Is Isaac’s promise to Esau (Gen 27:40" TARGET="_blank">Gen 27:40b) fulfilled or being fulfilled at present?

Jacob said to Esau, who had pleaded for some blessing from his father, "by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck" (Gen 27:40)." TARGET="_blank">Gen 27:40). The question refers to the words in bold text.

If, as it seems to be, Edom is associated with Esau’s posterity, Jacob’s seed has suffered under Esau’s posterity on a number of occasions in history. The line of the New Testament Herods provides one example. The likelihood is that the prophecy of Isaac has been a characteristic response of the Edomites to the Jews. The present conflict in the Middle East is a further illustration of this. We are seeing that character of this conflict repeated. Obadiah tells us of the time when this condition will be changed: "Upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, . . . and the house of Jacob shall possess their possession . . . And saviors shall come up on mount Zion, to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s (Obadiah 17, 21)." TARGET="_blank">Obadiah 17, 21).

David Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Matthew misquote Jeremiah and Zechariah?

In Matthew 27:9-10," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:9-10, the writer ascribed to Jeremiah the well known prophecy of Zechariah 11:12-13." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 11:12-13.
Please explain why he did so.

Was Matthew as a pious Jew, long in the companionship and service of our Lord, and a man of apostolic gifts, likely, quite apart from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to confuse the prophets Jeremiah and Zechariah? Here he was engaged under the direct guidance of the Spirit, in writing a book which was to live down the ages, and which he, as a mere man, was perfectly incapable of producing. Infidels have foolishly boasted sometimes that they could write as good a book as the Bible. They ought to do it then, for it would pay them well. It would be a “best seller” for years. Matthew plainly was familiar with Zechariah, as his quotation in Matthew 21:4-5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 21:4-5 shews, and could not have confused the books, even with his own intelligence alone.

The probable explanation is the one cited by Lightfoot, that Jeremiah, as considerably the longest of the prophets, had the first place among them, and so his name came to be used for the volume of the prophetical writings. He quotes the learned David Kimchi as his authority. We often speak of the Psalms ofDavid, without affirming he wrote them all. There is another explanation which may also be the true one. The expression, “spoken by Jeremy the prophet,” may refer to some well known word of the prophet, just as Paul in Acts xx refers to words of our Lord: “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” which are not recorded in the Gospels. The quotation of Matthew does not agree exactly either with the Hebrew or LXX of Zechariah 11." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 11. Sometimes the prophets did receive messages as to the same events in almost identical language. Supposing, for instance, some New Testament writer had quoted Micah 4:1-3," TARGET="_blank">Micah 4:1-3, and it had not been recorded that Isaiah had said the same words in chapter 11:2-4 of his prophecy, and we had read that the well-known words of Micah “were spoken by Isaiah the prophet,” how eagerly critics would have seized upon it as a mistake! Of one thing we may be sure, Matthew, an inspired apostle, chosen of God for this wonderful ministry, did not make a mistake.
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What guidance does God

What guidance does God’s Word give on the role of an elder’s wife?

Although Paul gives qualities requisite in the wives of deacons (1 Timothy 3:11)," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:11), he does not do the same for overseers’ wives. Some biblical principles do provide guidance for her role, however.

When the Lord entrusted responsibility for subduing and having dominion over the earth, He gave it to them, the male and female (Genesis 1:28)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:28), Adam and Eve. When that work began, Adam received the responsibility for tilling the garden, the commandment about what to eat, and the work of naming the animals (2:15, 16, 19, 20). It was not "good" for Adam to "be alone" in this, so the Lord made Eve (v18). Together, they were responsible for the work, but Adam carried out the work and Eve completed him in doing it.

An overseer’s wife, therefore, is an integral part of a unit that shares in overseeing the believers. Her husband does the work and she completes, supports, and enables him in this responsibility. She may have to help him make time for his work, and that will often mean sacrificing time she would enjoy with him. She will greatly enable him by living the Christian standards of God’s Word and seeking grace from the Lord to exemplify the qualities of a Christian wife. She may also help her husband by accompanying him when he gives spiritual counsel to assembly sisters. The overseers may ask her to assist them by dealing directly with a sister whose problem involves sensitive issues, difficult for men to address. At times, an elder’s wife may be able to provide insights that her husband’s male perspective lacks.

She will, at times, recognize that some matters her husband is handling must remain confidential and he is wise to keep them from her so as not to prejudice or overburden her. In any event, all she knows about her husband’s work is to remain between her and her husband. Information about oversight matters should never come from an overseer’s wife. Communicating such matters is his (or the oversight’s) responsibility, not hers.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is a deacon

Is a deacon’s work material or spiritual?

Various New Testament passages show that deacon service can be material and physical. Angels ministered to the Lord (Matthew 4:11;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 4:11; Mark 1:13);" TARGET="_blank">Mark 1:13); Martha served (Luke 10:40;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:40; John 12:2." TARGET="_blank">John 12:2. Financial relief (same word) sent from Antioch to Jerusalem was entrusted to Barnabas and Saul who fulfilled this ministry (Acts 11:29;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 11:29; Acts 12:25)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 12:25). Paul and Apollos, however, were ministers (1 Corinthians 3:5)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:5). Ministers wait on their ministry (Romans 12:7)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:7). In the epistles, the word usually describes a spiritual responsibility. Even Paul’s ministry to the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 15:25) involved an administrative responsibility for the money. In addition, the qualifications for a deacon (1 Timothy 3:8-10)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:8-10) are spiritual, including his "holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience." Deacon work then does not exclude physical and material responsibilities, but its emphasis is spiritual (1 Corinthians 3:5; 12:5;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:5; 12:5; 2 Corinthians 3:3; 4:1; 5:18;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3:3; 4:1; 5:18; Ephesians 4:12;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:12; 1 Timothy 1:12;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 1:12; 1 Peter 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 4:11).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Matthew 18:20 apply only to "our assemblies"?

Does Matthew 18:20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20 apply only to "our assemblies"?

That is looking at the truth backwards. In this passage, the Lord informs us that a church (v 17) is His dwelling place (v 20). As such, He gives it authority to administer His wishes (v 18). So it is the Lord Who determines which group is His dwelling place. This truth doesn’t belong to "us." It is God’s universal truth. Some may "claim" the verse, but that doesn’t make them an assembly.

We learn from this passage some of the privileges and responsibilities of an assembly. Wherever God has worked and planted assemblies, they do not become "part of us." They are the Lord’s, purchased with "the blood of His Own." Wherever He has gathered believers to His name, they are His dwelling place and act with His authority. We do not have a monopoly on this truth, but it should be clear that any groups to which this applies will be building according to the same pattern we are seeking to follow.

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the meaning of "one flesh"?

What is the meaning of "one flesh"?

This was God’s intention at the institution of marriage (Genesis 2:24)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24). It expresses the oneness of a married couple. In this seminal statement, the Lord points out that a man leaves his role of obedience to his parents (although still responsible to honor them, Exo 20:12) to assume headship of a new and distinct relationship. At marriage a new family unit exists that had never existed before. This newly-formed oneness, involves a physical union, the culmination of marriage, but it involves more than that. Four of the five New Testament passages that refer to "one flesh" (Matthew 19:5, 6;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:5, 6; Mark 10:8;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:8; Ephesians 5:31)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31), quote the original statement and are passages that teach about marriage. The fifth (1 Corinthians 6:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:16) is part of Paul’s teaching about fornication (v 18). He states that one who "is joined to an harlot" is "one body." Then he cites the Lord’s original intention (Genesis 2:24)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24) regarding "one flesh." The promiscuous relationship with a harlot is a physical union, but not the physical union God intended in marriage. "One body" does not include the intended intimacy and oneness of a unique relationship within marriage. "One body" is merely an external relationship. "One flesh" is both physical and relational, expressing the inseparable closeness of Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:31, 32)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31, 32). This can never be expressed outside marriage.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

When did the 2,300 days in Daniel 8:14 begin and end?

When did the 2,300 days in Daniel 8:14" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 8:14 commence and end?

What sanctuary was to be cleansed at the end of that period?

No doubt, all questions concerning what it has pleased God to reveal to us, have their importance, and so with these, but they gain a certain fictitious importance, whether the questioner knows it or not, owing to the use or rather misuse made of the above passage by the so-called Seventh-day Adventists, to build up their arbitrary and altogether unscriptural system of interpretation, which nullifies the atoning work of Christ in its present application to the believer, and justification by faith alone. The originator of the system was a certain W. Miller, who foretold the return of the Lord to the earth on a certain day in 1844. His followers in white garments were expecting the event on that day. When it failed to realise, Miller was himself rid of his idea and confessed his error, and the whole system would have collapsed had not one of Miller’s adepts, a certain Mrs. Ellen ‘White imagined a way of escape to account for the evident failure of Miller’s prophecy. A mistake had been made, she affirmed: the Lord had come, not to earth, however, but to the most holy place of the sanctuary in heaven to complete, (!) the work of atonement. He had till then (i.e., up to 1844) been “pleading in the first apartment” of the sanctuary on behalf of penitent believers, and thus securing their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. So that, according to this heory, the sins of believers, though pardoned, still remained upon the books of record, and are supposed to be constantly defiling the heavenly sanctuary. Could anyone imagine a more arbitrary, selfc9ntradictory, or unscriptural system? It rejects the efficacy of His blood to cleanse from all sin. It denies that God has not only forgiven, but has also blotted out His people’s sins from the book of His renembrance—”Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no møre.” The whole theory of “the sanctuary” being in heaven, and that ou Lord was up to 1844 in the “first apartment” of it, is pure imagination, In any case, “the veil was rent at the cross from the top to the bottom”, so that since then, the sanctuary could be no more divided into two apartments, that is, into Holy Place and Holy of Holies. Moreover,, Heb. 8." TARGET="_blank">Heb. 8. i and 9. a. tell us that the place of our Lord’s priestly work is where He is now and has been since His ascension—”on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens”; “in heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us.” That was true when “Hebrews” was written, and there is not a line to prove that any other entrance into any other part of the heavenly sanctuary was ever contemplated or took place, still less that such an event would occur in 1844. I believe the prophecy of Daniel does not deal directly with the church at all, but with God’s earthly people, Israel. The sanctuary that is spoken of in chap. 8. 13-14 is the literal sanctuary of the temple at Jerusalem, and “the 2,300 days” are, in fact, days, not years. This passage ought to be read with chap. 9. 27, where we see that the period in question is the last “week” or period of seven years, of the 70 weeks of years (lit. Heb., “seven of sevens”*), during which the covenant will be made between the Man of Sin, the last governmental head of the revived Roman Empire, who is called in Daniel 9:26" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:26 “the Prince that shall come”, and the last false King of Israel, the Antichrist. This covenant will be broken in the midst of the week (v. 27), that is after 3 years: the daily sacrifice will be taken away and the Sanctuary of the Temple will in some way be defiled (see Daniel 11:31)" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 11:31) by what is called “the abomination of desolation”, or in more usual language, the image of the beast set up in it, “standing in the holy place” (Matthew 24:15)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:15). It is this vile image which will defile the sanctuary, and it will only be cleansed at the coming of the Lord at the end of the 2,300 days. Seven prophetic years is a period of 2,520 days, so that the time will be 220 days, or a little more than 7 months, short of this. This may be accounted for by God’s shortening of the days of persecution by the two Beasts for the elect’s sake, according to Matt. 24. 22." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 24. 22. There are those who fancy that Seventh-day Adventism is a more or less harmless system taken up with perhaps strange views on the Coming of the Lord. It is a deadly heretical system which denies the fundamentals of the faith, nullifies the atone-, ment, attributes a sinful nature to our Holy Lord, makes Satan the ultimate bearer of Christians’ sins, and insists on his final annihilation and that of all the wicked dead. W.H.

* This is not the same as the day-year theory that every day can be taken for a year, because
the siord for “week” ia period of “seven”, it may b days, weeks or years.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What scriptures guide overseers in interviewing believers for assembly fellowship?

What scriptures guide overseers in interviewing believers for assembly fellowship?

Barnabas wanted the believers in Jerusalem to know three things in order to welcome Saul to the privileges and responsibilities of the assembly (Acts 9:26-29)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 9:26-29). Barnabas "declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way (his conversion), and that he had spoken to him (his doctrine), and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus (his life)" (verse 27). If a person is to be part of "the fellowship" (Acts 2:42)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42), he must share these three things with the other believers: a common life (he must be saved); a common faith (he must be willing to believe "the faith once for all delivered to the saints"); a common standard of behavior (he must have a testimony consistent with Christian truth; this includes baptism). Different individuals present different needs. Someone who has attended other congregations may be questioned more closely about what he believes. A new believer may questioned more fully about his life, perhaps including moral and marital history, financial dealings, substance abuse, or other matters that elders may even prefer not to discuss. This is not a matter of prying, nor should it be confrontational or embarrassing to anyone involved. The assembly must know those who become part of it. In the process of getting to know these people on a warm, personal, social basis, any questions that arise must be settled to the satisfaction of those who guide the assembly and help preserve its integrity.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What do the expressions in Isaiah mean "a child born" and a "son given"?

What is the difference in Isaiah 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6 between the expressions the “child born” and the “Son given”?

There is an important difference, I believe, and one which the exponents of what they term “the New Light,” as to the Eternal Sonship of our Lord, would do well to consider. Why is the “child” said to be “born,” but the “Son” not born, but “given”? We read in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 that God had been pleased to offer to king Ahaz a sign to confirm his doubting soul, that the line of David would not be superseded by the son of Tabeal, according to the Satanic design of Rezin and Pekah, which would have set aside the purpose of God regarding His future King, who must be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Ahaz had liberty of choice; he might ask for any sign in the depth, that is commensurate with the drying up of the Red Sea, or in the height commensurate with the standing still of the sun in answer to Joshua’s prayer. The king who was continually tempting God by his disobedience, refused this offer: He would not tempt the Lord, he said. Very well, then, the Lord will give a sign greater than any other known so far in the history of the world—the Virgin Birth of Him who was God:
“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (v. 14). A great effort of unbelief has been made to show that the word,” ‘almãh,” translated “virgin,” should be rather rendered “young married woman.” Such an objection hardly shows unusual scholarship, so much as a lack of common sense; for the fact of a young married woman having a son would be no sign at all. In this verse, in the phrase “a virgin shall.. . bear a son,” the same verb is used as in Isaiah 9:6," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6, “a child is born.” Here the Son is viewed as the Son of
Mary in the sense of Matthew 1:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25 “She brought forth her first-born Son.” Why then is the “Son” said to be “given” in Isaiah 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6? The reason is that there the One born is viewed as the One who had already been Son from all eternity. He could not become that by human birth. The child was born, but God gave His Eternal Son.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does discipleship overrule responsibilities to the family?

Considering Luke 14:26," TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:26, does discipleship conflict with family responsibilities?

Disciples must obey "whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:20). Paul states that his writings are "the commandment of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:37). Therefore, Paul’s teaching that children obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:1), that husbands love, cleave to, cherish, and nourish their wives (Ephesians 5:28-31)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:28-31), that parents provide for their children (2 Corinthians 12:14)," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 12:14), and that all manifest the affection of brotherly love (Romans 12:10)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:10) cannot conflict with Christ’s requiring His disciples to hate their father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters.

Luke’s record of the Lord’s previous use of the word "hate" is in 6:27, where we are to love and express good will even toward those who hate us. Therefore Luke 14:26" TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:26 cannot teach absolute hatred toward our closest relatives when we are to love even our enemies. The Lord’s next use of "hate" (16:13) pictures a servant with two masters. If both give him a command, his response will involve either love, holding to one (same word as "holding fast" the faithful word, Titus 1:9)," TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:9), or hate, being heedless (YLT) of the other. Loyalty and its resulting obedience are the issue. This is relative hatred. The demands of our dearest cannot rival our loyalty and obedience to Christ. The security and comfort of cherished relationships cannot compromise our commitment to Christ. But let us be assured that to act in loyalty to Christ is to do what is absolutely best for our loved ones.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu