Where was our Lord Jesus Christ between His death and resurrection?

CHRIST BETWEEN DEATH AND iESURRECTION
Where was our Lord Jesus Christ between His death and resurrection?

His body, as all four Gospels agree, was in Joseph’s new tomb; His soul, according to Acts 2: 27," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2: 27, 31 (with Psalm 16:10)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16:10), was in Hell (Greek = Hades; Hebrew = Sheol), a place or rather state, the significance of which in the Scriptures is much wider than in our present-day usage of that word.

The Revisers of the KJV, in their preface to the Old Testament, say that it means “the place of departed spirits,” and they warn the reader that although, in such passages as Genesis 37:35," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 37:35, they have left in the text the A.V. “grave,” yet it does not signify “the place of burial.”

Jacob (Genesis 37:35;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 37:35; Genesis 42:38)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 42:38) expected to go there at death; Job (Job 14:13-15)" TARGET="_blank">Job 14:13-15) requested that God would hide him there until the time of resurrection would come; whilst in other passages (such as Psalm 9:17;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 9:17; Job 24:19," TARGET="_blank">Job 24:19, etc.) it is looked on as the portion of the wicked dead. We must therefore conceive of Hell as comprising two distinct regions or conditions, separated according to Luke 16:26" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:26 by an impassable gulf, the one containing the souls of the righteous, and the other the souls of the unrighteous. Probably it is the latter which is spoken of as “the lowest hell” in Deuteronomy 32:22" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 32:22 and Psa. 86:13; and doubtless it is the former which is called “Paradise” by our Lord in Luke 23. 43," TARGET="_blank">Luke 23. 43, when He said to the repentant and believing thief, “To-day, thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.” Luke 23" TARGET="_blank">Luke 23:
This last statement, taken with Acts 2:27," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:27,31 shows that the Scriptural reply to our question, so far as the soul of the Lord Jesus is concerned, is that between death and resurrection He was in the region of Hell called Paradise, in which were also the souls of all saints who had died previously.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Where is the fine line between submission and personal identity?

Where is the fine line between submission and personal identity?

Scriptural teaching does not present contradictions. God intends a woman to submit to her husband (Ephesians 5:22)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:22). God intends each believer to fully develop emotionally, socially, and mentally; He has ordained ultimate likeness to Christ for each one (Romans 8:29)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:29).

A husband whose view of his wifes submission includes squelching her personhood needs to submit his thinking to the Word of God. His headship gives him the responsibility of lovingly nurturing her toward full development of all that will give her honor at the Judgment Seat of Christ. She is a believer who has equal standing with him in Christ (Galatians 3:28)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:28).

Her submission to the leadership God entrusted to Him will not limit her functioning in life, if she were suddenly widowed.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does an elder "assume" the position of leader or is he appointed?

Should the oversight meeting be open to all elder brethren of consistent walk in life, or only to a few, who “assume” the care and rule of the meeting?

I think one qualified by God for such a work would be very slow to “assume” anything;

1 Timothy 3:1-7;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1: 6-9;" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1: 6-9; and 1 Peter 5:1-5" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:1-5 give us the qualifications of an overseeing elder: first, he must” desire” it (or “stretch forward” to it, as the original expresses). But that is not enough; he may even be “consistent in walk and life,” and yet fail to manifest the necessary qualification for eldership. Does he rule his home well for instance? or is it a matter of common knowledge, that he is ruled in the home? An overseer of this type is a great hindrance, for sometimes it is the power in the home that seeks to rule the church by his means.

Has he a “good report of them that are without”? Does he “hold fast the faithful Word”? Has he a pastor’s heart, to feed the flock of God?

I think one qualified by God for such a work would be very slow to “assume” anything; he would be apt to do the work, show fitness for it, and have a heart for the Lord’s people, but it would not be for him to push himself into a prominent position; rather his fellowship would be sought. Elders caring for the saints should be on the look out for brethren who are manifesting any spiritual activities, and seek to encourage such, remember that age comes on apace, and that soon perhaps their work will need other hands to take it up.

W.H.

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

Is it possible for a person to get a fresh revelation from the Lord today?

Is it possible for a person to get a fresh revelation from the Lord today?

We need fresh illumination of what has already been written. The Spirit of God illuminates a submissive believer through the completed Word of God (1Co. 2:13)." TARGET="_blank">1Co. 2:13). However, both the gift of prophecy and inspired revelations ended with the death of the apostle John (see above).

Joel’s prophecy (2:28-31) indicates that the prophetic gift will again function after the Rapture and before the Lord’s return to earth. Daniel 12:4" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 12:4 refers to this unsealing of knowledge as individuals search the Scriptures. These tribulation prophets, the same as all the New Testament prophets, will not reveal new truth as Old Testaments prophets did but will have authority to interpret and apply existing Scriptures to their present circumstances.

God has been fully revealed in His Son, the living Word, and in His Scriptures, the written Word. The two are inseparable.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did the newly-anointed Solomon ride on a mule, not a donkey or a mare?

Why did the newly-anointed Solomon ride on a mule, not a donkey or a mare?

First, a definite answer. Solomon rode on a mule (1Ki 1:38)" TARGET="_blank">1Ki 1:38) because his father David told Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah to "cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule" (v 33). This is the word for a "she-mule" (BDB, TWOT). Its three Old Testament uses are all in this passage (see v 44), referring to one mule, David’s. Solomon’s riding on David’s mule in company with David’s advisors gave a clear message: he was the successor David had chosen. Years later in secular history, female mules became preferable for riding and males for bearing burdens. That may have been a factor in David’s having this special mule.

Second, an observation. David’s sons all rode on (male) mules (2Sa 13:29)" TARGET="_blank">2Sa 13:29) and Absalom rode a mule at the end of his life (2Sa 18:9)." TARGET="_blank">2Sa 18:9). Since a mule is crossbred between a mare and a male donkey, and since crossbreeding was prohibited in Israel (Lev 19:19)," TARGET="_blank">Lev 19:19), mules were likely imported (TWOT), and were thus more valued. They (along with horses, silver, and gold, etc.) symbolized the wealth that other kings brought to Solomon annually (1Ki 10:25)." TARGET="_blank">1Ki 10:25).

Third, a suggestion. The greatest reason for David’s choice of a mule rather than a horse may have been God’s prohibition for kings (Deu 17:16)" TARGET="_blank">Deu 17:16): they were not to multiply horses to themselves. David was careful in this. Solomon, to his own destruction, was not (1Ki 10:26, 28)." TARGET="_blank">1Ki 10:26, 28).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Bride mentioned in the Psalm Israel or the Church?

What is the application of Psalm 45" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45? Is the Bride mentioned in the Psalm Israel or the Church? How are we to understand the expressions, “unto the king” and “unto thee” in v. 14?

In order to fully understand Psalm 45," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45, it will have to be accepted that its principal application, so far as the Bride is concerned, is not to the Church but to Israel. The expressions, “King’s daughters,” “the daughter of Tyne,” and “the rich among the people,” etc., are more easily explained when we think of Israel in her future exaltation above the other nations, and acknowledged as Bride by the Lord, in keeping with His promises of Isaiah 54:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 54:5; Isaiah 62:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 62:5; Hosea 2:19, 20," TARGET="_blank">Hosea 2:19, 20, etc., than when we think of the Church. Yet there are, no doubt, one or two expressions, such as, “Forget also thine own people” and “raiment of needlework” (as compared with Revelation 1:8," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 1:8, R.V.), which appear to suit the Church better, although they can perhaps be understood of Israel also.

Of course, some take it for granted that if the Church is the Bride, Israel cannot be; and if Israel is the Bride, the Church cannot be; but this is to lose sight of the fact that the term is figurative, and there is no reason why the figure should not be used of Israel in the Old Testament and of the Church in the New Testament. This is the case with other figures, e.g., Israel is the Vine of the Old Testament (Psalm 80:8," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 80:8, etc.), while the Church in union with Christ is the Vine in the New Testament; Israel is the House in the Old Testament, while the Church is the House in the New Testament (Numbers 12:7;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3:6)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:6). Even the term, “Body,” which we usually look upon as the exclusive property of the Church, had been used of Israel in Isaiah 26:19" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 26:19 (where the italics should be omitted).
Moreover, it may be that these early pictures, like the early prophecies of the Messiah’s coming, in which events separated (as we now know) by many years, are joined together as if one—are so worded by the Holy Ghost as to include applications both to Israel and the Church, some details being more suited to the one application, and some to the other. This would be helpful in studying the Song of Songs, of which Psa. seems to be the germ.

I consider this to be a better way of looking at the matter, than to accept the view suggested in Newberry’s Bible, where he distinguishes two women, the “Queen” (Israel), to whom he applies vv. 9-12, and the “King’s daughter” (the Church) to whom he applies vv. 13-15. I could agree that the Israel aspect of the picture is prominent in the former verses, and the Church aspect in the latter; but I cannot see two separate Brides in the Psalm definitely distinguished from one another.
With regard to v. i, I think that the “unto the King” at the begin- fling of the verse, and the “unto thee” at the end of it, refer to the same person. It is only an example of what is very common in the Psalms, in Isaiah 53," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53, and elsewhere, that is, an abrupt change from speaking about the Lord, to speaking to Him. And this speaking to Him is continued into verse i6, which, as well as verse 17, is addressed to the King, not to the Bride, although in our A.V. it looks as if it were.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Hobab in Numbers 10:29 the same person as in Judges 4:11?

Is Hobab in Numbers 10:29" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 10:29 the same person as in Judges 4:11" TARGET="_blank">Judges 4:11?

Two problems underlie this question: both Raguel and Hobab are called Moses’ father-in-law; one is a Midianite, the other a Kenite. Reuel (Exodus 2:18)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 2:18) is the same word as Raguel (Numbers 10:29)" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 10:29) the Midianite, which makes it clear that he was Moses’ father-in-law. Jethro (Exodus 18:1, 27)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 18:1, 27) is another of his names. In Numbers 10:29," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 10:29, Raguel is Hobob’s father, but Hobab is also called Moses’ father-in-law in Judges 4:11." TARGET="_blank">Judges 4:11. The word translated "father-in-law" in both these cases is also translated "son-in-law" (1 Samuel 18:21," TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 18:21, etc.) and "mother-in-law" (Deuteronomy 27:23)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 27:23). It signifies anyone related by marriage. In Judges 4:11," TARGET="_blank">Judges 4:11, the relationship is brother-in-law. Moses’ father-in-law is both a Kenite (Judges 1:16)" TARGET="_blank">Judges 1:16) and a Midianite (Numbers 10:29)," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 10:29), so his son Hobab is the same man in these 2 passages.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How does the Holy Spirit lead a meeting of the church?

What does the Bible teach about being "led by the Spirit" in an assembly gathering?

Spirit's guiding the disciples into all truth (i.e. The Word of God). In Romans 8:14," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:14, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God," relates to what is characteristic of all true believers. Being led by the Spirit instead of the flesh relates to the character of our lives, not a specific activity.

In Galatians 5:18," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:18, "If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" corresponds to the earlier statement "walk in the Spirit." it involves dependence on the Spirit, rather than the law, for fruitfulness in a believer's life.

Thus the three occasions relate to the believer's entire life and not to a specific gathering of the saints. To the degree to which these are predominant in a believer's life, he will be intelligent as to the Spirit's purpose when the saints are gathered together and will be able to contribute to the glory of God.

A Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why should disciples pray for the kingdom to come?

“THY KINGDOM COME”

Why did our Lord teach His disciples to pray “Thy Kingdom come” (Matthew 6:10)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 6:10), yet later say to Pilate in John 18:36, “My Kingdom is not of this world”?

How can I reconcile these statements?

It may be said on the face of it that, if we take the expression, “Thy Kingdom come,” by itself, there is nothing to affirm that the Kingdom referred to is of this world. The expression is often used to-day of what would be termed “God’s cause”—”not meat or drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” When we speak of the Kingdom of God coming, why, it may be asked, should we not be referring to the spiritual Kingdom? However, I am not advocating this use of the term, as we ought to take the words in their context. Such a question as this shews how important it is “rightly to divide the word of truth,” and to recognise the dispensational change, which occurred even in the brief space of our Lord’s ministry.

The kingdom that John, and subsequently our Lord and His apostles, proclaimed, was the Kingdom for which the disciples were taught to pray. This Kingdom, as we have shewn more than once lately, was the fifth Kingdom foretold by the prophet Daniel (chap. 2. ). Babylon, Medo-Persja and Greece had lost their power, and for nearly a century Jerusalem had been subject to Rome. The Lord Jesus was born King of the Jews. Born of the seed of David according to the flesh, He was the rightful heir to the Throne. He offered Himself as such. His miraculous works were His credentials, but these were in Matthew 9" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 9 and 12 imputed by His foes to Satan, and His rejection on the day of His entry into Jerusalem became a foregone conclusion.

This in no way set on one side the necessity of atonement, but that is kept in the back-ground till Matthew 16:21" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:21: “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples how that He must suffer and be killed and be raised again the third day.” The Lord could not reign over an unrepentant people, and only, if repentant, on the ground of atonement. The setting up of the Messianic earthly kingdom was then postponed, so that the Lord’s words to Pilate fit into their place: His Kingdom had then for the time being lost its earthly character. When once more He claims the Kingdom, it will be as the Son of Man, coming in glory, and then it will be established by force. It will be said in that day, “The kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.” The Millennial Kingdom will be the vestibule of the “Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu