Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

On several occasions, Jesus preceded His remarks to certain individuals with the phrase,) “O ye of little faith.” We have tended to think of these passages in relation to our denominational friends who deny that baptism is essential to salvation to such an extent that most of us have never made serious application of these words and their contexts to our own personal problems. Could it be possible that we might be of little faith?

Jesus’ Usage of The Phrase

In order to properly understand what attitudes Jesus was condemning when He said, “O ye of little faith,” let us study the various contexts in which these words appear. Here are the various places in which the words occur:

1. Mt. 6:30; Lk. 12:28. The context of these two quotations is the Sermon on the Mount. The discussion had turned to the point at which Jesus insisted that man should not make the attainment of money his primary goal in life. Rather, he should obey God and trust in Him to provide for his physical needs. Here are the statements leading up to this phrase:

“Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? Any why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?” (Mt. 6:25-30).

Notice that the one described as one of “little faith” was the man who was anxious over the material things of this life and did not trust in God to provide him with his material needs.

2. Mt. 8:26. In this passage, the disciples were with Jesus in a boat crossing the Sea of Galilee. After a hard day of teaching the people, Jesus lay down in the boat and fell asleep. Soon a squall arose on the sea; the waves began to cover the boat. Jesus continued to rest in peaceful slumber. Finally, the disciples awakened Him saying, “Lord, save us: we perish.” Jesus replied, “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith.” Notice again, that littleness of faith is associated with lack of trust in God to take care of His disciples in times of danger.

3. Mt. 14:31. The occasion when Jesus uttered these words was most unusual. He had fed the 5000 with five loaves and two fish the day before. When the multitude tried to take Jesus by force and make Him their new king, Jesus sent the disciples away (perhaps they were caught up in this as well). They were told to cross the sea by boat; in the meantime, Jesus retired to the mountain to pray. During the night, a storm arose on the sea and the disciples were having great trouble in crossing the sea because of a strong head-wind. Soon Jesus finished his prayer and began walking on water across the sea. The disciples saw Him and thought that He was a ghost. Jesus identified Himself to them after which Peter said, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.” Jesus said, “Come.” “And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand and caught him, and said unto him, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Notice again, that “littleness of faith” is associated with the failure to trust in God.

4. Mt. 16:8. Here is the last context, I want to study with you. “And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?” Notice that their littleness of faith was marked by their worry about bread.

What Is Faith?

These verses refer to an aspect of faith which we tend to forget. Faith is a term used in a number of ways in the Scriptures. It is used to refer to a “body of doctrine” (Jude 3); it refers to mental assent to a set of propositions (cf. Jas. 2:19; Jn. 12:42-43-“to believe” is taken from the same root word as “faith”). It can even mean obedience (Jn. 3:36). Whereas we have zeroed in on the usages of faith which show that one must obey God to have faith in Him, I fear that there is one aspect of faith we have tended to neglect.

Faith also involves an implicit trust in God. Our failure to apply this aspect of faith has resulted in some poor conclusions. The man who is doctrinally correct on the right issues is considered a “strong man of faith,” even if he worries and frets himself sick to the point that he develops an ulcer or two. Do not misunderstand what I am saying; a man must believe the right facts about Jesus in order to have a strong faith. However, he must also have the proper trust in the Lord to have a strong faith. America is suffering from a serious shortage of both aspects of faith.

Statistics indicate that 20,000 times each year here in the United States someone takes his own life. That is fifty-five people every day, more than one every half hour. Suicide has become the tenth ranking cause of death in our nation. Psychiatrists and psychologists have their offices filled with people who cannot cope with the problems of life. Doctors are giving pills to their patients as a method of coping with life’s problems. Is this the way that the man of God is supposed to cope with life’s problems? Can you imagine Abraham running off to his psychiatrist to get some Valium to help him cope with his problems? Was David to take his problems to God in prayer or to his local, resident psychologist?

Faith in God implies that one believes several facts about God. He believes that God is still in control of this world (Acts 14:17; 17:28). lie believes that God is still providing for man’s spiritual, physical and emotional needs. Until we become convinced that such dispositions as worrying and fretting spring from lack of faith (trust) in God, we will do little or nothing to change.

Suggestions For Handling Life’s Problems

I would like to conclude this article by making some suggestions for how the Christian is to cope with life’s problems; here are some suggestions:

1. Pray about them. Peter said, “. . . casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you” (1 Pet. 5:7); Paul added, “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). 1 am afraid that we have not only forgotten what God’s word has said about taking our problems to Him but do not even pay attention to what some of our own poets have said; one said,

What a friend we have in Jesus,

All our sins and griefs to bear;

What a privilege to carry

Everything to God in prayer.

Oh, what peace we often forfeit;

Oh, what needless pain we bear;

All because we do not carry

Everything to God in prayer.”

— “What A Friend We Have In Jesus.”

2. Trust God. When we have cast our cares upon the Lord, then we need to patiently trust Him and wait for His answer. David said, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me” (Psa. 23:4). Similarly, Jesus has promised to be with us today (Mt. 28:20). The psalmist found a refuge in God during the times when the storms of life were about to engulf him. To what do you resort when life begins to fall in on you? Do you resort to pills, worry, fretting, etc.? Is God really your “Rock of Ages” in whom you hide?

3. Accept what must be accepted. The things which we can change should be changed; the things which we cannot change must simply be accepted. Paul had to accept the fact that he had to live the rest of his life with a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:1-10). There was simply nothing that he could do about it; hence, he had to accept it. The things which happen to us in life might not be the things we would like to happen to us; however, if we cannot change them, we simply must accept them.

4. Live one day at a time. Jesus said, “Take no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” , (Mt. 6:34). In A Way of Life, Sir William Osler said, “If the load of tomorrow be added to that of yesterday and carried today, it will make the strongest falter. Live in day-tight compartments. Don’t let yesterday and tomorrow intrude on your life. Live one day at a time. You’ll avoid the waste of energy, the mental distress, the nervous worries that dog the steps of the man who’s anxious about the future.”

Conclusion

If Jesus were to look at your life, would He be forced to describe you as one with “little faith”? We must be careful in our opposition to modern denominationalism, that we do not leave undone some of the things relevant to our personal character which are demanded by God.

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, pp. 275-277
May 5, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Ohio: “If the seventy week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is continuous with no gap between the 69th and 70th week, then how do you account for the destruction of Jerusalem taking place after the 69th week and not the 70th? In simple words, if our Lord fulfilled the whole 70th week, then why doesn’t it say the destruction would take place after the 70th week?”

Reply:

The text in question: “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate” (Dan. 9:24-27; NASB).

These verses refer to the work of the Savior. It would be difficult to find clearer expressions of the Messiah’s mission and ministry than those given in verse 24. (1) Transgression is finished (Heb. 9:26); (2) Sins are ended (1 Jn. 3:5); (3) Iniquity is forgiven (Isa. 53:6; Heb. 10:17); (4) Everlasting righteousness is brought in (Rom. 1:16, 17; 10:4; Phil. 3:9; Heb. 10:12-14); (5) Prophecy is fulfilled (Acts 3:18; 13:27; 24:14; 26:22); (6) The most holy is anointed (Heb. 6:20; 9:24; 10:19-22).

The seventy weeks are divided into three sections: 7-62-1. During the first period of seven weeks, Jerusalem, which then lay in ruins, was to be rebuilt. This was accomplished when Zerubbabel was governor over Judah. Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle the history of these “times of distress.” Next, the Messiah was to be “cut off” after the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week. This is the death of the Christ (cf. Isa. 53:8). Finally, in the midst of the seventieth week, the covenant was to be confirmed. As a result, sacrifice and oblation were to cease.Our Querist’s Objection

Our querist raises an objection. If Jesus’ death and the glory that followed fulfilled the events of the seventieth week, “then why doesn’t it say the destruction of Jerusalem would take place after the seventieth week?” The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely contemplated within the seventieth week (cf. Dan. 9:26, 27: Matt. 23:38; 24:15). The seventy weeks were declared and decreed “upon thy people and upon thy holy city (Jerusalem).” This is significant. It involved the people and the holy city with its sanctuary. Our querist assumes that the Lord’s death on the cross fulfilled “the whole seventieth week.” Ultimately, of course, He did fulfill the prophecies concerning His person and work, but the destruction of the city of Jerusalem was also decreed and declared and determined within the scope of the seventy weeks.

Jerusalem’s destruction took place after the sixty-ninth week. Therefore, the events that led to the final judgment against the city occurred during the seventieth week. The Lord’s reference to Daniel 9:27 makes the happenings of the seventieth week include the destruction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was left desolate, in a measure, even before Jesus’ death (Matt. 23:38). By spurning Jesus, they sealed their doom. The final, ultimate judgment against Jerusalem was announced during Daniel’s seventieth week (cf. Lk. 23:28-31). Jesus taught that His death marked the end of the Jewish nation (Matt. 21:33-43). This transpired during Daniel’s seventieth week. During this last or seventieth week, Jerusalem’s overthrow was sealed or determined by its rejection of the Christ. In this sense, it was accomplished, though the actual desolation was not carried out until Titus came with the Roman armies in 70 A.D.

Quotes From Halley And Wallace

Brethren do not establish the truth, but the observations of brethren Hailey and Wallace are worthy of consideration. Homer Hailey has written, “Whatever may have been meant by Gabriel as he spoke of the `seventy weeks,’ an analysis of the portion of the passage that is clearly Messianic, and that part used by Jesus of the destruction of Jerusalem make it clear that the expression had a symbolic meaning of the time from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the return under Zerubbabel, until the death of the Messiah, the cessation of the sacrifices, the making of a covenant, and the coming of the prince who completely destroyed Jerusalem and the old order” (The Preceptor,

September, 1972, p. 23). Foy E. Wallace, Jr. has stated that, “The destruction of Jerusalem was the terminating point of all the events within the seventy weeks of Daniel, covering the conclusion of the exile, the ushering in of the gospel times, the consecration of the Messiah to his redeeming office, and the end of all the temple services with the termination of the Jewish state” (God’s Prophetic Word, p. 518).

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, p. 274
May 5, 1977

By Roy E. Cogdill

There is but one action in Bible baptism. The idea that baptism can be performed in either one of three ways is wholly without scriptural warrant. The creeds of men authorize such latitude in their practice but God has not left the question of how to be baptized up to men. There are three lines of evidence that will convince any unprejudiced mind that the action of baptism is always the same and that action is immersion.

The Meaning of the Term

The New Testament Scriptures were written in the Koine vernacular of the Greek language. This language was current in New Testament times but soon ceased to be used and became what men call a “dead language.” By ceasing to be used it became fixed in its meaning and therefore is no longer subject to change. What the word from which “baptism” comes meant when Jesus used it, it means now. Webster defines words in terms of their present usage and English words are constantly changing. But not so with the language in which the New Testament was written. The word “baptism” is not a translation but a transliteration–that is, it is carried over into the English with the Greek ending dropped and an English ending added. Baptism in English is represented by “baptisms” in the Greek (spelled with English letters).

Baptisms in the Greek means “to dip.” Mr. Vines in his “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words” defines baptisms as follows: “1. BAPTISMA, baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion, and emergence (from bapto, to dip) . . .” (page 96). With this all real scholars agree. Many could be cited to show this the meaning of the word. None of any repute dissent. No critical commentator, translator, higher critic, or scholar of any recognition in anybody’s church says that bapto means to sprinkle or pour. The action of sprinkling or pouring for baptism is a human substitute for the divinely authorized action of immersion. They cannot be justified by the meaning of the word by which the commandment of the Lord was expressed.The Circumstances Surrounding the Action of Baptism

In the history of conversions recorded in New Testament Scriptures there is uniformity in the circumstances under which the action of baptism was performed. In every recorded case of baptism the subject was in the water when he was baptized. When Jesus was baptized at the hands of John, the Baptist, He was in the water when the action occurred. The record says, “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the ,water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him” (Mark 1:9-10). The baptism took place “in the Jordan” and when it was accomplished Jesus “came up out of the water.” This could mean only one thing–He was in the water when He was baptized.

In the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, recorded in Acts, chapter 8, the record of his baptism is the same. “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip” (Acts 8:36-39). These circumstantial facts are definite. They went down into the water. The baptism took place while both the preacher and the man to be baptized were in the water. When he had been baptized they both came up out of the water. This is strong circumstantial evidence that the baptism was immersion. People do not go down in the water to be sprinkled or poured. This kind of action does not take place while in the water: After sprinkling or pouring they do not come up out of the water.

People have labored long and hard to disprove the fact that the eunuch went down into the water. They have drawn on their imaginations and come up with the objection that this incident occurred in a place that the text says was “desert” and there could have been no water there. But the man said, “See, here is water.” We had just as well deny the “desert” part as to deny the “water” part of the test. More than that, the “desert” applies to the town of Gaza which was a deserted village. Then there are those who imagine that the eunuch pulled out a water bag or jug from underneath the seat of his chariot when he said, “See, here is water.” This is utterly riduculous when the text says that “they went down into the water.” Wherever the water was, they went down into it and the baptism took place while they were in it without making God a liar. Look at the emphasis: They went down into the water; they both went down into the water; they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. This kind of emphasis was not placed upon the fact that they came up out of the water. That fact is simply stated. Why the difference in the divine record? Simply because God knew that no one would ever be silly enough to deny that they both came up out of the water, but He knew at the same time that some men would deny that they both went down into it. So He fixed the matter so that it cannot be denied.

The Description of the Action

The third line of evidence that the action of baptism is immersion and only immersion in the Scriptures is the description God has given us of the action that took place in the water when men were baptized. This action is described as a “washing of the body” (Heb. 10:22). It is described as “the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). Paul describes it as “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). While water does not wash away our sins for the blood of Christ does that, yet the element in which we are to be baptized is water and by being dipped into the water the action is a washing of the body in water and is so described in the passages cited. We know how to wash things. By the widest spread of the imagination sprinkling or pouring do not represent a washing nor can a washing picture either sprinkling or pouring. Peter tells us that the purpose of the washing of our bodies in the action of baptism is not to get the body clean but through our obedience to obtain the cleansing of our hearts from an evil conscience (1 Peter 3:21; Heb. 9:13-14).

Baptism is also described in the scriptures as a burial and a resurrection. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). Here the action of baptism is plainly set forth under the figure of a burial and a resurrection. Even the most prejudiced mind should be able to readily see that a burial and resurrection cannot represent sprinkling or pouring. There can be no resemblance between sprinkling and pouring and a burial and resurrection. But when the body is dipped beneath the water in the obedience of baptism and raised up out of the water there is a burial and resurrection in form and God says this is what baptism is in its action.

Moreover, in the same passage Paul describes baptism as a “planting and a coming forth” (v. 5). This reenforces the fact that baptism cannot be sprinkling or pouring, for in no way can that action represent or be represented by a planting and a coming forth.

Heaven has authorized baptism, Christ has commanded it, every responsible person throughout this age is responsible for it and God will accept no substitute. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially substitute sprinkling for immersion until the council of Ravenna in 1311 A.D. The first case of sprinkling history records was Novation in 250 A.D. Later the Catholic Church refused to make him a saint until his bones were taken out of the grave and immersed. There is no Bible authority for sprinkling or pouring. Protestant denominationalism has inherited it from Roman Catholicism. There is not a passage either in the Old or New Testament in which God has commanded plain, unmixed (pure) water to be sprinkled on anybody for any purpose. No one should satisfy his conscience that he has been scripturally baptized when he has only been sprinkled or had water poured on him. Baptism is one in action and God has not left that action to the “convenience and preference of the candidate,” as denominational creeds teach.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp. 268-269
April 28, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Georgia: I would like to ask your help on a problem I am now facing. The “‘problem” concerns the Christian’s attendance when the church comes together. Of course, this centers around a dispute on the meaning and application of Hebrews 10:25. Enclosed is a sketch of both sides of this issue as it relates to the work here. I would appreciate your analysis of the problem along with any suggestions which you might have on how to handle the problem. I have done quite a bit of study on this subject as has the brother with whom I disagree. We have come to a stalemate, and, therefore, it is my feeling that a third party might be able to help us in our study.

“His Position:

1. Hebrews 10:25 cannot be applied to missing only one service, because the word “assembling” (which is in the plural) is used.

2. The word ‘forsake’ in the context of Hebrews 10 means and is limited to (1) ‘sinning willfully’ (v. 26), (2) ‘trodding underfoot the Son of God’ (v. 29), (3) ‘counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing’ (v. 29), and (4) ‘doing despite unto the Spirit of grace’ (v. 29). In other words, it involves quitting with no intention of coming back.

3. Hebrews 10:25 is not the rule because there are no exceptions to it.

4. Therefore, a Christian can miss services for a fishing trip, hunting, watching television, etc., and not be sinning, provided he takes the Lord’s supper on Sunday at one service.

“My Position:

1. Hebrews 10:25 is the rule concerning regular and faithful attendance.

2. Even though Hebrews 10:25 is the rule, there are some exceptions. (Jesus recognized unstated exceptions to the law of Moses-Matthew 12:2-5, 11,12.) However, these exceptions involve a conflict in God-given duties (Matt. 23:23). As an example of this conflict, being sick during service time may involve a conflict in the duties of taking care of my body (Eph. 5:29) and attending the services (Heb. 10:25). Another illustration would be sitting with the sick, which involves showing mercy (Matt. 23:23). Any exception involves personal judgment as to which is the weightier of the God-given duties.

3. If any Christian puts anything except a God-given duty ahead of the services, he has violated Hebrews 10:25.

“Questions:

1. Can Hebrews 10:25 apply to missing one service?

2. In practical terms, what constitutes ‘forsaking?’

3. Is Hebrews 10:25 a rule? If so, are there exceptions to the rule? If there are exceptions, how does one determine them?

4. If Hebrews 10:25 is the rule, are we commanded to assemble? If we are not commanded to assemble, then why do we assemble?”

Reply:

The text in question: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25).

“His Position”

1. Suppose one stood before a large audience and inquired, “Will everyone who has children please stand up?” Should one who has only one child stand up? Yes, even though children is plural.

We are not to forsake the act of assembling as some customarily and habitually do. It is “the assembling,” not the assemblies, that is not to be forsaken. According to our brother’s position, the Hebrew writer should have said, “Not forsaking the assemblies.” However, he said, “the assembling,” or “the act of assembling” (M. R. Vincent). “Some expositors have understood the word here rendered assembling . . . as meaning the society of Christians, or the church; and they have supposed that the object of the apostle here is, to exhort them not to apostatize from the church . . . . But the more obvious interpretation is that which is commonly adopted, that it refers to public worship. The Greek word (the noun) is used nowhere else in the New Testament, except in 2 Thess. ii.l, where it is rendered gathering together. The verb is used in Matt. xxiii.37; xxiv.31; Mark i. 33, xiii.27; Luke xii.l ; xiii.34, in all which places it is rendered gathered together. It properly means an act of assembling, or a gathering together, and is nowhere used in the New Testament in the sense of an assembly, or the church. The command, then, here is, to meet together for the worship of God, and it is enjoined on Christians as an important duty to do it. It is implied, also, that there is blame of fault where this is ‘neglected.'” (Albert Barnes, comments on Heb. 10:25).

2. Admittedly, the context, as cited by our brother, is to be considered, but let us note all the context. Hebrews 10:23 says, “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.” Granting our brother his assumptions, we conclude that missing an occasional service is the beginning of wavering and apostasy. We are not to abandon completely, but neither are we to waver. So, if verses 26 and 29 do not forbid purposeful non-attendance, then verse 23 does.

Our brother’s conclusion is, “it involves quitting with no intention of coming back.” However, this is prohibited by the fact that the forsaking was a frequent habit of some. If the forsaking was “quitting with no intention of coming back,” how could the writer say, “as the manner of some is?” It is like the man who said, “It’s easy to quit smoking. I’ve done it a hundred times!”

In Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” God forsook Christ only once. Did that make it not a true forsaking? Was Jesus mistaken about the fact of being forsaken? Did the Father forsake Christ “with no intention of coming back?” Though the Father abandoned the Son only one time for a brief time, it was still an abandonment, a forsaking. The frequency and duration had nothing to do with the fact of it. So, when one willfully neglects the assembling, though he does it once, he has still done it.

3. There are exceptions. “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” ,(Matt. 5:23, 24). Though the text deals with the law, the principle is the same under the New Covenant. Therefore, “Hebrews 10:25 is the rule because there are exceptions to it,” to use our brother’s line of reasoning. There are no exceptions to Mark 16:16. Is it not the rule?

4. In view of the review of his three points designed to establish this his fourth, we conclude that a Christian cannot miss a service in order to go hunting and fishing, etc. Other passages apply. “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). “Set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:2). “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 Jn. 2:15-17).Questions Answered

1. In light of the remarks above, Hebrews 10:25 can apply to missing one service.

2. W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words provides practical definitions of what constitutes forsaking, “To forsake, abandon, leave in straits, or helpless.” The verb form of the word “forsake” means “to desert” (Cf. Matt. 27:41; Acts 2:27; 2 Tim. 4:10, 16). The text itself affords some definition. Observe the contrast in the verse:

“Not Forsaking-But-Exhorting”

The exhortation was the thing saints received when they assembled, but when they forsook the act of assembling, they did not exhort nor receive exhortation in the assembly which was needed in view of the day approaching. There was the danger of “wavering” (v. 23) and of complete apostasy from their confidence (vv. 35-39), so, the saints were not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, as some were doing, lest they deprive themselves of the necessary exhortation.

3. See the answer in section three above under His Position. Hebrews 10:25 is a rule. There are exceptions which one determines by the Scriptures (Matt. 5:23, 24).

4. The questions in this section cannot be answered by anyone except the brother who opposes the position set forth in this article. The question is based on a “no” answer to query three immediately above, but the answer was “yes,” so this question is rendered void.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp. 267-268
April 28, 1977