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

Is there a pattern in the books in our Bible?

Is there a pattern in the books in our Bible?

Books have been written on this subject and others could be written. Perhaps there are some "seed thoughts" in the following suggestions. Since "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 19:10), the question, "Where is He?" (Matthew 2:2)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 2:2), summarizes the Old Testament. The answering statement, "We have found Him" (John 1:45)," TARGET="_blank">John 1:45), summarizes the New. It has often been said of the two Testaments, "The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed."

Abraham’s covenant is basic in understanding Scripture. Its importance is reflected in Abraham’s being the first Old Testament personage mentioned in the New Testament (Matthew 1:1)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:1). The covenant to Abraham promises the land (Israel) and the lineage (the Heir, Christ) (Genesis 17:4-8)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 17:4-8). Considering these promises, we may divide both the Old and New Testament books into 5 groups of five. "The Law" (Genesis - Esther) has three of those groups that deal with the historical facts of possessing the land in the past. The five "Writings" (Job - Song of Songs) give the spiritual secrets of possessing the land at any time. Grouping "the Prophets" into 5 (the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, the "Minor Prophets"), we have the Scriptural assurances of possessing the land in the future. Similarly, in those 3 divisions -Law (history), Writings, and Prophets - we have the preservation of the household of the Heir, the praises of the honor of the Heir, and the prophecies of the hope of the Heir, respectively.

In the first division, the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy cover the dawning of the nation -the promise of the land and their preparation for receiving it. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings cover the development of the nation- the possession of the land and their problems in retaining it. The last 5 books cover the departure of the nation - the purging of the land and their persistence in recovering it.

Similarly, the New Testament divides into history (Matthew to Acts), writings (Romans to Jude), and prophecies (Revelation). The first gives the raising up of the Heir, the second, the riches of the Heir, the third, the return of the Heir.

The first grouping (Matthew -Acts) records Abraham’s natural sons’ (the nation) rejection of the Heir and ceding their earthly possession (the land) and prospects; yet it tells of his spiritual sons’ (believers) reception of the Heir and claiming heavenly possessions and prospects. The second grouping deals with the spiritual sons’ relationship to the Heir. The first two divisions ("Pauline Epistles," Romans to Philemon - 10, joining 1st and 2nd epistles as one) contrast the spiritual sons’ heavenly possessions and prospects to the natural sons’ earthly possessions and prospects. The third division ("General Epistles," Hebrews to Jude -5, joining 1st, 2nd, and 3rd epistles as one) compares our heavenly possessions and prospects with theirs on earth.

The final grouping (Revelation) divides into 5. The inspired division is "the things which thou hast seen (chapter 1), and the things which are (chapters 2-3), and the things which shall be hereafter (chapters 4-22)" (Revelation 1:19)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 1:19). This later section covers 7 years (chapters 4-19), 1000 years (chapter 20), and an eternal day (chapter 21a), thus forming five divisions. It brings together Abraham’s sons, both the heavenly and earthly, in their rejoicing with the Heir and culminating both the heavenly and earthly possessions and prospects "through God’s endless day of days."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What are the differences between "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ"?

What are the differences between "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ"?

These two terms appear side by side: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Rom 8:9)." TARGET="_blank">Rom 8:9). The only way to consistently interpret this verse is to recognize that the Spirit of God indwells believers, and, apart from this indwelling, the individual is not a believer, does not belong to Christ. Therefore, these are two titles of the same Spirit. The expression, "the Spirit of Christ," occurs only one other time, ". . . the Spirit of Christ Which was in them did signify, when It testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" (1Pe 1:11)." TARGET="_blank">1Pe 1:11). Peter identifies the Spirit of Christ, Who inspired Old Testament prophets to write about Christ, as the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:21)." TARGET="_blank">2Pe 1:21).

"The Spirit of God" emphasizes His deity and His role within the Godhead. The One Who dwells in the temple of God must be God, but Paul tells us it is the Spirit of God (1Co 3:16)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 3:16). He is God. The miracles of the Lord were evidence of "the finger of God" (Luke 11:20)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 11:20), the direct work of God. Matthew quotes the Lord as saying they were by the Spirit of God (Matt 12:28)." TARGET="_blank">Matt 12:28). Paul indicates the Spirit’s role within the Godhead when He writes, "even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (1Co 2:11)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 2:11). He must be God, in order to know (understand, perceive) God’s thoughts and plans. He is the One Who reveals "the deep things of God" (v 10). On the other hand, the scene at Jordan demonstrates that He is distinguishable within the Godhead. The Father’s voice comes from heaven, addressing the Son on earth, Who is marked out by the Spirit of God’s visible descent on Him (Matt 3:16)." TARGET="_blank">Matt 3:16).

"The Spirit of Christ" emphasizes His relationship to Christ. He revealed Christ in His sufferings and coming glory to the OT prophets (1Pe 1:10-11)" TARGET="_blank">1Pe 1:10-11) and reveals Christ now in believers, whose characteristic mark of ownership is "the Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8:9)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:9).

Two similar titles occur only once each. They are "the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Phi 1:19)" TARGET="_blank">Phi 1:19) and "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16:7," TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:7, JND).

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Jesus body "broken" or "given"?

“BROKEN” OR “GIVEN”?

Is it right or wrong to say, as we find in some hymns, “Thy body broken”?

With us, some substitute the word “given,” on the ground that “broken” contravenes the prohibition, “A bone of Him shall not be broken.”

The expression in the said hymns is based on the A.V. of 1 Corinthians 11:24" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:24: “This is My body, which is broken for you.” Whether or not this is correct, it is difficult dogmatically to decide, but I think we are safe in refusing “given” as a substitute for “broken” in the Corinthian passage, for there is no serious manuscript authority for it, and it is only supported by three versions—the Latin Vulgate, the Egyptian and the Ethiopic, and the editor of the 4th or 5th century—_Euthalius. This reading, however, has the bulk of authority in Luke 22:19." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19. The choice then lies between “broken” and simply, “This is My body for you” (lit, the one on behalf of you), though one cannot help feeling that this sentence seems to need completing with some verb.

However, although some good authorities like Drs. Tregelles and Christopher Wordsworth, refuse to give up “broken,” which has a considerable body of weighty authority behind it, there seems still more authority for omitting. Then again there is the prohibition: “A bone of Him shall not be broken.” which some quote as conclusive against our reading, “broken,” as the verb in 1 Corinthians 11:24. It is perfectly true that the bread is broken, but surely this is not as a symbol of anything that occurred at the cross, but simply for purposes of distribution. It is the breaking of bread which stands for the communion or sharing of it by those participating. Whether again the breaking of the body, i.e. of the skin and flesh, as was undoubtedly the case at Calvary, might take place, without the unity of the body being compromised, is a question. It is the bones which matter, for they are the foundation of the bodily frame, and alone preserve its unity. I have sometimes wondered whether the prohibition as to breaking a bone of the Paschal lamb (Exododus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12)" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 9:12) did not mean that the carcase should preserve its entirety, the bones being not only unbroken, but unsevered. The flesh would be carved off, the bony frame remain intact. It seems as though nothing short of this would represent the unity of the Body of Christ symbolised by the Lamb. Our Lord’s prophetic words in Psalm 22:17," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22:17, “I may tell all my bones,” no doubt refer primarily to His physical bones, but they go further to those whom He in His omniscience even then knew as His members, and as being crucified with Him. In Psalm 34:20," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 34:20, we have the assurance, “He keepeth all His bones, not one of them is broken”— where “broken” might well bear the sense of “severed.” In the next Psalm we have the testimony of each and all of these “bones”—”All My bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto Thee, which deliverest the poor from Him that is too strong for him” (v. 10).

Our conclusion must be on the whole that while “given” is doctrinally correct (Luke 22. 19)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 22. 19), it cannot be upheld by the textual authorities of the Corinthian passage as what Paul wrote by the Spirit. As for “broken,” though well supported, it certainly has the general understanding of the prohibition of John 19:36" TARGET="_blank">John 19:36 against it, as well as the larger bulk of manuscript authority. I think we are safer then in accepting with the R.V. the version of the words in question as, “This is My body, which is for you,” though we may not be able to do so with absolute conviction.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Who paid for the burnt offering?

Hebrews 9:22" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:22 states that “almost all things are by the law purged with blood,” and Wm. Lincoln has pointed out that the only sin offering which did not Involve blood-shedding was that of Levitus 5:11. The peace-offering was never made without the burnt-offering and then blood was shed.

Who paid for the burnt offering? Did one offering avail for two persons?

To reply to the last parts of the question first: I judge from Leviticus 10:2," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 10:2, that each offerer brought his burnt-offering at his own expense, and if so, it was an individual offering. There was, however, the continual burnt offering (see chap. 6. 9-i3), and I should think that was provided by the priests from the offerings to them by the people. I do not think the peace-offering was necessarily accompanied by a burnt-offering. They were quite distinct, but it would be true to say that the burnt- offering, representing the whole offering of Himself by Christ to God, was constantly accompanied by a meal-offering (see Numbers 28: 11-13;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28: 11-13; Numbers 29;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 29; Judges 13:16-19)," TARGET="_blank">Judges 13:16-19), representing the spotless humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, tested in every possible way. The bloodless offering to which Mr. Lincoln refers was the tenth part of an ephah of fine-flour offered for a sin-offering (Leviticus 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 5:11). This represents the lowest form of sin-offering. Really there was only one—representing Christ. The different degrees of offering in Lev. 4" TARGET="_blank">Lev. 4 and 5 represent the different degrees of appreciation of the offering by different classes of offerers. Some, like the high priest, would offer the bullock—that would entail a very high estimate of Christ; this also availed for the whole congregation. It will take the whole of the redeemed fully to appreciate Christ. The ram would stand for a lower, though still high, appreciation of Christ, and so down to the turtle doves, but in these all the offerer would have the see of the need and value of the blood of Christ. The handful of flour would be Christ too, but Christ little understood, little appreciated, “a touching of the hem of His garment,” a coming to Him, a trusting Him, but with no sense of His atoning sacrifice. Some, perhaps many, to-day, begin like that, they come to the right Person, but they do not yet apprehend Him in the right way, and which of us can say that we do this as we ought to? One thing we may say in the case of the fine flour, the offering would be almost unseen, but in the case of the bullock it would be the offerer who might be almost unseen; and the higher our thoughts of Christ, the smaller we will become. We cannot think much of Christ, and of ourselves at the same time. “He must increase, I must decrease!”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How are deacons recognized and acknowledged?

How are deacons recognized and acknowledged?

Paul addressed all the saints, the bishops (overseers), and deacons at the opening of his letter to the Philippians (verse 1). Perhaps the murmurings and disputings (2:14) and the friction between former servants (4:2, 3) necessitated this reminder that God entrusts deacon service to some saints. Each serves in his sphere without jealousy, not aspiring to recognition and a title, but serving with a focus on his work entrusted to him by the Lord. Deacons are known by their work.

Overseers guide the assembly to entrust particular service to those who are proving themselves (1 Timothy 3:10)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:10) by doing public deacon work (as in verse 1, the word "office" is an unsupported and unfortunate addition). This includes those responsible to preach the gospel, open Bible Readings, and minister at assembly ministry meetings. These serve as deacons. Likewise those whose full time is devoted to such work are deacons of their assembly.

Keep all officialism outside the assembly! "Deacon" is not a badge to be worn; deacon service is a responsibility to be fulfilled (Colossians 4:17)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 4:17).

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Will a fourth temple be built during the Millennium?

Will a fourth temple be built during the Millennium?

Solomon's temple was the first temple, followed by the rebuilt temple under Zerubbabel (Ezra 3)." TARGET="_blank">Ezra 3). The third temple was the Temple of Herod, which was destroyed in AD 70, as prophesied by Scripture and confirmed by history. Many Old Testament Scriptures, however, remain to be fulfilled. Isaiah 2:2," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 2:2,3 speaks of a temple to which all nations will flock and from which the Word of the Lord will instruct all the world. Ezekiel 37:2" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 37:2&28 promises that the Lord's dwelling amidst His people will be so evident that all the nations will know it. Ezekiel 40" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 40-48 details the construction of a temple unlike any yet built. Haggai 2:6-9" TARGET="_blank">Haggai 2:6-9 also suggests that under Zerubbabel they were building a temple whose glory would be exceeded by a future temple. Zechariah 6:9-13" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 6:9-13 relates the thrilling prophecy of the "Branch...and He shall build the temple of the Lord..." All this, while spoken during the days of the second Temple, point on to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Man whose name is "The Branch" will sit as king-priest in that Temple.

Taken together, these Scriptures teach that there will yet be a temple built in Jerusalem. Its glory and purpose will exceed any of those built before.

Both Matthew 24:15" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:4 indicate that a temple will be standing by the middle of Daniel’s 70th week. Although current events don't confirm God's Word to us, it is interesting that an organization in Israel today, "The Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement," is making its plans (not God's) for rebuilding the Temple.

A. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does "having faithful children" of an elder mean?

What does "having faithful children" (Titus 1:6)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6) involve?

1 Timothy and Titus give us God's spiritual and moral standard for elders. The requirements in Ephesus and Crete are similar, yet the circumstances differ. In Ephesus, elders already existed (Acts 20:17)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17). Timothy was to teach how to add to their number. The man aspiring to the work (1 Timothy 3:1)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1) must evaluate himself by the necessary qualifications Paul lists; he must also have the respect of the believers, being "above reproach" and superintending his own home well.

Titus, with spiritual discernment, was to appoint elders, who must be blameless. As in I Timothy 3:4-5," TARGET="_blank">I Timothy 3:4-5, his home life will indicate much about his character and suitability to be a leader in the assembly. The phrase "faithful children" in this context (Titus 1:6)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6) probably means that they are believers. The word may "pista" mean either mean trustworthy or believing. In any case, they are to be of good reputation, "not accused of riot or unruly." This contrasts with the Cretians who are "always liars, evil beasts, gluttons" (Titus 1:12)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:12).

If the assembly disciplined his child, an elder would not necessarily be disqualified on that basis. The circumstances would have a bearing. If the elder's child is no longer in the home, then he is not directly under the "rule" of the parent. The elder should examine himself in the fear of God; by prayer and the counsel of other godly elders, he could expect wisdom from God (James 1:5)" TARGET="_blank">James 1:5) to make the best decision.

J. Abernathy

Other pages in this section

About this site

My friend is going to get an abortion. What should I tell her?

What advice or alternatives an a Christian give an unbelieving friend who is planning an abortion?

Although it is tempting to sidestep this thorny issue, we are called to reprove the unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:11). The unbelieving friend needs to face the fact that God views elective abortion as murder. This truth, however, can be spoken with love (Ephesians 4:15)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:15): "1 understand your predicament, but can't agree that abortion is the answer. As a Christian, I've learned the value of depending on the Bible's guidance in tough times like this. God regards unborn babies as real human beings (Psalm 139:13-16;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 139:13-16; Luke 1:39-44)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:39-44), and so He looks at abortion just as He looks at the killing of an adult (Exodus 21:22-23)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 21:22-23). That is why so many women struggle with guilt after an abortion their conscience agrees with God that abortion is wrong." It may help to point out that women who had abortions suffer from an increased rate of infertility, tubal pregnancy, miscarriage, and suicide.

Along with presenting God's truth, we must also make a case for the two alternatives to abortion. First is adoption. It is noble and selfless for a mother to release her child to one of literally thousands of couples waiting to adopt. On the other hand, the unbelieving friend may choose to raise the child herself if she can be assured of help. In addition to steering the mother to a suitable Christian agency, we should also consider adoption or assisting the mother ourselves.

D. Valiance

Other pages in this section

About this site

When an assembly begins, how are its overseers recognized?

When an assembly begins, how are its overseers recognized?

From Titus 1:5," TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:5, we learn that several cities in Crete had assemblies but no recognized overseers. The pattern of the New Testament shows that, where the Lord has "flocks" (Acts 20:28)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28), He also has "under-shepherds" (1 Peter 5:2-4)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2-4). The condition of the assemblies in Crete could only be temporary. The Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20 passage supports the assumption that the Spirit was raising up shepherds. Paul gave Titus apostolic guidance through the inspired Word (Titus 1:6-9)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6-9) so that Titus applied the Word of God to the circumstances and discerned those whom the Spirit was fitting for that service. Such a subjective choice in such a critical matter requires much spiritual wisdom, but, at the same time, allows for human error.

The proverb, "In the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14)," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11:14), encourages a man with such a responsibility to seek counsel from others with mature judgment, whether gospel workers or elders. This may not always be possible, but is most desirable.

Lest any assume they can move ahead of the Lord in forming an assembly, the Scriptures give principles to guide us. The Spirit allows for the possibility that a number may be saved in a locality, yet that, in itself, does not produce an assembly. More than "two or three" were saved in Athens during Paul’s visit (Acts 17:34)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 17:34), but we have no Biblical evidence of the formation of an assembly there. If we recognize that the designation, a "church of God" (1Co 1:2)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 1:2), indicates that an assembly is divine in its origin, the God Who moved with deliberate order in His work of creation will undoubtedly do the same in forming an assembly. If the Spirit of God is going to raise up shepherds, He will provide progressive evidence of this as some of the men involved begin to show shepherd character. This, among other things (such as developing gift, stability of character, submission to Biblical order), indicates that the Spirit is at work in forming the spiritual entity ("purchased with His own blood," Acts 20:28)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28) that bears the name "church of God."

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu