What did the disciples understand by the phrase "gathered together unto My Name"?

What did the disciples understand by the phrase "gathered together unto My Name" (Matthew 18:20)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20)?

The disciples did not lack acquaintance with the Old Testament. Their minds may have gone to the promise regarding Israel's future kingdom in Jeremiah 3:17," TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 3:17, "At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem." This is reminiscent of the Lord's words to Israel when they came to the promised land, "Unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose . . . to put His name there, even unto His habitation . . . thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings" (Deuteronomy 12:5, 6)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 12:5, 6). The Lord's name testifies to who He is.

It's reasonable to assume that the disciples understood that the place of public worship and of God's dwelling was now to be place of public testimony of which the Lord Jesus was the subject.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Was the deity of the Lord Jesus somehow limited in His humanity?

Was the deity of the Lord Jesus somehow limited in His humanity?

By definition, God is spirit (John 4:24," TARGET="_blank">John 4:24, ESV), infinite in His duration (Isa 57:15)," TARGET="_blank">Isa 57:15), ability (Luk 1:37)," TARGET="_blank">Luk 1:37), and attributes (1Jo 1:5)." TARGET="_blank">1Jo 1:5). Limited deity is an oxymoron. Being in one place and "becoming flesh" (Joh 1:14)" TARGET="_blank">Joh 1:14) did not limit His omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence; He was without beginning (Joh 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Joh 1:1) or end (Heb 1:12)" TARGET="_blank">Heb 1:12) and He was holy (Luk 1:35)." TARGET="_blank">Luk 1:35). The Pharisees balked at His forgiving the paralyzed man (Mar 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">Mar 2:5), since only God has this power (v 7; Psa 130:4). The Lord Jesus had and has that power that belongs solely to God (Mar 2:10)." TARGET="_blank">Mar 2:10).

Nonetheless, His Father told Him what to say (Joh 12:49" TARGET="_blank">Joh 12:49b) and the very words He should speak (v 49c). The Father showed Him each act He did (5:19). These truths do not indicate that He was limited, but that He was subject to His Father. This affirms that the Father and Son have different roles in the Godhead. The Father directs and the Son carries out the direction, while the Spirit enables.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a time gap in Daniel 9:26 and 27?

What warrant have we for insisting on a “gap” or parenthesis in Daniel 9:26," TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:26, between verses 26 and 27?

There must be a gap, if not between the two verses, at least between V. 27 and the great events in the early part of v. 26, with the consequent scattering of the Jews. This verse seems to work itself out in a long defined period of war and desolation. Then comes v. 27, showing us some one king making a covenant with the many “for a week.” Who is this but the prince of v. 26, whose people destroyed Jerusalem centuries before? And who are “the many” but part of the scattered Jews
restored to their land, and recognised as a nation? This restoration is taking place before our eyes, for the first time for 1850 years; but no “prince” has yet appeared to make the seven years’ covenant, so v. 27 is still future. Neither party will imagine why the covenant will be specially for “one week,” but “the wise will understand.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

In Hebrews 2:3, to whom does "we" refer?

In Hebrews 2:3," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:3, to whom does "we" refer?

The book was written to Hebrews. The evidence of this is its title, its theme, drawing so much from Old Testament ceremonies, and its thread of Old Testament promises through the book. In addition, the message to "us" (1:1) is contrasted to the message to "the fathers," ("our forefathers," Weymouth). The epistle addresses not only believers, but also unbelievers. This is clear in 3:12-14, "let there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief," "lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin," "if we hold the beginning of our confidence." These expressions point to the four kinds of hearers in the Lords Parable of the Sower, the good ground being those who hear the Word and keep it (Luke 8:14," TARGET="_blank">Luke 8:14, same word as "hold," Hebrews 3:14)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:14). Those who "sin willfully" must likewise be unbelievers, for they will "fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:26-31)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:26-31).

Over 80 times, the writer uses first person plural pronoun forms (we, our, us) either in a general sense (1:3; 2:8,9; 3:19), of those who are writing (5:11; 8:1), or of believers (8:1; 9:24; 10:10). On other occasions, he includes himself with those of Jewish background who claim to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, although they are proving to be unbelievers (10:26; 12:25). In 3:12, he addresses "brethren" who may have an evil heart of unbelief. This cannot refer to "brothers in Christ," but to Jewish brothers (see also Acts 13:38; 22:1; 23:1; 28:17)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:38; 22:1; 23:1; 28:17). In Hebrews 2:1-3," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:1-3, he views himself as part of that nation and addresses his people, some of whom are not genuine believers in Christ.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the prodigal son a backsliding believer or a lost sinner?

Does the story of the prodigal illustrate the recovery of a swaying believer or the salvation of a lost sinner?

Most definitely the latter. The context confirms this. In Luke 15" TARGET="_blank">Luke 15: Christ replies to the Pharisees' criticism, "This man receiveth sinners." In verses 11-32, He compares His reception of such with the father's reception of a rebellious son. These sinners, portrayed in the prodigal, were not believers who strayed, but the ungodly. To construe that this interpretation makes God the "Father" of sinners simply overburdens the allegorical framework of the parable. Describing a straying believer as "dead" though, is going too far. Also, the term "lost," as chapter Luke 19:10" TARGET="_blank">Luke 19:10 shows, refers to the perishing, Further, the Savior interprets the sheep and silver as denoting 'one sinner that repenteth." Luke uses the word "sinner" 18 times, always describing the ungodly. Similarities do exist between the sinner's conversion and the saint's restoration, but some of the language true of one cannot be used of the other.

D. Gilliland

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between being restored to the Lord and to other believers?

What is the difference between being restored to the Lord and to other believers?

Restoration brings a thing back to its original state. Old houses and old cars are frequently "restored." Our question deals with relationships between a Christian and his Lord or between two Christians. Restoration is necessary when relationships have been damaged. An offense will shatter a relationship. Drifting apart will damage relationships.

David prayed for restoration after his sin with Bathsheba. "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation" (Psalm 51:12)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 51:12). Noteworthy in this psalm is David's confession of sin when he sought restoration. In Psalm 23," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 23, he wrote of continuing occasions when the Good Shepherd "restoreth my soul" (verse 3). He realized his tendency to stray from the Shepherd.

Christians, too, may drift apart or offend one another. Our Lord gave instruction in Matthew 18:15" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15 for restoring a broken relationship. The two must meet together, seeking to clear up the matter between them. It is likely that, in most cases, mutual repentance, confession and forgiveness will be required. If an offense has caused damage, restitution will also be necessary.

There is no difference in the need for restoration, whether to the Lord or another saint. In both instances, the need must be acknowledged. One cannot be restored to the Lord who has not first been restored to his brother or sister (Matt. 5:23, 24)." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 5:23, 24).

J. Slabaugh
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

Does God need to be reconciled or only man?

It has often been stated, and generally accepted, “That God did not need to be reconciled.”

Now Trench, in his “Synonyms,” points out that katallage has two sides :—(ist) God laying aside His holy anger against our sins and receiving us with His favour; (2nd) The daily depositions under the Holy Spirit of the enmity of the old man toward God. Did God need to be reconciled?

No question is raised as to God’s love to sinners, nor as to His willingness that all should be saved (the death of Christ does not make God love sinners. He “so loved that He gave”). But whether EFFECTIVE “reconciliation” is made in Scripture simply to depend on the sinner’s willingness to “make it up” with God, it is certain that our Lord by His atoning death has fully met POTENTIALLY all the claims of God on account of sin. This, however, only becomes ACTUALLY true for those sinners who individually acknowledge their guilt, and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and until they do, God’s attitude toward them is not one of complacency, but of righteous displeasure. As the late Dr. Moule puts it—”Reconciliation (katallage) habitually points to the winning rather the pardon of an offended king, than the CONSENT of the rebel to yield to his kindness.” “Be ye reconciled to God,” would then mean, “As the offending party, secure while you can His acceptance through the atoning work of Christ.” This is borne out by Matthew 5:23-24," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:23-24, where it is the offender who is told to go and be reconciled to his brother, ostensibly by confession and amends. We, too, are the offenders: in order to be reconciled we must come to God, confess our sinfulness, and believe the Gospel, and then we have peace with God. As Trench (Syn. p. 292) writes of reconciliation: “To make the secondary meaning (that is the breaking down of the enmity of the carnal mind to God), the primary, is based . . . on a foregone determination to get rid of the reality of God’s anger against the sinner” (i.e., Psalm 7:11," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 7:11, “God is angry with the wicked every day”).

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a believer be out of fellowship with God?

Can a believer be out of fellowship with God?

Speaking of losing our enjoyment of fellowship with God may be a better way to express this thought.

John writes his first epistle so the believers will have fellowship "with us" (1:3). He was the last surviving apostle and the apostles doctrine was under attack. The truths of this epistle confirmed believers in what the apostles taught. In this way, believers would have a deeper, more settled enjoyment of fellowship with John and those for whom he testified (1:2). John then affirms that he, the apostles, and all in the family of God are in "the fellowship" with the Father and with the Son (1:3). We can never be out of this fellowship.

In the verses that follow, John clearly indicates that sinning is not characteristic of the believers life, nor is lying or not doing the truth (1:6). Either an individual walks in darkness or in light, because he is either an unbeliever or a believer. The demarcation is clear. All who walk in the light (characteristic of all believers) have fellowship "one with another" (1:8).

Sadly, a believer can fail to enjoy this fellowship. Life is wasted while a believer is not enjoying this wonderful, family fellowship.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How was the Word of God compiled?

How was the Word of God compiled?

Men did not originate God’s Word, but spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit (2Pe. 1:21)." TARGET="_blank">2Pe. 1:21). Beyond their own understanding (1Pe. 1:10, 11)," TARGET="_blank">1Pe. 1:10, 11), men recorded the exact words that God breathed out (2Ti. 3:16)." TARGET="_blank">2Ti. 3:16). What was written, although bearing the marks of the writers’ experiences, abilities, and personality, was in accord with the Word, "forever settled in heaven" (Psa. 119: 89). There seems to be no reason to limit the "volume of the Book" in the Lord’s first words in incarnation (Heb. 10:7)" TARGET="_blank">Heb. 10:7) to the Old Testament. All the contents of the Bible were predetermined before their writing.

The same God who desired to communicate His Word and inspired men to write it is able to compile the sacred writings and preserve them. The way by which the Old Testament was compiled is not clear, but the Lord Jesus gives the divine imprimatur to the books recognized at that time. He said, "The Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35)." TARGET="_blank">John 10:35). He defined the Scriptures that therefore must be fulfilled as the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:44). Although the order of the Old Testament books recognized at that time was different from the order in our Old Testament, that three-fold division, law, prophets, Psalms, included the 39 books we recognize today. Their inherent spiritual weight, reliability, authority, life-transforming power, and internal and combined consistency marked those books as God’s Word. The Lord Jesus affirmed God’s superintendence in compiling the Old Testament. The same is true of the New Testament, although that is more easily traced historically.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu