Should a man be busy preaching the Gospel if his voice is never heard at the Lord's Supper?
It is certainly a sad state of affairs when one uses his voice to preach the Gospel but, in remembering the Lord at the Supper, has no exercise to open his mouth in worship. It shows a serious lack of spiritual exercise. Indeed, it is surely inconsistent to preach the Gospel yet apparently have no desire to take part in worship. There is something wrong with this. Taking part publicly in the breaking of bread is a good preparation for serving the Lord in the Gospel. It is not a good condition and balance to serve the Lord in the Gospel and not take part in worship. Years ago, brethren strongly taught us, quite rightly, that worship comes before service in Scripture. A man's exercise in the Gospel will be helped and blessed by the knowledge that he has spent time in the presence of God and leading his brethren in thanksgiving and worship.
Can we imagine any of the apostles of the Lord serving God in preaching the Gospel and yet remaining silent before Him at the breaking of bread? No, I am sure that such a situation was not the case in the early churches. In 1 Peter 2.5, Peter speaks of believers as a holy priesthood, "to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." This is the language of worship. Then he describes the same believers as a royal priesthood (v 9), showing forth "the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light …" This is the language of testimony. How good it is when a believer is occupied in worship, and also active in witness. Let us always keep both worship and preaching as a twofold responsibility to God.
John J Stubbs
Are the false teachers of 2 Peter 2.1 saved men? If not, what is the meaning of them "denying the Lord that bought them"?
Perhaps the key verse of Peter's second epistle is "For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (1.11). However, chapters 2 and 3 bring to our attention things that could spoil our abundant entrance. In chapter 2 we are introduced to false teachers within, "there shall be false teachers among you" (v 1); they distort the truth. In chapter 3 we learn that there are scoffers without, "there shall come in the last days scoffers" (v 3); they deny the truth. As to false teachers, the emphasis in 2 Peter is that they shall appear; in Jude's epistle they have arrived, and are active.
These men are not backsliders who get out of touch with God, but those who make a profession of godliness, but deny the power thereof. There is a right way with which these men are acquainted but, by a definite decision, they forsake it, "which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray" (2.15); they abandon truth and accept error rather than healthy doctrine.
These men evidently mingle with true believers; "there shall be false teachers among you" (v 1), "while they feast with you" (v 13). The doom of these apostates is sealed and their judgment is sure, even though it has not yet come; "whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not" (v 3).
Now, as to the phrase "denying the Lord that bought them". Firstly, "Lord" is a translation of the Greek word despotes, meaning 'sovereign master', one who has absolute control of his servant. It should be noted that Peter does not say that the Lord redeemed them. According to Matthew 13.44, the Lord Jesus is pictured as a man who sold all that he had to buy a field, that is, the world (v 38), that He might acquire the treasure in it. By His death upon the cross, the Lord Jesus bought the world and all who are in it. But He did not redeem the whole world. The New Testament distinguishes between purchase and redemption. The shedding of His precious blood gives to Christ the absolute sovereignty over every person, whether in salvation or in retribution.
David E West
