What is the hope in this life to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 15:19?

What is the hope in this life to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 15:19" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:19?

What we hope for causes us to live as we do (Hebrews 11:1)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:1). In Romans 8," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8, we are assured that tribulation (vv. 35-39) cannot thwart God’s purpose to ultimately conform us to the image of His Son (vv. 29, 30). But in Romans 5," TARGET="_blank">Romans 5, tribulation works in the present to produce perseverance, character, and hope (vv. 3-4, NASB). What God will ultimately do, He does progres- sively making us more like His Son now. Our hope for the future gives us hope in the present.

This is true in 1 Corinthians 15," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15, too. Verses twelve through 34 emphasize the impact of the resurrection of Christ. It assures that believers will rise, Christ will reign, death will be defeated, and God will be all in all (vv. 26-28). Why then fear death? Hope for the future translates into living in the present. Therefore, Paul daily faced the possibility of a martyr’s death (vv. 30-32).

If believers are willing to hazard their lives for a hope that will die with them because it is ill-founded, "if Christ be not risen" (v. 14), they are miserably misguided and most to be pitied.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Under what conditions are we not to have fellowship with one "who is called a brother" (1 Corinthian

Under what conditions are we not to have fellowship with one "who is called a brother" (1 Corinthians 5:11)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11)?

Paul gave instructions to the Corinthians not to keep company with those put away, even so much as social eating (verses 9, 11). He likewise instructed the Thessalonians to withdraw from those walking disorderly (2 Thessalonians 3:6)" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3:6) and not to keep company with them (verse 14). When therefore the assembly must deal with an individual whose behavior endangers the behavior of others (1 Corinthians 5:6-8;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:6-8; 2 Thessalonians 3:11)" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3:11) or who needs to learn the seriousness of his sin (2 Thessalonians 3:14)," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3:14), social contact must be limited. In all other cases, saints should cultivate social contact with each other (Hebrews 13:1-3)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:1-3).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How could the Lord acknowledge an assembly when it had departed so far (Revelation 2 and 3)?

How could the Lord acknowledge an assembly when it had departed so far (Revelation 2" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2 and 3)?

The assembly at Corinth was badly damaged by the influence of the world around it. Galatian believers had been influenced by serious doctrinal error. These and other assemblies, including those in Revelation 2" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2 and 3, began as assemblies, through God’s work, consistent with the pattern. The Lord determines how far an assembly can depart. He reads the heart and judges righteously. We are not responsible to make that decision. He requests permission of no one and informs no one.

We are responsible, though, to preserve the integrity of the assembly of which we form a part. Whether or not a certain company is an assembly, if its practices and associations will damage young believers or lead any astray, we shouldn’t associate ourselves with that assembly.

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How do we "make disciples" and fulfill the Great Commission?

What is the most important help in "making disciples"?

The responsibility to "make disciples" extends "to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19, 20)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19, 20). We need every available spiritual means to encourage all believers to "obey all things."

New believers retain their former personality traits. Some love to learn something new (Acts 17:21);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 17:21); others like the challenge of advancing beyond others (Galatians 1:14);" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:14); still others love to fit into their new-found society and they eagerly conform (Acts 8:13)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:13), while the timid can be intimidated (Diotrephes did this, 3 John 1:9, 10)." TARGET="_blank">3 John 1:9, 10). Playing on these natural traits cannot produce spiritual results. The Lord predicates discipleship on this condition: "if any man will come after me" (Luke 9:23)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:23). Hearts drawn to Christ by an all-consuming devotion gladly embrace all He commands (John 14:15, 23)." TARGET="_blank">John 14:15, 23). Fostering devotion to Christ, coupled with patient, practical teaching, is essential to making disciples.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 the angels of Jude 6?

Are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6 the angels of Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6?

Capable men have differed on this for years. Here are three suggestions for differentiating between these passages.

First, the phrase, "sons of God," does not necessarily mean angels. Three times it does (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)," TARGET="_blank">Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but at least 4 times this word describes Israels relationship to God as "sons" (Exodus 4:22;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 4:22; Hosea 1:10;" TARGET="_blank">Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 14:1;" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 14:1; Psalm 73:15)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 73:15). This expresses a relationship of favor with God, distinguished from all others; that may be its thought in Genesis 6." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6.

Second, in their context, these verses are the bridge between the genealogy of the godly in chapter five and the corruption that demanded the righteous judgment of the flood. Since other passages hold men - not fallen angels - responsible for the evil of those days (Genesis 6:12, 13;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:12, 13; Job 22:15-17;" TARGET="_blank">Job 22:15-17; 2 Peter 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:5), the context favors the view that a lack of separation by a favored generation hastened the corruption.

The context in Jude also seems to differentiate the two passages. With Egypt and Sodom, these angels form part of one of Judes many triplets. As with those referred in Jude 4," TARGET="_blank">Jude 4, these all sinned while privileged and then suffered judgment, as those in verse 4 would. If Lucifers thought brought immediate judgment (Isaiah 14:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14:12, 13), the sin of these in Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6 must likewise have called for immediate banishment to everlasting chains. Even if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6 were angels, they were previously fallen (judged) angels, who for a prolonged period - as is supposed - cohabited with women. This is not an illustration of those who sin while privileged and therefore suffer severely.

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 does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

What is the Bible’s teaching regarding this subject?

Some assert the Bible merely condemns such behavior outside a "committed relationship" (compare Gen. 19:5;" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 19:5; Jdg. 19:22)." TARGET="_blank">Jdg. 19:22). Because the word "abomination" is linked with idolatry, some maintain the clear statements regarding this behavior (Lev. 18:22; 20:13)" TARGET="_blank">Lev. 18:22; 20:13) only legislate against idolatrous immorality, not the behavior per se. The context of both these Leviticus passages is wider than idolatry and involves any behavior that violates the sanctity of marriage (see the 7th commandment). Calling them an abomination shows how detestable such acts are to God (compare 1 Sam 15:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Sam 15:23).

Paul’s three references on the subject (Rom 1:23-27;" TARGET="_blank">Rom 1:23-27; 1 Cor 6: 9;" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 6: 9; 1 Tim 1:10)" TARGET="_blank">1 Tim 1:10) are crucial. In Romans, Paul addresses male with male and female with female relations. Both are against nature, violating God’s purpose in creation; they epitomize moral degradation. In First Corinthians, the words "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are relevant to the subject and express behavior foreign to Christian standards: "such were some of you." The first two terms of First Timothy chapter 1, verse 10 include every form of homosexuality and violate God’s moral law (v. 9). Such acts are sinful.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it right to teach that Satan fell first of all in Eden

Is it right to teach that Satan fell first of all in Eden’s garden?

Perhaps there is scarcely any subject which lends itself more readily to speculation, and concerning which speculation ought to be more carefully avoided, than the mysterious fall of Satan. No fact is more clear; hardly one mentioned with more reserve. If the above question means whether his fall took place in the actual Garden of Eden of Genesis 2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2: , the answer can only be, “No.” Satan comes on the scene in it as a fallen being, already the enemy of God and man. His fall had taken place long before, and, as I believe, in another scene. This fall is referred to by our Lord in Luke 10:18" TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:18: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” This would indicate that heaven was his original abode. The reason of his fall is given in 1 Timothy 3:6," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:6, to be pride, but nothing is said specially of his pride in the Eden episode. His fall is referred to also in Isaiah 14," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14, in words which must go far beyond the Assyrian: “How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer, son of the morning!” Again in Ezekiel 28," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28, his fall is described, no doubt in symbolic language: “By the multitude of thy merchandise, they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned” (Ezekiel 28:16)." TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:16). “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness” (v. 17). Pride, corruption, and violence characterised his fall, as they have also our fallen race. What has probably given colour to the idea referred to above are the words in Ezekiel xxviii. 13 addressed to Satan concerning his fall:
“Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God.” If God prepared for Adam, the head of the earthly creation, a delightful abode suitable for his highest enjoyment, is it not likely that He would do the same for the head of the angelic creation? Just as there is now, besides the earthly paradise that was, a heavenly paradise, so there may have been two Edens. It has been suggested that Lucifer’s Eden may have occupied the same site in the original earth of Genesis 1:1," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1, as the Eden of the Adamic earth. Some think there would be a fitness in this. Certainly heaven and earth were not so wide apart once as now, but the idea seems to lack direct scriptural support. W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is King Saul in Heaven?

Is it scriptural to suggest that King Saul is now enjoying the rest of heaven?

Though we should shrink from usurping God’s prerogative in such matters, I fear I know no Scripture which would certainly justify such a statement. It is true he was chosen of God to be King over His people, at their demand, as indeed to-day “the powers that be are ordained of God,” but without any guarantee as to spiritual condition. He was chosen, but it was to suit the people’s choice; he was not a man after God’s own heart. He certainly manifested pleasing traits, now and again, especially at the commencement of his reign, when he comes before us as “a choice young man” :—in fact one of Adam’s best! and he was religious, too, as long as it was convenient, but as soon as any other interest intervened, he broke down lamentably, e.g., in the case of Amalek. He did prophesy on two occasions, but Matthew 7:21-23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:21-23 declares plainly that even this is compatible with a dead faith.

Like the apostates of Hebrews 6," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6, he tasted of spiritual powers, but he was deprived of these for his sins. He could easily pass over disobedience to God’s commands (e.g., 1 Samuel 14:32)," TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 14:32), but when, in the same chapter, the victor Jonathan innocently disobeyed his trivial prohibition, he would have slain him on the spot, had he had his way. The characteristic fruits he bore were envy, jealousy and a murderous spirit to all who opposed him. He had the whole house of Aaron mercilessly and unrighteously butchered in one day, though one of them did escape. He attempted David’s innocent life again and again. He deliberately broke God’s law in consulting the witch of Endor, and he died by his own hand, without any sign of repentance. It is a sad record. The fact that Samuel’s spirit said, “To-morrow thou and thy Sons shall be with me,” is not out of harmony with the belief that till our Lord’s resurrection the Paradise of the departed saints formed one compartment of Hades, the intermediate abode of all the dead.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the offending brother in Matthew 18 execommunited from the church?

Is the discipline exercised on a brother in Matthew 18:17" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17 equivalent to that exercised in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11-13?

Let us see what these passages say. In 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 the sinning one is to be “put away from among yourselves,” and the saints are not to have fellowship with him in any respect whatsoever. In Matthew 18:17," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17, when the offender has refused to “hear the church,” it is said, “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Our question therefore appears to mean, “Is this man also put away from the assembly as is the former?” and if so, the answer can only be that he is. For how could I be said to treat another “as an heathen man and a publican,” if he is still breaking bread with myself and others every Lord’s Day? And if the church has not put the man away at v. 17, why should it be said in the following verse, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”?

But it may be asked, why is the expression, “Let him be unto THEE,” and not rather “unto YOU” or “unto THE CHURCH”? I suggest that it is because the passage in Matt. i8 is not dealing directly with church procedure at all, but with the attitude of an individual towards one who has sinned against him. The assembly is only introduced incidentally as having to take action in certain circumstances which are mentioned. All the way through from v. an individual is being addressed, and it is not to be wondered at that the same should be the case in v. 17. Yet at the same time, since the matter has now reached a stage where the offender has refused to hear the church, each member of it by that refusal has been practically put into the same position with regard to him as the one first of all concerned, and must act toward him in the same manner.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu