Let The Dead Bury Their Dead

"LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR DEAD."

(MATTHEW 8:22; LUKE 9:60.)

"But Jesus said unto him, "Follow Me; and let the dead bury their dead." A.V.

 J.N. Darbys' translation is even more pointed, "leave the dead to bury their own dead."

These words were spoken by One possessing intrinsic deity, even the Lord Jesus Christ; thus they are "God-breathed!"

Here in this scene, the lovely, impeccable Man Christ Jesus, displayed in unalloyed perfection, divine love, gentleness, tender mercy, kindness and infinite compassion; yet He is Himself the Speaker of these apparently "hard words!"

He was addressing a man, a disciple, who claimed that a filial obligation, the burial of his father, must supercede and thus delay his obedience to follow the Master.

The Saviour NEVER advocated the abandonment of family relations, claims and responsibilities. Indeed, He demonstarated as none other, His real subjection to His mother and to Joseph throughout His childhood; and in His unparalelled loving care for His mother, when in agonising suffering on dread Golgothas' tree, He there entrusted her to the care of His devoted disciple, John.

But while we learn here that in" all things He must have the pre-eminence," and very especially our hearts' affections and consequent faith-obedience; a love excelling all other "loves," so as to render them "hatred" in comparison, even our love for our nearest and dearest kin; there appears, (at least to me,) to be much more embraced in this divine principle.

Who are the dead referred to in these scriptures? was the father already dead or did the son want to remain at home until his fathers' death? Did he want to "postpone" his discipleship?

These questions seem relevant, and I believe they are easily addressed.

The father was definitely physically dead and spiritually dead, having died in his sins.If this was not the case the disciple would have phrased his request differently and the Lord Jesus would have replied in different terms too.

The Saviours' reference to the "dead" who were enjoined to bury "their own dead" demonstarated that they were still alive physically, but spiritually, morally dead! They were unbelievers!

Is this incident in the Gospel accounts simply an injunction to the people of God to wholly devoted obedience and service for Him; or is it a divine principle in connection with our involvement with the death of unbelievers?

I believe that it embraces the latter as well as the former and thus believers are enjoined to have NOTHING to do with the death and subsequent burial of unbelievers.

This injunction has been upon my heart for some considerable time. If I give offence to anyone please believe this is not my intention, nor is it my desire to promote controversy among my fellow believers.

Two quotations from true servants of God will, perhaps should it please the Lord, give some explanation as to why I have been so troubled by these scriptures.

Some years ago this report appeared in a "Brethren" magazine; I quote: "I have been asked to take eight funerals in as many weeks here in M...... Seven of them were for people who as far as we can tell, were unsaved and two were brothers who died in sad circumstances. There is always tension between trying to be comforting to grieving relatives and being faithful to the word of God. We pray that words spoken will cause people to think about their own eternal destiny." 

The second quotation is very recent and equally as sad and disturbing. "On many occasions I have the tragic duty of attending these funerals (of unbelievers,) which are most miserable occasions without the Lord.

I have real heart-felt sympathy for these two sincere servants of the Lord, but I feel certain these testimonies only serve to establish the fuller meaning of the scripture exhortations I have referred to in this article. Once again I beg your forgiveness if you feel in any way offended.

I have withheld the names of my two brethren, and the organ in which these quotes are found, in deference to them. All the underlining for emphasis is mine.  

DAVE MACPHERSON -- CHRISTIAN OR CHARLATAN?

DAVE MACPHERSON
Many, many true believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, who love Him "in incorruption," J.N.D. Trans. ("in sincerity," A.V.) Ephesians 6:24, have been vilified by Mr. Macpherson. "Brethren commonly so called," and Mr. Darby in particular have borne the brunt of his spleen, breathing out threatenings in unbridled despite.
Within the household of faith there are numerous differences of interpretation as regards the Scriptures. (While we deplore this condition, it is an irrefutable fact.) The conclusions drawn from the study of prophetic scriptures have probably given rise to the most controversy. However believers' views may differ, and however tenaciously they are "held," this is no sanction for using such vitriolic language, levelled at more godly, and more well-instructed saints than himself. I speak of him, (Mr. Macpherson,) as a fellow saint, but with a real degree of apprehension. Read his comments "on-line," he is more than happy for you to do so. With an open heart and mind decide whether a true child of God would use such spiteful words.
The little I read of his attacks upon those of a different persuasion from himself, (I had to desist in disgust quite early in my perusal of his various "posts,") were based upon so called historical documents, letters, books etc., NOT upon the Word of God!
Decide for yourself after a discerning perusal of his internet postings, is he a Christian or a Charlatan?   

RUTH -- ROMANCE OF REDEMPTION

Ruth - Romance of Redemption.
Just recently I purchased a little gem of a book entitled "The Romance of Redemption." It was published by P. & I. in 1926, and I believe that its author Alfred Mathieson, was in the "Brethren."
I have been unable to substantiate this in my research. But during my search I was quite amazed to find out how many authors had used the same title for their commentaries on the little book of Ruth. I wonder how much plagiarism might be involved!
What appears to be a very scholarly and reverent exposition bearing the same title, is that written by Edward Boone. The 5th edition of his work was published in 1936. Once again my search for biographical details proved fruitless.  
Another book with the same title came from the pen of M.R. Dehann; I am somewhat dubious about him, as I believe he caused much heartache among the Lords' people many years ago with his blasphemous suggestion that the Lord Jesus could have sinned while in this scene. (Please correct me, or confirm this, if you remember the circumstances that obtained back then; I will publish an unreserved apology if I prove to be mistaken.)
Chuck Missler has produced yet another book with the same title. I suspect the best thing to do with it is to "chuck" it in the bin!
If anyone "out there" is able to help me with information on both Alfred Mathieson and/or Edward Boone I would very much appreciate it.

HOW MANY BRETHREN DOES IT TAKE...?

HOW MANY BRETHREN.....
"How many Brethren does it take to change a light-bulb?" I do not usually have anything to do with such "banter," but the answer was as readily given to me as the question was asked of me. The answer may seem quite humorous at first, but I felt some real disquiet. "How many does it take? Answer," None as they never change anything!" Sadly that is so very far from the truth. It may have obtained a generation or two ago, and with precious results ensuing from that position of "no compromise."
From my close and personal experience with many Assemblies, the very reverse seems to be the normal practice. A considerable number of years ago I "withdrew" from a local Assembly. The meeting seemed intent on altering everything possible and as quickly as possible. (Before anyone reading this makes some really stupid remark, such as "the Gospel Meeting must be held at 6.30," or something similar, Brethren never made such a statement. The Gospel meeting was held when it best suited the locality. )
The Assembly from which I "withdrew" decided that musical accompaniment was needed at the Breaking of Bread as there was no "precentor."But there were at least three brethren who were very capable of exercising this "help" for the Lords' people, and one brother readily volunteered! He was ignored. The hymnbook was changed arbitrarily, as was the name of the hall, while many other alterations were also agreed. From the discussions and remarks made during that "church meeting" the writing was clearly on the wall! Loans were to be sought from those in fellowship with a promise of interest being paid to them. The council was to be contacted with a view to asking for financial assistance. There were many other things discussed in a similar vein, and almost everything was decided by "a show of hands!"
Over the next 20 years or so, the meeting lost all resemblance to a New Testament Assembly. A  few brethren "left" during more recent years, (how and why, did they remain for so long?)  when women were permitted to take an audible part in the gatherings, having long since discarded their headcoverings.
The numbers have grown considerably since, with much frenzied activity, but at what terrible cost!
No doubt this is an extreme case, but it is by no means an isolated one.

DEFILEMENT BY ASSOCIATION

DEFILEMENT BY ASSOCIATION.
I must confess to writing this "post" with some trepidation. This "peculiar" phrase was used more often in past decades and is seldom heard at all today. Perhaps this is because separation is largely untaught in the Assemblies of Gods' people now.
I suspect this phrase may well be unacceptable to many, even offensive. Please believe me I mean no offence, but I am much perturbed by what is allowed in "our" meetings.
Many of the local Assemblies are happy to permit believers from the denominations to preach and even teach in the meetings. We are quite ignorant of what is taught and practised in these denominations, and we would be, (or should be,) horrified if we were to learn what transpires at some of their gatherings. Where possible a brief "visit" to their websites are all that is necessary to make a discerning judgment as to their teaching and practices.
If, or rather, as we seem content to allow these men such inestimable privileges in our meetings, are we not then "defiled by association." If it is suggested that certain individuals do not "hold" the teaching and practices of their "church," (their word, not mine,) why do they remain in an unscriptural position? To suggest it is to be "a good, or purifying influence" is tantamount to saying they know better than the Lord! He still pleads with them to come out and be separate. Furthermore, many of these men condone and even promote these false teachings and unscriptural practices. Some even "left" assembly fellowship, and others went as far as to bring disrepute and division into the assembly while in fellowship. If we receive such do we not become partakers, have fellowship, in their sins? If so, then we do become defiled because of such association!
It is to be regretted that many Assemblies have given up the practice of announcing the visitng speaker with reference to his "home" Assembly, only his name and location is given out; thus the meeting is left in ignorance as to his spiritual "home," and an opportunity is lost to think, (if but briefly,) with affection toward another Assembly with which we may be familiar.
A further thought: the buildings in which we gather are of no great account, I mean they are only convenient places for us to meet. (I am not implying that our halls should be neglected in any way.) What does trouble me is the use to which they are sometimes permitted. To "hire them out" in any way seems to me to attract an element of danger in connection with defilement by association. We may well be identified, however tenuously, with those who use the premises. How would we answer such a suggestion or even allegation? We claim our citizenship is in heaven, and then we allow our buildings to be used as polling stations! We pride ourselves on taking nothing from the Gentiles, and then hire out our halls for profit!

VIA MAGAZINE

VIA MAGAZINE
This is a simple, personal recommendation for the Gospel magazine "VIA," published in Canada, but available from "Words of Life" in Harrogate, N. Yorkshire.
It is a superb "vehicle" for distributing Gospel literature.
The magazine is published annually and is a high quality publication, with much topical content.
It is of course soundly based upon the the word of God.
At the end of the magazine there is a page of resources that interested enquirers may avail themselves of at no cost; including N.T and PSALMS, Topical Booklets and Bible Correspondence Courses.
On the back inside cover there is a space for local distributors to leave their details in order to be available for contact.
Only "eternity" will reveal the extent of the blessing afforded to this publication by the Lord Jesus.
If any believer has heart-exercise to deliver a Gospel magazine in their own locality, this is a wonderful "tool" for such a method of evangelism.
I would just add that this is an entirely personal recommendation, based solely on my own experience, and I have no other connection with those who are involved in the magazines' production except as a "local distributor," discharging an exercise of heart for my Saviour.

Bishopsworth Gospel Hall / Elvard Road Withywood Sunday School.

From January 1977 until March 1985 my wife Bernice and I conducted Sunday School classes and mid-week Bible Teaching meetings at Bishopsworth Gospel Hall, and later at our own home in Elvard Road, Withywood, Bristol.
Around 310 children and young people attended for brief or lengthy periods. A few came just the once, while some stayed the entire "course." We had to close the Sunday School as my employment dictated a move to Cardiff. It was a very sorrowful time for us all. We have never forgotten the precious times we enjoyed throughout those eight years or so.
We have often wondered if any of "our" pupils would like to contact us, we would so love to hear from any of them.
A few of those children, now young people of course, kept in touch; Nicola OSBORNE; (Now a married young lady!) Maria CLARK, who sends us a Christmas card every year and still lives just a stones' throw from our old house there in Withywood; We have seen Felicia (BARTON) on a least two occasions in recent times; Some of our class we know moved away from Bristol, including Rachel BURTON and Elizabeth and Christine THOMAS. A number of larger families came regularly including Paul, Stephen, Julie and Angela LANGLEY; Julie, Cindy, Sherrie, Bonnetta,and George LOVELL; Helen, Susan and Stephen SPRAY; Marie, Tina, Tracy and Linda JENKINS; Christian, Warren and Dawn FILER; Michelle and Nicola SMITH and Helena PUGH; Samantha, Wendy and Deborah JAMES; Nick, Helen and Cheryl SUMMERS and many, many more! If we haven't mentioned you it is only because of limited space on the "blog," you really have not been forgotten!
Please, please if any of you are out there and remember us, get in touch and let's see if we could have a big reunion!
Our love to you all, we have never forgotten you and the lovely times we enjoyed together with you.
TOM & BERNICE WYATT.