- About this site

Will the Church be sent to separate the wheat from the tares?

We read in Matthew 13:41" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:41: “The Son of Man shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.”

Are we not right in understanding the angels here to be the Church glorified, and made equal to the angels, seeing we read in Hebrews 2:5," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:5, “For unto the angels (the angels of chapter 1) hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.”?

No, it would be a great mistake to confound angels with the Church, as this questioner suggests. I do not know of any passage which teaches that the Church becomes angels, or indeed that any saints do. In Luke 20:36," TARGET="_blank">Luke 20:36, where our Lord uses the expression, “equal unto the angels,” it is only as to the question of their immortality (“neither shall they die any more”), that the children of the resurrection (not here oniy the Church) “are equal to the angels.” The next words add a point of blessing, in which these surpass the angels, “and are the children of God,” which the angels are not. I think Hebrews 2:5" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:5 argues rather against, than for, the thesis of the questioner. “The world to come” (i.e., the millennial age) will not be subjected to angels, which is another point of their inferiority to the Church, for that age will be subject to Christ, with Whom God associates not angels, but the many sons whom He is bringing to glory. If the angels are excluded from this rule, how can they be the same as the Church?

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a difference between being gathered to His name and being gathered to Him?

Is there a difference between being gathered to His name and being gathered to Him?

Strictly speaking, the New Testament doesn’t speak of "being gathered to Him." The Hebrew believers however were to "go forth" to the Lord, bearing His reproach (Hebrews 13:13," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:13, JND). These believers were to identify themselves with Christ because the despised, yet exalted Jesus of this epistle drew them.

"Being gathered together unto My name" (Matthew 18:20," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20, JND) is passive, emphasizing that the "two or three" present did not per se gather themselves to His name. Because the Spirit works to glorify Christ (John 16:14)," TARGET="_blank">John 16:14), the Spirit is likely the One Who gathers believers to His name. What is the Spirit’s purpose in gathering believers to that name? The Lord’s name, like Hebrew names, reveals His character; it testifies about Him. God said regarding Solomon’s temple, "My name shall be there" (1 Kings 8:29)." TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 8:29). The greatness of the temple that bore God’s name testified to the greatness of God. Thus, at present the Spirit gathers believers to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ because God has established a testimony in a locality; the church of God is to express the character and glory of Him Whose name it bears.

Love to Christ causes us to be identified with Him ("gathered to Him") in assembly fellowship; the Spirit gathers us to His name, establishing and maintaining a testimony regarding the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should prayers of worship be organized like a sermon?

Should the character of prayers at the Breaking of Bread be like the content of a ministry message?

Prayers at the Breaking of Bread should not be like the content of a ministry message. Ministry is the spiritual service of preaching the Word to God's people and preaching the Gospel to the lost. Prayer at the Breaking of Bread meeting involves worship.

When the Lord Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper He said, "This do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19). Our prayers should express to God our appreciation of the glorious Person and work of the Lord Jesus as our Creator and Redeemer. Therefore our worship should consist of such subjects as: His creation of the universe by the power of His spoken word, His mighty stoop from the throne of Heaven to the womb of the Virgin, His perfect life and service to God and man which brought such delight to God's heart, the rejection and shame men heaped upon Him, His infinite suffering and death upon the cross as the Bearer of our sin, and His glorious resurrection and ascension to God's right hand.

Ministry is a message from God directed manward, whereas public worship is directed God-ward on behalf of the assembly. Both should involve orderly thought, but a consciousness of speaking to God in worship will keep a man from appearing to "teach God knowledge" (Job 21:22)." TARGET="_blank">Job 21:22).

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Matthew 18, verses 15 to 20 deal with an interpersonal problem?

Does Matthew 18," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18, verses 15 to 20 deal with an interpersonal problem?

"If thy brother trespass against thee" clearly seems to involve a trespass against an individual. However many translations and most of the manuscripts from which our translations come either omit "against thee" or note that it may not have been in the original writings.

Rather than leaving us in confusion, this calls for greater care in understanding the passage. If "against thee" belongs in the passage, the Lord is instructing an individual who has been injured by another's sin. If "against thee" was not in the Lord's teaching, the teaching is more general and addresses one who is concerned about his brother who has strayed. Actually, the context, an important aid in interpreting any passage, supports either possibility.

Consider the first possibility ("if thy brother trespass against thee"). At the beginning of the chapter (vv. 1-4), the Lord states the requirement for entering the kingdom. Apart from the simplicity, lowliness, and dependence that characterizes a child, no one will enter the kingdom. These who thus enter are like the One Who is meek and lowly (v. 4; 11:29); He identifies them with Himself. They are of inestimable worth to Him. Unbelievers who harm them face severe judgment, for He came to save them (vv. 6-11). As dependent as children and defenseless as sheep, His own have His protection against unbelievers who wrong them. But what if another believer wrongs his brother (not now pictured as a child or sheep)? The Lord has given full administrative authority to His own - to the assembly - to protect such a wronged brother.

Consider the second possibility ("if thy brother trespass"). In verses 11 through 14, the Lord shows that both He and His Father have shepherd hearts in their concern for these "little ones." How suitable that one who belongs to this family should be like the Father and His Son and should persistently seek the recovery of his sinning and straying brother!

This second possibility flows more smoothly since it fits the context of the verses immediately preceding it. Furthermore, this second view includes the first view. The straying brother's sin may be an interpersonal problem, but it is not limited to that. It includes other kinds of sins.

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

Had Satan any history previous to his appearing in the Garden Of Eden?

Had Satan any history previous to his appearing in the Garden Of Eden?

or does the expression in Ezekiel 28" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28 —”Eden the garden of God,” mean the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were?

Such a thought as that Satan fell in the earthly Eden is entirely foreign to the Genesis account, where Satan is presented to us at once as the seducer of man. His fall is always considered in the Scriptures as from heaven not on earth. To rest such a theory as that Satan fell in the Eden of Genesis 2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2, on the words, “Thou wast in Eden,” (Ezekiel 28:13)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:13), is like balancing a pyramid on its apex. The word Eden is ‘edhen (from ‘adhan, to be delighted), and simply means a place of delight. It would be like saying that when Paul was caught up into Paradise, it must have been into the garden of Eden, for the same Greek word paradeisos is used there. As there is a heavenly and an earthly paradise, we may believe there is a heavenly as well as an earthly Eden. It is noticeable that “the garden of Eden” does not necessarily mean that the garden and Eden are the same, for in ver. 8 we read, “God planted a garden in Eden”, and in ver. io, “A river went out of Eden to water the garden”; thus the two are distinguished. This garden is never called “the Garden of God”, as in Ezekiel 28:13" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:13 (“In Eden, the garden of God. . . thou wast.”) The Genesis “garden” is rather the garden of man. The description of Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:12-15" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:12-15 (for it is surely he) must be taken as a whole, revealing his created glories (v. 12), and the place of delight, perfectly suitable to his nature prepared for him by God. Next his covering is described. The beauty of the place seems to have been rather mineral than vegetable. He was the anointed cherub that coyered (i.e., the throne of God?). “He was in the holy Mountain of God and he walked up and down (same word and mood employed of Enoch) in the midst of the stones of fire.” All this is perfectly foreign to the earthly paradise of Genesis 2." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2. The account goes on—”Thou wast perfect in all thy ways, from the day that thou wast created till iniquity was found in thee.” The earthly “garden of Eden” was prepared by• God for man at his creation, and we have no reason to believe he was long in Eden before he fell. Is it not a fantastic theory that all that we have read in Ezekiel, beginning with “Thou was in Eden . . . till iniquity was found in thee”, must be squeezed into man’s unfallen, sojourn in the garden! We do not make ourselves responsible for speculations attributed to those who believe Satan fell long previously! to man. We do not profess to be “wise above that which is written,” but we regard the theory of Satan’s fall in the Adamic garden of Eden’ as quite untenable and as subversive of all sane scriptural interpretation.
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was there more than one Tabernacle made by Moses?

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 Deuteronomy 10:1-5" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 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 Deuteronomy 10" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 10 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;" TARGET="_blank">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

Is the breaking of bread the same as the communion service?

Why do we avoid calling the Sunday meeting when we break bread the Communion Service?

We express our communion (or fellowship) when we remember the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16). Taking the cup demonstrates our fellowship with God (v 21). Taking the bread expresses our fellowship with one another in the assembly (v 17). It is therefore a communion service. As we gather to take these emblems, we obey the Lord’s words, "This do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19). It is therefore a remembrance meeting. We meet to do this each Lord’s Day morning, therefore it is a morning meeting, although believers in Acts likely met in the evening (Acts 20:7)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7). However, none of these designations is used in the New Testament as a name for this gathering of the assembly. The Spirit uses "the breaking of the bread" (literally) in referring to this gathering (2:42). Likewise, the Spirit inspired Paul to use the expression "the Lord’s supper" (1Co 11:20)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 11:20) when he wrote about the Corinthians meeting to remember the Lord. Calling it "The Breaking of Bread" or "The Lord’s Supper" is more consistent with the Biblical designations of this gathering.

In evangelical usage, "The Communion Service" is a common designation of a gathering where believers share in taking the bread and the cup. Attempts to accommodate our terminology to that of evangelical congregations obscure the Scriptural difference between a church of God and other gatherings whose doctrine may be sound but whose pattern does not come from the New Testament. Rather than shrinking from being different, why not highlight the beauty of the Biblical pattern by using Biblical terms?

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why is Joseph’s genealogy given in Matthew's Gospel?

Why is Joseph’s genealogy given in Matthew's Gospel, instead of that of Mary, seeing that Joseph was not the father of the Lord Jesus?

There are, as is well known, not one but two genealogies of Christ in the Gospels. In Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: His royal descent is traced from Abraham, through David and the kings of Judah, down to Joseph, His legal, though not His actual father. But in Luke 3" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3 His natural descent is traced from Mary’s own father, Heli, through a different branch of the Davidic family up to Adam. The phrase, “Being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” which is parenthetically inserted in Luke 3:23," TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:23, really answers the questions asked above. For since He was supposed, or legally reckoned, to be Joseph’s son, it was necessary that there should be what might be called an official genealogy, through him to David and Abraham, as well as that through His mother, in order that all objections to His claim to be “Son of David” should be silenced. In Matthew’s Gospel Joseph is prominent, and in Luke’s, Mary, not merely in the genealogies, but in the entire narrative, which in each case is as it should be, in view of the Jewish character of the former, and the Gentile character of the latter.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did God the Father, rather than Jesus, deliver the Book of Revelation to John?

Why was the Revelation given by the Father rather than by Jesus Christ Himself (Revelation 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 1:1)?

The Revelation is given by God, Who, of course, we understand in this passage, is the Father.

The defining portrait of the Lord Jesus in the Revelation is "One like unto the Son of Man" (1:13; 14:14). As such, He has authority to execute judgment (Joh 5:27)" TARGET="_blank">Joh 5:27) and to extend God’s rule throughout God’s creation (Heb 2:6-8)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 2:6-8). The Revelation gives us the course of events leading to this fulfillment, when the word comes from the throne, "It is done" (Rev 21:6)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 21:6).

In His role as the Son of God and as the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus always moves in subjection to His Father and in dependence on His God, respectively. Because He is God, the Lord had full knowledge of all these events and He did not lack the ability to communicate them. We cannot but worship when we see Him always acting within the role entrusted to Him.

When it was God’s purpose to strengthen His people and enable them to be true to the soon-coming Sovereign, He committed that communication to Jesus Christ, the ascended Man. His role, as Son of God and Son of Man is to communicate. As His God and Father, God’s role is to determine what, when, and how to communicate.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu