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

If a damaging rumor about a believer proves to be false, should the person be cleared publicly?

If a damaging rumor about a believer proves to be false, should the person be cleared publicly?

If the inaccurate rumors were dealt with publicly (for example, by a public rebuke, 1 Timothy 5:20)," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:20), they should be cleared publicly. Otherwise, as is more usually the case, those who become aware that what they have heard or repeated is false should be as diligent to correct and contain the damage as they were to further it. They would do the right thing if they apologized to the individual, too. As far as the wronged believer is concerned, he may kindly request the believers who have told others these inaccuracies to repair the damage to the assembly's testimony by correcting their mistakes. Beyond that, the wronged believer should leave it to the Lord to vindicate his name (Proverbs 20:22)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 20:22). It's a safe "rule of thumb," that when a believer can trust the Lord to clear his name he is in the right; when he insists that others clear his name, he casts suspicion on his cause.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should sisters ccover their heads at events outside of the assembly where the Bible is being read?

What about head coverings for social gatherings in the hall or outreach activities?

Where assembly believers meet is not the issue. If the gathering is social, wearing a head covering is discretionary for a woman. If the Word of God is opened at a social function (how becoming!), it remains a Christian social gathering. If a social gathering of the assembly gives way to a teaching session or a missionary report, it has moved into the character of an assembly meeting. To distinguish the social gathering from an assembly meeting, why not move to a different setting? The sisters then wear head coverings, as the Scriptures direct for assembly meetings.

When assembly believers open their home to discuss the Bible with friends or neighbors, this is not an assembly meeting, although these believers are accountable to the elders in what they are doing. These believers are using this setting to gain the confidence of unbelievers and to sow the seed of the Word of God. Hopefully, they will be able to bring those friends and neighbors to assembly gospel meetings.

We cannot limit the personal witness of believers to only unscheduled encounters with individuals. "By all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:22).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the tribulation less than 7 years long?

I have read somewhere that the Tribulation, a period of seven years, would be shortened by 220 days, which the writer confirmed by a reference to Daniel 8:13" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 8:13 and 14. Is this so?

I do not think there is the least justification for saying that the Great Tribulation is to last seven years. That is the length of time for which the Covenant is made between the Prince (or last Great Head of the Roman Empire Revived—otherwise known as the first Beast) and many of Israel, under the Antichrist, or second Beast (Daniel 9." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9. and Revelation 13)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 13), but it is only when the Covenant is broken in the midst of the week, and the daily sacrifice taken away, that the Great Tribulation and “the time of Jacob’s trouble” will occur (Jeremiah 30:7;" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 30:7; Matthew 24:21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:21). It is quite clear from the last passage that the days of the Great Tribulation will be shortened—”For the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (v. 22). But by how much, is another question. I have myself believed that this may be inferred from Daniel 8:13, 14." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 8:13, 14. The question in the former verse refers to the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation (or that maketh desolate), and the answer is, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days—then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” —that is, 220 days less than the full tribulation of 3 years, but that does not say that the period of seven years will be shortened, but that in some way the years of the Great Tribulation will be. How this will be effected we can safely leave in the hands of God, who alone is sufficient.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Hell in the heart of the earth?

Does there seem sufficient scriptural warrant for the teaching that “Hades is in the heart of the earth”? (Matthew 12:40" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:40 being cited). In the Old Testament the passage of souls to it is frequently spoken of as a descent.

The word Hades (from two words, “a,” not and, “idein,” to see) means the Unseen world. It never represents “the grave” in the sense of a tomb, but “grave-land,” the place of departed spirits. This was the Greek classical use and there is no proof but that exactly the same sense was carried on into New Testament Greek. Certainly a burial place is not unseen. It is the equivalent of the Hebrew, Sheol. There are rare places, e.g., Psalm 49:14-15" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 49:14-15 where this may seem to be equal to a mere tomb, but with the large majority of cases before us, we may say that even in such, the tomb is viewed as the gate for the particular soul into the underworld. David’s words in Psalm 16" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16 bear out the ordinary meaning:
“Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.” Sheol then was the place where the Spiritual part went; the grave, where alone corruption is seen, where the body was interred. The Annihilationists try to confuse the two; and deny any existence between death and resurrection; but this is Plainly contrary to many Scriptures. “The wicked shall be turned into Sheol” (Psalm 9:17)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 9:17), surely means more than mere burial. “Shall burn unto the lowest sheol” (Deuteronomy 32:22)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 32:22)—graves don’t burn. “Speak to him out of the midst of Sheol” (Ezekiel 32:22)" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 32:22)— so it is not then a place of silence as a grave certainly is. Jacob in Genesis 35," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 35, knew his son Joseph was devoured by some beast and so had not been buried at all, and yet speaks of going down (yaradh) to his son to sheol. This word, yaradh (always to go down or descend), certainly favours the thought that we are intended to conceive of Hades as in the heart of the earth. It is the word used of Korah, Dathan and Abiram “going down alive into the pit (sheol),” (Numbers 16:33)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:33).

The Spirit of Samuel was also seen to ascend, when the witch of Endor, for the first time in her miserable career, was permitted, to her own horror, actually to call up one of the departed, instead of the lying familiar spirit, who usually impersonated them—”An old man cometh up” (1 Samuel 28:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:14). Also in Psalm 55:15," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 55:15, we read, “Let them go down quick into Sheol.” But the passage which may well settle the matter for us is Ephessians 4:9 “Now that Christ ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?” There does not seem to be any real difficulty to those who believe in God’s Word. Naturally those who deny there is such a place as Hades, are unwilling to allow anyone to assign It a location. What they want is that someone should prove it does not exist at all.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between being restored to the Lord and to other believers?

What is the difference between being restored to the Lord and to other believers?

Restoration brings a thing back to its original state. Old houses and old cars are frequently "restored." Our question deals with relationships between a Christian and his Lord or between two Christians. Restoration is necessary when relationships have been damaged. An offense will shatter a relationship. Drifting apart will damage relationships.

David prayed for restoration after his sin with Bathsheba. "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation" (Psalm 51:12)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 51:12). Noteworthy in this psalm is David's confession of sin when he sought restoration. In Psalm 23," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 23, he wrote of continuing occasions when the Good Shepherd "restoreth my soul" (verse 3). He realized his tendency to stray from the Shepherd.

Christians, too, may drift apart or offend one another. Our Lord gave instruction in Matthew 18:15" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15 for restoring a broken relationship. The two must meet together, seeking to clear up the matter between them. It is likely that, in most cases, mutual repentance, confession and forgiveness will be required. If an offense has caused damage, restitution will also be necessary.

There is no difference in the need for restoration, whether to the Lord or another saint. In both instances, the need must be acknowledged. One cannot be restored to the Lord who has not first been restored to his brother or sister (Matt. 5:23, 24)." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 5:23, 24).

J. Slabaugh
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 is my responsibility regarding my convictions?

What is my responsibility regarding my convictions?

To be meaningful, convictions must express Gods will (Matthew 7:21-27);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:21-27); they must be based on truth. Truth is not relative (John 14:6)," TARGET="_blank">John 14:6), decided by each persons viewpoint. When believers differ on matters of Christian teaching, either one or both are wrong. In applying Christian principles to exactly the same circumstances of daily living, only one "behavior" will embody all the relevant biblical principles, only one can be totally Christ-like. This demands modesty, for whose behavior is totally, consistently like Christ? God has empowered the assembly, guided by its elders, to administer Gods will (Matthew 18:18)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18). Some behavior so clearly denies Christian truth that it requires assembly action, as in 1 Corinthians 5." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5. In contrast, our individual responsibility is not to enforce truth, but to help others obey truth.,, Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy" (2 Corinthians 1:24)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 1:24). The apostle encouraged and enabled his errant childrens obedience to the Lord, because in that lay their greatest joy and blessing, but he was not their lord. We build up others by effectively "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:15), but, having done that, we are responsible to submit to truth ourselves and to commit to the Lord the affect of truth on others.

If teaching requires other means to make it effective in the lives of believers, it lacks the power of truth.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does a lost soul in Hell cease to exist at some point?

Does Matthew 10:28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28 teach the immortality of the soul?

Matthew 10:28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
To “destroy” a soul means a loss of everything good. It is the loss of well-being rather than ceasing to exist. Groups such as Christadeiphians deny the immortality of the soul. That is, God can cause a soul to cease to exist. I hardly think Matthew 10:28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28 touches on the “immortality” of the soul, but rather on its survival, which probably the Christadelphians deny too. Man can kill the body, but to kill the soul is beyond his power. “Fear Him Who can destroy (it does not say kill) both soul and body in hell.”

The word for “destroy” (apollumi) never means “to annihilate” but to render useless for its original object. Thus the same root is applied to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew10:6)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew10:6), “the marred bottles (Mark 2:22)," TARGET="_blank">Mark 2:22), and to the one who may “lose his life” (Luke 9:24)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:24). I believe the true doctrine of immortality has been misrepresented as well as denied. The words, “God only hath immortality” merely mean that He alone has it intrinsically, in Himself, underived, but do not deny that He communicates it to men and angels; but immortality is sometimes used as though it merely meant the faculty of never-ending existence. I believe Adam certainly had the latter at creation, but he clearly did not possess “immortality” for that means “immunity from death.” Now, had he possessed this by creation, the words, “In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,” would have had no meaning, for he could not have died. It is clear he was capable of death.

The whole crux of the question is, “WHAT IS DEATH?” Is it a ceasing to exist or is it existence out of harmony with, or in separation from, God. Consider what happened when Adam sinned. He did not cease to exist. He did not die physically (that had to be provided for later by cutting him off from the tree of life). Externally and physically he was apparently unchanged. But a marked and mysterious change took place in his moral being. He knew he was naked, and he was afraid of God, and sought to hide from Him. That is, a moral gulf had yawned between him and his Creator. Death is not cessation of existence but separation of existence. This condition of death has passed on the whole human race. Man is alive to the world, but dead to God—Paul reminds the Ephesians of this their state before conversion. Then God raised them up into a new life, having quickened them together with Christ (Ephesians 2:1)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:1). This accords with what our Lord says happens to him who hears and believes. “He has eternal life . . . He has passed from death unto life” (John 5. 24)." TARGET="_blank">John 5. 24). This eternal life includes immortality. The believer becomes immune from Spiritual death, but he has not yet immortality, physically speaking. That he will receive when Christ comes (see 1 Corinthians 15" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:).

The unbeliever will never regain immortality, but will exist in alienation and separation, physical and spiritual, from God for all eternity. “This is the second death.” That this is not a cessation of existence or annihilation of being is clear from many scriptures, e.g., “Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched”; “These shall go away into everlasting punishment”; “The devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Mark 9" TARGET="_blank">Mark 9: Matthew 25:46;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46; Revelation 20:10" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:10 and compare v 15).

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the title, "Morning Star" the same as the "Day Star"?

The name, "Morning Star" (Revelation 22:16)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22:16) and the "Day Star" (2 Peter 1:19)" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:19) both refer to the coming of the Lord Jesus. Are they the same?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

The "Day Star" refers to the person of Jesus Christ. A few versions of the Bible (e.g. Darby, English Standard Version , New American standard), use the words "Morning Star" in 2 Peter 1:19." TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:19. The word "phosphoros" in Greek means "light bearing" (Strong, WEV), "light bringing" (Thayer), or even the Venus (Liddell & Scott). The two words in Greek from Revelation 22" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22: are translated directly as "Morning Star." The word Peter uses, then, has a different emphasis than the two words in Revelation. In Peter is focusing on the second coming to the earth, but in Revelation 22" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22 the emphasis is on the coming in the air for the Church.

In one paragraph (2 Peter 1:16-21)," TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:16-21), Peter, shows the certainty of the Lord’s coming to earth in glory. The brightness of the Morning Star ("the light bringer") should capture their (and our) attention and give assurance of the glorious day, when the "Sun of Righteousness shall arise" (Malachi 4:2)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 4:2). In Revelation 22," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22, the bright ("radiant": Strong) Morning Star captures the affection of the churches and causes anticipation of His coming to the air for His Bride - the Church. The Spirit and Bride both are calling for Him to come.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu