That is our nature. Genesis says, "The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Every child is conceived with a deadly virus, the S-I-N virus with corrupt motives, corrupt attitudes, corrupt desires, corrupt ambitions, corrupt objectives and bears the guilt of Adam's sin. So we cannot answer the question by saying all babies die and go to heaven because they're sinless. They're not. The very fact that they die proves that they have inherited the corruption of sin that produces death. Now that leads us to a third question, and we're getting to the issues now.
What implications does this truth of depravity have on the issue of dying infants? We must conclude that all babies are depraved sinners from the time of conception because they're born to depraved parents. And like produces like. And here is where some people jump in and say, "Well, if they're all sinners, if they're all born in sin, they're all guilty then they're all damned to hell.
And all the little ones who die by the millions and billions because they are sinful deserve death and hell and that's where they go since they can't repent and since they can't cry out to God for mercy and grace, they can't believe in Jesus Christ, they all go to hell. There are people who have told me that repeatedly. This is It is supposedly their sequential or logical process moving from the view of total depravity. It was one of the accusations against Spurgeon. Spurgeon was strong on reformed theology and people accused Spurgeon, as they have accused others who believe in reformed theology or Calvinism, as it is called, of damning all the babies.
And maybe Spurgeon never responded better than this, he said, quote: "Among the gross falsehoods that have been uttered against the Calvinist proper is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere in some corner of the earth a miscreant We say with regard to infant, Scripture saith but little and therefore where Scripture is confessedly scant it is for no man to determine dogmatically but I think I speak for the entire body, or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions and those unknown to me when I say we hold that all infants who die are elect of God and are therefore saved.
And we look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus who said of such is the Kingdom of Heaven doth daily and constantly receive into His loving arms those tender ones who are only shown and then snatched away to heaven," end quote.
If you survey Reformed Calvinistic literature over years since Calvin, you will find that the vast majority of all the writers believed that all infants who die are taken to heaven.
- The Truth (The man who lied about the TRUTH Book 1).
- The Diamond Rush.
- Weight of Her Heart: A Poetry Collection!
- Resource Library?
- Veritatis Splendor (6 August ) | John Paul II.
Now let me kind of expand on that. This is very, very important. You see, it's only pure true reformed soteriology, salvation, only pure true reformed soteriology can account for the fact that fallen, sinful, guilty, depraved children who die with no spiritual merit, die with no religious merit, die with no moral merit of their own can be welcomed by a holy God into eternal glory How were you saved?
By what? You say, "Well, if God just takes all the babies to heaven, that's just grace. But how were you saved? By law? What do you want? Law for babies and grace for you? You had no more to do with your salvation than a helpless infant. That's why the truest and purest theology is that theology which understands that salvation is by grace and maybe that's what Jesus had in mind in part when He said, "You who go to heaven go to heaven as little children.
True understanding And is there a better illustration of that than saving lost infants? Does that magnify sovereignty? Does it magnify grace? Of course it does. Phil Johnson wrote in one of his lessons, "I met one fellow whose own child died in infancy and he seemed to think there was something meritorious about believing his own child had gone to hell. Every chance he got he brought up the issue and boasted about he and his wife had come to grips with the fact that their child was simply not among the elect.
I told him he and his wife were in for a pleasant surprise when they get to glory. I recall, he said, that he was absolutely certain that if God elected that infant to salvation, He would have kept him alive long enough to bring him to faith. My reply was that he would have had just as much biblical warrant to conclude that if God had decided not to elect that child, He would have kept him on earth long enough for the child's heart to be hardened by sin and his rebellion against God to be manifest through deliberate actions because whenever Scripture describes the inhabitants of hell, it always does so with lists of sins and abominations they have deliberately committed.
We might look at the biblical data and conclude that when God takes the life of a little one, it is actually an act of mercy, keeping that child from being hardened by a life of exposure to evil and a life of deliberate rebellion against God. One's position on this issue says a lot about one's view of God I like this Isn't Jeremiah weeping the tears of God in Jeremiah 13? Isn't Scripture saying God wants people to be saved, He's not willing that they perish? How can we believe that if He catapults billions of helpless infants into hell?
Is this any magnification of grace? Is this any illustration of grace? Somebody else will come at this point and say, "Ah yes, but God is gracious but only to baptized babies. This is Lutheranism. Now we certainly have much to thank Martin Luther for, but infant baptism isn't one of the things. Luther's catechism says this, quote: "Baptism worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil and gives everlasting salvation to all who believe as the Word of the promise of God declare.
So baptized babies will be saved. This view is held by Anglicans and Episcopalians, some Reformed groups. The Roman Catholic Church teaches essentially the same thing, that the removal of sin depends on the sacrament of infant Baptism. Without infant Baptism, without Baptism no child can be saved. Now this would make salvation not an act of grace but an act of works. That is no credit to the grace of God.
The point must be rejected outright. First of all, since infant baptism isn't mentioned or taught in Scripture. I remember when I was debating R. Sproul on baptism and he's my good friend, but he didn't have a case. So when he asked me if I'd debate him, I said, "In a heartbeat. If you're trying to find infant baptism in the Bible, you're not going to find it. Infant baptism would certainly be a work and if babies are saved in that work, then salvation is not by grace.
Now let me summarize. No view of infant salvation which denies original sin and total depravity is true. Did you get that? Babies are not free from sin, they are sinners. Second summary point, no view of universal damnation of infants who die necessarily protects the doctrines of salvation since salvation is grounded in absolute sovereignty and comprehensive grace. All babies saved would be an act of grace apart from any merit on the part of any child and that is true of adult salvation.
And thirdly, no baptism of anyone, including infants, saves them. That would make salvation by works. What I just said to you, in case you didn't follow it, is that all babies are depraved, fallen, guilty, corrupt sinners. But sending them all to hell doesn't necessarily protect the doctrine of salvation since the glory of the doctrine of salvation is that it is a sovereign choice by God provided for unworthy, incapable sinners purely on the basis of grace.
That eliminates any work, including baptism. One more question. If infants are saved when they die, by what means are they saved? If those who are retarded, mentally retarded, mentally disabled, dysfunctional and therefore in the same category as an infant would be in the condition of not having a capability to understand matters of salvation, if they are saved when they die, by what means are they saved?
By what means? Well, I'll tell you the means. By the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ because that is the only means that anybody can be saved. Now listen to what I say. God has predestined all He wills into salvation, including those in infancy. That salvation is by His sovereign choice through grace alone though all infants deserve eternal judgment because of their guilt and corruption.
Their sins were paid for by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross in which He bore the wrath of God not only for all who could believe, but for all who could not believe. I really do believe that only those who understand true reformed theology can grasp the redemption of little ones which fits so beautifully because it's all of sovereignty and it's all of grace. Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, wrote this, "The destiny of infants who die is determined irrespective of their choice by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own.
And their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills. And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.
This is but to say that they are unconditionally, predestined to salvation from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway. What he is saying is anybody who has an Arminian system has in that system some contribution to salvation made by the individual, that it's partly God and partly us. And that's why he intends to say that it is only a pure understanding of the doctrine of salvation that says it's all of God and all of grace that can account for the salvation of these little ones.
And I quickly add that salvation is not apart from Christ, it is through Christ. He, as Warfield says, is the bearer of their sins in His own body on the cross. You say, "But And so in grace and mercy and sovereign election through the sacrifice of Christ and His resurrection freely applied to them, they are ushered into God's Kingdom.
And, of course, Scripture nowhere teaches infant damnation and I'll show you next time how it teaches the opposite. And I want to close with this. What does Scripture teach about damnation? Turn to Revelation chapter This is important. This is the main point that I want you to get in this message tonight. Revelation chapter 20, Scripture teaches, and listen very carefully, Scripture teaches, and here's a summary statement I'm going to show you how it comes through Scripture teaches that men and women are saved by Scripture teaches that all condemned sinners earn their eternal punishment by their sins.
How do I know that? Because whenever you go to the judgment seat this is what you see, Revelation 20 verses 11 and Here's the Great White Throne, this is the final judgment of all the ungodly of all history and the One sitting upon the throne from whose presence earth and heaven fled away and no place was found for them, obviously the great Judge, God has committed to Christ it tells us in John 5.
There is Christ the great Judge on the throne and verse 12, "I saw the dead, the great, the small standing before the throne and books were opened. And another book was opened which was the Book of Life and the dead were judged Scripture always, always connects eternal condemnation to the sinner's deeds, works In John and 24 the most significant damning work Jesus says, "Because you believe not in Me you will die in your sins and where I go you'll never come.
And unbelief is always singled out as the primary damning sin. John , "He who believes in the Son has eternal life, he who doesn't obey the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him. And when you don't believe you don't obey. God has a complete record of every sin of every sinner who has ever lived and it is on the basis of those records that they will be condemned. It is the sins that sinners commit that constitute the record that is established against them by which condemnation falls from the throne of God. Little children don't have that record. In Jonah , "Should I not have compassion on Ninevah, the great city on which there are more than , persons who don't know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?
He's speaking of those who are infants, or those who are mentally incapable of understanding truth. And God says they deserve compassion because of that condition. In Deuteronomy God talks about your little ones who have no knowledge of good or evil. There's a point in life when you don't have the knowledge of good or evil, you haven't reached that condition of accountability. Similarly in Isaiah Infants who die then have never had anything written in the record because they've never committed the deeds, conscious deeds of rebellion and iniquity. God knows at what point they become accountable.
Infants who die have been protected by God's providence from committing those deeds, those responsible acts of sin by which they would be condemned. And listen, there is no place in the Bible where judgment is based on any other grounds than the deeds of sin. It's true they're sinful by nature, but the account against them that condemns them is their deeds. God doesn't charge people with actual sins until they commit them.
Now listen, salvation then is by grace completely apart from works. Damnation is by works completely apart from grace. Infants have no sinful works to fill the books and condemn them. So I say this, if a baby dies, that baby is elect Now you know why I answered Larry's question the way I did. Let me read you something in closing. Written in by R. Webb, listen to this. But the child's mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering.
Under such circumstances it would know suffering but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering. It could not tell itself why it was so awfully smitten and consequently the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of the penalty would be absent and justice would be disappointed, cheated of its validation," end quote. Yes, children are born sinners. Their death proves that. But never being able to understand the truth and therefore consciously rejected and choose rebellion, they have no record against them in the books of God and they then constitute a marvelous and vast opportunity for sovereign grace to operate apart from any works at all.
So here's a final summary. All children who die before they reach the condition of accountability by which they convincingly understand their sin and corruption and embrace the gospel by faith are graciously saved eternally by God through the work of Jesus Christ being elect by sovereign choice, innocent of willful sin, rebellion and unbelief by which works they would be justly condemned to eternal punishment.
Get the tape if you want that again. So, when an infant dies, he or she is elect to eternal salvation and eternal glory. So dear one, if you have a little one that dies, rejoice. Count not your human loss, count your eternal gain. Count not that child as having lost, but having gained, having passed briefly through this life untouched by the wicked world only to enter into eternal glory and grace.
The true sadness should be over those children of yours who live and reject the gospel. Don't sorrow over your children in heaven, sorrow over your children on earth that they should come to Christ. Laypeople can find it still valuable today. It is Arminian in viewpoint and thus helpful, for example, in showing the reader how this approach deals with texts involving the eternal security question. The work contains much background material from many sources on all books of the Bible. C H Spurgeon adds that "Adam Clarke is the great annotator of our Wesleyan friends; and they have no reason to be ashamed of him, for he takes rank among the chief of expositors.
His mind was evidently fascinated by the singularities of learning, and hence his commentary is rather too much of an old curiosity shop, but it is filled with valuable rarities, such as none but a great man could have collected. Like Gill , he is one-sided, only in the opposite direction to our friend the Baptist. The use of the two authors may help to preserve the balance of your judgments.
If you consider Clarke wanting in unction, do not read him for savor but for criticism, and then you will not be disappointed. The author thought that lengthy reflections were rather for the preacher than the commentator, and hence it was not a part of his plan to write such observations as those which endear Matthew Henry to the million. If you have a copy of Adam Clarke, and exercise discretion in reading it, you will derive immense advantage from it , for frequently by a sort of side-light he brings out the meaning of the text in an astonishingly novel manner.
I do not wonder that Adam Clarke still stands, notwithstanding his peculiarities, a prince among commentators. I do not find him so helpful as Gill, but still, from his side of the question, with which I have personally no sympathy, he is an important writer, and deserves to be studied by every reader of the Scriptures. He very judiciously says of Dr. Lectures to my Students, Vol. Cyril Barber - First published in Candlish highlights the doctrinal issues as well as the biographical features contained in this portion of God's Word. In spite of its age, this remains one of the best works for pastors.
There are 72 chapters in lecture form. Candlish believes in a young earth but alas, the universal fatherhood of God. His work is often helpful in spite of some peculiarities, but not nearly as beneficial as many works since. Excellent Resource. Virtually Verse by Verse More than pages of in depth preaching, functions almost like a commentary. Fausset, David Brown. James Rosscup writes that "This is a helpful old set of for laypeople and pastors to have because it usually comments at least to some degree on problems.
Though terse, it provides something good on almost any passage, phrase by phrase and is to some degree critical in nature. It is evangelical Especially in its multi-volume form this is one of the old evangelical works that offers fairly solid though brief help on many verses" Commentaries for Biblical Expositors: An Annotated Bibliography of Selected Works. C H Spurgeon writes "Of this I have a very high opinion. It is the joint work of Mr. Jamieson, A. Fausset, and Dr. David Brown. Provides an excellent treatment of the period from Abraham to Joseph. Deserving of careful reading.
James Rosscup writes that "The author holds to the Documentary Hypothesis but d oes not deny the uniqueness of Genesis or minimize the significance and authority of its message. He is careful in the Hebrew and deals with the problems, providing much to aid the expositor. It takes up less space than the original fifty-volume set, and not everything in the original set is worth owning.
Cyril J. Barber - This set, originally published in , contains expositions by both conservative and liberal theologians. ARNO C. James Rosscup writes that "This dispensationally oriented work is not verse-by-verse, but deals with the exposition on a broader scale, treating blocks of thought within the chapters. The author was a popular evangelical Bible teacher of the first part of the century, much like H. Ironside in his diligent but broad, practical expositions of Bible books.
Gaebelein was premillennial and dispensational, and editor for many years of Our Hope Magazine. C H Spurgeon -- "Beyond all controversy, John Gill was one of the most able Hebraists of his day, and in other matters no mean proficient His great work on the Holy Scriptures is greatly prized at the present day by the best authorities, which is conclusive evidence of its value, since the set of the current of theological thought is quite contrary to that of Dr. His ultraism is discarded, but his learning is respected: the world and the church take leave to question his dogmatism, but they both bow before his erudition.
Say what you will about that lore, it has its value: of course, a man has to rake among perfect dunghills and dust-heaps, but there are a few jewels which the world could not afford to miss. Gill was a master cinder-sifter among the Targums , the Talmuds , the Mishnah , and the Gemara. He was always at work; it is difficult to say when he slept, for he wrote 10, folio pages of theology. The portrait of him which belongs to this church, and hangs in my private vestry, and from which all the published portraits have been engraved, represents him after an interview with an Arminian gentleman, turning up his nose in a most expressive manner, as if he could not endure even the smell of free-will.
In some such a vein he wrote his commentary. He hunts Arminianism throughout the whole of it. He is far from being so interesting and readable as Matthew Henry. He delivered his comments to his people from Sabbath to Sabbath, hence their peculiar mannerism. This is an easy method, gentlemen, of filling up the time, if you are ever short of heads for a sermon. Show your people firstly, secondly, and thirdly, what the text does not mean, and then afterwards you can go back and show them what it does mean. It may be thought, however, that one such a teacher is enough, and that what was tolerated from a learned doctor would be scouted in a student fresh from college.
For good, sound, massive, sober sense in commenting, who can excel Gill? Very seldom does he allow himself to be run away with by imagination, except now and then when he tries to open up a parable, and finds a meaning in every circumstance and minute detail; or when he falls upon a text which is not congenial with his creed, and hacks and hews terribly to bring the word of God into a more systematic shape.
Gill is the Coryphaeus the leader of the Greek chorus and thus the leader of any movement of Hyper-Calvinism , but if his followers never went beyond their master, they would not go very far astray. James Rosscup adds that "Gill — , a pastor of England, wrote these which are two-column pages, ca. He also wrote Body of Divinity, 3 volumes, and several other volumes.
His commentary is evangelical, wrestles with texts, is often wordy and not to the point but with worthy things for the patient who follow the ponderous detail and fish out slowly what his interpretation of a text is. He feels the thousand years in Revelation 20 cannot begin until after the conversion of the Jews and the bringing in of the fullness of the Gentiles and destruction of all anti-Christian powers volume 6, p. He feels the group that gathers against the holy city at the end of the thousand years is the resurrected wicked dead from the four quarters of the earth i. James Rosscup rates this as the 1 devotional commentary on Genesis.
Rosscup writes "the notes by W. This work is good in tracing the argument and showing connections between chapters. It is usually quite good devotionally and gives suggestions for meditation at the ends of the chapters. Applications are often usable. It is an excellent book to put into the hands of a layman who is not ready to grapple with the minutia of exegesis, but who is serious about his Bible study. It is also good for the preacher and teacher.
Since it is out of print, readers must search in other places for it.
James Rosscup writes that "This is the best older, overall treatment of a critical nature on the Old Testament Hebrew text verse by verse and is a good standard work to buy. The student can buy parts or the whole of this series. Sometimes it is evangelical, at other times liberal ideas enter. C H Spurgeon -- "A work for the learned. It has received the highest commendations from competent scholars.
But it is somewhat dull and formal. Cyril Barber - this work concentrates on the spiritual significance of the lives of those mentioned by Moses in his first book. See also Amazon book reviews. Click for warnings about Typological Interpretation. C H Spurgeon writes that this work is "not exactly a commentary, but what marvelous expositions you have there!
You have reading more interesting than any novel that was ever written, and as instructive as the heaviest theology. C H Spurgeon writes that The Pictorial Bible is "A work of art as well as learning" adding that if one "cannot visit the Holy Land, it is well for you that there is a work like the Pictorial Bible, in which the notes of the most observant travelers are arranged under the texts which they illustrate. For the geography, zoology, botany, and manners and customs of Palestine, this will be your counselor and guide.
It's pages beckon the reader to tarry a moment and peruse the interesting comments on subjects that might otherwise be quite foreign to readers of a western culture and mindset. Rosscup notes that "The treatments of books within this evangelical set vary in importance. Generally, one finds a wealth of detailed commentary, background, and some critical and exegetical notes. Often, however, there is much excess verbiage that does not help particularly. On the other hand, it usually has something to assist the expositor on problems and is a good general set for pastors and serious lay people though it is old.
James Rosscup notes that "In this very thorough, monumental work on Genesis, the author is conservative and uses the original Hebrew constantly. He considers carefully most major truths of the book and uses the grammatical-historical method. This is one of the most valuable works to have on Genesis. It came out originally in What the Bible teaches — Much detail, and loyal to the high view of Scripture. Some very good insights. Rosscup rates Leupold's commentary as the fifth best detailed exegetical commentary of all time on the book of Genesis.
Be aware that Leupold is amillennial. Conservative, Evangelical, Millennial. Mackintosh, a Plymouth Brethren, was a gifted teacher and writer. D L Moody said that " it was C. Mackintosh who had the greatest influence " upon his learning of the Word of God. One of his most respected works was Notes on the Pentateuch.
Further biographical Note - Another format - Genesis ; Genesis James Rosscup has a relevant note on Mackintosh's work on the Pentateuch writing that "This is a one-volume edition of an old evangelical devotional work Genesis to Deuteronomy, Notes on the Pentateuch. It has some value at times, especially for lay readers, yet is not to the point as much with pertinent material as W. Abraham: The Obedience of Faith - click for all chapters below on one file. James Rosscup writes that "This evangelical work is both homiletical and expository and is often very good homiletically but weaker otherwise.
Helpful in discussing Bible characters, it is weak in prophecy at times because of allegorization. It is not really as valuable today as many other sets for the serious Bible student. The expositions are in the form of sermons.. Many of these devotionals begin with excellent illustrations. Here is an example from Genesis -. He believed that creation would be like a fingerprint, revealing key aspects of the character of the Creator. In making a classification system, he was only discovering an order that was already there. See also link with list of over mentions of Genesis on Gracegems.
Rosscup notes that "Driver was a careful scholar and aids the expositor in understanding the meanings of difficult phrases It helps on problems, though Driver was liberal.
Sermons on Genesis (II) - The Fall of Man and the Perfect Salvation of God sur Apple Books
Rosscup comments on Murphy's style in his commentary on Exodus "This old evangelical work of pp. Murphy gives only his own comments, and only now and then any special help. The old writing style slows reading and takes longer to get to a point. Comments often point in a good direction but brevity hampers. James Rosscup writes that "Morgan was an evangelical master at surveying a book and giving its message within a brief compass. He introduces each book with a chart giving an analysis and synthesis.
Revell put it out in a one-volume form in As an aside G Campbell Morgan would read the book from which he planned to preach as many as 40 times till its related parts became clear in sections and paragraphs! Little wonder he was able to honestly entitle his work "The Analyzed Bible"! Dr Morris is one of the most well known creationist of modern times and thus his study Bible notes are fairly detailed in the book of Genesis. Recommended to supplement your study of this foundational book of Truth regarding the beginnings of sin and of redemption for when sin abounded in Eden, grace abounded all the more!
Of great importance for the scientific data that has been included in the author's exposition. Should be consulted by all who wish to be well-informed on the issues alluded to by Moses. NETBible notes are in the right panel. You can also select the tab for "Constable's Notes. This is a very helpful feature. If you are not familiar with the great saint Charles Simeon see Dr John Piper's discussion of Simeon's life - you will want to read Simeon's sermons after meeting him! Introduction Revelation or Myth?
Genesis In The Beginning. Why is a day measured from evening to morning in Genesis 1? What is the Gap Theory? Did anything happen in between Genesis and ? What is the canopy theory? How could there be light on the first day of Creation if the sun was not created until the fourth day? Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters ? What happened on each of the days of Creation? Why does the Bible describe the moon as a light? Why did God rest on the seventh day of creation Genesis ?
Why did God make man out of the dust of the earth Genesis ? What is the biblical Creation story? How do beliefs about creation impact the rest of theology? What is the breath of life? Were Adam and Eve saved? How many children did Adam and Eve have? When were Adam and Eve created? Who was Eve in the Bible? What does it mean that God gave humanity dominion over the animals? Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve? How was the woman a helper suitable for the man Genesis ? What did God mean when He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply? Did God create other people in addition to Adam and Eve?
Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3? Was Adam with Eve when she spoke to the serpent Genesis ? What is the meaning of the tree of life? Was Adam and Eve's sin really about eating a piece of forbidden fruit? Did God literally and visibly walk in the garden Genesis ? Why did God punish women with pain in childbirth Genesis ? Is it wrong to reduce birth pains by taking pain relievers? What is the Adamic covenant? What is the Protoevangelium? Did we all inherit sin from Adam and Eve? How did the Fall affect humanity? What is the location of the Garden of Eden?
Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden? Why didn't Adam and Eve find it strange that a serpent was talking to them? How did the knowledge of good and evil make man like God Genesis ? Why was it wrong for Adam and Eve to know good and evil Genesis ? Why did God have the cherubim guard just the east side of Eden Genesis ? Why did Cain then kill Abel? Who was Cain's wife? Who was Cain afraid of after he killed Abel? What was the mark that God put on Cain Genesis ? Why did people in Genesis live such long lives?
Who was the oldest man in the Bible? Why did Lamech think Noah would bring comfort Genesis ? Who are the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis ? What should we learn from the life of Noah? What was it like in the days of Noah? Why did God also destroy animals in the Flood Genesis ? Were fish and sea creatures also destroyed during the Flood Genesis ? Was Noah's flood global?
Had it ever rained before the Flood in Noah's day? Did the Bible copy the Flood account from other myths and legends? How long did it take Noah to build the ark? How long was Noah on the ark? What is gopher wood? Why did Noah release a raven? Why did he later release a dove Genesis 8? How did Noah fit all the animals on the ark? What made some animals clean and others unclean Genesis 7? Would the discovery of Noah's Ark be important?
What is the Noahic Covenant? Why did God prohibit eating meat with blood in it Genesis ? There are ministering spirits sent by God to assist us, and demonic spirits who want to defeat us. To the devil, we are time bombs, ready to wreck his work — bombs that he would like to defuse and make ineffective. Or, if they believe he exists, they think of him in funny images from the Middle Ages. Back then, miracle plays were a chief form of entertainment. They were sort of a pageant where religious stories were acted out on stage. The audience learned to look for one character that was always dressed in red, wore horns on his head, and had a tail dangling behind him.
His shoes looked like cloven hoofs, and he had a pitchfork in his hand. The audience was amused by this silly characterization of Satan, and got the idea that he was sort of a comical character. Michael the archangel : This angelic being is mentioned by name in four passages of the Bible: Daniel 10, Daniel 12, Revelation 12 and here in Jude.
Every time Michael appears, it is in the context of battle or readiness to fight. It is Michael the archangel — another high ranking angelic being. There can be properly only one archangel , one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil , as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. When he disputed about the body of Moses : This is another obscure reference by Jude. And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows the grave to this day. He may have received a unique revelation from God.
But according to teachers in the early church, Jude referred to an apocryphal book known as the Assumption of Moses , of which only small portions survive. Others have thought that Satan wanted to desecrate the body of Moses, and claimed a right to it because Moses had murdered an Egyptian. We know that after his death, Moses appeared in bodily form at the Transfiguration Matthew with Elijah whose body was caught up to heaven in 2 Kings 2. First, we see that Michael was in a battle. This proves to us that Michael is not Jesus, as some heretical groups have thought.
Jesus rebuked the devil in His own authority, but Michael did not. Significantly, Michael dared not bring against him a reviling accusation. Michael did not mock or accuse the devil. If Michael dared not bring against him a reviling accusation against the devil , how much more should these certain men not speak evil of dignitaries. But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. But these speak evil : In contrast to Michael, who would not even speak evil of the devil, these certain men spoke evil, especially when they rejected authority and spoke against dignitaries.
Their evil speech was made worse by their ignorance. Since they also spoke against dignitaries and rejected authority, these certain men did not know about true spiritual leadership and authority — so they found it easy to speak evil against it. Whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves : These certain men pretended to be spiritual, but their only knowledge was really natural.
Even what they knew naturally , they still used to corrupt themselves with an unspiritual mind.
Search Site with Google
Brute beasts can be smart or clever in an instinctive way, but they obviously do not have spiritual knowledge. It was the same way with these certain men.
Each of the sons of Adam and Eve brought an offering to the Lord. Cain being a farmer brought an offering from his harvest. Abel being a shepherd brought an offering from his flocks. Many people assume that because Abel brought a blood sacrifice and Cain brought a grain sacrifice, that the difference between the two offerings was sacrificial blood. But the real difference was between faith and unbelief.
Hebrews makes this plain: By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. But his sacrifice was offered without faith, and therefore it was unacceptable to God. You can give to God whatever you have or whatever you are, but you must offer it in faith. The way of Cain : Genesis says that after God rejected his sacrifice, Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. He became angry because he knew he was rejected by God. In a fit of anger Cain murdered Abel, and then he lied about it to God.
The way of Cain : Jude says that Cain typifies a way that the certain men follow in. It is the way of unbelief and empty religion, which leads to jealousy, persecution of the truly godly, and eventually to murderous anger. There is no greater curse on the earth than empty, vain religion; those who have a form of godliness but denying its power 2 Timothy No wonder Paul added, and from such people turn away!
Many Christians are afraid of secular humanism or atheism or the world. But dead religion is far more dangerous, and sends more people to hell than anything else. These certain men were in the way of Cain , which is the way of dead religion. During the time of the Exodus, Israel advanced to the land of Moab, after defeating the Amorites. The first delegation from King Balak arrived and God told Balaam to have nothing to do with them.
After the first visit another, more prestigious delegation came with great riches. Balaam wanted to go with them and God allowed him to go. Balaam lusted after the riches and prestige offered to him and God gave him over to his own sin. God warned Balaam to turn back when he was on the way to see Balak. Yet his heart was set on the rich reward King Balak promised and he continued on.
Balaam even ignored a talking donkey, sent to warn him to turn back. Balaam knew that he has done wrong. He continued on, refusing to see that when God says no, we must take it as a no. Instead, God gave Balaam what his sinful heart desired. When he was unsuccessful in cursing Israel, Balaam advised Balak on how to bring Israel under a curse. Instead of trying to have a prophet curse Israel, he should lead her into fornication and idolatry and then God would curse a disobedient Israel.
Balak did just that, sending his young women into the camp of Israel to lead Israel into sexual immorality and idolatry. Therefore Balaam was guilty of the greatest of sins: deliberately leading others into sin. Worse yet, he did it for money. Greedily in the error of Balaam for profit : The greedy error of Balaam was that he was willing to compromise everything for money. The certain men Jude warned about had the same heart.
Many Christians would never deny Jesus under persecution, but might deny Him if offered a large sum of money. There is not a single sin that corrupt man will not commit for the sake of money. Covetousness is such a dangerous sin that it killed Jesus — 30 pieces of silver helped put Jesus on the cross. This is a strong picture of excessive indulgence. But Paul also uses the same term for the extravagant way God loves us: the love of God has been poured out in our hearts Romans He was a prominent man in Israel, and one day came to Moses, saying, You take too much upon yourself, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them.
Why then do you exalt yourself about the congregation of the LORD? Numbers Korah and his followers resented the authority God gave to Moses and Aaron. Moses then proposed a test: each group took censers for burning incense and came before the Lord. When they both came before God, the Lord told Moses to step away.
Then, the ground opened up and swallowed Korah and his followers. After that, fire came down from heaven and burned up all of his supporters. They all perished. Rebellion : Korah was a Levite, but not of the priestly family of Aaron. As a Levite, he had had his own God-appointed sphere of ministry, yet he was not content with it. He wanted the ministry and the authority of Moses.
Korah needed to learn this essential lesson: we should work hard to fulfill everything God has called us to be. At the same time, we should never try to be what God has not called us to be. When the certain men rejected authority and spoke evil against dignitaries, they walked in the rebellion of Korah. These three men came from quite different backgrounds: Cain was a farmer, Balaam was a prophet, and Korah was a leader in Israel. Apostasy is never confined to one group of people. These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves.
They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. Spots in your love feasts : The early Christians often met for a common meal, something like a potluck dinner. They ate greedily at the love feasts while others went hungry.
At the Agape Feast, everybody brought what they could — some a little, some a lot; but they all shared it together. For some slaves who were Christians it might have been the only decent meal they regularly ate. The selfishness of these certain men spoiled the fellowship. Many who would never eat selfishly at a church meal still come to church concerned with serving only themselves. They were shepherds of a sort — but only shepherding themselves. Clouds without water, carried by the winds : Clouds without water are good for nothing.
They bring no life-giving rain and they only block out the sun. They exist just for themselves. The certain men were like these clouds. Once while driving by a factory, my daughter Aan-Sofie looked at the billows of white smoke coming from the smoke stacks. Late autumn trees without fruit : By late autumn , trees should have fruit. But these certain men did not bear fruit even when they should. They were like trees that only take instead of give. Raging waves of the sea : For modern man, the sea is often a thing of beauty.
But to ancient man, especially in Biblical cultures, the sea was an unmanageable terror. Isaiah expresses this idea: But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. These certain men were busy and active like the raging waves of the sea , but all it brought was foaming up their own shame. Busyness is no mark of correctness. The fruit of these men was like the foam or scum at the seashore.
Jude has in mind the ugly shoreline after a storm has washed up all sorts of driftwood, seaweed and debris. Wandering stars : Like comets streaking through the sky, these certain men astonished the world for a time, and then vanished into darkness. An unpredictable star was no good for guidance and navigation. Even so these deceivers were useless and untrustworthy.
- A Quick Guide to Starting a Bookshop in South Africa: For New Books (How to Start a Bookshop in South Africa Book 1).
- Una vita sopra i tetti (Italian Edition).
- Jokes Animal Jokes : 555 Animal Jokes!
- Cultura (Spanish Edition).
- Santa Clausbirth..
- Works of John Habberton.
Blackness of darkness forever : This described their destiny. Unless they repent, they would end up in hell — and be there forever. The punishment of hell is forever because a mere man is paying for his own sins, offering an imperfect sacrifice which must be repeated over and over again for eternity.
A perfect man can offer a single sacrifice; but an imperfect man must continually offer a sacrifice. Our obligations to God are infinite and can therefore only be satisfied in Jesus, an infinite person. The ancient book of Enoch was not received as Scripture, but it was highly respected among both the Jews and early Christians. But because they contained many famous testimonies concerning Jesus Christ, the Jews out of malice suppressed and abolished the whole book. Jude did not quote from Enoch to tell us anything new, but to give a vivid description of what the Bible already teaches.
The Apostle Paul also quoted non-Biblical sources on at least three different occasions Acts , 1 Corinthians and Titus