Should seating for observers at assembly meetings and for those in the fellowship be separate?

Should seating for observers at assembly meetings and for those in the fellowship be separate?

We will find no scripture specifically commanding this, yet any thoughtful reader of 1 Corinthians 14:15-25" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15-25 will recognize this separation in seating can be helpful to the observer who needs to learn God's order in the assembly. A physical separation in seating demonstrates the distinctions the Spirit of God makes between "the whole church" met together and others present who are "unlearned (untaught) or unbelievers."

Initially, it is easier to observe" from without than from within a company. The Christian who first learns truth regarding the assembly while looking on will continue to learn more when he becomes part of the fellowship. Even an observer who is unsaved may be instructed by the Spirit as he observes the distinction between the saved ones in the circle and his own place before God. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew ("announce" or "proclaim") the Lord's death till He come" (I Corinthians 11:26)." TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 11:26). While we declare His death to the Father, the Supper can also proclaim gospel truth to the lost!

Most important, Paul states, "Let all things be done decently and in order" (I Corinthians 14:40)." TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 14:40). A separate seat preserves order in the gathering. One seated outside the "circle" will be less apt to participate publicly or to partake inadvertently of the emblems at the breaking of bread. For this reason, a separate seat is most appropriate at the Breaking of Bread.

J. Slabaugh

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should we use the name Jesus or Lord Jesus Christ?

Should we refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as "Jesus" in our gospel preaching?

As seen in the Gospels and Acts, the Spirit carefully associates "Jesus" with the Savior's humanity, rejection, and sacrifice. Tender references to "Jesus," the lowly Sufferer, are appropriate. Primarily, though, we preach "the Lord Jesus" (Acts 11:20; 19:10)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 11:20; 19:10). The object of sinners' faith is "the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31; 20:21)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:31; 20:21). The Spirit is evidence (John 16:7-11)" TARGET="_blank">John 16:7-11) that "God hath made that same Jesus... both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:38);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38); therefore, Spirit-empowered preaching will honor the Lord. The informality of our times calls for greater emphasis on His authority as Lord.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Christ become the Son of God when He was born?

It is being taught in some quarters that our Lord was “God the Son in eternity,” and became the “Son of God in incarnation.”

Is this distinction scriptural?

I do not know where the phrase, “God the Son,” occurs in Scripture, though no serious objection need be raised to it. As a Trinitarian Person He was God the Son, but THEN, too, He was in the relation of Son to the Father, and was therefore Son of God. There are those who deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ, which is a very serious error, but clearly the teacher referred to here admits this important truth.

But I believe it is unscriptural to limit the expression “Son of God” to incarnation. To the Son He saith, “Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever,” and to the Son also, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth” (Hebrews 1:8-10)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:8-10)—uttered to the Lord centuries before His incarnation. I doubt if the Sonship of Christ is ever made to depend on His incarnation. He was CALLED the Son of God’ in incarnation, because He was the Son of God before incarnation (Luke 1:35)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:35), just as the “Son given” is called “Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God,” because He was all this before being “the child, born” of the virgin (Isaiah 9:6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6). The above teacher has been referred to as to the phrase this question is based on, and he replies that what he intended to be printed was, “Christ was God the Son in eternity, and became the Son of God as Man,” which seems only to mean that personally He was unchanged, but now as Son of God He entered into Manhood and became changed in condition.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does Nebuchadnezzar's dream mean in Daniel 2?

What is the meaning of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2:31-45)" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 2:31-45)?

King Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem and therefore considered that his gods had overcome the God of Israel, Jehovah (Daniel 1:2)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 1:2). God gave him a dream of future events (2:28). Demonstrating that He could reveal the unknown, God revealed to Daniel both the dream, that only the king knew, and also its interpretation. Thus the Lord affirmed to Nebuchadnezzar that He knew and controlled the future and that He had given the king his kingdom (verse 37). This dream also helped God’s people because it informed them of the course, extent, and conclusion of the troublesome "times of the Gentiles," the period when Jerusalem is under Gentile control (Luke 21:24)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 21:24).

The dream centered around an image composed of four metals: a head of gold, arms of silver, torso of brass, and legs of iron (verses 3 1-33). Daniel interpreted these as four kingdoms, beginning with the Babylonian empire (verses 37-40). In keeping with the revelations in Daniel 7, 8,9," TARGET="_blank">Daniel 7, 8,9, and 11, the other three kingdoms are Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman. Viewed from head to feet, the image had metals of decreasing value, a reflection of the increasingly less autocratic structure of the successive kingdoms. The "iron kingdom" is a divided kingdom (verse 41) because at the image’s feet the iron was mixed with clay, an unstable combination. Since the kingdoms are sequential, this suggests that the Roman kingdom is viewed in one form, iron, and a later form, iron and clay. Between these two forms is most of the present Church age.

Daniel draws attention to the toes of the image and their instability (verses 42, 43). When he then refers to "these kings" (verse 44), Daniel seems to be interpreting the toes as kings, 10 in number. In the days of this 10-king confederacy of the revived Roman Empire, a stone "cut out without hands" struck and destroyed the image in the king’s dream and became a great mountain (verses 34, 35). Thus, as Daniel’s subsequent visions reveal, the revived Roman kingdom, over which "the Beast" will reign (Revelation 13:1, 2; 17:11-14)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 13:1, 2; 17:11-14), will end when our Lord, the Stone rejected, yet exalted (Matthew 21:42, 44)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 21:42, 44), will destroy Gentile power and establish His everlasting kingdom.

D.Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What makes a group of believers a church?

What practices are necessary for a group of believers to become an assembly, and what causes it to cease to be an assembly?

Those who study artist’s work recognize the work of famous painters. Even apart from his name on the painting, each artist’s work has his unique "signature" in its details. And so it is with God. If He has established an assembly, it will bear God’s "signature." This signature is the design which is always consistent with the pattern given in His word. God doesn’t need variety to somehow amuse Himself. He works consistently and follows the same pattern He gave nearly 2000 years ago. Here are some things we would expect: no other name but the Lord’s to identify the group; a plurality of overseers; separation from denominational associations; the display of head coverings as taught in 1 Corinthians 11;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11; evidence of the priesthood of all believers; attention to the development of gift; supremacy of the Word of God; gatherings for at least the breaking of bread, prayer, ministry, and gospel; recognition of the different roles God has entrusted to males and females; the practice of both baptism for all believers and also biblical reception.

When the Lord removes a lampstand (Rev 2:5; 3:3, 16)," TARGET="_blank">Rev 2:5; 3:3, 16), of course that group ceases to be an assembly. When He does that, only He knows. The group may continue its activities - and perhaps do all the right things, as the church at Ephesus did - yet not be an assembly.

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Who will be saved in the Great Tribulation?

Could those now familiar with the gospel be saved after the Rapture?

God has always reserved the right to establish deadlines in His offer of salvation: death, despite the uplifted serpent (Numbers 21);" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 21); the falling of judgment after God closed the door of Noah's ark; a closed door when the Son of Man returns to earth (Matthew 25:10;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:10; Luke 13:25)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 13:25). Similarly, the Scriptures point to a deadline enforced when the Savior returns for His Church. 2 Thessalonians 2:10" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:10 describes the deceivableness of unrighteousness operating in "them that perish" (same word as "lost" in 2 Corinthians 4:3)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:3). Note two important phrases: "that they might be saved"; "that they might be condemned." Failing to receive the love of the truth and be saved, they will believe the lie and be condemned. Such strong language underlines the danger of making sweeping statements about some not included in the passage. Failing to "believe" or "receive" the truth indicates a conscious failure to repent and receive the Gospel -more than merely living where Bibles are available or gospel meetings are accessible. However, publically implying that some in a Gospel audience might find salvation after the Lord returns is infinitely more dangerous. The evangelist's responsibility is to urge his audience to "Seek ... the Lord while He may be found."

E. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did the earth become "without form and void" or was it made that way?

Can't Genesis 1:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2 be translated, "And the earth became without form and void?"

The Hebrew word is properly rendered "was," not "became." The grammar of the passage proves this most persuasively. The phrase, "And the earth was without form and void," in verse 2 is a kind of subordinate clause called a circumstantial clause. It modifies verse 1, the main clause. Thus verse 1 states what God did, and verse 2 adds some further information about it - some circumstances occurring at the same time as the principal statement. We understand from this that God made the heavens and the earth in the beginning, and when He did, it happened that (1) the earth was formless and empty; (2) darkness was on the face of the deep; and (3) the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Grammatically, there can be no discontinuity between these verses. Verse 2 must be describing the earth as it was originally created, not how it became at a time following creation.

D. Valiance
Other pages in this section

About this site

Can an elder

Can an elder’s wife receive a "crown of glory" (1 Peter 5:2-4)" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2-4)?

That crown is apparently for "under-shepherds" who are taking care of the Chief Shepherd’s sheep. The context of the book may explain why Peter (by the Spirit’s inspiration) calls it a crown of glory. Peter reminds believers of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus and of His subsequent glory (1 Peter 1:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:11). He encourages believers in their trials that their suffering likewise precedes glory (1:7; 4:13). In two ways, elders may have special sufferings. When enemies persecute believers, leaders are special targets. In addition, the burden of caring for the flock often causes them much grief and suffering of soul. Glory follows suffering, so in a unique way the Lord has reserved for them a crown of glory.

Another crown, the crown of life, is offered to those who "endure temptation" (James 1:12)." TARGET="_blank">James 1:12). An elder’s wife may receive this crown for suffering with her husband (in whatever way you may wish to apply that!).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the title "the Son of Man" a messianic title?

Is the title "the Son of Man" a messianic title?

At least a dozen times in the Old Testament the expression "son of man" designates an ordinary mortal human. The two potentially messianic passages (Psa 80:17; Dan 7:13)" TARGET="_blank">Dan 7:13) use the same form of expression. If we had only the Old Testament, we might wonder if "the Son of Man" designates the Messiah or merely describes a man.

The records of the Lord’s trial before the high priest, however, are conclusive. Matthew (26: 63-65) and Mark (14:61-63) record the high priest’s question, "Art Thou the Christ, the Son of God (Mk: "the Blessed")?" The Lord’s answer was, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." This is an incontrovertible reference to Daniel’s prophecy (7:13). The Lord used the title "the Son of Man" interchangeably with "the Christ" and "the Son of God," therefore it is a messianic title.

Luke’s account (22:67-71) adds another detail, confirming that the Jews understood this to be a messianic title. After the Lord claimed to be the Son of Man, all who were with the high priest asked practically the same question as the high priest, "Art Thou then the Son of God?" They understood that His use of the title was a messianic claim.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is King Saul in Heaven?

Is it scriptural to suggest that King Saul is now enjoying the rest of heaven?

Though we should shrink from usurping God’s prerogative in such matters, I fear I know no Scripture which would certainly justify such a statement. It is true he was chosen of God to be King over His people, at their demand, as indeed to-day “the powers that be are ordained of God,” but without any guarantee as to spiritual condition. He was chosen, but it was to suit the people’s choice; he was not a man after God’s own heart. He certainly manifested pleasing traits, now and again, especially at the commencement of his reign, when he comes before us as “a choice young man” :—in fact one of Adam’s best! and he was religious, too, as long as it was convenient, but as soon as any other interest intervened, he broke down lamentably, e.g., in the case of Amalek. He did prophesy on two occasions, but Matthew 7:21-23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:21-23 declares plainly that even this is compatible with a dead faith.

Like the apostates of Hebrews 6," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6, he tasted of spiritual powers, but he was deprived of these for his sins. He could easily pass over disobedience to God’s commands (e.g., 1 Samuel 14:32)," TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 14:32), but when, in the same chapter, the victor Jonathan innocently disobeyed his trivial prohibition, he would have slain him on the spot, had he had his way. The characteristic fruits he bore were envy, jealousy and a murderous spirit to all who opposed him. He had the whole house of Aaron mercilessly and unrighteously butchered in one day, though one of them did escape. He attempted David’s innocent life again and again. He deliberately broke God’s law in consulting the witch of Endor, and he died by his own hand, without any sign of repentance. It is a sad record. The fact that Samuel’s spirit said, “To-morrow thou and thy Sons shall be with me,” is not out of harmony with the belief that till our Lord’s resurrection the Paradise of the departed saints formed one compartment of Hades, the intermediate abode of all the dead.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu