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

What do I do if people criticize my career choices?

In what way can a younger believer respond appropriately when other believers question his career choice?

When believing parents or other Christians with a sincere concern raise a question about a younger believer’s choice of a career, it is wise to consider what they have to say. "Without counsel, purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established" (Proverbs 15:22)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 15:22). Twice Solomon states, "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety" (11:14; 24:6). In addition, Proverbs 20:5" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 20:5 says, "Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a man of understanding will draw it out." With sincerity and humility, when a young believer attempts to draw out the thinking of those who question his choice, he will receive the benefit of their counsel. Some scriptural principle is likely in their mind and drawing from the well of their concern will only be helpful. Ultimately, the young believer must make his own choices, but gathering all the help he can from reliable believers is wise and safe.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Sunday the Sabbath Day?

THE SABBATH AND THE LORD’S DAY

Is there any Scripture for making the first day of the week or the Lord’s Day, a Sabbath, on the ground that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day?

None whatever; the Sabbath never was changed from the seventh to the first day of theweek by any divine revelation in the Scriptures. The two days are quite distinct. The former was the Jews’ day, and we read in the Acts that the apostles would improve the occasion, by going to the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath to get an opportunity for testimony (Acts 13:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:42; Acts 18:4)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:4), and then on the first day of the week, break bread with the disciples (Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: .). Their idea of the Sabbath was a well earned physical rest after six days of work, but true spiritual rest they never earned. The true rest, that of the Lord’s Day—the resurrection day—is rest in Him. We begin with this rest, and then work throughout the week. The two days ran concurrently in the Acts period, but there is not a line to show that the first day of the week was a physical rest-day. Probably the reason why the early disciples broke bread at night was that they were working all day. A certain legal sect gets a great advantage over denominational Christians owing to this common, mistaken notion. Its adherents point out that God never changed the seventh to the first day, and therefore, as they are legal to the core, they enforce on all literal obedience to what is to them the greatest commandment of all— Sabbath observance. Yet they themselves do not strictly keep it as the law enjoins, but are content with an approximate obedience, as long as you join the ranks of their denomination. It is perfectly true that “God rested on the seventh day from all His works,” as recorded in Genesis 2:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:2, but though God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, there is no mention that it was instituted as a rest day for man till Millenniums later, nor have we a single case recorded in the history of the antediluvian patriarchs, nor of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, of Sabbatical observance. What we read of Sabbatical resting in Gen. 2." TARGET="_blank">Gen. 2. 2 was no doubt coincidental with creation, but Genesis was only written by Moses, toward the end of the sojourn in Egypt. The Sabbath was not formally enjoined upon Israel till the giving of the law at Sinai in Exodus 20," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 20, though shortly before, when God gave the Manna, He arranged for a double quantity to be collected on the sixth day, “in view of the rest of the holy Sabbath,” so soon to be instituted. The collecting of the manna was to go on right through the desert wanderings, so that the question was settled at the start by anticipation, how manna was to be collected for the Sabbath’s consumption, preparatory to the institution of the day, in chap. 20. Later, in chap. 31. the true import of the Sabbath is explained (verses i 3, x 6: “Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. . . . It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever”).

The death-penalty was attached to a failure to observe it in every particular, e.g., the man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Nor were Israelites allowed to light a fire on the seventh day. But the Sabbath with its stringent laws was never given to the Gentile nations and still less to the church. The question as to the advantages of one day’s rest in seven is not disputed here. There can be no doubt at all that in practice some such rest is called for. Doubtless governments have a perfect right to decree such cessation from work on the pattern of the Jewish Sabbath, but that is totally different from enforcing a sort of Sunday Sabbath as a religious obligation, which is one of the pillars of Christendom under the title of “Sabbath Observance” (see Colossians 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:16). What then is the Lord’s day?

It is the first day of the week, the resurrection day, on which the early disciples came together to break bread (Acts zo), and on which they were enjoined to lay by them in store as God prospered them, to avoid special collections when the apostle arrived (1 Corinthians 16:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 16:2). But because the day is not the Jews’ day, it is not for that “my day,” any more than any other day is “my day.” This is negative, but is there no positive enforcement? The first day is what no other is said to be: “the Lord’s day,” and though there is not a line of Scripture, known to the writer, which enjoins a legal or Sabbatical observance of the day on anyone, if it is His day, it is peculiarly fitting to regard it as such, and to avoid anything which would unnecessarily make the day common. The way we spend the Lord’s day may well be the straw which shews how the wind blows. The man who deliberately flouts the Lord’s day, flouts the Lordship of Christ, and shews the direction in which his whole life is trending.
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How should a Christian dress for Church?

Does the Bible address the speech and dress of those speaking in the assembly?

Two principles guide us: those who speak are speaking for God (1 Peter 4: 11);" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 4: 11); men like Elijah and John the Baptist, who spoke for God, dressed accordingly. Their clothing (2 Kings 1:8;" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 3:4) was not luxurious (Matthew 11:8)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:8) but rough (Zechariah 13:4)," TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 13:4), not reflecting the current trends but the character of their message. They were neither fashion plates or non-conformists. John preached repentance; his locale, locust diet, and leather girdle underlined this.

Clerical garb enhances position; flamboyant style flaunts personality; luxurious clothing exalts wealth; informal dress disparages reverence. Each of these in its own way dishonors Christ.

Nowadays, stiff formality may be distasteful to some and off-handedness or slang may appeal to others. However, such informality in our language and in our appearance conforms to the current spirit that belittles authority; it is therefore unsuitable for ministry and gospel preaching. Both the messenger and his message must underscore God's presence and the weight of speaking for God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

My parents are interferring in my marriage. What should I do?

What should a married couple do if their parents interfere in their marriage?

"Honor thy father and thy mother" applies lifelong. Overbearing parents should be treated with respect and love. Adult children honor their parents, not by obeying them, but by upholding what they value.

If patience and prayer don’t resolve the issue, a first response could be a gentle, perhaps humorous, reminder by the wife or the husband, depending on whose parent is overbearing. If that makes no difference, a kind, but more direct plea could follow. If this is ineffective a different course is indicated. By continuing to cultivate a relationship of mutual respect between themselves and the overbearing parents, the younger couple will be better able to handle the problem effectively.

Marriage forms a new relationship. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife" (Genesis 2:24)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24). The wife leaves her father’s headship for a new head. The man leaves his parents to establish a new home and headship. The husband is responsible for this new marriage relationship. He is responsible to lead in protecting this relationship and, therefore, in dealing with overbearing parents. Both partners should be open and caring in discussing the problem between themselves and should make every effort to extend understanding to the offending parents. This cannot be allowed to come between the husband and wife and they must remain united in arriving at a way to confront the issue. If his parents are the problem, it’s appropriate for him to speak to them both by himself. In this way, he protects his wife and confines the problem to the ones directly involved. When he expresses the problem and the proposed solution to his parents, he indicates that "we have this concern" (not "she has…"), and "we are asking you to…" (not "she wants you to…"). If the wife’s parents are the problem, the husband should speak with them in the same spirit, but should take his wife with him, so the parents know it is a united stance. While being direct and firm, it’s important to affirm the intention of keeping an enjoyable and loving relationship with these parents.

Postponing dealing with the problem only makes its impact worse and makes dealing with it more difficult.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Will the Holy Spirit leave the world at the Rapture?

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH
Does the Holy Spirit go back to Heaven with the Church at the close of the present Dispensation, or, does He still remain here, to convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment?

In other words, is He here in Person only from Pentecost until the “Rapture”?

We learn from 2 Thessalonians 2:5" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:5 that the common view that the apostle in this passage was correcting the teaching of the first epistle is quite mistaken. Exactly the reverse is the case; he was confirming it; “Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” Add to this the fact that in verse 10 he actually appeals to “the coming of the Lord and our gathering together unto Him,” as revealed in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-20" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:11-20 to counter the false teaching abroad “that the day of the Lord” was then present (see R.V.), for the other must take place first. Verse 6 teaches, I believe, the same truth. Some suggest that “that which letteth” is law, and “he who letteth” the executive of law, government But this seems forced and unnatural. Is it not more in harmony with the context to interpret “that which letteth” to be the Church indwelt by the Spirit, and He who letteth, the Spirit indwelling the Church? When the Church goes at the coming of the Lord, the Holy Spirit will, as an indwelling Person, go too. He will therefore be no longer in this scene as the One in Whom the Church is baptised and united to a Risen Christ. That wonderful and unique work of God belongs only to the present dispensation.

But the departure of the Spirit in this sense does not mean that He will cease to work in the world. He will resume His activities of pre-Pentecostal times toward God’s people and the world. What we read in Revelation 7" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 7 and 14, shows clearly that He will carry on a mighty work of conversion, through the sealed of Israel, far beyond, it would seem, anything known in the present dispensation. This began with 120 sealed ones, that will begin with 144,000 and the zenith will be, “a multitide that no man can number.” We must, however, avoid the thought that the wicked one will be revealed at the moment of the rapture of the Church. This chapter warns us against such an idea, for the apostacy will first fully develop and then the way will be open for the manifestation of the Man of Sin.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

When should I confront a person who has offended me?

When should I ignore offenses against me and when I confront the offender?

Three passages answer the first part of the question. "The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression." (Proverbs 19:11)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 19:11). In Matthew 18:22," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:22, when the Lord taught Peter to forgive "until seventy times seven," He discouraged keeping count of others' wrongs. It is not right to remember with resentment or with a view to paying back. "Taketh not account of evil" (1 Corinthians 13:5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 13:5, RV) is in keeping with this teaching.

Luke 17:3," TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:3,4 touches the second part of the question: "If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." Here are the alternatives: rebuke him or forget it. If I must rebuke him, the Lord Jesus teaches, "tell him his fault between thee and him alone" (Matthew 18:15)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15). If there is a good possibility of restoring him from wrongdoing, Galatians 6:1" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 6:1 teaches me to confront him "in the spirit of meekness." When there is professed repentance, the Lord instructs me to forgive, since only God can measure its genuineness.

W. Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I begin a conversation about salvation?

What are some effective ways to begin a conversation about spiritual things?

In dealing with a soul, five basic things are required: the power of God; the guidance of the Spirit; a knowledge of the Scriptures; prayer; and common sense. Consider his surroundings, circumstances, nationality (if possible), and vocation. Be relaxed (the Lord sat, John 4);" TARGET="_blank">John 4); be pleasant; be passive; show an interest in things that interest him. Follow Paul's advice (1 Corinthians 9: 19-22)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9: 19-22) by becoming all things to all men. Never elevate yourself, but elevate him and win his confidence by asking secular questions he can answer, expressing gratitude to him for enlightening you, and recognizing his attainments. Never argue. As you do this, pray to God, as Nehemiah (2:4) did, for an opening to sow the Seed. To a fireman, talk fire. Praise his bravery, then bring before him the fire that never shall be quenched (Mark 9:43)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 9:43). To a coal miner, talk about digging and that you were afraid to work in a mine, then tell of a man in the Bible who dug (Luke 6:48)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 6:48). Wearing a suit among business people will gain respect and a ready ear. In a mining village or on a farm, leave your tie at home, lest you appear "important." Have a suitable tract ready.

R. Surgenor

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Jesus suffer the pains of Hell on the cross?

How are Christ's sacrificial sufferings related to the sufferings of the lost in hell?

What was infinite in character (the sufferings of our Lord Jesus at Calvary) and what will be eternal in duration (the sufferings of the lost in the lake of fire) should be carefully distinguished. A reverent consideration of the Bible's descriptions of Calvary indicates that the Lord Jesus endured the unmitigated judgment of God. His was an infinite capacity to feel and to suffer. His holy emotions, unclouded by sin, fully registered the approaching storm when He was in Gethsemane. He endured the totality of that judgment on the cross. Prophetically, His language was, "Thou hast afflicted me with all Thy waves." "All Thy waves and Thy billows are gone over me." Although the flood waters were "restrained" in Noah's day, no such limitations restricted the flood-tide of grief that swept over His holy soul. Typologically, the scapegoat, whose death was in an uninhabited land, points to the One Whose sufferings were incomprehensible to the human mind. How could we measure His sufferings when He Who is absolute Holiness was, at the same time, "made sin for us?" Not only was the Savior suffering for countless others' sins, but God, through His Son, was condemning sin in the flesh. How correct Samuel Stennett was, "What he endured no tongue can tell to save our souls from death and hell!" Saying, "Christ suffered our hell" not only claims too much but also says too little. He suffered infinitely more than we could have endured through endless ages.

E Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

How should assembly believers handle rumors about the further wrong behavior of a person put away fr

How should assembly believers handle rumors about the further wrong behavior of a person put away from assembly fellowship?

The greatest concern about rumors involving assembly Christians is the impact of those rumors on the assembly's testimony. Nevertheless, whether the subject of rumors is a believer or an unbeliever, a Christian should protect individuals from being harmed by lies. For any harmful stories about another, always request supporting evidence. That is merely loving your neighbor as you love yourself (Matthew 7:12)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:12). If the rumor about the individual whom the assembly has put away appears to be true, you have no further responsibility to act on that information except to pray for the fallen believer. Don't be a party to spreading the story. Always work to contain the problem. Your fondest wish for that person is his recovery and you would want as little harm as possible to result from his wrongdoing.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu