Avrell Bowden - "If I die tonight, where will I be? Heaven or hell?” People make commitments to God an confessions of faith that sometimes have no reality.  At age 6 I made a false profession of salvation. That is, I told people I was saved. (more)

• About this site

 The Old Nature

• About this site

Printable Scale Model of Noah's Ark

• About this site

 Here's the Difference

• About this site

• About this site

Gathering Unto His Name - The New Testament contains a clear pattern for how a church should operate. This book summarizes relevant scriptures to what a church is and how it affects our modern day practices.

• About this site

• About this site

WHEN WILL OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS BE RAISED?
If we are right in taking the expression, “in Christ,” as a New Testament term, and therefore “the dead in Christ” (1 Thessalonians 4" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4: ) as referring only to New Testament saints, when will the Old Testament saints be raised?

In 1 Corinthians 15:23" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:23 we have the general truth that Christ is “the first- fruits” of the Resurrection, “afterward, they that are Christ’s at His coming.” This expression seems to include here the whole completed Second Coming, when the first Resurrection will be finished.

This will have taken place in different stages and categories. Thus, supposing the Resurrection in 1Thessalonians 4" TARGET="_blank">1Thessalonians 4 is of the saints of this dispensation alone since Pentecost (to such only applying the expression—”dead in Christ), that will be the beginning of the first Resurrection, which will not reach its final stage until Revelation 20: 4," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20: 4, where the Resurrection of more than one category of saints is indicated, of which we read in verse 5, “this is (i.e., completes), the first Resurrection.” This will no doubt include the Old Testament saints. To conceive of Old Testament saints however, being included in the first Resurrection, at the same time as the Church, is very difficult and indeed impossible. How could such be caught away to meet the Lord in the air along with the Church? In that case there would be two distinct companies, each in a distinct relationship with the Lord.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Why is it some assemblies will not admit believers to the Lord’s Table, until they have been baptized? Is this scriptural?

The question ought, I judge, to be reversed. Why do some assemblies admit believers who have not been baptized? It can hardly be questioned that baptism was ordained by Christ Himself as the initial rite in the Christian life. “Go, disciple the nations, baptizing them (i.e., the disciples when made), in (or into) the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19). “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:15-16)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:15-16). Accordingly, in the Acts a profession of faith in Christ in one form or another was always followed by baptism, e.g., “Many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:8).

The twelve disciples of Ephesus, having been wrongly baptized, were re-baptized in (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus. There is not a single case mentioned of an infant being baptized. Baptism ought undoubtedly to be put before all candidates for fellowship. With young converts there is rarely any difficulty, but when we come to older Christians seeking fellowship, who have perhaps formed part of some evangelical denomination for a number of years, the case is more complicated. Many such firmly believe they have been truly baptized, either as children before faith, or by sprinkling after faith.

The question then arises whether it can be right altogether to refuse fellowship to such undoubted believers, who seem unable to see the need for “rebaptism.” I judge that such passages as 2 Chronicles 30:18;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 30:18; 1 Samuel 21:6;" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 21:6; Numbers 28: 9," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28: 9, etc., with our Lord’s comment on the last two passages in Matthew 12:3-7," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:3-7, shew that there are cases where God’s strict order may be modified by special circumstances. “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” Each case, however, must be judged by spiritual men, who will surely have wisdom from God how to act; but certainly there should be no reception into the local fellowship without this question being raised.

W.H.

• About this site

What is the special significance of Joseph’s second dream (Genesis 37:9-10)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 37:9-10)?

Both the dreams of Joseph look forward to the day when the One of whom he is so striking a picture, the Lord Jesus, “the man of sorrows,” “despised and rejected of men,” crucified, but now exalted, will be recognised and owned even by those who once refused him. The first dream, of course, had its literal fulfilment in Egypt, when Joseph’s brethren bowed at his feet. It will also have its further fulfilment “when He comes whose right it is,” and “they shall look on Him whom they pierced,” and shall “mourn because of Him.” Then the affecting scenes between Joseph and his brethren will be re-enacted in deeper measure between Christ and the saved remnant of Israel (Zechariah 12:10-12)," TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 12:10-12), which will form the nucleus of the nation, over which He will reign for ever.

“The Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32, 33)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:32, 33). This is the earthly kingdom—the sheaves speak of a harvest—”the field is the world.” The second dream has had no fulfilment yet. Rachel had already passed away. Jacob never bowed to Joseph, but he will to the greater than Joseph. If “the sheaves” point to an earthly sphere, the sun, moon, and stars point to another, the heavenly. This goes further and higher than the first. The earthly kingdom is everlasting, but not unlimited (see Psalm 72:8)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 72:8). The second will be universal, as well as everlasting. It will include the other, but go beyond it. Of that kingdom, too, Christ will be the Crown, the Centre, and the Sum.

W.H.

• About this site

Question:

In one of my daily devotional readings, the main scripture cited was Job 9:32-33." TARGET="_blank">Job 9:32-33.  The conclusion was made that Job did indeed have an advocate, an intercessor between him and God, just as we do, in the person of Jesus Christ. 

I am confused by that, and my questions is this...why did Job state that there was no one to act as a daysman (advocate) between him and God if there actually was such an advocate?  How could Job know about this advocate and if he did, why would Job not call upon Him? 

There is plenty of evidence of Jesus in the OT, but is there evidence that Jesus advocated for man even before coming to the earth as a substitutionary sacrifice for man's sin, to pay our debt once and for all?  If so, could Job have known about Him?  Is this a question of chronology or of the lack of oral or written evidence to which Job had access, or perhaps was it a lack of seeking knowledge on Job's part? 

I am confused why the devotional would state that Job had the same advocate as we do, if he either did not know or knew and did not call upon Him.  Can you help with this?

Answer:

This is a very insightful question.  It seems that Job was either saying that no mediator existed among men to help or perhaps that the type of mediator he was talking about is different than the mediator that we normally think of in the person of Christ.  

Here are some comments from Alber Barnes Notes on the Bible that are an answer to your observation...

Neither is there any daysman - Margin, One that should argue, or, umpire. The word daysman in English means ” “an umpire or arbiter, a mediator.”

The word as used by Job does not mean mediator, but arbiter, umpire, or judge; one before whom the cause might be tried, who could lay the hand of restraint on either party. who could confine the pleadings within proper bounds, who could preserve the parties within the limits of order and propriety, and who had power to determine the question at issue. Job complains that there could be no such tribunal. He feels that God was so great that the cause could be referred to no other, and that he had no prospect of success in the unequal contest. It does not appear, therefore, that he desired a mediator, in the sense in which we understand that word - one who shall come between us and God, and manage our cause before him, and be our advocate at his bar. He rather says that there was no one above God, or no umpire uninterested in the controversy, before whom the cause could be argued, and who would be competent to decide the matter in issue between him and his Maker. He had no hope, therefore, in a cause where one of the parties was to be the judge, and where that party was omnipotent; and he must give up the cause in despair.

It is not with strict propriety that this language is ever applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man. He is not an umpire to settle a dispute, in the sense in which Job understood it; he is not an arbiter, to whom the cause in dispute between man and his Maker is to be referred; he is not a judge to listen to the arguments of the respective parties, and to decide the controversy. He is a mediator between us and God, to make it proper or possible that God should be reconciled to the guilty, and to propose to man the terms of reconciliation; to plead our cause before God, and to communicate to us the favors which he proposes to bestow on man.

That might lay his hand upon us both - It is not improbable that this may refer to some ancient ceremony in courts where, for some cause, the umpire or arbiter laid his hand on both the parties. Or, it may mean merely that the umpire had the power of control over both the parties; that it was his office to restrain them within proper limits, to check any improper expressions, and to see that the argument was fairly conducted on both sides. The meaning of the whole here is, that if there were such an umpire, Job would be willing to argue the cause. As it was, it was a hopeless thing, and he could do nothing more than to be silent. That there was irreverence in this language must be admitted; but it is language taken from courts of law, and the substance of it is, that Job could not hope to maintain his cause before one so great and powerful as God.

---- follow up comment

 I did find this very thought provoking and helpful!  I do see that what Job said showed an incomplete understanding of Who God really is...and his language not only revealed that, but I can see where it would be offensive to God.  What I took away from this is that there is no one above God who could ever have plead Job's case.  He, as we, actually have no case, no matter what Job thought, no matter what we think.  God is God and no one decides His judgements for Him.  He and He alone makes the ultimate judgement.  Even Jesus, fully God, could not make a judgement on the Father.  Jesus interceded for us with God, but in He did not mediate as such.  God, in His sovereign mercy, pardoned us, albeit at great cost to Himself, but the terms were unilateral.  We do not "make a deal" with God in the sense that God concedes to any of our terms.  The terms are presented to us by the One who has power over life and death and it is for us to concede, or rather surrender, to His terms.  For those of us whose name is written in the Lamb's book of Life, the handwriting is that of God, not ours.  

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site