• About this site

  I speak in tongues more than you all - A biblical exploration about the gift of tongues. Two pitfalls are pointed out: The dangerous error of counterfeiting the truth and the chilling error of a dead orthodoxy.

• About this site

Priscilla Van Der Hart

• About this site

Byrne Foreshew

• About this site

Suzy Fitch

• About this site

Peter Brand

• About this site

• About this site

THE HOUSE OF GOD

Do you think that the House of God is regarded in Scripture as “the place of profession,” as is sometimes taught?  That is, the "profession" of one who is not saved, but is a part of church culture.

A good deal is taught on this subject, which we do well to test by the Word of God. It is sometime erroneously taught that the House of God is the place of Christian profession, and that God recognises this as a “third something” between the true Church and the world. What is known as Household-Baptism, for instance, thus seeks to justify the baptism of children and unconverted household servants. These are brought, they assert, into the House of God—they are “in the ambit of the Church of God,” as the strange expression goes. They are there on the ground of profession; but what profession can infants make? And if unconverted persons make any, it can only be false. That man has made a mixed thing of it by carelessness in reception, or by neglect of Scriptural discipline, is sadly true; but to make out that God is responsible for, or connives at such a state of things is indeed serious.

Now, the expression “House of God” refers in the Old Testament, if we except Genesus 28:17, 22, where Jacob uses the expression in a figurative sense, to the Tabernacle or to the Temple, and though uncleanness and even idols (2 Chronicles 33: 7)" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 33: 7) might invade that House, they never formed part of it, and at every revival were drastically removed and cleansed away (e.g., 2 Chronicles 24:13;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 24:13; 2 Chronicles 29:16;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 29:16; 2 Chronicles 33:15)." TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 33:15).

Paul in writing to Timothy speaks of his knowing “how to behave himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” This is the local aspect—the Church of God, viewed as the place of responsibility. Undesirable elements did incorporate themselves, alas too easily, in the local “house” (see Jude), but though the condition was detected, it was not approved of. Ecciesiastics justify the sad lack of discipline in their organisations by the parable of the tares and the wheat—”Let both grow together until the harvest”—but they seem to forget that “the field is the world,” not the church. Undesirable visitors, thieves, and such-like, may find entrance into a house, but it is contrary to the desire of the head of the house, and they form no part of the household and must be removed as soon as detected. In Hebrews we read, “But Christ as a Son over His own house: whose house are we, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end” (Hebrews 3:6)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:6), that is, those who continue in the way prove themselves to be the House of God, the rest have no part in it.

It is indeed a blessed privilege of the people of God no longer to be “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:19). And this is His purpose in gathering saints to Christ —“To whom coming as unto a Living Stone. . . chosen of God and precious; Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:4," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:4, ). “Ye are God’s building.. . ye are the temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:9, 16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:9, 16). When the apostle speaks of the “House of God,” does he then view it as possibly or even probably including “false brethren crept in unawares,” or ideally? I believe the latter, for whatever is not God’s building is an extraneous element to be purged out. For instance, in Hebrews 10:21," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:21, Christ is presented as “High Priest over the house of God”—surely He is not the High Priest of false worshippers—trespassers in that house. Again, Peter reminds us that “judgment must first begin at the house of God.” Has he in view the heterogeneous company, that some seem to see almost exclusively, in the place of profession—a mixture of believers and unbelievers, because they all profess and call themselves Christians? I think the context shows rather that the true House of God is in view—contrasted with those that “obey not the gospel of God,” and paralleled in the following verse with the righteous—”If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Peter 4:17, 18)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 4:17, 18). Where is there room in this verse for a third something, neither righteous nor ungodly, but “professors.” The original from which this quotation is taken bears this out: “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth; much more the wicked and the sinner” (Proverbs 2:31)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 2:31).

These latter, including false professors, will be recompensed not now, but in the future. But someone will say, “Does not Paul speak of ‘the great house of Christendom’ in his Second Epistle to Timothy?” Certainly not in so many words, though such a form of words has been dogmatically attributed to his writings. What he does say, I believe parenthetically, is, “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour and some to dishonour” (chap. 2. 20). This passage and the ‘parable of the tares seem to be the sheet anchors of ecclesiastics to justify their mixed systems. To them “the great house” is “the Church” in their broad sense of a great ecclesiastical, christened organisation, reciting the apostles’ creed and practising “the sacraments.”

Others, as we have seen, understand Paul to mean “the great house of Christendom,” though I believe such an idea springs from a misreading of the passage. I submit again that verse zo is in the nature of a parenthesis, explaining the use the apostle is about to make of the term, “vessel unto honour” in verse 21. “In a great house” (that is in any great house in Rome, where he was in prison, or in Ephesus, where Timothy is supposed to have been), there are vessels of various materials and of varied uses. At this point the apostle resumes his exhortation, “If a man purge himself from these”—the evil things and men above referred to—he shall be something corresponding to the literal material vessels of gold and silver of any great house, namely a spiritual vessel unto honour in the House of God, “sanctified and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”

One does not wish to dogmatise, but I would ask my readers, who desire to be still subject to the Word of God, apart from the glamour of great names, carefully to weigh above with the Scriptures.

W.H.

• About this site

• 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 special significance of Joseph’s second dream (Genesis 37:9-10)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 37:9-10)?

Both the dreams of Joseph look forward to the day when the One of whom he is so striking a picture, the Lord Jesus, “the man of sorrows,” “despised and rejected of men,” crucified, but now exalted, will be recognised and owned even by those who once refused him. The first dream, of course, had its literal fulfilment in Egypt, when Joseph’s brethren bowed at his feet. It will also have its further fulfilment “when He comes whose right it is,” and “they shall look on Him whom they pierced,” and shall “mourn because of Him.” Then the affecting scenes between Joseph and his brethren will be re-enacted in deeper measure between Christ and the saved remnant of Israel (Zechariah 12:10-12)," TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 12:10-12), which will form the nucleus of the nation, over which He will reign for ever.

“The Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32, 33)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:32, 33). This is the earthly kingdom—the sheaves speak of a harvest—”the field is the world.” The second dream has had no fulfilment yet. Rachel had already passed away. Jacob never bowed to Joseph, but he will to the greater than Joseph. If “the sheaves” point to an earthly sphere, the sun, moon, and stars point to another, the heavenly. This goes further and higher than the first. The earthly kingdom is everlasting, but not unlimited (see Psalm 72:8)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 72:8). The second will be universal, as well as everlasting. It will include the other, but go beyond it. Of that kingdom, too, Christ will be the Crown, the Centre, and the Sum.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

PETER’S CONVERSION AND CALL

When was Peter saved? Was it when Andrew brought him to the Lord Jesus, or was it when the Lord called him on the shores of the sea of Galilee to become a fisher of men?

The mission of John the Baptist was, amongst other things, to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:15)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:15), and, no doubt, Peter, Andrew and the rest of the apostles were all disciples of John, having been baptized by him with the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, waiting for the One that was to come. Accordingly, when these prepared ones came in contact with the Lord, they were ready to receive Him as Messiah. In John i, when Andrew brought Peter to the Lord, He did not call him to repentance or faith, for he did already in a manner believe on Him, but gave Him his new name, anticipating the moment when He would build him as a living stone into His Church. This was only the prelude to the scene on the sea of Galilee.

Thus Peter was called by John to repentance and faith in the one coming after him; then by the Lord to a place in His Church, and later to His service. We apply the word “saved” to everyone who has received Christ as personal Saviour, though the word carries with it more than forgiveness, namely, deliverance to and from. Peter could not receive Christ in above sense till the Lord was revealed to Israel, but no doubt all the true disciples of John, though they did not form part of the Church till Pentecost, were saved persons; they were of the people of God, His own, in a very real sense. In this sense Peter was a saved person before he was introduced to the Lord by Andrew, for he had been already introduced to Him by John the Baptist and had doubtless believed on Him as the One “who should come after him” (Acts 19:4)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:4), as indeed did the Old Testament saints in a minor degree. The Lord knew him by name and was now calling him out of the Jewish fold, to belong to His flock.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

If overseers entrust deacon work to a person who is not "blameless," what can other believers do?

If a believer knows of something that disqualifies an individual from doing a work entrusted to him, tell the elders courteously. They may not be aware of what others have observed.

Elders are fallible humans, as is the individual who thinks they are mistaken. If that individual knows facts of which the elders are not aware, he should graciously inform them. He must also recognize that self-seeking may cloud his perception.

Otherwise, the examples of Saul and David help us. Samuel anointed Saul, an unprofitable leader. Saul reflected the condition of a people who wanted to imitate other nations and valued stature and strength above spirituality. Saul’s leadership was detrimental to Israel and to David personally. Psalm 12" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 12 expresses David’s sorrow due to such unrighteous rule. The response therefore of godly believers to perceived mistakes in recognizing elders is two-fold: self-searching (recognizing that everyone in an assembly shares some responsibility for its faulty spiritual condition)and supplication (God is their only recourse).

Every person who assumes leadership will answer to God for that responsibility. David did not rebel against Saul nor did he count it proper to harm or embarrass Saul. God will deal with the wrong man in leadership. Meanwhile, David trusted the Lord his God (1 Samuel 30: 6)" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 30: 6) when the path of God’s purpose for him seemed hopelessly delayed (27:1). David was not the king until God united His people to make him king (2 Samuel 2:4)." TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 2:4). Until that time, God was at work in David.

The biblical response in these circumstances is waiting on God and submitting to Him and to the individuals God holds accountable for leadership (Hebrews 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17).

Having fulfilled his responsibility regarding the overseers’ decision, the dissenting believer should further fulfill his responsibility to submit to his guides (Hebrews 13:8)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:8).

D. Olive

• About this site