Is there a difference between being gathered to His name and being gathered to Him?

Is there a difference between being gathered to His name and being gathered to Him?

Strictly speaking, the New Testament doesn’t speak of "being gathered to Him." The Hebrew believers however were to "go forth" to the Lord, bearing His reproach (Hebrews 13:13," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:13, JND). These believers were to identify themselves with Christ because the despised, yet exalted Jesus of this epistle drew them.

"Being gathered together unto My name" (Matthew 18:20," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20, JND) is passive, emphasizing that the "two or three" present did not per se gather themselves to His name. Because the Spirit works to glorify Christ (John 16:14)," TARGET="_blank">John 16:14), the Spirit is likely the One Who gathers believers to His name. What is the Spirit’s purpose in gathering believers to that name? The Lord’s name, like Hebrew names, reveals His character; it testifies about Him. God said regarding Solomon’s temple, "My name shall be there" (1 Kings 8:29)." TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 8:29). The greatness of the temple that bore God’s name testified to the greatness of God. Thus, at present the Spirit gathers believers to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ because God has established a testimony in a locality; the church of God is to express the character and glory of Him Whose name it bears.

Love to Christ causes us to be identified with Him ("gathered to Him") in assembly fellowship; the Spirit gathers us to His name, establishing and maintaining a testimony regarding the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does an elder have a more exalted position in the assembly than others?

Does an elder have a more exalted position in the assembly than others?

The Bible teaches that a man publicly sharing in oversight is "exalted" in that he has greater responsibility and accountability, but he serves "at the feet" of the believers in lowliness of mind.

The Authorized Version is misleading in translating the verse, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). Rather than "over the which," more accurate translations of this passage read "in which" (ESV) or "among which" (YLT). Although fellow-believers are to submit to (Hebrews 13:17)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17), know and esteem highly (1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13), and honor (1 Timothy 5:17)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17) elders, those elders are in, not over, the flock. Their position is not above other believers.

When an assembly recognizes a man whom the Lord has raised up to be an elder, this does not change his heart’s concern for believers or his ability to care for them by means of God’s Word. It does however give him the added responsibility of meeting with the elders when they gather (Acts 20:17, 18)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17, 18). He has publicly joined others and shares with them an accountability for the spiritual health of each sheep (Heb 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:17).

The Lord gave a spiritual lesson by literally washing His disciples’ feet (John 13:7, 12)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:7, 12). He was exemplifying loving care for others in removing all that hinders fellowship with Him ("no part with Me," v 8). By girding Himself with a towel and stooping at His disciples’ feet, He was the model of servant-care (vv 5, 6). Thus, those who accept the responsibility of lovingly caring for the spiritual condition of fellow-believers are lowly servants of the Master. He taught that those who lead His people are ministering servants (diakonos) and bondservants (doulos) (Matthew 20:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 20:26, 27).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should the bread be unleavened and the wine unfermented?

Should the bread be unleavened and the wine unfermented?

The Lord taught (John 4:19-24)" TARGET="_blank">John 4:19-24) that true worship is spiritual. Tangible types were for a past age (see Hebrews 9:9; 10:1)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:9; 10:1). Thus, although they have spiritual significance, we should not attach typical significance to the loaf and the cup. The loaf both reminds us of our Lord's body given for us at the cross (1 Corinthians 11:24)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:24) and also represents the unity of the assembly in which each believer partakes of that one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:17)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:17). The cup reminds us of the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:25)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:25) and represents the basis of our fellowship with God (I Corinthians 10:16, 21)." TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 10:16, 21).

The bread used at the institution of the Lord's Supper was unleavened bread, but Acts 2:46," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46, 20:11 and (indisputably) 27:35 link breaking bread with the general eating of food. Therefore, we use common bread. The New Testament words for unleavened bread (azumos) and common bread (artos) are different. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke use azumos in their passages giving the institution of the Lord's Supper they use anos when referring to the bread of which the Lord said, "This is My body."

Since the grape harvest was in the Fall (the seventh month) and the Passover at which the Lord's Supper was instituted was in the Spring (the first month) and since there would have been no refrigeration to inhibit the process of fermentation, it is likely that the wine at the last Passover was fermented. In addition, the Lord made water wine (John 4:46)." TARGET="_blank">John 4:46). Timothy was told to drink wine (I Timothy 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">I Timothy 5:23). The word in both those cases is the same word used for wine that causes drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:18).

We cannot insist that the loaf be unleavened bread or the cup unfermented wine.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the full name of Jesus? Is it Lord Jesus Christ or just Jesus?

Is the name Jesus enough to refer to Christ or does he have a fuller title like "Lord Jesus Christ, Emmanuel, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Father of Eternity"? These, and many more titles, are not sufficient to capture the fullness of him who is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Colossians 1:15." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:15.

Last names, or surnames, were not used in Jesus' time. It wasn't common in Europe for people to use them until the middle ages.

Surnames were initially based on who the father was (Mike Thomson), the occupation that one had (Mike Miller), or what town a person lived in (Mike Berlin).

Jesus might have been named Jesus bar Joseph, Jesus Carpenter, Jesus Nazareth if they used surnames. Yeshua bar Yosef (Aramaic name form) of Nazareth (Jesus son of Joseph of Nazareth).

A common way to refer to Christ is to use the three, short, but descriptive titles "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Jesus Christ". There is no one single formula used in the Bible. The appropriate name is used in all situations to emphasize something about Him. Sometimes, the name Jesus is used to emphasize his humble birth and earthly life (Acts 9:27;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 9:27; Acts 19:15;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:15; Acts 21:13;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 21:13; Acts 26:9)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 26:9).

Jesus is his earthly name, used to emphasize that he is the Savior (Matthew 1:21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:21). The Bible refers to him as simply Jesus in many of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Certainly they show no respect to him for using his earthly name. He is referred to more fully in the epistles as Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The name of Christ is "one who is anointed" by God which has the idea of being chosen or the Promised One. John 4:25-29" TARGET="_blank">John 4:25-29

John 4:25-29" TARGET="_blank">John 4:25-29
(25) The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things." (26) Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he." (27) Just then his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, "What do you seek?" or, "Why are you talking with her?" (28) So the woman left her water jar and went away into town and said to the people, (29) "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?"

He is Lord, in the full sense in that he is God. Acts 2:36" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:36

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

Shad David Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Bible phrase "one shall be taken and the other left" refer to the rapture?

“ONE SHALL BE TAKEN”
What is the meaning of Matthew 24:40" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:40?

When our Lord uttered His great prophetic discourse as recorded in Mark 13," TARGET="_blank">Mark 13, Luke 21" TARGET="_blank">Luke 21 and here in Matthew 24," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24, He was addressing the disciples, not as members of the church, which did not then exist, but as representing the godly remnant of Israel, “the people made ready prepared for the Lord” by John the Baptist. The disciples had not ceased to be Jews by receiving Christ; that would have been a strange result of receiving the National Messiah. They were better Jews than ever, in fact, the only true Jews. Now, the first coming of Messiah, in humiliation and the second in glory—”the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow”—formed the staple theme of the Old Testament prophets (see Isaiah 10;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10; Isaiah 11;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 11; Isaiah 25" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 25 and Isaiah 25:9;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 25:9; Daniel 7:9-14;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 7:9-14; Zechariah 14:1-8)." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 14:1-8). In all these places, except Isaiah 53," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53, it is the coming in power and great glory of the Son of Man to the earth in connection with the deliverance of Israel that is in view, not His coming to take them away from this scene, but to set up His Kingdom for their blessing under His own beneficent sway. In 1 Thessalonians 4" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4 quite another character of deliverance is in view—a preliminary stage of the Second Coming—not revealed in the Old Testament, but a mystery displayed in the New, which provides for a deliverance of a large number of saints by resurrection, transformation and translation from this scene, in view of the judgment and tribulation about to occur on the earth. These will be “caught up to meet the Lord in the air” (see 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). To anyone who will carefully read the synoptic chapters referred to above, with the Old Testament passages quoted there and also i Thess, 4, there ought not to be much difficulty in settling to which stage of His Second Coming our Lord was referring in His prophetic discourse. There it is the “Son of Man” (6 times repeated) Who is coming, as in Daniel; it will be a coming in an evil day, as in the days of Noah, see Isaiah 10" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10 and 11; in connection with Israel, as in Zechariah 14." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 14. The answers to the three questions asked seem very clear. The two will be in the field at the coming of the Son of Man in glory; one shall be taken away from this world in judgment, the other left in this scene for Millennial blessing.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How old should I be to get married?

Is there biblical guidance on a minimum age for marriage?

Despite society’s whims, marriage is for life (Romans 7:2)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:2). Such a commitment, upholding such a high ideal (Ephesians 5:31, 32)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31, 32), demands maturity. The unselfishness that marriage requires (1 Corinthians 13:5)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 13:5) comes with maturity. When a couple marries too young, a crisis often comes later; one of the partners feels he or she would have chosen differently if given more experience.

An inordinate haste to be married may indicate personal problems that will produce lethal weaknesses in a marriage. This may include escaping an unpleasant family situation, filling an inordinate need for approval from the opposite gender, seeking financial independence, managing lust, fearing singleness, having unrealistic expectations for marriage, rebelling against parents, reacting to undisclosed abuse, or evading the consequences of immoral behavior.

Willingness to listen and evaluate the differing viewpoints of friends indicates maturity (Proverbs 12:15)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 12:15). A person who stubbornly insists he is sufficiently mature to marry, despite the disagreement of trustworthy friends, proves his immaturity. If a couple is willing to be patient, wait on the Lord, and demonstrate the wholesomeness of their relationship, their spirit may silence those who oppose them. Proverbs 3:5" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 3:5 & 6 is good counsel.

Rather than intervening when emotions are inflamed, parents will be more effective by forestalling such a crisis. During children’s early teen years, family discussions regarding choosing wholesome friends and marriage partners are invaluable.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Were there 12 or 13 tribes of Israel?

How could there be ten tribes in revolt in Israel, when the tribe which provided the priests and Levites remained for the worship of the Lord in the Temple, in addition to Judah and Benjamin?

When thinking of this matter of the revolt from Rehoboam, and the division afterwards into two kingdoms, have you not for the moment forgotten that there were actually thirteen tribes in Israel?

Jacob had of course only twelve sons, but the giving of tribeship to Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, brought the number of the Tribes to thirteen. See Genesis 48:5, 22." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 48:5, 22. This is described in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2" TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 5:1-2 as giving the birthright. (i.e. the double portion, as in Deuteronomy 21:17)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 21:17) to the Sons of Joseph. Arid Ezekiel 47:13" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 47:13 shows that the arrangement will persist even in Millennial times.

The expression “The Twelve Tribes,” as used in Exododus 24:4; Matthew 19:28;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:28; James 1:1;" TARGET="_blank">James 1:1; Revelation 21:12;" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 21:12; etc., became a kind of ideal description for them, and that the more readily because of Levi having no possession in the sense that the other tribes had. But when a list of twelve is given, either one tribe is omitted, as Dan in Revelation 7:4-8," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 7:4-8, or Manasseh and Ephraim are joined in one, as in Deuteronomy 27:12-13." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 27:12-13.

This thought of twelve as an ideal number is also the most probable explanation of the statement, “He was seen.. . of the Twelve”, in 1 Corinthians 15:5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:5, since Judas was not present on the occasion referred to.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Abel offer a "sin offering" for his sacrifice?

Should the word “sin” in Genesis 4:7" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4:7 be “sin-offering” as some translators suggest?

The fact is that the same Hebrew word, "hattath”, may be rendered either “sin” or “sin-offering,” according to the context in which it occurs. In the Authorjsed Version it is given, “sin,” about 17 times, and as “sin-offering” about 120 times; while it is also in a few places rendered, “punishment” (for sin). All this is of interest, because it suggests that the sin, its punishment, and the offering which atones for it, are in a sense equivalent in value, since one word serves for all three.

But naturally the above fact makes it diflicult in a few passages to decide which rendering into English is the proper one. In Gen. 4." TARGET="_blank">Gen. 4. 7 the Newberry Bible gives, “sin offering” in its margin; and this rendering well agrees with the verb “lieth” which follows, for this, as the New- berry margin also points out, is a word used of animals “crouching” or lying down. It is the same Hebrew word that occurs in Genesis 49:14 of an ass crouching down under its load, and in Isaiah 17" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 17: 2 of flocks lying down to rest.

Of course, the distinction between the various kinds of offerings was not made known at that early time as it was afterwards in Leviticus. Yet God’s act in clothing Adam and Eve with coats of the skin of some animal was doubtless an object lesson to them of the necessity for blood- shedding, as pointing the way to remission of sins. Probably most of the sacrifices offered in times prior to Leviticus took in more aspects of truth than the one, and might be considered from different points of view.

If the verse be taken in this sense, the meaning would be, “If thou art a well-doer shalt thou not be accepted? but if not, a lamb or other animal is readily available, lying as it were at thy very door, to be made use of in offering for thy sin.”

On the other hand, in Cain’s previous “gift-offering” there was no acknowledgement of sinnership on his part. He had assumed the place of a “well-doer,” without having a right to it.

An interesting point which would follow on this view of the passage is that Cain, instead of shedding the blood of the readily available animal, that it might cry for mercy on his behalf, went out to shed his brother’s blood, which cried for vengeance on him (v. 10).

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was it God

Was it God’s will for Elimelech to move to Moab?

The story of Elimelech's decision is found in Ruth 1" TARGET="_blank">Ruth 1:

The answer to this seems obvious. God placed the tribes of Israel in their assigned area (Joshua 13:6)." TARGET="_blank">Joshua 13:6). His purpose for His people was to possess that land for Him, so its produce would provide offerings for His honor. Elimelech left his God-given heritage. He may have ration-alized his decision because conditions in Bethlehem were not right, as the famine indicated. He may have reasoned that he had to take care of his family’s need for food. Such pragmatic reasoning based on the wrong of others and the justifiable needs of his family did not change his responsibility to produce worship for God according to God’s revealed will.

In addition, God warned Israel of the snares (Deuteronomy 12:30)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 12:30) they would encounter by association with the nations around them. They learned to live with them, become associated with them, and become like them (Judges 3:5, 6)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 3:5, 6). In particular, the Lord made a clear distinction between His people and the Moabites (Deu 23:3)." TARGET="_blank">Deu 23:3). Eli-melech disobeyed the Lord both in leaving Bethlehem and in going to Moab.

To some, however, the answer is not so obvious, because of the good outcome of Elimelech’s action. In God’s grace, He brought Ruth into the royal lineage, thereby raised up David (Ruth 4:17)," TARGET="_blank">Ruth 4:17), and preserved the promised lineage of Christ (Genesis 49:8-10;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 49:8-10; Mat 1:5, 16)." TARGET="_blank">Mat 1:5, 16). But God’s Spirit rejects the argument, "Let us do evil, that good may come" (Romans 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:8). The end does not justify the means. Solomon’s conclusion in his search for wisdom was, "God will bring every deed into judgment . . . whether good or evil" (Ecc 12:14)." TARGET="_blank">Ecc 12:14). We are accountable for the moral quality of our every action; God is responsible for the outcome. God graciously allows "redemptive good" to come from evil, but that doesn’t justify the evil. Judas’ betrayal of the Lord Jesus is a case in point.

David Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the breaking of bread the same as the communion service?

Why do we avoid calling the Sunday meeting when we break bread the Communion Service?

We express our communion (or fellowship) when we remember the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16). Taking the cup demonstrates our fellowship with God (v 21). Taking the bread expresses our fellowship with one another in the assembly (v 17). It is therefore a communion service. As we gather to take these emblems, we obey the Lord’s words, "This do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19). It is therefore a remembrance meeting. We meet to do this each Lord’s Day morning, therefore it is a morning meeting, although believers in Acts likely met in the evening (Acts 20:7)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7). However, none of these designations is used in the New Testament as a name for this gathering of the assembly. The Spirit uses "the breaking of the bread" (literally) in referring to this gathering (2:42). Likewise, the Spirit inspired Paul to use the expression "the Lord’s supper" (1Co 11:20)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 11:20) when he wrote about the Corinthians meeting to remember the Lord. Calling it "The Breaking of Bread" or "The Lord’s Supper" is more consistent with the Biblical designations of this gathering.

In evangelical usage, "The Communion Service" is a common designation of a gathering where believers share in taking the bread and the cup. Attempts to accommodate our terminology to that of evangelical congregations obscure the Scriptural difference between a church of God and other gatherings whose doctrine may be sound but whose pattern does not come from the New Testament. Rather than shrinking from being different, why not highlight the beauty of the Biblical pattern by using Biblical terms?

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu