About this site

Avrell Bowden

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)

Other pages in this section

About this site

Gospel Hall dot Org exists to share information about assemblies of Christians who gather to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to raise awareness of the gospel message and teaching about Christian living in a New Testament Church.

FAQs

How many people left Egypt in the Exodus?

Is it reasonable to think that around 2 million Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus?

In Exodus 12:37," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:37, the "strong men" numbered about 600,000. If, on average, most of these were married and had only 2 children, the population would be about 2 million.

A similar measurement comes from Numbers. The number of those who arrived at Sinai (Numbers 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 1:1) included 603,550 males who were 20 years old or older (1:45, 46). We may approximate the remainder of the population (the children under 20 and the women) by comparing the 2 numberings of the Levites. In the first numbering (3:15), all the males from 1 month old totaled 22,000 (3:39). The second numbering counted the males from 30 to 50 (4:46-48) and totaled 8580. Therefore, approximately 40% of the total male population (22,000) was from 30 to 50 years old. About 20%, then, were 30 to 39 and another 20% were 40 to 50, although each 10 year group (birth -9, 10-20, etc.) is likely smaller than the preceding 10 year group. If we add another 20% for the 20 years old and upward, the first figure of 603,550 males (20 years old and upward) would be about 60% of the male population. In round figures, if 600,00 is 60" TARGET="_blank">is 60%, then the male population would be about 1 million. Adding an equal female population brings the figure to about 2 million.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Must there be only one bread and one cup used at the Lord

Must there be only one bread and one cup used at the Lord’s Supper?

Two factors frame the response to this question. The first is the text and the second is the stated symbolism.

"The cup of blessing which we bless . . ." (Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">Co 10:16) indicates a singular vessel. It is a drinking vessel, literally derived from the root word "drink." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Words says regarding this drinking vessel, "In a Palestinian home it is the pitcher (usually an earthen bowl) that stands filled on the table." Obviously, in this passage, Paul is using a figure of speech. We do not drink the cup; we drink its contents. What we drink comes from a common source, a vessel for drinking.

In the same verse, Paul speaks of "the bread which we break." Again, it is a singular entity. The object is a loaf of whatever shape or substance used as bread. In addition, taking from the loaf is a personal act, each one "breaking bread."

The stated symbolism when we partake of these two emblems expresses a communion, a common fellowship, a sharing with others, or a joint participation (v 17).

To answer the question, then, apart from having one loaf and one vessel for drinking, we cannot express the intended symbolism. If that one loaf is distributed so that more than one person is taking from the loaf at one time, this does not compromise the symbolism. When all have taken from the loaf and the remainder returns to its original place (usually a table), there is value in reuniting the remaining parts to form - as best as possible - a loaf. The loaf has no typical significance. An opening (like a wound) in the side of the loaf, the wheat from which it is made, the process of preparing it, the color of its flour, or our taking the bread are not to be analyzed for added significance. The loaf reminds us of the Lord’s body given for us; taking our part from the loaf expresses our fellowship with those in the assembly who have "broken bread." One loaf seen both before and after we break bread expresses this effectively.

If all drink their portion of the "fruit of the vine" from a common vessel, this expresses our fellowship with the Lord. This is not primarily to express our individual fellowship with the Lord but to express that all unitedly share with God in "the fellowship" that honors His Son. Therefore, although the symbol of the blood of Christ may be distributed in more than one vessel, if it visibly comes from a common vessel, this does maintain the scriptural symbolism.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is John the Baptist the same as Elijah?

What was the Lord saying about John the Baptist in Matthew 11:14" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:14?

The Lord pointed to the past and present when He said, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." From the past, He combined two prophecies, both in Malachi. In verse 10, He quotes His promise that He will send His messenger to prepare the way before Him (Malachi 3:1)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 3:1). Now in verse 14, He informs us that the prophet Elijah whom the Lord of Hosts would send "before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord" (4:5) is His messenger mentioned in the previous prophecy. As to the present, the Lord states the one condition which determines if John fulfills these two prophecies: literally, "if ye will receive." The context indicates what they were to receive. The Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Messiah reached their terminus in John (Mat 11:13)." TARGET="_blank">Mat 11:13). If they recognized who John was, they would receive His message. That is why the Lord immediately refers to their responsibility to heed what they heard ("He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" v 15). Yet they were like the children who heard the mourning, but didn’t lament (v 16). By not recognizing John’s authority, they wouldn’t and couldn’t recognize Christ’s (21:24-27).

Gabriel had told Zecharias that John would go before the Lord "in the spirit and power of Elias"; he then referred to Malachi’s prophecy about Elijah (Mal 4:5, 6)." TARGET="_blank">Mal 4:5, 6). John was not a reappearance of Elijah, but was a prophet whose might and mission was the same as Elijah’s. In Matthew 17," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17, the disciples understood that the Lord was speaking about John (v 13) when He said two seemingly contradictory things about Elijah. The Lord said, "Elias indeed comes first and will restore all things" (v 11); that is the prescribed order of Malachi’s prophecy, but John is now dead and the restoration must await a future "Elias." "The crooked" had not been "made straight" (Luke 3:5;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:5; Isaiah 40:4)," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 40:4), nor had John’s ministry restored "all things." Why? "Elias is come already, and they knew him not" (v 12). On God’s part - and John’s - John had fulfilled the prophecies. On the nation’s part, they had rejected him and his message of repentance. In the future, God will yet fulfill the prophecy of sending "My messenger," the Elijah to come. Then, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power" (Psa 110:3), and the future prophet ("in the spirit and power of Elijah," see Revelation 11:3-7)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 11:3-7) will present a people restored to Him "before that . . . day of the Lord."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Moses build the Ark before ascending Mount Sinai a second time?

What Tabernacle is referred to in Exodus 33:7-11" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7-11? According to the sequence of the chapters, the Tabernacle was not yet built. Some have inferred from Deuteronomy 10:1-5" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 10:1-5 that Moses made the Ark during this interval, between his destruction of the first tables and the bringing down of the second, as a receptacle for the second tables which could not be entrusted to Israel. What do you say to this?

Certainly Deutenonomy 10:1-5 would bear the above interpretation, “and I made an ark of shittim wood. . . and I put them (the tables of the Lord) in the Ark which I had made.” Yet we must remember that in Deuteronomy, Moses is admittedly only giving a summary of things, so that events spread over a period, are compressed, as occurring almost synchronously. For dates and details we must consult Exodus and Numbers. In Exodus 25:10" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 25:10 the directions as to making the Ark are given to Moses, during his first sojourn on the Mount, but were only communicated to the children of Israel in Exodus 35:12," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 35:12, after his second sojourn there. Only in Exodus 37:1" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 37:1 does Bezaleel actually make the Ark of shittim wood, in which the tables were eventually placed. We cannot admit that there were two Arks; for it is evident in Deut. io. that the tables were to be permanently in the Ark which Moses is said to have made for them—”and there they be as the Lord commanded me.” This was actually done in Exodus 40:20" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 40:20: “And he took and put the testimony into the ark.” There is nothing really contradictory to this in the passages quoted. As for the tabernacle mentioned in Exodus 33:7-11," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7-11, it could only have been a temporary tent of meeting called “The tabernacle of the congregation” (Exodus 33:7)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7), to which anyone went, who sought the Lord.” After the sin of the golden calf, God would not go up in the midst of the people, so this tent was pitched without the camp. When the actual Tabernacle was constructed and erected, Jehovah once more took His place in the midst of His people (Exodus 25:8;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 25:8;Exodus 29:45; Numbers 2:2)," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 2:2), no doubt, on the ground of sacrifice. The other temporary tent would naturally fall into disuse.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How could the Devil have "the power of death"?

In what sense did the devil have "the power of death" (Hebrews 2:14)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:14)?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

The terrible trials of Job show us that Satan had no power over Job in regards to death. Satan had the capcity to kill Job, but only if God had allowed him to (Job 2:6)." TARGET="_blank">Job 2:6). The Greek word for "power" in Hebrews 2:14" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:14 is not exousia, translated power or authority. Only God has such power in giving (John 1:4)," TARGET="_blank">John 1:4), sustaining (1 Timothy 4:10)," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:10), and ending (Daniel 5:23)" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 5:23) a life.

In this verse, "power" is the translation of the Greek word kratos, which means "manifested power" (W. E. Vine). It is found 12 times in the New Testament. It is translated "dominion" four times in the King James Version, each time in a doxology.

In Hebrews 2:9," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:9, we read Christ tasted "death for every man" (or for "everything," John Darby). For the Son of Man to bring His creation into its intended order and purpose, He must taste the full bitterness of death. Through one man, Adam, deatg was brought into the world (Romans 5:12)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:12) and ruined God’s intended order (Hebrews 2:6-8)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:6-8). The Last Adam, after tasting death, is the guarantor that the world will be subject to a man.

Death reigns as a result of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:17)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:17). By dying in obedience (Romans 5:19)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:19) to God’s will (Philippians 2:8)," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:8), Christ obtained rightousness for each saved person (Romans 5:19)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:19) and an eventual physical deliverance for creation (Romans 8:21)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:21).

Adam lost his dominion over creation to "that old serpent, called the Devil." He is the "prince (or ruler, English Standard Version) of this world" (John 12:31)." TARGET="_blank">John 12:31). The stench of death spreads over his entire kingdom.

The Devil has exercised his power of death over all of God’s creatures and creation. In a few words, the "power of death" is the devil’s destructive impact on creation as a result of the Fall.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

How are Psalm 22 and Psalm 24 related?

Is Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 the outcome of Psalm 22," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22, when the Lord Jesus defeated Satan at the cross or is it the ascension and the Lord's arrival back in heaven.?

I would say without hesitation that Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 is the outcome of Psalm 22," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22, but there is a difference. I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus defeated the strong man, Satan, at Calvary, and what a victory that was! In this trilogy of Psalms we have precious truths. Psalm 22" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22 is the Sacrifice, the cross; Psalm 23" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 23 is the Shepherd, the crook; Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 is the Sovereign, the crown.

However, the victory of Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 is not primarily the defeat of Satan at the cross. The Lord from Bethany went back to heaven (Luke 24:50, 51)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:50, 51) and did not require to demand entrance into heaven but was welcomed with these soul stirring words from His Father, "Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Hebrews 1:13)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:13). Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 is not His reception into heaven but His entrance into the city where He was rejected, crowned with thorns and crucified. That day lies in the future and beyond the rapture of the Church. He will come to the air for His Spouse; He will return to the earth for His Scepter. They refused Him His throne at His first coming, but the purposes of God can never be overthrown, and our Lord Jesus shall reign "from the river unto the ends of the earth." We, as the people of God, should be like David's mighty men who shared his rejection with words of deepest consecration, "Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse." This was the language of loyalty in the dark days of his rejection and they looked forward to the day of his coronation. May we also recognize we are members of His Body and subjects in His coming kingdom!

S .Maxwell (September 1989)

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why do some object to the expression the old nature?

Why do some object to the expression the old nature?

For most of us, our earliest Christian teaching included "the Christian’s two natures: the old nature and the new nature." This was the accepted and handy way of explaining the struggle within a believer that drew him to sin when he genuinely wanted to please the Lord. Some of us may have found this confusing when we learned that orthodox Christians have historically upheld that our Lord possessed two natures. In this case, the expression means that He was truly human - although without the possibility of sin - and truly God in one unique Person.

Actually, the vocabulary of the New Testament does not use two natures to describe either teaching. That Christ is both God and man is foundational, essential truth. Godly men, who labored to defend and clarify this profound truth, distilled the Bible’s teaching into the expression two natures.

The New Testament, however, does provide the terms that describe the struggle within the believer. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal 5:17)." TARGET="_blank">Gal 5:17). Paul also deals with this at the end of Romans 7." TARGET="_blank">Romans 7. The problem is the flesh with its unchanged and unchangeable disposition toward sin (v 18). He perceives a law in my members, a governing principle linked with fallen humanity. This principle wars against the law of my mind, which is the result of the Spirit’s regenerating work.

Using the New Testament’s vocabulary may help us in at least two ways. Speaking about our old nature may isolate us from the problem, as though the responsibility lies with my nature, but not with me directly. Paul says, "In me (that is, in my flesh) . . ." (v 18). I am directly responsible for the problem. Second, the teaching about the flesh embraces our hope of deliverance. The flesh refers at times to our physical body of flesh (Rom 1:3; 2:28; 3:20)" TARGET="_blank">Rom 1:3; 2:28; 3:20) and at other times to our moral disposition toward sin (Rom 7:5, 18; 8:4, 5)" TARGET="_blank">Rom 7:5, 18; 8:4, 5) , a principle presently inseparable from our physical body. The death of Christ has legally severed us from Adam and the consequences of his disobedience. The results of that death will eventually deliver us completely from both the physical consequence (the condemnation of death) and moral consequence (sin dwelling in me - the flesh) of the Fall. This physical and moral problem elicits Paul’s question at the end of Romans 7" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7 (v 24). Deliverance from this body of death (JND) is what God had in mind when "the old man was crucified with Him, [in order] that the body of sin might be destroyed (brought to nothing, WEV)" (6:6). In chapter 8, Paul expands his answer, "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:25).

The objections to using the term the old nature are likely intended to bring us to a clearer understanding of New Testament truth.

D. Oliver

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

How involved should a believer be in the political process?

How involved should a believer be in the political process? Should I give money to the religious right if it espouses my values?

Although God still overrules in government (Daniel 4:17,25, 32; 5:21;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 4:17,25, 32; 5:21; Proverbs 21:1)" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:1) and those who govern are accountable to God who has ordained their office for the good of man (Romans 13:1, 2, 4, 6)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:1, 2, 4, 6), the powers of darkness control world governments (Ephesians 6:12)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:12). Whether regenerate or unregenerate, those who govern serve in a government controlled by the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19," TARGET="_blank">1 John 5:19, "in the wicked one," Darby). Governments are inevitably moving to conform to God's purpose for Israel, yet the only means that God will use to overthrow and effectively redirect their power is based on redemption, for Judah's Lion is the Redeemer-Lamb (Revelation 5:5,6,9)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 5:5,6,9). Neither protest against, participation in, nor power with-in government will arrest the tide of the mystery of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:7," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:7, Darby). Are believers to be unconcerned about the course of evil in the world? The Bible clearly teaches our responsibility to evangelize the world and to pray for those who govern and for their impact (1 Timothy 2:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:2). Our testimony, both through what we are (salt, Matthew 5:13)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:13) and what we do (light by good works, Matthew 5:14-16)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:14-16), lends weight to the gospel (1 Peter 2:12)," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:12), God's only message of deliverance for man (John 8:36;" TARGET="_blank">John 8:36; Acts 26:18)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 26:18). The "responsibility" of citizens to vote or gain power in government is a human expedient, not a divine principle.

The only place where God's government is recognized is the assembly, the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:15 with Genesis 28:17)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 28:17). To participate in a government other than God's, even by voluntary financial contributions, seems to question the sufficiency of God's government.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Other pages in this section

About this site

[ Back ]

Main Menu