• About this site

John Dennison

• About this site

Gary Sharp

• About this site

Julie Kelly

• About this site

 George Müller Biography - George Müller was one of the early brethren in the United Kingdom who is known for his work of faith among orphan children by running his organization by faith to provide for their needs.

"May it not be the will of God that I should establish schools for these children, asking Him to give me the means?"

• About this site

Becky MacLeod

• About this site

• About this site

• 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

PETER’S CONVERSION AND CALL

When was Peter saved? Was it when Andrew brought him to the Lord Jesus, or was it when the Lord called him on the shores of the sea of Galilee to become a fisher of men?

The mission of John the Baptist was, amongst other things, to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:15)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:15), and, no doubt, Peter, Andrew and the rest of the apostles were all disciples of John, having been baptized by him with the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, waiting for the One that was to come. Accordingly, when these prepared ones came in contact with the Lord, they were ready to receive Him as Messiah. In John i, when Andrew brought Peter to the Lord, He did not call him to repentance or faith, for he did already in a manner believe on Him, but gave Him his new name, anticipating the moment when He would build him as a living stone into His Church. This was only the prelude to the scene on the sea of Galilee.

Thus Peter was called by John to repentance and faith in the one coming after him; then by the Lord to a place in His Church, and later to His service. We apply the word “saved” to everyone who has received Christ as personal Saviour, though the word carries with it more than forgiveness, namely, deliverance to and from. Peter could not receive Christ in above sense till the Lord was revealed to Israel, but no doubt all the true disciples of John, though they did not form part of the Church till Pentecost, were saved persons; they were of the people of God, His own, in a very real sense. In this sense Peter was a saved person before he was introduced to the Lord by Andrew, for he had been already introduced to Him by John the Baptist and had doubtless believed on Him as the One “who should come after him” (Acts 19:4)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:4), as indeed did the Old Testament saints in a minor degree. The Lord knew him by name and was now calling him out of the Jewish fold, to belong to His flock.

W.H.

• 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

PRAYER FOR THE SICK
Would it be right to accede to the request of a sick brother, to send for the elders of the church to pray for his recovery?

I should think that the question ought rather to be, “Would it be right to refuse such a request?” Surely the Scripture is very plain, “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5: 14, 15)." TARGET="_blank">James 5: 14, 15). We must not evade Scripture or twist it out of its simple meaning, as is sometimes done, because if taken as it stands, it may seem to favour some false notion. There is scarcely a heresy in the world which cannot quote some half-truth or twisted text in its favour.

No doubt James 5:14" TARGET="_blank">James 5:14 has been used as a basis for the many erroneous systems of bodily healing abroad to-day, and so some have fallen into the erroneous idea that it must be evaded. “For instance,” says one, “James does not give us ‘church truth.’ “ That is no doubt in a sense the case, but he seems to speak here of a church custom, for we cannot admit that “church” in its local and technical sense, means one thing in the Acts and another in the Epistles, and we accept without hesitation for ourselves to-day other exhortations of the Epistle. Another evasion, as it seems to me, is to ask, “Where in the scattered condition of the church are the elders?” The answer is that in nearly every scripturally-ordered assembly there are some who are known and act as such, and who bear the character of elders in a greater or lesser measure. Others point out that the epistle is addressed to the twelve tribes. Yes, but to them as actual or potential believers in Christ. See, for example, James 2:10" TARGET="_blank">James 2:10 “My brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . with (or along with) respect of persons.”

The Roman Catholic Church, of course, bases on this passage the “Sacrament of Extreme Unction.” But for this they have to read—”Is any among you dying?” because they only administer the rite to those in extremis. For anyone to recover after the reception of Extreme Unction is quite unlooked for and out of order, whereas the anointing in “James” is in view of recovery—”The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.” This last promise seems to give character to the whole passage. It is as though it were a case where the sufferer* suspected that the Lord was dealing with him on account of some sin, and sent for the doctors of the soul, rather than of the body. I do not know any faith-healing systems which teach the sick to send for the “elders of the church.” It is generally rather some leader, who professes to be a “Healer,” who sends for the sick; or else it is a faith-healing home, often under female control, where the sick are taken in as boarders, awaiting their turn to be healed at some public service, which savours rather of an advertisement for man than as a testimony for God.

One is, of course, not questioning the earnestness of many of these people, but is comparing their methods with our passage. Here it is the sick one who desires the fellowship in prayer of his brethren. These make no claim to be “faith-healers,” but they pray in simple fashion for the sick one, in submission to the will of God, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord. They cannot command the prayer of faith. It may not be the Lord’s intention to raise up the sick brother, but the prayer of faith (if they are able to offer it) shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him. Nothing is said as to other means being unlawful, and the word for “anoint with oil” is not the sacred word—used, for instance, in Hebrews 1:9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:9 (the “Christ” word). It is noticeable that the most outstanding example in the Bible of healing, granted to the prayer of faith—that of Hezekiah—was in no way incompatible with the use of means—a fig poultice. The faith-healing systems would entirely rule out this as a lack of faith. The case that follows in James 5" TARGET="_blank">James 5 is still more simple. Here there seems no doubt as to the cause of the illness, and there is no question either of physician or elders. “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another.” Any godly person will do, for “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man” (though he be not an elder) “availeth much.” There ought surely to be more exercise among us as to the why and the wherefore of our sicknesses. They may not all be sent in chastisement, they may be part of our salutary and daily discipline, but there can be no loss in enquiring of the Lord, “Why am I thus laid aside?” We cannot leave the subject without a note of warning. Many erroneous teachings prevail to-day in the “faith-healing” world, e.g., that disease does not exist (how then cure what does not exist?); that disease in a Christian is a sin (!); that bodily healing is included in the Atonement (then why does any believer die?): and healing pilgrimages—little “Lourdes—are being encouraged to-day within the fold of the Protestant State-Church. The fact that cases of miraculous healing are claimed for all these systems, even if genuine, is not conclusive, for miraculous powers are not limited to the Spirit of God. We must test teachings, methods and results by the Word of God. What strikes the student of the faith-healing systems around us is the distant resemblance they bear, if any, to apostolic healings.

W.H.
* In order to have a full view of this whole subject we must not limit ourselves to this passage, but must Join with it such passages as 2 Corinthians 12: 7-9;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 12: 7-9; Philippians 2:25-27;" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:25-27; 2 Timothy 4:20;" TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 4:20; 1 Timothy 5:23," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:23, etc., in which there is neither mention of any miraculous intervention nor of sending for the elders. No scripture contradicts any other nor can it dispense with any other.

* The word is “weak”—the first condition noted in those under the chastening of the Father: “for this cause many are weak and sickly, and many sleep” 1 Corinthians 11:30)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:30).

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site