What is the significance of the terms “Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 32)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 32) and “Kingdom of God” ("1 Corinthians 15:24)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:24)?

The expression “Kingdom of God” does not actually occur in 1 Corinthians 15:24," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:24, but I believe the Kingdom there referred to is the same to all intents and purposes as that proclaimed by John the Baptist. Any godly Jew, versed in the Old Testament Scriptures and especially Daniel’s prophecy, knew that God had transferred the Kingdom from Israel, for their sins, to the four great Gentile Powers—Babylon, MedoPersia, Greece and Rome, the last of which was exercising its sway at the time of the Baptist’s mission. It would also be known from Daniel that the next event on the divine programme was to be the smiting and total destruction of the great-powers, regarded in their integrity as an image, by the stone cut out without hands, to be followed by the “setting up of a Kingdom which shall never be destroyed,” and “which shall not be left to other people,”—”it shall stand for ever.”

What else could a godly Jew understand then by John’s proclamation, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” but that God was about to introduce His, the fifth Kingdom, upon earth? For that, God had His King ready, but the King was also the Lamb of God—for atonement must be made, the only ground on which the Kingdom could ever be set up on this sin-stained earth. Had the Jewish nation received the post-pentecostal testimony to the resurrection of the Lord, God would have sent back the Lord Jesus to destroy His enemies and set up His millennial Kingdom.

It is that Kingdom to which reference is made in 1 Corinthians 15:24," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:24, at the close of which the Lord will put down all His enemies—human and angelic—and then deliver up the Kingdom to God, purged of every “evil concurrent.” This will not be as is so often mistakenly asserted, in the sense of ceasing to reign, for the millennial reign will only be the first stage of the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but in the sense of restoring it to Him. Then no less than before, God will be (not become) All in All, and the Lord will reign as universal King. God’s throne will for ever be the throne of God and the Lamb.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Does Mark 16:16" TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

In Acts 10:47," TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:47, Peter commanded people to be baptized who had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit. According to Romans 8:9," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:9, those who have the Spirit are born of God (John 3:6)," TARGET="_blank">John 3:6), so the new birth is independent of baptism. Being "born of water and of the Spirit" (v. 5) therefore cannot refer to baptism. The Greek construction could be translated, "born of water, even the Spirit." This is consistent with John’s explanation of the Lord’s words in 7:39: rivers of living water symbolize the Spirit.

Further, the New Testament presupposes that obedience characterizes those who are saved (Romans 6:17;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:17; 1 Peter 1:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:14). Since in Acts 10" TARGET="_blank">Acts 10 Peter commanded believers in Cornelius’ house to be baptized, we should rightly expect every believer to be baptized. Mark’s gospel emphasizes that actions substantiate truth (1:27; 16:20), therefore those who believe will demonstrate their faith by obedience.

A more cogent response, though, may come from observing that Mark 16:16" TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:16 describes two classes of people: those who believe and are baptized; those who do not believe. A third possible classification, those who believe but are not baptized, is not mentioned. Some of the many passages stating that those who believe (with no mention of baptism) are saved include Acts 16:31;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:31; Romans 10:10;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 10:10; John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31." TARGET="_blank">John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why does 2 Kings 8:26 say Ahaziah began to reign at 22 but 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42?

Why does 2 Kings 8:26" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 8:26 say Ahaziah began to reign at 22 but 2 Chronicles 22:2" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42?

Commentators attempt to explain this in at least half a dozen ways (see John Gill’s "Expositor"). Here are two of the better suggestions.

1. The 42 years are an ironic connection with the house of Ahab. Omri, Ahab’s father, began his dynasty in Israel about 42 years before Ahaziah was 22 (1 Kings 16:23; 15:10; 22:42;" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 16:23; 15:10; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:17)." TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 8:17). The four sentences that follow the statement that Ahaziah was 42 (literally, "a son of 42 years") all link Judah’s King Ahaziah with Israel’s wicked house of Ahab. "Also," used twice, shows Ahaziah’s similarity to Ahab’s wickedness (2 Chronicles 22:2-5)." TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 22:2-5). The 42 years then make a powerful statement that the character of Ahaziah embodied the wickedness of those 42 years in Israel. However, the expression, "a son of 42 years," is nowhere else used in this way.

2. 42 is a copyist’s error and should be 22. Commentators, while upholding the inerrancy of Scripture, generally support this view. The difference between the two numbers is a difference between two similar Hebrew characters. 22 appears in some very old manuscripts of the Septuagint, Arabic, and Syraic Scriptures. In fairness, these postdate the Hebrew manuscripts and the absence of 22 in predated Hebrew manuscripts provides no evidence of an error by the scribes renowned for accuracy in copying the Scriptures. This explanation relies on an unsupported supposition.

If forced to choose, I prefer the first.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why do some object to the expression the old nature?

Why do some object to the expression the old nature?

For most of us, our earliest Christian teaching included "the Christian’s two natures: the old nature and the new nature." This was the accepted and handy way of explaining the struggle within a believer that drew him to sin when he genuinely wanted to please the Lord. Some of us may have found this confusing when we learned that orthodox Christians have historically upheld that our Lord possessed two natures. In this case, the expression means that He was truly human - although without the possibility of sin - and truly God in one unique Person.

Actually, the vocabulary of the New Testament does not use two natures to describe either teaching. That Christ is both God and man is foundational, essential truth. Godly men, who labored to defend and clarify this profound truth, distilled the Bible’s teaching into the expression two natures.

The New Testament, however, does provide the terms that describe the struggle within the believer. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal 5:17)." TARGET="_blank">Gal 5:17). Paul also deals with this at the end of Romans 7." TARGET="_blank">Romans 7. The problem is the flesh with its unchanged and unchangeable disposition toward sin (v 18). He perceives a law in my members, a governing principle linked with fallen humanity. This principle wars against the law of my mind, which is the result of the Spirit’s regenerating work.

Using the New Testament’s vocabulary may help us in at least two ways. Speaking about our old nature may isolate us from the problem, as though the responsibility lies with my nature, but not with me directly. Paul says, "In me (that is, in my flesh) . . ." (v 18). I am directly responsible for the problem. Second, the teaching about the flesh embraces our hope of deliverance. The flesh refers at times to our physical body of flesh (Rom 1:3; 2:28; 3:20)" TARGET="_blank">Rom 1:3; 2:28; 3:20) and at other times to our moral disposition toward sin (Rom 7:5, 18; 8:4, 5)" TARGET="_blank">Rom 7:5, 18; 8:4, 5) , a principle presently inseparable from our physical body. The death of Christ has legally severed us from Adam and the consequences of his disobedience. The results of that death will eventually deliver us completely from both the physical consequence (the condemnation of death) and moral consequence (sin dwelling in me - the flesh) of the Fall. This physical and moral problem elicits Paul’s question at the end of Romans 7" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7 (v 24). Deliverance from this body of death (JND) is what God had in mind when "the old man was crucified with Him, [in order] that the body of sin might be destroyed (brought to nothing, WEV)" (6:6). In chapter 8, Paul expands his answer, "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:25).

The objections to using the term the old nature are likely intended to bring us to a clearer understanding of New Testament truth.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What the bible says about loaning money to family

What the bible says about loaning money to family

There are some Biblical principles about lending money to friends, family, fellow-believers and business accociates. First, a general principle about debt is "The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender's slave"(Proverbs 22:7)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 22:7). In a family, people should be treated as brothers rather than masters. Perhaps you could avoid straining a relationship with a family member by getting money from a bank instead of a family member.

Loaning Money to Unbelievers

In the Old Testament, the law prohibited the Jews from charging money to each other. "You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest" (Deuteronomy 23:19)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 23:19). You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countryman you shall not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess" (Deuteronomy 23:20)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 23:20).

Collecting Bad Loans

Christians should be willing to release money if the loan goes bad. Ask your questions BEFORE loaning money. What is the loan for? How will it be paid back? Is there a guarantee collateral? Once the money is out of your hands, you no longer have control of it. With a Christian relationship on the line, the Bible says "Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?" (1 Corinthians 6:1)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:1). We are told that it is better to be defrauded than to lose our witness by suing one another (1 Corinthians 6:7)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:7).

Christian Attitudes toward People

The Christian standard of exacting money shows our attitudes toward relationships. People are more important than possessions and relationships with others should be preserved even at the loss of personal belongings.

Luke 6:34" TARGET="_blank">Luke 6:34: "If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, in order to receive back the same amount."

Luke 6:30-31," TARGET="_blank">Luke 6:30-31, "Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. And just as you want people to treat you, treat them in the same way."

A gift as an alternative to a loan

If your friend or family member is asking for a loan and has a legitimate need, that means he needs help. A loan is a nice way of giving people short-term help in a real way. However, if you have a healthy relationship that you don't wish to put into jeopardy, consider giving him a gift instead. Philippians 2:3" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible say about sex before marriage? or premarital sex?

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 in your answer.

Other pages in this section

About this site

I don't feel motivated to keep loving my spouse. What can I do?

When I lack motivation or encouragement, is there any help?

Keep in mind that honoring the Lord as a spouse is not a means of changing your spouse; it is your loving service to the One Who saved you and wants to honor you. The ultimate purpose is His approval now and at the Bema (2 Corinthians 5:9, 10)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:9, 10). Yield daily to the gentle Spirit's work. He is able to give the needed grace. The struggle you sense indicates His desire to claim more of you for Christ (James 4:5, 6)." TARGET="_blank">James 4:5, 6).

Look behind you. Your children and other young folks who observe you will be greatly influenced by your example. They have a sixth sense that sees through pretense.

Be thankful that your experiences open windows into the Lord's heart and provide a deepening understanding of the greatest thing God will ever accomplish - presenting a Bride to His Son.

The path to the greatest glory a loving, almighty Father could plan for His Son led through the agonies of Golgotha. Should we complain that our path to eternal glory is not always comfortable?

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is taking the bread and the cup an addendum to the Breaking of Bread?

Is taking the bread and the cup an addendum to the Breaking of Bread?

The reason for this question is likely because sometimes taking the bread and cup may appear to be rushed, a necessary ritual before a hurried conclusion to the meeting. As with the assembly in Troas on the first day of the week (Acts 20:6, 7)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:6, 7), our stated objective in our primary meeting on Lord’s Day is to break bread. Our singing, thanksgiving, and Scripture readings are subservient to this purpose. "This do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19; 1Co 11:24, 25)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 11:24, 25) specifically refers to taking the bread and drinking the cup. An unlearned believer (14:16, 23, 24) may enter into the hymns and prayers of worship, but can remember the Lord only when he is in assembly fellowship and partakes of the two emblems, the bread and cup. Remembering the Lord in the breaking of bread is the high point of the gathering. All that precedes it leads up to it; all that follows flows from it.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Do all people go to God at death?

Do all spirits at death go to God?

Numbers 16:22;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:22; Numbers 27:16;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 27:16; Job 34:14, 15;" TARGET="_blank">Job 34:14, 15; Ecclesiastes 3:21;" TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 3:21; Ecclesiastes 8:8;" TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 8:8; Ecclesiastes 12:7." TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 12:7.

When are the spirits of the unsaved dealt with?

It is a good thing to “purge our references.” I am not sure for instance whether Numbers 16:22" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:22 or 27:16 proves that “all spirits go to God.”

The expression in Job 34:14," TARGET="_blank">Job 34:14, however, “gather unto Himself man’s spirit,” describing dissolution, certainly favours the belief that at death all spirits go to God.

So in Eccl. 3." TARGET="_blank">Eccl. 3. 21 the word “upward” points the same way. Eccl. 12." TARGET="_blank">Eccl. 12. 7 is very distinct that “the spirit returns to God Who gave it.”

Hebrews 12:23" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12:23 refers only to the spirits of just men. I do not think there can be any question that the spirits of all men are “dealt with” at death, as regards their final destiny, but the measure of reward or punishment awaits a later day. Lazarus of Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16 was at once comforted; the rich man was at once tormented, but at the great white throne he will be judged according to his works.

Paul knew for himself, and so did the saints in general, that “to depart” was “to be with Christ, which is far better” (Philippians 1:23)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:23). But I know no Scripture which describes this as having “gone to God,” and I think the propriety of anyone publicly pronouncing on the spiritual destiny of any man, who has died without giving satisfactory proof of repentance, may well be questioned. Certainly it is gravely wrong to speak of one who has led an ungodly life, and died without visible repentance, as “this our brother,” and assert he is now “at peace.” We may not affirm that such a one is saved, but is it within our province to affirm that such a one is lost?

God alone searches the beart and knows what has passed between a soul and Himself at the last. To anyone who had not heard what passed between our Lord and the repentant thief, he was clearly a lost soul, but we know that grace intervened and snatched him as a brand from the burning. Even of Judas, whose sin was manifested and his awful death a matter of common knowledge, Peter refrained from saying anything more than that “he went to his own place.” This, though it left no doubt of his fate, was said among the Lord’s disciples. As far as we know the apostles never referred to the traitor in public.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Will christians judge angels?

In 1 Corinthians 6:3," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:3, we read the following:

1 Corinthians 6:1-6" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:1-6 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? (2) Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (3) Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! (4) So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? (5) I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, (6) but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

There were problems in the church at Corinth with conflicts between brothers. Christians should be above such petty behavior. And then Paul suddenly writes the surprising statement that Christians will judge angels. He adds no explanation in the immediate context to help us understand where, when or how this will happen.

It is known from from Jude 1:6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4," TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:4, 2 Peter 2:9" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:9 that angels will be judged. It is also clear from scripture that Christ will be the Judge (John 5:22)." TARGET="_blank">John 5:22). It must be that we are united to Christ that gives us this right to be involved with the judgment upon angels. Since Christ will include us in this task in the future, shouldn’t we be able to handle matters of judgment in this life?

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu