The Work of Christ

• About this site

 The Encourager

• About this site

Priscilla Van Der Hart

• About this site

Jesus Tomb

• About this site

 Sketches of Jewish Social Life

• About this site

• About this site

In Isaiah 53:12," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12, who are the “great” and the “strong”, and in what way does God “divide” to the Messiah a portion with them?

Is it not probable that we place overmuch emphasis on these three words, and that we seek to get more out of them than perhaps they are meant to convey? “Divide” seems to suggest to our minds a cutting up into so many definite shares, of which Christ gets His, and certain others get theirs. But what if we use the word “assign” as is done in Darby’s Translation, or render the clause, “I will allot to Him a portion among the mighty”, as Gesenius does in his Lexicon! Either of these is quite correct as a rendering, and at the same time does not tie up our thoughts to an actual division of something into two or more parts. This should make it clear to us that the meaning may be no more than as follows: “I will assign to Him such a spoil as is usually that obtained by the great and the strong; and I will do so in recompense for (“Therefore”) His having suffered in littleness and weakness (as pictured in v. 7, etc.), and for (“because”) His having poured out His soul unto death (middle of v. 12).
Viewed in this way, the words “great” and “strong”, which are both plurals, need not refer to any particular individuals, but to the great and strong in general. Compare how the same two words are coupled together in such passages as Isaiah 8:7;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 8:7; Joel 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Joel 2:2 and Zecheriah 8:22; the word “many” in the first and last of these being the same Hebrew word as “great” in our verse.
The translators of the Septuagint, when turning the passage into Greek, rendered the second clause. “He shall divide the spoils OF the mighty”, and left out the “with” of the first clause also; thus suggesting the meaning to be a complete triumph over all His foes, however “many” or “mighty” they were. Various commentators agree with this view of the passage. But whether we take it thus, and think of the great and mighty ones as His enemies, amongst whom He stands out pre-eminent; the basic idea in the statement is much the same—that the One who stooped so low and who suffered so much, has been given a place and an honour beyond all others.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

SEPARATION
Is sectarianism sin? I am In an assembly of so called “open brethren” who invite “Reverend” gentlemen from the sects, also a sister, to address them. Is this right?.

Sectarianism wherever found, is a work of the flesh (Galatians 5:20)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:20). To whom but God Himself should confession be made? The beginnings of it were seen at Corinth—”I am of Paul, and I of Apollos and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (1 Corinthians  1:12).

In the first three cases men were attaching themselves to human leaders, instead of to Christ alone; in the last case, while attaching themselves to Christ, they were detaching from Him true members of His Body and pretending to belong to Him in some peculiar sense, in which others did not. This is also sectarianism against which we must watch. The whole idea of dividing up the Body of Christ is condemned by the Holy Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 3:3-4" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:3-4 ). It is condoned to-day and we are told that the different sects are only regiments in God’s army, as though regiments recruited from one another and were sometimes found fighting against one another. The only true Christian position is to know no other centre than Christ, and to recognise all believers as equally belonging to Him, though lamenting the broken-up condition of things around.

No doubt there are men truly gifted of Christ, who occupy sectarian positions, but that does not make those positions right, and to invite such to teach the Saints a complete anomaly and certainly not calculated to “build these up on their most holy faith,” but rather to break down the land-marks between truth and error and lead the Lord’s people back on to sectarian ground. This is especially dangerous when the invited brethren are men who were once in the simple assemblies themselves, but have become popular preachers or even “Reverends,” wearing all the insignia of their declension. They are often strongly opposed to the truth they once professed. It is not for us to judge their conscience, nor should we put a salve to their conscience by inviting them to teach or preach, thus approving of their position, or be present, when they officiate, as is apparently the case in some places. As for inviting a sister to teach the gathered saints, it is so clearly contrary to our Lord’s express prohibition, through His apostle: “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority* over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:12; see also 1 Corinthians 14:34-35)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34-35), that comment is needless.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is it right for an assembly to receive to its fellowship one coming from a distance, without a letter of commendation, and Should such one be allowed to partake of the supper?

The use of letters of commendation is a most scriptural one. Paul recognises this in 2 Corinthians 3" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3: , by the fact of protesting against being required to bring such a letter when visiting Corinth, where he had “laid the foundation.” “Need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or from you?” They were his letter, written on the heart, when he came to them; when he left them, they were his letter too, known and read of all men. We have the cases of Apollos in Acts 18 27," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18 27, and of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2," TARGET="_blank">Romans 16:1-2, which will occur to all. This last case is helpful to our consideration, because the apostle’s was no mere formal commendation, but he adds her titles to special care from the saints—”Which is a servant (diakonos) of the church, which is at Cenchrea.” Letters then were not the stereotyped things they usually are to-day, mere forms filled up. Not that these are not better than nothing, nay often sufficient; but sometimes more would be better. Here Paul adds to “receive her as becometh saints,” “assist her, etc., for she hath been a succourer (prostatis) of many and of me also.” Ought not one, who has been regular at the meetings, diligent in service and helpful to the saints, get a better commendation than one who has been irregular in attendance, no special help, and even perhaps a trouble, on occasion?

If “fellowship” means sharing others’ privileges and responsibilities, how far can one who is hardly ever seen at the Gospel, Prayer, or Teaching Meetings consider oneself in full fellowship? As for the question whether no one can be received without a letter of commendation, as no rule is laid down, it is not for us to make one. It is rather strange that Paul, though he took letters from the high-priest to Damascus, did not think of getting one from thence to Jerusalem. It would have been easier for him had he done so, but Barnabas knew him and could answer for him, which did instead. But there can be no doubt as to the advisability of always carrying a letter when going to a strange place. Otherwise you can only be received on a principle which Scripture does not recognise—self-commendation. Really I should judge, no truly humble, godly person would wish to impose himself or herself on the saints and force fellowship, unless there were full confidence. A good letter imparts this. Where there is a godly walk, there will be godly consideration for fellow saints, and the more they are in touch with the Lord, the more they will share His mind in receiving those whom they believe to be His own and right with Him. “Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” No one was ever so glad as He to receive, nor so careful as to whom and on what
conditions he did receive.

W.H.

• About this site

Some assert that if a woman dies in child-birth she goes to heaven, basing this on 1 Timothy 2:15." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:15. What does that passage really teach?

The most certain thing about the passage named is that it does not teach what is suggested. God has but one way of saving sinners from hell and fitting them for heaven, and that way is through faith in His beloved Son. As to what it does teach, various commentators have given various replies, several of which, though differing, do not necessarily exclude one another. For it is quite probable that more thoughts than one were in the apostle’s mind as he penned the words, “She shall be saved through the childbearing, if they continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety” (R.V.).

To understand them we must take into consideration the entire paragraph, from verse 8 onwards, in which Paul teaches that men have a place of public testimony to fill, from which women are definitely debarred. For this prohibition he assigns two reasons: (x) that the man was first in creation, v. 13, and (z) that the woman was first in transgression, v. 14.. That verse 15 is closely connected with verse i, the “Notwithstanding” with which it begins makes quite evident, and there can therefore be no doubt that when using the expression, “through the childbearing,” the apostle has in mind the sentence pronounced by the Lord on the woman in Genesis  3:6. In that sentence there were two parts: (i) that she was to have sorrow in childbearing, and (a) that she was to be subjected to the man. The latter of these is in keeping with the principle upon which Paul has been just before insisting; while as to the former he has, in this 15th verse, something to add, in which warning and encouragement are combined. For, just as the curse pronounced on the woman was associated with her childbearing, so also, in the words addressed to the Serpent in the preceding verse, was the provision for her salvation in the promised “Seed.” Therefore the right path for her, the path in which “she shall be saved” (chiefly in the present sense of that word, so common in the epistles), is the very opposite of that public and prominent one forbidden her in verses 11 and 12. It is the path of home life and subjection; by keeping in which the very curse of Gen. 3" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 3 is turned into blessing. Compare those other words of the apostle in chap. 5. 13-15, where the dangers besetting young women who have no home cares are vividly depicted, and the way to be saved therefrom is the same as here. In fact he even uses there the verbal form of this word “childbearing,” of which neither noun nor verb is found anywhere else in the New Testament. Observe also, by way of contrast, how the young man1  Timothy 4:16, is to be “saved” by going on diligently with his public ministry of the Word.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site