Jay Rogers
Jay Rogers

Links Recent Posts


The Forerunner Weblog

Jesus' cousins were the Apostles James and John

This is a post I’d really like to get your comment on …

Most people know that Jesus and John the Baptist were second cousins, but few know that the Apostles James and John were Jesus’ first cousins.

I’ve always found John the Baptist interesting because I was born on the feast day of St. John the Baptist (June 24th) and was actually named “John” for this reason. Jay is a nickname. I later became the editor of The Forerunner which is another name for John the Baptist. John was a bold prophet who spoke the word of God without fear for his own life. James and John were similar. They were called the “Sons of Thunder” by Jesus. The Apostle John is also known as the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” So my other namesake, the Apostle John, is interesting to me as well.

This is something I discovered this year while reading a book on the canonicity of the Bible. Jesus’ first cousins were James and John. I doubted this when I first read it, but the more I looked at the scriptures concerning the relationships, the more convinced I became that this is right. It has significance because it helps to explain how the New Testament canon came about. It also helps to explain several other obscure passages in the New Testament scriptures.

I’ll write more on that later, but first the data. Read the following and decide for yourself if Salome is the wife of Zebedee, the mother of James and John, and Mary’s sister. If you disagree or agree, I’d like to get your comments.

1. In the Gospel of Matthew, James and John are identified as the sons of Zebedee.

“And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father” (Matthew 4:21).

2. Standing among the women near the cross with Jesus’ mother Mary was the mother of Zebedee’s children as identified by the Gospel of Matthew.

“Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children (Matthew 27:56).

3. Standing among the women near the cross with Jesus’ mother Mary was Salome as identified by the Gospel of Mark.

“There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome“ (Mark 15:40).

4. Salome was Jesus’ mother’s sister as the apostle John himself states, about his own mother. Mark’s Gospel account refers to her by name. John’s Gospel account refers to her by her relationship to Mary.

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25).

From Matthew’s account we know that James and John were the sons of Zebedee. By comparing Matthew and Mark we discover that Salome was the name of wife of the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John. From John we see that Salome was Mary’s sister.

I first thought that there could be other women in the account as well, but the order of the names and the similarity of the language in the accounts leads me to be almost certain that Jesus’ mother’s sister is Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John. Therefore, James and John were Jesus’ first cousins.

The implications of this are enormous when we consider how the various books of the New Testament were compiled and the roles that James and John, and also the “brothers of the Lord” James and Jude, had in writing and compiling the New Testament canon.

I’ll write more on that idea next.


Your comments are welcome!

Great work.

Posted by Arlynda on 04/18/2015 03:11 AM #

In my study, I decided that the only other possibility is there were more than four women at the tomb and that Salome and Mary's sister are two separate people. I find the alternative is more likely that they are one and the same. It is also interesting to note that one must piece it all together from four different passages in three Gospels to from the whole picture. But the Church Fathers seem to know this by tradition -- they don't exegete the texts to draw the conclusion.

I first discovered this relationship reading a book called The Original Bible Restored, by Ernest L. Martin, which is chock full of these little esoteric ideas. The book caused me to change my most basic presuppositions about the canonicity of the New Testament.

He also wrote an excellent book defending the historicity of eh Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke called: The Star That Astonished the World. I don't agree with 100 percent of what martin wrote, but these two studies have become favorites of mine and have challenged me to defend the authenticity, and historicity of the Bible. I produced a video series called The Real Jesus (available at this website) during the time I was studying this.

Martin also has another book in which he argues that the Apostles James and John were Aaronites and were serving as priests during the Passover when Jesus was killed. But I haven't read that book yet (Secrets of Golgotha).

I used to think the canon was determined by the church fathers and that the early Church councils somehow had the authority to decide this infallibly. As a Protestant that is an odd view to take. However, I came to it because I once asked R.C. Sproul in a call-in TV show how he knew that canon was decided correctly. He basically said he didn't know for sure, but that he has confidence looking at all the evidence that it was decided correctly.

I wasn't satisfied. Think about it: Protestants believe in sola Scriptura. So since he Bible doesn't have a table of contents that is inspired, how do we know we have all the right books?

As a result of seeing that paradox I adopted the view held by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, that the Church preceded the Bible. Therefore, the apostolic church that wrote the Bible also had the authority to canonize the Bible.

I used to think that men such as Irenaeus and Tertullian had the authority to decide which books were canonical. I know thing that these men merely received a known canon that was transmitted directly to them by bishops -- such as Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and others -- who were ordained by Peter, John and Paul. Ironically, that was the view of Tertullian and Irenaeus themselves.

Posted by Jay Rogers on 04/18/2015 03:11 AM #

After reading Martin's book, I came full circle to sola Scriptura once again. I now believe that the canon was collated by Paul, Peter and John. The evidence for which books are canonical is in scripture itself. It begins with Jesus canonizing the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (the Tanakh). The close relationship between James, John and Jesus is another clue. With Peter they formed an inner circle to whom the greatest revelation was given -- there are several direct statements made by Jesus in recorded in the Gospels that show that through these three would carry the Revelation of Christ to the world.

Matthew, the Epistles of James and Jude get their canonical authority directly from Jesus. They were received and recognized by the Apostles at Jerusalem in the mid-60s prior to the Roman-Jewish War.

I believe that most of the NT (with the exception of John) was collated and canonized as scripture by the Apostles Peter and Paul and their bishops in Rome during the persecution under Nero.

Peter canonizes Paul's writings.

Paul canonizes Luke.

Peter canonizes Mark.

Peter and Paul (with the assistance of Luke, Timothy and some other bishops in Rome collate the all the NT books they have (including Hebrews) before they die in 67 AD.

John receives these books which were passed on to him in Ephesus. The bishops in Asia Minor receive John's books.

For a while (until the early 2nd century) the Church at Rome either did not receive John's books or simply did not know about them.

But in the east the canon was established very early -- before the death of John during the reign of Domitian.

I also hold that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are dependent on an earlier oral telling of the Gospel (they are independent) but that Luke also made use of written copies of Mark and was at least aware of Matthew. He also used oral accounts from Jesus' immediate family and cousins, including the Apostle John.

Posted by Jay Rogers on 04/18/2015 03:11 AM #

I have also come to believe that James and John were Jesus' first cousins.
This would explain why Jesus told John to take Mary as his mother.
It would explain why Salome (James and John's mother) felt comfortable
in asking Jesus to make them his right and left hands.
It would explain why they were the first to follow him.
When I was reading my Bible one day, I was suddenly struck by this fact.
I believe that only the Holy Spirit could have been the agent that
explained this to me.

Posted by  Bob Rutledge on 12/11/2007 08:36 AM #

I think there are two different women named Salome. The niece of Herod is Salome, but this is a different context. The Salome who came to the tomb is the mother of Zebedee's sons, obviously his wife.

Posted by Jay Rogers on 07/08/2009 02:25 PM #

Excuse me, I meant to say, Salome was both the niece and step-daughter of Herod and bore a grudge against John the Baptist because he said her mother Herodius' marriage to Herod was incestuous according to the law of Moses due to the fact that according to Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (Book XVIII, Chapter 5, 4):

Herodias, [...], was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod, her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus, the son of Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus ...

Posted by Jay Rogers on 07/08/2009 02:31 PM #

And you if think YOUR family is messed up just think about that for a minute if you can untangle it in your mind!

Posted by Jay Rogers on 07/08/2009 02:33 PM #

Salome is never called the wife of Zebedee but rather the mother of Zebedee's sons. If Salome is also Joanna then she is the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward. Salome means peace and Joanna is a variation of John. It is quite likely that the mother of Zebedee's sons is the sister of Mary for she came to Jesus asking a favor for her sons. And also Jesus left His mother in the keeping of John. Remember Mary had no other children.

Posted by Anthony on 08/07/2009 05:14 PM #

Jay, when I first studied the NT scriptures in depth, during college, I came to the conclusion that Jesus and the first several disciples knew each other before He called them to follow Him. It made sense: why else would they have abandoned the trade that supported their families? Peter, at least, had a wife and mother-in-law, who depended on his income. So, to follow a perfect stranger is unlikely. But I have only this week heard that Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee might have been first cousins. That would SO make sense. That would explain why they were in training with John the Baptist, and why, when John sees Jesus one day (gospel of John), he tells James and John to follow Jesus because He is the Messiah. Jesus meets several of His disciples in Jerusalem before John is imprisoned and Jesus leaves town. It is likely they traveled back north together. Also, at the Wedding at Cana it says that Jesus AND HIS DISCIPLES were invited to the wedding. If they were family, that would make sense, because they are not yet traveling with him “officially.”

However, this last entry I find rather surprising, the one by Anthony. He claims Mary had no other children… that would go against the information we receive directly out of scripture. Though the gospels refer to the visit of Jesus’s mother and brothers as simply that, “His brothers” (not her sons), it stands to reason that they were her sons. They would otherwise not have traveled with her. They would have been with THEIR mother. so I am rather surprised by Anthony’s statement.

Posted by Carrie on 02/22/2012 09:34 AM #

Carrie - 

From my studies into the matter of Jesus being the only son of Mary, scripture does support Anthony’s statement. Mark6.3 says Jesus was the son of Mary. ‘The’ is singular, if Mary had other children, it would have read  ‘one of Mary’s sons’ or ‘a son of Mary’. John 6.42 shows the same language for Joseph.

It was traditional in those times that if someone did not have siblings, their nearest kinsman (i.e. cousins) would be referred to as their brothers. In Mark 15.40 it is another Mary that is called the mother of James and Joseph, who in Mark6.3 were identified as being with Mary. This would suggest that these men with Mary were related but not directly. 

It should also be noted that in the modern day, brother is used by many to refer to someone who is not their literal brother, but with whom they share a connection with (blood/social group) So this supports the idea that the use of ‘brother’ is not necessarily saying they are his literal brothers.

John19.26-27 shows Jesus giving his mother to the care of the beloved disciple. If Jesus would have had any brothers, according to the Jewish custom, they would have been obligated to take care of Mary after Jesus died. But  Jesus placed the care of His mother to another man, this would indicate that Mary had no other children who would look after her.

In Matthew1.25 where it refers to there being no sexual relations with Joseph before/until Mary gave birth, this use of words ‘before/until’ does not confirm that after birth they went on to have more children. 1Timothy4.13 says ‘Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. ‘ Paul isn’t saying that when he comes back that they should stop reading/preaching/teaching. Similar language used 2samuel6.23, she did not suddenly start having children after she died.

Luke2.7 reference to Jesus as the first born, this was his legal title, inheritance of the first born rites and privileges that Jewish custom follows, and doesn’t mean that he had other siblings.

Hope this helps you see why Anthony made his statement, even if you don’t hold the view yourself

Posted by Douglas on 03/20/2012 11:45 PM #

James was Jesus’ half brother. Seriously, do your homework.

Posted by Anonymous on 12/08/2012 07:49 PM #

Dear Anonymous,

The article deals with James the brother of John and the son of Zebedee, not James the brother of the Lord. There is a debate over whether James the “brother of the Lord” is actually a cousin of Jesus or Mary and Joseph’s son (Jesus’ half-brother). There are also some who say that this James is also the same person as “James the Less,” one of Jesus’ Apostles.

Posted by Jay Rogers on 12/11/2012 07:53 AM #

I just don’t see it – in Matthew & Mark it says “Mary” is the mother of James & John (Joses). “Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses” – it doesn’t say Salome was their mother. It may be plausible and probable, but I just don’t see it in scripture.

Posted by Elaine on 01/02/2013 03:11 PM #

Just a thought on James the Less and Joses’ Mother. We know that James the Less and Joses are not the same James and John (Zebedees Children) according to Mat 27:56 – “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” There is James the Less and Joses and there is James the Great and John whom Jesus Loved. The same verse here states that Mary the Mother of James and Joses was among the women at the crucifixion.
Notice there’s another Mary in the picture here other than Mary (the mother of Jesus). According to John 19:25 ““Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene”. Could this Mary (the wife of Cleophas) be the Mother of James and Joses? That would make more sense to me because the Mary in Mathew 27:56 does not say “Mary the Mother of Jesus” or “Mother of the Lord” which in all other places it refers to her that way instead of just “Mary”.
Another reason I believe this is, according to John 19:26-27, Mary the Mother of Jesus LEAVES THE SAME HOUR when Jesus told John to Behold his Mother and they go to Johns Home. John 19:26 “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27-Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home].” James and John live in Capernaum which is more than 100 miles from Jerusalem.
Notice shortly after the death of Jesus, that his body is taken to a sepulcher for the evening and the Mary of James and Joses, along with Mary Magdalen, beheld where he was laid. Mark 15:45-47 “And when he knew [it] of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. 46: And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. 47: And Mary Magdalene and Mary [the mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.” Mary the Mother of Jesus would not have been at the Sepulchre because she had already left with John to go to His home.
This shows us that Mary the Mother of James the Less and Joses is Not Mary the Mother of Jesus but It is in fact Mary the wife of Cleopas.
Any other thoughts would be appreciated, Thanks! Feel free to email me at bwatson@titustransport.com

Posted by Bryan Watson on 05/02/2013 12:37 AM #

Jay Rogers - I think your right. That Mary Salome the wife of Zebedee or Mary the mother of James and John is identify as Virgin Mary’s (or Jesus Mother) sister therefore James and John is Jesus first cousin.We have in our house a life size image of Saint Mary Salome. When I analyze your blog, Mary Salome is said to be the wife of Zebedee and also the Mother of Saint James the Greater and Saint John the Evangelist. She is different from Mary mother of James and Joses. Jesus apostle have 2 different James. James the lesser is the son of Mary wife of Cleophas. and the other James is the son of Mary wife of Zebedee. Note that in the Crucifixion of Jesus or the women who stood by the cross are the 4 MARY’s. FIRST MARY the mother of Jesus (Virgin Mary). SECOND is MARY his mother's sister (Saint Mary Salome). The THIRD is MARY the wife of Cleophas (Mary Jacobe) and the FOURTH is MARY from the town of MAGDALA (or known as Mary Magdalene)

Posted by mark on 08/21/2013 08:55 PM #

With your interest in John the Baptist, and his cousin John the Apostle, do you think both served as priests?

Posted by David on 09/03/2013 07:36 AM #

Jesus told John, (THE APOSTLE WHOM THE LORD LOVED), to take Mary as his mother because Jesus' brothers, were not believers… just yet. It wasn’t until Acts that we hear about his brother James and the Council of Jerusalem (writes his epistle) and then Jude, Jesus' other brother writes the epistle.

Posted by Stacey on 01/11/2014 02:22 PM #

Was it Cleopas and Salome who met the Risen Lord on the road to Emmaus?

Posted by Robert Bamford on 02/26/2014 06:35 AM #

In doing my Bible study this morning, I started to read I John. My Bible states that John is the son of Zebedee, and that this John is a cousin of Jesus. Amazingly, I had never reflected on the Gospel REMEMBERING James and John were the cousins of Jesus. This changes EVERYTHING in that it makes it so much easier to see why they were so eager to leave their nets and father to follow Him. Yes, knowing my own cousins, I can see the two men vying for a place at the right and left of Jesus. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all Truth. As I read through the Scriptures you posted, (with Scripture interpreting/shedding light on Scripture), the whole counsel of God makes it clear. The Gospels just took on a new life of insight. Thank you! Keep searching for the treasures in God’s Word!

Posted by Deborah Neilan on 08/09/2014 07:00 AM #

The only persons the bible says, Jesus loved, is Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.Everyone assumes the disciple Jesus loved is the apostle John, I believe this is incorrect. If you read John 21:2-25, the aposptle John could not possibly be the disciple Jesus loved. Pay special attention to verses 20 & 22. I believe, that this disciple is Lazarus and it was he whom Jesus ask to behold his Mother at crucifixtion. I also believe that Lazarus wrote the book of John. It doesn’t make sense that Peter would be asking Jesus “ what should we do with this man”, as if Peter did not know John. Also, the bible never names John as the disciple that Jesus loved. How and why do so many make that assumption. It makes no sense.

Posted by L Angel on 08/12/2014 08:35 PM #

I think we should not be quick to jump to the conclusion that Salome was Mary’s sister. It’s possible but its quite a big assumption based on the evidence, and the assumption can skew the way we look at John’s relationship with Jesus. There may have been more than three or four women present in these accounts and there is the possibility that Clopas and Zebedee were the same individual which would mean that Mary’s sister was not the mother of James and John.

Posted by Gary Sampson on 08/21/2014 06:34 AM #

I’m with you on many counts, but you are WAY OFF on the idea that Mary had no other children! Plain reading of the texts (such as Mark 3:31ff., Jn. 2:12, 7:3&5;Acts 1:14; and especially Matt. 13:55-56) would say that Jesus had other brothers, and there is no reason to believe that Mary was not the mother. But I am with you on the idea that the apostle John was the cousin of Jesus. I had come to the same conclusion (startling) when noticing the same ideas – who was at the cross, who was at the grave!

Posted by K. Robinson on 12/18/2014 12:12 PM #

I discovered your site while searching for biblical information on whether or not John the Baptist might have had a sister.

On a related topic, have you considered the possibility that John and Jesus were half-brothers (as well as cousins)? Mary was staying in the home of Elizabeth and Zachariah at the time she conceived Jesus. (This particular point has been clarified by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.)

Posted by Pauline on 12/30/2014 12:57 PM #

I accept Christ as my savior. My father is muslim. The quran speaks about Mary and her relationship with Johns mother. Apparently she would go visit them often but thus time went there to “hide her pregnancy” she was not shamed there because johns mother had had a vision and her baby in her lept when she saw mary. I am sure jesus and john grew up as friends and obviously spoke about and with God in a special way.

Posted by Anisa on 01/02/2015 02:28 PM #

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

No Word for Cousin

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphosin one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

Posted by Mark Andrews on 01/22/2015 10:33 AM #

If ya'll are trying to understand if Mary had other children or not and are open minded read the Protoevangelium of James the cousin of Jesus than and you will see in 9 it says that Joseph himself was a man of age and already had children. It also says Mary was betrothed to him.

Posted by Jonathan on 02/16/2015 04:07 AM #

Textile Help

Freedom: The Model of Christian Liberty (DVD)

“Give me liberty or give me death!”

Patrick Henry’s famous declaration not only helped launch the War for Independence, it also perfectly summarized the mindset that gave birth to, and sustained, the unprecedented experiment in Christian liberty that was America.

The freedom our Founders envisioned was not freedom from suffering, want, or hard work. Nor was it freedom to indulge every appetite or whim without restraint—that would merely be servitude to a different master. No, the Founders’ passion was to live free before God, unfettered by the chains of autocracy, shackles that slowly but inexorably bind men when the governments they fashion fail to recognize and uphold freedom’s singular, foundational truth: that all men are created in the image of God, and are thereby co-equally endowed with the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This presentation is a similar call, not to one but many. By reintroducing the principles of freedom that gave birth to America, it is our prayer that Jesus, the true and only ruler over the nations, will once again be our acknowledged Sovereign, that we may again know and exult in the great truth that “where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).

Welcome to the Second American Revolution!

This DVD features “Liberty: The Model of Christian Liberty” along with “Dawn’s Early Light: A Brief History of America’s Christian Foundations.” Bonus features include a humorous but instructive collection of campaign ads and Eric Holmberg’s controversial YouTube challenge concerning Mitt Romney’s campaign for president.

$14.95 — ORDER NOW!

(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)

Click here for more information

The Abortion Matrix: Defeating Child Sacrifice and the Culture of Death (DVD)

Download the free Study Guide!

Is there a connection between pagan religion and the abortion industry?

This powerful presentation traces the biblical roots of child sacrifice and then delves into the social, political and cultural fall-out that this sin against God and crime against humanity has produced in our beleaguered society.

Conceived as a sequel and update to the 1988 classic, The Massacre of Innocence, the new title, The Abortion Matrix, is entirely fitting. It not only references abortion’s specific target – the sacred matrix where human beings are formed in the womb in the very image of God, but it also implies the existence of a conspiracy, a matrix of seemingly disparate forces that are driving this holocaust.

The occult activity surrounding the abortion industry is exposed with numerous examples. But are these just aberrations, bizarre yet anomalous examples of abortionists who just happen to have ties to modern day witchcraft? Or is this representative of something deeper, more sinister and even endemic to the entire abortion movement?

As the allusion to the film of over a decade ago suggests, the viewer may learn that things are not always as they appear to be. The Abortion Matrix reveals the reality of child-killing and strikes the proper moral chord to move hearts to fulfill the biblical responsibility to rescue those unjustly sentenced to death and to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves (Proverbs 24:11,12; 31:8,9).

Speakers include: George Grant, Peter Hammond, RC Sproul Jr., Paul Jehle, Lou Engle, Rusty Thomas, Flip Benham, Janet Porter and many more.

Ten parts, over three hours of instruction!

Running Time: 195 minutes

$19.95 — ORDER NOW!

(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)

Click here for more information

Amazing GraceAmazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism (DVD)

Download the Free Study Guide!

Just what is Calvinism?

Does this teaching make man a deterministic robot and God the author of sin? What about free will? If the church accepts Calvinism, won’t evangelism be stifled, perhaps even extinguished? How can we balance God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility? What are the differences between historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism? Why did men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards and a host of renowned Protestant evangelists embrace the teaching of predestination and election and deny free will theology?

This is the first video documentary that answers these and other related questions. Hosted by Eric Holmberg, this fascinating three-part, four-hour presentation is detailed enough so as to not gloss over the controversy. At the same time, it is broken up into ten “Sunday-school-sized” sections to make the rich content manageable and accessible for the average viewer.

Running Time: 257 minutes

$19.95 — ORDER NOW!

(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)

Click here for more information

Dr. Francis Schaeffer - How Should We Then Live? (DVD)

Special Two-Disc Set!

After 40 years of intense study and world-wide ministry, Dr. Francis Schaeffer completed his crowning work of scholarship – to present profound truths in simple film language. Dr. Schaeffer’s brilliant analysis of the past and predictions for current trends have proven so uncannily accurate that this amazing series still feels contemporary almost three decades after its initial release. Ultimately, Schaeffer concludes that man’s only hope is a return to God’s Biblical absolute, the truth revealed in Christ through the Scriptures.

Available for the first time on DVD, this documentary spectacular also includes intimate in-depth conversations with Francis and Edith Schaeffer. With the on-disc study guide, this presentation forms a unique course of comprehensive study. While this series forms an innovative analysis of the past, this outstanding work is more than history. Each episode focuses on a significant era, yet speaks clearly to 21st-century man with answers for modern problems.

$49.95 — ORDER NOW!

(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)

Click here for more information

Massacre of Innocence (DVD)

Exposing The Occult Roots of Abortion

This presentation looks at the spiritual roots of abortion and exposes the myths surrounding child killing. Little known historical facts about abortion and how they relate to modern feminism are presented logically and accurately. Has been effective in converting many to a pro-life position.

Massacre of Innocence goes where no pro-life presentation has gone before in “tearing the lid off abortion” to reveal the spiritual realities we must battle if we will bring an end to this crime. The presentation is absorbing, fast-paced, informative and incredibly devastating to any attempt to justify abortion.

“… an extraordinary statement … a powerfully articulate presentation about what abortion really means, and why a great and moral nation like the United States must not allow the slaughter to continue.”
— Congressman Robert K. Dornan

Running time: 85 minutes

$19.95 — ORDER NOW!

(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)

Click here for more information

Share |

Search this site:
View CCNow Cart/Checkout
View CCNow Cart/Checkout

Subscribe to
The Forerunner

Have The Forerunner Weblog sent straight to your inbox!

Enter your email address:

The Forerunner Channel on YouTube

Promote Your Page Too

Featured Product
If you like the articles on this website, you may also be interested in:

Featured Articles

Live Seminar!

Real Jesus
The Abortion Matrix DVD: Update

The Abortion Matrix:
Defeating Child Sacrifice and the Culture of Death

is a 195-minute presentation that traces the biblical roots of child sacrifice and then delves into the social, political and cultural fall-out that this sin against God has produced. You can order this series on DVD, read the complete script and view clips on-line...
continued ...

View My Stats