How should 2 Thessalonians 2:2 be translated?

Which of the two readings of 2 Thessalonians 2:2" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:2 is correct?

The Authorized Version reads, "That ye be not soon shaken in mind,... as that the day of Christ is at hand." Darby's translation reads, "that ye be not soon shaken in mind, . . . as that the day of the Lord is present."

For some Bible students, this involves a very emotional issue. To them, suggesting a change in the King James Version is equivalent to changing the Bible. We must insist, with them, that the Word of God never changes (Psalm 119:89)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 119:89). Nevertheless, the King James Version is a translation from handwritten documents, manuscripts, that are copies (more likely, copies of copies of copies...) of the original writings. Researchers have discovered more ancient copies, for instance a manuscript (C. Beatty's) containing most of the New Testament and dated toward the end of the first century (thus, perhaps copied within 30 years of the original writings) was found in the 1930s. These older manuscripts have some differences from the manuscripts used by the KJV translators. It is worth emphasizing that "not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading" (P. W. Comfort, "The Complete Guide to Bible Versions").

Without attempting in this brief format to answer the objections raised by those who defend the AV readings, I accept the view of reliable scholarship that supports Mr. Darby's translation.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How could Christ be tempted by sin since He is God?

How are we to reconcile the truth that Christ is God and Christ is Man, in one Person, or rightly to estimate what belongs to each?

Again, how could our Lord be tempted in all points, like as we are, sin apart, if, as we believe, sin had no appeal to Him, as it has to us?

It is noticeable that when our Lord affirms that “no one knoweth the Father save the Son,” He at once adds, “and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Why did He not, when affirming as he had just done, that “no one knoweth the Son but the Father” add “and he to whomsoever the Father will reveal Him”? Is it not that there are mysteries in the Union of the two Perfect Natures, Divine and human, in the One Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Father nowhere promises ever fully to reveal? Not only are they too deep for us (we do not even understand our own tripartite being), but it is unnecessary for us thus to analyse His Being. One thing we aught never to forget, our Lord was not a dual personality, that is two Persons, Divine and human, but ONE DIVINE Personality, in equal relation to His two perfect natures. “The Word was God. . . the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:1, 14).

The Modernists, and alas, they have their representatives everywhere to-day, will not brook to be told that there are things their highest powers cannot grasp, and they so attempt to reconcile what has never been out of harmony, and explain what they ought rather to believe.

To some persons a glib bad answer, seems preferable to saying “I do not know.” As we read the Gospels under the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is not like chemists, with our test- tubes and reactives analysing all the mysteries of Christ, or like physiologists with our instruments dissecting His Personality, but as disciples and as worshippers.

The human sympathy of Christ is not a mere theory, which we must make real to ourselves by a certain manipulation of His Person to satisfy the logical deductions of some shallow minds, but a blessed reality, which He makes true in our experience when we embrace Him by faith. The effect of this wrought by the Spirit in our souls, will not be some philosophical demonstration that after all “He is altogether such an one as ourselves—sin apart,” but the adoring cry of Thomas, “My Lord and my God.” The question of the temptation of our Lord is not after all so far beyond our grasp, if we remember that temptation is used in two distinct senses in the New Testament: of allurement—’ ‘Every man is tempted when he is drawn aside of His own lust and enticed” (James 1:14)," TARGET="_blank">James 1:14), and of testing —“He was tempted (or tested) in all points,” according to the similitude, “apart from sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 4:15).

When we read that “God did tempt Abraham” (Genesis 22:1)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:1) it was in this latter sense. He put him to the test. So Christ was tested by Satan in the wilderness, and proved to be the Son of God; but He was never tempted in the sense of being “drawn away of lust and enticed,” for He had none—He was “holy, harmless and undefiled” (Hebrews 7:26)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:26). “He did no sin” (1 Peter 2:22);" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:22); “He knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21); “In Him is no sin” (1 John 3:5)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 3:5).

I am sadly Convinced that the attempts of modernist teachers to emphasise the humanity of our Lord, on the plea of establishing His power of sympathy with us, is for the most part quite unreal; for, taken as a class, they are a self-sufficient, self-satisfied type of man; but rather, unconsciously to themselves it may be, and we trust it is, they “cast Him down from His excellency,” through undermining His Divinity.

W.H.

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

How can we lose the enjoyment of fellowship with God and how can it be restored?

How can we lose the enjoyment of fellowship with God and how can it be restored?

Sin robs a believer of the enjoyment of salvation. Even sins such as dishonesty, harmful anger, momentary lust, or other unbecoming thoughts can bring a cloud over a believers soul. This is not a matter of mood swings or irrational emotions.

Just as the enjoyment of fellowship with God may be lost in a moment, it can be restored as quickly, because confession of sin is not an act of penance. Immediate recognition of sins effects and immediate response in confession ought to be characteristic of a believer. By confessing

this sin to the Lord (1 John 1:9)," TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9), the believer returns to enjoying the Savior and to fruitfulness.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Bible ever limit social contact between believers?

Does the New Testament ever advocate limiting social contact with another believer?

Romans 14:1-15" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:1-15:6 teaches the necessity of preserving unity among believers by receiving one another to eat meals together. If verses 5, 14, 15 in chapter 16 refer to three separate churches in Rome, then social contact among believers also preserves a right relationship among assemblies in an area.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-165" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3:6-165 in notably different. The apostle advocates limiting social contact with certain believers. The believers who were not working, using the Lords coming as their reason, were becoming busy-bodies, adversely affecting the heavier of others. If they would not obey Pauls teaching in this letter (verse 14), the believers were to withdraw from them (Verse 6) and have no company with them (Verse 14). This discipline within the assembly could be called "social discipline."

In addition, the words, "have no company," are the same as in 1 Corinthians 5:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:9 and 11. There in verse 11, "have no company: includes "with such an one, no not to eat." Both 2 Thessalonians 3" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3 and 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5 are assembly actions. Social division in the assembly is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, but social discipline is not a decision by individuals, but by the assembly.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why is Joseph

Why is Joseph’s genealogy given in Matthew's Gospel, instead of that of Mary, seeing that Joseph was not the father of the Lord Jesus?

There are, as is well known, not one but two genealogies of Christ in the Gospels. In Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: His royal descent is traced from Abraham, through David and the kings of Judah, down to Joseph, His legal, though not His actual father. But in Luke 3" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3 His natural descent is traced from Mary’s own father, Heli, through a different branch of the Davidic family up to Adam. The phrase, “Being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” which is parenthetically inserted in Luke 3:23," TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:23, really answers the questions asked above. For since He was supposed, or legally reckoned, to be Joseph’s son, it was necessary that there should be what might be called an official genealogy, through him to David and Abraham, as well as that through His mother, in order that all objections to His claim to be “Son of David” should be silenced. In Matthew’s Gospel Joseph is prominent, and in Luke’s, Mary, not merely in the genealogies, but in the entire narrative, which in each case is as it should be, in view of the Jewish character of the former, and the Gentile character of the latter.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do those who sympathize with a person under discipline hinder that person

Do those who sympathize with a person under discipline hinder that person’s recovery?

When any individual is put away from an assembly, every other believer in the assembly should respond with sorrow (2 Corinthains 2:5), deep searching of heart (how could such a sin exist "among you"? 1 Corinthians 5:2)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:2), and a sincere, prayerful concern for the spiritual recovery of that person (Galatians 6:1)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 6:1), no matter how grievous the sin. A shepherd is energized by divine love and cares for sheep because they belong to the Lord (compare Cain, 1 John 3:12;" TARGET="_blank">1 John 3:12; Genesis 4:9)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4:9). Whether or not sheep are in the assembly, a shepherd heart cares about their spiritual welfare. Those who care about the disciplined believer will urge him to recognize his sin and submit to God and His dealings with him. Those who will give account to God for the well-being of the sheep (Hebrews 13:17)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17) will do whatever is possible to further God’s dealing in an excommunicated believer. While those shepherds act individually, they must do so in fellowship with their fellow-elders. The unity of the oversight is crucial. The unity of the assembly results from a united oversight.

However, those who side with a disciplined believer in opposition to the judgment of the assembly are acting unwisely, to say the least. They contribute to division in the assembly and are working against God. Rather than helping, they hinder the work God purposes in the disciplined believer.

Is it possible that the believer has been judged wrongly? Yes, it is unlikely, but possible. Who will be able to discern this, a carnal or a spiritual believer? If a believer discerns that the assembly has been unjust in its judgment, and as a result he acts in anger, speaks against the overseers, rallies a faction within the assembly, and absents himself from assembly meetings in protest, he is acting carnally. Carnal acts flow from a carnal mind, which is incapable of righteous judgment in spiritual matters. If a believer senses injustice and reacts with burdened prayer, respectfully expresses his concern to the overseers, and avoids any behavior that will divide the assembly, he has chosen the best possible path to help both the disciplined believer and the entire assembly.

The Lord reserves the strongest of language for one "that soweth discord among brethren" (Proverbs 6:19);" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 6:19); that person is an abomination to the Lord (v 16). The welfare of a disciplined believer is inseparable from the welfare of the assembly. Whatever help can be given to him will be consistent with lowliness, meekness, longsuffering, and forbearance, "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:2, 3)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:2, 3).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I balance time for service and for communion?

How can I balance time for service and for communion?

In a busy world and with the multiplicity of needs among believers and unbelievers, time for communion so often suffers. The initial question of Saul, a new convert, was "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22:10)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 22:10). Servants look to their master for direction in their service (Psalm 123:2)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 123:2). Their duty is defined by his word (Luke 17:7-10)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:7-10). So, while service for the Lord may beckon us to respond to a thousand needs, the only service of value is what the Master directs us to do. If we are too busy to commune with Him, we must be doing service He has not directed us to do. As Saul did directly to the Lord, so we must determine our service through prayer. We may see needs that others are not meeting, but that may not be the service the Lord has for us. We ought to pray about that need. Perhaps the Lord will show us that another believer is uniquely suited to meet that need. We can seek the Lord’s help to know how best to encourage that believer to do the work. Perhaps the Lord will do that Himself, use your word of encouragement, or even use you to do that work temporarily with that other believer who will then continue the work on his own. If serving the Lord leads to anxiety, frustration, worry, or spiritual decline, He did not impose that heavy burden, for he said, "My yoke is easy, and My burden is light" (Matthew 11:30)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:30).

What the Lord gives us to do is our priority (John 21:21" TARGET="_blank">John 21:21 with vv 15-22). He desires us to commune with Him as Mary did and to serve as Martha did - but without being anxious and troubled. (Luke 10:38-42)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:38-42). Maintaining that order, communion and then service, is the key.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

As a Christian, what is my definition of success?

As a Christian, what is my definition of success?

This is a broad question and many answers compete evenly as expressions of "Christian success."

Is a Christian successful whose life doesn’t reflect the beauties of the life of our Lord Jesus (Ephesians 4:17-25)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:17-25)? Wouldn’t it be success if the Word of God controlled every aspect of our life (Colossians 3:16)" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:16)? To live in the power of the Spirit of God, to be "full of the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:18), would produce true success. If God has a specific purpose for each believer and has given each one potential capabilities to reach that goal (Psalm 139:16)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 139:16), living successfully would mean fulfilling God’s plan for the life. Daily walking with the Lord would be a consummate success in life (Genesis 5:22)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 5:22). Bringing continued pleasure to our Father’s heart (Hebrews 11:5)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:5) would make life worth living. Effectively serving others (Romans 13:10)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:10) during a lifetime would likewise make life a success. The presence of any one of these in a life would necessitate the presence of all the others.

Were a prospective boss to ask a Christian this question in a job interview, he could simply answer, "Success for me is to express the nobility of good character in every choice I make."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the meaning of "one flesh"?

What is the meaning of "one flesh"?

This was God’s intention at the institution of marriage (Genesis 2:24)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24). It expresses the oneness of a married couple. In this seminal statement, the Lord points out that a man leaves his role of obedience to his parents (although still responsible to honor them, Exo 20:12) to assume headship of a new and distinct relationship. At marriage a new family unit exists that had never existed before. This newly-formed oneness, involves a physical union, the culmination of marriage, but it involves more than that. Four of the five New Testament passages that refer to "one flesh" (Matthew 19:5, 6;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:5, 6; Mark 10:8;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:8; Ephesians 5:31)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31), quote the original statement and are passages that teach about marriage. The fifth (1 Corinthians 6:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:16) is part of Paul’s teaching about fornication (v 18). He states that one who "is joined to an harlot" is "one body." Then he cites the Lord’s original intention (Genesis 2:24)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24) regarding "one flesh." The promiscuous relationship with a harlot is a physical union, but not the physical union God intended in marriage. "One body" does not include the intended intimacy and oneness of a unique relationship within marriage. "One body" is merely an external relationship. "One flesh" is both physical and relational, expressing the inseparable closeness of Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:31, 32)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31, 32). This can never be expressed outside marriage.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu