Why does only Matthew mention people raised from the dead when Jesus died?

Why is this fuller account only in Matthew?

Matthew 27:50-53" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:50-53

The events at the cross on that day were not typical acts; rather, they fulfilled the types concerning the Lord’s death. The rending of the veil was not a typical act in an earthly sanctuary which showed that the death of Christ gave access to God in the heavenly sanctuary. The rent veil showed that the death of Christ ended the typical sacrifices of the Old Covenant. God was finished with those types; they were fulfilled in the once-for-all offering of the body of Christ (Hebrews 10:10)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:10). We do not enter the heavenly sanctuary through a rent veil nor through the "rent body of Christ." We enter through the veil, that is to say His flesh (v 20). It is a living way (v 19), by means of a living Christ.

Matthew writes for the Jews, Mark for Roman proselytes (like Cornelius), and Luke for Gentiles. The Gentiles needed to know that the Jewish system of sacrifices had ended. Instead of being excluded from the value of the offerings, they have an equal claim on divine blessings because of the cross. Mark and Luke therefore include the rending of the veil.

On the other hand, the Jews needed confirmation that their sacrificial system had ended. That may be the reason that Matthew tells about the darkness (Matthew 27:45)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:45) and the earthquake (v 51). When the sacrificial system was initiated, it was with a thick cloud (Exodus 19:16)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 19:16) and a quaking mountain (v 18). The God Who spoke then, spoke now with the same "presence" and power. He ended that sacrificial system. The second confirmation ("in the mouth of two of three witnesses . . .") was the appearance in Jerusalem of saints returned to life. The Law came with the threat of death (Exodus 19:12, 21)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 19:12, 21) at Sinai. The end of the legal system of sacrifices came at Jerusalem through the life-giving "word of the cross" (1 Corinthians 1:18," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:18, ESV).

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What do angels look like? Do angels have wings?

The word “Angel” means “messenger” meaning that their job is the identity. Angels take on many forms to accomplish their specific mission.

Hebrews 1:14" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:14 tells us that they are spirit beings, but Hebrews 13:2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:2 says that some have entertained angels unaware of their guests’ true identity. That leads us to believe that angels appear as normal human beings. Abraham met with two men for a meal in Genesis 18:1-19" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 18:1-19 who were actually angels.

However, at other times angels appeared in radiant glory and said “do not be afraid” like the case of Joseph in Matthew 1:20." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:20. Zacharias was struck dimb in Luke 1:12." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:12. The shepherds were afraid of the angels who came from heaven to announce the birth of Christ in Luke 2:9." TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:9.

In Isaiah 6:1-10," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 6:1-10, the Lord is seen in His full glory in the temple. Seriphim fly around the throne using two wings to fly, two wings to cover their feet and two wings to cover their faces.

There is a variety of appearances for angels. They have the ability to change their appearance. Even Satan himself has the capability to appear as an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 11:14.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God allow divorce?

DIVORCE
Is it clear from Scripture, as some affirm, that divorced persons can under no circumstances be remarried, till the death of one partner?

This is a question that is often being raised in these days, in which the sacredness of the marriage tie has fallen so low in the eyes of an ungodly world, that divorce is treated as a light thing of no account. We may be sure that God’s thoughts on the subject have not changed since He wrote by the prophet Malachi, “The Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away,” as He terms divorce or “dealing treacherously,” (Malachi 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 2:16). In reply to the Pharisees, our Lord explains that, if Moses suffered (a man) to write a bill of divorcement and put his wife away, it was a permission “for the hardness of their heart,” but not at all according to the original purpose of God, who made man and wife to be one and remain one, as long as life lasted. He concluded with the clear and determinate words: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:4-9)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:4-9).

Are there, then, no circumstances in which God Himself puts asunder what he has joined together? I believe there is one which our Lord points out clearly in Matthew 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:32, and again in Matthew 19:9," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:9, in both of which verses, while emphasising the sacredness of the marriage tie, and the sin of divorce, He does make an exception—”saving for the cause of fornication,” and “except it be for fornication.” When that cause arises and is clearly proved, divorce should take place, and when this is so, it is not man putting asunder what God hath joined, but God himself. If so, then the parties are henceforth as truly no longer married, as though they had never been united, or as though one was dead. The question of the remarriage of the guilty party is not under discussion. We have nothing to do with it, for one guilty in so gross a manner clearly must cease from the fellowship of the saints, and be put away into the outside place; but as for the offended party, I believe he or she is free before God to remarry, though only in the Lord.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do women violate the teaching of a woman

Do women violate the teaching of a woman’s silence when they sing in the assembly?

When Paul enjoins the sisters to be silent in the assembly (1Co 14:34)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:34), he supports this from the Law. "Under obedience" denotes submission or subjection to the role God has ordained. The Lord Jesus is the introduction to this in the New Testament, being subject to His parents (Luk 2:41, 51)." TARGET="_blank">Luk 2:41, 51). The ordaining of differing roles for women and men goes back to Genesis 1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1 and 2, which is part of the Law, a literary division of the Old Testament (compare Luke 16:16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:16 with 24:44). As in First Timothy (2:11-15), Paul teaches that the silence of the sisters is a leadership issue. Because of male headship, sisters do not lead in the use of gifts (1Co 14:4, 5)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:4, 5), prayer (v 15), worship (v 16), or teaching (v 3; 1Ti 2:12)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 2:12). In these four activities an individual is the visible leader in the activity.

In singing (1Co 14:15)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:15), although one person leads (therefore a male) in starting the singing, the congregation joins together. It is not a leadership issue, therefore the women sing. The same principle applies to saying "Amen" after a brother’s prayers.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why do Christians drink wine at the Lord's Supper but at no other time?

Am I right in refusing to take the cup at the Lord’s Table because it is not “non-alcoholic”?

That the wine used by the Lord at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was the ordinary wine of the country, nothing but special pleading can deny. The vintage was then long past, so that any idea of fresh grape juice and water is ruled out. At Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11: ), the erroneous idea had crept in that the Lord’s Supper was to be a meal, and each brought his or her provisions, and “one was hungry and another drunken”! How does the apostle meet this scandal? Not by advocating the use of some substitute for the ordinary wine used, but by showing that it was not a meal, but a memorial act, for which a morsel of bread or a sup of wine sufficed. I am not advocating the habitual use of wine as a beverage; on the contrary, but for anyone to refuse to partake of the cup, which the Lord Himself instituted, because it contains wine, which some have abused, seems like setting up himself to be wiser than God, and to incur a serious responsibility.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should a young person seek the counsel of parents and elders about dating?

Should a young person seek the counsel of parents and elders about dating?

In cultures where elders or parents do not arrange a couple’s marriage this is important. The influence of a society that discounts the permanence of marriage will test the strength of a Christian marriage. Finding the right partner is a crucial choice and must be made carefully, yet marriage is a life-long commitment of two who generally have no experience in making such a momentous choice.

How wonderful that Christians have a wise heavenly Father to guide them by means of prayer and His Word! It is never too early in Christian life for a believer to submissively ask the Lord if and whom he should marry (1Pe 5:7)." TARGET="_blank">1Pe 5:7). In addition, wise Solomon tells us twice that "In the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Pro 11:14; 24:6)." TARGET="_blank">Pro 11:14; 24:6). Parents and elders ought to be people a young person respects for their wisdom and experience. Friends who are both spiritual and objective are also good candidates for inclusion in the "multitude of counselors." The brother and the sister in Christ who begin to keep company are each responsible before the Lord to determine His will for them in this matter (Rom 14:12)." TARGET="_blank">Rom 14:12). They cannot make their choice merely on either the advice of respected counselors or the conviction of their "dating partner" that their relationship is the Lord’s will. The input of others, however, should be weighed carefully, prayerfully, and as objectively as possible. The choice to date is not an irreversible choice, but believers should not make that choice lightly. To be kind and fair to each other, they should choose to spend time together only if each one would consider the other to be a reasonable candidate for marriage. The insights of trusted counselors can be helpful in assessing the prospective partner’s spirituality, personality, capabilities, habits, reliability, family background, and overall compatibility.

Years before dating is an issue, parents and elders can cultivate a relationship with these believers that will foster trust and enable effective and helpful communication in this important area. Before their children are thinking about dating, parents can promote family discussions that will help their children recognize important features they should weigh when thinking of a relationship with prospective marriage partners.

D. Oliver

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

Is the offending brother in Matthew 18 execommunited from the church?

Is the discipline exercised on a brother in Matthew 18:17" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17 equivalent to that exercised in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11-13?

Let us see what these passages say. In 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 the sinning one is to be “put away from among yourselves,” and the saints are not to have fellowship with him in any respect whatsoever. In Matthew 18:17," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17, when the offender has refused to “hear the church,” it is said, “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Our question therefore appears to mean, “Is this man also put away from the assembly as is the former?” and if so, the answer can only be that he is. For how could I be said to treat another “as an heathen man and a publican,” if he is still breaking bread with myself and others every Lord’s Day? And if the church has not put the man away at v. 17, why should it be said in the following verse, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”?

But it may be asked, why is the expression, “Let him be unto THEE,” and not rather “unto YOU” or “unto THE CHURCH”? I suggest that it is because the passage in Matt. i8 is not dealing directly with church procedure at all, but with the attitude of an individual towards one who has sinned against him. The assembly is only introduced incidentally as having to take action in certain circumstances which are mentioned. All the way through from v. an individual is being addressed, and it is not to be wondered at that the same should be the case in v. 17. Yet at the same time, since the matter has now reached a stage where the offender has refused to hear the church, each member of it by that refusal has been practically put into the same position with regard to him as the one first of all concerned, and must act toward him in the same manner.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What constitutes an assembly gathering in which sisters wear a head covering?

What constitutes an assembly gathering in which sisters wear a head covering?

Verses 2 through 16 of 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11 contain Paul’s teaching about women’s head coverings. The context before this teaching (10:14-11:1) shows how their actions at the Breaking of Bread (sharing in the cup and the bread) must affect their behavior outside the assembly. The context after this teaching shows how their actions at the Breaking of Bread must affect their relationships with one another. The context is therefore "congregational teaching." Further, the introduction to the subjects of head coverings and the breaking of bread are parallel: "Now I praise you . . ." (v. 2) and "Now . . . I praise you not" (v. 17). He thus joins the two subjects. What he introduces in verse 17 clearly relates to "when ye come together in the church" (v. 18), or literally, "in church." He is dealing with "church gatherings" in these two subjects he has thus linked.

Therefore, sisters cover their heads in any gathering in which they are "in church," which does not mean in the building where they meet. This is when they gather as a church. The New Testament gives seven gatherings of the church: meetings for teaching, the breaking of bread, the prayer meeting (Acts 2:42)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42), discipline meetings (1Co 5:4)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 5:4), a report meeting (Acts 14:27)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:27), a gospel meeting (1Th 1:8;" TARGET="_blank">1Th 1:8; the principle in 1Co 14:22)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:22), and an elders’ meeting (Acts 20:17)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17). This last meeting is the only "non-public" meeting and includes only part of the assembly. The teaching of the woman’s head covering applies to each of these public assembly meetings. At any other gatherings, covering her head is at the discretion of the sister.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How does our humanity differ from the Lord

How does our humanity differ from the Lord’s?

Ours is fallen humanity (Romans 5:12, 14, 19)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:12, 14, 19), while His is holy humanity. Three words carefully and precisely define the Lord’s humanity: form; likeness; fashion (Phil 2:7, 8)." TARGET="_blank">Phil 2:7, 8). He took the form of a servant when He assumed a human body (Hebrews 10:5)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:5), expressive of a new essence He possessed. In the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:3), He resembled our humanity in every observable way. Because He was in fashion as a man, nothing about His conduct or mode of life contradicted His being truly human.

In important ways, though, His humanity differs from ours mentally, morally, and materially. In contrast to His omni- science, our understanding is darkened (Ephesians 4:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:18). Unlike His holiness, fallen human- ity prefers sin (Isaiah 53:6;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:6; Romans 7:18, 23)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:18, 23). Different from our bodies, His body was not under the condemnation of death because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:16-18)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:16-18). Paul deals with the material and moral implications of our fallen humanity in Romans 5-8." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5-8. Our physical flesh, linked with Adam is subject to death (7:24) and is presently insepar able from the moral principle within, the flesh, which cannot please God (8:8). The Lord was not subject to death (John 10:18)," TARGET="_blank">John 10:18), nor was His body dying. He grew with age (Luke 2:52)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:52), but was not subject to the processes of dying that begin to function in our bodies at conception. Attempting to explain that scientifically is impossible; its cause is supernatural (Luke 1:35)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:35). Primarily, the physical substance of our Lord differed from ours because His essential manhood was totally without sin. That moral difference entails His freedom from the condemnation of death that blights all else in creation.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu