What happened to those who rose from the dead after Jesus died?

Was there a delay between when those individuals were raised and when they "appeared unto many"?

Different translations handle Matthew 27:52" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:52 and 53 differently. Some indicate that the graves were opened and the saints arose, then three days later came out of their graves and appeared in Jerusalem. The Greek also allows another possibility: at the death of the Lord Jesus the tombs were opened. At His resurrection, the saints arose, came out of the graves, and appeared in Jerusalem. The King James indicates the latter and there is reason to favor that. These who were raised from death (not resurrected) seem to have greater significance when their return to life is linked with his day of resurrection. In addition, when the Lord brought Jairus’ daughter back to life, He commanded to feed her. How did these sustain life for three days in their tombs?

The likelihood is that the Lord’s power over death was evident in His death, for the tombs were opened. Then on the day of Christ’s resurrection, these who had died arose, came forth, and appeared to many.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible phrase mean - "The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous"?

What is the meaning of Proverbs 21:18," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:18, “The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright”?
Compare the following passages, in which a similar thought is more clearly expressed: “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead” (Proverbs 11: 8)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11: 8).
“I gave Egypt for thy ransom, . . . I have loved thee, therefore will I give men for thee and people for thy life” (Isaiah 43:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 43:3, 4).
“They hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai” (Esther 7:10)." TARGET="_blank">Esther 7:10).
“Those men which had accused Daniel. . . cast. . . into the den of lions” (Daniel 6:24)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 6:24).
And note the use of the same word “ransom” in the Isaiah passage, and of “in his stead” in Proverbs 11." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11.
The above Scriptures, and others which might be added, suggest two things. First, that God may sometimes deliver His own at the cost of severe suffering, or even destruction, to the unsaved. Second, that the wicked at times suffer the very fate which they themselves had prepared for the righteous. Proverbs 21:18" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:18 contains the first of these thoughts, and probably the second as well.
W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

When was Peter saved?

PETER’S CONVERSION AND CALL

When was Peter saved? Was it when Andrew brought him to the Lord Jesus, or was it when the Lord called him on the shores of the sea of Galilee to become a fisher of men?

The mission of John the Baptist was, amongst other things, to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:15)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:15), and, no doubt, Peter, Andrew and the rest of the apostles were all disciples of John, having been baptized by him with the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, waiting for the One that was to come. Accordingly, when these prepared ones came in contact with the Lord, they were ready to receive Him as Messiah. In John i, when Andrew brought Peter to the Lord, He did not call him to repentance or faith, for he did already in a manner believe on Him, but gave Him his new name, anticipating the moment when He would build him as a living stone into His Church. This was only the prelude to the scene on the sea of Galilee.

Thus Peter was called by John to repentance and faith in the one coming after him; then by the Lord to a place in His Church, and later to His service. We apply the word “saved” to everyone who has received Christ as personal Saviour, though the word carries with it more than forgiveness, namely, deliverance to and from. Peter could not receive Christ in above sense till the Lord was revealed to Israel, but no doubt all the true disciples of John, though they did not form part of the Church till Pentecost, were saved persons; they were of the people of God, His own, in a very real sense. In this sense Peter was a saved person before he was introduced to the Lord by Andrew, for he had been already introduced to Him by John the Baptist and had doubtless believed on Him as the One “who should come after him” (Acts 19:4)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:4), as indeed did the Old Testament saints in a minor degree. The Lord knew him by name and was now calling him out of the Jewish fold, to belong to His flock.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Where are the ten lost tribes of Israel?

THE TEN TRIBES

Were the ten tribes restored after their dispersion?

Is it true that they were never restored? (see Acts 7: 27;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7: 27; Acts 5:21;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:21; Acts 2:36" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:36 *).

It is clearly impossible in this column to track out the deplorable delusion of “British Israelism,” which is occupying so many minds to-day with earthly hopes and national ambitions, to the exclusion of Christ and the HEAVENLY calling of the church. This church is being called out from all nations, including the British Empire, which, however, as a whole, is fast apostatising from God. At the same time, I think it is quite indefensible to contest this error by denying that the tribes of Israel were ever lost. All admit numbers of them seceded to Judah, but it is equally certain they existed as a separate kingdom till 721 B.C., when they were carried away by Shalmaneser into Assyria. They were no skeleton tribes then, but able to resist a siege of three years to their capital by the greatest world power of the time (2 Kings 17:6)." TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 17:6). The fact that the generic name of Israel is sometimes applied to the remnant of Judah, etc., who returned from Babylon, proves nothing; they were as truly descended from Israel as the other tribes, and they were the representatives of the whole nation in the land. This explains the expression the questioner refers to “as to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

At that time large numbers of Jews were scattered throughout the civilised world. The Lord was not sent to these, for He never stepped outside the promised land, but He of course fulfilled His mission perfectly to such as were within its limits. In the prophets, Israel and Judah are constantly distinguished (e.g., Jeremiah 3:8-14;" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 3:8-14; Zechariah 10:6;" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 10:6; etc.). To faith the twelve tribes existed still even to New Testament times, and do still, though mostly lost to sight.

The breaking of the covenant between the two nations of Judah and Israel was only finally consummated at the crucifixion, i.e., when “Beauty” was cut off, “Bands” cut asunder, and (see carefully Zechariah 2:10-14)" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 2:10-14) “the brotherhood between Judah and Israel” broken. That state of alienation will continue till the restoration of both in the last days. In Isa. 27." TARGET="_blank">Isa. 27. 13 we read, “They shall come which were ready to perish (Heb. ‘abhadh. see R.V. Marg., ‘lost.’ This is the first meaning Gesenius gives to the word—like ‘a wandering sheep which gets lost and disappears,’ and quotes this verse in support) in the land of Assyria.”

If you lose a thing, it is not a bad idea to look for it where you lost it. There is no record, biblical or historical, of the tribes of Israel ever having returned to the land, or having migrated to other lands, or being scattered, as the Jews have been; in fact, they are called “OUTCASTS of Israel,” in distinction from the “DISPERSED of Judah” (Isaiah 11:12-16)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 11:12-16). It is only in Ezek. 37:16-22," TARGET="_blank">Ezek. 37:16-22, after the vision of the dry bones, that is, in quite the last days, that the two peoples are once more reunited— “For Judah, and the children of Israel, his companions (i.e., the seceders to Judah from the other tribes), and for Joseph, the stock of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions” (i.e., the great majority of the ten tribes). I think a careful consideration of this passage alone is sufficient to show that up to that point, the two leading companies will have been separate peoples, leading a distinct existence, and with no attempt to coalesce. It is noticeable that in Zechariah 12:1" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 12:1 when the Lord comes in glory to deliver Jerusalem, only “Judah and his companions” will have returned to the land, and they are addressed as “Israel” in erse 1.

*

Acts 4:27" TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Act 5:21" TARGET="_blank">Act 5:21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.

Act 2:36" TARGET="_blank">Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How do we properly display reverence for the Lord

How do we properly display reverence for the Lord’s presence in the assembly?

How wonderful to be at home in the Lord’s presence! Knowing He will never leave us (Hebrews 13:5)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:5), we can enjoy His presence when shampooing our hair or sipping our coffee. Yet, the more we know Him, the more we will fear - or revere - Him (Pro 9:10)." TARGET="_blank">Pro 9:10).

Our gathering together as an assembly publicly expresses His presence (1Co 14:25)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:25). We have come together as a "House of God" (1Ti 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 3:15). The principles of the Old Testament do not change: "Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord, forever" (Psa 93:5). Again, "God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about Him" (89:7). We cannot view the House of God as merely another house like our own. As reverence for God becomes more foreign to our culture, it ought to be more highly prized by us.

Paul instructed the Corinthians to so consider one another and to so act in their gatherings that God’s presence was unmistakable. Our actions on entering (the assembly does not become "house of God" when the meeting begins), during, and after the gathering should express this reverence.

Our clothing likewise expresses this reverence. When Joseph went from the prison to the palace (Gen 41:14)," TARGET="_blank">Gen 41:14), he changed his garments - to look more casual? In the setting of teaching us principles regarding His visible presence among His people, the Lord specified garments unique to men who functioned in His presence (Exo 28:1-3). We worship "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23)," TARGET="_blank">John 4:23), not in form and ritual; therefore, we do not have "priestly garments," but we learn the principle that clothing expresses reverence. Paul taught that, in contrast to the immoral and immodest worship of Diana, believing sisters adorn themselves modestly (1Ti 2:9)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 2:9). Our adornment reflects the character of the God we worship. Culture, relative poverty, necessity, or circumstances must be considered. Some must come from their work in work clothes. At least they are present. We cannot legislate what clothes others must wear, but, for the Lord’s honor, we ought to choose clothing that will express our reverence for Him and our recognition that being in His presence is a transcendent privilege. We buy our clothing in the same stores as "sons of this age" (Luk 20:34," TARGET="_blank">Luk 20:34, ESV), but the casual spirit of this age doesn’t dictate how we display reverence.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Could you explain "captivity to the law of sin," Romans 7:23?

Could you explain "captivity to the law of sin," Romans 7:23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:23?

Four laws are in the passage.

   1. "The law of God" is spiritual, holy, just, good (verses 12,14), While the law cannot justify (3:20), in chapter 7 Paul demonstrates that the law cannot sanctify.
   2. "The law of my mind" (verse 23) consents that the law of God is good (verses 16, 18).
   3. "The law of sin" is a principle which opposes the expression of God's law in the life (verses 17-20), even though the inward man delights in it (verse 22), and the mind of the individual willingly desires to comply with it. Frustration and failure confront him at every turn. Thus hedged in, he finds himself taken "into captivity" as a prisoner of war by this sin principle in his members. The problem lies within self: "but I am carnal, sold under sin" (verse 14). Carnal self cannot be controlled by even a spiritual law. Deliverance is found alone through the resources of the risen, glorified Jesus Christ our Lord (verse 25).
   4. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (8:2).

W. Skates

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the silence of women a cultural custom or a Biblical mandate?

Som evangelicals act as though "women keeping silence" is outdated. What is the Biblical message of 1 Corinthians 14" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14?

Some claim Paul (1 Cor. 14:34)" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor. 14:34) legislated temporary cultural adjustments, not intended as mandates for the whole church period. The immediate context, however, recognizes these as the Lord's commandment. The directive is as clearly a commandment, and as strong, as any other in the epistle. To set it aside would give liberty to depart from other guidelines regarding, for example, remembering the Lord (chapter 11) and exercising gifts (chapter 14). Few evangelicals would be willing to do this. The only way that women's keeping silent in the church becomes outdated is by rejecting the whole epistle.

J. Beattie

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a sister in the assembly say "Amen" to a brother's prayer?

Does a sister violate the truth of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34-35 when she says "Amen" audibly after a brother's prayer?

No.

We read in verse 16 of the same chapter, "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks?" Clearly, it was customary for assembly saints to say "Amen" at the close of a brother's prayer, praise, or thanksgiving. In Nehemiah 8:6" TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 8:6 we read, "And Ezra blessed the Lord, the Great God. And all the people answered Amen, Amen." "All" must have included the women.

When we say, "Amen," at the close of a brother's prayer, we express our agreement, therefore we must listen and understand what he has said. It would be good if every assembly saint were as ready to say "Amen" as New Testament saints were, but we should never use "Amen" as a political tool. The less politics we have in an assembly, the better.

W Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does a difference in age matter between husband and wife?

Does a difference in age matter for believers considering marriage?

"The husband is the head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:23) and is therefore responsible to provide leadership in this relationship. The wife, while submitting to this leadership which God has established, is her husband’s "helpmate" (Genesis 2:18," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:18, JND) or "counterpart" (YLT). She is not subservient, for a wife and husband are equal partners, "heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:7).

If the woman is several years older, her greater emotional maturity and wisdom, developed through the experiences of life, make it more difficult for the man to lead. If the man is considerably older, his leadership may become controlling, inconsistent with the relationship of a husband and his "counterpart." Admittedly, the initial difference in maturity is not always as great as the difference in age, especially when the younger person is over 40.

When a relationship begins to develop between a couple whose ages differ considerably, they should give special attention to the way in which leadership develops between them. If the difference in age causes them to assume roles outside the boundaries God has designed (the man as leader, the woman as counterpart), the couple is wise to quickly discontinue their relationship. Violating God’s design produces a troubled relationship.

It’s fair to consider that later a sizeable age difference may cause the younger spouse premature aging, bereavement, and loneliness.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Are some overseers entitled to more spiritual weight than others?

Are some overseers entitled to more spiritual weight than others?

This questions requires particular balance in its answer, because the answer is both "yes" and "no." The consistent character, experience, and Biblical understanding of some overseers gives them greater "moral authority." The insights of such men deserve particular consideration. That consideration is afforded by others. If a man demands or obviously expects that consideration, he loses moral authority. Neither personality nor manipulative skill gives spiritual weight, not even age alone (Pro 16:31)." TARGET="_blank">Pro 16:31).

While each overseer is personally accountable to the Lord (Acts 20:28;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28; Heb 13:17)," TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:17), the oversight functions as a unit (1Ti 4:14)" TARGET="_blank">1Ti 4:14) in which each elder is essential to the working of the whole. Spiritual weight will influence the decisions of the overseers only to the extent it addresses the issue at hand with the truth of the Word of God. Oversight decisions are not by majority vote, by weighted votes, or by a poll of all in the assembly, but through a consensus that considers all the overseers. Only such consideration fulfills the servant-leadership role the Lord described and exemplified (Mark 10:42-45;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:42-45; Phi 2:3-8)." TARGET="_blank">Phi 2:3-8).

The suggested answer then is "yes," because the character and Biblical insights of some will have greater influence on the oversight’s deliberations, and "no," because each overseer has equal responsibility for the decisions made by the oversight.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu