Will believers reign on the earth in the Millennium?

To whom does "us" and "we" refer in Revelation 5:10," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 5:10, "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth"?

The manuscripts used in Darby’s translation, for instance, change "we" to "them" and omit "us." The sense of the passage, therefore, is that the Lamb has made those He redeemed with His blood (verse 9) kings and priests to God; those redeemed ones will reign on the earth. We need not be upset to learn that, in subsequent years, scholars found more reliable manuscripts than those used for our beloved Authorized Version. God’s truth stands immutable: "For ever, 0 Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 119:89). The manuscript changes are very minor and, as in this passage, affect no doctrine, but only our understanding of the passage.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does "doing all the right things" make a group of believers an assembly?

Does "doing all the right things" make a group of believers an assembly?

No. The title used in the New Testament for an assembly is "church of God." This indicates both the ownership and origin of an assembly. It originates with a divine work. Only God can save souls, but the existence of a number of believers doesn’t constitute an assembly. In Athens, we have no indication of the planting of an assembly, although a number there were saved (Acts 17:34)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 17:34). In the "pattern assembly" at Jerusalem, "they that gladly received His word" were baptized and added to "the fellowship" (Acts 2:41, 42)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:41, 42). This willingness to receive the truth of God is essential in the planting of an assembly, because believers are to "continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine." How will these new believers know how to function as an assembly without being taught?

More than that, if the Lord is working to plant an assembly, we would expect some indication that He is raising up a plurality of men with shepherd hearts (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). Novices are not yet fitted for that work (1 Tim 3:6);" TARGET="_blank">1 Tim 3:6); however, when God is forming an assembly, we would expect some among these new believers to display a potential for that work.

The Lord Jesus explained His use of the word "church" (Mat 18:17)" TARGET="_blank">Mat 18:17) by saying, "Where two or three are gathered together in My name . . ." (v 20). Those gathered did not gather themselves, but are drawn to "the name" by another agent, evidently the Spirit of God. This is related to the Old Testament expression, "the place which the Lord shall choose to place His name there" (Deu 16:2)." TARGET="_blank">Deu 16:2). The Lord establishes the testimony (places His name) and believers are drawn to what He has established.

"Doing all the right things" will never make a company an assembly if the Lord has not first of all made it an assembly.

David Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did the newly-anointed Solomon ride on a mule, not a donkey or a mare?

Why did the newly-anointed Solomon ride on a mule, not a donkey or a mare?

First, a definite answer. Solomon rode on a mule (1Ki 1:38)" TARGET="_blank">1Ki 1:38) because his father David told Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah to "cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule" (v 33). This is the word for a "she-mule" (BDB, TWOT). Its three Old Testament uses are all in this passage (see v 44), referring to one mule, David’s. Solomon’s riding on David’s mule in company with David’s advisors gave a clear message: he was the successor David had chosen. Years later in secular history, female mules became preferable for riding and males for bearing burdens. That may have been a factor in David’s having this special mule.

Second, an observation. David’s sons all rode on (male) mules (2Sa 13:29)" TARGET="_blank">2Sa 13:29) and Absalom rode a mule at the end of his life (2Sa 18:9)." TARGET="_blank">2Sa 18:9). Since a mule is crossbred between a mare and a male donkey, and since crossbreeding was prohibited in Israel (Lev 19:19)," TARGET="_blank">Lev 19:19), mules were likely imported (TWOT), and were thus more valued. They (along with horses, silver, and gold, etc.) symbolized the wealth that other kings brought to Solomon annually (1Ki 10:25)." TARGET="_blank">1Ki 10:25).

Third, a suggestion. The greatest reason for David’s choice of a mule rather than a horse may have been God’s prohibition for kings (Deu 17:16)" TARGET="_blank">Deu 17:16): they were not to multiply horses to themselves. David was careful in this. Solomon, to his own destruction, was not (1Ki 10:26, 28)." TARGET="_blank">1Ki 10:26, 28).

D. Oliver
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

How can we prepare ourselves to worship the Lord?

What is the difference between giving "mini-sermons" to the Lord and worshiping at the Breaking of Bread?

Far too often, our worship consists of recounting some events in the Lord’s life, more details about His trials, mocking and abuse, and facts about His sufferings on the cross. It almost becomes ritualistic. He is worthy of so much more worship that we will ever be able to bring to Him and certainly of much more than ritual. We have an entire Bible that speaks of His worth. If worship is truly our highest occupation (Philippians 3:3)," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:3), then we should devote to it our fullest endeavors and our greatest capacities (Mark 12:33)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 12:33).

This question points to a possible failure when a brother has diligently prepared his worship. Would a priest spend more time arranging wood than dividing and placing the sacrifice on the altar? The material gathered from Scripture is worship only to the extent that it has drawn our hearts to more deeply appreciate Christ. The appreciation of Christ is what delights the Father’s heart (John 4:23)." TARGET="_blank">John 4:23). Telling the Father the resultant worship is more important than telling Him all the background. The believers may not follow all the thought process that produced the worship, but they can heartily say "Amen" to the result. More important, the Father fully knows the depths from which the worshiper has drawn his worship.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the New Testament contain references to musical instruments in the church?

Does the word "singing" (1 Corinthians 14:15;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:19) imply musical instruments?

The basis of this question is the derivation of the word, "psallo," used 5 times in the New Testament and translated "sing," "sing psalms," or "making melody." The noun translated "psalm" (psalmos) comes from this verb. W. E. Vine gives the meaning as "primarily ‘to twitch, twang,’ then, ‘to play a stringed instrument with the fingers,"’ and adds that it means "in the New Testament, ‘to sing a hymn, sing praise."’ Similarly, Vincent states, "The verb, however, is used in the New Testament of singing praise generally."

The derivation of a word adds color to the meaning but does not define the word. Ephesians 5:19" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:19 uses both forms of the word in a way that clearly removes them from the thought of an accompanying instrument. The noun, "psalms," is linked with speech and not music, "speaking to yourselves in psalms. The verb, "sing," cannot involve instrumental music when Paul says, "making melody in your heart."

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God allow divorce?

DIVORCE
Is it clear from Scripture, as some affirm, that divorced persons can under no circumstances be remarried, till the death of one partner?

This is a question that is often being raised in these days, in which the sacredness of the marriage tie has fallen so low in the eyes of an ungodly world, that divorce is treated as a light thing of no account. We may be sure that God’s thoughts on the subject have not changed since He wrote by the prophet Malachi, “The Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away,” as He terms divorce or “dealing treacherously,” (Malachi 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 2:16). In reply to the Pharisees, our Lord explains that, if Moses suffered (a man) to write a bill of divorcement and put his wife away, it was a permission “for the hardness of their heart,” but not at all according to the original purpose of God, who made man and wife to be one and remain one, as long as life lasted. He concluded with the clear and determinate words: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:4-9)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:4-9).

Are there, then, no circumstances in which God Himself puts asunder what he has joined together? I believe there is one which our Lord points out clearly in Matthew 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:32, and again in Matthew 19:9," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:9, in both of which verses, while emphasising the sacredness of the marriage tie, and the sin of divorce, He does make an exception—”saving for the cause of fornication,” and “except it be for fornication.” When that cause arises and is clearly proved, divorce should take place, and when this is so, it is not man putting asunder what God hath joined, but God himself. If so, then the parties are henceforth as truly no longer married, as though they had never been united, or as though one was dead. The question of the remarriage of the guilty party is not under discussion. We have nothing to do with it, for one guilty in so gross a manner clearly must cease from the fellowship of the saints, and be put away into the outside place; but as for the offended party, I believe he or she is free before God to remarry, though only in the Lord.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How do we unify the Church?

Are we responsible to unify the Body of Christ?

No. The Body has an indissoluble unity. The New Testament deals with unity in only two ways: the unity of the Body, which is positional and perfect; the unity of believers seen in the assembly, which is practical and imperfect. The ecumenical movement pleads for a "unity" that ignores truth. Taking John 17:21" TARGET="_blank">John 17:21 as Christs present desire that His own should be one (John 17:21)," TARGET="_blank">John 17:21), the ecumenical voices call for all "Christians" to come together. In this way, we are to ignore error, accept the legitimacy and existence of the names that divide "Christians," and validate that being a "Christian" in name is the same as being born again. For evangelicals to call for the same result, based on the same scripture, is equally unsound, although they recognize the need for being born again. Obedience to Christ unites believers scripturally. Interdenominationalism may seem broad-minded, but it is actually self-defeating by giving legitimacy to (and thus perpetuating) denominational names that publicly divide Christians.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

How do we properly display reverence for the Lord

How do we properly display reverence for the Lord’s presence in the assembly?

How wonderful to be at home in the Lord’s presence! Knowing He will never leave us (Hebrews 13:5)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:5), we can enjoy His presence when shampooing our hair or sipping our coffee. Yet, the more we know Him, the more we will fear - or revere - Him (Pro 9:10)." TARGET="_blank">Pro 9:10).

Our gathering together as an assembly publicly expresses His presence (1Co 14:25)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:25). We have come together as a "House of God" (1Ti 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 3:15). The principles of the Old Testament do not change: "Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord, forever" (Psa 93:5). Again, "God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about Him" (89:7). We cannot view the House of God as merely another house like our own. As reverence for God becomes more foreign to our culture, it ought to be more highly prized by us.

Paul instructed the Corinthians to so consider one another and to so act in their gatherings that God’s presence was unmistakable. Our actions on entering (the assembly does not become "house of God" when the meeting begins), during, and after the gathering should express this reverence.

Our clothing likewise expresses this reverence. When Joseph went from the prison to the palace (Gen 41:14)," TARGET="_blank">Gen 41:14), he changed his garments - to look more casual? In the setting of teaching us principles regarding His visible presence among His people, the Lord specified garments unique to men who functioned in His presence (Exo 28:1-3). We worship "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23)," TARGET="_blank">John 4:23), not in form and ritual; therefore, we do not have "priestly garments," but we learn the principle that clothing expresses reverence. Paul taught that, in contrast to the immoral and immodest worship of Diana, believing sisters adorn themselves modestly (1Ti 2:9)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 2:9). Our adornment reflects the character of the God we worship. Culture, relative poverty, necessity, or circumstances must be considered. Some must come from their work in work clothes. At least they are present. We cannot legislate what clothes others must wear, but, for the Lord’s honor, we ought to choose clothing that will express our reverence for Him and our recognition that being in His presence is a transcendent privilege. We buy our clothing in the same stores as "sons of this age" (Luk 20:34," TARGET="_blank">Luk 20:34, ESV), but the casual spirit of this age doesn’t dictate how we display reverence.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a discrepancy between the writing Belshazzar saw and the words Daniel interpreted?

Is there a discrepancy between the writing Belshazzar saw and the words Daniel interpreted?

The writing Belshazzar saw was "mene, mene, tekel, upharsin." Daniel interpreted the three words, "mene," "tekel," and "peres" (Dan 5:25, 28)." TARGET="_blank">Dan 5:25, 28). The difference is that "upharsin" is a composite word made up of a conjunction ("and") and the plural of "peres." Literally, the writing was "He (God) numbered; He numbered; He weighed; and they (the Medes and Persians) divided." Some have suggested it refers to coins: "a mina, a mina, a shekel, and half-minas" (TWOT). If so, Daniel used the root words for those coins. He may have used the singular word, "peres" (original: "peras") to play on the word Persia (original: "paras"), indicating that the Medo-Persian army then besieging the city would divide the kingdom between the Medes and the Persians.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu