Apparent Age by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=548

Apparent Age

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

How old is the Earth? No one knows the exact number of times this globe has orbited the Sun. However, using biblical chronology a person can calculate the age of the Earth to be in the neighborhood of 6,000 years old.

“But the Earth looks millions of years old,” some people will protest. There are at least two responses to such a statement. First, one might ask: “Compared to what; what does a young Earth look like?” We do not have another Earth that we know is younger than this one, so how would we know what a young Earth looks like. Second, it should not surprise us if science occasionally calculates older dates for the Earth, due to a concept known as the “doctrine of apparent age.”

This idea suggests that the things God made during the Creation week were formed complete and fully functional. For instance, how old were Adam and Eve two seconds after God created them? They were two seconds old! Yet they walked, talked, and looked like adult human beings, and even had the ability to reproduce (which was one of the commands God gave them—Genesis 1:28). If a tree were cut down in the Garden of Eden one day after the Creation week, how many rings would it have had? Possibly hundreds, yet it would have been only five days old (trees and other plants, remember, were created on day three of the Creation week). So, the real age of the tree and the apparent age of the tree would have been quite different. Just because this Earth may appear older than 6,000 years, that does not mean it is older than that.

Some people have suggested that if God made the Earth appear older than it actually is, then He has deceived us because things aren’t really as old as they look. This criticism can not be true since God told us what He did! He did not leave us in the dark or try to “trick us” or “test our faith” by hiding from us important information that we would need. Rather, He was very straightforward and honest with us. Considering the material found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis (and elsewhere through the Bible), no one can justifiably accuse God of deception. If we ignore His Word regarding what He said He did, is it God’s fault? Hardly!

Award For Children’s Literature That Pushes Homosexuality by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3745

Award For Children’s Literature That Pushes Homosexuality

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

At the beginning of November, 2010, Associated Press staff writer Hillel Italie wrote an article titled, “Kids’ Book Prizes to Include Gay and Lesbian Award.” In that article, Italie wrote: “An award for gay and lesbian literature will be included in the American Library Associations annual announcement of children’s prizes, a list which features the prestigious and influential Caldecott and Newbery medals” (2010). The award will be called the Stonewall Award and will be issued to “English-language works for children and teens of exceptional merit relating to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered experience” (Italie, 2010).

It is a sad day in our country when a sinful lifestyle such as homosexuality is lauded as deserving an award for those who portray it in a favorable light. One wonders why stop at awards for homosexuality. Should there be an award for the “best” children’s book that portrays bestiality in a favorable light? Are we expecting an adultery or a polygamy award soon? Should we look for an award that lauds the merits of prostitution, pedophilia, or necrophilia? Our nation’s acceptance and promotion of homosexuality is extremely sinful (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:26-27), and completely illogical. Furthermore, notice that homosexuals and those who wish to teach the sinful lifestyle are aiming their teaching where it they make the most impact—at our children.

Recently, I did an informal survey of 57 people, mostly teens, in the Lord’ church. The survey contained some standard questions about morality. For instance, one statement was: “Premarital sex is ethical if two people plan to get married.” Fifty-six said that it was not ethical, and one did not know. Notice that 56 of these young people understood in this instance the biblical stance on premarital sex (1 Corinthians 6:18). The statement immediately preceding the one on premarital sex was: “Homosexual behavior is always unethical, even between two people who are committed to each other.” Only 47 of the young people agreed with this statement, four disagreed and five said they did not know. Almost 20% of the young people polled did not understand the biblical position that all homosexual behavior is wrong. And this was a very conservative group of young people, judging by their answers to other questions.

As the Lord’s Church, we simply must be teaching our young people that all forms of homosexuality are sinful. At Apologetics Press, we have attempted to empower parents and teachers with an excellent resource specifically designed for this: Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies? But whether you use that resource, the Bible, other books, or various other materials, this is not a subject that can be avoided. Mark it down: the homosexual community is trying to expose your children to their agenda at the earliest possible age. If we do nothing to combat their teaching, we can only expect our young people to grow up with distorted views about the sin of homosexuality.
 

REFERENCE

Italie, Hillel (2010), “Kids’ Book Prizes to Include Gay and Lesbian Award,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101101/ap_on_en_ot/us_books_library_prize/print.

What Exactly Did Jesus Say? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2142&b=Matthew

What Exactly Did Jesus Say?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Numerous times in the gospel accounts, the Bible writers recorded statements made by Jesus while He was on Earth. Puzzling to some Bible readers is the fact that, although Bible writers frequently recorded the same statements, they are not exactly (word-for-word) alike. For example, whereas Matthew recorded that Jesus told Satan, “It is written again (palingegrapti), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:7), Luke wrote: “It has been said (eiratai), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:12). Although this difference is considered minor, and is referring to the same thing (the Old Testament), Matthew and Luke still recorded Jesus’ statement using different words. Why? Why did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not always record the words of Jesus exactly alike?

First, it is possible that some differences are due to Jesus having made both statements. It is unwise to think that every similar statement recorded by the gospel writers must refer to the exact same moment. In the example of Jesus responding to Satan’s temptation, it may be that Jesus repeated the same thought on the same occasion using different words. After telling Satan, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God,” Jesus could have re-emphasized the point (especially if Satan repeated the temptation) by saying, “It is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” Thus, Jesus could have made both statements.

A second reason why differences exist among the gospel writers’ testimony of Jesus’ teachings is because the writers’ purpose was to record precisely what the Holy Spirit deemed necessary (cf. John 16:13), but not necessarily exactly what Jesus said. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), one writer may summarize a person’s (e.g., Jesus’) words, while another writer may quote the exact words.

Consider the variation in notes taken by honest, intelligent college students in the same class on the Civil War. At the close of the class, when the notes of the students are compared and contrasted (as the gospel accounts are) differences are evident. If one student recorded that the teacher said Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg Address “in November of 1863 to honor those who died in the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg,” and another student wrote that Lincoln’s speech was delivered “on November 19, 1863 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,” their notes would not be considered contradictory. Though there are slight differences in what the students indicate the teacher said, they both are faithful testimonies of what the teacher taught—one student simply chose a less definite style of note-taking (i.e., not mentioning the precise day on which the Gettysburg Address was given).

Throughout the gospel accounts, we find accurate statements that Jesus made, but not necessarily the exact quotations. Inspired summaries of what someone said does not take away from the sacredness of the God-given Scriptures, nor our ability to apply those Scriptures to our lives. What’s more, differences among statements recorded in the gospel accounts also may be the result of the statements being made at different times. In whichever category a difference among the gospel accounts falls, Bible students can be confident of the Bible’s reliability.

Warmed-Over Prophecy? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=298&b=Psalms

Warmed-Over Prophecy?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The New Testament writers did not always use Old Testament prophecy in a way that conforms to some people’s idea of how they think it should be used. For this reason, many allege that the New Testament writers take Old Testament Scriptures out of context, or that they “reuse” or “warm over” already fulfilled Old Testament passages in order to make their point. However, in response to this idea, logical solutions can be contemplated that clarify and justify the New Testament writers’ multiple use of Old Testament prophecy.

First, could it not be the case that that Holy Spirit, knowing what would happen in the future, directed the Old Testament writers to pen phrases and statements that had an immediate application and a distant future application as well? Well didWayne Jackson write:

[I]s it not possible that the omniscient Holy Spirit, who guided both the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament inspired writers, could have directed certain prophecies to ancient Israel, but also could have known that a future event would ultimately fulfill the meaning of his words? What is wrong with such a view? Absolutely nothing. It surely is possible and preserves the integrity of the New Testament writers. Let me suggest an example to illustrate this point.

David declared: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9). During the last supper, Christ quoted from this passage as follows: “He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me” (John 13:18), applying it to the treachery of Judas, and declaring that such fulfilled the statement in David’s psalm. The Lord, however, altered the quotation. He omitted, “whom I trusted,” from the original source, the reason being, He never trusted Judas! Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray Him (John 6:64). It is clear, therefore, that Psalm 41:9 had an immediate application to one of David’s enemies, but the remote and complete “fulfillment” came in Judas’ betrayal of the Son of God. I personally do not believe that it is acceptable to suggest that prophecies have a “double fulfillment.” That is a meaningless expression. If a prophecy is filled full once, it can hardly be filled “fuller” later! It would be far better to speak of some texts which have an “immediate application” or “partial fulfillment,” and then a more “remote fulfillment” (1988, 8:29)

Indeed, many New Testament quotations of Old Testament prophecies could conceivably fall into the category of “remote fulfillment.” Consider the situation of Matthew’s use of Jeremiah 31:15. In Jeremiah, the Old Testament prophet obviously was dealing with a fairly immediate point in the not-too-distant future when the mothers of Israel would weep because of the captivity and punishment that the enemies of Israel would inflict upon them. However, Matthew employed Jeremiah’s prophecy—“A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not”—to refer to the mothers who wept over King Herod’s vicious slaughter of the innocent male children of Bethlehem. Taking Jackson’s comments into consideration, it is not a difficult stretch to maintain that the Holy Spirit certainly could have foreseen the dastardly deeds of King Herod and supplied Jeremiah with a prophetic utterance that could sufficiently describe the captivity and punishment in the Old Testament as well as depict the gruesome scene related in Matthew. Richards added to this explanation by saying:

The Jeremiah passage quoted is linked to this event. Jeremiah 31:15 portrays Rachel, the symbolic mother of the Jews, weeping as her descendants are torn from the Promised Land. Yet that prophecy is found in a context of the hope that despite the tears God promises the exiles will return. Now, despite the tears shed for the innocent victims of Herod’s slaughter, their deaths underline the escape of the child Jesus, whose survival ultimately means restoration of humankind to a personal relationship with God. As tears intermingled with joy in Jeremiah’s time, so tears and joy intermingle in Bethlehem (1993, p. 228)

It also is interesting to note that many times, Old Testament prophecies have not only immediate and remote applications, but also multiple, diverse uses. Jackson commented:

Still again, we may note that, consistent with His own purposes, the Holy Spirit may give a prophecy multiple applications. Consider the case of Psalm 2:7, where Jehovah said: “Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.” In the New Testament, this statement is applied to Christ in several different senses. First, it is employed to demonstrate that Christ is superior to the angels, for the Father never addressed any angelic being, saying, “You are my son, this day have I begotten thee” (cf. Hebrews 1:5). [This is a truth which the “ Jehovah’s Witnesses” (who claim that Christ was a created angel) would do well to learn.] Second, Psalm 2:7 is applied by Paul to Christ’s resurrection from the dead. The apostle argues that “God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my son...” (Acts 13:33). It was, of course, by His resurrection that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power (Romans 1:4). Thus, it was appropriate that the psalm be applied to the Lord’s resurrection. Third, the writer of Hebrews uses the psalm to prove that Christ glorified not Himself to be made our high priest; rather, such a role was due to His relationship as the Son of God (Hebrews 5:5). Again, we absolutely must stress that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the original psalm, surely had all of these various thoughts in mind as is evidenced by His guidance of the New Testament writers as they employed His language (8:29-30, bracketed statement in orig.).

After looking closely at the different ways in which the New Testament writers used the Old Testament Scriptures, it cannot be argued effectively that there was error or discrepancy on their part. Although they might not have used certain passages in a way that some people might prefer, they did use the prophecies without contradiction or discrepancy in a manner consistent with the plan and purpose of the Holy Spirit.

REFERENCES

Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered, (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).

Jackson, Wayne (1988), “Principles of Bible Prophecy,” Reason & Revelation, 8:27-30, July.

From Roy Davison... What happened to that gay city Sodom?

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/gaycity.html

What happened to that gay city Sodom?

"The men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD" (Genesis 13:13). The people of Sodom had 'gay rights'. Homosexuality was unrestrained in Sodom (Genesis 19:4,5). They declared their sin, they did not hide it (Isaiah 3:9).
Before God destroyed Sodom, the Dead Sea region was a fertile plain (Genesis 13:10). Because their sin was very grave (Genesis 18:20) the Lord rained sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding plain, destroying the cities, the inhabitants and all vegetation (Genesis 19:24,25).
It became a land of sulfur, salt and burning. "It is not sown, nor does it bear, nor does any grass grow there" (Deuteronomy 29:23). It was "overrun with weeds and salt pits, and a perpetual desolation" (Zephaniah 2:9). Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them "having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
God explained why He destroyed Sodom: "Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit" (Ezekiel 16:49,50).
In the time of Ezekiel, God condemned Jerusalem for having a tolerant attitude toward Sodom: "For your sister Sodom was not a byword in your mouth in the days of your pride" (Ezekiel 16:56).
Because of their "filthy conduct" and "lawless deeds" God, "turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly" (2 Peter 2:6-8).
Holland legalized same-sex marriages in 2001, Belgium in 2003, supposedly implementing a clause in the European Union's Treaty of Amsterdam which forbids discrimination on the basis of 'sexual orientation', a vague term used to encompass homosexual and lesbian relationships, but which arguably could also be made to include pedophilia and bestiality. I say 'supposedly' because it is not discrimination to make allowances for biological realities or to respect moral and religious convictions which are also protected by the treaty.
Perverted sexual relationships may be called marriages by governments of this world, but they are not recognized by the High Court of Heaven. Same-sex relationships are condemned by God in both the Old and the New Testaments.
They are perversions of the beautiful and pure relationship God has given husbands and wives within the bonds of matrimony. Jesus said: "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female', and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:4-6). "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4). Same-sex relationships are a form of fornication (sexual immorality).
The Law of Moses pronounced the death sentence on those who engaged in homosexual relationships. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).
The condemnation of the New Testament is also severe: homosexuals and lesbians are worthy of death, but they are called to repentance and offered forgiveness. God will help them live pure lives if they repent, turn away from their sins, and accept His offer of salvation through Christ.
"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Romans 1:24-27), "who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (Romans 1:32).
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
The Greek word translated 'homosexuals' here is MALAKOS, defined in this passage by Thayer as "effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness" and by Arndt & Gingrich as "effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."
The Greek word translated 'sodomites' is ARSENOKOITEES (a combination of the words for 'male' and 'bed'), defined in this passage by Thayer as "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite" and by Arndt & Gingrich as "a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite." This word is also found in 1 Timothy 1:10 where it is stated that the law is 'for sodomites'. The English word 'sodomy' means 'carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal or unnatural copulation with a member of the opposite sex' (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary).
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a warning for those committing abomination in our time.
We do not know all the cosmic or geological mechanisms involved when God devastated the Dead Sea area with sulfurous meteorites. The region is now below sea level and is on a major fault in the earth's crust.
San Francisco and Amsterdam are the gay capitals of the modern world. Both cities are suspended by a thread in the hand of God. Forty percent of Holland is below sea level and San Francisco is on a major earthquake fault. At any moment, an earthquake or a storm could destroy these wicked cities. The accusation against them is great and their sin is very grave. God may delay judgment for the sake of the righteous who live there.
In the end, however, there will be no escape: "The Judge is standing at the door!" (James 5:9). The day is coming when the whole universe will be dissolved by fire: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?" (2 Peter 3:10-12). "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10).
This warning is not only for homosexuals and lesbians. All must repent to be saved. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). On the day of judgment all sinners will stand condemned unless they have repented and accepted the gift of salvation offered by grace through the blood of Christ. "If the righteous one is scarcely saved, where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:18).
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

From Gary... kindness

Recently, a friend of mine posted this picture on Facebook. I asked myself- Why would anyone go to all the trouble of making swings for chickens?  It seemed unnecessary, because after all, they are just C-H-I-C-K-E-N-S. Then it occurred to me that perhaps those chickens had become pets, or maybe he was just being kind. I like the last idea the best, it just fits his character.

We see kindness in different forms all the time, but I especially like the form found in this response of Jesus to a lawyer...

Luke, Chapter 10, (WEB)

 ²⁵  Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 

  ²⁶  He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” 

  ²⁷  He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 

  ²⁸  He said to him, “You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live.” 

  ²⁹  But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” 

  ³⁰  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, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.   ³⁵  On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and 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.” 

My friend (also my son-in-law) saw a need the chickens had and did something about it. The good Samaritan did the same.

Do something nice for someone today- you will be glad you did?

Who knows, they might even give you some eggs in return?????

From Mark Copeland... THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON Chapter One

                        THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON

                               Chapter One
                               
OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING PHILEMON

1) To be impressed with the loving hospitality which characterized the
   Christians in the early church

2) To learn lessons in the use of tact in dealing with others

SUMMARY

In this very short and personal epistle, Paul addresses it to Philemon,
Apphia, Archippus and to the church in their house.  But it soon becomes
evident that its contents are directed toward Philemon, a beloved friend
and fellow laborer with Paul (1-3).

After his salutation, Paul expresses his thanks for the noble qualities
which have characterized Philemon in the past, especially his love for
the saints.  It is because of Philemon's past performance that Paul is
confident his plea will be carried out faithfully (4-7).

Paul's plea concerns Onesimus, a slave who had run away from Philemon.
Somehow he had run into Paul at Rome and was now a new convert to Jesus
Christ.  As a brother in Christ, Onesimus had made himself very useful
to Paul in Rome.  But because he still legally belongs to Philemon, Paul
is sending him back with a plea that Onesimus be forgiven and received
as a brother in the Lord.  Paul also offers to pay any restitution which
may be owed Philemon by Onesimus (8-21).

The epistle ends with a request for lodging in the near future, and with
sundry greetings from individuals who were with Paul in Rome (22-25).

OUTLINE

I. SALUTATION (1-3)

   A. FROM... (1a)
      1. Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus
      2. Timothy, a brother

   B. TO... (1b-2)
      1. Philemon, a beloved friend and fellow laborer
      2. Apphia
      3. Archippus, a fellow soldier
      4. The church in their house

   C. GREETINGS (3)
      1. Grace and peace
      2. From God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

II. THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER (4-7)

   A. PAUL'S THANKFULNESS (4-5)
      1. Expressed in frequent prayers to God
      2. For Philemon's love and faith toward Jesus and all the saints

   B. PAUL'S PRAYER (6-7)
      1. That the sharing of Philemon's faith might be effective
      2. Through the acknowledgment of every good thing in Philemon
      3. For example, the joy and comfort experienced by Paul from
         Philemon's love, as Paul hears of how he refreshed the hearts
         of the saints

III. THE PLEA FOR ONESIMUS (8-21)

   A. AN APPEAL, NOT A COMMAND (8-9)
      1. Paul had the authority to command what is fitting
      2. He chose instead to make an appeal based upon...
         a. Love itself
         b. Paul's "age"
         c. His imprisonment

   B. PAUL'S PLEA (10-20)
      1. Concerns Onesimus (10-11)
         a. Who was converted by Paul while in chains, and is now like
            a son to him
         b. Who though once was unprofitable to Philemon, is now
            profitable to both him and Paul
      2. Paul is now sending Onesimus back to Philemon (12-14)
         a. Though he is very dear to Paul
         b. Though Paul wished to keep him and have him work in
            Philemon's behalf in the gospel
         c. But Paul did not want to do anything without Philemon's
            whole-hearted consent
      3. Paul's desire is that Philemon receive Onesimus as a brother
         in Christ (15-17)
         a. Perhaps his running away was for this purpose, that he might
            become a beloved brother in the Lord
         b. So if Philemon considered himself a partner of Paul, Paul
            asks that he receive Onesimus as he would Paul himself
      4. Paul offers to repay Philemon (18-19)
         a. For any wrong that Onesimus might have done
         b. Of course, Philemon already owed Paul his own life
      5. By receiving Onesimus in this way, Philemon could give Paul
         joy and a refreshed heart in the Lord (20)

   C. PAUL'S CONFIDENCE IN PHILEMON (21)
      1. In Philemon's obedience
      2. That Philemon will do even more than what Paul is asking for

IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS (22-25)

   A. A REQUEST FOR LODGING (22)
      1. That Paul might be able to stay with Philemon
      2. For Paul is confident that through the prayers of Philemon he
         will soon be able to come to him

   B. GREETINGS FROM OTHERS (23-24)
      1. Epaphras, a fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus
      2. Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, fellow laborers with Paul

   C. A CLOSING PRAYER (25)

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) Why does Paul refer to himself as a prisoner of Christ Jesus? (1)
   - He was "in chains" (also under house arrest, awaiting trial)
   - But note also that he says "of Christ", for it was while engaged in
     HIS service and thus for HIS sake he was imprisoned

2) Why the mention of Timothy? (1)
   - He was with Paul at Rome
   - Also, it is possible that he was acquainted with Philemon

3) What does Philemon's name mean?  Did he live up to it?
   - His name means "one that is affectionate"
   - Yes! cf. verse 5 and 7

4) Who, possibly, are Apphia and Archippus? (2)
   - Apphia may have been the wife of Philemon
   - Archippus may have been their son, also the minister for the 
     church in Colosse (cf. Col 4:17)

5) Is this letter primarily to Philemon, or to all?
   - To Philemon (note the use of the singular in verses 4-21)
   - Though by mentioning the others, perhaps Paul was soliciting their
     help to encourage Philemon

6) What is a good example of this family's devotion to Christ and of
   their hospitality to the saints? (2)
   - It appears that they let the church meet in their home

7) Define the terms "grace" and "peace" (3)
   - Grace: favor that is unmerited
   - Peace: harmony (e.g., with God, self, and others), the result of
            God's grace

8) How could Paul have heard about Philemon? (4,5)
   - From Epaphras, who was a member of the church at Epaphras (Col 4:12,
     13)
   - From Onesimus himself

9) What good things had Paul heard concerning Philemon? (5)
   - His love and faith toward Christ and the saints

10) What are some examples of Philemon's love for the saints?
   - Letting the church meet in his home (1)
   - Refreshing the hearts of the saints (7)
   - Preparing guest rooms (22)

11) What does Paul pray for in behalf of Philemon? (6)
   - That the sharing of his faith may become effective

12) How is this prayer related to the plea which follows in verses 8-21?
   - Carrying out Paul's plea concerning Onesimus would be one way of
     assuring that Philemon's faith in its sharing would be effective

13) What had given Paul great joy and comfort in his imprisonment? (7)
   - Philemon's love and the way the saints have been refreshed by him

14) How does Paul re-emphasize his close feelings for Philemon? (7)
   - By calling him "brother"

15) What does the word "therefore" indicate? (8)
   - That Paul's plea for Onesimus is predicated upon Philemon's past
     behavior mentioned in verses 4-7

16) What could Paul have done in this matter? (8)
   - Simply commanded Philemon to do what is proper

17) What does Paul do instead? (9)
   - He "appeals" to Philemon

18) Why does Paul call himself "the aged"? (9)
   - Perhaps to appeal to Philemon's sympathy
   - Paul is probably about sixty years old at this time, but in light
     of bodily injuries incurred throughout his ministry (cf. 2Co 11:
     23-29), he was likely older than his years would normally indicate

19) Why does he again refer to himself as a prisoner? (9)
   - Perhaps to tactfully remind Philemon that since Paul had suffered
     so much in service to Christ, certainly Philemon could honor his
     request

20) In the original language, where does the name "Onesimus" appear in
    the sentence? (10)
   - At the end: "I appeal to you for my son, whom I have begotten
     while in my chains, ONESIMUS."

21) What significance might there be in placing Onesimus' name at the
    end of the sentence?
   - Possibly that Paul is tactfully preparing Philemon to honor Paul's
     request by saying what he does before mentioning a name that is
     likely to bring bad memories to Philemon

22) What does Paul call Onesimus?  What does it mean? (10)
   - "My son"
   - Like Timothy, this convert of Paul had become like a son to him

23) What does the name "Onesimus" mean?
   - "Profitable", or "useful"

24) How had becoming a Christian changed Onesimus? (11)
   - Prior to his conversion, he was "unprofitable" (as a runaway slave)
   - Now, he was "profitable" to both Paul and Philemon
   - Thus he was now living up to his name!

25) What does Paul want Philemon to do in regard to Onesimus? (12)
   - Receive him

26) How does Paul express further what Onesimus has meant to him? (12)
   - He refers to Onesimus as "my own heart"

27) What had Paul wished to do with Onesimus? (13)
   - To keep him, and let him serve Paul in the gospel

28) Why had Paul refrained from doing what he wished? (14)
   - He did not want to do anything without Philemon's whole-hearted
     consent

29) What did Paul see as the "possible" reason for this turn of events?
    (15)
   - The providence of God
   - Note that Paul says "perhaps"; Paul recognized that we cannot
     always be certain as to why things happen the way they do (just as
     Mordecai said in Esther 4:14), and whether it is always the Lord's
     doing

30) How did Paul want Philemon to receive Onesimus? (16)
   - No longer as a slave, but as a beloved brother

31) Upon what basis does Paul ask Philemon to receive Onesimus as he
    would Paul himself? (17)
   - If he considered Paul as a partner

32) What is Paul willing to do in behalf of Onesimus? (18-19)
   - Pay back anything Onesimus might owe Philemon

33) What indicates that Paul may have personally converted Philemon to 
    the gospel? (19)
   - Paul's statement, "you owe me even your own self"

34) How will Philemon's forgiveness of Onesimus affect Paul? (20)
   - Despite being in chains, Paul will have joy and be refreshed in 
     his heart

35) Was Paul in doubt about Philemon's response to his request? (21)
   - No, he had confidence that Philemon would do even more that what
     Paul asked

36) How could Philemon do more than what Paul had asked of him?
   - He could free Onesimus
   - He could give him spare time to evangelize
   - He could treat other slaves with similar compassion

37) How might Paul's request for lodging tactfully induce Philemon to
    honor his request for Onesimus? (22)
   - Philemon would know that Paul would soon be able to witness
     firsthand Philemon's response to the plea for Onesimus

38) Where else do we read of these men who accompany Paul in sending
    greetings to Philemon? (23,24)
   - All of them are mentioned in Col 4:10-14
   - Epaphras (Col 1:7; 4:12,13)
   - Mark (Ac 12:12,25; 13:5,13; 15:36-40; 2Ti 4:11; 1Pe 5:13)
   - Aristarchus (Ac 19:29; 20:4; 27:2)
   - Demas (2Ti 4:10)
   - Luke (The "we" sections of Acts, 2Ti 4:11)

39) What is Paul's concluding prayer for Philemon? (25)
   - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen."

40) List the main point of this epistle
   - Saluation (1-3)
   - Thanksgiving & Prayer (4-7)
   - The Plea For Onesimus (8-21)
   - Concluding Remarks (22-25)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015