Can the physical defects of worshipers in Israel be applied to the church today?

Please explain the New Testament teaching of Leviticus 21:21-22" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21:21-22

The physical defects, enumerated in Leviticus 21" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21 ,as preventing the Sons of Aaron from exercising their public priestly functions, would correspond to-day rather to moral defects.

Clearly there are physical defects, which, while not hindering a brother breaking bread, would disqualify him from leading the assembly in worship to the Father, e.g., dumbness, excessive stammering, defective organs of speech. I remember a good brother thus afflicted, to whose presence none thought of objecting, but to whose audible exercises, which were frequent, some did take exception. Probably he would have been more in the love of the Spirit, had he but rarely taken audible part in the worship. But the physical defects, enumerated in Leviticus 21" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21 ,as preventing the Sons of Aaron from exercising their public priestly functions, would correspond to-day rather to moral defects, which though not bringing the person in question under discipline, would render him unfit to lead the assembly in its priestly worship.

How could a brother for instance, who was known to lose his temper in public, or be a quarrelsome person, or had a bad financial record, be indicated as a leader of the saints? How could a bankrupt, who had not paid his creditors, or a man who owed money to the saints or the world, pretend “to offer the bread of God” in the public assembly? The lack of conscience evidenced by attempting to do so, would in itself be but poor proof of the reality of his Christian profession, though he might still be allowed to break the bread, pending possible developments. It might be hoped that his own sense of propriety would keep him silent, but if not, the elder brethren would doubtless feel their responsibility to act.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Some hold that there is a difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, and that only those who are born again are in the former, while all who profess are in the latter. If such be the case, how can they explain Matthew 5:20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:20 and Matthew 18:3" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:3? I was under the impression that both were the same, and that conversion and regeneration also were the same. Am I correct?

Some, I believe, maintain that the Kingdom of God is the real thing and the Kingdom of heaven inclusive of all profession. But does not the first Beatitude seem to refute this? “Blessed are the poor in Spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5. 2)." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 5. 2). A comparison of Matthew 13" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13: and Luke 13" TARGET="_blank">Luke 13: shows that in the two chapters the same parables—of the mustard seed and of the leaven—are referred, in the former to the Kingdom of heaven, in the latter to the Kingdom of God. This would seem to indicate that the difference cannot be vital. In the one phrase, the seat of the authority exercised is emphasised. It comes from “the heavens”: In the other, the one who exercises the authority is the predominant thought—it is God Himself.

I believe both are real. How could it be otherwise when both belong to God? It is dangerous, however, to shuffle Bible terms. But in the Kingdom of Israel remnants of the Canaanites, e.g., the Gibeonites remained, but were not subjects of the Kingdom. In the Kingdom of this land, foreigners, enemy spies, alien communists, ever hostile to our king, may live and lurk; they must recognise the law of the land, but they are not recognised as British subjects and they can be repatriated at the will of the Sovereign. So there are doubtless some who profess the name of Christ who are not really subjects of the Kingdom. They will be purged out, but it does not follow they were ever included in the Kingdom.

As regards the terms, “conversion,” and “regeneration,” they may coincide and I believe do, but they are far from being synonymous.Conversion is the turning of the sinner to God and represents the man-ward side of things; regeneration is the new-birth wrought in the soul by the Holy Spirit, when conversion takes place. This represents the God-ward side.

W.H,

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I get my spouse to change?

How can I get my spouse to change?

If that word "get" means "make," "manipulate," or "manage," it is unacceptable.

Changing others is not our responsibility. Our responsibility in all our relationships is enabling others to be all the Lord intends them to be. We attempt to change others for our own interests. We enable others to fulfill God's will for the Lord's sake and for theirs. The model for our relationships is the One Who "took upon Him the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7)," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:7), therefore serving is the key to relationships.

Even if we were married to a perfect spouse, some days we'd find things to change.

Three truths will help settle our viewpoint. First, God's sovereignty assures us that our spouse is the perfect instrument with which the Lord intends to mold us into His likeness (Romans 9:20)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 9:20). Second, our spouse's bothersome qualities indicate where either we (see the previous paragraph) or our spouse need divine refining. That directs us to the "feet" that need to be washed (John 13:4-17)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:4-17). Lay aside your rights, slip on the servant's towel, fill the basin, and serve. Third, the Lord never entrusts us with a responsibility for which He does not enable us (Philippians 4:13, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 4:13, 19).

Since it's generally easier to answer a different question that what has been asked, it may seem unfair to change this question; however, the more appropriate question is, "How can I be a better spouse?"

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What practical steps will help me be a better spouse?

What practical steps will help me be a better spouse?

Grow spiritually. If the objective is to be a God-honoring spouse in a marriage that can then be God-honoring, a first requirement is spiritual living. This does not mean perfection, but submission to the Lord through obedience to His Word and communion with Him - daily reading and prayer. The Bible is not a manual on how to have a good marriage; it is food that enables spiritual living.

Forgive graciously. Forgiveness is a basic Christian grace (Ephesians 4:32)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:32). You may be very aware of your spouse's wrongs; however, the balance in your marriage between acts which you could forgive and acts for which you need to be forgiven is likely closer than you realize. Besides, the Lord has forgiven you far more sins than the wrongs done to you. Even when your spouse doesn't recognize wrongs done, a forgiving spirit doesn't require a penalty for those wrongs.

Confront effectively. Effective confrontation is a difficult but necessary art. Confrontation that creates alienation is not effective, but avoiding confrontation is self-serving and unkind.

Effective confrontation recognizes a behavior that is detrimental to the spiritual, emotional, or physical well-being of the spouse. For the glory of the Lord and the good of the spouse, effective confrontation finds an appropriate time to state some positive means for dealing with that behavior. Tenderness and meekness (Galatians 6:1)" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 6:1) are requisite.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should a Christian have friends who are not believers?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL and email address in your answer.

Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is Fat Tuesday or Mardi Gras?

Mardi Gras is the French translation of “Fat Tuesday”. Those who know Spanish can see the resemblance in Martes (Tuesday) and grasa (fat). Fat Tuesday or Mardi Gras occurs the day immediately preceding Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. In mid February, the pagans in the Roman empire celebrated the Lupercalia, a circus-like festival. Like other holidays, the Roman Catholic religion decided to adopt the practices of the pagans rather than offend the newly "Christianized" masses.

Mardi Gras is celebrated for a few weeks, depending on the location in the world, in a festival called Carnival. Unbridled partying, drunkenness, sex and debauchery are the features of this festival. Freqently Carnival is celebrated in Central America, South America and Southern Europe where Catholic traditions are strong. New Orleans is the largest and most famous Mardi Gras celebration in the United States. Elaborate costumes and barely clothed women are common in Mardi Gras parades.

Since the Catholic teaching of Lent stipulates that the faithful refrain from sinful practices, fast and pray during the 40 days of Lent, Mardi Gras has been a tradition for centuries to have a huge party just before the days of Lent. Think of it as one last binge before giving something up for 40 days.

There is either a serious misunderstanding or ignorance of God’s word in the combination of Mardi Gras and Lent. The Bible says that Christians should avoid willful sin and uncontrolled behavior all of the year, not just during Lent or Holy Week.

“Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.” Romans 13:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:13-14

When is Fat Tuesday?
March 8, 2011
February 21, 2012
February 12, 2013
March 4, 2014
February 17, 2015

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God have different expectations for a husband and a wife?

Does God have different expectations for a husband and a wife?

For the wife, the Scriptures teach that fondness for her husband is a learned behavior (Titus 2:4)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 2:4). Romantic love is a pleasant start, but this deepening fondness is an ongoing education and the grace manifested in Christ is our ultimate teacher (Titus 2:11, 12)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 2:11, 12).

Submission to her husband is enjoined on the Christian wife (Ephesians 5:22, 24;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:22, 24; Colossians 3:18;" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:1). This is not a form of benevolent slavery. Submission recognizes, respects, and supports her husband's God-given role.

For the husband, the Bible says, "Husbands, love your wives" (Ephesians 5:25)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:25), to which Paul adds (Colossians 3:19)" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:19) "and be not bitter (exasperated, irritated, indignant) against them." This love is not dutiful, but is a joyous devotion to understanding and meeting the varied and unique needs of his wife, to contribute to his wife's fulness in God's purpose for her.

The wife's role is to complete her husband, providing him with the insights, emotional sensitivity, and balance required for them, as one, to accomplish God's will. The husband's role is to care for his wife by giving her the security and leadership she desires. The Lord has suited each for the role He designed. The beauty of marriage is understanding these differences and working within the framework of God's design for each spouse.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the living bread from heaven, the same as the bread of the church communion?

Is Paul’s reference to the body and blood of Christ related to John 6:53-56" TARGET="_blank">John 6:53-56?

In John 6:53" TARGET="_blank">John 6:53 and 54, eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood are necessary and sufficient conditions for having eternal life. That is describing what took place once; at the moment of conversion, we took the death of Christ to ourselves and received all its benefits. In verse 56, feeding on Christ and His death is characteristic of all who are saved. This, linked by some to Israel’s initial and continued eating of the Passover, is individual. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:7). Our redemption is individual, as is our appropriation of the Lamb. The annual Passover shares the feature of remembrance with the Lord’s Supper, but, although instituted at the Passover, it does not replace the Passover or fulfill it.

At the Lord’s Supper, the assembly unitedly blesses and partakes of the cup and bread, thus expressing the blessings they share. Being a corporate act, it is therefore distinct from what the Passover expresses and from the personal communion of which the Lord speaks in John 6:56." TARGET="_blank">John 6:56.

In addition, John 6" TARGET="_blank">John 6 speaks of eating in a spiritual sense, 1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10 of eating physically.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Bible Puzzles Printout

Severl programs for Bible puzzles that you can printout are listed below.

or

Choose one of the 350 Sunday school worksheets that you can printout so student have several types of Bible puzzles including word find and crossword puzzles. You can printout the PDF files on 8.5x 11 paper.

Create and printout one of the following Bible puzzle programs.

Word Find

Word Scramble

Crossword Puzzle Creator

Cryptogram Puzzle Creator

Fallen Quotes

Other pages in this section

About this site

Were Jesus "brothers" actually his cousins?

Were “the brethren of the Lord” in such passages as Matthew 12: 46," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12: 46, Matthew 13: 55," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13: 55, etc., His actual brethren? or were they his cousins, as some teach?

Were it not for controversial reasons I do not think any such question would ever have been raised. The word for “cousin” is distinct, and that used for the Lord’s “brethren,” though sometimes meaning “stepbrother,” is the ordinary one for brother, and there is no hint in the Gospels of Joseph having been married before. This effort to make the word mean “cousin” is supposed to be necessary in order to defend the miraculous birth and the false idea existing that it is holier not to have children, than to have them; whereas the two thoughts—the Virgin Birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary, are quite distinct and independent. While we believe unswervingly in the former, we hold that the testimony of Scripture is against the latter. The expression, “the brethren (adelphoi) of the Lord,” occurs nine times in the Gospels and once in the Acts. In Matthew 12:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:46 and its parallels in Mark and Luke (where His mother and brethren come to Him); Matthew 13:55" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:55 and its parallel in Mark (where the brethren are named Jacob, Joseph, Simon and Judas, four common Jewish names), in connection with His mother and sisters. The four others are: John 2:12" TARGET="_blank">John 2:12—”His mother and His brethren,” and chap. 7. 3, 5, io, where His brethren are said not to have believed in Him. However, it is asserted by the advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that “these brethren” were the sons of Alphus, the husband of the sister of the mother of our Lord, and therefore his cousins. If this were so, it is remarkable that they should be so consistently found with the mother of Jesus, their aunt, rather than with their own mother, the wife of Alphus or Clopas, who was still alive. Now, it is nowhere affirmed that any of the Lord’s brethren were among the twelve apostles; indeed it is plainly stated in John 7," TARGET="_blank">John 7, “Neither did His brethren believe on Him.” But among the apostles there were at least two sons of Alphus, James and his brother Judas, and possibly Matthew, who in Mark’s Gospel is said to be “the son of Alphus,” and these certainly could not be among those who did not believe on Him. The two things are inconsistent. Afterwards the brothers did believe, but they never entered the ranks of the twelve apostles. In fact they are in some places distinguished from the apostles, e.g., in Acts 1:14," TARGET="_blank">Acts 1:14, where they were present in the prayer meeting, but apart from the eleven. See also 1 Corinthians 9:5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:5, “As well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas.” In reality there are two verses in the New Testament which state implicitly that Mary had other children besides our Lord, namely Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: 25 (“till she had brought forth her first-born son”); and Luke 2:7" TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:7 (“And she brought forth her first-born son”). Now, though the Revisers have omitted, “first-born,” in Matthew 1:25," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25, the word is not a plain and clear error, and therefore by the canon of authority laid down for the Revisionists,* it ought to have been left alone. The Luke passage is not disputed and is very emphatic. Had our Lord been the only Child of Mary, He wouldcertainly have been called her only Son—her “monogenës.” As it is, He is called in both these passages her first-born, her “prötotokos.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu