Fernando Medina

• About this site

 Baptism

• About this site

Stephen Vance

• About this site

Larry Perkins

• About this site

• About this site

Dale Robbins

• About this site

Is the Commission of Matthew 28:18-20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:18-20 for the present dispensation, or only for one yet future?

“The Lord Jesus before His death made just one appointment with His disciples, which was, to meet Him on a certain mountain in Galilee after He had risen (Matthew 26:32;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:32; Mark 16:7)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:7). Of this fact we are reminded in Matthew 28:16," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:16, the opening verse of the paragraph in which the Commission is contained. There had been some more or less informal meetings elsewhere previous to it, but this was the specially prearranged meeting, which naturally would overshadow them all in importance. yet there are those who would ask us to believe that what He told them when He met them there, was not about their Own work at all; but that He gave them minute instructions and comforting assurances with regard to the work of some other unknown individuals, who would live two thousand or more years after their time. They would have us believe that when He said, “Go ye and teach,” lie meant that somebody else was to go and teach; that when He said, “I am with you,” He meant, I will be with some other people who will be on earth two thousand years hence; and that when He added, “Even unto the end of the age,” He meant, until the end of some other age. Those who can swallow this kind of thing must have good digestion, for I frankly confess I prefer to believe that the Lord meant just what He said.

The statement, which some of these brethren make, that Matthew does not acknowledge the Church period, is absurd. Is it not in Matthew that we have the formal introduction of the Church in chapter 16, and of Church order in chapter 18? Is it not there that we find the Lord’s action, so symbolical of turning from Jew to Gentile, in chap. 13. 1; in which after having been definitely rejected by the Jewish leaders in the two previous chapters, it is said, “The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the seaside”? And immediately after, He speaks the Seven Parables of the Mysteries of the Kingdom, which have so often been shown to picture successive stages of this present Church period. That Matthew’s Gospel has a Jewish tinge, no one who is a careful reader can doubt; but this is far off from the Conclusion that there is nothing in it except for Jews. The Gospel of Luke has a Gentile tinge, but would these brethren suggest that there is nothing for Jews in Luke, nothing about the Tribulation, nothing about Millennial times? As a matter of fact, the Commission as given in the end of the Gospels of Luke and of Mark, has a more Jewish Sound about it than the form of it occurring in Matthew.

As illustrating the fact that the Apostles did carry out Matthew 28:18-20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:18-20 there is a word worth noting in Acts 14:21" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:21: “They had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught (Gr., discipled) many.” It is the very word, “matheteuo,” used in Matthew 28:1," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:1, and this is the only place in the New Testament, apart from Matthew’s Gospel, where it occurs. Were they not here carrying out the Commission as given in that verse?”

W.R.

• About this site

Should a Christian celebrate Halloween?

 

The celebration of holidays for a Christian is addressed in Romans 14:1-23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:1-23 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-33." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:1-33.  The controversy of special food and special days may have had different names in the times of the apostles, but the principles of how to handle them is still relevant today.

 

The final decision for a Christian’s participation in Halloween will ultimately lie with the individual believer, but there are a number of factors one should consider.

 

Dressing a child in a cute costume as a cowboy, princess or a favorite sport’s hero and asking people for candy is of course, an innocent activity.  On the other hand, dressing as a witch, vampire, evil spirit or murderous villain is another idea altogether.

 

The origins of almost all holidays are with national events or Christian-related ideas even if their precise dates are not known.  Halloween, on the other hand, is a purely pagan and spiritually dark celebration of the gods of pre-Christian Europe with no association with anything from God.

 

Christians may choose to avoid any associate with Halloween based on the Old Testament’s prohibition of any form of demon communication or witchcraft

(Exodus 22:18;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27).  In the New Testament as well, the apostles spoke strongly against fortune telling and mixing with evil spirits  (Acts 8:9-24;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:9-24; Acts 13:6-11;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:6-11; Acts 19:19)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:19).  

 

A Christian who chooses not to celebrate any form of Halloween has legitimate concerns and honors God by avoiding any association with a demonic-influenced holiday.  There is clearly something to avoid in Halloween.  Horror movies, occult practices and haunted houses are grotesque perversions of anything good, moral and godly.  However, a parent who encourages his child to dress as a clown or a football player can hardly be faulted for enjoying an innocent party.

 

Some believers use the opportunity to communicate with their neighbors with gospel tracts or have fall parties in order to share the gospel.  Some countries have more drastic demon-influenced traditions than others.  Some believers have friends who are more likely to be offended by Halloween celebrations than others.  The final decision as to participate in fall parties lies with a well-informed believer who wishes to not cause offense to neither Jew, gentile nor to the church of God.

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

No.

Despite news stories about a Gospel Hall in Leslieville (Toronto, Canada) public preaching of the gospel is not a protest or an attack on any group or individual.

The message of sin and salvation, if understood correctly, is not about a call to bring our nation back to traditional values.  Instead, defining sin as God sees it should cause one to look for salvation in Christ Jesus.

For a fuller picture on the events behind the story see -  Viral Video in Leslieville Neighborhood Not What it Seems

For what is preached about homosexuality in the Gospel Hall, see the question What should a church teach about homosexuality?

• About this site

What are we to gather from the scriptural reference to Melchizedek?

Was he a man of God of his time—a priest of the Most High, indeed, or was he actually the Son of God?

In dealing with this perennial question one wishes to recognize the views of some esteemed brethren who take a contrary view to that expressed here. They believe that this was a Theophany or appearance of the Second Person of the Godhead in a temporary human form (all such theophanies being necessarily Christophanies), and that Melchizedek was actually the Son of God. But is there nothing in the fact that he is said to have been made “like unto the Son of God”? You don’t say a man is like himself; he is himself, but he may closely resemble someone else. However, many such theophanies occur to us—the man who wrestled with Jacob at Jabbok, the man with sword in hand who appeared to Joshua, the angels who appeared to Gideon and Manoah, etc.

One thing characterises them all. At first the appearance seems only human—an ordinary man, but at the end the superhuman, nay the Divine, character of the appearance is manifested. Note this in each of the cases referred to above. This is entirely absent in the case before us. In no sense are we informed that Abraham recognised Melchizedekas Divine, but he did recognise him as a king and as a priest of the Most High God, who ministered to his bodily needs and was greater than himself, therefore able to bless him and worthy to receive tithes from him. Again, Christ might have appeared as a King, but surely not as King of a well-known place as Salem or Jerusalem. Whoever Melchizedek was, his office as priest only shews that God in calling Abraham for a certain object, had not for that left all the world in darkness, but still had notable witnesses, outside His purpose concerning His chosen people to be. Those who stand for the deity of Melchizedek rely much on the expressions used by the Spirit of him in Hebrews 7" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7: , and make rather “in and out” efforts to shew how each expression applies to Christ. I believe the whole effort is in vain, for these expressions if forced to apply to Christ must be interpreted either of Him in incarnation or of Him before incarnation, and this cannot be done.

As a matter of fact, I believe there is one point and only one which the Holy Ghost would emphasise by His silence in Genesis 14" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 14:  concerning the parentage, genealogy, birth and death of Melchizedek, and that is the conventIonal continuity and endless character of His priesthood. The meaning is not that this man was actually without parents nor that he is alive somewhere to-day, but that by the fact that he appears suddenly on the page of Scripture and that no mention is made of his decease, he is thus qualified to be an apt figure of Him Who is Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek and Whose Priesthood can never pass to another.

W.H.

• About this site

UNFERMENTED WINE

Are not Christians who believe that unfermented or nonalcoholic wine is nearer that used by Christians in the early days justified in using such at the Lord’s table?

It is well not only to have beliefs, but also to be able to justify them from the Word of God or from real facts, admitted as such. Otherwise our “beliefs” may degenerate into personal opinions or even fads. I have never heard any proof that the wine used in the Scriptures was not ordinary fermented wine, as is produced in all wine-producing countries today. Fermentation is an ordinary process of nature and cannot but occur when wine is made. The wine used in the Bible made persons intoxicated, if taken in excess, and that used by the Corinthians, when they came together ostensibly to keep the Lord’s supper, was of the same character, as 1Corinthians 11:21" TARGET="_blank">1Corinthians 11:21 (“another is drunken”) shows. It was indeed a sad state of things, but the apostle did not solve the difficulty by changing the liquid used, but by changing their ideas of the Lord’s supper from a meal to an act of remembrance.

Really “unfermented wine” is a contradiction in terms. If it is not fermented, it may be a red liquid, it may be even a concoction of raisins, but it cannot be wine. The late W. Hunter of Manchester, used, I believe, to say that “unfermented wine,” was on a par with “unfrozen ice.” This being said, the wine need only be of such a strength as will preserve it sufficiently, so as not to necessitate the opening of a new bottle every week.

W.H.

• About this site

Is it so that “Immortality in God’s Word has no reference to the soul”? If this be so will you kindly explain Matthew 10:28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28 “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul”

Immortality is immunity from death. Clearly man did not then possess immortality in that sense, when created, for he was warned he would die, if he ate the forbidden fruit. But what is death then? It certainly is not “annihilation” or a cessation of existence, for Adam and Eve Continued to exist after the fall. In fact no external change apparently took place in them. But a marked spiritual change occurred, for “They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden. . . and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God” (Genesis 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3:8). Death therefore is not cessation of existence, but separation of existence, that is existence out of harmony with God.

This spiritual death has been the condition of the whole human race ever since. When a man believes the gospel “he passes from death unto life” (John 5:24)." TARGET="_blank">John 5:24). He now possesses eternal life and has the assurance from God that “he will never perish” (John 10:28)." TARGET="_blank">John 10:28). This is immortaiity in the spiritual sense, “Verily, verily I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death” (John 8:51)." TARGET="_blank">John 8:51). But the fall did not kill the body. To assure this, man was shut off from the tree of life and flow “it is appointed unto men once to die” (Hebrews 9:27)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:27). Even the body of the Christian “is dead, because of sin” (Romans 8:10)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:10). If he dies, his corruptible body will put OR incorruptibility at the Lord’s return, if he survives till then his mortal body will put on immortality. He has the immortality of the spiritual side of his being already included in the gift of eternal life, for that immortality is not only a bodily attribute is clear from the Words, “God Who only bath immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:16) —that is in Flimseff, though, of course, He does communicate it. The special verse referred to, Matthew 10:28," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28, merely states that the soul survives the body. Man may kill the latter, but cannot kill the former. This would be equally true of an Unconverted man, who will never cease to exist away from God, as of a converted man who will never cease to live with God.

W.H.

• About this site

According to 1 Kings 15:33" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 15:33 Baasha began to reign over Israel in the third year of Asa, king of Judah, and reigned twenty-four years, making his death occur In the twenty-seventh year of Asa’s reign. In 2 Chron. xvi. i, however, we read that Baasha came up against Judah in the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign, i.e., nine years after his death, according to the chronology in ‘Kings. How can this discrepancy be explained?

The natural way of explaining such a difficulty would be to say that there has evidently been a transcriber’s error—_”tllirty_sjxth year of Asa” in 2 Chronicles 16:1," TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 16:1, for thirty-sixth year. Baasha would then have become king early in the 3rd year of Asa, and reigned 24 years, a part of a year counting a year. Baasha would then have died probably toward the close of Asa’s z6th year, and have been succeeded by Elah his son in the same year. Such an error would in no way affect the inspiration of the Bible, but only manifest the carelessness of the transcriber. I once found in a new French Bible the following sentence:
“God resists the humble and gives grace to the proud.” I at once wrote to the B. & F.B.S., and far from accusing me of attacking the inspiration of the Scriptures, they thanked me and had a new sheet printed and inserted in the First Epistle of Peter in this French edition. It is certain that, apart from the inspiration of God, by which the chronicler wrote, he, as a man, had access to the Books of Kings, etc., and was quite as capable of noticing the discrepancy as the present questioner and answerer. Besides, if it was a transcriber’s error, why was it left and why did no variety of reading spring up? Again, the numbers “thirty-six” and “twenty-six” are very distinct in the Hebrew, and are given not in numbers, but in words, “twenty” being “‘esrim,” and “thirty,” shelöshim,” which are not easily confused, so why should we not seek some other explanation? There are good authorities who believe that the thirty-sixth year of Asa in Chronicles really refers to the year of the division of the kingdoms, which would be the i6th year of his reign. This fits in much better with the time necessary for the wars between Asa and Baasha, the building of Ramah; and this mode of reckoning was, in all likelihood, in general use at the time. In any case, if we knew all, all would be plain, and we can fall back with confidence on the words of the Apostle, “All Scripture,” (or Every Scripture) is given by inspiration of God.”

W.H.

• About this site

Hebrews 9:22" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:22 states that “almost all things are by the law purged with blood,” and Wm. Lincoln has pointed out that the only sin offering which did not Involve blood-shedding was that of Levitus 5:11. The peace-offering was never made without the burnt-offering and then blood was shed.

Who paid for the burnt offering? Did one offering avail for two persons?

To reply to the last parts of the question first: I judge from Leviticus 10:2," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 10:2, that each offerer brought his burnt-offering at his own expense, and if so, it was an individual offering. There was, however, the continual burnt offering (see chap. 6. 9-i3), and I should think that was provided by the priests from the offerings to them by the people. I do not think the peace-offering was necessarily accompanied by a burnt-offering. They were quite distinct, but it would be true to say that the burnt- offering, representing the whole offering of Himself by Christ to God, was constantly accompanied by a meal-offering (see Numbers 28: 11-13;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28: 11-13; Numbers 29;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 29; Judges 13:16-19)," TARGET="_blank">Judges 13:16-19), representing the spotless humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, tested in every possible way. The bloodless offering to which Mr. Lincoln refers was the tenth part of an ephah of fine-flour offered for a sin-offering (Leviticus 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 5:11). This represents the lowest form of sin-offering. Really there was only one—representing Christ. The different degrees of offering in Lev. 4" TARGET="_blank">Lev. 4 and 5 represent the different degrees of appreciation of the offering by different classes of offerers. Some, like the high priest, would offer the bullock—that would entail a very high estimate of Christ; this also availed for the whole congregation. It will take the whole of the redeemed fully to appreciate Christ. The ram would stand for a lower, though still high, appreciation of Christ, and so down to the turtle doves, but in these all the offerer would have the see of the need and value of the blood of Christ. The handful of flour would be Christ too, but Christ little understood, little appreciated, “a touching of the hem of His garment,” a coming to Him, a trusting Him, but with no sense of His atoning sacrifice. Some, perhaps many, to-day, begin like that, they come to the right Person, but they do not yet apprehend Him in the right way, and which of us can say that we do this as we ought to? One thing we may say in the case of the fine flour, the offering would be almost unseen, but in the case of the bullock it would be the offerer who might be almost unseen; and the higher our thoughts of Christ, the smaller we will become. We cannot think much of Christ, and of ourselves at the same time. “He must increase, I must decrease!”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site