Is there biblical guidance on a minimum age for marriage?

Despite society’s whims, marriage is for life (Romans 7:2)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:2). Such a commitment, upholding such a high ideal (Ephesians 5:31, 32)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31, 32), demands maturity. The unselfishness that marriage requires (1 Corinthians 13:5)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 13:5) comes with maturity. When a couple marries too young, a crisis often comes later; one of the partners feels he or she would have chosen differently if given more experience.

An inordinate haste to be married may indicate personal problems that will produce lethal weaknesses in a marriage. This may include escaping an unpleasant family situation, filling an inordinate need for approval from the opposite gender, seeking financial independence, managing lust, fearing singleness, having unrealistic expectations for marriage, rebelling against parents, reacting to undisclosed abuse, or evading the consequences of immoral behavior.

Willingness to listen and evaluate the differing viewpoints of friends indicates maturity (Proverbs 12:15)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 12:15). A person who stubbornly insists he is sufficiently mature to marry, despite the disagreement of trustworthy friends, proves his immaturity. If a couple is willing to be patient, wait on the Lord, and demonstrate the wholesomeness of their relationship, their spirit may silence those who oppose them. Proverbs 3:5" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 3:5 & 6 is good counsel.

Rather than intervening when emotions are inflamed, parents will be more effective by forestalling such a crisis. During children’s early teen years, family discussions regarding choosing wholesome friends and marriage partners are invaluable.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How could elders fulfill their responsibilities without being overburdened by "other things"?

How could elders fulfill their responsibilities without being overburdened by "other things"?

The example in Acts 6" TARGET="_blank">Acts 6 is clear, simple, and effective. Applying the principles may not be as easy as it appears. The Lord indicates that leadership is liable to exert control and to somehow obligate others to submit to it (Luke 22:25)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:25). His model of leadership is different: "So shall it not be among you" (Mark 10:43)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:43). The mind of those whom the Lord has made leaders is a servant mind (vv 43b, 44). Sometimes a sincere desire to "hold the truth" can be expressed in a carnal way by tightly holding the reins of control in the assembly.

The apostles shared their responsibilities where it was possible to do so. They could not share their apostolic responsibility, but they did share deacon service that was not essential to their apostolic responsibilities.

While overseers are responsible to "guide the flock" (Heb 13:7," TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:7, mg), others can carry out many responsibilities under the elders’ guidance. Matters such as handling money, maintaining, decorating, or constructing a building in which to meet, planning meals, working with children, and preparing for gospel outreach can be entrusted to others. Some who are younger, capable, and willing, whether male or female, could effectively do this work.

The apostles’ example emphasizes that the primary qualifications for handling any responsibilities related to the assembly are spiritual (Acts 6:3)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 6:3). If elders feel that no others are spiritually qualified, they have a shepherd’s responsibility to foster such spiritual growth. And if elders feel that no one is willing to do the work, they would be wise to set a different tone in the assembly, making it clear that others are appreciated, needed, and welcomed in the assembly. Encouragement works wonders (Heb 3:13," TARGET="_blank">Heb 3:13, JND)!

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How should I view abortion?

What is a scriptural attitude toward abortion?

By inspiration David teaches that life and God's purpose for life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 139:13,16b). This context also reveals that the formation of the person, perfect or imperfect, and the length of life is determined by God.

In Galatians 1:15" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:15 Paul remarks that God determined his birth: "God... separated me from my mother's womb."

Is not the Lord Jesus our supreme example? He said to Pilate; "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world" (John 18:37)." TARGET="_blank">John 18:37).

In 2 Kings 8:12" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 8:12 we see a weeping prophet expressing the grief of the heart of God because of king Hazael of Damascus. Mentioned amongst the atrocities he would commit is the slaying of "women with child." While these were Syrians, enemies of Israel, God abhorred the crime of taking the life of mothers and children.

Christians believe the sanctity and divine purpose that gives life to every baby forbids acceptance of aborting a pregnancy. Questions will arise regarding the welfare of mothers. As sensitive as this matter is Genesis 35:16-19" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 35:16-19 guides believers as to divine purpose.

J. Smith

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the breaking of bread the same as the communion service?

Why do we avoid calling the Sunday meeting when we break bread the Communion Service?

We express our communion (or fellowship) when we remember the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16). Taking the cup demonstrates our fellowship with God (v 21). Taking the bread expresses our fellowship with one another in the assembly (v 17). It is therefore a communion service. As we gather to take these emblems, we obey the Lord’s words, "This do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19). It is therefore a remembrance meeting. We meet to do this each Lord’s Day morning, therefore it is a morning meeting, although believers in Acts likely met in the evening (Acts 20:7)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7). However, none of these designations is used in the New Testament as a name for this gathering of the assembly. The Spirit uses "the breaking of the bread" (literally) in referring to this gathering (2:42). Likewise, the Spirit inspired Paul to use the expression "the Lord’s supper" (1Co 11:20)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 11:20) when he wrote about the Corinthians meeting to remember the Lord. Calling it "The Breaking of Bread" or "The Lord’s Supper" is more consistent with the Biblical designations of this gathering.

In evangelical usage, "The Communion Service" is a common designation of a gathering where believers share in taking the bread and the cup. Attempts to accommodate our terminology to that of evangelical congregations obscure the Scriptural difference between a church of God and other gatherings whose doctrine may be sound but whose pattern does not come from the New Testament. Rather than shrinking from being different, why not highlight the beauty of the Biblical pattern by using Biblical terms?

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the New Testament contain references to musical instruments in the church?

Does the word "singing" (1 Corinthians 14:15;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:19) imply musical instruments?

The basis of this question is the derivation of the word, "psallo," used 5 times in the New Testament and translated "sing," "sing psalms," or "making melody." The noun translated "psalm" (psalmos) comes from this verb. W. E. Vine gives the meaning as "primarily ‘to twitch, twang,’ then, ‘to play a stringed instrument with the fingers,"’ and adds that it means "in the New Testament, ‘to sing a hymn, sing praise."’ Similarly, Vincent states, "The verb, however, is used in the New Testament of singing praise generally."

The derivation of a word adds color to the meaning but does not define the word. Ephesians 5:19" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:19 uses both forms of the word in a way that clearly removes them from the thought of an accompanying instrument. The noun, "psalms," is linked with speech and not music, "speaking to yourselves in psalms. The verb, "sing," cannot involve instrumental music when Paul says, "making melody in your heart."

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Matthew misquote Jeremiah and Zechariah?

In Matthew 27:9-10," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:9-10, the writer ascribed to Jeremiah the well known prophecy of Zechariah 11:12-13." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 11:12-13.
Please explain why he did so.

Was Matthew as a pious Jew, long in the companionship and service of our Lord, and a man of apostolic gifts, likely, quite apart from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to confuse the prophets Jeremiah and Zechariah? Here he was engaged under the direct guidance of the Spirit, in writing a book which was to live down the ages, and which he, as a mere man, was perfectly incapable of producing. Infidels have foolishly boasted sometimes that they could write as good a book as the Bible. They ought to do it then, for it would pay them well. It would be a “best seller” for years. Matthew plainly was familiar with Zechariah, as his quotation in Matthew 21:4-5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 21:4-5 shews, and could not have confused the books, even with his own intelligence alone.

The probable explanation is the one cited by Lightfoot, that Jeremiah, as considerably the longest of the prophets, had the first place among them, and so his name came to be used for the volume of the prophetical writings. He quotes the learned David Kimchi as his authority. We often speak of the Psalms ofDavid, without affirming he wrote them all. There is another explanation which may also be the true one. The expression, “spoken by Jeremy the prophet,” may refer to some well known word of the prophet, just as Paul in Acts xx refers to words of our Lord: “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” which are not recorded in the Gospels. The quotation of Matthew does not agree exactly either with the Hebrew or LXX of Zechariah 11." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 11. Sometimes the prophets did receive messages as to the same events in almost identical language. Supposing, for instance, some New Testament writer had quoted Micah 4:1-3," TARGET="_blank">Micah 4:1-3, and it had not been recorded that Isaiah had said the same words in chapter 11:2-4 of his prophecy, and we had read that the well-known words of Micah “were spoken by Isaiah the prophet,” how eagerly critics would have seized upon it as a mistake! Of one thing we may be sure, Matthew, an inspired apostle, chosen of God for this wonderful ministry, did not make a mistake.
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a sister in the assembly say "Amen" to a brother's prayer?

Does a sister violate the truth of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34-35 when she says "Amen" audibly after a brother's prayer?

No.

We read in verse 16 of the same chapter, "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks?" Clearly, it was customary for assembly saints to say "Amen" at the close of a brother's prayer, praise, or thanksgiving. In Nehemiah 8:6" TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 8:6 we read, "And Ezra blessed the Lord, the Great God. And all the people answered Amen, Amen." "All" must have included the women.

When we say, "Amen," at the close of a brother's prayer, we express our agreement, therefore we must listen and understand what he has said. It would be good if every assembly saint were as ready to say "Amen" as New Testament saints were, but we should never use "Amen" as a political tool. The less politics we have in an assembly, the better.

W Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Melchizedek an appearance of Christ in the flesh?

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.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How old was Abraham when his father died?

In Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 we read, “Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” and in V. 32, “and the days of Terab were two hundred and five years and Terah died in Haran.” Now, taking 70 from 205, would make Abram 135 years when Terah died, while we know from Gen. 12:4" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 12:4 that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and from Acts 7:4" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:4 that he did not leave Haran till Terah died.

It is not necessary to believe from Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were all born in the same year, but simply that Terah had no children till he was 70, and then had three sons born at intervals. In Genesis 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 5:32, we have an instance of the same thing, when we read that “Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” and yet Genesis 10:21" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10:21 tells us Japheth was older than Shem. It is equally clear that Abram was not the eldest of the three brothers. He and Shem are put first because of their importance as the progenitors of the chosen race and the Messiah. It is generally held that Haran was the eldest, born when Terah was 70, and that Abram came into the world 6o years later. This would account for the fact that he and his nephew Lot, son of Haran, seem to have been much of the same standing. Besides, we are distinctly told that Abraham was 75 when at the death of Terah, he departed out of Haran. He was born, therefore, when his father was 130 years of age.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did our Lord, though not partaking of the bread when instituting His supper, drink of the cup?

Can there be some spiritual truth hidden in this?

We think the idea that the Lord partook of the cup (as above) is based on a misunderstanding of the accounts of the Institution, and on a false inference. The misunderstanding arises from the position of the words, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,” in the Matthew and Mark accounts, and the false inference, from the idea that the Lord had necessarily that moment drunk of the cup in question. It is clear from the Luke 22" TARGET="_blank">Luke 22: account that there were two cups, that in the 17th verse which was the passover cup, and the other the cup of the new supper, the memorials of His body and blood. It was to the former (see v. 18) that the Lord’s words, above quoted, refer. The Lord did not Himself partake of the emblems of His death in either kind, as Luke’s account shews.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu