How do the churches of Revelation prophetically show ages of the church?

How do we interpret this view?

The Lord presents the seven churches as golden lampstands, precious witnesses of divine truth. Any "prophetic" or mystery interpretation must therefore focus on divine testimony and its preservation until the Rapture.

Second, the conditions affecting the 7 churches to which John sent the Revelation could, in greater or less degree, affect any assembly. In the mystery interpretation, the Lord discloses the predominating influences that will affect divine testimony until the Lord comes.

Third, others have pointed out the interesting parallels between characteristics of the seven churches and those of the judges, kings, and the parables in Matthew 13." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13. This supports the thought that these seven predominant influences will be sequential, a sort of cycle of evil that consistently has challenged divine testimony in various ages. The influences that plagued these seven churches will run their cycle until the Lord comes. They are the very forces that appear in the rest of the Revelation, at their apex under the Man of Sin. What encouragement it gives those involved in divine testimony to see that the Lord will eventually destroy these forces when He comes!

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

When an unmarried, cohabiting couple is saved, what advice should they receive regarding marriage?

When an unmarried, cohabiting couple is saved, what advice should they receive regarding marriage?

The Spirit of God has likely convicted them about their relationship before salvation. Nonetheless, depending on the personalities involved, this is a delicate issue. There can be no compromise on the sanctity of marriage (Hebrews 13:4)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:4). No matter how long this relationship has existed or how much a couple may say they love each other, cohabiting apart from marriage is sin.

To continue this is a bad testimony. It leaves a weakened conscience and limits spiritual growth. It dishonors the God who designed marriage.

If the new believers raise the question, a scriptural answer will leave no doubt that they should live separately and resist temptation by not staying under the same roof. If the new believers do not break their relationship and don’t ask advice, the person or persons who have had the most to do with their salvation will best understand their personality, will know the best way to approach them, and should give them scriptural reasons for ending their relationship.

Living apart will give the couple an opportunity to begin building their relationship on something more stable than a physical relationship. At this point, they should confront the question of whether or not they are prepared to make the life-long commitment marriage involves. For others to assume that they will marry is unwise and unfair. If they decide to marry, they should allow adequate time for building a solid Christian foundation for their relationship before marrying.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it ever God's will for a Christian to marry an unbeliever?

Is it ever God’s will for an assembly Christian to marry an unbeliever or a believer who is not in assembly fellowship?

Because God is the same (Hebrews 1:12; 13:8)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:12; 13:8), His will today is the same as when He inspired His Word (2 Timothy 3:16)." TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 3:16). God’s will is never contrary to His Word. He teaches, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (2 Corinthhians 6:14), which clearly includes marriage.

For believers, the Lord places this restriction: "only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 7:39). The New Testament distinguishes between the expressions "in Christ" and "in the Lord." "In Christ" relates to our union and position in relationship with Christ. "In the Lord" expresses our submission in responsibility to the Lord. Marriage in Christ would involve marriage to another Christian. Marriage in the Lord involves the marriage of two believers who are willing to submit to the Lord. Full submission to His lordship includes gathering to His name (Matthew 18:20)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20).

Admittedly, some who gather to His name are not fully submitted to His lordship and some who do not gather to His name submit to His lordship to a greater degree. A believer who receives the Biblical teaching of gathering to His name and doesn’t submit to it (or only "submits" to it to gain the hand of a partner in marriage) is not submitting to His lordship. Marrying such a person is not "marriage in the Lord."

Marrying an unbeliever or marrying a believer who does not submit to the Lordship of Christ violates God’s Word and cannot be His will.

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is "the stone that the builders rejected"?

What do the words, “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken” (Matthew 21:44)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 21:44) imply?

Psalms 118:22" TARGET="_blank">Psalms 118:22 The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

Matthew 21:42-44" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 21:42-44 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? (43) Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. (44) And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."

The meaning seems to be clearly given in such passages as Isaiah 8:14-15;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 8:14-15; 1 Peter 2:7-8;" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:7-8; and Romans 9:32-33." TARGET="_blank">Romans 9:32-33. Those who reject the Gospel (especially Israel), instead of building on the “Living Stone” of 1 Peter 2:4," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:4, stumble and fall over the “Stone of Stumbling” of v. 8.
The whole picture in Psalm 118" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 118 and Matthew 21" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 21 is very interesting. The Stone was meant for the foundation, but the builders did not place it there and afterwards could find no place to fit it. So they “rejected” it and cast it aside. Then as they moved about at their work, it lay in their way, and they stumbled over it and fell. Lastly, God Himself takes up the Stone and places it in the most conspicuous place of all, as “Headstone of the corner,” and the rejected One becomes the Judge and Punisher of those who rejected Him.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

About this site

Who manages this web site?

Gospel Hall dot org is managed by Shad Sluiter. He and his family have been part of the assembly that meets at the Marion Gospel Hall, Marion, IA (USA). Currently they are serving as missionaries in Hermosillo, Mexico. Jim Garvin at www.SiteAction.com provides the web server hosting.

Is this an Official Site?

The nature of assemblies who are represented on this site is that each congregation is an independent entity. No official headquarters for the "brethren" exist. However, the materials published represent the beliefs of these assemblies very well.

Why does this site exist?

Gospel Hall dot org began in 1997 as a way to share information about assemblies, to raise awareness of the gospel message and teaching about Christian living in a New Testament Church.

How can I contact you?

Please see the "contact us" section of the main menu.

Where can I find the Gospel Hall Forum?

The ghf is managed at www.gospelhall.org.uk.

Where is the discussion page?

The online forum has been removed. Unfortunately, some of the discussions were counter-productive to the goals of this site.

Do you accept new materials?

Yes. If you have material suitable for publishing on this site, please contact me for details. I am seeking full-text books, mp3 files and other media content that is suitable for helping people grow in their christian life. Look around the site to see what materials have been published to get an idea of what is needed. There is no pay offered for any work submitted. Editorial blogs or opinions are not needed at this time.

If you are a php or Flash programmer, there are unfished projects that also need expertise.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Sunday School Projects

Each week, you can get Sunday School Projects or a Sunday school game mailed to you for free. Save yourself hours of Sunday School Projects preparation and planning and instead, invest your prepration time in the Bible.

Click here to subscribe to the weekly Sunday school projects .

For an example of what kind of Sunday School Projects you will get, check out the 3D Tabernacle model and other teaching materials at Sunday School Activities
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the "fear of death" mean in Hebrews 2?

What is the significance of "fear of death" in this passage?

At least three explanations are possible for the statement in verse 16, "takes hold of the seed of Abraham" (JND). One is that it is just a way of stating for Hebrew readers that He became a man (wouldn’t everyone want to be a child of Abraham?). That would seem to merely repeat the truth of the earlier verses (vv 6-8) and also slight the accuracy of the Spirit’s inspiration. Second, some take it to refer to Abraham’s spiritual seed, all believers. That seems to be out of context with Abraham’s importance in the rest of Hebrews (6:13-18; 11:8-10) and it is truth from Galatians, rather than Hebrews.

The third possibility, taking it to mean that in becoming a man, Christ undertook to meet the need of the literal seed of Abraham, seems more consistent with the thrust of Hebrews. Abraham’s posterity possessed covenant promises from God. It was an everlasting covenant that promised them both the Land for an everlasting possession (Gen 17:4-8)" TARGET="_blank">Gen 17:4-8) and an Heir ("Thy Seed," singular) to possess it (13:15). But how could an heir claim an everlasting possession in a realm under the bondage of corruption (Rom 8:21)" TARGET="_blank">Rom 8:21) and death? The devil, who stands opposed to every purpose God has for His Son, accomplished a masterful stroke in Eden. All things might have been committed to the Son (John 3:35)," TARGET="_blank">John 3:35), but how could that work out in a creation where Satan held authority (Luke 4:6)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 4:6) and exerted the power of death? All the seed of Abraham lived with the "fear of death" in a realm of bondage under a ruler more fearsome than a Pharoah. None of them could claim the Land for an everlasting possession.

The expression "takes hold of" occurs one other time in Hebrews. "I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" (8:9, quoting Jer 31:32)." TARGET="_blank">Jer 31:32). That redemption from Egypt prefigures another greater redemption when the Lord will bring them into their land for an everlasting inheritance. How?

There was One Who "took part" of flesh and blood with the children of Abraham’s line (Mat 1:1)," TARGET="_blank">Mat 1:1), Who would - by dying and breaking the power of death - nullify him that had the power of death. Now living and exalted, He waits for the day when His people willingly turn to Him and He will bring them into their promised rest.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it scriptural to use more than one cup for the Lord's Supper?

Is it scriptural in the light of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16-17, to have more than one cup on the table?

If so, how can we give thanks for “THE cup”?

The expression, “cup,” in the various accounts of the institutions of the Lord’s Supper refers, not to the containing vessel, but, by the figure of metonomy, to the wine contained (e.g., Matthew 26:27," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:27, and 1 Corinthians 11:25, “This cup is the New Testament in My blood”). We speak of “a good table,” meaning the food on it. The Romanisers who insist on our taking literally the words, “This bread is My Body,” should also force the words, “This cup,” to mean the literal vessel holding the wine, rather than the wine, which is not once mentioned. Now, there is certainly an important truth which demands that there should be only one loaf, “For we being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). The R.V. margin seems still clearer, “Seeing that there is one bread, we, who are many, are one body.” But there is no corresponding truth which obliges us to have only one original receptacle, no idea of unity being bound up in the “oneness of the wine.” Indeed, the blood of Christ was not shed on the Cross as a unity, but gradually, though finally all was poured out from His pierced side. However, any division, beyond what is absolutely necessary for the convenience of distribution, should be avoided. What is called “the individual cup” seems abhorrent to the idea of communion one with another.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Weymouth Translation reliable?

Is it safe to use Weymouth’s Translation, since it contains such error as is found in the note upon Hebrews10:27" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews10:27 (page 560)?

It has been pointed out that the notes in this version are not by Dr. R. F. Weymouth, but by E. Hampden-Cook, M.A., who is said to have “Edited and partly revised” the work. In my edition of 1910 the very unsound note on Heb. 10." TARGET="_blank">Heb. 10. 27 referred to above is on page 6i6; and it is by no means the only one of the kind; the notes on this subject always being in the interests of what is known as, “Annihilationism” a very serious and growing heresy to-day. This teaching, however, is not confined to the notes, but occurs in the text. Wherever, apparently, the translator (or do we owe these touches to the “part revision” of Mr. Cook?) comes upon the question of the future of the wicked, the same influence can be noted: e.g., Matthew 25:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46 which is translated, “And these shall go away into the punishment of the ages, but the righteous into the life of the ages,” which is the ordinary meaningless and erroneous language affected by the Annihilationist teachers. How this book found its way into my small library, I have no idea; but I neither use it myself, nor would I advise anyone to do so. The Lord’s words apply here, “Take heed what ye hear,” and I am convinced that all this talk about “onian” and “the ages” is everywhere a danger-signal for those who desire to hold fast the whole revelation of God and the
doctrine of Christ.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can the physical defects of worshipers in Israel be applied to the church today?

Please explain the New Testament teaching of Leviticus 21:21-22" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21:21-22

The physical defects, enumerated in Leviticus 21" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21 ,as preventing the Sons of Aaron from exercising their public priestly functions, would correspond to-day rather to moral defects.

Clearly there are physical defects, which, while not hindering a brother breaking bread, would disqualify him from leading the assembly in worship to the Father, e.g., dumbness, excessive stammering, defective organs of speech. I remember a good brother thus afflicted, to whose presence none thought of objecting, but to whose audible exercises, which were frequent, some did take exception. Probably he would have been more in the love of the Spirit, had he but rarely taken audible part in the worship. But the physical defects, enumerated in Leviticus 21" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21 ,as preventing the Sons of Aaron from exercising their public priestly functions, would correspond to-day rather to moral defects, which though not bringing the person in question under discipline, would render him unfit to lead the assembly in its priestly worship.

How could a brother for instance, who was known to lose his temper in public, or be a quarrelsome person, or had a bad financial record, be indicated as a leader of the saints? How could a bankrupt, who had not paid his creditors, or a man who owed money to the saints or the world, pretend “to offer the bread of God” in the public assembly? The lack of conscience evidenced by attempting to do so, would in itself be but poor proof of the reality of his Christian profession, though he might still be allowed to break the bread, pending possible developments. It might be hoped that his own sense of propriety would keep him silent, but if not, the elder brethren would doubtless feel their responsibility to act.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu