Should the Scriptures be read at the meeting to remember the Lord?

Should the Scriptures be read at the meeting to remember the Lord?

The Scriptures should be prominent and opened in all assembly gatherings (I Tim 4:13" TARGET="_blank">I Tim 4:13 – "public reading"). The Spirit will dictate what is appropriate on Lord's Day morning, whether continued thoughts about His Person, work, or coming, or a devotional or practical Word. The nature of Paul's discourse after the Breaking of Bread in Troas is not recorded (Acts 20:7)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7). When would we be more likely to respond to ministry that challenges our lives than after being occupied with His body given and blood outpoured? The Lord "expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:27)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:27). What an exposition that Lord's Day by the greatest Teacher! He found them with hearts broken and left them with hearts burning! We too need our hearts warmed and zeal renewed to face a hostile world.

Opening the Scriptures before the bread is broken needs qualification: the remembrance of our Lord is preeminently occupation with Christ, especially His death (1 Corinthians 11:26;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:26; Luke 22:19, 20)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19, 20). It is NOT for teaching. Reading the Scriptures about the Lord Jesus with a few brief comments can lead the saints to worship our Lord. As appropriate hymns lead us in worship so likewise do appropriate Scriptures.

A.Hull
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the tribulation less than 7 years long?

I have read somewhere that the Tribulation, a period of seven years, would be shortened by 220 days, which the writer confirmed by a reference to Daniel 8:13" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 8:13 and 14. Is this so?

I do not think there is the least justification for saying that the Great Tribulation is to last seven years. That is the length of time for which the Covenant is made between the Prince (or last Great Head of the Roman Empire Revived—otherwise known as the first Beast) and many of Israel, under the Antichrist, or second Beast (Daniel 9." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9. and Revelation 13)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 13), but it is only when the Covenant is broken in the midst of the week, and the daily sacrifice taken away, that the Great Tribulation and “the time of Jacob’s trouble” will occur (Jeremiah 30:7;" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 30:7; Matthew 24:21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:21). It is quite clear from the last passage that the days of the Great Tribulation will be shortened—”For the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (v. 22). But by how much, is another question. I have myself believed that this may be inferred from Daniel 8:13, 14." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 8:13, 14. The question in the former verse refers to the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation (or that maketh desolate), and the answer is, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days—then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” —that is, 220 days less than the full tribulation of 3 years, but that does not say that the period of seven years will be shortened, but that in some way the years of the Great Tribulation will be. How this will be effected we can safely leave in the hands of God, who alone is sufficient.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Help me understand who the "holy brethren" are in Hebrews 3

Does "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" and "whose house are we" (Hebrews 3:1, 6)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:1, 6) refer to believers or unbelievers?

We cannot accept that these words are addressed to unbelievers for two very obvious reasons.

The nation of Israel never had a heavenly calling. The covenant with Abraham involved blessing for a heavenly and an earthly seed (Genesis 22:17;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:17; Galatians 3:29)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:29), but the promise through Jacob to Israel was for an earthly seed (Genesis 32:12)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 32:12). Abraham had heavenly hopes (Hebrews 11:10)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:10), but his natural seed had earthly hopes.

Israel is never called "the house of God." His (God's) house in Hebrews 3:2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:2 refers to the tabernacle in which Moses was faithful. To make unbelievers a part of "His (Christ's) own house" is not possible. Therefore the two expressions in the question cannot refer to unbelievers. We believe they were believers saved out of Judaism.

We know the name of this epistle is not divinely inspired, but internal evidence is most convincing that it was written to a people who were very familiar with the law and the Levitical system. The majority of them were true to Christ; some were not and turned back. In 1 Corinthians 10:22," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:22, going back to either the idol's temple or the Jewish altar was to provoke the Lord to jealousy. Distinction between the genuine and the false is clear in chapters 3, 6, 10 and 12. The most difficult passage, 5:11 to 6:10, becomes much easier to understand if we see the contrast between "they - them" referring to apostates, and .us - you", referring to genuine believers. "Beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation." (6:9).

N. Crawford

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the "prophetic view" of Revelation two and three an interpretation or an application?

Is the "prophetic view" of Revelation two and three an interpretation or an application?

The conditions described in the seven letters John distributed were actual literal conditions existing in seven specific churches. This is primary in interpreting these letters. On that basis, the letters teach assembly truths either by statement or principles. Unless we have divine authority for doing differently, we look for only one interpretation of a passage. When a New Testament writer cites an Old Testament passage, he invariably treats that passage consistent with its accepted interpretation.

These letters to the seven churches, however, come with divine authority for a second interpretation. First, the command to write the book came from the First and the Last (1:17). That title comes from the Lord’s statements in Isaiah (41:4; 44:6; 48:12) in which He asserts He is the First, who determined His counsels before any creation existed. Only He can communicate His counsels (44:6, 7). He is the Last, who will have the "last word," completing the counsels He has communicated. When He commands John (Revelation 1:19)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 1:19) to record what he has seen (chapter 1), what is (chapters 2 and 3), and what "shall be hereafter" (chapters 4-22), all three sections communicate His counsels which He will complete. "What is," therefore, communicates truth about the future.

Second, "these things" in the expression "the things that are about to come after these things" (1:19, YLT) refers back to its nearest antecedent, "the things that are." When John records "after these things" (4:1 YLT), he indicates that "the things that are" continue right up until the events of chapter 4 which correspond to the Rapture.

Third, the Lord refers to "the mystery of the seven stars" (1:20). A mystery is truth that can only be known by divine revelation (Ephesians 3:3, 5)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 3:3, 5). Grammatically, the mystery is related to what went before it (v. 20). What follows, namely the identification of the stars as angels and the lampstands as churches, is hardly the full unfolding of the mystery.

This leads to the conclusion that a second and equally valid interpretation of the seven letters is the "prophetic view."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should we pray to the Son or only to the Father?

Is it scriptural to teach that when we come together to remember the Lord, our worship should be directed to the Father only, and that even hymns addressed to the Lord Jesus should not be sung?

Our Lord when censuring certain leaders in Matthew 15:9," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 15:9, applied to them the words of God through Isaiah, “In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” And there are many rules being laid down in connection with worship to-day, regarding which the last clause of this quotation might fittingly be used; since they are nothing else than “the commandments of men.”

Of such the teaching referred to in the question is a typical example; for there is no command whatever in the Word of God to the effect that the Son should be excluded from worship. On the other hand, there is the statement that “All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father”; and also many examples of worship directed to Christ, such as Hebrews 1:6;" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:6; Matthew 2:11;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 2:11; Matthew 28:9,17;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:9,17; Luke 24:52," TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:52, etc.

If it be objected that none of these examples has reference to a breaking of bread meeting, we ask the objector to point out where in the Scriptures is the word “worship” at all used in connection with such a meeting? It will then be possible to consider what special limitation, if any, is placed on our worship in that connection.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the narrow road a message for believers or a message of salvation?

Why do some say that the teaching of Matthew 7:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:13-14 is a message for believers?

Unbelievers (7:28) and believers (5:1) were both present while the Lord spoke. As in all that He did and said, His message was a model of good preaching; He set out the truth and then called for action. Verses 13 through 27 were His summary and call for action. Such was His skill in speaking that His summary applied to all who listened. He expressed universal principles. Submission to His Word results in "life which is life indeed" (1 Timothy 6:19," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:19, RV), enjoyed both now and eternally. Disobedience to His Word results in loss, suffered both now and eternally.

We who are believers need this reminder. The value of our present life and testimony depends on uncompromising submission to His Word. The degree to which we disregard His Word is the degree to which we will suffer loss at the Bema (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:12-15).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Do His stripes (Isaiah 53:5) refer to Christ

Do His stripes (Isaiah 53:5)" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:5) refer to Christ’s scourging or to God’s stroke?

The context of the verse indicates that the stroke is from God. In the previous verse, the nation considered Him to be smitten by God because they counted it blasphemy that He claimed to be God’s Son (see Matthew 26:65, 66; 27:43)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:65, 66; 27:43). Verse 5 is a contrast; it was indeed God’s hand that smote Him, but the reason was not in Him, but in us. God pierced ("wounded"), crushed ("bruised"), chastised, and bruised ("stripes") Him. The "healing" from transgressions and iniquity to wholeness ("peace") was not, could not be, by the shame and suffering inflicted by man.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the minimum age for baptizing a believer or receiving him into the assembly?

What is the minimum age for baptizing a believer or receiving him into the assembly?

Being baptized "into (literally) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19) involves a public identification with divine Persons. It is a public and personal testimony. Being in the assembly is a public and collective testimony. Although the Word of God doesn’t prescribe a minimum age for assuming public testimony, we could put an unfair burden on those who are too young for such a responsibility. Of those whose miracles were a public testimony to Israel, the youngest recorded is the maid of 12 (Mark 5:42)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 5:42). The first act of public testimony by the Lord was at the same age (Luke 2:42)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:42). By Jewish tradition, children assume public responsibility for keeping the law, becoming "sons (or daughters) of the law," at about that age. This does not set a specific age for our practice, but it gives some guidance. While many wonderful Christians started for heaven in early years and while it is a great blessing to see our children saved in their youth, we are embarking on a dangerous course if we emphasize and highlight youthful conversions. Nurture professing children sufficiently to encourage growth where there is divine life, without making it more difficult for them to be forthright, if they discover they are not really saved. Parents who promote their children for early baptism and reception are helping neither their child nor the work of God.

The teen years present many difficulties. While assembly reception may preserve some, others need time to sort through the challenges of those years.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should the Church worship like the priests of the Old Testament?

Is the form and subject of Old Testament worship the same as that of the New Testament church?

In 1 Peter 1:23" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:23 - 2:8, Peter both compares and contrasts Christian and Jewish worship. The character of our worship is spiritual, involving a spiritual birth, a spiritual house, and spiritual sacrifices. Christ is the subject of our worship and, generally, the Father is the object to whom we express our worship (John 4:23)." TARGET="_blank">John 4:23). Since our high priest is in heaven, we worship in "the true tabernacle" (Hebrews 8:2)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 8:2), heaven itself, rather than an earthly sanctuary. Rather than out ward ritual, we worship from redeemed spirits controlled by the Spirit of God (John 4:23;" TARGET="_blank">John 4:23; Philippians 3:3," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:3, JND). Old Testaments believers called on instruments to assist in their praise (Psalms 150:3-5)," TARGET="_blank">Psalms 150:3-5), where as public worship today is by prayer and singing "with the spirit" and "with the understanding" (1 Corinthians 14:15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15). Actually, the character of worship in this age is the ultimate of God’s plan for worship. The pattern of Old Testament worship was a visible representation of the spiritual character of Christian worship (Hebrews 8:5)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 8:5).

All believers are priests who worship individually at any time and in any place; however, public worship in the Old Testament was associated with a place of testimony, so God intends that the present priesthood should function visibly in a testimony.

"Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, . . . By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to (confessing, JND) His name" (Hebrews 13:13-15)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:13-15).

D. Oliver
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

Main Menu