What is the meaning of the story of the clean house inhabited by seven evil spirits?

Please explain Matthew 12:43-45," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:43-45, and Luke 11:24-26;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 11:24-26; also why does Mr. Newberry insert the word, “it”, in his margin for the word, “he”, in Luke 11:24" TARGET="_blank">Luke 11:24?

Mathew 12:43-45 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. (44) Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. (45) Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Luke 11:24-26" TARGET="_blank">Luke 11:24-26 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. (25) And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. (26) Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

There are certain important words in this section which, if understood, will enable us to grasp the general meaning of the passage.
The “house” refers, I believe, to the house of Israel. “Generation” refers to the class of people then living, a people hostile to the Lord Jesus. The unclean spirit is, I believe, the spirit of idolatry which once found a resting place in Israel, but of which Israel were cured as the result of their Babylonian captivity. That idolatrous spirit will find no resting place save in apostate Israel, to which house it will later return, leading them to worship a mere man—the Man of Sin—the worst form of idolatry. This will bring upon them a far more severe judgment than ever hitherto they have known and so their last end will be worse than the first.
What has been effected by Christ Who came to that house is that he swept and garnished it, turning out from it things that hitherto occupied it. The spirit of idolatry in full force (with seven other spirits) will return to that house with, as I have said, disastrous consequences. The “generation” will persist until the end. They would not have Him Who came in His Father’s Name: another shall come in his own name and him theywill receive.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the bread and the cup of the Lord

Does the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper have spiritual value?

The hymn expresses it well: "Only bread and only wine, yet to faith the solemn sign . . ." They are not the body and blood of the Lord, but are emblems or reminders of them. These emblems are not types; neither the shape (round, rectangular), substance (flour or yeast), preparation (from a seed, harvested and ground wheat, baked in an oven), nor disposal (whatever happens to them after they are used) has any significance. Partaking of these emblems does not impart divine life or any inherent spiritual benefit more than any other act of obedience to God’s Word.

Remembering the Lord is a sacred privilege, so there is an elevated responsibility in handling these emblems. Separate emblems of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:24, 25)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:24, 25) remind us of His death. Behavior inconsistent with this sacred privilege causes particular condemnation (verses 27-30).

The bread and cup involve a dual symbolism relating to commemoration and communion. In themselves, they remind us of the death of our Lord, commemorated when we remember Him. When we partake of them, we express fellowship. "The communion of the blood of Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16) expresses our fellowship with God, His claims having been satisfied (Leviticus 17:11, 1 4;3: 17)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 17:11, 1 4;3: 17). "The communion of the body of Christ" expresses our fellowship with one another in the assembly (1 Corinthians 10:16,17)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16,17). Paul shows that such expressions of fellowship make it morally impossible to participate in any other fellowship inconsistent with His lordship.

Religion has ascribed to the emblems sacramental value such as the power to take away sins. The emblems do not have spiritual value but they do express spiritual truths.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How old was Abraham when his father died?

In Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 we read, “Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” and in V. 32, “and the days of Terab were two hundred and five years and Terah died in Haran.” Now, taking 70 from 205, would make Abram 135 years when Terah died, while we know from Gen. 12:4" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 12:4 that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and from Acts 7:4" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:4 that he did not leave Haran till Terah died.

It is not necessary to believe from Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were all born in the same year, but simply that Terah had no children till he was 70, and then had three sons born at intervals. In Genesis 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 5:32, we have an instance of the same thing, when we read that “Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” and yet Genesis 10:21" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10:21 tells us Japheth was older than Shem. It is equally clear that Abram was not the eldest of the three brothers. He and Shem are put first because of their importance as the progenitors of the chosen race and the Messiah. It is generally held that Haran was the eldest, born when Terah was 70, and that Abram came into the world 6o years later. This would account for the fact that he and his nephew Lot, son of Haran, seem to have been much of the same standing. Besides, we are distinctly told that Abraham was 75 when at the death of Terah, he departed out of Haran. He was born, therefore, when his father was 130 years of age.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did God wait 400 years to give Abraham the promised land?

Abraham believed God as to his seed, and it was “counted unto him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:6), but when promised the land he asked for a sign. Would he not have had it at once had he believed, without having to wait four hundred years for his descendants to inherit it?

I do not think there was necessarily any unbelief in Abraham’s asking whereby he should know that he should inherit it. God often dealt thus with his servants of old—with Moses, Gideon, Hezekiah, etc., and granted them signs to strengthen their faith. As a matter of fact, Abraham did not ask for a sign. His question brought out the basis on which God was acting, namely, on the ground of covenant. The heifer, the she-goat, and the other sacrificial victims, all spoke of Christ the One true covenant Victim. Verse i8 makes it clear that the terms of this covenant assured the land, not personally to Abraham, but to his seed, and this was, we need not doubt, the original purpose of God. Stephen understood it so, for he emphasises the fact that “God gave Abraham none inheritance in the land, no, not so much as to set his foot on” (Acts 7:5)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:5), nor does He in any way attribute this to Abraham’s unbelief. It would clearly have been premature for a single family to inherit a vast territory, like that indicated in Genesis 15:18-21;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:18-21; nor had God’s time come to expel the owners of the soil, for “the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the meaning of

What is the meaning of 2 Samuel 3" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 3: 33: “Died Abner as a fool dieth?”

Probably the thought is: “Did Abner die like an inexperienced fool, who knew not how to defend himself?” And the intended answer is, “No, he fell victim to a deceitful wicked plot.” Compare verse 27, in which the unsuspicious nature of Abner stands in marked contrast to the suspicions Joab had expressed concerning him in verse 25. Notice, too, that he was slain in the last place where it might have been expected he would be, in the gate of Hebron which was a city of refuge (Joshua 20:7)," TARGET="_blank">Joshua 20:7), as well as being the residence of king David at that time.
Yet there is no doubt that Abner did really act as a fool on an earlier occasion, when he made the unwise choice of chap. a. 8, 9 for Ishbosheth and against David, and did so deliberately though he well knew (see chap. 3. 9, xo) what the mind of God in the matter was.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does an elder have a more exalted position in the assembly than others?

Does an elder have a more exalted position in the assembly than others?

The Bible teaches that a man publicly sharing in oversight is "exalted" in that he has greater responsibility and accountability, but he serves "at the feet" of the believers in lowliness of mind.

The Authorized Version is misleading in translating the verse, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). Rather than "over the which," more accurate translations of this passage read "in which" (ESV) or "among which" (YLT). Although fellow-believers are to submit to (Hebrews 13:17)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17), know and esteem highly (1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13), and honor (1 Timothy 5:17)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17) elders, those elders are in, not over, the flock. Their position is not above other believers.

When an assembly recognizes a man whom the Lord has raised up to be an elder, this does not change his heart’s concern for believers or his ability to care for them by means of God’s Word. It does however give him the added responsibility of meeting with the elders when they gather (Acts 20:17, 18)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17, 18). He has publicly joined others and shares with them an accountability for the spiritual health of each sheep (Heb 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:17).

The Lord gave a spiritual lesson by literally washing His disciples’ feet (John 13:7, 12)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:7, 12). He was exemplifying loving care for others in removing all that hinders fellowship with Him ("no part with Me," v 8). By girding Himself with a towel and stooping at His disciples’ feet, He was the model of servant-care (vv 5, 6). Thus, those who accept the responsibility of lovingly caring for the spiritual condition of fellow-believers are lowly servants of the Master. He taught that those who lead His people are ministering servants (diakonos) and bondservants (doulos) (Matthew 20:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 20:26, 27).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

When should I confront a person who has offended me?

When should I ignore offenses against me and when I confront the offender?

Three passages answer the first part of the question. "The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression." (Proverbs 19:11)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 19:11). In Matthew 18:22," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:22, when the Lord taught Peter to forgive "until seventy times seven," He discouraged keeping count of others' wrongs. It is not right to remember with resentment or with a view to paying back. "Taketh not account of evil" (1 Corinthians 13:5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 13:5, RV) is in keeping with this teaching.

Luke 17:3," TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:3,4 touches the second part of the question: "If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." Here are the alternatives: rebuke him or forget it. If I must rebuke him, the Lord Jesus teaches, "tell him his fault between thee and him alone" (Matthew 18:15)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15). If there is a good possibility of restoring him from wrongdoing, Galatians 6:1" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 6:1 teaches me to confront him "in the spirit of meekness." When there is professed repentance, the Lord instructs me to forgive, since only God can measure its genuineness.

W. Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Bible say "Where there's life there is hope"?

In Ecclesiastes 9: 4," TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9: 4, we find these words :—“For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Does this teach that there is hope as long as life remains?

Solomon beholds all the work of God (Ecclesiastes 8:16)" TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 8:16) and desires to understand what God is doing, but not even a wise man can fathom it (i.e., by his natural intelligence). God must make it plain, as He did His WAYS unto Moses (Psalm 103:7)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 103:7). But of one thing he is sure, that the righteous and wise are in God’s hand (Ecclesiastes 9:1)." TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:1). But judged by all they see before them (i.e., by the sight of the eyes), no man can gauge whether love or hatred is his, because, by the fact of sin being in the world, one event—death_comes to all, righteous and wicked, religious and irreligious. Surely that is an evil thing. I think that verse 4 only emphasises this evil—an inevitable death. For while there is life there is hope, “for a living dog”—an unclean animal in the Oriental and Biblical view—”is better than a dead lion”—the king of beasts. When Solomon wrote, many problems now revealed were unsolved. “Jesus Christ had not yet brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.” But none the less, the Ecclesiastes is a true revelation from God of the workings of man’s mind, so that man may know himself.
WH.

Other pages in this section

About this site

To whom can believers go if the elders seem unapproachable?

To whom can believers go if the elders seem unapproachable?

This perception may not be true. Try to approach them! Otherwise, we are responsible to notice the log in our own eye before noticing the speck in our brother’s eye (Matthew 7:1," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:1, ESV). In interpersonal problems, first check your own "eye." Is it possible that you have contributed to this alienation? If so, confess the fault (James 5:16)" TARGET="_blank">James 5:16) - even the slightest contribution - and seek to remedy the situation.

But, supposing that the log is in overseers’ eyes, two possibilities exist. The first is a primary resource and the second is a possible resource. The primary resource is prayer, whether or not the overseers are unapproachable. This is not a resource of last resort! The possible resource is some other Christian brother or sister who has earned your respect and the respect of other (and perhaps older) godly believers. In seeking their help, refrain from speaking evil of your overseeing brothers (James 4:11;" TARGET="_blank">James 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13), and do not allow this to produce factions in the assembly.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a Christian be gay or homosexual?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL and email address in your answer.

Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu