Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL in your answer.
Other pages in this section

About this site

When should I confront someone who has done something wrong against me?

Does Matthew 18:15" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15 teach that a believer must seek redress when he is wronged?

Some differences between believers are trivial and require tolerance, not redress. In 1 Corinthians 6:7," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:7, Paul reproved the Corinthians for seeking redress by going to law. He asked them, "Why do ye not rather take wrong?" Taking another Christian before a court is clearly wrong. A matter taken to court cannot be called "trivial." Taking wrong rather than seeking redress is clearly the preferred option.

When should a believer go to another who has trespassed against him to get a matter made right? The word "trespass" in this text is the usual word for "sin," or "miss the mark." Hence, this is not merely a slight or difference of opinion but a matter that must be rectified so the offender may be cleansed from his sin and restored to the Lord.

Matthew 5:24" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:24 gives us the responsibility of the one who offends, "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." His sin makes acceptable worship impossible until the matter is rectified.

J. Slabaugh
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible mean about women learning in silence and submission in 1 Timothy 2:12-15?

What does the Bible mean about women learning in silence and submission in 1 Timothy 2:12-15" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:12-15?

These verses deal with a woman's role in public testimony. Learning in "silence" and "submissiveness" (verse 11), she is forbidden to "teach," since this exercises authority over man. Usurp authority" suggests that only domineering power is forbidden, but "exercise authority over man" JND and others) is clearer. To preach the gospel, open a Bible Reading, minister the Word or be an overseer involves authority over man, as well as teaching, and thus violates Scripture. The reasons follow: in formation (verse 13), Adam was first; in the fall (verse 14) this order was reversed and Eve was deceived with catastrophic consequences. This implies that a modern reversal of God's order will have similar results. however, verse 15 assures the woman of salvation in its fullness if, while fulfilling her unique role of motherhood, she maintains faith with love, holiness and sobriety.

D. Gilliland

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Israel or the Church the theme of Psalm 45?

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 Psalm 45:14" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45:14?

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; 62:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 54:5; 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 19:8," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 19:8, 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 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8o: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 Psalm 45" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45 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 16, 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

Did the wise men visit Jesus in Bethlehem?

Where did the wise men (Matthew 2:1)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 2:1) find the child Jesus— in Bethlehem or Nazareth?

I do not think there can be any reasonable doubt that it was in Bethlehem. Verse i tells us the narrative happened “when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.” It was thither theywere directed by the teaching of the elders (vv. 4-6) and sent by Herod. Nazareth is not mentioned. It was in Bethlehem and its borders that the slaughter of the innocents took place (ver. 16), after the Child and Mary and Joseph had departed into Egypt. From verse 22 we learn that after the death of Herod they would have returned into Juda, but hearing that Archelaus, his son, was reigning in his stead, Joseph was afraid to go thither and being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee and dwelt in a city, now mentioned for the first time—Nazareth.

W.H. .

Other pages in this section

About this site

Will the resurrection bodies of the saints be the same as those in which they lived and died?

THE RESURRECTION BODY
Will the resurrection bodies of the saints be the same as those in which they lived and died?

In our Lord’s resurrection we have the pattern of our own. Was the Lord’s resurrection body the same as that in which He lived and died? Yes, it was the same body; there was nothing left in the tomb but the grave-clothes, and our Lord took pains to show that His body was truly the very one that had died, by calling attention to His hands and feet which bore the marks of His cruel death on Calvary.

But though the same, it was not under the same conditions.* It was a spiritual body, not subject to the same laws as before. It could disappear at will; it could pass through closed doors; it could be seen and not be recognised, and then suddenly become recognisable; but also it could be touched and felt; it could eat, it had flesh and bones, it was a real body. When the Lord ascended “God gave Him glory,” and His body was also glorified, as Paul saw Him on the way to Damascus. It was the same body, but under new conditions (see Luke 24:36-43;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:36-43; John 20:5, 7, 13, 19, 25, 27;" TARGET="_blank">John 20:5, 7, 13, 19, 25, 27; Philippians 3:20-21)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:20-21). Really the buried body is the sown grain, and the glorified body the flower, the same, yet not the same. God gives to the grain a body as He pleases. But what goes to form the flower, was once in the grain. A gardener can recognise the flower from the seed, and vice-versa. And so every saint will have a glorified body that will be recognisable, as coming from its particular seed sown in the graveyard. There will be no confusion: “to every seed his own body,” and all “like Him” (1 Corinthians 15:37, 38, 44, 49)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:37, 38, 44, 49).
W.H.

* certain elementary substances such as sulphur, phosphorus, oxygen, carbon have the quality of existing in distinct forms, known as allotropic modifications. Thus carbon exists as diamond, graphite or soot. There may be a distant analogy between this and the existence of the body under different conditions.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does Nebuchadnezzar's dream mean in Daniel 2?

What is the meaning of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2:31-45)" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 2:31-45)?

King Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem and therefore considered that his gods had overcome the God of Israel, Jehovah (Daniel 1:2)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 1:2). God gave him a dream of future events (2:28). Demonstrating that He could reveal the unknown, God revealed to Daniel both the dream, that only the king knew, and also its interpretation. Thus the Lord affirmed to Nebuchadnezzar that He knew and controlled the future and that He had given the king his kingdom (verse 37). This dream also helped God’s people because it informed them of the course, extent, and conclusion of the troublesome "times of the Gentiles," the period when Jerusalem is under Gentile control (Luke 21:24)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 21:24).

The dream centered around an image composed of four metals: a head of gold, arms of silver, torso of brass, and legs of iron (verses 3 1-33). Daniel interpreted these as four kingdoms, beginning with the Babylonian empire (verses 37-40). In keeping with the revelations in Daniel 7, 8,9," TARGET="_blank">Daniel 7, 8,9, and 11, the other three kingdoms are Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman. Viewed from head to feet, the image had metals of decreasing value, a reflection of the increasingly less autocratic structure of the successive kingdoms. The "iron kingdom" is a divided kingdom (verse 41) because at the image’s feet the iron was mixed with clay, an unstable combination. Since the kingdoms are sequential, this suggests that the Roman kingdom is viewed in one form, iron, and a later form, iron and clay. Between these two forms is most of the present Church age.

Daniel draws attention to the toes of the image and their instability (verses 42, 43). When he then refers to "these kings" (verse 44), Daniel seems to be interpreting the toes as kings, 10 in number. In the days of this 10-king confederacy of the revived Roman Empire, a stone "cut out without hands" struck and destroyed the image in the king’s dream and became a great mountain (verses 34, 35). Thus, as Daniel’s subsequent visions reveal, the revived Roman kingdom, over which "the Beast" will reign (Revelation 13:1, 2; 17:11-14)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 13:1, 2; 17:11-14), will end when our Lord, the Stone rejected, yet exalted (Matthew 21:42, 44)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 21:42, 44), will destroy Gentile power and establish His everlasting kingdom.

D.Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Isaiah 45 teach that God made the earth "without form"?

Doesn't Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 prove that God did not create the earth "without form"?

In the New Scofield Reference Bible, the editors moved the note on the Gap Theory from its place in the old edition (Genesis 1:2)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2) to Isaiah 45:18," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18, since this verse seems to offer stronger proof for the theory than any other. Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 states that God did not create the earth "without form" (tohu), but Genesis 1:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was "tohu." Thus it would seem that the earth became formless some time after the initial creation. But to understand Isaiah's meaning, we must look at 45:18 in its context. The last phrase of the verse explains the point. Isaiah is speaking of God's design in creation. God did not create the world to be an empty place, but formed it to be inhabited. It was never God's purpose to have an empty world, so He filled it with inhabitants. In Genesis 1:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2, therefore, the formless and empty state of the earth on the first day was simply the beginning, not the goal of creation. During the five days of creation that followed, God progressively finished the earth's shape and filled it with creatures. By the end of the sixth day, the earth was no longer "tohu." God had achieved all that He intended, and rested on the seventh day. Further, the context of Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 shows why the prophet discusses this truth here. What God starts, He finishes (see 55:11; 66:9). Israel's salvation is guaranteed, because (according to 45:17) it is eternal. It was planned "from the foundation of the earth," and therefore must come about-despite present appearances. Just as God accomplished His creative purpose for the earth in six days, so He will perform His saving purpose for Israel in due time.

D. Vallance
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each have His own angels to command?

Are we to believe that God the Father has angels (Revelation 3:5)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3:5), Christ some (2 Thessalonians 1:7)," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1:7), and Michael some (Revekation 12:7)?

Or are they all the same?

Though we recognise in the Scriptures that the Divine Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial, that is that each possesses the whole Divine essence in the Unity of the Godhead, we equally see distinctions between the Persons, and differences of relation and function; also conditions of subordination between them for mutual purposes, and this not only since the Incarnation, but eternally and necessarily so by the Divine law of their Being. Thus the Father is revealed as Source—the Fountain of all things. He originates, He purposes, He is the Creator of all things. He is the Father of Spirits, and therefore of the angels, who belong to the spiritual creation, so that they may with the utmost propriety be termed “The Father’s angels.” Then on the other hand, the Son was the Agent in Creation—”All things were made by Him,” including “all things that are in heaven,’ and in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him” (John 1: 3;" TARGET="_blank">John 1: 3; Colossians 1" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:i6). He, too, is said to be “Head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:10)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:10). In such phrases are inclusively described “the innumerable company of angels—the general assembly” (Hebrews 12: 22, 23)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12: 22, 23). These may then be equally called Christ’s angels. To say that they are the Father’s and not the Son’s, or the Son’s not the Father’s, is to ignore our Lord’s words, “All that the Father hath are Mine” (John 16: 15)," TARGET="_blank">John 16: 15), or “All Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine” (John 17:io). That is, even when the Father is said to give anything to the Son, it does not cease to be the Father’s. In the cases cited above— Revelation 3" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3: , the Lord is speaking of His Father and naturally He speaks of the angels in relation to Him (His angels), but in 2 Thessalonians 1: 7," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1: 7, the Spirit is describing the return in glory of the Son, and here the angels are spoken of, as we should expect, as His angels, because related to Him. But we do not for that conceive of the angels as divided into two companies, the Father’s and Christ’s. The case of Michael’s angels is very simple and quite distinct. They are not his in the same sense as above, but they are the angels put under his command for a certain purpose. Michael is five times mentioned in the Bible—thrice in Daniel 10:13" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 10:13 “One of the chief (“the first” of marg.) princes”; v. 21, “your prince”; and Daniel 12:1" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 12:1 , “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” Then in Jude 1:9" TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:9 as “the archangel”; and lastly, in Revelation 12" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12: 7 as the leader in the war in heaven, when Satan and his angels (those who followed him in his fatal choice), will be cast down. Satan is always the bitter enemy of Israel, God’s earthly people, and Michael, the archangel (he is the only one so named) is specially seen as opposing him, and is, as leader of the angelic hosts, called to fight against him. In this sense they are Michael’s angels, that is, under his leadership. W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is my responsibility regarding my convictions?

What is my responsibility regarding my convictions?

To be meaningful, convictions must express Gods will (Matthew 7:21-27);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:21-27); they must be based on truth. Truth is not relative (John 14:6)," TARGET="_blank">John 14:6), decided by each persons viewpoint. When believers differ on matters of Christian teaching, either one or both are wrong. In applying Christian principles to exactly the same circumstances of daily living, only one "behavior" will embody all the relevant biblical principles, only one can be totally Christ-like. This demands modesty, for whose behavior is totally, consistently like Christ? God has empowered the assembly, guided by its elders, to administer Gods will (Matthew 18:18)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18). Some behavior so clearly denies Christian truth that it requires assembly action, as in 1 Corinthians 5." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5. In contrast, our individual responsibility is not to enforce truth, but to help others obey truth.,, Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy" (2 Corinthians 1:24)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 1:24). The apostle encouraged and enabled his errant childrens obedience to the Lord, because in that lay their greatest joy and blessing, but he was not their lord. We build up others by effectively "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:15), but, having done that, we are responsible to submit to truth ourselves and to commit to the Lord the affect of truth on others.

If teaching requires other means to make it effective in the lives of believers, it lacks the power of truth.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu