> General Discussions
Jonah's Gourd
hillsbororiver:
--- Quote from: Beloved on November 19, 2008, 02:21:06 AM ---
When the story ends , do we know what happened to Jonah? Did he remain in his hardness of heart? How could he resist so gracious a God? Was he touched by divine compassion, so that compassion was kindled in his own heart? We are never told!
What does this mean to any of us? Do any of us resist this loving, gracious God? Will we finally turn out to be like Jonah or the God of Jonah?
What kind of God is this who listens to the suicidal elegy of His prophet who can't even remember what he himself said to God: "I will sacrifice to thee with thanksgiving, my vows I will pay."
--- End quote ---
Hi again Carol,
You have some very interesting and compelling observations here, what did become of Jonah? Was his heart hardened even more or did he learn more about his own shortcomings and bitterly repent of them? The vow Jonah made "I will sacrifice to thee with thanksgiving, my vows I will pay" sounds exactly like prayers or vows we ourselves would make...... when things are going well for us.
Thanks for your response.
Peace,
Joe
ericsteven:
Hi Joe,
This is probably one of those subjects where you and I will more than likely end up agreeing to disagree. I can tell definitely sense your deep convictions concerning this belief about Mathias. Nevertheless, I’ll give it at least one more go, if no more reason than to keep conversing with a man in Christ whom I truly respect.
You used John 6:65-71 as an example where Jesus chose someone knowing that they were “a devil.” And we are both familiar with Paul’s views on this in Romans 9 concerning how God chooses some for honor and some for dishonor. Surely, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Judas, even Satan himself were all chosen as vessels of dishonor to further God’s plan for His people. There is definite precedence in the Scripture for God acting in this manner.
But nowhere in Scripture or even in any extra-Scriptural writings can we find one reason to carry this precedence over into the choosing of Mathias. Everything we know directly about Mathias is contained in one chapter in Acts. There are no Scriptures or other writings that directly say he did great things and there are none that directly say he was a source of evil within the church. So any attempt on either one of our parts to say definitively that Mathias in his later life either remained in the faith to the honor of the church or became a vessel of evil to its detriment is purely speculation.
That said, I believe there are more clues in the Scriptures that could possibly lead one to the conclusion that he remained faithful than there are that prove your theory.
For example consider the following Scripture:
Acts 6:2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.”
Five chapters after the choosing of Mathias as the twelfth apostle, we see here that there are still twelve apostles, agreeing in one mind to continue preaching the word instead of serving at tables.
Her are other verses that occur before the mention of the twelve still being intact in Acts 6:
Acts 5:14 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.)
Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.”
I may be just seeing things, but I think it’s clear that Mathias is definitely included as one of the twelve apostles in these verses. There are no Scriptures to my knowledge that say one fell away or that Mathias decided to go his own way and another was added. So here is proof that all the apostles, including Mathias as one of the twelve, were acting in a way that is consistent with being of one mind in our Lord.
So what I am understanding from your theory, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that since everything is according to the plan of God, the choosing of Mathias in Acts 1 coupled with Mathias’s actions with the apostles in the above verses are simply a deception technique (strong delusion, if you will) to get everybody used to thinking of him as the good guy when all along God is eventually planning to use him as the bad guy, similar to Judas as “a devil.”
*******Sarcasm alert*******
You know, perhaps you’re right. Perhaps there’s some long lost letter or gospel out there (since there’s obviously nothing in Scripture) that sheds light on the misdeeds of Mathias as he relates to the building of the church. And perhaps it will be discovered or brought to light, and then just perhaps some author out there, say Dan Brown, will write an exciting fiction based on these writings that will finally shed light and truth on this most mysterious, yet evil, of apostles.
******End of sarcasm******
Who knows? As I pointed before and you even mentioned in your response, there is no evidence for any specific noteworthy acts mentioning Mathias by name in regards to the church of the first century, whether for good or evil, after his appointment in Acts 1. So, just as you believe that the understanding of the church, and myself for that matter, is purely speculative in nature, I would have to say the same thing about yours.
To address your thoughts on Peter’s actions in regard to Mathias’ appointment, I submit the following:
One of your basic contentions is that Peter was impulsive and impatient, and that the condition that Peter put forth concerning how Judas’ replacement must have been a witness of everything from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to that present moment was only a product of Peter’s own carnal or imperfect reasoning - that this was only a “requirement of Peter” and not the Lord.
First, was Peter acting impulsively and impatient in this instance?
Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
It was during this time being in one accord in prayer and supplication that Peter stood to address the followers of Christ concerning Judas.
The passage later shows that before any final decision was made, they prayed, recognizing that it was God who was in control of any decision.
Acts 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Acts 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Based on this passage, the only passage in Scripture where Mathias is spoken of directly by name, I just don’t understand how you can say that Peter and the others in this room were acting in an impulsive and impatient manner. To me it looks like they did everything they were supposed to do, and what is even encouraged by most people on this forum, which is to pray to the Lord in recognizance of His sovereignty before making any big decisions.
The people in that room specifically asked the Lord to show them whom He had chosen. How did He show them? By lot. Do you really believe that the Lord had no hand in that process? Is there anything in the Scriptures that leads you to believe that they were not praying with a sincere heart to know the mind of the Lord on this issue and therefore lead the Lord to not be directly involved?
Of course, even if you concede that God did have a hand in that process, you’d probably qualify it by saying it was for the reason of choosing a vessel of dishonor, even though most if not all of the people who prayed that prayer did not realize it. Like I said, I guess I’ll just have to wait for the lost book of the Bible to be found and exploited to corroborate your assertions.
To address that the requirement spoken by Peter was only of Peter’s carnal reasoning, I would have to ask, Do you really think that Jesus would have had a radically different requirement for the man who was to “take part in this ministry and apostleship?” It wasn’t as if Mathias was a newbie, not knowing anything concerning Jesus and His ministry. He was there; he was a witness of everything. And that, I would argue, was the requirement that Jesus Himself gave:
Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luke 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
And Peter reinforces this statement in response to the teachers of the law who were questioning why they, the apostles (of which Mathias was one), continued preaching the Word even after being commanded not to:
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
I might point out that that last Scripture says that God gives the Holy Spirit to all who obey Him. If Mathias was a vessel of dishonor, someone who would end up not obeying the word of God, as you claim, then why was he given the Holy Spirit on Pentecost? To merely reinforce the delusion? And then He ended up taking it away at some point? One can say that there have been many who have accepted Jesus as Savior and did many wonderful things in the name of God and then fell away, and use that as proof of your theory. But then, perhaps they didn't even have the Spirit to begin with at all. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any precedence in Scripture to show that God gives the Spirit and takes it away again. If someone falls away, it's probably because they never had the Spirit to begin with, they never moved past the Passover experience and into the Pentecostal experience, as I alluded to in my previous post.
As one of the twelve apostles, being a witness of all these things was a very big deal, apparently to Jesus Himself. So I’m wondering here – honestly – what different criteria do you suppose the Lord would have had that was different than the criteria to which you refer to as Peter’s “own reasoning” and “not of the Lord?”
Another point you keep returning to is that if the filling of the position was so important, why would Jesus have not done it Himself during the 40 days He spent with them after the resurrection?
My answer is, I don’t know. Sincerely, I don’t know. You seem to be of the opinion that this is proof that since it was not important to Jesus at this time, then it was entirely too presumptuous of Peter to go ahead and initiate the process himself after Jesus had gone away. As I’ve noticed another poster is often fond of saying, “Scripture, please?” One other opinion might be that Jesus wanted to use this appointing of the twelfth apostle as the first act of reinforcing their dependence on Him, using the knowledge of the Scriptures and of Himself that He had spent over three years giving them. I mean, what better way to do that than to wait until after He had gone, so that they would truly have to begin developing and trusting their “eyes” and their “ears” in regards to the faith given to them by Jesus? I’m sure there are other opinions out there, but the truth is the Scriptures do not say. So you’re opinion is just as valid as the next person’s when it comes to the silence of the Scriptures on this question.
--- Quote --- You really do not understand the point of this at all
--- End quote ---
Though I may not have seen fully understood in my first response what your theory entailed, I’m pretty sure I understand now. And I apologize, I for one, cannot put my hat in the ring with you one this one. Perhaps my eyes are not open or I’m just being stubborn (not an uncommon trait that I exhibit). If that is the case, I pray and hope that God will forgive me and hopefully open my eyes to what you seem very sure of.
I look forward to reading any response you may feel led to give.
God bless you, my brother,
Eric
hillsbororiver:
--- Quote from: ericsteven on November 19, 2008, 04:53:26 PM ---
So what I am understanding from your theory, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that since everything is according to the plan of God, the choosing of Mathias in Acts 1 coupled with Mathias’s actions with the apostles in the above verses are simply a deception technique (strong delusion, if you will) to get everybody used to thinking of him as the good guy when all along God is eventually planning to use him as the bad guy, similar to Judas as “a devil.”
*******Sarcasm alert*******
You know, perhaps you’re right. Perhaps there’s some long lost letter or gospel out there (since there’s obviously nothing in Scripture) that sheds light on the misdeeds of Mathias as he relates to the building of the church. And perhaps it will be discovered or brought to light, and then just perhaps some author out there, say Dan Brown, will write an exciting fiction based on these writings that will finally shed light and truth on this most mysterious, yet evil, of apostles.
******End of sarcasm******
Who knows? As I pointed before and you even mentioned in your response, there is no evidence for any specific noteworthy acts mentioning Mathias by name in regards to the church of the first century, whether for good or evil, after his appointment in Acts 1. So, just as you believe that the understanding of the church, and myself for that matter, is purely speculative in nature, I would have to say the same thing about yours.
To address your thoughts on Peter’s actions in regard to Mathias’ appointment, I submit the following:
One of your basic contentions is that Peter was impulsive and impatient, and that the condition that Peter put forth concerning how Judas’ replacement must have been a witness of everything from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to that present moment was only a product of Peter’s own carnal or imperfect reasoning - that this was only a “requirement of Peter” and not the Lord.
First, was Peter acting impulsively and impatient in this instance?
Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
It was during this time being in one accord in prayer and supplication that Peter stood to address the followers of Christ concerning Judas.
The passage later shows that before any final decision was made, they prayed, recognizing that it was God who was in control of any decision.
--- End quote ---
Hi Eric,
The feeling is mutual in regard to this opportunity to discuss this subject with someone who is putting much study into a matter, although we may end up disagreeing we will not be wasting our time by searching, studying, praying and seeking His will and wisdom.
It is a very real possibility that I have not really explained my position as well as I could if only I was more articulate expressing myself in writing, I will make another attempt to clarify where I am coming from.
I am not trying to imply that Matthias was evil or a detriment to the other apostles in their ministries, only that he very well may be an illegitimate apostle since I can find no directive from Christ to choose another apostle, Jesus Himself stated that The Father and Son exclusively do the choosing.
I appreciate your point in regard to Peter not displaying the "by the seat of his pants" type of impulsiveness by imploring everyone to prayer over this matter but it is still impulsive when someone takes upon themselves a duty they do not have the proper authority to execute, we can earnestly pray for something that is outside of God's will and that prayer although done in a humble spirit will still not be answered (in the manner we desire), our prayers must line up with God's plan and purpose for them to be answered. In a sense this prayer very well was answered, just not in the way they (at least at that time) perceived it to be.
What I meant by Matthias being used as an instrument for strong delusion has absolutely nothing to do with what he may have ever said or done but only that with this supposed addition of a 12th apostle everyone's eyes would be taken off of the spirit of the other 12th apostle still alive and well in the church, Satan! I don't think any of us can deny that the spirit of carnality is very much alive and well in the church.
Most all of scripture has a physical and spiritual application, Matthias may have served a dual purpose in being a physical helper in an earthly ministry but he may also have been used as a kind of decoy to take (most) eyes off of what position Satan was given (chosen for) within the church(es). If we believe that Matthias was the legitimate replacement then we might also believe that Satan's (negative) role in the ministry ended with the death of Judas, we know that is not the case, his influence is pervasive!
Again I sincerely thank you for all the thought, time and effort you put into your responses, even though we may end up agreeing to disagree I think we both have spent our time well in seeking a better understanding.
His Peace to you Brother,
Joe
ericsteven:
Hey Joe,
--- Quote --- Again I sincerely thank you for all the thought, time and effort you put into your responses, even though we may end up agreeing to disagree I think we both have spent our time well in seeking a better understanding.
--- End quote ---
Amen, my friend, Amen.
Now, getting back to your original subject of Jonah’s gourd, which Beloved has perhaps tried diligently to keep our eyes focused on and I have, it may have seemed to some, been diligent in trying to divert your attention away from (sorry Beloved). :) Here are some thoughts that I had while studying this book that I hope may contribute to our understanding.
Perhaps the only things that link Jonah to Jesus are the events on the boat and the subsequent three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish. His attitude throughout the book is definitely far from what could be considered Christ-like. But what I also see is a parable of the process that many of us take as He drags us in our journey to understand Him and His dealings with His creation.
From the moment the book of Jonah begins, it seems Jonah’s heart is filled with anger. Jonah was a prophet to Israel. II Kings 14 tells us that he prophesied during the time of the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash of the northern kingdom of Israel. By this time, the nation of Israel had been split in two and the two separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah had begun warring against each other. So, when called by the Lord to go to Nineveh, a pagan city and capital of the Assyrian empire, he may have felt that he was being pulled away from his calling to affect some kind of change for his own countrymen. Why would God want to even bother with these fish-worshiping people in Nineveh when there’s so much more work to be done with His chosen people, the Israelites? So he runs away, an attempt at rebellion to show God that He is in the wrong and he, Jonah, is in the right.
I think perhaps Jonah at this point in time may represent those who don’t really know God. They may or may not believe in God, but either way they run and run, trying to get away from this idea of a Creator, a being who created everything and is in control of all. They become angry at God for trying to control their lives. They want to be their own person without the constraints of God telling them what to do. They have their own plans for their lives, and anybody outside of the scope of those plans is not really that important. “Can’t make me if I don’t want to,” seems to be the phrase of the day.
But then, lo and behold, something comes along and just mucks up that idea. One minute they’re asleep, content in their belief that they’ve done the right thing, and the next, BAM!, they wake up to find that not only have their actions brought on a serious “rough and tumble,” but that serious “rough and tumble” is affecting all those around them.
It’s at this point that what I like to call, the “Altar Call Experience” occurs. They realize that in order to calm the “storms of life” that rage around them because of their disobedience, they must give up their plans for their own life and accept Jesus as Lord. They’re thrown overboard into the sea where they lay dying in the belly of a great fish for three days and three nights. Through much prayer, they begin to recognize that God is in control and promise with all their heart to follow His ways. Then, miraculously, they’re resurrected into a new life, a new understanding of God and His ways.
Just as Jonah went straight to Nineveh in obeisance of God’s command, so too do these new Christians feel empowered to go out and “save the world for Christ.” They do everything they feel God is telling them to do with great joy. They talk of “spreading the fire” and “saving the lost.” But although they have a new understanding of God after their fish experience, that understanding is only in its infancy. Although intellectually, they understand that God is “slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity,” in their heart they long for all those evil and disobedient people out there to be destroyed, to “burn in the fires of hell” forever, because that's what they deserve for disobedience.
But when that doesn’t happen, in fact, God chooses to save those people that they thought should “go to hell,” they get angry, similar to the attitude of the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Then, in their stubborn self-delusion, they go off to pout, thinking surely their pouting will move God to remove His mercy from those heathen people. In doing so, they take solace in their own works. Just as Jonah built his little shelter to give him comfort as he waited for the destruction that he believed was coming, they believe that doing good works will comfort them as they wait for the fires of hell to consume the wicked.
But, alas, those shelters, those works of their own doing do not last. That Jonah’s shelter, which gave him shade for a time, did not last is evident from the fact that God had to send the gourd to grow up over Jonah to now give him shade. And when that happens, anger again takes hold.
Here are a couple of explanations (not mine) of what kind of plant Jonah’s gourd may have been:
…a plant very commonly used in Palestine and elsewhere to cover and give cooling shade to arbours…its rapid growth and large leaves admirably adapting it to such a purpose, while the extreme fragility of its stem exposes it to a striking suddenness of decay, should a storm strike it or a caterpillar gnaw its root. One day it may be seen in its glory; the next, it hangs withered and dried up. This would exactly suit the narrative.
…bottle gourd which belongs to Cucurbitaceae family. Cucurbitacins are complex compounds found in plants belonging to the cucumber family (Cucurbitaceae). The tetracyclic triterpenoid Cucurbitacins compounds are responsible for the bitterness in vegetables like cucumber, squash, eggplants, melon, pumpkin and gourds and are highly toxic to mammals.
The latter article continues by saying that although the bottle gourd is not toxic to humans, it is only because of its bitterness that that is the case.
And Jonah’s life attitude, for the most part in this story, has certainly shown a tendency towards bitterness and anger. When things don’t go our way, we tend to relax back into those feelings and attitudes in which we are most comfortable. Even if those feelings are anger and bitterness, we tend to gravitate, usually unconsciously, towards those feelings that give us the most comfort, even if they are detrimental to us.
The truth of this can be seen in many psychological studies that show how some people tend to pick mates based on traits that their parents exhibited, even if those traits were ones that the grown children had consciously determined to steer away from in their selection process. They grew up being constantly being exposed to those negative traits from their parents, and that is what they’re used to, so when a possible mate comes along that exhibits those same traits, unconsciously they dismiss or overlook them because of the immediate feelings of “love and happiness.”
In that way, Jonah became happy and comfortable in his bitterness because that’s the attitude that he was used to having, it's what he was comfortable in. I see the gourd, however, as not only representing Jonah’s life and his experience of dealing with his carnal attitudes, but also as a representation of all mankind and our experiences overcoming our own carnality, which many of us find hard to give up. A life based on carnal living may seem green and full of life, but in reality it is a life that keeps one susceptible to "extreme fragility" and " a striking suddenness of decay." I suppose it could relate to the parable of building upon the Rock vs. the sand.
But then along comes the worm. The Hebrew word here is towla`, and in addition to being translated as 'worm' throughout the OT Scriptures, it’s also translated as ‘scarlet’. Some scholars believe this is because it refers to the ‘coccus ilicis’ worm. Here are one description:
When the female of the scarlet worm species was ready to give birth to her young, she would attach her body to the trunk of a tree, fixing herself so firmly and permanently that she would never leave again. The eggs deposited beneath her body were thus protected until the larvae were hatched and able to enter their own life cycle. As the mother died, the crimson fluid stained her body and the surrounding wood. From the dead bodies of such female scarlet worms, the commercial scarlet dyes of antiquity were extracted.
I see this worm as representing Jesus and his sacrifice to cover all of us with His blood. Though worms can be thought of in Scripture as bad things, here is one Scripture that could be prophetically used to describe our Savior.
Psalm 22:6ff But I am a worm (towla`), and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
I could be off base, but that is what I currently see. Just as the worm destroyed the bitter gourd, so too Jesus - as the One who was despised and rejected of men, taunted on the cross to save Himself as He saved others - destroys the bitterness within our hearts through His sacrifice on the cross, staining and covering us with His blood
And it’s after the true acceptance of that sacrifice that, whether now for the elect or later in the judgment, God will send His east wind to judge us and usher us into our wilderness experience.
The east wind in Scripture is many times associated with judgment. It was the east wind that brought the plague of locusts to Egypt.
Exo 10:13 …and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.
The east wind is associated with the seven years of famine in Joseph’s time, represented by the seven thin ears of corn in Pharaoh’s dream.
Gen 41:6 And, behold, seven thin ears and blasted with the east wind sprung up after them.
It can also describe the beginning of a type of wilderness experience where we are taught to lean more on the blood of Christ for our sustainment. For example, the east wind is the one that dried up the Red Sea during the Exodus, through which the Israelites crossed and then entered into their own experience of God in the wilderness.
Exo 14:21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters were divided.
Ezekiel describes the nation of Israel as being dried up by the east wind and planted in the wilderness.
Eze 19:12ff But she was plucked up in fury, she was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up her fruit: her strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them. And now she is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground.
This is obviously not an easy time. Jonah is now angry because the ‘worm’ took his only comfort away and now he’s suffering through the east wind in the wilderness. I think we’ve definitely seen examples of this lately in our own forum here where the carnal nature is loathe to release its grip in the face of trying circumstances. Even with our acceptance of the blood of Christ, we are still veiled with flesh and blood, which will keep us from fully experiencing the glory of God by allowing our carnal attitudes to occasionally present themselves. But it’s all for a purpose.
God reminds Jonah:
Jon 4:10 But the Lord said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight.
This sounds a lot like James:
James 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
It is God who sustains us in all things. It is God who will deliver all of us from this flesh, each in our own time as planned by God. And whatever troubles we have now, we can take heart, because it is nothing compared to the glory that will be revealed at His coming.
I'm sure there's much more to be dug out, but that's just the way I see the story right now. Then again, perhaps I’m reading too much into it. :D
Thoughts?
God bless,
Eric
Beloved:
BOB Since the purpose was to change Jonah's mind about serving God and also to get Jonah to Nineveh in one piece, could it be that the journey in the "fish" or a swimming mammal perhaps was a little more comfortable yet traumatic enough to make the point? Since Jonah needed air, then an air breathing "fish" would seem more appropriate. Also large fish may live off of body fat when the feeding is sparse and perhaps the throat cavity wasn't as acidic as would otherwise be the case. Then again since the Bible says that God "prepared" a fish we could presume that this particular fish was not a standard species.
I mention this because God usually can get our attention without torturing us beyond what is necessary and to me just being inside an animal would get my undivided attention for quite a while
You may be right Bob afterall, Look at Daniel in the lions den and the three guys in the hot oven...they were all safely enveloped in Gods LOVE....so you see He even provided oxygen in the latter situation.
Since I have a KOI pond and have four big "whales" in my pond, I love the fact that God PREPARED this Great Fish....He must have been kept that baby around for some time and it grew and grew and grew....
Here are links t two types of digestion
http://www.aarluk.com/en/bio/files/digestion.htm
http://www.pond-doctor.co.uk/longdigestion.html
It had to be dark, perhaps smelly and perhaps sqirming and squishy things going on all around you.
Eric I liked your study of Jonah, it really does have all the elements in it. I knew about the gourd and the worm things and I am glad you shared them with others here on the board...I love these little facts and side bars...they add more color to the story.
Joe regarding the "major" and "minor" I realize that these nametags come about by the people who compiled the books, they grouped them by size...and people who read them may have thought them less significant in contnent...it is a wonder that poor Obadiah even got in ...one book with one chapter. ;D There ar gems in all of them
When I uses the terms major and minor I only was looking at a different aspects, but if the job of a prophet is to relay God message ...then he appears to have had the most successful response...the other prophets preached but the recipients were stiffnecked and faced judgement. No man however can boast...because God is sovereign and are all fish are ready to be dragged in.
beloved
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version