Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment

• About this site

Karen Hoy

• About this site

Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

Andrew Musch

• About this site

 The Old Nature

• About this site

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

Could we support the thought of a paid overseer, who “labours in the Word and doctrine,” from 1 Timothy 5:17, 18;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, 18; 1 Peter 5:2-4" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2-4? and why the mention of “filthy lucre,” if the pastorate were not a paid office?

The word translated, “honour,” (time) in 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, is in forty occurrences, out of fifty, so translated; in eight others, “price”; “sum” in Acts 7:16," TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:16, and in 1 Peter 2:7," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:7, “precious.” It is always, “honour,” in the Epistles to Timothy (see 1 Timothy 1:17;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy  6:10, 16; 2 Timothy 2:20, 21)." TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:20, 21). There does not appear any necessity to change the word here: “honour,” “respect,” “consideration,” are quite adequate. However, even if we adopted the sense of monetary payment, it would only be in recognition of spiritual services rendered, not as a fixed salary.

The form of the exhortation seems to preclude the idea of money due, whether the services have been well done or perchance left undone. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who LABOUR in the word and doctrine.” The principle that a teacher or evangelist has a right to “live by the gospel” is clearly taught in the Scriptures (see 1 Corinthians 9:7-14)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:7-14), provided he teaches or evangelises.

There is no idea of a “living” or ecclesiastical title or office. Assemblies which utilise their brethren’s gift are quite right to remember these adequately, and not to take too easily for granted that the preacher does not need anything beyond his bare expenses. As for the “Peter” passage, we can see no hint that what the questioner calls “the pastorate” was to be filled by a salaried official.

The elders, in the plural, are addressed here, as in the other passage, nor can we find the idea of the “presiding elder” or of “the pastor” of a church in this or in any other Scripture. Here the exhortation, “not for filthy lucre,” seems to preclude a stated salary. A servant of the Lord truly looking to Him for his support, is not serving for filthy lucre. The man who is receiving so much salary according to an arrangement, is bound, if he is a conscientous man to give a good money’s worth. The only man that I can find in the Scriptures, who agreed to do so much spiritual work (in this case as “a priest”) for so much pay, was Jonathan, the grandson of Moses (though not of the family of Aaron), and his salary was ten shekels of silver per annum, a suit of clothes and his meals (Judges 17:10)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 17:10). He broke the contract, only when a better living was offered him (Judges 18:19)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 18:19).

W.H.

• About this site

"They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: ‘Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ Hosanna in the highest!’

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey”

• About this site

• About this site

Are the “rests” of Matthew 11:28," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:28, 29 two distinct “rests”, or does it mean that the rest is not obtained by soul approach, but by taking the yoke, and learning of the Lord?

I judge that two “rests” are indicated, or perhaps I should say, two distinct stages of rest: the one, rest of conscience for the soul who has never known true rest in Christ; and the other, rest from a restless will, unsatisfied desires and self-seeking service. The word for “rest” is the same in both cases (anapausiS—or up-rest), which might be illustrated by the action of the Good Samaritan: first he relieved the smitten one, pouring in oil and wine, and then set him on his own beast, brought him to an inn (set him down there) and took care of him. This latter action may denote the “rest” (katapausis—down-rest) of Hebrews 3" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3 and 4, where this root is always used, except in verse 9: “There remaineth, therefore, a rest for the people of God.” The word here means a “Sabbath rest” (Sabbatismos)—the true spiritual thought of the Sabbath—a resting from our own works. This does not describe a future heavenly rest, but a Christ-rest, to be enjoyed here and now by all the people of God.

W.H.

• About this site

Please explain 1 Samuel 28:15-19" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:15-19 in the light of Ecclesiastes 9:5." TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Does this give ground for to-day’s teaching of Spiritism?

The story of 1 Samuel 28" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28 in no way justifies the practice of Spiritism in this or in any other age.

As for Ecciesiastes 9:5, it expresses the general rule, “The dead know not anything”; the above story of the witch of Endor is the exception, by God’s special permission, as I shall seek to show. “The dead know not anything,” i.e., of what is going on on the earth, but they know what is going on where they are, as the story of the ex-rich man and Lazarus shows (Luke 16)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 16). The former and Abraham knew each other, and the former recognised Lazarus and remembered his own five brethren.

I have not the slightest doubt Samuel was really permitted by God to respond to the call. This was less, I doubt not, of a surprise to Saul the dupe, than to the witch, the deceiver. To her the attendant spirit was familiar, but she seems to have been completely taken aback by the appearance of the strange visitant that Samuel was, for “she cried with a loud voice,” and did not know him, though by some peculiar intuition she at once became aware of the identity of Saul. Samuel was a true prophet, and could foretell the morrow’s happenings, but we have no justification for supposing that wicked spirits can foretell the future.
That this response to Saul’s evil action does not justify modern Spiritism is clear, from the fact that it did not justify his own recourse to this medium, for it is specifically mentioned in 1 Chronicles 10:13" TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 10:13 as one of the two causes of his final downfall: (i) “his transgression” i.e., in sparing Amalek, and also (z) his “asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it. And he enquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him.” He did ask of the Lord (sha’al), as indeed of the witch, but he did so in a merely formal way in the former case and he did not enquire (dãrash) of Him, as he did of the witch; for in her case he put himself to all pains to get information. Saul knew perfectly well the distinct prohibition of Jehovah to any kind of occult practices—consulting spirits, etc. (see Leviticus 19:31;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6, 27;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-12)," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18:9-12), and had as we know, acted thereon, till he found it convenient to transgress!

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Did Judas partake of the Lord’s Supper when it was instituted?

The only reference to the actual time when Judas left the upper room occurs in John 13:30," TARGET="_blank">John 13:30, where we learn that he did so “immediately” after the conversation as to who would be the traitor, a conversation which ended by the Lord giving the “sop” to him.

This conversation, according to Matthew 26:21-26" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:21-26 and to Mark 14:18-22," TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:18-22, took place before the institution of the Lord’s Supper; and if we possessed these three Gospels only, we should have no doubt that Judas did not partake of it.

But when we turn to Luke 22: 19-23," TARGET="_blank">Luke 22: 19-23, we find the order reversed, and the paragraph regarding the institution of the Supper (vv. 19, 20) placed before the one which mentions the conversation about the traitor (vv. 21-23); and thus an element of uncertainty is introduced. It is evident that either in Luke on the one hand, or in Matthew and Mark on the other, the order followed is not that of time; and from what we know of their Gospels elsewhere, it is much more probable that the adoption of an order other than that of time is in Luke.

In the circumstances, however, we cannot say with certainty that Judas did not partake of the Supper; but why it should be a stumbling block to any if he did so, is not apparent. His profession of being a believer in and a follower of Christ was as loud and as clear as that of any of his fellow-disciples. They had accepted him as their treasurer (John 13:29)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:29). One or other of them had preached the Gospel in company with him (Matthew 10:1-5)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:1-5). And he certainly in any case partook of at least some portion of the Passover feast (Matthew 26:23)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:23).

If he did partake of the Lord’s Supper, we have in that fact the most solemn warning possible that our being accepted by brethren as worthy to partake is not, however careful they may be, a sure proof that our hearts are right with God, and that we have been truly born again. Luke elsewhere mentions those who shall say, “Lord, Lord, we have eaten and drunk in Thy presence”; and to whom Christ shall reply, “I know you not,. . . depart from Me.”

W.R.

• About this site

How could there be ten tribes in revolt in Israel, when the tribe which provided the priests and Levites remained for the worship of the Lord in the Temple, in addition to Judah and Benjamin?

When thinking of this matter of the revolt from Rehoboam, and the division afterwards into two kingdoms, have you not for the moment forgotten that there were actually thirteen tribes in Israel?

Jacob had of course only twelve sons, but the giving of tribeship to Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, brought the number of the Tribes to thirteen. See Genesis 48:5, 22." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 48:5, 22. This is described in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2" TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 5:1-2 as giving the birthright. (i.e. the double portion, as in Deuteronomy 21:17)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 21:17) to the Sons of Joseph. Arid Ezekiel 47:13" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 47:13 shows that the arrangement will persist even in Millennial times.

The expression “The Twelve Tribes,” as used in Exododus 24:4; Matthew 19:28;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:28; James 1:1;" TARGET="_blank">James 1:1; Revelation 21:12;" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 21:12; etc., became a kind of ideal description for them, and that the more readily because of Levi having no possession in the sense that the other tribes had. But when a list of twelve is given, either one tribe is omitted, as Dan in Revelation 7:4-8," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 7:4-8, or Manasseh and Ephraim are joined in one, as in Deuteronomy 27:12-13." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 27:12-13.

This thought of twelve as an ideal number is also the most probable explanation of the statement, “He was seen.. . of the Twelve”, in 1 Corinthians 15:5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:5, since Judas was not present on the occasion referred to.

W.R.

• 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

Some say that the word translated, “only begotten”, in such phrases as, “The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:14)," TARGET="_blank">John 1:14), merely means, “beloved,” and should be so translated especially in all passages relating to the Eternal Son—the Second Person of the Divine Trinity.

Do you think this is so?

My own conviction is other, though I know esteemed brethren who maintain it. I doubt indeed if such an opinion would ever have been broached, had it not been for the mistaken notion that to apply such a term as “only begotten” or even “begotten” to our Lord in a past eternity, necessitates the thought of a time before the begetting, and therefore must infringe on the eternity, and therefore on the true Deity, of the Son. This, however, is only so, if we insist on defining and explaining Divine relations by the human, whereas, the latter are the vaguest shadows of the Eternal and Divine: as soon measure the fixed stars with a foot-rule. The same objection applies to the terms “Father” and “Son”. Such terms do imply priority and subsequency in earthly relations, but there cannot be priority or the reverse in the case of Eternal Persons.

The same objection would apply to the epithet, “the Word,” for does not such a term necessitate to our minds a time before the word was uttered, and when consequently the word had no existence? was reading only the other day two writings, one by a denier of the Deity of the Son, the other by a denier of His Eternal Sonship, who both refused to believe, because their minds forsooth could not comprehend the possibility of such things. There must be no unsolved mysteries to this type of person, though one wonders how such can believe at all in the God of Revelation, for surely His existence is beyond their comprehension. Such might also lay to heart the limitation imposed by the Lord Himself, “No man knoweth the Son save the Father.” However, to return to those who, while holding firmly the Eternal Sonship of Christ, yet refuse the term “only begotten,”* and substitute for it “well-beloved.” This is indeed a secondary meaning springing, as we see, directly from the primary, forwho is more beloved than an only child? Now although “only-begotten” is the literal translation of the Greek word, it would be permissible, under certain conditions to abandon this—the etymological meaning—if usage justified it. But if the predominant usage agrees with the original philological meaning, then we must keep to that.

That this is the case here, can, I think, be clearly shown by a reference to our three chief sources of information (not to mention Latin ecclesiastical writers who translate—uni-genitus “only begotten”)—the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint Greek version, and the New Testament. (a) The Hebrew word, “yahidh,” occurs twelve times in the Old Testament, and is translated in A. V.: twice, “my darling”; margin “only one” (Psalm 22:20; 35: 17);" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22:20; 35: 17); twice “desolate” or “solitary” (Psalm 25:16;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 25:16; Psalm 68:6);" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:6); once “only beloved” (Proverbs 4:3);" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 4:3); and six times “only son” (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:2, 12, 16, of Isaac; Jeremiah 6:26." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 6:26. Amos 8:10," TARGET="_blank">Amos 8:10, and Zechariah 12: 10);" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 12: 10); and “only child” (Judges 2:34," TARGET="_blank">Judges 2:34, of Jepthah’s daughter); and with all these the R.V. agrees. (b) The Septuagint translates the two Genesis, the Proverbs, and the three prophetic occurrences by “beloved,” and the remaining five by “only child” or “son” (monogenës). It may be added that the LXX in their translation of Genesis 22:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:2 have, “thy loved son, whom thou lovest,” the tautology of which translation might alone have raised a doubt as to its correctness. (c) In the New Testament the word “mono- genes” occurs nine times: once of Isaac (Hebrews 11:17)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:17)t and thrice of only children (Luke 7:12;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:38), and five times of the Son of God (John 1:14, 18;" TARGET="_blank">John 1:14, 18; John 3:16-18" TARGET="_blank">John 3:16-18 and 1 John 4:9)," TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:9), translated in each case both in A.V. and R.V. as “Only Begotten.” Lest anyone should imagine that this is the ordinary word for “beloved”, when applied to the Lord, I would mention the significant fact that on the two occasions on which the Father bore audible witness from heaven to the Lord as His beloved Son (Matthew 3:17;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17:5), He does not use the word we are considering (monogens), but the ordinary word for “beloved” (agapetos). Surely these two occasions would have been specially suitable for the use of the word “only-begotten,” if the Lord’s Sonship depended, as is falsely taught in some quarters to-day, on His incarna tion.

W.H.

• About this site