Rosa and her son Jesus

• About this site

Suzy Fitch

• About this site

Larry Perkins

• About this site

Stu Thompson

• About this site

Aric Stickfort

• About this site

Peter Orasuk - "Does life have any real meaning or purpose? Why are we here? In my search for the answer to these questions, I turned to drugs...

• About this site

How do the Scriptures look upon such as habitually absent themselves from the Breaking of Bread, and are seldom or never seen at the Gospel Meeting or the Prayer Meeting? Has Numbers 9:13" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 9:13 any application to them?

I do not think that we could apply Numbers 9." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 9. 13 to them, unless by way of pointing out from it how seriously neglect of obedience to God’s commands was dealt with under law, in any case where there was no legitimate excuse for it. It must, however, be understood that “shall be cut off from among his people”, does not necessarily imply that his fellow-Israelites were to slay him. See Leviticus 20" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 20: , where in various verses a clear distinction seems to be drawn between “shall be cut off” and “shall be put to death,” the former referring to action taken by the Lord Himself. Something similar is seen, even in the days of grace, in 1 Cor. 11:30," TARGET="_blank">1 Cor. 11:30, where certain members of the assembly had been taken away by death, not indeed for absence from the Supper, but for irreverence when present.

Where there is habitual absence from the meetings, something else lies behind it, the absence being merely a symptom of a deeper disorder. In some instances it means that the person concerned is beginning to turn away from all that he once professed to have and enjoy. In Hebrews 10:25-31" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:25-31 the “FORSAKING OF THE ASSEMBLING OF OUR. SELVES TOGETHER” seems to be viewed as the first manifestatior outwardly of a course which ends in apostasy; and the individual who is guilty of it may eventually prove to be an “adversary” (ver. 27). In other cases the staying away is due to some real or imagined grievance, and if there is any substance whatever in this grievance, an effort should be made to remove it if possible.

Between these two extremes lie many differing degrees of backsliding by which the trouble may be caused, and which should give scope for the exercise of any pastoral gift or activity there may be in the assembly. And in the course of this it may possibly be discovered that due allowance has not been made for the circumstances of the person, and for hindrances which may make regular attendance a difficult matter.

On the other hand, where absence from the meetings has been entire, and for a prolonged period, the point might require to be considered, whether the one concerned is still to be looked upon as a member of the assembly, or whether it should be made clear that he is no longer such. Otherwise, unnecessary reproach may be brought on the saints through his actions, even years afterwards.

W.R.

• About this site

THE HOUR — THE BREAD

Ought we not to observe the Lord’s Supper only at night, and only with unleavened cakes, seeing this was the case at the institution?

Of course all admit that the Lord’s supper was instituted “the same night that He was betrayed,” “while they were eating,” that is, as the passover meal was drawing to its close. This was in the evening by a definite direction of Jehovah, but no direction was given that the Lord’s supper should be observed at any special hour of the day. Acts 2:42" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42 and 46, where the “supper” is, I think, certainly in view, makes no mention of the evening, but simply states that “they broke bread at home” (R.V.), in contrast with the daily public meeting in the temple.

In Acts 20:7" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7 the first day of the week is specifically mentioned, but we are left to gather incidentally that the observance was in the evening. There is, moreover, a very simple reason, quite apart from any spiritual significance, which I have never heard attached to the hour, why the evening was probably the time usually chosen in those early days, because it was the most convenient or the only time free in the day.

The observance of a “Sunday” on which shops were shut, and work closed down as to-day among men of all creeds or no creeds, was then quite unknown. For those who stickle for an exact imitation of the institution, one wonders why they do not celebrate the feast on the Thursday, the original day of its institution. We certainly only have custom rather than direct command for the first day of the week, though I do not question that this is the right day. Christianity is not like Judaism, a religious system of “days and months and years,” worked on a time-table, but a life to be lived on spiritual principles in the power of the Spirit, and governed by the Word, but not by inferences or deductions merely. Of course believers are perfectly free to break bread in the evening, if convenient, but it is not the only time, for the Word is “as oft as ye do it,” which cannot be limited to any particular hour of the day.

As for the necessity of using only unleavened bread, there is not a hint in Scripture for making this a sine qua non. Christians, no doubt, may use it if they see fit, but they have no right to impose it on their brethren. It is mere ceremonialism. The word, “artos,” used for the bread or loaf, simply stands for any mixture of flour and water, baked. There is nothing wrong about leaven itself, though, in the Scriptures typical of evil, but its anti-type is not leaven (to interpret a type by itself is not very helpful exegesis), but “malice and wickedness” or some such defiling sins (1 Corinthians  5:8). What we are called to do, is, not, like a company of Jews before the Passover, to search for literal leaven, but to examine ourselves for unjudged sin. To be occupied with the hour of the day, or the exact components of the bread and wine is to substitute the accidents* for essentials, and human inferences for Divine commands. I would close with the following weighty words of the well-known  servant of Christ, John Wesley: “What the Bible commands is good, what the Bible forbids is evil: what the Bible neither commands nor forbids, either in plain words or in undeniable inference, is a thing in itself indifferent, and neither good nor evil. The Bible is our sole guide and our adequate guide in faith and conduct.”

Matters on which the Bible does not legislate are left to the judgment of believers. The course good for one, may not be so for another. We are “by reason of use to have our senses exercised to discern between good and evil.” If the above principle were understood, it would help us to distinguish between things commanded, things commended, and things left entirely open, like the hour of the breaking of bread, or the exact kind of bread to be used, and it would prevent the harmful habit of judging one another on matters where even an apostle would confess he had no commandment from the Lord.

W.H.

* A property or quality of a thing which i not essential to it, aa whiteness to paper, the texture of cloth, the exact composition of bread.  

• About this site

• 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

Don't have much time to prepare your lesson for tomorrow's Sunday school class?  Perhaps you like reading the Bible story for the lesson, but you don't have time to create an interesting activity.  Then the following fast links will help you create a fast lesson and an activity to go with it. 

• Lesson plans - A fast-start to help you prepare for next class.

• Printable activities - Crafts, foldable paper models, worksheets, PowerPoint and other items to make your lesson more interesting and active.

• Sunday School Puzzle Maker - Create a crossword puzzle or wordsearch in a few mouse clicks.

• or use one of the 325 worksheets already made to get you started fast.

• About this site

The question of women serving as church leaders is one of the most read debated questions in Bible-believing churches.  In business, government, sports, science and other fields, women have proved themselves able and intelligent in every way.  Why do some churches retain old ideas then and keep them out of the preaching role?  The answer is that a church is not guided on the same principles as other areas of society.  While some church groups may feel free to treat the Bible as only one several of their sources of authority, the Holy Scriptures should the main purpose of a church is to put into practice the word of God (1 Timothy 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:15).  The question of whether women should preach is not a question of personal preference or ability, but whether it is in line with the teaching of the Bible.

Relevant scriptures

Some relevant scriptures in regards to this question include 1 Timothy 2:11-14," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:1-13." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-13.  The way we understand these words from God will guide us.  A similar question in regards to women in the church is to the question of the silence of women.  These scriptures are 1 Corinthians 11:5;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and are answered in the question “Should women speak in the church?”

1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 – Authority is male

 1 Timothy 2:11-14" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:11-14  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.  (12)  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  (13)  For Adam was formed first, then Eve;  (14)  and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

 While in a church gathering, there are distinct roles given to men and women as a result of (1) creation “Adam was formed first, then Eve” and (2) the results of the fall “the woman was deceived and became a transgressor”.  Teaching the scriptures, according to this passage, is a male role.  Exercising authority over man is also not permitted for women.  This would include leadership roles and public teaching roles in the church.

Having stated the clearest interpretation of this passage, it should be noted that there are attempts to nullify this primary meaning by applying other interpretations.

 Women had a lack of education?

The first objection to this statement in 1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 is that women were not capable in their culture to teach the scriptures to men because of their limited experience, education and lack of opportunities from centuries of male-dominated traditions.  However the verse does not say “due to lack of education, I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority”.  Formal education did not factor into Christ’s decision to choose the disciples / apostles and it was not a factor in excluding women either. 

Only for the wives?

Another argument against this passage is to say that the passage only applies to women who are married.  Some translations of the passage say “wives” rather than “women” in general.  However, the passage is teaching about men and women. The references to men and women in the surrounding verses make clear sense for both married and single people.  For example in 1 Timothy 2:8" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:8 “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.” Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer?  A second example in 1 Timothy 2:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:9  say “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire”.  Are only wives to dress modestly? Of course not.  The passage is talking to people both married and single.

Examples of women ministers

Another argument used against this scripture is the mention of women who served as deaconesses in the Bible.  Service is a godly work for both men and women.  However, the service of godly women would not have contradicted Holy Scripture in that of taking a leadership role or in public teaching of men.  One example of woman who served was the couple Aquilla and Pricilla.  In Acts 18," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18, they work as tent makers with Paul.  At the end of the chapter, in verse 26, Apollos was invited to their house to learn more of the way of God.  This threesome Bible study resulted in that Apollos became a better public teacher.

Act 18:26" TARGET="_blank">Act 18:26  “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”

The women mentioned in Romans 16" TARGET="_blank">Romans 16 are referred to as “servants” and “helpers” and “workers” including Phoebe, Pricilla, Mary and Junia.  It is not necessary to think of these women as part of any special religious class of leadership. Any sister who serves can be a “deaconess” or “servant” or “worker” without being a teacher or exercising authority over a man. 

1 Timothy 3:1-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-13  and Titus 1:5-9" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:5-9 – Elders and Deacons are Men of Respect

Among the list of requirements for both elders and deacons in the assembly is the reference to a man with his family: “husband of one wife and his children are believers”. The words “he” and “his” are mentioned eight times in 1 Timothy 3." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3.  The leaders of the church are required to be male. 

Conclusion

The scriptures are the church’s operating manual.  The question of women leadership in the church therefore is not to be based on questions of ability or fairness or from trends in politics or business.  1 Timothy and Titus teach that God has put men in position of authority.  The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching or service, but it is not to be in the context of authority over the man.

Shad Sluiter

• About this site