Sunday School Teacher Resources

• About this site

 The Old Nature

• About this site

Gathering Unto His Name - The New Testament contains a clear pattern for how a church should operate. This book summarizes relevant scriptures to what a church is and how it affects our modern day practices.

• About this site

 Here's the Difference

• About this site

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• About this site

Help would be valued on 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.

1 Corinthians 6:9," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 describes some of the ungodly at Corinth. “Such were some of you,” says Paul, naming various phases of sin which habitually characterised them, some one sin, some another. A believer might fall into a grave sin, a Noah into drunkenness, a David into adultery, a Peter into cursing and swearing; but these were terrible accidents in their lives, not habitual customs. A lamb might fall into the mire, but it could not rest there; a swine if dragged out of the mire would return to it again. The characteristically unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. They must be born again. Such were some of the Corinthians (but not all grossly so), but they were “washed” (i.e., from the defilement), “sanctified” (i.e., from the habit), and “justified (i.e., from the guilt) in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

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God had been pleased to offer to king Ahaz a sign to confirm his doubting soul, that the line of David would not be superseded by the son of Tabeal, according to the Satanic design of Rezin and Pekah, which would have set aside the purpose of God regarding His future King, who must be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.

• About this site

DEPARTED SAINTS AND EARTH

Do saints with the Lord “look this way” as the hymn says?

Are they cognisant of what is taking place on earth, as the hymn puts it, “Some one in glory LOOKING this way”?

I do not know any Scripture, which shows that those with Christ are cognisant of what is going on on the earth, or are “looking this way.” Samuel, when called up from beneath, as I believe he undoubtedly was, did not know why, but had to be told the circumstances by Saul (1 Samuel 28:15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:15). He was not “looking this way,” he called it being “disquieted.”

The rich man in Hades did “look this way,” as far as remembering he had five brethren still alive, who, though he could not see them, he instinctively felt were on the wrong road. Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom, and gave no indication of “looking this way” (Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16: From Ecclesiastes we learn that “the dead know not anything” Ecclesiastes 9:5)," TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:5), that is, of world happenings; not that they are unconscious, but as v. 6 tells us, they have no more “a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.”

If we take our ideas from hymns, we may get some strange ones; but if we disapprove of a hymn, it is better not to sing it, or else to omit the offending verse, than to tamper with it. It is a serious matter to tinker a hymn, without the author’s permission.

W.H.

• About this site

Is the Lord’s Supper a shadow of things to come?

In other words, does it portray His heavenly feast in which we shall participate with Himself?

We do not think so. The Bible rather limits it to the present—”ye proclaim the Lord’s death, till He come” (1 Corinthians 11:26)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:26). In 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5: we read the words, “therefore let us keep the feast,” but this follows the statement, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us,” and the reference would be to the feast of unleavened bread which followed the passover, to which should correspond the holy life which befits the child of God.

W.H.

• About this site

Man is composed of spirit, soul, and body. When he dies where does the spirit go?

The spirit and the soul must not be confused, nor yet divided. They together form the spiritual part of man. When a believer falls asleep he only does so as regards his body. The spiritual part of him, with which the personality is really connected, goes at once to be with Christ (see a 2 Corinthians 5: 8)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5: 8). “Absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” This, of course, cannot refer to the resurrection state, as then no believer will be absent from the body. Paul describes dying as departing to be with Christ which is far better (Philippians 1:23)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:23). It is a most serious denial of God’s truth to describe the condition of the believer who dies, as that of sleep, except as regards his body.

W.H.

• About this site

What are we to gather from the scriptural reference to Melchizedek?

Was he a man of God of his time—a priest of the Most High, indeed, or was he actually the Son of God?

In dealing with this perennial question one wishes to recognize the views of some esteemed brethren who take a contrary view to that expressed here. They believe that this was a Theophany or appearance of the Second Person of the Godhead in a temporary human form (all such theophanies being necessarily Christophanies), and that Melchizedek was actually the Son of God. But is there nothing in the fact that he is said to have been made “like unto the Son of God”? You don’t say a man is like himself; he is himself, but he may closely resemble someone else. However, many such theophanies occur to us—the man who wrestled with Jacob at Jabbok, the man with sword in hand who appeared to Joshua, the angels who appeared to Gideon and Manoah, etc.

One thing characterises them all. At first the appearance seems only human—an ordinary man, but at the end the superhuman, nay the Divine, character of the appearance is manifested. Note this in each of the cases referred to above. This is entirely absent in the case before us. In no sense are we informed that Abraham recognised Melchizedekas Divine, but he did recognise him as a king and as a priest of the Most High God, who ministered to his bodily needs and was greater than himself, therefore able to bless him and worthy to receive tithes from him. Again, Christ might have appeared as a King, but surely not as King of a well-known place as Salem or Jerusalem. Whoever Melchizedek was, his office as priest only shews that God in calling Abraham for a certain object, had not for that left all the world in darkness, but still had notable witnesses, outside His purpose concerning His chosen people to be. Those who stand for the deity of Melchizedek rely much on the expressions used by the Spirit of him in Hebrews 7" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7: , and make rather “in and out” efforts to shew how each expression applies to Christ. I believe the whole effort is in vain, for these expressions if forced to apply to Christ must be interpreted either of Him in incarnation or of Him before incarnation, and this cannot be done.

As a matter of fact, I believe there is one point and only one which the Holy Ghost would emphasise by His silence in Genesis 14" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 14:  concerning the parentage, genealogy, birth and death of Melchizedek, and that is the conventIonal continuity and endless character of His priesthood. The meaning is not that this man was actually without parents nor that he is alive somewhere to-day, but that by the fact that he appears suddenly on the page of Scripture and that no mention is made of his decease, he is thus qualified to be an apt figure of Him Who is Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek and Whose Priesthood can never pass to another.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Why is the Lord’s Supper kept on Lord’s Day morning when according to the Book it was always celebrated in the evening?

The hour for the observance of the Passover was definitely laid down by Jehovah. It was to be “in the evening” ( Exodus12:6)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus12:6), but no such order is given for the celebration of the Supper. No doubt, our Lord instituted His supper at the close of the paschal feast, but He neither enforces the time on the Apostle, nor does Paul in 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11: . When he reminds the Corinthian saints that it was “the same night that He was betrayed” that our Lord took the bread, etc., the emphasis seems clearly on the proximity to His betrayal, rather than to the fact that it was eventide. In other words, it was not the time of day, but the time in relation to what was to follow.

Christianity is not a system worked on a time-table, like Judaism—”Ye observe days and months and times and years” (Galatians 4:10)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 4:10). Certain ceremonialists are intensely occupied with the time of the observance, the colour, etc., of the bread (it must not be white, and it must be unleavened!), the kind of wine (it must be “unfermented”). But this verges at best on a mechanical imitation. One wonders why these good folk do not insist on reclining on couches, as no doubt our Lord and His disciples did, or at any rate observing the Lord’s supper on the very day He instituted it. Nothing we can make in the way of bread or wine could adequately represent the holiness or purity of Christ. To interpret the leaven of the Old Testament by literal leaven is not an intelligent understanding of the types. An Old Testament type refers to a New Testament reality. No, we are not to examine the table to see if there be any leaven or “ferment” thereon, but ourselves, lest there be any old leaven of wickedness in us, or malice or untruth.

The early disciples may always have broken bread in the evening, but if so, it was for convenience sake (as they were working all Lord’s Day, as all other days), and that is quite have never heard that any teaching is supposed to depend on evening communion. But how the legal mind of man loves to enforce its enactments on all! “Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath madç us free and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage,” and if men insist on legislating where the Word of God does not, let us not follow them or be moved by them.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site