• About this site

Shelly McKenna

• About this site

• About this site

Avrell Bowden - "If I die tonight, where will I be? Heaven or hell?” People make commitments to God an confessions of faith that sometimes have no reality.  At age 6 I made a false profession of salvation. That is, I told people I was saved. (more)

• About this site

• About this site

Phil Sarlo's Personal Story

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is the Commission of Matthew 28:18-20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:18-20 for the present dispensation, or only for one yet future?

“The Lord Jesus before His death made just one appointment with His disciples, which was, to meet Him on a certain mountain in Galilee after He had risen (Matthew 26:32;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:32; Mark 16:7)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:7). Of this fact we are reminded in Matthew 28:16," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:16, the opening verse of the paragraph in which the Commission is contained. There had been some more or less informal meetings elsewhere previous to it, but this was the specially prearranged meeting, which naturally would overshadow them all in importance. yet there are those who would ask us to believe that what He told them when He met them there, was not about their Own work at all; but that He gave them minute instructions and comforting assurances with regard to the work of some other unknown individuals, who would live two thousand or more years after their time. They would have us believe that when He said, “Go ye and teach,” lie meant that somebody else was to go and teach; that when He said, “I am with you,” He meant, I will be with some other people who will be on earth two thousand years hence; and that when He added, “Even unto the end of the age,” He meant, until the end of some other age. Those who can swallow this kind of thing must have good digestion, for I frankly confess I prefer to believe that the Lord meant just what He said.

The statement, which some of these brethren make, that Matthew does not acknowledge the Church period, is absurd. Is it not in Matthew that we have the formal introduction of the Church in chapter 16, and of Church order in chapter 18? Is it not there that we find the Lord’s action, so symbolical of turning from Jew to Gentile, in chap. 13. 1; in which after having been definitely rejected by the Jewish leaders in the two previous chapters, it is said, “The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the seaside”? And immediately after, He speaks the Seven Parables of the Mysteries of the Kingdom, which have so often been shown to picture successive stages of this present Church period. That Matthew’s Gospel has a Jewish tinge, no one who is a careful reader can doubt; but this is far off from the Conclusion that there is nothing in it except for Jews. The Gospel of Luke has a Gentile tinge, but would these brethren suggest that there is nothing for Jews in Luke, nothing about the Tribulation, nothing about Millennial times? As a matter of fact, the Commission as given in the end of the Gospels of Luke and of Mark, has a more Jewish Sound about it than the form of it occurring in Matthew.

As illustrating the fact that the Apostles did carry out Matthew 28:18-20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:18-20 there is a word worth noting in Acts 14:21" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:21: “They had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught (Gr., discipled) many.” It is the very word, “matheteuo,” used in Matthew 28:1," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:1, and this is the only place in the New Testament, apart from Matthew’s Gospel, where it occurs. Were they not here carrying out the Commission as given in that verse?”

W.R.

• 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

• About this site

THE KINGDOM LIKENED UNTO LEAVEN

In what sense is the Kingdom of God “like unto leaven which a woman hid in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened”, if leaven is the symbol of evil, and the kingdom of God embraces only that which is “born again” (John 3:3)" TARGET="_blank">John 3:3)?

When John the Baptist began his ministry, the Jewish people were, and had been for some time, under the domination of Rome, the fourth of the great world powers who were foretold by Daniel, of which the first three were Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece. Rome, the last, was to be superseded on the Divine programme by another of a totally distinct character. “In the days of these things shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 2:44 ) . What other meaning could the Baptists’ words, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” have to an intelligent Jew, who knew the Old Testament prophecies but that this kingdom was about to be set up? The Lord took up the same testimony, and in due course presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah and King. That He was present in power as King was evidenced by His miracles, but by twice deliberately attributing these works to Satan, (see Marthew 9:  and Matthew 12" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12: .) the leaders of the nation rejected His claims. Consequently, at chap. xiii. there is a break, the MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM being introduced, and parable to a great extent replaces miracle. The King is rejected, but a kingdom is set up, notwithstanding, in the hearts of men. The kingdom, as we have it in the seven parables of Matt. xiii, is the condition of things produced in the earth as the result of the preaching of the Gospel, including very much of a mere profession of Christianity, which is not all the genuine work of the Spirit, for when the Lord comes “He will gather out of the kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity.” these were in the kingdom, BUT NEVER OF IT. The seven parables present to us the progress of the spurious, as well as of the real. In the first two parables we see the effects of the good seed being hindered by the mixed qualities of the soil, or by an imitation seed. In the second pair, the mustard seed and the leaven, we see the monstrous growth and insidious spread of the bad, as exemplified all around us in Christendom to-day. Far other is the real Divine kingdom, entered only by the new birth. That is a different phase altogether, misunderstood and despised of men, if not hidden altogether from their view. This is exemplified in the parables of the treasure and the pearl, first in its relation to Israel, and then as the whole aggregate of the children of the kingdom. The seventh parable, the drag-net, represents the last great testimony for God in the world. Multitudes will be gathered in, but here too, as with the tares, there will be a sorting out needed. Of course, it is impossible in the space available to take up all the aspects of this great kingdom subject, distinct from those touched upon here—”the kingdom of the Son of His love;” “the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;” “the kingdom of the Father,” etc. There is much to learn and unlearn.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site