Stu Thompson

• About this site

Salvation Story of a Drug Addict

• About this site

 The Encourager

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Rosa and her son Jesus

• About this site

Abraham believed God as to his seed, and it was “counted unto him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:6), but when promised the land he asked for a sign. Would he not have had it at once had he believed, without having to wait four hundred years for his descendants to inherit it?

I do not think there was necessarily any unbelief in Abraham’s asking whereby he should know that he should inherit it. God often dealt thus with his servants of old—with Moses, Gideon, Hezekiah, etc., and granted them signs to strengthen their faith. As a matter of fact, Abraham did not ask for a sign. His question brought out the basis on which God was acting, namely, on the ground of covenant. The heifer, the she-goat, and the other sacrificial victims, all spoke of Christ the One true covenant Victim. Verse i8 makes it clear that the terms of this covenant assured the land, not personally to Abraham, but to his seed, and this was, we need not doubt, the original purpose of God. Stephen understood it so, for he emphasises the fact that “God gave Abraham none inheritance in the land, no, not so much as to set his foot on” (Acts 7:5)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:5), nor does He in any way attribute this to Abraham’s unbelief. It would clearly have been premature for a single family to inherit a vast territory, like that indicated in Genesis 15:18-21;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:18-21; nor had God’s time come to expel the owners of the soil, for “the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Does the title "El" apply only to any singular Person of the Trinity, or does it apply to the Trinity as being One in nature and essence?

(See Mr. Newberry’s Study Bible note on the Divine titles).

It seems that Mr. Newberry’s note is correct and instructive as far as it goes. Though El is a singular form (but not of Elohim, which is Eloah), I do not think it necessarily expresses a single Person of the Holy Trinity, though this is true in some cases (e.g. Immanu—El, with us— God). It means a “mighty one,” or simply “might,” and even any deity; but is used often too of the true God. The special emphasis of the word is the Divine Unity, whereas that of Elohim is plurality in Unity.

It is hardly ever used in prose writings without some adjunct or attribute, as Mr. Newberry’s references show.

Almighty God - ElShaddai;

the Everlasting God,—El-’Olam;

a jealous God, El-qanna’, and so on.

El-Elohe-Israel, is a special name of God—”God the God of Israel.”

The word is however much more frequent in poetical books such as the Psalms and Job—and sometimes with the definite article— “The God”; see Psalm 18:32" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 18:32—”The God girdeth me with strength”; Psalm 68:21" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:21—”The God shall wound the head of His enemies”; Job 8:3" TARGET="_blank">Job 8:3— “Doth the God pervert judgment?”—where the thought represented seems to be the True God. There are gods and gods, gods many and lords many, but our God is THE GOD—the only God. Perhaps the true key to the use of the word is that it may mean simply “a god”. The adjunct or attribute shows that the One True God is meant.

W.H.

• About this site

OVERSIGHT
Is it scriptural for overseeing brethren to hold that, and to act as if, they and they alone are responsible to God for the carrying on of the affairs of a local assembly?

Does attendance at a monthly oversight meeting constitute one an overseer?

It is not attendance at an oversight meeting which makes a man an overseer, nor the appointment of anyone, even an apostle, but the call of the Holy Spirit to the work (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). There will also be a desire for the work not an “office” 1 Timothy 3:1" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1 though there will be doubtless a consciousness of insufficiency. In addition, there must be also certain qualities in a man to enable his brethren to recognize his fitness and call.  He must be blameless, patient, not domineering; apt to teach (that is, not necessarily a teacher, but able to instruct in sound doctrine). He must be able to rule well his own house; he must not be a neophyte, that is, a newly converted person; and he must have a good report in the world (see 1 Timothy 3" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1: ). These chapters are an integral part of God’s Word, and it is quite a gratuitous assumption to say that they are in abeyance, because we have no apostles or apostolic delegates. Why should all these directions be left, if not to guide us on this very point?

What is proposed to take the place of an elders’ meeting?—a mere human arrangement without, I believe, one line of Scripture to authorise it—a meeting of the male members of the assembly. Surely it is evident that some of the men in a gathering may correspond very slightly indeed, if at all, with the conditions laid down in the Scriptures. They may be new converts; they may lack the power to keep their own homes in order; they may be lacking in the qualities and grace needed for the work of oversight; they may, perchance, not have a good report in the world. If so, they are as clearly excluded from oversight as the sisters. I was once long ago in a meeting where the leading brother, having come from a circle where the arrangement in question had vogue, insisted on all the males being invited to the “business meeting.” I remember still the hindrance this was to a true oversight meeting. Only two meetings are known to the Word—

(i) That of the “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:6; 20:18)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:6; 20:18), but because we have no elders of apostolic gifts, this principle is in no way affected. What excuse can there be for introducing mere “males,” whom the Scriptures exclude? (a) That of the assembly (Acts 14:27;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:27; Acts 15:4;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:4; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; Acts 21:22)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 21:22). What is known as the “oversight meeting” is a matter of convenient arrangement between brethren who have mutual confidence, but it ought not to be what is called “a closed oligarchy,” nor should it prevent anyone else, who believes himself called to the work of caring for the saints and of giving proof of his ministry, but such would naturally not force fellowship on others,but would wait to be assured of their welcome. Overseeing brethren ought to be on the lookout for Spirit-called helpers.

W.H.

• About this site

Would it be correct to say that the two trees mentioned in Genesis 2:9," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9, viz, the “Tree of Life,” and the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” are only symbols, and not literal trees? Does the latter tree represent the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to-Adam?

Mere statements of opinion, even when said to be shared by “leading theologians,” carry no weight, unless supported by scriptural proof. Personally, I have never beard of any theologian or indeed anyone else who held such views as stated above, although of course, modern unbelief hates the story of the fall of man, and would fain get rid of it at any cost. But if the tree of knowledge is only a symbol, representing “the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to Adam,” (!) (whatever this exactly means), of what is the tree of life a symbol?

The two trees are mentioned first in Genesis 2:9" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9: “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree, that is pleasant to the sight, etc.: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Here the same Hebrew word for tree is used throughout, and in each case the tree is said to have been made to grow out of the ground. Surely they are literal trees all through. Again, in verses and 17 the tree of life is not mentioned apart from the trees whose fruit might be eaten; the only exception being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This would be very strange if it were intended to convey the injunction that they might eat of all the literal trees (including the symbolic tree of life), but that they must not eat of the symbolic tree of knowledge. It is the same in Genesis 3:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3:2, “We may eat,” says Eve, “of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it.” Here we see that the tree of knowledge was like the tree of life, in the most accessible part of the garden, even the midst. How could two abstract symbols be in the midst of the literal garden? Eve clearly understood the tree of knowledge to be a literal tree, and so it is to the end of the chapter— “Hast thou eaten of the tree?” etc. The tree of life certainly was literal too, bearing fruit capable of maintaining the human body in its daily wear and tear—a kind of elixir of life, so much sought after since. I see that Cruden gives an interesting note in his Concordance under “Tree” in this sense: “Tree of life so-called because it was a natural means of preserving man’s life and freeing him from all infirmities, etc., during his abode on earth.” This agrees with the fact that after the fall God deprived his creatures of access to the tree of life, lest their existence should be indefinitely prolonged in a sin-haunted body.

Perhaps the great ages of the early patriarchs resulted from the fact that Adam and Eve had eaten of this life-preserving fruit. What then was the tree of knowledge? We do not know what kind of fruit it bore, except that it was very attractive, but God chose it to be the test tree for their obedience (for every moral creature, angel or man, has had to be tested). Much objection has been raised by unbelief against so much depending on such a simple thing as eating a bit of fruit! But surely the simpler the test, the easier of fulfilment, and the greater the responsibility of failure. If God had chosen to give them only one tree to eat from, and forbidden all the rest, that would have been, of course, perfectly legitimate, but much more difficult for them. Instead God gave man in His love an infinitely easy test, and solemnly warned him of the dreadful consequences of disobedience, but he fell and was alone responsible. How great the contrast of the Second Man! The commandment He received of His Father was to lay down His life. This was a test infinitely difficult of passing, but He came out triumphant: “He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name,” etc. Had Adam passed his easy test, I do not think he would have been put to another, but would for ever have been in blissful harmony with God’s will. I think what we have seen shows that we may safely reject the ideas referred to by our questioner, as unsupported by Scripture, and so contrary to the facts.

W.H.

• About this site

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

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site