James Dyck

• About this site

David Jones

• About this site

Bryon Meyers

• About this site

Albert Hull

• About this site

A mini coloring book and small posters to help the Sunday school teacher tell the story of Elijah ascending to heaven in a chariot of fire.

• About this site

Elaine Nordman

• About this site

• About this site

Will those who are judged in Matthew 25:41-46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41-46 appear again at the Great White Throne of Revelation 20:11" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:11?

Matthew 25:41-46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41-46 describes the Judgment of the Nations, which is to be distinguished from the Judgment of the Great White Throne. The Judgment of the Great White Throne takes place in eternity, after the Millennium. The wicked dead will be judged and consigned to the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:11-15)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:11-15).
The Judgment of the Nations, or Gentiles (the Greek word can mean either), takes place on earth when Christ comes to reign, as verse 31 clearly states: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him.” If we are right in identifying it with Joel 3," TARGET="_blank">Joel 3, the location is the Valley of Jehoshaphat, outside Jerusalem (Joel 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:2). The nations will be judged according to their treatment of Christ's Jewish brethren during the Tribulation (Joel 3:1-2," TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:1-2, Joel 3:12-14;" TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:12-14; Matthew 25:31-46)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:31-46).

Does this judgment teach salvation by works? The message of the Bible is that salvation is by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:8-9). But the Bible is just as quick to say that true faith produces good works. If there are no good works, it is an indication that the person was never saved. So we must understand that the Gentiles are not saved by befriending the Jewish remnant, but that this kindness reflects their love for the Lord.

The Scriptures do not, so far as I am aware, give us any further information about them than what is contained in Matthew 25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25 itself. In Matthew 25:41" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41 the command is, “Depart ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels”; and then in verse 46 it is stated, “These shall go away into everlasting punishment”; both of which expressions can scarcely be understood otherwise than of the Lake of Fire.

And if they are sent from this judgment to the Lake of Fire directly, it is difficult to see why they should be brought back from it to stand before the Great White Throne; especially as that appears to be entirely a judgment of the dead, whose bodies have been in the earth or sea, and whose souls have been in hell. According to Revelation 19:20," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 19:20, the beast and the false prophet will be cast alive into the Lake of Fire at the Lord’s appearing; and therefore there would be no difficulty in assuming that these of Matthew 25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25 may be similarly disposed of.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

WAS JUDAS PRESENT

Was Judas present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper?

This is a much debated point, on which godly men have differed, so one would hesitate to dogmatise. Before giving what I believe to be the correct answer, I would say that the anxiety to prove that Judas was not present seems to rest on the false assumption that his presence would sanction to-day the admission of the ungodly to the Lord’s table. I believe this to be an entire mistake. Judas was a professed disciple of the Lord and one of the twelve apostles. He had passed all the tests and was apparently the most trusted of all by his fellow apostles, though the Lord knew from the beginning that he was a devil and would betray Him (John 6:64, 70)." TARGET="_blank">John 6:64, 70). He did not, however, use His omniscience to expose Judas before the time, in fact not till he had irretrievably committed himself. His presence then at the Lord’s table would no more justify the reception of those known to be ungodly, than his being sent forth to preach would sanction the sending forth of the ungodly for this purpose. Matthew 26:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:25 seems to shew he was present up to the institution, and verse 26 begins, “As they were eating.” That is, the passover was not yet formally over; is it conceivable then that Judas would have left the room thus prematurely, as he must have done, to bar his being present at the institution of “the supper”? However, whether he did or not is not clearly stated in this Gospel, nor yet in Mark 14:22." TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:22.

It is true that before that, the Lord had said plainly that the traitor would be found “among them that dipped with Him in the dish”; and He had said to Judas, “Thou has said,” in answer to his query, “Master (not Lord) is it I?” which for very decency’s sake he must have felt bound to make, lest he should draw attention to himself by his silence (Matthew 26:25)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:25). But this was probably only to Judas’ ear, who sat next to Him. This must not be confounded with the Lord’s definite sign to John, in answer to what I believe was his subsequent question, “Lord who is it?” “He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.” This revealed definitely to John the name of the traitor, and he alone narrates the incident (John 13:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:26, 27).

When we come to Luke’s Gospel we have a definite statement which must be allowed to have its influence, and I believe, its determinative influence with us. After the Lord has instituted the supper of remembrance, He immediately adds, “But, behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” The force of this definite statement is met at once by some who assert that Luke does not give us things in historic, but in moral order. Certainly there is a measure of truth in this, though it can not mean that the historic order in some detailed account by Luke is never to be followed, but only has weight when Luke gives us an order of events (as he does, e.g., in the last journey to Jerusalem) which seems to clash with the other Gospels. But what moral order is concerned in such a statement as that of our Lord? (Luke 22:21)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:21). It would seem to be going out of the way to introduce confusion, rather than moral order, unless we are to take it literally. If Matthew and Mark had clearly stated that Judas had left before the supper was instituted, then such an argument might have force, and Luke’s testimony be discounted. John 13" TARGET="_blank">John 13 does not seem really to help us, as there is no hint that Judas went out before the first “breaking of the bread,” for nothing is said of it. He did go out when the Lord had given him the sop and that was, I believe, after he had par- taken to his own condemnation of the bread and the wine, symbols of that very body and blood, of which by his betrayal he became guilty.

W.H.

• About this site

Can the Sin against the Holy Spirit be committed to-day?

The possibility would seem greater in the present day than in the days of Christ, as the Holy Spirit is now in Person on the earth. This sin seems to be a deliberate ascription, not necessarily aloud, but perhaps in the heart, to Satan of the Spirit’s work. For those who refused the Lord Jesus, as Messiah there was forgiveness, as witness the early chapters of the Acts. But when once the apostolic testimony to a risen Christ by the Holy Ghost was definitely and nationally refused, we hear no longer of such mass conversions, and the blessing moved more and more from Jerusalem to the Gentiles, though the grace of God lingered over the beloved city, as the glory had done in the time of Ezekiel. There may be a point in the experience of many, when they finally resolve to refuse Christ and probably never experience the Spirit’s drawing again. They will henceforward believe any lie, but the truth, never.

Such individual apostacy will become the mass movement of the very last days. They Will believe the lie, and take the mark of the Beast and their eternal doom will be finally sealed. This is apostacy, from which there is no recovery, a.giving up of Christianity, sometimes, as one hears to-day, for Mohammedaflism, Buddism, Hinduism, Spiritism or what not. One thing, however, is, I believe, certain, that such apostacy is never marked by a fear of having apostatised. That is not the sign of apostacy, but rather the belief that the truth has at last been found.

Where a poor soul dreads having committed the unpardonable sin, and still desires to be saved, there is no apostacy, and no doubt there is still mercy in the heart of God to such an one, and a full offer of salvation by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Let such an one come to Christ and he or she will not be cast out.

W.H.

• About this site

In Isaiah 53:7" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:7 we read, “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb”; but in Acts 8:32" TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:32 the order is reversed, and it is said to be “as a sheep led to the slaughter, and like a lamb dumb,” etc. How are we to account for this reversal?

The quotation in Acts is almost word for word from the Septuagint or Greek version, the LXX, as it is described in letters. The word for “sheep” in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:7" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:7 is not the same as that used in verse 6: “All we like sheep (con) have gone astray.” The word here is of frequent occurrence, whereas that in v. 7 (ral.iel) occurs only four times in the whole Old Testament. It comes from an unused root, perhaps the same as rAliam—to cherish—connected with an Arabic root—to have lambs. The word in the first part of the verse, translated “lamb” (sëh), is rendered “sheep” in several passages in the Old Testament. It seems, therefore, that the words employed by the Holy Spirit operating on the mind of Isaiah in this verse 7, are not so precise as to necessitate their rendering in the LXX translation as “lamb” and “sheep,” as they appear in our rendering of Isaiah 53:7," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:7, but leave a margin of liberty to reverse the meaning of the words, and put lamb second, and sheep first, as in Acts 8." TARGET="_blank">Acts 8. It is a question of the words used in the Old Testament verse, which as I have said, are not closely defined and of the choice of words by the translators of the Greek version, from which the Eunuch would be reading.

W.H.

• About this site

Should a woman be silent in Church?  Can a woman speak in church?

Women should not teach in the church. 

Three passages in the NT must be considered: 1 Corinthians 11:3" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:3—5, 14—34,35 and 1 Timothy 2:8" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:8—15.

1 Corinthians 11:3-5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:3-5  But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.  (4)  Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,  (5)  but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

1 Corinthians 14:33-37" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:33-37  For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,  (34)  the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.  (35)  If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.  (36)  Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?  (37)  If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:8-15" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:8-15  I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;  (9)  likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,  (10)  but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works.  (11)  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.  (12)  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  (13)  For Adam was formed first, then Eve;  (14)  and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.  (15)  Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Many have found a problem in Paul’s statement, “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head” (1 Corinthians 11:5)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:5). Some have said that Paul is giving authority for a woman to audibly take part in prayer and to prophesy in the church of God at Corinth.

Chatter?

To get around his prohibition, that women are to be silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34), they claim that Paul is not prohibiting normal participation in church, but is forbidding women to “chatter” among themselves in a meeting. This is very interesting, for it illustrates how it is possible to read personal interpretations into Scripture. The very first evidence against this interpretation is to read the next verse, “But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to speak in an assembly” (v.35, JND). Is the wife to ask her husband about the content of the chatter? ‘To chatter’ means to talk incessantly and foolishly. Is this what the wife asks her husband about, or does she ask for information?  The word for ‘speak’ in verse 34 is very common in the NT. In fact, it is used 24 times in this very chapter. Not here, or anywhere in the NT is it used for ‘chatter’.

Change of Mind?

Others have contended that Paul changed his mind between chapter 11 and 14 of this letter, or that he gives permission for women to speak in the church and then after consideration, he wthdrew it. It is impossible to reconcile these views with inspiration.

Outside of the Church?

Another view is that this was not participation in the church, but praying and prophesying in some other sphere. If this interpretation is correct, it would mean that the words of 11:16, “We have no such custom, neither the churches of God,” refer to the church, but not when it is meeting. Therefore, the angels looking on (v.10) are not really viewing the divine order in the gathering. It would seem to this writer that the place for a woman to display her subjection is when men are present in the gathering! This interpretation suggests that a woman could lead in prayer in public, or prophesy in public, if it is not a church meeting. What kind of a meeting would this be? All public testimony is in relation to an assembly. It is evident that if this is the meaning, a woman should cover her head at all times, lest she have cause to pray or speak a word, and that a man should never cover his head for the same reasons. This explanation, though it is espoused by able men, is not tenable.

Two Seperate Themes

The easiest way to understand 1 Corinthians 11:5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:5 is that Paul is here dealing with the head covering, whereas in chapter 14, he is dealing with the silence of sisters. There were many things to correct in this epistle and he handles each in its own order. The confusion in Corinth was of such a nature that we are not strained at all in our thinking to believe that sisters were taking part audibly in prayer and in ecstatic utterances. There is no doubt that they also took part in tongues, which is seen as a waste of precious time in chapter 14:2,4,6,9,11 and 14.

The prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14:34," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34,35 is clear and easy to understand, unless we come to it with preconceived ideas. Women are to be silent in the church, “It is not permitted unto them to speak, but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law” (RV). Women have other equally important spheres of activity. Spiritual privilege for male and female is identical (Galatians 3:28)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:28), but spiritual activity is not.

The Timothy passage greatly strengthens the interpretation that has been given for the Corinthian passage. “I will therefore that men - the males, pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting” (1 Timothy 2:8)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:8). The corresponding statement is that, “In like manner that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety, not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly raiment, but which becometh women professing godliness (vs.9,10, R.V.). Paul limits audible participation in public prayers to males. A careful reading of chapter 2 and 3 of I Timothy will show that public prayers are church prayers. We know that this is a church letter from two things, first, the general content of the letter and second, the plain statement of chapter 3:15 that it is written to teach “How men ought to behave themselves in the house of God which is the church of God.”

Paul then says, “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Timothy 2:12," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:12, RV). These plain words scarcely require any explanation; however, we must follow the law of context here. It is the woman in her relationship to the believing man that is in mind, not her relationship to children or other women. Women are far better suited than men to teach younger children and very likely they are better equipped to teach Sunday school classes of girls and young women.

In Titus 2:3" TARGET="_blank">Titus 2:3—5, older women are commanded to teach younger women. The subjects to be taught are domestic, and as in all teaching, the pattern is lived before the words are spoken. This does not give any authority for a woman to have ministry meetings for women, but it does give her responsibility to teach privately about subjects where the teaching is best given by another woman.

A brief summary of such a long subject is necessary. Women have been chosen by God as instruments in his hand from the dawn of time. The greatest event of history was brought about through a woman when the incarnation took place. The Scripture is full of the devoted service of godly women. The Lord Jesus healed, saved, taught and blessed them. He received the aid of women and they were outstanding in their devotion to Him. The NT abounds with the godly, selfless service of women of God, but it was not in the sphere of public preaching or teaching, but involves being fellow-helpers in the work of the gospel and in many other areas of Christian service in missionary lands and in the home field.

 Norman Crawford.  From his book "Gathering Unto His Name"

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site