How does a brother know what hymns to suggest at the Breaking of Bread?

How does a brother know what hymns to suggest at the Breaking of Bread?

Singing is part of our worship (Hebrews 13:15)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:15) and worship is by the Spirit of God (Philippians 3:3," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:3, JND), therefore He must lead in the selection of hymns. Paul, when he speaks of believers being led by the Spirit (Galatians 5:18)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:18), refers to the whole tenor of Christian living. Being led by the Spirit in everyday living, through submission to Him and to Gods Word, is prerequisite to experiencing His leading in assembly gatherings. Leading the assemblys worship by the choice of a hymn is as serious a responsibility as leading the assemblys worship in prayer. Younger and older believers should be encouraged to humbly request hymns that will glorify the Lord and contribute to the worship of fellow-believers. The sincere help of some who seldom participate publicly almost always helps a meeting greatly

The late, highly-esteemed Charles Strom remarked that being led by the Spirit "generally means using spiritual wisdom." Aaronic priests did not function alone; the priestly work of selecting hymns involves a sensitivity to the worship of others. If a believer is enjoying a certain hymn, which is consistent with anothers worship, that hymn may be appropriate to sing. The same could be true if anothers worship forcibly impresses the believer with a certain hymn. Spiritual wisdom may dictate against singing that hymn if there have been too many hymns already or if it is time to break the bread. Sometimes it might be wise to sing only a couple of verses that particularly embody the truth the believer is enjoying. We express Gods character as an orderly God when all things are done "in a becoming and orderly manner" (1 Corinthians 14:40," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:40, Weymouth).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should one assembly judge errors in another?

DISCIPLINE
What should be our attitude to a neighbouring assembly, where moral or doctrinal evil is allowed to go on unjudged?

I presume what is meant by “moral or doctrinal evil” is something grave and fundamental, and not merely differences of judgement as to such questions as the exact rules to be followed at the Lord’s table, or regulations as to ministry. We have no authority in God’s Word as far as I can see, for cutting off an assembly, but we are not obliged to have fellowship with every assembly.

The Lord in His messages to the Seven Churches of Asia (Revelation 2" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2: and Revelation 3" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3: has to reprove Ephesus for “leaving her first love”; Pergamos for allowing among them those holding the doctrine of Balaam, or the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes; Thyatira for “suffering that woman Jezebel.. . to teach and seduce God’s servants”; Sardis for dead-alive profession; and Laodicea for luke-warmness and self-satisfaction. Yet, though in each case appeal is made to him “who hath an ear to hear what is said unto the churches,” in no case is one church, or alliance of churches, instructed to deal in discipline with some other church.

Not even in the case of Smyrna or Philadelphia, with which no fault was found, is any such instruction given. Is there then nothing to be done? Clearly the exhortation “to hear” what is said to the churches, shows that no church should be indifferent to the state of other churches. Prayer for the erring church must be ever in season, and godly exhortation by word or letter always permissible. But what should be done if all prove abortive? Then all direct contact with the assembly as such must be avoided. It is she who is morally responsible for shutting her doors against those who stand for truth and righteousness. Can we imagine Smyrna having practical fellowship with Pergamos, or Philadelphia exchanging platforms with Thyatira? But the modem method, if we rule out “inferences” and “logical deductions”, of excommunicating churches or groups of churches, is profoundly foreign to Scripture.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

To whom does "the great" and "the strong" refer in Isaiah 53:12?

To whom does "the great" and "the strong" refer in Isaiah 53:12" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12?

The wording of the KJV presents a difficulty: our Lord as Victor is not on the level of "the great." He is unrivaled. Most authorities have not given too much light on this verse. Undoubtedly, however, this delightful chapter concludes with the Servant of Jehovah coming forth as the mighty Victor. The Septuagint may give us a clearer understanding of this text. It reads, "Therefore shall He inherit the many" (that He delivered in conquest), "and He shall divide the spoils of the mighty" (that He conquered as the Victor). Another has put it, "He divides the portion as a great one, and He divides the spoil as a strong one." The Victor shares the spoil with His friends. The spoil is evidently from the defeated foe. Isn't David's conquest in the valley a picture of this? David inherits the many by his victory as a great one. In the victory over the mighty He divides the spoil, as the strong one, with the delivered nation.

A. Hull

Other pages in this section

About this site

What are the Protocols?

THE PROTOCOLS
What are the Protocols?
The word is derived from the Greek: prötos, first, and kolla, glue, and originally meant the first leaf glued to a papyrus roll. This bore the year of the king ruling at the time, and thus dated the roll. Reading the other day of the discovery of some papyri, the words occurred:
“They found a stray leaf close by which was supposed to be a protocol of one of the papyri.” Later the name was applied to the original copy of any writing, e.g., a treaty, and then it came to mean the rough draft of any transaction.
As showing the importance of these dated “protocols,” the following facts are of interest. The Higher Critics have sought in their general attack on the Old Testament Scriptures to unsettle the Biblical dates of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel. “Their scholarship makes it impossible (!) to believe it otherwise.” “All (!) scholars are agreed” that these books could not have been written in their place, as we have them. Such persons as are described in the two former books did not exist, and two Greek words for musical instruments* in the book of Daniel most probably bring its date down to the second century instead of the sixth, in which it claims to be written (!). However, in 1904-1907, some papyrus rolls written in Aramaic by Jews of Jeb were discovered in the island of Elephantine or Jeb, in the Nile, opposite Assouan, all dated with the names of Persian Kings of the fifth century, B.C.. In these occur the names of Biblical persons such as Sanballat and the high priest, Jehoiada, and his son, Jehohanan, and also three Greek wordsf more unlikely in their character to be found, than the two Greek words occurring in Daniel. These flimsy papyrus-leaves, preserved in the dry sand of Egypt, are found to negative the premature conclusions of the critics. Daniel belongs to the same epoch.
The word “Protocol” has come rather prominently before the public in late years in connections with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a book purporting to be records of a world-wide conspiracy engineered by Jews. This work has proved to the satisfaction of very many to be a forgery by enemies of the Jews. It is, however, still used by Anti-semites on the Continentt (e.g., in German schools to-day) to stir up race- hatred against God’s earthly people.

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can a sinning believer be restored to the Lord?

How can a sinning believer be restored to the Lord?

Both restoration of communion lost through one sin and also restoration from a path of sin involve two principles. First, confession is essential (Jeremiah 3:13;" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 3:13; Hosea 14:2;" TARGET="_blank">Hosea 14:2; 1 John 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9). More than mere words, confession means taking God's view of our sin. Sin is not a weakness or an addiction. It cannot be justified in any way nor its responsibility transferred to someone else or to r circumstances. Its primary shame is not its being "found out..." Sin is a wrong directed against God (Psalm 51:4)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 51:4), destructive to one's self, and harmful to others. Any unwillingness to forsake the sin nullifies confession. "Whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Proverbs 28:13)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 28:13). Confession is not pleading for forgiveness, repeatedly decrying the sin, or making one's self feel "lowly." It is not primarily emotional; it is a statement of submission to God's character.

The second principle is devotion. Restoration is not complete until a believer has returned to feeding on Christ. Only the power of divine life overcomes sin. By daily reading, meditation, and prayer, the believer can yield to the Spirit's working and know the transforming power of resurrection life.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I know what work to do for God?

How can I know what work to do for God?

What a valuable expression of devotion to the Lord!

"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much" (Luke 16:10)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:10) teaches us God’s way of entrusting lesser responsibilities initially. In fact, lifelong willingness to do "that which is least" is becoming for bondservants (see Philippians 2:5)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:5). Mark 12:34," TARGET="_blank">Mark 12:34, "The Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who . . . gave . . . to every man his work," highlights the Lord’s manner: He desires to employ every hand and entrusts to each of us our personal responsibility. "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might" (Ecclesiastes 9:10)" TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:10) advocates putting all our strength into what we do; that is especially appropriate for spiritual work.

Three factors may guide us in fulfilling our responsibility. First, our work will present itself to us. As part of living daily by the power of the Spirit, we should expect perceived need to encounter spiritual opportunity (Genesis 24:27)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 24:27). Second, our work will not be disruptive. The Scriptures use a body to illustrate assembly functioning (Romans 12:5;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:27)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 12:27). If we assume we are a "thumb" and our functioning displaces another believer, we are either on the wrong hand (going about our work in the wrong way) or misdirected (doing the wrong work). Third, our work will have encouragement. Seeking others’ approval ought to be disappointing, yet the absence of encouragement should produce humble waiting on God. Work done for the Lord will eventually have His encouragement, perhaps in small, very personal ways, and the encouragement of respected believers. Only intimacy with God, however, can impart the essential awareness in the soul that a particular work, especially public service, is God-given.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why is the fourth commandment (the Sabbath) different?

Please say why the Fourth Commandment is dealt with as being morally different from the rest. It will be agreed that it is wrong for Christians to steal, murder, etc. Why should it not be morally wrong for Christians not to observe the seventh day of rest?

We regard the Fourth Commandment as being morally different from the others, because apart from God’s revealed will for Israel as regards it, no natural conscience could possibly know that it was wrong to work on the seventh day, as is found to be the case by missionaries in heathen lands. The nations round Israel were never put under the Sabbath law, knew nothing about it, and are never held responsible for not keeping it. At least, I know of no place in the Prophets where not keeping the Sabbath is charged home on them.

A Gentile who sets himself to keep the Sabbath is doing himself a wrong, as he is now a debtor to do the whole law. He is taking on himself that which in no way appertains to him. He is going beyond what is written, which is wrong, just as coming short is, too. The Sabbath was a sign between Jehovah and the children of Israel for ever, and was never given to the Gentiles at all (Exodus 31: 16," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 31: 16, i7). All the other Commandments are repeated in substance in the New Testament, but the Sabbath is only referred to in Colossians z. i6, to warn believers not to allow themselves to be placed under bondage in that respect—”Let no man judge you,” etc. A certain modern heretical sect, of which Sabbath-keeping is a distinguishing feature, is so far right, in maintaining that the Sabbath was never changed from the seventh day to the first. The first day of the week, on which our Lord rose from the dead, is not a Sabbath at all; it is the Lord’s Day; though believers, are glad to profit by the usual freedom from secular employment on that day, to occupy themselves with the Lord’s service. The breaking of bread was usually in the evening (e.g. Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: ), because believers were at work all day in those times. Really a fictitious conscience has grown up as regards this question. We ought not to violate our conscience or that of others, by forcing or disregarding it, but to get an enlightened conscience from the Word of God.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is there a difference in the genealogy of Matthew and Luke?

Why do the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ?

Matthew presents the credentials of the King. The genealogy of Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1 traces His lineage through David and Solomon. David typifies the "King of Glory," strong and mighty in battle (Psalm 24:8)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24:8), and Solomon typifies the glorious reign of the "King of peace" (Hebrews 7:2)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:2), the eternal Son of God (verse 3).

Luke presents a perfect Man Whose pathway leading to Calvary was the revelation of the heart of God (Luke 1:78)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:78). Matthew portrays Him as the "Seed of David;" Luke describes the virgin-bom "Seed of the Woman." Luke's genealogy traces Him through David's son, Nathan, not Solomon. Throughout this list, "son" is not in the text except in verse 23 where "as it was supposed" qualifies it. In every other case, Luke says, "of Heli, of..." until he says, "of Adam, of God," "the Son of God" (in the singular and with the article, this is used only of the Lord).

Matthew lists the genealogy of Joseph. Luke gives us the genealogy of Mary. Through Joseph legally and Mary personally, the despised Jesus of Nazareth was truly "born King of the Jews."

N. Crawford

Other pages in this section

About this site

who are the three shepherds of Zecheriah 11?

Can we know from the Scriptures who are the three shepherds of Zecheriah 11:8?

It would be too much for anyone to affirm that there is no light in the Scripture on any point mentioned therein. All anyone can say is that he has no light. The incident of the three shepherds forms part of a prophetic Scripture, referring to the closing days of Israel’s history. As shepherds they would be responsible rulers of Israel, but their names are not indicated here, but no doubt this prophecy will shine out clearly when it is fulfilled. In the meantime students of prophecy, as has well been said, are not called to try to be prophets.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What did Old Testament believers know about Christ's sacrifice?

Is it correct to say that the Old Testament saints had the Gospel preached to them as we know it?

(see Galatians 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:8).

Did Abraham know when he offered up Isaac, that his son was a type of the Son of God? or did Isaiah know when speaking of the sufferings of Christ, that He was the Son of God? or again, did Job know that his Redeemer was the Son of God?

It is not possible, it seems to me, for anyone to search the hearts and understandings of these Old Testament saints, and define the exact extent of their spiritual apprehension of the Person of whom they spake. Spiritual truths are spiritually apprehended.

Certainly the Gospel preached to Abraham was not the Good News as we know it, but it contained it, for its promise of salvation was alone through Christ. Probably the apprehension of Patriarchs and Prophets was much greater than we might naturally suppose. For instance, would it not be difficult to define the limitations of our Lord’s words in John 8:56" TARGET="_blank">John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This seems to refer to a special occasion, as the verbs are all in the aorist and speak of a point of time in the past, probably to the great deliverance on Mount Moriah. Abraham might have called the name of the place “Jehovah-rahah”__the Lord has provided, had he thought all was over. Evidently he perceived that what had just taken place was the figure of a greater deliverance and so he called it “JehovahJireh”—the Lord will provide. Whether Isaiah and the prophets knew that the Messiah about whom they wrote was to be actually the Son of God, it seems profitless to enquire. They knew they were inspired by the Spirit of Christ testifying in them, and that they were speaking for us, concerning “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow” (1 Peter 1:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:11). Their difficulty was not to know of whom they spake, but of what manner of time. As for Job’s wonderful words, “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” he would be a bold man (which boldness I neither share nor desire to share), who would undertake to limit this prophecy. It seems to me that in these words God gave His tried servant to understand a bit of “Romans” truth—”My Redeemer”; a bit of “Corinthian” truth —“He shall stand in the latter day upon the earth”; a bit of “Thessalonian” truth—”In My flesh I shall see God”; a bit of “Colossian” truth—”My Redeemer is God”; and a bit of “Timothy” truth—”I know.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu