Jason My Child

• About this site

A mini coloring book and small posters to help the Sunday school teacher tell the story of Elijah ascending to heaven in a chariot of fire.

• About this site

 Woollen and Linen

• About this site

John Dennison

• About this site

• About this site

101 Ways to Teach a Memory Verse

• About this site

Which of Noah’s sons was the eldest?

In Genesis 9:24" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:24 Ham is spoken of as Noah’s younger (or “youngest,” R.V.) son, though some commentators would connect the expression there with his grandson Canaan because of the prominence given to the latter in the curse of verse 25. This leaves us as the two elder ones, Shem and Japheth, and the decision between them depends on the rendering which is accepted as the correct one of Genesis 10: 21." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10: 21. The AN. gives it, “Shem . . . the brother of Japheth the elder,” which would imply that Japheth was oldest; but the R.V. with more probability translates it, “Shem . . . the elder brother of Japheth,” which would
give the honour to Shem.

W.R.

• About this site

Is there any scriptural authority for the assertion that Hezekiah wrote some of the Psalms?

Though ecclesiastical commentators seem to be attracted by such theories, we do not know of any authority, scriptural or other, for above assertion, It is enough to read an article in some Bible Dictionary, on the authorship of the anonymous Psalms, to be aware how precarious are the theories advanced. Some psalms speaking of desolation and judgment may be made to fit in with Sennacherib’s invasion, as also with any other invasion.
I believe it is possible to assign authorship to a few of the anonymous Psalms, following Psalms by well-known authors, on internal evidence. Thus it seems clear that Psalm 43" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 43: , is by the author of Psalm 42" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 42:  (the same phrase “Why art thou cast down, oh my soul?” occurring in both); Psa. 91, by the author of Psalm 90" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 90:  and Psalm 104" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 104: , by that of Psalm 103" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 103: , but as a rule it is safer not to attempt to be wise above that which is written. We believe the Holy Spirit spake by David and the other psalmists: that is the chief point. However, to return to our question, I read the following in a well-known Bible Dictionary,* as a whole reliable: “Book II. (i.e., of Psalms) appears by the date of its latest (I) psalm, Psalm  46: , to have been compiled in the reign of King Hezekiah.” We turn with interest to see on what this statement rests, and we find NIL. The real reason comes out later in the same article as to why Hezekiah’s name is brought in. It comes, I believe, from a misreading of the closing words of Psalm 72" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 72: , “the prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended.” But there are at least fifteen subsequent psalms, e.g., Nos. 86, 103, 110, 142, which are entitled “Psalms of David,” i.e., these must be by some descendant of David, so the theory runs, Hezekiah, Josiah, or Zerubbabel, in fact you may take your choice. Now, this will never do, because in the case of Psalm 142" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 142: —the place where David wrote it is indicated, and the Lord definitely ascribes to David the authorship of Psalm 110" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 110: , and as far as we know, though Hezekiah wrote a prayer, neither he, nor the others wrote psalms, and certainly not in a cave. The explanation is simple: the word, Kãlãh, translated “ended” in Psalm 72" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 72:  means also fulfilled or consummated; e.g., Ezra 1:1;" TARGET="_blank">Ezra 1:1; Ezekiel 5:13;" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 5:13;  Daniel 11:36;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 11:36; Daniel 12:7." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 12:7. The words then refer to the prophetic subject of the Psalm, the Millennial Reign of David’s “Greater Son.” In that hope David’s prayers reached their zenith. He could not sing of anything higher. That infinitely greater Kingdom—the mystery of God’s will—was unknown to Him, when “in the dispensation of the fulness of times (i.e., the eternal state and the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) all things in heaven and earth shall be headed up in Christ” (Eph. i. io). David prayed many subsequent prayers, but he could never reach a higher level than in that psalm.

W.H.

• About this site

What should be the attitude of those in oversight with regard to new converts who continue to attend worldly amusements, and whose manner of life shows no change?

If what the questioner means is that these so-called converts have already been received into the fellowship of the assembly, then the only fitting attitude for the leaders and others, who in such circumstances allowed them to come in, is one of humiliation before God for their negligence and sin. If, on the other hand, they are still outside the assembly, this is the place to keep them, until they show some satisfactory sign that they have become “a new creature,” in Christ, with the “old things passed away,” and “all things become new.” 2 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:

There is a regrettable lack, amongst both Gospel preachers and assemblies, of giving due emphasis to the truth that there can be no real conversion to God, without changed interests and changed conduct.

W.R.

• About this site

I think the answer to your question is "Yes." However, I doubt that we can take "The Five Languages of Love" (which I find very helpful) as a way to define "the languages" the Lord uses. Obviously, for instance, touch (hugs, etc.) doesn't apply. I take, it, though, that our personality, maturity, and experiences all affect our need for love. The Lord knows this as no one else can know it. His relationship with each of us is not a "one-size-fits-all" relationship, so He tailors His relationship with us to suit who we are. I think the Lord's relationship with Peter and John - and with each of the other disciples - illustrates this. John was the youngest of the disciples, according to tradition and the fact that he was alive into the 90's. Peter was the most prominent and outspoken of the group. John leaned on the breast of the Lord, but Peter apparently never did. It just wouldn't have suited his personality, as I understand him. The Lord said to peter in front of the others, "Get thee behind Me, Satan." I think if he had said that to John, he would have withered up and died.

• 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

• About this site

It has been said there are two orders of apostles, one of the Lord’s earthly ministry (Matthew 10;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10; Mark 3.;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 3.; Luke 9)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 9), and another of His heavenly (Ephesians 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:11). Please define the difference, if any?

Of course, Pentecost made a great difference to all believers. They had “life” before, now they had it “more abundantly” (see John io. xo). Before, they had been individual believers united in a common love and fealty to the same Master. Now their relationship both to Him and to one another had become profoundly modified. During the Lord’s ministry, if we except the special mission in Matthew 10," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10, when they received a special enduement of power (v. i), and a unique commission (v. 6), the apostles came little into prominence. It was the Lord who led and worked; they followed and learned of Him. Now they became perpetually “endued with power from on high,” subject to the leading of the Holy Spirit. They were now united to Christ as members of His Body, and for the first time were indwelt by that Spirit. But that the eleven apostles of the Lord’s earthly ministry remained, or ever were, a different apostolic order to Paul, and perhaps two or three others mentioned in the Acts has, I believe, no scriptural authority whatever. We know that the eleven apostles of the original twelve, and Matthias, all passed through Pentecost, and Paul was no doubt Spirit-baptised later at his conversion. Pentecost certainly meant for the twelve a vast accession of apostolic power, so that it is quite permissible to view them as given by the risen Christ. “He gave some apostles,” though they existed before potentially as apostles. They all became partakers of Ephesian standing and blessing. Now, as he had advised them, the sphere of their action was greatly widened, for they were sent “to preach the gospel to every creature.” It seems to me entirely gratuitous and mistaken to assume that Peter and his ten fellow-apostles were not in the will of God in the appointment of Matthias. No hint of this is given in the passage or subsequently. The Lord had given them “Holy Spirit” (John 20:22)" TARGET="_blank">John 20:22) to carry them over the interval between His resurrection and Pentecost—the true “giving of the Holy Spirit.” They appointed him on the authority of the Scriptures, after prayerful exercise before God, appealing to Him to dispose the lot, and Matthias is recognised in Acts 2:14" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:14 as completing the original member of the apostles. Not only so, but Paul himself did not acknowledge any difference. He recognised the twelve as “those who were apostles before him” (Galatians 1:17)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:17), and if he insists on his having received his call and gospel from the Lord Himself, it was only to claim equality with the others, but in no way superiority. Some attach great importance to his word, “My gospel,” but this proves nothing, as he tells us in Galatians 1:6-9," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:6-9, that there was only one true gospel, and in chap. 2. 2, that on his return to Jerusalem he checked the gospel he had been preaching with that of the apostles there, lest he had in any way deviated from the true gospel, which was theirs, before it was his. “In conference,” he is able to affirm, “they added nothing to me,” though they recognised that his special mission was to the Gentiles. So clear is this in this chapter that these mistaken teachers have imagined a theory to account for it that Paul got under Jewish influence at Jerusalem (by that right hand of fellowship given to him by Peter and James and John), and was absolutely switched off his true character of testimony. Certainly this would be strange, considering that in the same context he tells us that he openly withstood his fellow-apostle for Judaising at Antioch. That such a theory should be necessary to uphold their position, is surely enough to demonstrate its unsoundness.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

THE “FLESH” AND THE “BODY”
Explain the difference between the terms “flesh” and “body”? What is meant by the “redemption of the body”?

If the inquirer can examine, in any good Lexicon of New Testament Greek, or better still, in Mr. Vine’s Expository Dictionary, the great variety of meanings which each of the two words “sarx” (flesh) and “soma” (body) may bear, according to the context in which they occur; he will realise that it would be difficult to reply to his question adequately, within the bounds of this page. And if he can avail himself of a Young’s or Wigram’s Concordance to go through all the occurrences of each word, he will probably glean more help in that way than he would from any formal answer.

The fact is that, as used in some passages, there is little or no difference between the two words; and yet in certain other passages a clear distinction is made between them. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 4:10" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:10 we have the phrase, “that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our BODY”; while in the parallel statement of the next verse it is, “that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal FLESH.” Here the two words are practically synonymous. The opposite extreme may be seen in Colossians 2:23" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:23 (R.V.), where one can show “severity” to the BODY, and at the same time be showing “indulgence” to the FLESH.

Taken in its most literal sense, the “body” is the physical or material part of man, viewed as an organised whole (see 1 Thessalonians 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:23). The “flesh” is the substance of which this body is to a large extent composed (see Luke 24. 39)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 24. 39). But either word may be used to represent the entire man, as “body” in Luke 20: 36," TARGET="_blank">Luke 20: 36, and “flesh” in Luke 3:6." TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:6.

It is when the thought of evil, either in state or in tendency, is suggested, that a deeper distinction is at times made between the two words. For example, the expression “in the flesh” may be employed as in Romans 7:5" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:5 and 8:8, , of the moral standing of the unsaved, but “in the body” is never so used. The latter phrase may refer to one’s bodily presence in some particular place, as in 1 Corinthians 5:3," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:3, or to the present earthly life of man, as in 2 Corinthians 5:10;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:10; but this is not distinctive of it, for “in the flesh” may also have either of these meanings, as in Colossians 2:1" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:1 and in Philippians 1:24." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:24.
Again, “tendency to evil” may sometimes be signified by the term “the flesh,” especially in such phrases as “after the flesh,” etc.; but “the body” is not so used, except in a few remarkable expressions, “the body of sin” (Romans 6: 6)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 6: 6), “the body of this death” (Romans 7:24)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:24), “the deeds of the body” (Romans 8: 13)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8: 13), and “the body of the sins of the flesh” (Colossians 2:11)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:11).

The body is frequently spoken of as capable of being used for God (Romans 12:1)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:1), and so are its members (Romans 6: 12, 13);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6: 12, 13); but this is never predicated of the flesh (see Rom. 7. 25)," TARGET="_blank">Rom. 7. 25), the members of which seem rather to be those named in Col. 3. 5." TARGET="_blank">Col. 3. 5. Moreover, the body of the saint is called a temple of the Holy Ghost and a member of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15, 19)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:15, 19), but it is his “flesh” that lusteth against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:17). Finally, the saint’s body, having been “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:20), awaits its full “redemption” when our Lord Jesus comes again (Romans 8:23)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:23). Then He “shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory” (Philippains 3:21 R.V.); and when He has done so, “WE (not merely our bodies) shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 3:2).

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site