2/10/20

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS" Joel - The Day Of The Lord (1:1-2:27) by Mark Copeland

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"

Joel - The Day Of The Lord (1:1-2:27)

INTRODUCTION

1. We now turn to the book of Joel, and this will be the first of two
   lessons

2. The name "Joel" means "Jehovah is God", and we know very little about the author...
   a. The name appears frequently, with at least a dozen men sharing  the name 
in the O.T.
   b. Described as "the son of Pethuel" (1:1), there is no reason to
      associate him with any other Joel mentioned in the Bible

[As we begin our study, let's do so with some...]

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

   A. THE DATE...
      1. The date of the book is uncertain
         a. Some place it as one of the earliest of the "literary prophets" (ca. 900 B.C.)
         b. Some believe it was written after the Exile (ca. 400 B.C.)
      2. Hailey, Young, and other scholars defend the early date
         a. Suggesting a date of 830 B.C.
         b. Which is the date I am presuming for our study

   B. THE OCCASION...
      1. Joel's prophecy was occasioned by a calamity that had struck the land
         a. Literally, it is described as a locust plague
         b. Some suggest that the locusts were symbolical of an army that had invaded
      2. I take the description of the plague as literal
   
   C. THE MESSAGE...
      1. Joel sees the locust plague as a warning from God
         a. That the calamity was heralding "the day of the Lord" which was coming
         b. That if the people did not repent, this "day" would bring
            even more destruction
      2. So Joel's message is "Seek the Lord through repentance!"(1:1-2:27)
      3. Joel also has some things to say about what shall come to pass
         "afterward" (2:28-3:21)

[With this brief background as an introduction, let's now begin reading
the book with the aid of the following outline...]

II. OUTLINE OF THE BOOK (1:1-2:27)

   A. THE LAND IS LAID WASTE (1:1-12)
      1. Joel provides a graphic description of the locust plague (1-4)
      2. He calls for people to weep over the devastation (5-12)

   B. A PLEA TO CRY OUT TO THE LORD (1:13-20)
      1. To be led by the priests, consecrating a fast and calling the
           people together (13-14)
      2. For the present destruction is heralding the coming "day of the Lord"(15-18)
      3. Joel and the beasts take the lead, with their own cry to the Lord (19-20)

   C. THE COMING "DAY OF THE LORD" (2:1-11)
      1. A cry to warn the people, for the day is coming! (1)
      2. This particular "day of the Lord" is vividly described (2-11)
         a. It will be a recurrence of the locust plague
         b. Described as an invading army, an army led by God!
   
   D. A CALL TO REPENTANCE (2:12-17)
      1. Voiced first by God Himself (12)
      2. Then elaborated upon by Joel (13-17)
         a. Repent, for God Who is gracious may relent and provide a blessing
         b. Make it a national repentance, led by the priests

   E. THE LORD'S PROMISE IF THERE IS REPENTANCE (2:18-20)
      1. He will be zealous for His land, and show pity to the people (18)
      2. He will bless them with grain, wine, and oil (19)
      3. He will remove the "army" (locusts) from the north (20)

   F. A CALL TO COURAGE AND GLADNESS (2:21-24)
      1. A call directed by Joel towards:
         a. The land, for the Lord has done marvelous things (21)
         b. The beasts of the field, for the pastures and trees are 
            fruitful once again (22)
         c. The children of Zion, for the Lord is blessing the land 
            with rain and a full harvest (23-24)
      2. This passage implies the people repented, and the Lord was 
         keeping His promise!

   G. THE LORD'S REASSURANCE (2:25-27)
      1. God will restore what His "army" (the locusts) had destroyed (25)
      2. They will be blessed with plenty, and praise God for His grace (26)
      3. Then they shall truly know that God is over them (27)

[This ends the first part of Joel's prophecy.  It clearly pertained to
the people of his day.  The rest of the book looks forward to a period
described as "afterward" (2:28), "in those days and at that time"
(3:1), and "in that day" (3:18).  This section we will examine in
our next lesson.

But from what we have read thus far, what lessons can we learn from 
Joel?]

III. LESSONS FROM THE BOOK OF JOEL

   A. THE VALUE OF NATURAL CALAMITIES...
      1. They can serve to turn men back to God
      2. God certainly used them to reach out to His people in the O.T.
         - cf. Am 4:6-12
      3. But not all calamities come from God; some came from Satan 
         - cf. Job 1:6-19
      4. Whether calamities come from God, Satan, or are purely 
         coincidental, they should be times of reflection concerning
         life and our relationship to God - e.g., Job 1:20-22

   B. THE NATURE OF TRUE REPENTANCE (2:12-13a)
      1. It must be with all our heart (12a)
      2. It must be inward, not just outward (12b-13a)

   C. THE NATURE OF GOD (2:13b)
      1. He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of great 
         kindness - cf. Ps 103:8-14
      2. He relents from doing harm when we repent - cf. Jer 18:7-8

   D. "THE DAY OF THE LORD" CAN BE AVERTED...
      1. "The day of the Lord" often refers to God's judgment upon a nation
         a. Such judgments were many, and often described in terms 
            indicative of the final judgment at the end of time - cf. 
            the judgment of Babylon, Isa 13:1-13
         b. In the first part of Joel's prophecy, it referred to a 
            plague of locusts that would be greater than what they had
            already experienced - Joel 2:1-11
      2. But such judgments could be averted - cf. Jer 18:7-8
         a. Such happened with the city of Nineveh - cf. Jonah 3:1-10
         b. And when we compare Joel 1:11; 2:1,11 with 2:13-14,18-23,
            it appears to have been averted in Joel's day!
      3. Of course, this does not pertain to the "ultimate" day of the
         Lord at the end of time, but to the "preliminary" judgments 
         that God often brings upon a nation

CONCLUSION

1. Our next lesson will complete our survey of the book of Joel, in 
   which we will find...
   a. Joel writing of events that heralded the beginning of the
       Christian dispensation
   b. More lessons that are of value to the Christian

2. But in closing, may I remind you of that "day of the Lord" which is yet to
    come?
   a. A day vividly described in 2Pe 3:7-10
   b. A day which cannot be averted, but for which we can prepare- 2Pe 3:11-14

For those who prepare themselves for this coming "day of the Lord", 
they will find that indeed the Lord is "gracious and merciful, slow to
anger, and of great kindness" (Joel 2:13). But for those who continue
in their sins, we can only say along with Joel...

   "Alas for the day! For the day of the LORD is at hand; It shall
   come as destruction from the Almighty." (Joel 1:15)

A God Like That by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=906

A God Like That

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

If a hundred atheists, agnostics, or unbelievers were asked why they do not believe in God, they might give a hundred different reasons. Certainly, no single reason has emerged as the quintessential answer for unbelief. The problem of evil, pain, and suffering would rank at the top of the list, as well as the claim that “religion” is unscientific.
There is, however, another primary reason that many people give for not believing in the God of the Bible. They say that they would believe in a god if he acted different than the one in the Bible, but they simply “cannot” believe in a god that would act like the one discussed in the “holy book.” An excellent example of this argument comes from an article written by Ronald Defenbaugh. In it, he chronicled his life, pointing out specific times when his unbelief was confirmed by a particular action or idea taught by a “religious” individual or institution. In a paragraph detailing his early years of raising a family, he stated:
One evening, a friend about the same age as us rode home with us from one of our children’s sporting events. This was the first time I realized I may have a real problem with believing. She was a good friend of my spouse’s, a member of our Church and very religious. I don’t remember how the subject came up but salvation was our subject of conversation. She stated that even though my father had been an honest, caring person who did nothing but good, he would not receive salvation. He could only go to Heaven if he accepted Christ as his Savior. I remember thinking that I wanted no part of a deity that sent my father to Hell under those circumstances. Why would a baby, or my father, or even me be sent to Hell just because we didn’t accept Christ as our Savior? What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Again, what about me? This started me thinking that I probably was without belief. Or at least I didn’t understand it. It didn’t fit my logic (2003).
While his reference to God sending a baby to hell is without any biblical support, his understanding of the teaching of the concept that the God of the Bible will send to hell all individuals who have reached the age of accountability (the level of mental maturity at which a person is capable of understanding the concept of his or her own sin) and who have not accepted Jesus Christ, is absolutely accurate (John 8:24). Understanding this precept very clearly, he stated that he “wanted no part of a deity” like that. It is almost as if he is implying that if the God of the Bible were a little different, or if He better “fit” Defenbaugh’s own ideas, then he might be willing to believe in such a God.
Let’s analyze this position. Those who “cannot” believe in a God like the one in the Bible, conveniently accept as true all the characteristics of God that make Him look like a heartless tyrant. For instance, they accept that the God of the Bible is a deity Who has ordered executions of “immoral” nations that do not worship Him. They also accept that the God of the Bible will confine certain individuals to eternal destruction due to the “wrong” decisions of those individuals. (The word wrong is in quotation marks because the actions the Bible labels as wrong and the actions accepted as wrong by many unbelievers often are quite different.) After flipping through the Bible and compiling a list of all the things that they think a true god should not do, they then declare that they cannot believe in a god that would do such things.
In doing this, they neglect to accept the other characteristics of the God of the Bible that would make acceptable His actions and decisions. For instance, 1 John 3:20 states that God “knows everything.” There is not an unbeliever alive who would claim to know everything. Could it be that the things known by the God of the Bible, which are unknown to the skeptic, might just be the very things that could sufficiently explain God’s actions? Isaiah 55:8-9 states: “ ‘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.’ ” If the skeptic accepts from the Bible the ideas about God with which he disagrees, is he not equally obligated to accept the statements about God that explain the depth of God’s character? If the thoughts of God and the ways of God are far above all the ways of man, could it be that, in the great cosmic scheme of things, an all-knowing God might have some plans of which the skeptic is not fully informed?
To postulate a capricious God Who confines people to eternal destruction simply because those people do not “dot a few i’s” or “cross a few t’s” seems an easy straw man to destroy. Yet, when the “rest of the story” is told, the picture becomes much clearer. The fuller portrait of the God of the Bible is of a deity Who is all knowing (1 John 3:20) everlastingly righteous (Psalm 119:142), loving (John 3:16), compassionate and merciful (James 5:11), anxious for all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), and willing to give them numerous opportunities to do so (Acts 17:26-27).
The later portion of Defenbaugh’s article reveals the true essence of rejecting the God of the Bible. Defenbaugh commented that atheism “means no belief—no belief at all, godly, ungodly or otherwise. No Satan, Hell, Heaven, God, Jesus, Angel, Holy Ghost, no nothing. I am free of all constraints. The only person I have to answer to is Man—each man.” Once again, Defenbaugh hit the nail on the head when it came to his concept of the God of the Bible. God demands certain things from His human creation. But since Defenbaugh does not want to comply with those things, he has chosen instead to disbelieve, so that he can be “free of all constraints.” Yes, it truly is easy to answer “each man” since all human opinion carries equal weight. But “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19), and “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). In reality, after the Bible’s entire picture of God is allowed to shine through, in all its glory, no other god could measure up to “a God like that.”

REFERENCES

Defenbaugh, Ronald (2003), “Why I Couldn’t Deconvert,” [On-line], URL: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=263.

A Flawed Assumption Many Make About Kings and Chronicles by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5421

A Flawed Assumption Many Make About Kings and Chronicles


by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Thirty-three times in 1 & 2 Kings1 you will find the phrase “the book of the chronicles of the kings of” Israel/Judah.2 Ten times in 1 & 2 Chronicles3 you will discover the phrase “the book of the kings of” Israel/Judah.4 Many Bible readers assume that “the book of the chronicles” mentioned in 1 & 2 Kings is a reference to 1 & 2 Chronicles, while “the book of the kings” mentioned in 1 & 2 Chronicles is a reference to 1 & 2 Kings.5 Is such an assessment correct? Is “chronicles” in Kings a reference to 1 & 2 Chronicles, and is “kings” in Chronicles a reference to 1 & 2 Kings?
First, consider the matter from purely a common-sense perspective. How could each book be a reference to the other book? It makes sense that one of the books could possibly refer to the other or could prophesy about the future existence of the other, but how could both be referring to each other as already being in existence? If one book was written before the other, then the other book obviously was not yet written, and therefore the reference to it already being in existence would be impossible and nonsensical. (Imagine the original recipients reading over 30 times about a book that was not yet in existence. If such a thing happened with a written record today, we would call it “fiction,” not history.) Thus, on the surface alone, it should be evident that at least one of these books is not referring to the other.
Second, the evidence favors Chronicles being written a century or so after Kings. The final event recorded in Kings is Jehoiachin’s release from prison in the 37th year of Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 25:27-30), which would have been in 560 B.C.6—the earliest date of the writing of Kings. On the other hand, Chronicles concludes in the first year of the Persian King Cyrus (in 538 B.C.),7 when he wrote his public proclamation allowing all Jews in his kingdom to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple of Jehovah (2 Chronicles 36:22-23). Also, some of the Jewish descendants listed in the genealogies in Chronicles8 push the earliest date of the writing of Chronicles easily back to about 500 B.C. What’s more, if Ezra, “the skilled scribe in the law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6), wrote Chronicles (as Jewish tradition reasonably contends),9 the earliest date of Chronicles is moved back even further—to approximately 450 B.C.10 Thus, given the likely general time periods of the writing of Kings and Chronicles, it seems quite safe (and rational) to conclude that “the book of the chronicles of the kings” mentioned more than 30 times in Kings does not refer to Chronicles—a history written perhaps 100 years later.
Third, Kings appeals to “the book of the chronicles of the kings” for further details about various matters that are not recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. For example, regarding Nadab, the second king of Israel, 1 Kings 15:31 states: “Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?” However, none of Nadab’s acts are recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. (In fact, the inspired chronicler records very little activity of the kings of the northern kingdom.)  What’s more, 1 Chronicles 9:1 refers to a vast amount of genealogical information (cf. 1 Chronicles 1:1-8:40) in “the book of the kings of Israel,” which quite clearly is not from 1 & 2 Kings. (There simply is very little genealogical information in 1 & 2 Kings other than the overall, general succession of the kings of Israel and Judah. And there certainly is nothing like what the chronicler records in 1 Chronicles 1:1-8:40.)
Finally, consider the fact that Kings and Chronicles mention a number of different books about which the inspired writers (a) were aware and (b) used (by inspiration) as reference books. Kings documents the existence of “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), while Chronicles mentions “the book of Nathan the prophet,” “the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,” “the visions of Iddo the seer” (1 Chronicles 9:29), “the chronicles of King David” (1 Chronicles 27:24), “the book of Jehu the son of Hanani” (2 Chronicles 20:34), etc.11 Thus, it was quite natural for the inspired writers of Kings and Chronicles to reference non-canonical records in their historical writings. After all, if the inspired apostle Paul could occasionally quote from pagan poets (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), couldn’t the inspired prophets who penned Kings and Chronicles refer to any number of relevant sources in their histories? To ask is to answer.
Rather than go through life assuming the Bible teaches “this” or “that,” let’s resolve to reason through God’s inspired revelation and draw only those conclusions warranted by the evidence. In the case at hand, we learn that in addition to God’s inspired books of Kings and Chronicles, there were various relevant, historical, non-canonical writings to which the penmen of Kings and Chronicles alluded (which were not each other). Taking special note of these facts not only helps us in properly understanding the text, but it can also aid us in responding to Bible critics who may assume contradiction on the part of the writers of Kings and Chronicles.

Endnotes

1 First and Second Kings were originally one book in the Hebrew Bible.
2 This phrase is found 18 times in reference to the book of the kings of Israel and 15 times in reference to the book of the kings of Judah.
3 First and Second Chronicles were originally one book in the Hebrew Bible.
4 This phrase is found seven times in reference to both Israel and Judah and three times in reference to Israel alone. In addition, the phrase “the book of the kings” is found once without any particular kingdom specified.
5 In fact, just recently I heard an otherwise great Bible lesson where a preacher misidentified these books in this manner.
6 If Jehoiachin was carried away into captivity in 597 B.C. (1 Kings 24:8-16), and he was in captivity for 37 years (1 Kings 25:27), then his release (and the closing of the book of Kings) would have taken place in 560 B.C.
7 See J. Barton Payne (1988), “1 & 2 Chronicles,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 4:304.
8 Including two grandsons of Zerubbabel (1 Chronicles 3:17-21).
9 Cf. the language at the end of 2 Chronicles (36:22-23) and the beginning of Ezra (1:1-4).
10 See Payne, 4:304-306.
11 For more information on various non-canonical writings referenced in the Bible, see AP’s article “Are There Lost Books of the Bible?” (2003), www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=66.


A Critical Blunder In "Christianity for Blockheads" by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2834


A Critical Blunder In "Christianity for Blockheads"

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Making the Bible and Christianity easier to understand for Christians and non-Christians is certainly a noble aspiration. Douglas Connelly and Martin Manser have attempted to do this very thing in their new book Christianity for Blockheads. There are many things this book gets right (e.g., God’s existence, Jesus’ divinity, the Bible’s inspiration, salvation being a free gift from God, etc.). Like so many denominational writers, however, Connelly and Manser have misled their readers regarding the Bible’s teaching on how to receive the gift of salvation.
In chapter eight, titled “Your Life’s Greatest Change: Salvation,” Connelly and Manser claim that the Bible associates faith and repentance with “the act of becoming a Christian” (p. 150), but “you are not delivered from sin’s penalty...because you were baptized” (p. 149). Non-Christians are instructed simply to say the “sinner’s prayer” in order to become a Christian (p. 151). But, the fact of the matter is, a non-Christian does not become a Christian merely by praying. Jesus made this clear in Mark 16:16 (cf. Matthew 7:21). Peter made this clear in Acts 2:38. Ananias made this clear in Acts 22:16. And Paul made this clear in Galatians 3:27. [NOTE: Ananias did not tell Paul that his sins were washed away when he spoke to Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:4-6), or when he fasted for three days (9:9), or when he prayed (9:11), but when he was baptized (22:16).]
In addition to faith and repentance, the New Testament teaches that one’s immersion in water also precedes salvation (not that H20 saves us, but that the blood of Jesus saves us [Revelation 1:5], when we are baptized). It is mentioned numerous times throughout the New Testament, and both Jesus and His disciples taught that it precedes salvation (Mark 16:16; Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38). The apostle Paul’s sins were washed away only after he was immersed in water (Acts 22:16; cf. Acts 9:18). [NOTE: Even though it was on the road to Damascus that Paul heard the Lord, spoke to Him, and believed on Him (Acts 9), Paul did not receive salvation until he went into Damascus and was baptized.] The book of Acts is replete with examples of those who did not receive the gift of salvation until after they professed faith in Christ, repented of their sins, and were baptized (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12; 8:26-40; 10:34-48; 16:14-15; 16:30-34; 18:8). Furthermore, the epistles of Peter and Paul also call attention to the necessity of baptism (1 Peter 3:21; Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:1-4). If a person wants the multitude of spiritual blessings found “in Christ” (e.g., salvation—2 Timothy 2:10; forgiveness—Ephesians 1:7; cf. Ephesians 2:12; etc.), he must not stop after confessing faith in the Lord Jesus, or after resolving within himself to turn from a sinful lifestyle. He also must be “baptized into Christ” (Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
Sadly, Christianity for Blockheads builds a roadblock to heaven. Unless readers of this cliff-note version of the New Testament return to the New Testament itself and let the Bible writings speak for themselves, those who read this book will remain ignorant of the final step one must take in order to have his or her sins forgiven. This is the final step Peter told the thousands on Pentecost to take (Acts 2:28), the final step that Ananias told Paul to take (Acts 22:16), and the step that saturates Luke’s account of the first 30 years of the church.
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:37-38, emp. added).
*For more information on what a non-Christian must do to become a Christian, please read our free e-book, Receiving the Gift of Salvation.

REFERENCES

Connelly, Douglas and Martin Manser (2009), Christianity for Blockheads (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (no date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Should Christians Fight for Ten Commandments? by David Vaughn Elliott

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/should-christians-fight-for-ten.html

Should Christians Fight for Ten Commandments?
by David Vaughn Elliott

The battle over the display of the Ten Commandments has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. What place do Christians have in this battle? Does God tell Christians to spend their time and energy defending the display of the Ten Commandments in public places? Is this a Christian issue?

It is commonly believed that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the U.S. legal system. Absolutely false. For starters, consider these four obvious ones. First Command: "Have no other gods." Second Command: "not bow down" to "any graven image." U.S. law is the opposite of both. U.S. law upholds freedom of religion. Fourth Command: "The seventh day [Saturday] is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work." No U.S. laws here, thank God. Skip to the Tenth: "You shall not covet." There are no U.S. laws that fine or jail people for coveting. How could there be? Coveting is in the heart.  

A related belief is that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our so-called Judeo-Christian culture. The fact is that the Ten Commandments are a Jewish, not a Christian, document. The preamble states, "I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt" (Ex. 20:2). That is clearly a document for Israel, later called Jews. 

What is the Christian view of the Ten Commandments? In 2 Cor. 3:7, God is obviously speaking of the Ten when He refers to that which was "engraved in stones" at the time of Moses. These Ten Commandments are called "the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones... the ministration of condemnation... that which is done away" (3:7-11). In contrast, we now have "the new testament... the ministration of the spirit... the ministration of righteousness... that which remains" (3:6-11).  

Many believe that the Ten Commandments are the greatest of all laws. Jesus disagreed. When asked what was the greatest commandment, He did not mention any of the ten (Matt. 22:34-40). He singled out love of God (Deut. 6:5) and love of neighbor (Lev. 19:18) as the basis of "all the law and the prophets."

God predicted a new covenant. We have a new covenant. Let us not get caught up in the religious world's frenzy over defending the stone tablets of the old covenant. Jesus nailed the old ordinances to the cross (Col. 2:14). 

"The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Let the world, secular and religious, fight it's own battles over public display of the "ministration of death and condemnation." We have a new covenant of grace and life that was predicted by the prophets of old. Praise God, Jesus fulfilled those predictions. 

Plead For the Widow by B. Johnson


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/pleadforwidow.html

Plead For the Widow

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, ‘Woman, behold thy son!’ Then saith he to the disciple, ‘Behold thy mother!’ And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home” (John 19:25-27).
The New Testament scriptures tell us of our responsibility toward women in the church who have been faithful workers in the Lord’s vineyard whose husbands have died. What kind of ‘insurance policy’ may faithful widows expect? What can they expect from Christian children or nephews? Paul told Timothy, “But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day” (1 Tim 5:4-5). Then four verses later, he adds additional qualifications. “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man” (1 Tim 5:9-10). That direction to children and nephews is pretty plain, and most Biblical scholars believe it includes grandchildren as well.
Even under the Old Testament Law, God’s provision for widows was one of the most marvelous systems anywhere. The widow was to share the tithe of Israel with the Levite, the stranger and the fatherless (Deut 26:12). This appears to include any widow, whether or not she is blood related. She also was to share the joys of the annual feast (Deut 16:11). A man, his son, daughter, manservant, maidservant, the Levite, any stranger, fatherless and the widow could enjoy the bounty at the Feast of Weeks together.
The widow could also glean in the fields where she had not planted (Deut 24:19). If a man forgot a sheaf in the field or dropped some grain in the corners, he was not to go again to get it, but leave it to the stranger (foreigner), the fatherless and the widow. Ruth was a well-known widow who gleaned with the reapers (Ruth 2:8). We have read many times about how Boaz and his workers shared their meal of bread, vinegar, and parched corn with her. After they went back to work, Boaz (the owner of the field) told his reapers to leave some sheaves on purpose for her and let some grain drop so she could glean it (Ruth 2:14-16).
Part of the covenant between God and Israel was that Israel could continue to dwell in Canaan IF they did not oppress the stranger, the fatherless, or the widow, shed innocent blood or walk after other gods. If they kept their part of the covenant, God would give them the land forever (Jer 7:6-7). The Israelites were to execute judgment and righteousness, and to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the one who was oppressing them. They were to do no wrong, nor to do any violence to the stranger, the fatherless, or the widow. Neither were they to shed innocent blood (Jer 22:3).
If the Israelites had followed what God told them to do for the widows, there never would have been a pitiful case of women starving or being mistreated. Sadly however as we read the Bible, we come across many cases of abuse. Even in Jesus’ lifetime, we read of such things as the poor widow who had nothing but two mites to give as an offering at the temple. We see her faith led her to give even though she believed she would have to starve afterward (Mark 12:42-44; Luke 21:2-3). We read of the widow of Nain whose only son had died and left her helpless (Luke 7:11-15). We read the account of the unjust judge who would not avenge the widow of her adversary until she wearied him with her continual coming (Luke 18:1-5). Who were her adversaries? Who were the ones who deliberately abused her in opposition to the laws given by God? How will God view those who oppress the widows?

“Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:16-17).
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)

UP-SIDE-DOWN by Gary Rose


If you look at the world through this crystal, the world seems up-side-down. Its a strange thing to see, but quite a normal thing for a crystal. I grew up in a godless household, that exemplified everything the word godless implies. Drinking, swearing, cheating in all sorts of ways were the norm. When I became a Christian I was never REALLY welcome there again. Why? Well, I just didn’t do the things my family did anymore. I prayed, attended church and tried to please God in every way. I still remember trying to reconcile several times with my father, only to be cursed and spit upon each time. I could tell that the rest of my family didn’t accept what I believed, but just thought that it was just something I was “into” and ignored both God and his message. All of them just couldn’t understand how I could become a “good for nothing” Christian.

In short my world had turned up-side-down. But that is nothing new, for becoming a Christian has always involved a complete change of ones life. Consider these two passages from the book of Acts…


Acts 17 ( World English Bible )
  [1] Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.  [2] Paul, as was his custom, went in to them, and for three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,  [3] explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 

  [4]  Some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas, of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and not a few of the chief women.  [5] But the unpersuaded Jews took along some wicked men from the marketplace, and gathering a crowd, set the city in an uproar. Assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring them out to the people.  [6] When they didn’t find them, they dragged Jason and certain brothers before the rulers of the city, crying, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here also,  [7] whom Jason has received. These all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus!”  [8] The multitude and the rulers of the city were troubled when they heard these things.  [9] When they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

AND

Acts 26 (WEB)
  [1] Agrippa said to Paul, “You may speak for yourself.” 

Then Paul stretched out his hand, and made his defense.  [2] “I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before you this day concerning all the things that I am accused by the Jews, [3] especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews. Therefore I beg you to hear me patiently. 

  [4]  “Indeed, all the Jews know my way of life from my youth up, which was from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem;  [5] having known me from the first, if they are willing to testify, that after the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.  [6] Now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers,  [7] which our twelve tribes, earnestly serving night and day, hope to attain. Concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, King Agrippa!  [8] Why is it judged incredible with you, if God does raise the dead? 

  [9]  “I myself most certainly thought that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.  [10] This I also did in Jerusalem. I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them. [11] Punishing them often in all the synagogues, I tried to make them blaspheme. Being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. 

  [12]  “Whereupon as I traveled to Damascus with the authority and commission from the chief priests, [13] at noon, O king, I saw on the way a light from the sky, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who traveled with me.  [14] When we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 

  [15]  “I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ 

He said, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.   [16]  But arise, and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose: to appoint you a servant and a witness both of the things which you have seen, and of the things which I will reveal to you;   [17]  delivering you from the people, and from the Gentiles, to whom I send you,   [18]  to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ 

  [19]  “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,  [20] but declared first to them of Damascus, at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.  [21] For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple, and tried to kill me.  [22] Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would happen,  [23] how the Christ must suffer, and how, by the resurrection of the dead, he would be first to proclaim light both to these people and to the Gentiles.” 

  [24]  As he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are crazy! Your great learning is driving you insane!” 

  [25]  But he said, “I am not crazy, most excellent Festus, but boldly declare words of truth and reasonableness.  [26] For the king knows of these things, to whom also I speak freely. For I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him, for this has not been done in a corner.  [27] King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” 

  [28]  Agrippa said to Paul, “With a little persuasion are you trying to make me a Christian?” 

  [29]  Paul said, “I pray to God, that whether with little or with much, not only you, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these bonds.” 


People will react in different ways when introduced to the real king of the universe. Some will accept Jesus for who he is and turn from the darkness of sin to the light of God and others will not. Those who do change will be different, because Godliness is different from god-less-ness. Their eyes will be opened to a better way of living now and to an eternal reward in heaven. Paul wrote these words to the congregation at Corinth…

2 Corinthians 4 (WEB)
  [1] Therefore seeing we have this ministry, even as we obtained mercy, we don’t faint.  [2] But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.  [3] Even if our Good News is veiled, it is veiled in those who perish;  [4] in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.  [5] For we don’t preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake;  [6] seeing it is God who said, “Light will shine out of darkness,”who has shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ

Only one thing remains to be said: have you seen the light of God yet? If not, I pray that you WILL, for your eternal soul is at stake. Why not obey the Gospel of Christ today? You will see…

the world will look better

UP-SIDE-DOWN