"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"
Malachi - My Messenger (2:17-4:6)
INTRODUCTION
1. In our previous lesson we introduced the last of "The Minor Prophets"...
a. Malachi, whose name means "My Messenger"
b. A prophet of God during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (ca. 444 B.C.)
c. A prophet who like Ezra the priest...
1) Attacked the spiritual and moral decay at that time
2) Especially among the priests
d. A prophet who used the didactic-dialectic style of teaching
1) Making a charge, raising potential objections, and then refuting them
2) Which later became common in Jewish schools and synagogues
2. We have already seen how Malachi addressed three problems affecting
Israel at that time...
a. They were doubting God's love - Mal 1:1-5
b. They were dishonoring God's name - Mal 1:6-2:9
1) By offering blemished sacrifices
2) By offering half-hearted worship
c. They were profaning God's covenant - Mal 2:10-16
1) By marrying heathen women
2) By divorcing their Jewish wives
3. In the last section of the book of Malachi, we find...
a. More indications of their spiritual and moral decay
b. Promises concerning the coming Messiah!
[We begin with the last verse of the second chapter, noting how...]
I. THEY WERE TRYING GOD'S PATIENCE
A. BY QUESTIONING THE JUSTICE OF GOD - Mal 2:17
1. They had wearied God with their words
2. Especially regarding His justice:
a. For they said that those who do evil is good in God's
sight, that He even delights in them
b. For they asked, "Where is the God of justice?"
B. THE LORD'S RESPONSE WILL BE TO SEND HIS MESSENGER - Mal 3:1-5
1. First, the "messenger" who will prepare His way for Him - Mal 3:1a
a. A clear reference to John the Baptist
b. Compare Isa 40:3; Mt 3:1-3; 11:7-10
2. Then will appear the "Messenger of the covenant" - Mal 3:1b
a. Here the reference is to Christ, the Messiah for which they had longed
b. Who certainly came to His temple - Mt 21:12ff
c. And was a messenger of a new covenant - Mt 26:26-28
3. His coming will be one to purge His people - Mal 3:2-5
a. Like a refiner's fire and a fuller's soap
b. The sons of Levi (i.e., priests) especially, that their offerings may be acceptable
c. He will come near to judge those who do not fear the Lord - cf. Mt 3:11-12
[With the coming of the "Messenger of the covenant", they would have
their answer to the question "Where is the God of justice?"
As we continue, we see yet another complaint God had against the
Israelites in Malachi's day...]
II. THEY WERE FORSAKING GOD'S ORDINANCES
A. GOD CHARGES THEM WITH INCONSISTENCY - Mal 3:6-7
1. Unlike God Himself, whose unchanging nature has kept Him from
totally consuming Israel! - Mal 3:6
2. Yet their history showed a practice of apostasy - Mal 3:7a
3. Even when called to return, they ask "In what way shall we return?" - Mal 3:7b
4. No answer is given directly
a. Perhaps because the answer is so obvious it does not deserve a response
b. Or the answer is given by the example which follows...
B. THEIR TITHES AS A CASE IN POINT - Mal 3:8-12
1. They had robbed God by their failure to offer their tithes - Mal 3:8
2. For this reason the whole nation had been accursed - Mal 3:9
3. They are challenged to bring the tithes, and to see the
blessings that would follow - Mal 3:10-12
[The sixth and final complaint that God had against them is now presented...]
III. THEY WERE DESPISING GOD'S SERVICE
A. BY SAYING IT WAS VAIN TO SERVE GOD - Mal 3:13-15
1. Their words were harsh against God - Mal 3:13
2. Questioning what profit there was in keeping His ordinances - Mal 3:14
2. Calling the proud blessed, saying the wicked are raised up,
and those who tempt God go free - Mal 3:15
B. YET SOME BEGAN TO HEED MALACHI'S MESSAGE - Mal 3:16-4:6
1. Those who feared the Lord, as they spoke to one another - Mal 3:16a
2. Whom the Lord noticed, and a "book of remembrance" was written - Mal 3:16b
3. Whom the Lord promised to make His "jewels" and spare them - Mal 3:17
a. It will be easy to discern the righteous - Mal 3:18
b. For the day was coming when the wicked will be burned liked stubble - Mal 4:1
c. But those who fear His name will be blessed by "the Sun of
Righteousness" (i.e., Jesus) - Mal 4:2-3
4. Until then...
a. The faithful are exhorted to heed the Law of Moses - Mal 4:4
b. And await the coming of "Elijah the prophet" (i.e., John
the Baptist) who will come to prepare people for the coming
of the Lord - Mal 4:5-6; cf. Lk 1:16-17
CONCLUSION
1. As with most prophets, Malachi had a message for both the present and the future...
a. Exhorting the people to look at themselves, how they were guilty of:
1) Doubting God's love
2) Dishonoring God's name
3) Profaning God's covenant
4) Trying God's patience
5) Forsaking God's ordinances
6) Despising God's service
-- Note: These points were adapted from Wiersbe's "Be Amazed"commentary
b. Encouraging the people to look forward to the coming of:
1) God's Messenger (John), who would come in the spirit of Elijah
and prepare people for the coming of the Lord
2) The Messenger of the covenant (Jesus), who come to refine and
purify those willing to repent, and bring judgment on those who do not fear the Lord
2. It is encouraging to note that some evidently took Malachi's messageto heart - Mal 3:16-18
a. Whom the Lord would claim as His
b. Whom the Lord would make His "jewels"
c. Whom the Lord would spare as a man spares His own son who serves him
As we come to the close of this survey of "The Minor Prophets", perhaps
it is appropriate to ask: Are we willing to take the prophets' messages to heart?
* They were written for our learning and admonition - cf. Ro 15:4; 1Co 10:11
* They help make us wise for the salvation which by faith in Christ - cf. 2Ti 3:14-15
* They are certainly profitable for instruction in righteousness- cf. 2Ti 3:16-17
I pray that in some way this series has helped you to appreciate the
value of studying "The Minor Prophets" and making application of them to your life.
4/3/20
"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS" Malachi - My Messenger (2:17-4:6) by Mark Copeland
Does God "Create" Evil? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1157
Does God "Create" Evil?
by | Wayne Jackson, M.A. |
[NOTE: During the February 12, 2009 Darwin Day debate with Kyle Butt, Dan Barker listed 14 alleged Bible discrepancies as evidence against God’s existence. He insisted (seven minutes and 25 seconds into his opening speech) that the Bible gives contradictory descriptions of God’s being good, yet creating evil. His allegation is refuted in the following article written by Wayne Jackson in 1982.]
Q.
The text of Isaiah 45:7 seems to indicate that God “creates evil.” Is this correct?A.
In Isaiah 45:7, the prophet wrote of God: “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.” On occasion, unbelievers appeal to this verse in an attempt to involve the Bible in a moral difficulty, since the text seems to suggest that God “created” evil. How should a Christian respond to such a charge?
First of all, the verse can have no reference to moral evil (wickedness) for such is opposed to the infinitely holy nature of God (Isaiah 6:3). Jehovah is a “God of faithfulness and without iniquity”(Deuteronomy 32:4). He is “not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness” (Psalm 5:4). Nor can it be supposed that this verse has to do with Jehovah’s original creation, for at the termination of the creation week, the Lord saw “everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).
The context of Isaiah 45:7, along with several passages of similar import, reveals the truth of the matter. Jehovah—through the prophet Isaiah—prophetically announced to King Cyrus of Persia (a century-and-a-half before the monarch’s birth!) His intention of using this pagan king as an instrument of His holy will. Within Isaiah 45:1-7 is a majestic affirmation of the universal sovereignty of the Almighty God; indeed, there is none like Him (vs. 5). He thus affirms: “I form light, and create darkness [i.e., control nature]; I make peace, and create evil [i.e., exercise control over the nations]; I am Jehovah that doeth all these things.”
Notice how the word “evil” is used in obvious contrast to “peace.” Isaiah simply was stating that Jehovah has the power to cause peaceful conditions to exist, or to bring about evil (i.e., destruction). Consider another verse. God warned the Israelites that if they made an alliance with Egypt, He would bring evil upon them [i.e., punishment (cf. Isaiah 31:1-2)]. Again, in describing the coming judgment upon ancient Babylon, the prophet declared: “Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shall not know the dawning thereof and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it away; and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou knoweth not” (Isaiah 47:11). Thus, the evil that God sent was a desolation—a desolation due on account of their wickedness!
Scholars have observed that “evil” can be used with a purely secular meaning to denote physical injury (Jeremiah 39:12), or times of distress (Amos 6:3)—which is its significance in Isaiah 45:7 (see Harris, et al., 1980, 2:855).
REFERENCES
Does Death Imply Annihilation? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1861
Does Death Imply Annihilation?
by | Kyle Butt, M.Div. |
In the New Testament, the fires of hell are described as the “second death.” The picture painted in Revelation 20 tells of a burning lake of fire in which the devil and all his cohorts will be cast, including wicked humans whose names are not written in the Book of Life. Verse 14 of chapter 20 declares: “Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” The inspired writer James remarked that if one of the Christians turns away from Christ, and someone turns the wayward brother back, he will “save a soul from death” (James 5:20). James’ statement speaks to the fact that the sinning soul is destined for spiritual death. In John 6, Jesus described Himself as the bread that came down from heaven. Those who eat this “living” bread will “live forever” and not die (John 6:48-51,58). All who will not eat this living bread will die. Jesus’ comments here clearly refer to the second death in hell.
What Does the Word “death” Mean?
All those involved in the debate about afterlife issues understand that hell is called the second death, and that a person’s soul is said to die in hell. But what does the word death actually mean? Those who advocate annihilationism put forth the idea that the word death must mean “to go out of existence.” Along these lines, F. LaGard Smith wrote:Those whose names are found written in the book [of life—KB] will inherit life with God forever. For those whose names are missing, there is no lasting life whatsoever, tormented or otherwise. “Only death...[t]he second and final death....” As the greater weight of scriptural evidence indicates, the only option is eternal life versus eternal death. Blessed existence versus non-existence (2003, pp. 189,190).From statements peppered throughout his book, and especially from the final two parallel sentences in this quotation, it is obvious that Smith defines the word death as nonexistence.
In truth, however, the concept of death as used in the Bible does not mean nonexistence; rather, it means “separation.” In regard to physical death, it refers to the separation of the soul from the physical body. In regard to spiritual death, in connotes separation of the soul from God.
The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon gives the following primary definition of the Greek word that is translated “death” (thanatos): “(1) the death of the body (1a) that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which life on earth is ended” (“Thanatos:2505,” 1999). That physical death is viewed in the Bible as separation is evident from several scriptures. The inspired writer James offered the clearest picture of this idea of death when he wrote: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:26). According to James, faith that is separated from works is a dead faith in the same way that a body which is separated from the soul is a dead body. Notice that a body separated from a soul is not a nonexistent body. On the contrary, the body still exists and lies lifeless, but is separated from the soul and thus presumed dead.
The narrative describing Rachel’s death in Genesis provides further evidence that the Bible depicts physical death as the separation of the soul from the body. As Rachel was giving birth to Benjamin, her labor became so intense that her life was in danger. The text reads: “Now it came to pass, when she was in hard labor, that the midwife said to her, ‘Do not fear; you will have this son also.’ And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni; but his father called him Benjamin. So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem)” (Genesis 35:17-19, emp. added). Rachel’s death occurred when her soul departed, leaving her physical body. Her body continued to exist for some time and was buried, but it was recognized as a dead body as soon as it was separated from Rachel’s soul, not when the body eventually decayed in the tomb. Here again, the biblical picture of death revolves around the concept of separation, rather than nonexistence.
Luke 8 contains additional evidence that separation of the soul and physical body is the meaning of physical death. Jairus came to Jesus pleading for the life of his sick daughter. While en route to the house, someone came from Jairus’ house explaining that the girl had already died. Jesus encouraged Jairus not to doubt, and continued toward the house. Arriving at the ruler’s house, Jesus sent everyone out except Peter, James, John, and the parents of the child. He approached the child’s dead body, took her hand and said, “Little girl, arise.” Immediately after this comment, the text states: “Then her spirit returned, and she arose immediately” (Luke 8:40-55). Note that both the girl’s body and her spirit existed at the time Jesus entered the room. Her body, however, was dead because her spirit had departed from it. When her spirit returned to her body, it was made alive again. Here again, the biblical text presents the idea that the concept of death is not one of nonexistence, but of separation.
John 19:30 provides another example that establishes physical death as separation of the soul and body. In the final moments of Christ’s life during the crucifixion, after all of the prophecies had been fulfilled, Christ cried, “It is finished.” Immediately following this last cry, the Lord bowed His head, and “He gave up His Spirit.” At this point, when His soul departed from His body, He (i.e., His body) was dead. Joseph and Nicodemus buried the dead (still existent) body of Christ, while the soul of Christ had departed.
Even after looking at these biblical examples, some annihilationists might continue to argue that physical death still means “nonexistence,” because those who die no longer exist in the physical world. But notice what the Bible describes as dead—the body. James says that “the body without the spirit is dead.” The body continues to exist for some time, but is said to be dead immediately when the soul leaves it. And the spirit is not said to be “dead.”
While the idea that physical death is defined by separation and not nonexistence is clear from the Bible, the idea that spiritual death is defined by a soul’s separation from God and not by a soul’s nonexistence is even more clearly set forth in Scripture. In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, he wrote: “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world.... But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ...” (Ephesians 2:1-2,4-5). When the Ephesians committed sins in their unsaved condition, they were described as “dead.” Obviously, however, they were not nonexistent. They were separated from God by those sins. In fact, verse 12 of the same chapter says that during their time of sinfulness, they were “without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” The Ephesians were spiritually dead in their sins. This spiritual death was a separation from God, Christ, and hope, yet it was not a state of nonexistence. In chapter four of the same epistle, Paul told the brethren that they should “no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God” (Ephesians 4:17-18). Those sinful Gentiles described here were in the same state of spiritual death as the Ephesians were before they became Christians. That death was an alienation (or separation) from the life of God, yet, here again, it was not a state of nonexistence.
The inspired Paul also wrote to Christians in Colossi, declaring, “And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Colossians 2:13). Paul obviously did not mean that the Colossians had been physically dead in their sins. Neither did he intend to assert the nonsensical idea that at one time, while they were sinning, their souls were in a state of nonexistence. On the contrary, their souls existed, but were separated from God because of their sins, and thus they were labeled as dead. The Old Testament prophet Isaiah explained this principle clearly when he wrote: “Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; nor his ear heavy, that it cannot hear, but your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1-2, emp. added).
Paul presents very clearly in 1 Timothy 5:6 the idea that spiritual death is separation from God, not nonexistence. In this chapter, Paul instructed the young Timothy about which widows should receive assistance from the church treasury. In his discussion, Paul mentioned widows who trusted in God and continued in prayer. He contrasted those widows with one who “lives in pleasure” or indulgence of the flesh. Concerning such a widow, he said: “But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.” As is the case throughout the New Testament, individuals who live in sin are considered spiritually dead. They are called dead by the Holy Spirit because they have separated themselves from God by their sin. The sinning widow continued to exist physically, and her soul continued to exist, yet she was called dead. The biblical picture of spiritual death is not one of nonexistence, but one of a miserable existence separated from God.
The antithesis of death is “life” (zoe). As we have seen from numerous passages, one way that the word “life” is used in the Bible is to describe the state in which the physical body is joined or connected to the soul of a person. Furthermore, spiritual life, the opposite of spiritual death, is used in the New Testament to describe the condition in which a separated soul is brought back to, and joined with, its Creator. Paul described this condition when he wrote: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and irreproachable in His sight” (Colossians 1:21-22). Sin alienates one from God, and leads a person into spiritual death. God, through Christ, allows those dead, separated souls to be cleansed of that sin and have spiritual life, which reconciles them to Him. That is why John wrote: “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12).
It is evident, then, from a close look at the Scriptures that the word “death” does not mean a state of nonexistence, either in the physical realm or the spiritual realm. The Bible describes bodies that were dead, yet still very much in existence. The inspired record describes individuals who were spiritually dead, yet existing in that dead condition nonetheless. The misguided ploy to define “the second death” (Revelation 20:6,14; 21:8) as a state of nonexistence is simply an attempt to get around the actual meaning of the biblical text. The second death describes nothing more or less than the total separation of wicked, unsaved souls from the God Who created them. Of all the wicked who will say to the Lord “in that day” (i.e., the Judgment Day), “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” (Matthew 7:22), Jesus, the righteous Judge (John 5:22; 2 Timothy 4:8), will sentence them to their second death, declaring, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matthew 7:23, emp. added). Of those wicked who neglect the needy, He will say, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, emp. added). “Eternal destruction” awaits those who are cast away “from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thessalonians 1:9, emp. added). As both Jesus and the apostle Paul declared, the second death is not annihilation, but eternal separation “from the presence of the Lord.” Death in no way implies a state of nonexistence.
REFERENCE
“Thanatos: 2505” (1999), Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems)
Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1235
Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?
by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
One reason some religious groups within Christendom baptize babies instead of believers is because they believe baptism is (in the New Testament) what circumcision was (in the Old Testament). Allegedly, since “those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised.... [I]n the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same” (“Infant Baptism,” n.d.). One biblical text that certain advocates of infant baptism frequently cite to support this position is Colossians 2:11-12. In this passage, the apostle Paul wrote about spiritual circumcision, saying:
In Him [Jesus] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12).Numerous proponents of infant baptism (sometimes called pedobaptists) believe that Paul’s reference to baptism and “the circumcision of Christ” implies that New Testament baptism and Old Testament circumcision are equivalent. Some time ago, I received a letter insisting that these verses prove “baptism replaced circumcision,” and since “circumcision was done to infants,” infant baptism is a biblical practice. Furthermore, “If Paul meant to exclude infants,” we are informed, “he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism” (“Infant Baptism,” n.d).
First, to allege that Paul would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism if babies were meant to be excluded as candidates for baptism, is like saying that Jesus would not have compared His disciples to serpents (Matthew 10:16) if He did not want them to act like the devil, “the serpent of old” (Revelation 12:9; 20:2; cf. Genesis 3:1; 2 Corinthians 11:3). By reasoning in such a way, a person might assume Christians are supposed to be senseless, because several times Jesus compared His followers to sheep (Matthew 10:6,16; 18:10-14; etc.). Or, someone might attempt to justify the consumption of intoxicating wine on the basis that Jesus once spoke of “old wine skins” (Luke 5:37-39). To argue in support of infant baptism because Paul paralleled spiritual circumcision and water baptism in his letter to the church at Colosse is to err. One cannot assume that a Bible writer approves of other points of comparison when only one point of comparison is made. Jesus once compared the actions of God to those of an “unjust judge” (Luke 18:1-8), yet that does not make God unjust (Zechariah 9:9; Psalm 11:4-7), nor does it mean that Jesus approved of the unjust judges of His day. Jesus was using the unjust judge in this parable only to compare His vindication of the widow to the vindication God will give His people (Luke 18:7-8). Similarly, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul used the word circumcision to illustrate how a person “cuts off ” sin at baptism. The comparison between circumcision and baptism had nothing to do with the age of the ones who were baptized.
Second, nowhere in Colossians 2:11-12 (nor anywhere else in the Bible) do we learn that “baptism replaces circumcision” (“Questions Often Asked,” n.d.). In Paul’s letter to the Colossians, he merely stated that when they became Christians they were “circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh” (2:11). Paul mentioned circumcision, but only to make the point that when the Colossians obeyed the Gospel, they circumcised themselves spiritually. (Moses had used this same kind of language 1,500 years earlier when he commanded the Israelites, saying: “Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer”—Deuteronomy 10:16, emp. added.) Because of the work of Christ on the cross, sinful people (i.e., those old enough to transgress the law—1 John 3:4) have the opportunity to cut off their body of sin. Furthermore, those in Colossae were old enough to know and understand “the body of the sins of the flesh” that was “cut off ” of them by Christ at their baptism, and to have “faith in the working of God.” One must admit that babies who are baptized have knowledge of neither sin nor God. Thus, by implication, babies actually were excluded, not included, by Paul in this passage.
Finally, notice some other reasons why it is fallacious to teach that “baptism replaced circumcision”:
- “The covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) was confined to descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and those converted to Judaism (Genesis 17:12-13; Exodus 12:48); baptism is for all nations (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8).
- Circumcision was confined to males; baptism is for both male and female (cf. Galatians 3:28).
- If “baptism replaced circumcision” as some allege, people who already were circumcised according to the law could not be baptized. As J.W. Shepherd stated: “If the one came in the place of the other, the two could not exist at the same time in the same person. But all the Jews that had been circumcised on believing in Christ were baptized” (1929, p. 17). It was God’s will that the Jews, who heard John the Baptist, Jesus, and/or one of His disciples, be baptized regardless of their circumcision (Luke 7:30; John 3:22-24; 4:1-2). If baptism replaced circumcision, how could they both be in effect at the same time, among the same people, and under the same covenant (Brents, 1874, pp. 345-347)?
REFERENCES
Brents, T.W. (1874), The Gospel Plan of Salvation (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987 reprint).“Infant Baptism,” (no date) Catholic Answers, [On-line], URL: http://www.catholic.com/library/infant_baptism.asp.
“Questions Often Asked and Answered” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/q4.htm.
Shepherd, J.W. (1929), The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1973 reprint).
INTOXICATING BEVERAGES? BY STEVE FINNELL
http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2017-03-30T17:06:00-07:00&max-results=10
INTOXICATING BEVERAGES? BY STEVE FINNELL
Does God really approve of Christians drinking intoxicating beverages? Did Jesus actually turn water into intoxicating wine
so the wedding party could continue to drink themselves into a drunken
stupor? (John 2:1-10) I do not think so. If the wedding party had been
drinking intoxicating wine, then many
of them would have already been drunk. All wine mentioned in the Bible
is not fermented wine nor does all wine have a high alcohol content.
Noah was a social wine drinker. How did that work out for him?
Genesis 9:20-25 ....21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent....24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants he shall be to his brothers."
Do social drinkers get drunk? Noah did.
Lot was a social wine drinker. Was that a good thing?
Genesis 19:30-38....32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family though our father.....
Had Lot not been a social drinker he never would have committed incest. Social drinking always precedes drunkenness.
Were priests social drinkers?
Leviticus 10:8-11 The Lord then spoke to Aaron, saying , 9 "Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you will not die---it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations.....
Social drinking was not inconsequential for priests.
Hosea 4:11 Harlotry, wine and new wine take away the understanding.
Is wisdom and understanding a result of social drinking. No.
All drunkards were social drinkers before they became drunkards.
Galatians 5:21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
SOCIAL DRINKING IS TRAINING WHEELS FOR DRUNKARDS!
They were obedient to the faith by Roy Davison
http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/019-obedienttothefaith.html
They were obedient to the faith
“Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).
What is the difference between believing and being obedient to the faith?
An example will make this clear: “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:42, 43).
Contrary to the traditional doctrine of many Protestant denominations, one cannot be saved by faith only. Otherwise these cowardly rulers, who were afraid to confess their faith in Jesus, would also be saved.
Even the demons would be saved if salvation were by faith alone. James writes: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe --- and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:19-24).
How is it possible that so many people think they can be saved by faith only when the Holy Spirit distinctly states that a man is not justified by faith only!
The priests in Acts six were obedient to the faith!
What is meant by 'the faith' and how does one obey this faith?
What is the faith?
“The faith” is the doctrine of Christ that Christians believe and obey.
They “continue in the faith” (Acts 14:22; Colossians 1:23), “keep the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7), “stand fast in the faith” (1 Corinthians 16:13), they are “established in the faith” (Colossians 2:7), “sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13) and “steadfast in the faith” (1 Peter 5:9).
Paul preached “the faith which he once tried to destroy” (Galatians 1:23).
He tells Christians: “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). “Some will depart from the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1), some have “denied the faith” (1 Timothy 5:8), “some have strayed from the faith” (1 Timothy 6:10, 21).
Notice that one obeys 'the' faith. There is “one faith” (Ephesians 4:5). This one faith, that must be obeyed, is the original faith revealed by Christ and made known through His apostles in the first century: “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
This one faith is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
At God's command the gospel has been made known to the whole world by means of sacred Scriptures: “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith” (Romans 16:25, 26). Why was the gospel made known to all nations? “For obedience to the faith.”
Faith and obedience go together: “Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name” (Romans 1:5).
The gospel must be obeyed.
Although faith alone is not sufficient, faith is the starting point. Someone who does not believe the message, will not obey the gospel: “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'LORD, who has believed our report?'” (Romans 10:16).
What will happen to those who, like the Jewish rulers, do believe but refuse to obey? When Jesus returns he will take “vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8).
On the day of judgment there will be indignation and wrath for those who “do not obey the truth” (Romans 2:8).
What is the gospel?
The word 'gospel' means 'good news'.
The good news is that we can be reconciled to God by the blood of Christ.
“All have sinned” (Romans 3:23) and sin separates us from God. “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (Isaiah 59:2).
Only the blood of Christ can cleanse us from sin.
Many people do not understand how blood can take away sins.
Because sin is rebellion against God, God determines how sins are forgiven. God has given blood as the means of atonement. In Leviticus 17:11 He explains: “The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.”
Atonement is satisfaction for an offense, resulting in the mending of a broken relationship.
“According to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). Under the Old Covenant there was atonement through the blood of animals. This prefigured the blood of Christ, the true Lamb of God.
“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4).
“Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:12-14).
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7).
Christ was qualified to pay the penalty for our sin because He Himself was without sin. Since He was not under the same condemnation, He could voluntarily take our place. “Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24).
What must we do to obey this good news?
We must believe in Christ.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
If you believe in Christ, that is wonderful.
But if you have accepted the false doctrine that one can be saved by faith only, you are still lost. James wrote: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). No one in the New Testament was ever told that he could be saved by faith only.
Repentance is also necessary.
Repenting is being sorry for one's sins and deciding to obey God.
Jesus told His hearers: “Unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5). In addition to believing, one must repent.
One must also confess his faith.
Peter confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Paul wrote: “With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10). Timothy had “confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses” (1 Timothy 6:12).
If you believe in Jesus, have repented of your sins, and have confessed your faith, that is wonderful.
Yet, if you accepted the false doctrine that baptism is not necessary for salvation, you are still lost, even if you have been immersed.
One must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
It is not enough just to believe “ in” Jesus. One must also believe Jesus, believe what He teaches. And Jesus said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).
Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, commanded: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
If you were not “baptized for the remission of sins” but only “as an outward sign” according to the practice of many human denominations, you have not obeyed the gospel and are still lost. According to the commandment of the Holy Spirit, everyone must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Paul was told: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). If Paul had to be baptized to wash away his sins, is anything less required of you?
By one Spirit we are “all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13) which is the church of Christ (Ephesians 1:22, 23). The Lord adds those who are saved to His church (Acts 2:47).
Have you been obedient to the faith? Have you obeyed the gospel?
If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, if you are sorry for your sins and want to dedicate your life to God, if you are willing to confess your faith in Christ, but have not yet been baptized for the forgiveness of sins, we urge you to do so as soon as possible so your sins can be blotted out, washed away by the blood of the Lamb, so you can be saved and added to the church of Christ. Amen.
Roy Davison
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.
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)
(http://www.oldpaths.com)
What you have received - give by Gary Rose
Yesterday,
I had an operation. Everything turned out OK. I am home and doing
fine. Today, my Linda took pal for a walk in my stead. Several
neighbors asked about me and I want to thank them for their concern;
it is appreciated! I also wish to also thank the many friends and
family I spoke with yesterday; needless to say – Thank you!
As I
ponder these things, my thoughts turned to a passage from the Gospel
of Luke… Jesus said…
Luke
10 ( World English
Bible )
Jesus
answered, “A
certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell
among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed,
leaving him half dead. [31] By
chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he
passed by on the other side. [32] In
the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him,
passed by on the other side. [33] But
a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw
him, he was moved with compassion, [34] came
to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him
on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of
him. [35] On
the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to
the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend
beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ [36] Now
which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who
fell among the robbers?”
[37] He said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
[37] He said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
Most
of us have heard this passage of Scripture before, usually with an
emphasis on the Samaritan, but what about the man who was beaten?
When someone receives a blessing like this man did; what do they do
in response? Perhaps they just might really listen to Jesus, when he
says… “Go
and do likewise.” Today,
these words mean more to me than ever and hopefully I will become a
better person for listening. I hope and pray that you can say the
same…
ps.
By the way, that bird picture just started me thinking; it is not
from my family album, nor it is a selfie. My nose is not THAT BIG!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)