Just Like Daddy & Mummy

By Emmanuel Oghene

Daddy and Mummy are the first teachers, mentors, and examples available for children to take after. As a result, children are naturally tempted to become addicted to whatever they see their parents do in their childhood and formative years. However, because all humans have their inevitable and inalienable

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookTrail Publishing
• Release date: Jun 18, 2021
• ISBN: 9781637671153

Emmanuel Oghene

Rev Emmanuel Oghenebrorhie can be described as a Paper-pulpit Pastor and Bible Preacher by publication. He is divinely ordained to teach, preach and publish the Gospel of Christ Jesus and has been teaching and preaching since 1994. He began to publish in 2004 and presides over Emmanuel Oghenebrorhie Ministries, that encompasses several arms. He operates Christ Redemption Publications, based in Ibadan, Nigeria. He has been published by other publishers overseas. He makes the working word of God relevant to daily living, to prepare the saints for heaven. He hosts a monthly Bible Seminar every second Sunday at his Nigerian base, Ibadan. His audiences often comment that he gives a realistic interpretation to the word of God in a way they never heard or read previously and that he directs the word of God to where it matters in a man’s life when it matters most. He can be reached on [e-mail] or [e-mail] or 234-7037825522 or 234-8182022262 or 07055989850

Book preview

EBK_CVR-06-04-21.jpg

Copyright © 2021 by Emmanuel Oghene.

ISBN-978-1-63767-114-6 (Paperback)

ISBN-978-1-63767-115-3 (eBook)

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

TEV

Scripture quotations marked TEV are taken from the Holy Bible, Today’s English Version®. TEV® Copyright © 1976, 1978 by The Bible Societies®. Published by the Bible Societies, 146 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4V 4BX. All rights reserved worldwide.

NKJV

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

CEV

Scriptures marked CEV are taken from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society. Used by permission.

BBE change to another translation

Scriptures marked BBE are taken from the Bible in Basic English, Copyright © 1995 by. Used by permission.

Contents

Dedication

Appreciation

Introduction

I. Lifelong Pursuits

II. Life Experiences

III. Commendable Character and Conduct

IV. Save Own Soul

V. Wherever, However, Whoever and Whenever

VI. Like Father like Son

VII. Succession

VIII. Injurious Intolerance/Triumphant Tolerance

IX. Injurious Ingratitude

X. Abominable Response to Real Threats

XI. Scandalous Sense of Personal Security and Privilege Expectations

XII. Disregarding Fundamental Facts

XIII. Misplacement Of Priorities

XIV. Do Not Forget Yourself

XV. Like Father like Son, Like Mother like Daughters and Like Mother-in-law Like Daughter-in-law

Author’s Other Published Titles

In Press

DEDICATION

Pastor Emmanuel Bolarinwa and his wife, Bukky, their sons, Samuel, and David

APPRECIATION

All glory to God that this is available for others to read. Lord, a thousand tongues are not enough for me to express my gratitude for this unique opportunity to be a blessing to my generation and future generations. Surely, everything in this call and commission is your doing and it is marvelous in my eyes.

I regard the friendship of Engr Yinka Abokede and his wife and children, Biyi Adesanmi, wife and children as well as Kenny and his wife. May God swell your heavenly account richly, in Jesus’ mighty name, Amen.

INTRODUCTION

Some time ago, someone said to me, ‘you act like your father’ in a particular manner. Responding to that opinion is meaningless in my estimation. Yet, my greatest puzzle is that this individual or anyone, for that matter, expects me to act differently. As they say, you are not a bastard, by which they mean that acting as your parent means that you are the true child of your Father or mother.

Parents are the first mentors of any child where the parents bring up the child. Parents are the primary heroes of any child. We must agree that this is under normal circumstances or what the economists call all things being equal. These days, there are numbers of abandoned children who lack good parental upbringing, which distorts their lives beyond the redeemable level when they become adults. What is called proper parental upbringing is supposed to be an excellent parental upbringing as well. They are considering Mordecai’s case serving as a parent figure for Queen Esther to the benefit of the Jews in the Persian Empire. Perhaps the emphasis should be on an excellent upbringing to safely remove the sentiment of proper or profitable upbringing being the exclusive responsibility of biological parents rather than any adult providing the child’s good parental figure. This is important because there is no assurance that the crisis of dereliction of duty by biological parents would not worsen in the succeeding generation if God the Father chooses to delay the second coming of humankind’s Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, God the Son.

I

Lifelong Pursuits

Whether children must or do not necessarily have to follow hook-line-and-sinker in their parent’s footsteps is neither here nor there. Neither children nor parents should force it either way. One of the unique pathetic stories in this respect is that of King Saul and his eldest son, Jonathan, who he claimed to have preferred to succeed him rather than David son of Jesse. Saul’s Father, Kish, was not the king of Israel when God chose him to be king of Israel after Samuel because the Israelites rejected Samuel’s plan for his sons to succeed him. Just as Samuel benefited from the rejection of Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phine has as Eli’s successor, and Saul benefited from Samuel’s sons missing the chance to succeed him, God decided on account of Saul’s sins to deny his son serving as his successor.

One of the differences with Saul’s experience in this respect was that Jonathan believed that God allowed that he served as second-in-command to David on the throne of Israel. When Eli and Samuel’s sons lost their chance to succeed them, there was no provision for any of them to deputize for the gainer of their loss. While Jonathan was content with God’s decision to be David’s deputy, Saul thought otherwise. Let us leave out the subject of what Saul benefited; he would not let another benefit from him later in life for now.

While Eli helped Samuel to replace his sons as his successor, Samuel put roadblock on Samuel’s pathway to serve as his substantive successor. I Samuel 7:15-17 claims that Samuel ruled for as long as he lived. It would mean that even after making Saul king of Israel as God directed him to do, he (Samuel) found a way to remain relevant within the leadership scheme of Israel. Furthermore, it means that he remained relevant until he anointed David as Saul’s sons’ replacement successor to Saul. This makes sense considering that there is no record that Saul appointed judges to decided civil or criminal cases throughout his forty-year reign. It suggests that Samuel and his sons continued to adjudicate cases for the Israelites at Beersheba, Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and Ramah.

Jonathan, who should be the chief beneficiary of his succession, said he does not mind serving as second-in-command to David rather than David serving as his second-in-command. Jonathan’s reason seemed to be like he considered David a good friend and that God decided that he served as second-in-command. Jonathan seemed satisfied with the decision because, in any case, it was the mistake of his Father that made God take that decision. Since he was expected to honor his father and mother under any circumstance, he would live with the misfortune that his Father’s mistake caused him as his Father’s original heir to the throne of Israel.

Rather than Saul accept that he was responsible for the decision that short-changed Jonathan in this matter of his successor. He decided that Jonathan must join him to do everything humanly possible to stop David, even though he knew very well that David was God’s candidate to succeed him. I Samuel 20:27-33 says the day that his unreasonableness on the matter pushed Jonathan to ask him to explain precisely why he was so adamant about killing David, who had not offended him. Saul resorted to attempting to kill Jonathan for daring to query his decision. Saul understood that Jonathan meant that he should not attack David as if he (Saul) was not the real reason God decided that David replaced him as his (Saul’s) successor. Father had made his mistake, which the son insists should not be blamed on an innocent man, and the Father says the son should not have said such a thing to him.

The other issue is that there is no doubt that pride was part of the reason that Saul did not want it to go down in history that his son lost the chance to succeed him as king to the son of a non-noble. Jonathan resisted the temptation to follow in the footsteps of his Father to engage in transferred aggression. No matter what the Father dangled as a carrot to sway his views to join him to attack a friend unjustly, he did not accept joining the Father. The only unfortunate thing is the fact that he could not summon the courage to leave his Father behind to die alone so that he could outlive the Father and truly serve as second-in-command to his friend as he claimed that God had revealed to him.

Curiously, Jonathan showed better judgment than his Father at another time. I Samuel 13:1-23 and 14:1-46 tell how Saul got into his first problem with Samuel and, by extension, God as king of Israel. Jonathan caused the dispute between the Israelites that resulted in the war against the Philistines at this point. Samuel promised to lend the support of offering sacrifices to God to secure victory over the Philistines. For some inexplicable reasons, Samuel did not show up when he promised to render help. I Samuel 13:5-12 says his delayed arrival resulting in his warriors’ desertion, compelled Saul to take Samuel’s place to make the sacrifices. I Samuel 13:13-15 says Samuel hid under the guise that Saul disrespected him by usurping his role as the chief sacrifice offerer of the nation to pronounce Saul’s dynasty’s termination and replacement by someone outside Saul’s family and lineage. I Samuel 13:15-18 gives the impression that Saul did not care much about Samuel’s punishment initially.

I Samuel 14:1-2, 6-15-23, 42-46 confirms that at the end of the day, Jonathan led the defeat of the Philistines without Samuel making what he considered the sacrifice acceptable to God. This means that despite Saul-blamed inappropriate or offensive sacrifices, God still used Jonathan and his armor-bearer to give victory to the Israelites over the Philistines. I Samuel 14:24-30 says another thing that fear forced Saul to do during this battle was to make an order that none of the warriors at the battlefield should eat or drink. I Samuel 14:24-30 confirms that Jonathan did not like how his Father placed an embargo on the warriors never to eat and drink on the battlefield. Considering that Jonathan still defeated the Philistines despite not complying with the restraining order, it meant that the order was not needed to defeat the Philistines on this occasion. This is part of what can be called the boss is not always right. Not every order that the big boss imposes is needed, helpful, and useful some of the time. Samuel’s sacrifice and Saul’s order banning eating and drinking on the battlefield were completely irrelevant to winning the war at hand. Saul needed Jonathan more than Samuel to lead Israel’s army to defeat the Philistines in this instance.

Tamar and Ruth are two of a kind. The challenges that they met in their marriage they resolved without involving their families. Genesis 38 says that Tamar dictated how her marriage ended rather than let her father-in-law, Judah decide her final marital fate. Ruth and Orpah are two of a kind. While Ruth chose the more challenging route to resolve her problem, Orpah chose the traditionally easy way out. Ruth discarded the traditional solution of being freed from the marital obligation by her husband’s death to travel away from her hometown to her late husband’s hometown to find his relative to remarry.

Exodus 4:18-20, 24-26 and 18:1-12 confirm that when Moses had problems with his wife, her Father had to intervene for them to reconcile. Ruth left her people to face life in a foreign land without any help from her family and people. While Jacob’s wives agreed to leave their Father and family behind to follow him to Canaan because of the children that they bore him and the wealth that God had given him, Ruth had nothing of the sort to look forward to when she decided to go with Naomi to a strange land. The bleak future scenario that Ruth 1:1-19 says Naomi painted did not discourage her as it did to her fellow daughter-in-law, Orpah.

Deuteronomy 23:3-6, Ruth 1 – 4 and Matthew 1:1-6-17 can be safely interpreted to mean that Ruth broke even God-set barrier over her life as a Moabite just like Genesis 9:5-6, Exodus 20:13, 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, Deuteronomy 19:11-13, II Samuel 23:1-7, I Kings 2:10- 12, I Chronicles 22:6-10, Matthew 26:52 and Revelation 13:10 confirm that though David killed by the sword, he did not die by the sword as God’s word says he deserved. Ruth decided not to spend her life where she was born and bred, and her parents remained all their lives. She relocated to a foreign land to live the rest of her life, just like Genesis 12:1-9 and 25:7-10 confirm that Abraham had done in obedience to God’s directive many generations earlier. The decision not to live like her parents is part of why she is listed among the matriarchs of Jesus Christ. Joshua 2:1-24 and 6:22-24 confirm that Rahab saved her family members from the destruction of Jericho’s native city. There have always been useful and useless children through the generations, helpful and unhelpful, both male and female. About some respectable children, I Chronicles 7:24, Nehemiah 3:1, 12 and Acts 21:8-9 say:

24 Ephraim had a daughter named Sheerah. She built the towns of Upper and Lower Beth Horon and Uzzen Sheerah.

1 This is how the city wall was rebuilt. The High Priest Eliashib and his fellow priests rebuilt the Sheep Gate, dedicated it, and put the gates. They saved the wall as far as the Tower of the Hundred and the Tower of Hananel. 12 Shallum son of Hallohesh, ruler of the other half of the Jerusalem District, built the next section. (His daughters helped with the work.)

8 On the following day, we left and arrived in Caesarea. There we stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven men who had been chosen as helpers in Jerusalem. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who proclaimed God’s message. (TEV)

These are delightful daughters who can be said to have made their parents proud. Philip was not only a church elder; his daughters were busy for God at the same church; meanwhile, there would be other families in the church that the only thing that they are known for is causing problems for the church leadership to solve from time to time. This is important so that parents can determine that they would work hard to make themselves and their children a good example for others to emulate in any group they find themselves.

Genesis 18:17-19, Deuteronomy 6:4-7-9, Proverbs 3:12, 13:24, 19:18, 22:6, 15, 23:13-14 and 29:15 can be interpreted to mean that one of the fundamentals of the Abrahamic covenant or God of Israel’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob is based on parents teaching their children to do what is right in God’s sight. It is like Leviticus 10:10-11, Deuteronomy 33:10a, Ezekiel 22:26 and Malachi 2:1, 4-6 say one of the fundamentals of God’s covenant with the tribe of Levi to serve as priests is that they know, do, teach, and help others to obey God’s commandments. It is like when I Samuel 24:1-7, 26:1-12 and 30:21-25, Nehemiah 5:1-18 and Proverbs 20:28, 29:14 and 31:4-9 can be safely interpreted to mean that one of the fundamental duties of a ruler is to give a good example and enforce justice to the benefit of the populace.

Numbers 8:23-28, 20:22-29 confirms that a priest’s son supposed to serve as a priest after him. Leviticus 10:10-11, Deuteronomy 33:8-11(10) and Ezekiel 22:26 say that teaching God’s commandments to their fellow Israelites was an integral part of the responsibility and duty of the Aaronite priests from which Jeremiah descended. Furthermore, Malachi 2:1, 6 confirms that they have responsibility to please, respect, and lived in harmony with God. Also, they did not only do what was right themselves, but they also helped many others to stop doing evil. It is their duty to teach the true knowledge of God – people should go to them to learn God’s will, as God’s messengers. I Samuel 2:28, I Chronicles 23:13 says that the priests’ core job was to serve at God-of-Israel’s altar, to burn incense, and to wear the ephod to consult God. This is what Jeremiah’s father and paternal ancestors must have done.

Prophets are supposed to expose evil in society – the equivalent of social critics, and prosecutors, but in the case of prophets, they act on God’s behalf. Jeremiah went to the Temple in Jerusalem to condemn the evil done rather than offer sacrifices like his father and paternal forefathers had done. Several times God ordered him to go to the Temple in Jerusalem, the king’s palace, and several other palaces to speak against the evil the leaders and people of Judah and Jerusalem were committing. Everyone hated him for it, including the priests and even his hometown of Anathoth relatives. His father did not endure the magnitude of persecution that he suffered. God confirmed from the very beginning that he would be persecuted by his fellow Judeans.

Numbers 8:23-26 and Jeremiah 1:1-19 can be safely interpreted to mean that God meant (foreordained, predetermined before birth) Jeremiah to be a prophet to Judah, Israel,and the nations of the earth before he was born even though his Father and paternal forefathers were priests.

Isaiah 40:1-3-5, Malachi 3:1, Matthew 3:1-12, Mark 1:1-8, Luke 1:5-80, 3:1-18 and John 1:19-28 confirm that John the Baptist’s Father, Zechariah served as a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem, but God meant John to be a prophet operating from the wilderness. Samson’s Father was not a Nazirite before Judges 13:1-7 says God chose to send him through the parent to live as a Nazirite with the main to begin the freeing of the Israelites from the Philistines’ oppression.

Naturally, parents would love that their child follows in their professional footsteps to inherit whatever assets they had acquired relevant to their lifelong career and professional practice. It was lovely when Solomon inherited the royal structures that David had established during the 40 years that II Samuel 5:4-5, I Kings 2:10-11 and I Chronicles 3:4 and 29:27 say he ruled over Israel and Judah. But it does not mean that David’s other sons must insist that they too must rule over the kingdom so that they could control their Father’s royal heritage.

II Samuel 7:1-17, 11:1-13, 12:24-25 and I Chronicles 17:1-15 and 22:6-10 confirm that God meant David’s throne for Solomon only even before II Samuel 11:1-27 says his mother became one of his Father’s wives and II Samuel 12:24-25 says he was born. Esau did not start his life by taking after his Father as a shepherd; instead, Genesis 25:24-28 and 27:1-4 confirm that he began as a wild hunter and took over the Father’s flock only when Jacob left home for their maternal uncle’s place. As a result, Genesis 35:27-29 and 36:1-8 say when Jacob returned to take over their Father’s home as the God-ordained chief inheritor, Esau left the family house with his family and flock.

I Chronicles 25:4-6 confirms that God empowered Prophet Heman’s 14 sons to be highly gifted worship leaders like him,so hebe regarded highly by his boss, King David. What an individual should spend his life to do on earth is the business of God, parents, and the individual. I Samuel 1:9-28, 2:18-21, 3:1-21, 7:15-17, and 12:1-4 can be interpreted to mean that Samuel’s lifelong purposeful pursuits were agreed upon by God and his mother, Hannah, a year before he was born. I Samuel 3:1-23, 7:2-17-detailed Samuel’s exploits were the agreement that God and his mother had agreed upon just before he was conceived. His father was religious but not a religious/national leader like he became by reason of the agreement between God and his mother. II Samuel 7:8-16 and I Chronicles 17:7-14 and 22:6-10 say that Solomon’s was revealed by God to his father through Prophet Nathan many years before he was born. Judges 13:1-25 says that Samson’s was made known to his parents possibly a year or two before he was born.

Genesis 17:1-26, 18:1-15, and 21:1-8 say that Isaac’s was made known to his parents by God about a year before he was born.Joshua’s father, Nun’s profession we are not told. Nothing is known about him except that his son, Joshua served Moses. Exactly what he did earlier and, when and how Joshua became Moses’ Personal Assistant we are not told but Numbers 27:12-23 confirms that God chose him to serve as Moses’ successor to complete the final phase of Moses’ mandate in his absence by reason of age and death. He was chosen after spending the last 40 years serving as Moses’ Personal or PrivateAssistant. This can be interpreted to meanthat Joshua never succeeded his biological father, but a kind of adoptive father. He followed Moses everywhere to render whatever support/run errand necessary for Moses. He accompanied Moses to the top of Mount Sinai to collect the Two Stone Tablets containing the Ten Commandments. He can be said to have paid the price of sonship to qualify him to succeed Moses as if he was one of Moses’ biological child. Numbers 13:1-16 can be interpreted to mean that he accepted when Moses changed his name from Hoshea to Joshua. This suggest that he considered Moses a father who could rename him like Genesis 35 confirms that Jacob changed the name that Rachel gave their youngest child, Benoni to Benjamin. Moses considered him a trusted assistant to the extent that when he was sending out spies from Kadesh Bernea, he included Joshua. Exodus 17:8-14 confirms that he instructed Joshua to lead the battle against the Amalekites.It is interesting when Genesis 46:31-34 says:

31 And Joseph said to his brothers and his Father’s house, I will go up and show Pharaoh, and say to him, My brothers and my Father’s house, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me. 32 And the men are shepherds, for they have been men of cattle. And they have brought their flocks and their herds and all that they have. 33 And it shall be when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, what is your occupation? 34 Then you shall say, your servants have been men of cattle from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers, so that you may live in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians. (NKJV)

It is very striking that Joseph said his siblings had been shepherds like their Father and ancestors since they were young. It meant that professionally, ‘like ancestor like descendant’ apply. However, curiously, their host community natives despised members of their lineage’s profession. Therefore, it is so that the host community natives would not hate Joseph that God converted him into anauthority-wielding, respected, and revered public administrator to be in a suitable position to fulfill Genesis 15:13-noted God’s revealed plan to Abraham that his descendants would be slaves in a foreign land. Abraham was living in Canaan at the time God spoke to him, making Egypt the foreign land that God meant.

Exodus 12:37-42 and Psalm 105:14-26 confirm that while God used Joseph to lead Abraham’s descendants into Egypt, He used Moses to bring them out. Joseph did not take after their ancestors as a shepherd, because of the nature of the assignment that God meant for him. Genesis 37:1-2 gives the impression that when he tried to join his older brothers to learn the trade, he could not cope so he returned home to their father who had retired from the trade and passed it on to them (his sons). The siblings did not consider any other profession. Genesis 38 gives the impression that when Judah – one of Joseph’s older brothers, went to live away from the rest of the family, he took to shepherd work over there. Verses 12-13 confirm that he had a sheep-shearing center at Timnah.

God took Joseph beyond the level of shepherds to that of the national ruler in Egypt. If Joseph or his Father had insisted and forced him to join them to practice their inherited profession, they would have sabotaged God’s plan as he would have spent his life doing something different from what God meant for him. Also worthy of note is the role of the determination to devote one’s life to do something that is respected and honorable by members of one’s generation. Even God knew that the Egyptians, among whom He meant Abraham’s descendants to live for 430 years, despised anyone engaged in Abraham’s descendants’ profession and responded by exempting Joseph from it to occupy the highest official position next only to the king. Parents love their children to take to other professions that command respect, prestige, and honor when their parents do not command respect and honor naturally.

Parents who engage in professions that do not command respect and honor naturally encourage their children to take to professions that command respect and honor. Also, children whose parents engage in professions that did not command respect strive to take to professions that command respect and honor. Lowest level employees encourage their wards to work har at their studies to become medical doctors, lawyers, or engineers. There are much more professions that command respect and honor these days.

A woman prioritized her children’s education very highly because in a group that she belonged, newer and younger members she sponsored their membership were chosen above her and appointed to supervise her initiated ideas. She realized that such members appointed to serve as the sub-committees’ chair had educational qualifications that she lacked. She was a skilled hand, but the excuse usually given is that it was important to have persons who can readily express themselves in the English Language to lead the implementation of the ideas she initiated. Her thinking was she did not want her children to be side-lined when it was time to give people a position of responsibility with authority that carries respect and honor as she had experienced.

The perception that members of the generation placeson any field of human endeavor often contribute to parents and individual child’s professional and career preferences. In this celebrity captive dispensation, most people want to spend their adult life to engage in the profession that popularized their celebrity hero. This is like the way I Samuel 16:1-13, II Samuel 7:8-9, and I Chronicles 17:7-8 say God took David from looking after his Father’s flock to become king of their nation, Israel. It meant that his Father was a shepherd until old age forced him to retire. The other sons did not take to shepherd work, but he used David until God conscripted him into royal service.

God meant that the mere fact that David’s Father was a shepherd did not mean that David must live through life as a shepherd also. He upgraded David above his father, and brothers career-wise. David and Solomon were the youngest whom God upgraded to become the greatest among their siblings. David started life as a shepherd and ended as a ruler, and II Samuel 7:12-13, 16, 23:1-5, I Chronicles 17:11-12, 14, 28:4 and Jeremiah 33:21 can be interpreted to mean that he secured eternal dynasty from God. Absalom and Adonijah thought that since they were the eldest surviving sons of their Father, they had the right to become king, but the Lord proved them wrong. David’s older brothers did not settle for the shepherding work that their Father retired from.

Ruth 2 – 4 says David’s great grandfather, Boaz was a barley crop farmer. His grandfather, Obed’s profession, is not indicated. I Samuel 16:1-23(11, 19), 17:12-16, 28, 34-37, II Samuel 7:8-9 and Chronicles 17:8-9 confirm that David began life as a herdsman in the footsteps of their father before God chose him to be king of Israel after Saul. I Kings 19:15-17, 19-21 and Amos 1:1 and 7:14-15 lend credence to ‘like Joseph like David, Elisha and Amos’ in the sense that God took them from their original field of human endeavor to serve His sacred service plan. While I Samuel 17:12-15 gives the impression that Jesse’s three eldest sons (Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah) were enlisted in their nation’s army, there is no record of what kind of occupation the next four before David engaged in during their lifetime. Jeremiah’s Father and ancestors were priests, but it pleased God to send him to live and operate (take on the role and responsibility of) as a prophet. His condemnation of the priests made them abhor him unto death. His Father was one of the priests who did not stop him from attacking their misdeeds as directed by the Lord. However, Jeremiah differed from his Father and his colleagues only because it was God’s planned purpose for his life. This is why it is significant for parents and children to formally confirm from God what He meant the child to do during his adult life rather than assume that the child must follow in the parents’ footsteps professionally or must do something different from what the parents did for any reason.

I Kings 19:15-21 and II Kings 2 – 8:1-15 and 13:14-21 confirm that Elisha was an extraordinarily successful farmer before God recruited him to become the leading prophet of Israel after Elijah. He was a hands-on agriculturist with twelve oxen the equivalent of twelve tractors working on his farm. He operated one of them personally. Amos 1:1 and 7:10-17 can be sensibly interpreted to mean that Amos was a wealthy agriculturist who had interest food and cash crops, as well as animal husbandry when God recruited him to serve as a prophet to his generation.

Some would say they were insulted by their bosses during their careers or because they were among the lower cadre employees. Their children must get an education and work as higher cadre employees in their adult lives. There is nothing wrong with wanting one’s child to have higher educational qualifications and skills than the parents had, but the vital point of finding out what God meant the child to do with his life must not be relegated to the background. As educated as Apostle