restore apostolic articles of faith that Christianity has lost through the annals of history, and that have been hidden by the sands of time. 

What follows is the briefest possible account of my journey and the treasures upon which I tripped. I had no choice but to exhume them from their burial ground and hold them up for my brothers and sisters to behold and contemplate.

Before I write another word there is another point I must make crystal clear: Outside of the Word of God (the Holy Bible) there are no new doctrinal revelations, only illuminations. I have never searched for that that is new; only the old arrested my attention and called me to itself. Thus, what I will write in the following lines are not new revelations, only illuminations of the ancient truths of the Church. 

Early 1980’s: In the early years of the decade of the 80’s I entered into the ministry of apologetics. This took the form of public moderated debates on theology. The main point of discussion was the Godhead. After a few engagements it became clear to me that the Oneness doctrine, which I attempted to championed, must include an element that would allow for distinctions within the Godhead. Through being lead by the Holy Spirit, in my study I discovered the ancient Godhead paradigm called Modalistic Monarchianism. Though this terminology was new to myself and my brethren, it was ancient and provided the exact paradigm needed to allow for distinctions within the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without making those distinctions rational persons. I became a champion for Modalism within the Oneness camp. This culminated in the publishing of my signature book entitled “Godhead Theology” subtitled: “Modalism, the Original Orthodoxy”. 

Order this classic work today at the link provide here:

https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes&qid=1564848438&s=books&sr=1-2&fbclid=IwAR2HnCYlzW8ZejnX1YHJpzHSfNwKoCD5Wd_DOMhhyflcIWrUnRolG8uUQs0

Order this classic debate today at the link provided here:

https://www.amazon.com/Hayes-Conn-Debate-Modalism-Monarchianism/dp/1978371403/ref=sr_1_1?crid=19T3HX7M8FA46&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.KPHl38MVsipJW1xfHuMpUw.xxA83-rFS1GJJaXCwekNywbgMNnc6bt5jR8w7kKsHlo&dib_tag=se&keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Hayes%2C+conn+Debate&qid=1719532014&s=books&sprefix=bishop+jerry+hayes%2C+hayes%2C+conn+debate%2Cstripbooks%2C93&sr=1-1

Mid 1980’s: While conducting a revival meeting in Bloomington, Indiana, one evening when the pastor turned the service over to me, I approached the microphone and announced: “Everyone here, tonight, that knows, that you know, that if you died this night you would make Heaven your home, stand up.”  Out of over 200 people not a soul stood; even the pastor was not standing. When I left that service I had had an epiphany: Something was seriously wrong with our (Pentecostalism’s) understanding of salvation.

In the weeks that followed a message of grace began to consume me. Out of my agonizing and soul searching the message of “The Blood Covenant” was born. This was a message of grace. The Blood Covenant was a breath of fresh air to our people all over the world. I preached it everywhere I went. Other preachers began preaching it. As far as I know the Holy Spirit brought the truth of The Blood Covenant to the Oneness Pentecostal movement through the illumination given to me that fateful night in Bloomington, Indiana. 

Read the Sermon Outline of The Blood Covenant at: 

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-blood-covenant-sermon-outline.html

Early 1990’s: Spurred on by a theological polemic war between the Literal Communion (Lord’s Supper) and Spiritual Communion camps within Pentecostalism the Holy Spirit lead me to engage in the contest. As a result the truth of the “Real Presence” of the Lord’s body and blood in the communion elements became biblically clear.  After engaging is several public formal debates on the issue the result was a full-blown theology of The Lord’s Supper. Now, I am third generation Oneness Pentecostal and to my knowledge no Pentecostal theology on the Lord’s Supper existed until this point; we had only adopted the Baptist’s view of this blessed sacrament and observed it as a memorial only — missing the deeper reason of/for it altogether. (I speak of the Pentecostal circles in which I moved.) 

Deeper light is not often readily accepted, for whatever reason. When I began to teach and preach the “Real Presence” my Pentecostal organization (ALJC, Tri-State District) put me on trial for false doctrine. After hours and hours of interrogation and cross examination I was sent to a room in the Knoxville, TN church and asked to write my doctrinal statement on the Real Presence. This was what I wrote: “Concerning the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, I am in agreement with the Apostle Paul: The bread that we brake is the fellowshipping with the body of Christ, and the cup we bless is the fellowshipping with the blood of Christ. And, the blood does what the blood does.” The District Board could not nay-say that statement, and I was sent home in peace.

Many pastors and congregations have recently adopted the “Real Presence" doctrine and have instituted the biblical weekly observance. 

Order this classic book on the Lord's Supper today at the link provided here:

https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Supper-Apostolic-Concerning-Corinthians/dp/148254380X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=30LTVS8E5Q9GD&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.doYFJqWkvHlxRzyMfp0kOH2bUE37SpBrM3qDHjxZ1jM.1XEoPHgYKJUyBamqS9fSa7no0cyfMUQnDYc9nkZ3aYU&dib_tag=se&keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+the+Lord%27s+Supper&qid=1719533115&s=books&sprefix=bishop+jerry+hayes%2C+the+lord%27s+supper%2Cstripbooks%2C127&sr=1-1

This is truly a classic debate in that it is the ONLY one on this topic. Order today!
https://www.amazon.com/Hayes-Hardin-Debate-Holy-Communion/dp/B09JJJ647X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3M8KCFJBCUCN6&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.XbcseixMAWsVsv4y5ppplg.yja79FyEaQtgIkvYYWABKBvVzUc2qodE-teM3fMzUNk&dib_tag=se&keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Hayes%2C+Hardin+debate&qid=1719533525&s=books&sprefix=bishop+jerry+hayes%2C+hayes%2C+hardin+debate%2Cstripbooks%2C96&sr=1-1

Mid 1990’s: Although, I became a convert to the Apostle  Paul’s required covering for the Christian woman (1Cor 11:3-16) being the RAC (Religious Article of Clothing) a few years before, it was not until the mid 90’s that the Lord gave me the courage to start preaching it. Within the Pentecostal circles, in which I moved, the movement had adopted the Methodist position of the woman’s hair being the covering. The Lord lead me to challenge the “long uncut hair” position in public debates, and in a writing campaign. Since that time I have rejoiced to see many Pentecostal congregations adopt the RAC.

This book is the most in depth study ever published on the headcovering. Included are Bishop Hayes' debate charts on the topic. Truly, a classic. Order today.

https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Womans-Headcovering-Second-Liturgical/dp/B08F65MNZX/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3I1XPPY9ZF6VL&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._Y10eYu550Xu-ywIgBDSkA.d2AvkWOcYMI_gpnhJspgDGtmbqbrgh5mfZ1034epqs0&dib_tag=se&keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2CHeadcovering%2C+Second+Edition&qid=1719533847&s=books&sprefix=bishop+jerry+hayes%2Cheadcovering%2C+second+edition%2Cstripbooks%2C99&sr=1-1

Late 1990’s: Doctrine is important. Throughout my evangelistic travels it was clear that we, as Pentecostals, believed the essentials of the faith as one man. But, we had many ways of explaining those essentials. We needed a Creed. 

For some years the Spirit lead me to work on a statement of faith that all orthodox Oneness Pentecostals could agree upon. With the help of Pentecostal intellectuals from several denominations/organizations, The Apostolic Creed was written and signed by over 400 Pentecostal bishops and pastors. 

To review The Apostolic Creed click the link provided here:

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-apostolic-creed.htmlhttps://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-apostolic-creed.html

First decade of 2000: Pre-millennial rapture has been the common doctrine of Pentecostalism from the early days of the 20th century, and pre-tribulational dispensationalism the most common of the pre-millennial views (This view was brought over from the Baptist.). In the 90’s of the last century my spirit became restless and convicted with, what I considered, the dishonest manner with which we had to explain certain texts to maintain the pre-millennial view. (I will not detail those texts here; they will be examined in an upcoming writing called “From Crises to Epiphanies”. 

Having been an outspoken pre-tribulational dispensationalist for my entire life, in the year 2000 I denounced that position, and the Spirit took me on a 10 year journey of prayer and Scripture study. Finally, after 10 years of the wilderness I became convinced that the Bible taught Realized Millennialism (also called Amilliennialism). Imagine my surprise and joy to learn that this had always been the majority view of Christians throughout history. I just returned home to the historical eschatology of Christianity. 

Since my willingness to enter the list in favor of Realized Millennialism and against the pre-millennial rapture view, I am discovering many voices (not just mine) within Pentecostalism that are  proclaiming the same.

This book follows my journey from dispensationalism to Realized Millennialism.

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Children-Apostolic-Kingdom-Theology-ebook/dp/B012BXQHYG/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2X63Z35EMM9NC&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.W3c1KRXJvExx7wBFoE7cXBNBxPV3s_zEslVYdF6Hj80.ihhl1PpOLMypWifdDwq83A-faVaOL9HFZ6RpNz8vGU4&dib_tag=se&keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Letters+to+my+Children&qid=1719535937&s=books&sprefix=bishop+jerry+hayes%2C+letters+to+my+children%2Cstripbooks%2C99&sr=1-1#customerReviews

Conclusion: I am but a traveler, as are we all. I have shared a bit of my journey. Others have, perhaps, a more exciting story to tell; but this is a little of my story. I am prayerful that you, dear reader, may be encouraged by my journey.

Apostolically Speaking,

Bp. J. L. Hayes, D. D.