What is the main thrust of this passage?

"For" at the beginning of verse 20 indicates that this verse provides the reason for the previous teaching.

How does the Lord provide for the protection of His "little ones?" Is there a place where righteousness reigns? What authority does it have? How will it be able to make right decisions?

The church (v. 17) is the place where His own find ultimate protection. There they can be preserved, corrected, and restored to Him (vv. 15-17). The church is to be a place of impartiality where justice prevails. It has divine authority (v. 18). Obeying His infallible Word and humbly depending on God for guidance (v. 19), it carries out God's will.

The reason for this is because He dwells there ("there am I"). This is not merely stating that He is present when believers are together. The church (v.17) has the character of the House of God (1Ti 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 3:15). This is the place of His administration, the "gate of heaven" (Gen 28:17)." TARGET="_blank">Gen 28:17). Here heaven and earth are united in carrying out the will of God (Mat 6:10; 18:18)." TARGET="_blank">Mat 6:10; 18:18). When the King reigns on earth, He will be the One in Whom this administration centers (John 1:51)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:51). Anticipating that, He administers through His own, by His Word, on behalf of His own where two or three are gathered to His name. Here He protects His own and maintains heaven's righteous standard.

This verse is a powerful statement, giving God's view of an assembly.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What crowns will God give as rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ?

What are the crowns that Christ will give to believers for their reward? At the Judgment Seat of Christ, the Lord will reward believers for what they have done in their life (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:11-15). From other Bible verses, we can see that the Lord will reward believers with several type of crowns...

1 Corinthians 9:25" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:25 - "And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible."

1 Thessalonians 2:19" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 2:19 - "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing"

1 Timothy 4:8" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:8 - "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."

James 1:12" TARGET="_blank">James 1:12 - "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him."

1 Peter 5:4" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:4 - "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

Revelation 2:10" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2:10 - "Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life."

Revelation 4:4" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 4:4 - "And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold."

Other pages in this section

About this site

To whom does "the great" and "the strong" refer in Isaiah 53:12?

To whom does "the great" and "the strong" refer in Isaiah 53:12" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12?

The wording of the KJV presents a difficulty: our Lord as Victor is not on the level of "the great." He is unrivaled. Most authorities have not given too much light on this verse. Undoubtedly, however, this delightful chapter concludes with the Servant of Jehovah coming forth as the mighty Victor. The Septuagint may give us a clearer understanding of this text. It reads, "Therefore shall He inherit the many" (that He delivered in conquest), "and He shall divide the spoils of the mighty" (that He conquered as the Victor). Another has put it, "He divides the portion as a great one, and He divides the spoil as a strong one." The Victor shares the spoil with His friends. The spoil is evidently from the defeated foe. Isn't David's conquest in the valley a picture of this? David inherits the many by his victory as a great one. In the victory over the mighty He divides the spoil, as the strong one, with the delivered nation.

A. Hull

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is "the destroyer" (Exodus 12:23) a destroying angel?

Is "the destroyer" (Exodus 12:23)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:23) a destroying angel?

"The destroyer" is actually a verb form and could be translated "that which causes destruction." Strong’s Lexicon relates it to "destroyer" in verse 13, "the plague shall not . . . destroy you." This suggests that the plague itself is "the destroyer."

Support for the widely-accepted thought of "the destroying angel" apparently comes from Psalm 78:49," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 78:49, "He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, . . . by sending evil [harmful] angels among them." The previous verses (verses 43-48) review the plagues prior to the Passover in Egypt.

Verse 51 deals with the Passover, but verse 50, the intervening verse, seems to indicate that verse 49 reflects back on the plagues prior to the Passover. It states, ". . . He spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence." The only time this word "pestilence" appears in Exodus is regarding the plagues before the Passover. It never refers to the Passover in the rest of the Old Testament. One time (1 Chronicles 21:12)," TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 21:12), the pestilence is equated with the angel of the Lord’s "destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel" after David’s sin in numbering the people. This however seems to be a weak link.

Scripture affirms that the plague destroyed the firstborn but doesn’t clearly support that an angel was the destroyer.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible say about celebrating Christmas?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL and email address in your answer.

Answers will be reviewed.

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

Who paid for the burnt offering?

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.

Other pages in this section

About this site

To what does the "healing" (Isaiah 53:5) refer?

To what does the "healing" (Isaiah 53:5)" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:5) refer?

The spiritual condition of Israel in Isaiah 1:5," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 1:5, 6 is an untreated disease that increases its corruption. They would not listen to God Word and be healed (6:10). John cites this passage in his gospel (12:40), perhaps hinting that the sign miracles, in John, foreshadow God’s healing of the nation in the future. That healing is mentioned often in Isaiah (30:26; 57:18, 19) and embraces the spiritual well-being and wholeness ("peace," 53:5) into which the Lord will bring them when He returns. At that time, a "saved nation" (Romans 11:26)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 11:26) will welcome the Savior they rejected and exclaim, "With His stripes, we are healed."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Were all the followers of Christ indwelt by the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost?

THE HOLY SPIRIT
THE DISCIPLES AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
Were all the followers of Christ indwelt by the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost?

The true answer is, not one of them was. No doubt, as we shall see, the Spirit was with them in a sense, but the Lord distinguishes between this and His indwelling, in John 14:17" TARGET="_blank">John 14:17: “He dwelleth with you and shall be in you.” But earlier we read, “The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39)." TARGET="_blank">John 7:39).
Later the Lord said, “It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come to you, but if I depart I will send Him unto you” (John 16: 7)." TARGET="_blank">John 16: 7). Does this mean that the Spirit had never been working on the earth before? No, far from it—He had, as we have seen, been always with His people, for we read of His workings throughout the Old Testament. He it is “Who moved (or brooded) on the face of the waters,” preparatory to the renovation of the earth (Genesis 1:2);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2); “who strove with men” (Genesis 6:3);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:3); who filled His servants and came mightily upon them for special service, e.g., Bezaleel, Joshua, Samson, etc.; who moved holy men of God in the Old Testament to speak, and to write, e.g., David: 2 Samuel 23:2" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 23:2(see 2 Peter 1:21);" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:21); and who was vexed with the rebellion of Israel (Isaiah 63:10)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 63:10). These various actions He performed as an Omnipotent and Omnipresent Divine Person. But it was later at Pentecost that He came down, Personally to indwell His people and baptise them into “the One Body,” and thus unite them to the Risen Christ in glory, in answer to the request of the Lord Himself.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible say about women pastors in ministry?

The question of women serving as church leaders is one of the most read debated questions in Bible-believing churches. In business, government, sports, science and other fields, women have proved themselves able and intelligent in every way. Why do some churches retain old ideas then and keep them out of the preaching role? The answer is that a church is not guided on the same principles as other areas of society. While some church groups may feel free to treat the Bible as only one several of their sources of authority, the Holy Scriptures should the main purpose of a church is to put into practice the word of God (1 Timothy 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:15). The question of whether women should preach is not a question of personal preference or ability, but whether it is in line with the teaching of the Bible.

Relevant scriptures

Some relevant scriptures in regards to this question include 1 Timothy 2:11-14," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:1-13." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-13. The way we understand these words from God will guide us. A similar question in regards to women in the church is to the question of the silence of women. These scriptures are 1 Corinthians 11:5;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and are answered in the question “Should women speak in the church?”

1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 – Authority is male

1 Timothy 2:11-14" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. (12) I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve; (14) and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

While in a church gathering, there are distinct roles given to men and women as a result of (1) creation “Adam was formed first, then Eve” and (2) the results of the fall “the woman was deceived and became a transgressor”. Teaching the scriptures, according to this passage, is a male role. Exercising authority over man is also not permitted for women. This would include leadership roles and public teaching roles in the church.

Having stated the clearest interpretation of this passage, it should be noted that there are attempts to nullify this primary meaning by applying other interpretations.

Women had a lack of education?

The first objection to this statement in 1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 is that women were not capable in their culture to teach the scriptures to men because of their limited experience, education and lack of opportunities from centuries of male-dominated traditions. However the verse does not say “due to lack of education, I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority”. Formal education did not factor into Christ’s decision to choose the disciples / apostles and it was not a factor in excluding women either.

Only for the wives?

Another argument against this passage is to say that the passage only applies to women who are married. Some translations of the passage say “wives” rather than “women” in general. However, the passage is teaching about men and women. The references to men and women in the surrounding verses make clear sense for both married and single people. For example in 1 Timothy 2:8" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:8 “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.” Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer? A second example in 1 Timothy 2:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:9 say “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire”. Are only wives to dress modestly? Of course not. The passage is talking to people both married and single.

Examples of women ministers

Another argument used against this scripture is the mention of women who served as deaconesses in the Bible. Service is a godly work for both men and women. However, the service of godly women would not have contradicted Holy Scripture in that of taking a leadership role or in public teaching of men. One example of woman who served was the couple Aquilla and Pricilla. In Acts 18," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18, they work as tent makers with Paul. At the end of the chapter, in verse 26, Apollos was invited to their house to learn more of the way of God. This threesome Bible study resulted in that Apollos became a better public teacher.

Act 18:26" TARGET="_blank">Act 18:26 “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”

The women mentioned in Romans 16" TARGET="_blank">Romans 16 are referred to as “servants” and “helpers” and “workers” including Phoebe, Pricilla, Mary and Junia. It is not necessary to think of these women as part of any special religious class of leadership. Any sister who serves can be a “deaconess” or “servant” or “worker” without being a teacher or exercising authority over a man.

1 Timothy 3:1-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:5-9 – Elders and Deacons are Men of Respect

Among the list of requirements for both elders and deacons in the assembly is the reference to a man with his family: “husband of one wife and his children are believers”. The words “he” and “his” are mentioned eight times in 1 Timothy 3." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3. The leaders of the church are required to be male.

Conclusion

The scriptures are the church’s operating manual. The question of women leadership in the church therefore is not to be based on questions of ability or fairness or from trends in politics or business. 1 Timothy and Titus teach that God has put men in position of authority. The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching or service, but it is not to be in the context of authority over the man.

Shad Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu