Will the Church be sent to separate the wheat from the tares?

We read in Matthew 13:41" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:41: “The Son of Man shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.”

Are we not right in understanding the angels here to be the Church glorified, and made equal to the angels, seeing we read in Hebrews 2:5," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:5, “For unto the angels (the angels of chapter 1) hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.”?

No, it would be a great mistake to confound angels with the Church, as this questioner suggests. I do not know of any passage which teaches that the Church becomes angels, or indeed that any saints do. In Luke 20:36," TARGET="_blank">Luke 20:36, where our Lord uses the expression, “equal unto the angels,” it is only as to the question of their immortality (“neither shall they die any more”), that the children of the resurrection (not here oniy the Church) “are equal to the angels.” The next words add a point of blessing, in which these surpass the angels, “and are the children of God,” which the angels are not. I think Hebrews 2:5" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:5 argues rather against, than for, the thesis of the questioner. “The world to come” (i.e., the millennial age) will not be subjected to angels, which is another point of their inferiority to the Church, for that age will be subject to Christ, with Whom God associates not angels, but the many sons whom He is bringing to glory. If the angels are excluded from this rule, how can they be the same as the Church?

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Under what conditions would laboring men who planted an assembly step in to guide that flock?

Under what conditions would laboring men who planted an assembly step in to guide that flock?

Two possibilities exist: intervention may be necessary to prevent the destruction of the testimony; intervention may weaken the assembly’s ability to trust God, learning from and of Him through its needs. If intervention increases the assembly’s dependence on the laboring man, this contravenes his God-given role, because he has hindered the development of maturity in the assembly. The rare cases when he judges that he must intervene will be emergencies. He will need spiritual wisdom to determine this, and the principle James states (James 1:5)" TARGET="_blank">James 1:5) indicates his recourse.

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a Christian believe in Evolution?

EVOLUTION
Can a Christian believe in Evolution?

It is sad to think that anyone “naming the name of Christ” should forsake the clear testimony of God’s Word for the fable of “Evolution”— “Science falsely so-called.” The former declares that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1; see also Hebrews 11:3)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:3). Later we read, “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light” (v. 3); “Let the waters bring forth abundantly” (v. 20); “Let the earth bring forth the living creature” (v. 24); “God created man in his own image” (v. 27); and in chap. 2. 7, we have the detailed account of this; “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.” Of course the most cursory reader of Gen. i, can see that God’s method in Creation was one of progression, from—the inorganic to the organic,— vegetation, fish, fowl, beasts, and lastly, man. We know, moreover, by experience of the things around us, that there is room within the species for the most wonderful variations (e.g., men, dogs, pigeons, etc.).

Ill-informed persons confuse this with “Evolution,” and they profess to be “evolutionists” because of such facts, which are undisputed. But “Evolution” properly so-called is supposed to account for the development of new species of plants or animals, either by mutation or by minute modification. Its teaching is that everything organic began with a cell (possibly more than one, but perhaps only one), and evolved by minute variations, into the myriads of “species” in the world, brought about by “natural selection,” securing “the survival of the fittest” during the course of “a struggle for existence.” Can anything be conceived more wildly improbable? It is only one more proof of “the Fall,” that otherwise sensible men can be found gullible enough to believe it. For such a process has never been proved to have taken place in nature.

Now, Science is something known, so that it is very unscientific to be an Evolutionist, seeing that evolu- tion is not something known; it has not even attained to the dignity of a theory, but is a mere hypothesis. The late Lord Kelvin, perhaps the greatest scientist since Newton, said in one of his last addresses, “I marvel at the undue haste with which teachers in our universities ‘ and preachers in our pulpits are restating truths in terms of Evolution, while Evolution itself remains an unproved hypothesis in the laboratories of Science” (my emphasis). Not only is Evolution a direct attack on the Creatorship of God, negativing the Scriptural account of the origin of things, but it denies the fall of man, and so inevitably the need of atonement and also, logically, the work of Christ. Shallow thinkers may profess to be able to believe the Scriptures and Evolution, but intelligent believers subject to the Word, and clear-headed agnostics, like Huxley, see clearly that the two are mutually incompatible. Evolutionists in the meanwhile continue to utter discordant cries hardly agreeing upon a single point, except that their pet hypothesis is true. Our choice simply lies between God as Creator and His Word for it, or everything its own creator and man’s word for it.

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do people in Hell go insane?

Would the powers of reasoning be lost in the torments of a literal fire?

The implications of the question are so overwhelming that they forbid our answering this in some theoretical or philosophic manner. Eternal realities can only be expressed by the Word of God. The other danger which we must avoid is trying to understand eternal experiences by earthly temporal ones. Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16 reveals to us a man in hell. Along with having other faculties, he is evidently able to think, remember, recognize responsibility, and draw conclusions. He remembers five brethren. If he was the eldest, this shows his sense of responsibility for their welfare. He recognizes and logically deduces that if they follow the same path as he has, they will also be in hell. He formulates a plan, "Send Lazarus..." which he assumes will convert them. All of this argues for the preservation of reasoning.

Just as the body was used as a vehicle for sin and therefore must participate in the suffering, so the mind and reasoning, employed to keep God at bay throughout life, must be preserved to suffer. Suffering upon earth frequently dulls the mind and destroys the body. The God who will prevent the destruction of bodies in eternal fire will also prevent the destruction of reasoning.

A. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Where does the name "Jew" come from?

THE TERM “JEW”

When and how did the name “Jew” originate, and to whom does it apply to-day?

The word is an abbreviation of “Judan” and occurs first in 2 Kings 16:6," TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 16:6, where we read that “Rezin recovered Elath and drave the Jews” thence. A reference back to 2 Kings 14: 21 tells how Azariah, made King by “the people of Judah,” had smitten Elath and restored it to Judah, which shows that Jews and people of Judah are synonymous terms and represented the Southern Kingdom, after the separation of the ten tribes under Jeroboam. After the Captivity, those who returned though no doubt including Levites, Benjamites and representatives of other tribes, were all known as Jews, the Judans being predominant (see Ezra 4:12;" TARGET="_blank">Ezra 4:12; Nehemiah 1:2;" TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 1:2; Nehemiah 4:2)." TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 4:2).

Only twice in the Synoptic Gospels do we find the word (Matthew 28:15;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:15; Mark 7:3)," TARGET="_blank">Mark 7:3), if we except a few occurrences of the phrase, “King of the Jews,” but the name is common in John and the Acts. I believe it is a great mistake to meet the British Israel “hypothesis” (which I believe for many reasons, historical and scriptural, to be a complete delusion), by denying any difference between “the lost tribes of Israel” as they are usually and properly termed, and the scattered Jews. Certainly many Israelites had lapsed to the Southern Kingdom, before their captivity by Assyria, under Sargon, but in spite of this the Northern Kingdom of Israel was able to withstand a three years’ siege from the greatest of the then world-powers. We are distinctly told that they were taken captive, except a feeble remnant, and placed “in Halah and Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.”

Considering that these places were far-removed geographically from Babylon, at a distance of 300 or 400 miles to the north, and that the captivity of Israel took place in 721 B.C., that is a century-and-a-quarter before that of Jehoiachin, it is very unlikely that the two captivities mingled or even came in contact. When a thing is lost it is not a bad idea to seek for it as near where it was lost as possible, and probably the representatives of the lost tribes may still exist in or near those parts.

The difference between Judah and the ten tribes of Israel is preserved in the accounts of the final return to the land, e.g., in Isa. ii. Ia, we read of “the outcasts of Israel” and “the dispersed of Judah.” See also Isaiah 27:13;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 27:13; Zepheniah 3:19, and especially Ezekiel 37:16-22," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 37:16-22, where God commands prophetically the two sticks to be taken, one “for Judah and the children of Israel his cQmpanions” (representing those individual members of the ten tribes who had lapsed to Judah and are confused sometimes with those tribes themselves), and the other “For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions” (i.e., the lost tribes). To meet this British-Israel delusion with a defective argument is to strengthen it, for its advocates will surely take notice of it, though they usually leave the sound arguments, which abound against their theory, severely alone.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Has prophesy been fulfilled in our lifetime?

Has prophesy been fulfilled in our lifetime?

This is an important and necessary question regarding the mystery view. Old Testament prophecy and New Testament prophecy centers around Israel. Both refer to specific events, times, seasons, persons, and places. New Testament statements fulfilled in this age or in our lifetime are of a different kind. For example, Second Timothy three describes "last time conditions." These are moral features that will characterize evil throughout this present period, up to the Rapture. That is likewise the character of what the Lord unfolds in Revelation 2" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2 and 3. It may therefore be preferable to refer to this as the mystery view rather than the "prophetic view."

Distinguishing these two types of forecasts is crucial. We have no authority to state that present events fulfil the specific prophecies that center around Israel. After the Rapture, God will raise up prophets (Joel 2:28)" TARGET="_blank">Joel 2:28) whose ministry will be to identify, for example, events or persons saying, "this is that" (fulfilling specific Scriptures), as Peter did at Pentecost (Acts 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:16). The gift of prophecy is not functioning today. Those who attempt to exercise it have brought the subject of Bible prophecy into public shame.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does "having faithful children" of an elder mean?

What does "having faithful children" (Titus 1:6)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6) involve?

1 Timothy and Titus give us God's spiritual and moral standard for elders. The requirements in Ephesus and Crete are similar, yet the circumstances differ. In Ephesus, elders already existed (Acts 20:17)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17). Timothy was to teach how to add to their number. The man aspiring to the work (1 Timothy 3:1)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1) must evaluate himself by the necessary qualifications Paul lists; he must also have the respect of the believers, being "above reproach" and superintending his own home well.

Titus, with spiritual discernment, was to appoint elders, who must be blameless. As in I Timothy 3:4-5," TARGET="_blank">I Timothy 3:4-5, his home life will indicate much about his character and suitability to be a leader in the assembly. The phrase "faithful children" in this context (Titus 1:6)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6) probably means that they are believers. The word may "pista" mean either mean trustworthy or believing. In any case, they are to be of good reputation, "not accused of riot or unruly." This contrasts with the Cretians who are "always liars, evil beasts, gluttons" (Titus 1:12)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:12).

If the assembly disciplined his child, an elder would not necessarily be disqualified on that basis. The circumstances would have a bearing. If the elder's child is no longer in the home, then he is not directly under the "rule" of the parent. The elder should examine himself in the fear of God; by prayer and the counsel of other godly elders, he could expect wisdom from God (James 1:5)" TARGET="_blank">James 1:5) to make the best decision.

J. Abernathy

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should a Christian buy raffle tickets?

What should I do at work, at school, or in the neighborhood when I am asked to buy a raffle ticket or a lottery ticket to fund a good cause such as an injured child or a family who is out of work?

A Christian can answer, "I want to cheerfully help any good cause, but I don't feel free before God to buy a raffle ticket or a lottery ticket. I will give you the price of the ticket for the good cause without getting the ticket."

We read in Galatians 6:10," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 6:10, "As we therefore have opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto those who are of the household of faith." Titus 3:1" TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:1 teaches that we are to be "to be ready to every good work." Doing good to others when we can, we will be a little like our Lord Jesus, "Who went about doing good" (Acts 10:38)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:38). One of the reasons why our Lord Jesus gave Himself for us is that we might be zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 2:14).

W. Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Lord Jesus possess omniscience only as far as the Father allows?

Does the Lord Jesus possess omniscience only as far as the Father allows? (John 13:3)" TARGET="_blank">John 13:3)

The passage from which this question arises is, "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands . . ." (John 13:3)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:3). Another passage that raises this question is "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mar 13:32)." TARGET="_blank">Mar 13:32). The Lord’s statement, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power" (Acts 1:7)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 1:7), may shed some helpful light on this issue. The Father has placed information in His authority. It is His right to disclose it in keeping with His purpose. The Son knew all things (John 16:30)." TARGET="_blank">John 16:30). For instance, He knew all that the Father was going to do, but He only acted on what the Father was doing at that moment (5:19). He knew all that was involved as He brought God into full revelation (1:18), yet He only spoke what the Father told Him to speak (12:49). In the passage under question in John 13," TARGET="_blank">John 13, He always knew what the Father had committed into His hands, but He now acted in keeping with that awareness. He always acted, thought, and spoke consistent with His distinct role in the Godhead.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can believers be united today?

How can believers be united today?

We can fulfill three responsibilities: to love all believers (1 John 4:21);" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:21); to be separate and "touch not the unclean thing" (2 Corinthians 6:17," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 6:17, cited from Isaiah 52:11)," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 52:11), meaning the religious system; to call believers now, as God will call believers when He judges the religious system, "Come out of her" (Revelation 18:4;" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 18:4; compare with Isaiah 52:11)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 52:11). Our testimony will be unified only when believers gather to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 18:20)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20) and practice the God-given pattern of Scripture (Acts 2:41, 42)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:41, 42). Not mystified by the foggy confusion surrounding us, we can humbly, yet confidently, follow the clear guidance of Scripture that gathers believers to Christ alone. This assurance and our love for other believers require us to point them to Gods Word, so they likewise will hear, "This is the way, walk ye in it" (Isaiah 30:21)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 30:21).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu