2/3/20

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS" Introduction To The Minor Prophets by Mark Copeland


"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"

Introduction To The Minor Prophets
INTRODUCTION

1. While Christians are not under the Old Testament as a system of 
   justification, the OT is of great value for us today...
   a. Written for our learning, it is a source of comfort and hope - Ro 15:4
   b. Written for our admonition, we learn what mistakes to avoid - 1Co 10:11
   c. As with all scripture inspired of God, it is profitable "for 
      doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
      righteousness" - cf. 2Ti 3:14-17

2. This is especially true with regard to "The Minor Prophets"...
   a. A collection of twelve books that make up the last part of the 
      Old Testament
   b. Beginning with Hosea, and ending with Malachi

3. Those willing to study these books will find their lives enriched as
   they increase...
   a. Their knowledge of God's holiness, righteousness, justice and mercy
   b. Their understanding of God's dealings in the nations of men
   c. Their appreciation of the Bible as a literary masterpiece

[With this lesson, we begin a series of studies in which we will survey
"The Minor Prophets". Before we examine our first book, some 
introductory material may prove helpful...]

I. WHO WERE THE PROPHETS?

   A. THE OLD COVENANT HAD DIFFERENT KINDS OF INSTRUCTORS...
      1. There was Moses, the lawgiver - Neh 8:1,14; 9:13-14; Jn 1:17; 7:19
      2. There were the priests, administrators of the law 
          - Lev 10: 8-11; Hos 4:6; Eze 22:26; Mal 2:7
      3. There were the wise men, who gave counsel - 2Sa 14:1-24; 20:16-22
      4. There were the psalmists, poets who were the "sweet singers" 
         of Israel - cf. 2Sa 23:1; 1Ch 6:33
      5. There were the prophets, communicators of the Word of God

   B. A "PROPHET" WAS A SPOKESMAN FOR ANOTHER...
      1. Like Aaron was for his brother Moses - Exo 4:16; 7:1
      2. The word literally means "to boil up like a fountain"
      3. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, a prophet...
         a. Was a spokesman for God - 2Pe 1:21
         b. Was given something to say, and had to say it! - Jer 20:7-9
      4. A prophet was primarily a "forth-teller", though sometimes a "fore-teller"
         a. God's word often pertained to future events
         b. The fulfilled prophecies of these prophets are therefore a
            strong proof of inspiration
         -- But much of their word concerned not the future, but current events

   C. OTHER DESIGNATIONS HELP TO DEFINE THE ROLE OF A PROPHET...
      1. Early in Israel's history they were called "seers" - 1Sa 9:9
      2. Another appellation was "man of God" - 1Sa 9:6; 1Ki 17:18
      3. Also known as a "servant of God" - 1Ki 18:36; 1Ch 6:49
      4. They served as God's "messenger" - Isa 42:19
      5. They were also assigned the role of "watchman" - Eze 3:17; 33:7

[The prophets were therefore servants of God, divinely appointed and 
inspired to proclaim His Word. At times, they were messengers of God's 
word as it applied to the present, serving as watchmen of the people of
God; other times, God's message pertained to the future, and as such 
they were "seers" of things to come.]

II. HOW ARE THE PROPHETS CLASSIFIED?

   A. IT IS COMMON TO SPEAK OF "ORAL" AND "LITERARY" PROPHETS...
      1. The "oral" prophets are those who left no writings bearing their names
         a. Such as Elijah and Elisha - cf. 1Ki 17; 2Ki 2
         b. Many others, including Nathan (2Sa 12), Gad (2 Sam 24:11),
             Ahijah (1Ki 11:29)
      2. Those who left books bearing their names are called the
          "literary" prophets

   B. THE LITERARY PROPHETS ARE CATEGORIZED AS "MAJOR" AND "MINOR"
      PROPHETS...
      1. Augustine is credited with being the first to classify them in this way
      2. The distinction pertains only to the length of the books
         a. The "major prophets" include the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah,
            Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel
         b. The "minor prophets" are those twelve books from Hosea to Malachi

[As we consider the works of the "literary" prophets, we should note 
that the order of the books in our Bibles is not chronological.  
Therefore it may serve useful to review...]

III. THE LITERARY PROPHETS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

Please note:  Dating the prophets is not without controversy, and with
some it can be very difficult. What I provide below are the estimates 
among many conservative scholars...

   A. NINTH CENTURY (EARLY ASSYRIAN PERIOD)
      1. Obadiah (ca. 845 B.C)
      2. Joel (ca 830 B.C.)
      3. Jonah (790-750 B.C.)
      -- This is during the period of "The Divided Kingdom" in Israel's
         history; to the north and east the empire of Assyria was 
         beginning to make its presence known in Israel

   B. EIGHTH CENTURY (ASSYRIAN PERIOD)
      1. Amos (755 B.C.)
      2. Hosea (750-725 B.C.)
      3. Isaiah (740-700 B.C.)
      4. Micah (735-700 B.C.)
      -- In 722 B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel was taken into 
         Assyrian captivity; these prophets were proclaiming God's 
         message as the nation was being threatened from the north

   C. SEVENTH CENTURY (CHALDEAN PERIOD)
      1. Jeremiah (626-586 B.C.)
      2. Zephaniah (630-625 B.C.)
      3. Nahum (625-612 B.C.)
      4. Habakkuk (625-605 B.C.)
      -- Assyria was eventually defeated by Babylon; these prophets 
         served as God's messengers when the Babylonian empire 
         threatened the kingdom of Judah

   D. SIXTH CENTURY (THE EXILE)
      1. Ezekiel (593-570 B.C.)
      2. Daniel (605-536 B.C.)
      -- Like many of their countrymen, these prophets were taken into
         Babylonian captivity; from Babylon they served as God's 
         messengers to both captives and kings

   E. SIXTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES (POST-EXILIC PERIOD)
      1. Haggai (520 B.C.)
      2. Zechariah (520-518 B.C.)
      3. Malachi (ca. 440 B.C.)
      -- After the Jews were allowed to return home from Babylonian 
         captivity, God used Haggai and Zechariah to encourage the 
         people to rebuild the temple; later, Malachi was used to 
         reform the priesthood during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah

[Finally, here are some thoughts on...]

IV. UNDERSTANDING THE MESSAGE OF THE PROPHETS

   A. THREE THINGS TO BEAR IN MIND AS YOU STUDY THE PROPHETS...
      1. Seek to understand the political, social and religious 
         conditions of the times
         a. Any interpretation must consider how the message was 
            relevant for the people to whom the prophet spoke
         b. Secondary fulfillment of prophecy is often found in the NT,
            but this can be understood only when applied by inspired 
            writers of the NT
         c. Guard against making interpretations that are purely  speculative
         d. Any application to modern events must be carefully 
            harmonized in light of the NT
      2. Consider God's relation to the heathen nations (i.e., other 
         than Israel and Judah)
         a. The prophets often revealed how God directed their destiny 
            and judged them
         b. This may provide insight as to how Christ rules the nations
            today! - cf. Mt 28:18; Re 1:5; 2:26;27
      3. Note any teaching regarding the Messiah and His coming kingdom
         - Ac 26:6-7; 28:20
         a. The immediate mission of most prophets was to save God's 
            people from idolatry and wickedness
         b. Failing that, they were sent to announce God's judgment and
            the coming destruction of the nation
         c. But many prophets left a message of hope for the future, 
            regarding the Messiah who would come and establish a 
            kingdom that could never be destroyed!
         
   B. SOME OF THE GREAT THEMES DEVELOPED BY THE PROPHETS...
      1. The holiness of God - He is absolutely pure, righteous, just,
         merciful, tender, loving, and longsuffering
      2. The sovereignty of God - He rules the universe and is above all
      3. The immutability of God's word
         a. He carries out His promises
         b. One can depend upon Him to act consistently with His Word
      4. The terribleness of sin
         a. God abhors iniquity, and will not tolerate, overlook, nor excuse it
         b. But He is willing to forgive those who humbly repent
      5. Repentance and righteousness
         a. This is the clarion call of the prophets
         b. Though severe is God's punishment of the wicked, yet God's
            mercy is great in loving kindness upon the righteous who 
            are of broken spirit and contrite heart
      6. The worship due God - The proper reverence, awe, and respect
         for God will cause one to praise Him and give thanks for His 
         wonderful grace and mercy!

CONCLUSION

1. Why study "The Minor Prophets"?
   a. This question was asked by a dear sister in Christ, when I 
      preached this series before
   b. She did not see the value of Christians studying this portion of
      the Old Testament
   c. Yet, she later remarked how much she got out of our study

2. Why study "The Minor Prophets"? Because in them we learn about...
   a. The nature of God, His holiness, justice, righteousness and mercy
   b. The workings of God, as He dealt with nations, bringing judgment
      upon the guilty
   ...which can help us in our relationship with God today, giving us 
      comfort and hope to face the future, knowing that God is in 
      ultimate control!
   
I hope this brief introduction has whetted your appetite to study "The 
Minor Prophets". Our next lesson will begin the study in earnest with
a look at the book of Obadiah...


eXTReMe Tracker 

“The Man Upstairs” by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



“The Man Upstairs”

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Maybe you have been in a conversation when a person used the phrase “the Man upstairs.” In fact, it might be the case that you have used it yourself. Most people understand that this phrase is supposed to refer to God. The famous country singer Garth Brooks performed a song, titled “Unanswered Prayers,” in which he referred to God as “the Man upstairs.” Let’s consider some possible implications that this idea may contain.
There seems to be a human tendency to view God as “the Big Man,” or “the Man upstairs,” and attribute to Him human qualities. Most of the time, when a person uses such phrases, that person attributes to God more power than other men, and places God higher (upstairs) than other men, but still views God as some kind of giant, powerful Man. In fact, the Greek and Roman religions took the “Man upstairs” idea to its logical conclusion and attributed to their gods personalities and character flaws that were seen in mere men. The pagan deities lied, cheated, stole, consorted, and murdered like “little” humans, only their dastardly deeds were perceived to be on a cosmic scale.
In truth, the Bible paints a very different picture of God than is contained in the thought of “the Man upstairs.” The Bible repeatedly insists that God is not a man. In Numbers 23:19, in an inspired oracle, Balak stated: “God is not a man, that He should lie.” The prophet Isaiah wrote: “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts’” (55:8-9). The true God of heaven is nothing like the ancient pagan deities with their lies and hypocrisy. The God of heaven “cannot lie” (Titus 1: 2), nor can He even be tempted with evil (James 1:13). In fact, God is perfect in every way, “a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He” (Deuteronomy 32:4).
While it is true that the Bible sometimes describes God with human traits (called anthropomorphisms), like having hands or eyes, it is not true that God is just a bigger, higher Man. He is altogether perfect, “Whose judgments are unsearchable and Whose ways are past finding out” (Romans 11:33). Let us always bear in mind as we approach our God in worship and prayer, that we are approaching the Perfect God of Heaven “to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 4:11).
[NOTE: Of course we understand that Jesus was called the Son of Man, and became a Man. Unlike other men, however, Jesus lived a perfect life and never sinned. This brief article is solely intended to encourage us not to view God as having the same character flaws, failings, and limitations as men and to refer to him in an accurate, reverent way.]

“The First Day of the Week” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.





“The First Day of the Week”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


All four gospel accounts reveal how Jesus rose (and His tomb was found empty) “on the first day of the week” (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; cf. 20:19). Years later, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church commanding them to make regular contributions “on the first day of the week” (1 Corinthians 16:2; or “on the first day of every week”—NASB, NIV, RSV). Luke recorded in the book of Acts how Paul, while on his third missionary journey, assembled with the Christians in Troas “on the first day of the week” (20:7). The phrase “the first day of the week” appears eight times in the most widely used English translations of the New Testament. Based on this reading of the text, along with various supplemental passages (e.g., Revelation 1:10), Christians assemble to worship God on Sunday. Upon looking at the Greek text, however, some have questioned the integrity of the translation “the first day of the week,” wondering if a better wording would be “the Sabbath day.”
Admittedly, a form of the Greek word for sabbath (sabbaton or sabbatou) does appear in each of the eight passages translated “first day of the week.” For example, in Acts 20:7 this phrase is translated from the Greek mia ton sabbaton. However, sabbaton (or sabbatou) is never translated as “the Sabbath day” in these passages. Why? Because the word is used in these contexts (as Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree) to denote a “week” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 364), “a period of seven days” (Danker, et al., 2000, p. 910; cf. Thayer, 1962, p. 566). Jesus once used the term “Sabbath” in this sense while teaching about the sinfulness of self-righteousness (Luke 18:9). He told a parable of the sanctimonious Pharisee who prayed: “God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess” (18:11-12, emp. added). The phrase “twice a week” comes from the Greek dis tou sabbatou. Obviously Jesus was not saying that the Pharisee boasted of fasting twice on the Sabbath day, but twice (disa week (tou sabbatou).
According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (1943, p. 1148). Thus, mia ton sabbaton means “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath (Lenski, p. 1148), or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.”
After spending years examining Jewish writings in the Babylonian Talmud, Hebraist John Lightfoot wrote A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in which he expounded upon the Hebrew method of counting the days of the week. He noted: “The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first dayof the sabbathtwo (or the second dayof the sabbath;” etc. (1859, 2:375, emp. in orig.). Lightfoot then quoted from two different Talmud tractates. Maccoth alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375, emp. in orig.; Maccoth, Chapter 1). Bava Kama describes ten enactments ordained by a man named Ezra, including the public reading of the law “on the second and fifth days of the sabbath,” and the washing of clothes “on the fifth day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375; Bava Kama, Chapter 7). In Michael Rodkinson’s 1918 translation of Maccoth and Bava Kama, he accurately translated “the second day of the sabbath” as Monday, “the fifth day of the sabbath” as Thursday, and “the first of the sabbath” as Sunday.
If the word sabbaton in passages such as Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, and Acts 20:7 actually denoted “the Sabbath day,” rather than “a period of seven days,” one would expect some of the foremost Bible translations to translate it thusly. Every major English translation of the Bible, however, translates mia ton sabbaton as “the first day of the week.” Why? Because scholars are aware of the Jewish method of counting the days of the week by using the Sabbath as a reference point.
Finally, consider the difficulty that would arise with Jesus’ resurrection story if sabbaton was translated Sabbath. “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first Sabbath (sabbaton), they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (emp. added). Such a rending of sabbaton in Mark 16:2 would be nonsensical. The Sabbath was over, and the mia ton sabbaton (“first day of the week”) had begun. The passage is understood properly only when one recognizes the Jewish method of reckoning weekdays.
Just as second century apologists Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) spoke of Jesus as rising from the dead “on the first day after the Sabbath” (Dialogue..., 41), and equated this day with “Sunday” (“First Apology,” 67), so should 21st century Christians. That Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week” (Mark 16:9), and that Christians gathered to worship on this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; cf. Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” 67), is an established fact. Sunday is the first day after the Jewish Sabbath—the “first day of the week.”

REFERENCES

Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Justin Martyr, (1973 reprint), Dialogue with Trypho, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Justin Martyr (1973 reprint), First Apology, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lightfoot, John (1979 reprint), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Perschbacher, Wesley J., ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Rodkinson, Michael, trans. (1918), The Babylonian Talmud, [On-line], URL: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm#t06.
Thayer, Joseph (1962 reprint), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

“Our God is a Consuming Fire” by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


“Our God is a Consuming Fire”

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


In an effort to bolster the idea that the punishment of the wicked in the afterlife will be annihilation, proponents of annihilationism frequently have focused on the biblical terms “consume” and “consuming.” Since the Bible does indeed say that “our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29), and since the words “consume” and “consuming” can, and sometimes do, refer to the annihilation of physical matter, then many annihilationists have asserted that God will annihilate the souls of wicked humans. Homer Hailey, in his posthumously published book, God’s Judgements and Punishments, has an entire chapter titled “Our God—A Consuming Fire.” In that chapter, he deals almost entirely with the Old Testament usage of the terms “consume” and “consuming.” Concerning these terms, he remarked:
The word needing a clear definition is “consume” or “consuming.” The English word is translated from so many Hebrew words, and the Hebrew words are translated by so many English words, that it is difficult to find a precise definition for “consume.” It is best therefore to learn its meaning from usage and examples (2003, p. 136).
Hailey then proceeded to the burning bush passage, in which Moses approached the bush that “burned with fire” but “was not consumed” (Exodus 3:2). Hailey concluded: “In this instance, ‘consumed’ meant ‘burned up’ ” (p. 136). He then cited an example of a burnt offering being “consumed” on the altar (Leviticus 9:23-24) as evidence to suggest that “consumed” means to burn up.
After listing these non-human subjects of consumption, Hailey listed several Old Testament examples in which sinful humans are said to have been “consumed”: “Let sinners be consumed out of the earth. And let the wicked be no more” (Psalm 104:35); “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of Jehovah shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; in smoke shall they consume away” (Psalm 37: 20). Hailey also listed the rebellion of Korah, where God told Moses and Aaron to get away from the rebels “that I may consume them in a moment” (Numbers 16:21). And later in the same context, God sent a plague among the people in which God made the same comment about consuming them as He did concerning the rebels in verse 21.
When it came time to summarize his chapter, Hailey placed two columns at the top of the final page, one titled “What is Said,” and the other titled “What is Not Said.” In the “What is Said” column, he listed Hebrews 12:29, Numbers 16 and Deuteronomy 4:24. Then he listed the “means of consuming,” and recorded the Earth swallowing the rebels with Korah, the plague, and fire arriving from heaven. In the “What is Not Said” column, the entire text under the column is one line that reads: “That they all burn forever” (p. 139). He obviously was attempting to lead the reader to conclude that consume and consuming must mean annihilation.
Is it correct to understand that the biblical use of the words “consume” and “consuming” must entail that the souls of the wicked will be annihilated? Simply put, no. First, in order to conclude that the words imply annihilation, Hailey provided examples like the burning bush and the burning of an offering that do refer to the item being consumed—burned up completely. Conspicuously missing, however, are those examples in which the item that is consumed is not burned up completely. The Hebrew words translated “to consume” can mean any number of things, including: “to eat, devour, slay, to be wasted, to be destroyed, to feed, exterminate, to cause to cease, be accomplished, and exhaust, among others” (see “Akal,” 1999; “Kalah,” 1999). Are there examples in which the terms “consume” and “consuming” do not insinuate total incineration? Certainly. For instance, in Jeremiah 14, the Lord commented that He by no means would accept the idolatrous Israelites, and then stated: “But I will consume them by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence” (14:12). Would their being consumed necessitate that their bodies would be completely burned into nonexistence? The text answered that question when it stated that the bodies of those consumed would “be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; they will have no one to bury them” (14:12). The consuming taking place in Jeremiah obviously did not entail a complete burning up, but instead a punishment of physical death in which the bodies of those who were consumed would still remain for some time to decay in the open streets.
Again, in Genesis 31:15, Rachel and Leah, in their discussion of their father’s behavior, commented: “Are we not considered strangers by him? For he has sold us, and also completely consumed our money.” Did they mean to say that their money had been burned and annihilated into nonexistence? No. Rather, it had been spent or wasted, and thus no longer was of use to them.
Genesis 31:40 serves as a final example of the various ways the word “consumed” can be used. In this text, Jacob describes the hardships he endured during his tenure with Laban.
In that discussion, Jacob stated: “There I was! In the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night, and my sleep departed from my eyes.” Was Jacob completely burned up or annihilated during the day? Not in any sense. Interestingly, the same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 31:40 that is used in Deuteronomy 4:24—which was cited by Hailey, and from which his Hebrews 12:29 quote is taken. It is evident, then, that the words “consume” and “consuming” do not necessarily connote complete annihilation, but can, and often do, make reference to a state of waste and ruin, or, as in Jacob’s case, pain, suffering and hardship.
It also is interesting to note that, among the examples given by Hailey that supposedly imply the annihilation of those things (or people) which were consumed, are the individuals who were consumed in the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16. Yet in the New Testament, Jude offered divinely inspired commentary on certain sinful individuals, stating: “Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah” (vs. 11). Jude further commented that these sinners were “raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever” (vs. 13). Therefore, these sinners had “perished in the rebellion of Korah,” and yet their souls were not completely consumed or annihilated, but had a reservation in a place where there was “blackness of darkness forever.” From the New Testament commentary offered by Jude, it is evident that those consumed in the rebellion of Korah did not go out of existence altogether, but that their physical lives were ended and their souls awaited a punishment in darkness forever.
Once again, an appeal to incomplete word studies in an attempt to force the idea of annihilationism on the biblical text is speculative and unfounded, to say the least. The overwhelming evidence of Scripture explicitly states and implicitly teaches that the souls of the wicked will be punished in the fires of hell forever—without respite.

REFERENCES

Akal: 398” (1999), Logos Library System: Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Logos Research Systems: Bellingham, WA).
Hailey, Homer (2003), God’s Judgements & Punishments (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Publications).
Kalahl: 3615” (1999), Logos Library System: Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Logos Research Systems: Bellingham, WA).

JESUS-ORIGINAL SIN-SIN NATURE- AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY? BY STEVE FINNELL



JESUS-ORIGINAL SIN-SIN NATURE- AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY?BY STEVE FINNELL


The false doctrine of original sin is believed by a billion + believers in Jesus Christ. The doctrine of original sin is that all mankind, since Adam and Eve, are born guilty of Adam's sin and are born with a sin nature. The truth is all mankind have been born sinless and are born with the free-will to do good or evil.    


Jesus was not born guilty of Adam's sin. Jesus was not born with a sinful nature. Yes, Jesus had an age of accountability. Jesus had free will. Just as do all men.

Isaiah 7:14-16 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.(NASB)

Yes, Jesus had an age of accountability. He was not born a sinner nor born with a sin nature. Jesus was born with a free-will.

What was the age of accountability? I do not know, however, Jesus was teaching in the temple at age 12. (Luke 2:39-52)

Hebrews 2:9-17.....17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.(NASB)

Jesus was made like all men. He was not guilty of Adam's sin. He was not born with a sinful nature. He was born with an age of accountability.

No person has been born with the guilt of Adam's sin. Men are not born with a sin nature. All men have an age of accountability. Jesus was made like all men.

The difference is Jesus lived a sinless life. (1 John 3:5) All men are guilty of sin, however, they are only guilty of the sins they themselves commit. ( Romans 3:23) Men have free-will. They can chose to do good or evil. They can chose to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior or they can reject Him.

An Elder’s Children by B. Johnson


An Elder’s Children

Who or what are the elders? Consider how the qualifications and work of an elder would be one of the best influences a child could enjoy. Elders were associated with James in Jerusalem in the local church’s government (Acts 11:29-30; Acts 16:4-5; Acts 20:28-32; Acts 21:18) and, with the apostles, in the decisions of the early church (Acts 15:1-35). Elders were also appointed in the churches established during the Apostle Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 14:23). Paul addressed the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:17-35). Elders played an important role in church life through their ministry to the sick-both physical and spiritual (James 5:14-15). They also were teachers in a local congregation (1 Peter 5:1-5). In addition to ministering to the sick, their duties consisted of explaining the Scriptures and teaching doctrine (1 Tim 5:17-20). The elder’s child would have the benefit, not only of his own father’s influence in the home but also the influence of the entire eldership to train him.
We know that John was an elder (2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1) and as such had faithful children. Timothy was told to count those elders who ruled well worthy of double honor and not to receive an accusation against an elder except at the mouth of two or three witnesses (1 Tim 5:17-19). Titus was also told to ordain elders in every city (Titus 1:5). The qualifications specified for becoming an elder follow in the next three verses (Titus 1:6-9).
An elder should be “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Timothy 3:4-5).
A very important qualification of an elder or bishop is that he rules his own house well. With a view to be qualified as an elder, a man would make a special effort to be sure his children were well trained in all the ways of God. Therefore the elder would learn how to preside over and govern his own family. He must be a man who has the command of his own house, not by tyranny, but with all gravity; governing his household by principle with everyone knowing his own place, and each doing his own work.
“For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim 3:5).
Method is a matter of great importance in all the affairs of life. Look at a man’s domestic affairs, and if it is discovered that they are not good, he cannot be trusted with any form of government in the church.
“If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly” (Titus 1:6). It is an either or situation: either his children enjoy the proper training in the way they should go, or he is not acceptable to rule God’s children.
Beth Johnson
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Down ONLY! by Gary Rose


Whoever made this is clever, tacky but clever. Tacky, because anyone can see that a man should never treat his wife like this. More than that – it is not funny. But, there are people out there who might actually think this is acceptable for a husband. I feel sorry for them and I hope they change before they head to divorce court. Marriage should only enhance a relationship, not degrade it. The apostle Paul wrote these words to the Ephesian church…


Ephesians 5 ( World English Bible )
 [25]  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it; [26] that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,  [27] that he might present the assembly to himself gloriously, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without defect.  [28] Even so husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.  [29] For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly;  [30] because we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones.  [31] “For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will be joined to his wife. The two will become one flesh.”  [32] This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and of the assembly. 



Marriage is an expression of love and should remain that way. It is a bond that is forever and the foundation of our society. At its center is love, genuine love, that should just grow over the years. All people should understand this – especially Christians!