Are the ten virgins a picture of backsliders?

Are the ten virgins a picture of backsliders and of Christians who are waiting for the wedding? (Matthew 25:1-13)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:1-13)

To draw teaching about a partial Rapture from this parable is ill-considered, because first the context shows the parable doesn’t deal with the Rapture. Second, the descriptions of "wise" and "foolish" in this last discourse in Matthew remind us of the same contrast at the end of the Lord’s first discourse (chapters 5-7). There the foolish do not build on His sayings and their building suffers a great fall. They are not believers. Third, should anyone relate the waking (wise) and sleeping (foolish) virgins to the two states, "whether we wake or sleep" (1 Thessalonians 5:10)," TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:10), the context in that passage will dispel the idea of a partial Rapture. Paul does describe Christians who are watching for the Lord’s coming and Christians whose behavior is like the unbelievers of the world (sleeping in the night, v 7), but he states the reason both will be saved by the Rapture from the coming wrath (during the 7-year period) is the result of the death of Christ and not of our spiritual condition.

Teaching of a partial Rapture is not in the Parable of the Ten Virgins or anywhere else in Scripture.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Will the resurrection bodies of the saints be the same as those in which they lived and died?

THE RESURRECTION BODY
Will the resurrection bodies of the saints be the same as those in which they lived and died?

In our Lord’s resurrection we have the pattern of our own. Was the Lord’s resurrection body the same as that in which He lived and died? Yes, it was the same body; there was nothing left in the tomb but the grave-clothes, and our Lord took pains to show that His body was truly the very one that had died, by calling attention to His hands and feet which bore the marks of His cruel death on Calvary.

But though the same, it was not under the same conditions.* It was a spiritual body, not subject to the same laws as before. It could disappear at will; it could pass through closed doors; it could be seen and not be recognised, and then suddenly become recognisable; but also it could be touched and felt; it could eat, it had flesh and bones, it was a real body. When the Lord ascended “God gave Him glory,” and His body was also glorified, as Paul saw Him on the way to Damascus. It was the same body, but under new conditions (see Luke 24:36-43;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:36-43; John 20:5, 7, 13, 19, 25, 27;" TARGET="_blank">John 20:5, 7, 13, 19, 25, 27; Philippians 3:20-21)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:20-21). Really the buried body is the sown grain, and the glorified body the flower, the same, yet not the same. God gives to the grain a body as He pleases. But what goes to form the flower, was once in the grain. A gardener can recognise the flower from the seed, and vice-versa. And so every saint will have a glorified body that will be recognisable, as coming from its particular seed sown in the graveyard. There will be no confusion: “to every seed his own body,” and all “like Him” (1 Corinthians 15:37, 38, 44, 49)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:37, 38, 44, 49).
W.H.

* certain elementary substances such as sulphur, phosphorus, oxygen, carbon have the quality of existing in distinct forms, known as allotropic modifications. Thus carbon exists as diamond, graphite or soot. There may be a distant analogy between this and the existence of the body under different conditions.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the teaching of eternal punishment biblical?

It is believed by some that Eternal Punishment is only for a certain period.

Is the doctrine of Eternal Punishment a tradition and not fundamental?

How should this be answered, and how should those in our assemblies who hold these views be treated?

The doctrine of eternal punishment is fundamental to the understanding of salvation. The test of a doctrine is not what the world thinks of it, or even the professing church, but what the Word of God declares. Judged by that test, I have not the slightest doubt that a condition of never-ending punishment awaits those who reject the grace of God in whatever form presented, and die in their sins and self-righteousness; and this has been the general belief of the church down the ages. That a committee of determined criminals or weak sentimentalists should decree the impossibility or injustice of life-sentences might be comprehensible, but would not affect the course of the law in any degree. Nor will the divine administration be affected in the slightest way by man’s opinions of His decrees.

When the opponents of never-ending punishment are asked, “What then will become of the wicked?” they cannot agree among themselves: one party say all will eventually be saved—they are the Universalists; another that all who refuse the grace of God will eventually cease to be—they are the teachers of what is known as “Conditional Immortality.” I believe both these theories are in conflict with the Scriptural teaching throughout, e.g., “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life (i.e. life in harmony with God, more than mere existence); and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life (which refutes universalism); but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36)." TARGET="_blank">John 3:36).

The wrath of God cannot abide on a nonentity, which refutes annihilationism. Space will not allow here any lengthy consideration of this tremendous theme. One or two points may, however, be raised. If we believe in the never-ending bliss of the redeemed, we must believe in the never-ending punishment of the wicked. The Lord’s own words make this plain, for He uses the same word in the same context of each: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life everlasting” (Matthew 25:46)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46). Some again say that the devil and his angels will suffer eternally, but not human beings; but in this same chapter our Lord classes them together: “Depart ye cursed (He will say to wicked men) into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41). That fearful punishment, here so plainly revealed by Him who was the embodiment of holy love, was not prepared for men, but for the devil and his angels, but those who deliberately choose to follow him will find themselves with him for ever. A great effort has been made to show that the word translated here “everlasting” or “eternal” only means “age-lasting.” That may be perfectly true by derivation, as is true indeed of our word “everlasting,” but what matters is the usage of the word. It is used of “God” (Romans 16:26);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 16:26); His “honour and power” (1 Timothy 6:16);" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:16); “covenant” (Hebrews 13:20);" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:20); “kingdom” (2 Peter 1:11);" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:11); “gospel” (Revelation 14:6);" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 14:6); the “weight of glory” of the redeemed (2 Corinthians 4:17);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:17); the unseen world (2 Corinthians 4:18);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:18); the glorified body (2 Corinthians 5:1);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:1); “glory” (2 Timothy 2:10);" TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:10); “salvation” (Hebrews 5:9);" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:9); “Spirit” (Hebrews 9:14)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:14), etc., etc., on the one hand, and on the other, of future punishment, as above (Matthew 25:46);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46); “fire” (Matthew 18:8);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:8); “damnation” (Mark 3:29);" TARGET="_blank">Mark 3:29); “destruction from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1:9).

‘What honest believer, subject to the Word, but must admit that the never-endingness of God, His Spirit, salvation, redemption, and the consolation and the inheritance of the redeemed, stands or falls, with the never-endingness of the future punishment of the finally impenitent! Is it not strange that men, instead of repenting of their sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour, should rather spend their time in trying to disprove what the Saviour so clearly taught (none more clearly than He)—the fearful future of those who refuse Him, whom God has provided in His infinite love as a Saviour from “the wrath to come!” As for the second part of the question, we must “make a difference” between those who may be for the moment perplexed over a doctrine and those who doubt it as part of their fixed belief. It is noticeable that among “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,” in Hebrews 6:1-2," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:1-2, which are clearly considered as fundamental (“not laying again the foundation,” etc.), the doctrine of “eternal judgment” closes the list.

This, therefore, is a fundamental question, and those who deny it have so far departed from the faith, and deny the clear and unmistakable words of Christ. How can such then claim a place among the people of God? Their denial of God’s truth raises the solemn question whether they have ever truly known His grace. May God in His infinite mercy preserve the feet, both of writer and readers, from straying from His Word, on this or any other truth!

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why is there a difference in wording in Acts 8 and Isaiah 53?

In Isaiah 53:7" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:7 we read, “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb”; but in Acts 8:32" TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:32 the order is reversed, and it is said to be “as a sheep led to the slaughter, and like a lamb dumb,” etc. How are we to account for this reversal?

The quotation in Acts is almost word for word from the Septuagint or Greek version, the LXX, as it is described in letters. The word for “sheep” in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:7" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:7 is not the same as that used in verse 6: “All we like sheep (con) have gone astray.” The word here is of frequent occurrence, whereas that in v. 7 (ral.iel) occurs only four times in the whole Old Testament. It comes from an unused root, perhaps the same as rAliam—to cherish—connected with an Arabic root—to have lambs. The word in the first part of the verse, translated “lamb” (sëh), is rendered “sheep” in several passages in the Old Testament. It seems, therefore, that the words employed by the Holy Spirit operating on the mind of Isaiah in this verse 7, are not so precise as to necessitate their rendering in the LXX translation as “lamb” and “sheep,” as they appear in our rendering of Isaiah 53:7," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:7, but leave a margin of liberty to reverse the meaning of the words, and put lamb second, and sheep first, as in Acts 8." TARGET="_blank">Acts 8. It is a question of the words used in the Old Testament verse, which as I have said, are not closely defined and of the choice of words by the translators of the Greek version, from which the Eunuch would be reading.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the New Testament teach that a deacon is?

What does the New Testament teach that a deacon is?

Among a number of New Testament words that describe servants, deacon emphasizes the servant’s personal responsibility to serve. In Luke 17:7-10" TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:7-10 the Lord speaks of a bondservant instructed to prepare his lord’s food and to serve him as a deacon. He is both a bondservant (verse 7) and deacon (verse 8), the one emphasizing his lowly place and the other his personal responsibility to serve food to his lord. Rulers are ministers (deacons) of God (Romans 13:6)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:6) in that they have a responsibility entrusted to them. This thought seems to be consistent in New Testament usage.

New Testament deacons serve in at least three spheres. Rulers are deacons, responsible before God for service in the secular sphere. Phebe (Romans 16:1)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 16:1) and the seven who took care of feeding the widows (Acts 6:1-6)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 6:1-6) offered charitable and profitable service in a Christian sphere. Some individuals had a responsibility to serve others with divine truth in a spiritual sphere (2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; Ephesians 6:21;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:21; Philippians 1:1)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:1). This latter group is the subject of 1 Timothy 3:8-13." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:8-13. They had a responsibility for "the mystery of the faith" (verse 9). Someone in an assembly (or maybe someone who is not even saved) may have the responsibility for cutting the grass outside the building where the believers meet. He could be called a deacon, but that is not the deacon service addressed in 1 Timothy 3." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3.

Deacons did not have an office or official status, but they had a defined spiritual work for which they were responsible.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God sometimes stop talking (striving) with men who reject Him?

In Genesis 6:3," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:3, “The Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive With man.”

Did this apply only to that dispensation?

The words in question are in close connection with the intermarriage of “the Sons of God” and “the daughters of men,” described in Genesis 6," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6, by which the barrier between the Seth line and the descendants of Cain was broken down. The sons of God did not make the worldly women godly, but the reverse process took place, as is nearly always the case to-day under similar circumstances. A great increase of evil was the result, and the world was filled with violence and corruption. This was foreseen by God, Who gave utterance to the above solemn declaration, adding, “for that he also is flesh.” Man had had at least two thousand years to show what “evolution” could do, if such a principle existed. Surely he would have developed into something supremely excellent. Let verse 11 reply: “The earth also was corrupt before God and the earth was filled with violence.” Is not such a development more consistent with the doctrine of the fall of man, than of his constant and consistent “evolution” toward a higher ideal? We need not be surprised if the Modernists wish to expunge the first ten chapters of Genesis. To believe in the evolutionary hypothesis one must not only deny the plain statements of Scripture, but shut one’s eyes to the facts of history and human experience. However, God adds in grace, “Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years”; that is, I take it, there was to be still a respite of that duration.

There is no evidence to show that the testimony of Noah, the “preacher of righteousness” ceased before the flood. But as far as I know, God nowhere pledges Himself to continue pleading with men till the end of their careers. Indeed, such emphasis is laid on immediate decision, that it would be the height of folly to count on even one more chance. We know that when the Man of Sin will be revealed God will send on those, who will have refused the truth, a “strong delusion that they may believe the lie” (2 Thessalonains 2:10-12). This moment however has not yet arrived, and it would be both unprofitable and presumptuous to attempt to show that the Spirit has ceased to strive with anyone still alive, for this is to invade the divine prerogative, and pretend to “search the heart.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Caleb an Israelite?

Was Caleb (see Joshusa 10:6) an Israelite?

The Lord’s injunction in Numbers 13:2" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 13:2 (R.V.) with regard to the sending of the spies was, “Send thou men . . . of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a prince among them.” In obedience to this, Moses “sent them according to the commandment of the Lord, all of them men who were heads of the children of Israel” (v. 3). There follows a list of their names and tribes, in which is included, “Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh” (v. 6). Thus in this passage, the first in which Caleb is mentioned, it is affirmed, not only that he was of the tribe of Judah, but that he was a “prince” and “head” of that tribe.

His being called “the Kenezite” (or “Kenizzite”) in Numbers 32:12" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 32:12 and Joshua 14:6," TARGET="_blank">Joshua 14:6, 14 has led some to assert that he was not an Israelite, but one of that Canaanitish race called “Kenizzites” in Genesis 15:19" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:19 while others have associated this patronymic with Kenaz the grandson of Esau (Genesis 16" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 16:II, 15), thus making him out to be an Edomite. But when we find that Caleb’s younger brother was called Kenaz (Josh. 15. 17;" TARGET="_blank">Josh. 15. 17; etc.), and that Caleb’s grandson was also called Kenaz (1 Chronicles 4:15)," TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 4:15), it becomes evident that the name was a popular one in the family to which he belonged, and that the term “Kenezite” in his own case merely connects him with some earlier Kenaz amongst his ancestors.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

My christian friend had an abortion. What should I do?

What responsibility does a believer have toward the assembly if he knows of another assembly believer who has had an abortion?

This question requires a delicate answer. The callous thinking of the unregenerate has colored the views of many believers. Our final court of appeal is the Word of God. What saith the Scriptures?

First, it would advisable to know the background. Did the abortion occur before the believer was saved or in the assembly? If so, it would not be an assembly issue.

Luke 1:41" TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:41 says "the babe leaped in her (Elizabeth's) womb." The word for "babe" also describes a child old enough to be acquainted with Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 3:15). John was a child in his mother's womb as much as he was after being born. Intervention in the process that would result in birth terminates the life of a child.

A believer, knowing of this evasive moral procedure, should encourage the other believer to make this known to responsible brethren in the assembly. That failing, he must act, not on the basis of hearsay, but conclusive, undeniable evidence (Matthew 18:15-17)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15-17). The elders are then responsible for any action taken. The sanctity of God's assembly must be maintained. It is the dwelling place of God, a holy temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

E. McCullough

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible say about interracial marriage?

What does the Bible say about interracial marriage?

Should a Christian date or marry someone from another race? Does skin color matter in a Christian marriage? Does the Bible forbid a black person from marrying a white person or an Asian or Hispanic?

The Bible teaches that there is no such thing as different "races". We are all from one race – the human race. There exits many different cultures, different external physical characteristics and languages in the world, but there is only one human race. It is more accurate to say that there are different people groups based on nationality and culture, but biologically speaking, there is only one race of humans on the earth.

Adam and Eve are the parents of all human descendents.

Gen 3:20" TARGET="_blank">Gen 3:20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

1Co 15:45" TARGET="_blank">1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

All humans share another common ancestor in Noah and his family. Noah's three sons and daughters-in-law were told to leave the ark and re-populate the globe.

Genesis 8:16-18" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 8:16-18 "Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh--birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth--that they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth." So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him.

The New Testament also confirms the fact that we are all one race. Paul was preaching in Athens to a group of Greeks and other groups when he said…

Acts 17:26-27" TARGET="_blank">Acts 17:26-27 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, (27) that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

Modern biologist have discovered through the Human Genome Project that the differences between people within the same people group are about the same as variations between them and others outside of their group. Skin color is a very minor difference genetically speaking.

But what do Bible verses mean in regards to the prohibition of marriage between the ancient Jews and the surrounding nations?

In the case of King Solomon, he disobeyed the word of the Lord when he married women from other nations. His disobedience was not because of a difference of race, but because the new wives (which also is poligamy) brought him into idolatry.

1 Kings 11:1-2" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 11:1-2 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, (2) from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love.

Deuteronomy 17:17" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 17:17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

In the days of Nehemiah, there was a mixture of marriages between Israel and surrounding nations. The problem was the same – foreign religions caused the people of Israel to forsake God.

Nehemiah 13:23-26" TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 13:23-26 In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. (24) And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people. (25) And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take oath in the name of God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. (26) Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin.

The New Testament equivalent command for Christian marriage is found in

2 Corinthians 6:14-17" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 6:14-17 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (15) What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? (16) What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (17) Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,

A Christian should not marry an unbeliever. It does permit that a Christian marry someone from another nationality or another ethnic group or culture.

But is it wise to marry someone from another culture?

Every marriage faces challenges because of differences of opinion and different assumptions about the other person. Differences in age, culture, language, family environment all need to be considered and discussed before committing to marry one another. These obstacles may be anticipated and overcome. If you are planning to be married, you should get to know your spouses family very well ahead of time. Your spouse learned a great deal of how a family functions (or malfunctions) from his/her parents. If your fiancé is from another country or culture, you should take your time to adapt yourself to the other culture and make adjustments.

Shad David Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it scripturally correct to say that God punished His Son?

Is it scripturally correct to say that God punished His Son?

As with any question regarding the sufferings of our Lord, we should guard our words and hide within the safety of the words of Scripture. If there is anything to which we might object in the statement, "God punished His Son," it is the possibility that this suggests God’s displeasure in the One Who suffered on the cross. God’s dealing with the Lord Jesus on the cross were directed against the sins He bore. The words of the hymn seem mistaken, "He took my sins and my sorrows; He made them His very own." The sins were not in any sense His, although He received the righteous judgment those sins demanded (2 Corinthians 5:21)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21). The Father could never be more delighted with His Son than when the savor of that sacrifice filled His thrice-holy presence.

Some object to the word "punish" in this context. Keil and Delitzsch in their scholarly "Commentary on the Old Testament" insist that "chastisement" in Isaiah 53:5" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:5 (AV) be translated "punishment," due to the extreme suffering that fills the context. The contrast in that verse is between "Him" and "we." The righteous punishment was what we deserved. The remarkable discovery is that the peace-bringing punishment was on Him.

Others object to speaking of the Son in the context of the sufferings of the cross. Paul speaks of "the death of His Son" (Romans 5:10);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:10); he further tells us, "He that spared not His own Son, . . . freely delivered Him up for us all" (8:32). From what was the Son not spared? To what was the Son delivered up? God did not spare His own Son from the cross, but delivered Him up (the same word as in 4:25) to all that the cross involved.

It would be error of the highest order to suggest either that any sort of division occurred between Divine Persons in the darkness at the cross or that the One Who suffered the righteous punishment due to our sins was any less than the Son of God.

The more we ponder that scene, the more we worship.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu