Eric Walberer

• About this site

Printable Activity: 8 page mini coloring book and full-sized pictures to tell the story of Peter preaching the gospel for the first time to Gentiles - Cornelius and his family.

• About this site

Elizabeth Stickfort

• About this site

Suzy Fitch

• About this site

David Jones

• About this site

John Brokaw

• About this site

What Asaph is it who wrote the Psalms bearing such a name?
There seems no reasonable room for doubt that the Psalmist is Asaph —son of Berachiah, a Levite of the family of Gershon, one of the leaders of David’s choir (see 1 Chronicles 6:39)." TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 6:39). The only other Asaph is generally known as “the Recorder,” but this seems to be based on a mistake, owing to a certain ambiguity in the English version—it seems more correct to understand Joah as the recorder, of whom Asaph (quite possibly the one mentioned above) was the father or progenitor. In any case, if they are distinct persons, the role of psalmist fits in better with the first named. He was then the author of Psalm 50" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 50: , and of the first eleven Psalms of Book Three. There are passages which must be understood prophetically whether the author lived in the days of David or of Hezekiah (e.g., Psalm 74:6;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 74:6; Psalm 80:16)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 80:16). There is a didactic, historic character about Asaph’s Psalms. He was, like Apollos, “mighty in the Scriptures,” and he applied them to the present need.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

POLITICS
Is it right for a Christian to give a vote to a candidate in a Parliamentary Election?

We certainly have duties to perform to those who occupy positions of rule in our midst, one is to obey the laws they make. If I do not, I shall get a bad conscience and I shall pay the penalty. “For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually on this very thing.” So I must pay taxes, and rates, and custom dues when I enter the country (see Romans 13:5-7)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:5-7). Then I am enjoined to pray “for Kings and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Timothy 2:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:2). I am, moreover, to “honour the King” and indeed all to whom honour is due, but as far as entering into the political contests of the country, I see no directions in God’s Word, and I believe the whole thing is alien to our position as “strangers and pilgrims” in the world. If it be retorted, “What would become of the country, if all believers were of this Opinion?” my reply is, it would become neither better nor worse by such a Contingency, but the believers would become much better. What Wordly associations would they be spared! What unequal yokes with the ungodly! “Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the gospel,” or pray that God may overrule. “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” which cannot be said of the political work of a righteous man; the only effect of which is to shear him of his locks, and bereave him of his joy and testimony.

“Our citizenship is in heaven.” “As the Father hath sent me into the world, even so I send you.” All agree that the Lord did not enter into political movements. He was not sent for that,—are we? All the various political combinations will never succeed in really making the world better, for there is a factor, they do not recognise, and certainly cannot neutralise sin. It is a solemn thought that when at last all political differences are sunk, and the whole world cemented in one great alliance, it will be in deadly, open opposition to God and His Christ.

W.H.

• About this site

Do you not think a distinction should be made between those in fellowship and those not in fellowship (children excepted)?

Should not those breaking bread sit near the table and not in the last row of seats, while children and the unsaved occupy the front row?

The apostle in writing to the Church of God at Corinth recognised a “within” and “without” (see 1 Coronthians 5: 12-13). The one, hitherto called a brother, is put away from among the people of God as “a wicked person.” Such a one should also be separated from by the saints in the various relations of life—”not to keep company. . . with such an one no not to eat” (1 Corinthians 5:11)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11)—nor should he be received in the house, nor wished God-speed (2 John 1:10)." TARGET="_blank">2 John 1:10). Is not this principle to extend to the Lord’s table? Is there not to be a difference then, very clearly marked, between those recognised as “in fellowship” and others not breaking bread?

Are worldlings and believers to be mingled there as in the religious denominations? Have not the words, “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness; what communion hath light with darkness. . . what part hath he that believeth with an unbeliever?” (i.e., not necessarily “infidel” in the modern sense) (2 Corinthians 6:14, 15)," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 6:14, 15), any application to such an occasion when the saints are gathered to the name of their Lord, and He is in a special sense in their midst? Surely they have. The saints belong to and love Him, and are met according to His command to remember Him. May they not then hope to do so, undisturbed by and unmingled with those who are still of the world and at enmity with Him?

If, as our correspondent asserts, “those breaking bread sit on the back row of the hall, and children and unsaved ones sit at the front, and these hand the bread and the wine to those in fellowship,” does not this bespeak a serious lack of godly order? How can it be claimed by the elders that “all things are done decently and in order”? and how can confusion be avoided or proper care be exercised, as to those who partake of the bread and wine? Let not the unsaved be given a place which may deceive them into supposing that all is mostly well with them, or countenance given to what most of them think at heart, that there is no difference worth speaking of between those who “think they are saved” and themselves. It is not a world-feast at all. It is “the disciples coming together to break bread” (Acts 20: 7)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: 7), in remembrance of their Lord whom the world rejected. Doubtless the world should have entrance to the hail, but only as spectators of what is in reality a testimony against themselves. Can it be imagined to be godly order that such should be in a position even to be allowed to pass the bread and the wine to others? It is Opening the door in the churches of the saints to the Babylonian Confusion, which exists in Christendom.

W.H.

• About this site

How many years were the children of Israel in bondage in Egypt?

Genesis 15:13" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:6 indicate that the Israelites  would be afflicted 400 years. Exodus  12:40 states the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt was 430 years; Galatians 3:17" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:17 states that from the giving of the promise to Abraham to the giving of the law by Moses was 430 years. How can the above Scriptures be reconciled to one another? What does Genesis 15:16" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:16 mean?

There is no real discrepancy, but we must note what is said in each case, and take into consideration the universal permission of an occasional use of round numbers. The difficulty of Genesis  15:13 arises from limiting the “four hundred years” to the AFFLICTIONS in Egypt, whereas the expression governs the whole verse, and I feel sure that the earlier expression, “thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,” would go further back even than Egypt, to what characterised the lives of Isaac and Jacob and his sons, even before they went down there. That this number—400 years—then is to be taken in this general and round number way, seems clear from Galatians 3:17," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:17, which dates the 430 years exactly from the promise to Abraham (Gen. xv.) to the giving of the law in the third month of the Exodus (see Exodus 19:1)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 19:1). This tallies with the 430 years of Exodus 12:41," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:41, a verse generally read as though it affirmed that the children of Israel sojourned that period in Egypt, whereas it says that the sojourning (i.e., I take it as including the whole period of their sojournings either in Canaan or Egypt) of the children of Israel (who dwelt in Egypt) was 430 years. That is, they were always characteristically “sojourners.” This is shown, I believe, to be the case in Genesis 15:16," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:16, where the Exodus is specified as to occur not 400 years after their arrival, but “IN THE FOURTH GENERATION.” This harmonises with the genealogies of Exodus 6" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 6: , where we learn that Kohath was a son of Levi, and that Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron, was the son of Kohath, i.e., four generations. Notice the ages of Levi (v. 16), of Kohath (v. 18), of Amram (v. 20), which specify this.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Could our Lord have returned to heaven without going to the Cross?

This idea used to be put forward as a possible suggestion for illustrative purposes. What a wonderful ending to our Lord’s life it would have been had He gone straight up to heaven without dying! but without asserting that this was a possibility. Of later years this supposition has become an affirmation, put forward as though there was a clear “thus saith the Lord” for it. Especially have speculative teachers, who love the sensational, asserted this in connection with the Transfiguration on the Holy Mount. In reality this was the most unlikely moment for such a thing to occur, had it been otherwise within the range of God’s purposes, for such an event is never hinted at in any of the three Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration.

In Matthew 17" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17 this comes just after the Lord’s first clear announcement of His passion: “Jesus began to show unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things”, etc. (Matthew 16:21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:21). In Mark 9" TARGET="_blank">Mark 9 likewise the account is preceded by the words of Mark 8:31," TARGET="_blank">Mark 8:31, “The Son of Man must suffer,” etc., and so in Luke 9" TARGET="_blank">Luke 9—the reference to the sufferings in Luke 9:22" TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:22 as a necessity, is followed by a glimpse of the coming Kingdom glory.

Far then from a choice being offered to our Lord on the Holy Mount of returning to heaven without dying, I believe this prophetic view of the coming Kingdom glory was to cheer the disciples in view of the certainly coming Cross. There is an additional fact given us in Luke, namely, the subject on which Moses and Elias conversed with our Lord in the glory —“They spake of His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem.” Certainly Peter tried to turn Him from this purpose in Matt. i6, but was met with a stern rebuke.

The momentous scene in Gethsemane clearly shows, however, that the Lord was a free Agent in redemption. He was under no fatalistic necessity to redeem men, but He was “the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” and He had said to Nicodemus, “The Son of Man must be lifted up.” Later we hear Him saying, “For this cause came I unto this hour,” and “The Son of Man came . . to give His life a ransom for many.” These two sides of truth are seen at Gethsemane. His holy human will rightly shrank from contact with sin, and the Divine abandonment involved; but as a Divine Person His will was able to say, “Nevertheless not My will but thine be done.” When Peter sought by the use of the sword to defend His Master, the latter says, in Matthew 26:52," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:52, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” but immediately adds, “But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

In John 18:11" TARGET="_blank">John 18:11 we have an additional word, “The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” which, coming either before or after the other words, gives us the balance of Scripture. It was with “wicked hands”—the voluntary act of murderers—that men crucified and slew Him; but it was also with holy hands that He by a voluntary act, and by the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God (Hebrews 9)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9). He could say with equal truth, “No man taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself,” and “this commandment have I received of My Father” (John 10)." TARGET="_blank">John 10). There was no fatalistic necessity for our Lord to lay down His life, but there was a moral necessity, and it is very unprofitable and unsound specula tio to assert the contrary.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site