Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Publisher Whitaker House KJV Sword Study bible is NOT a true KJV


jdosher
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members
5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I don't understand it, because doctrinally and theologically, it is complete gibberish.  It is like those who say that each day of creation is a thousand years, because in 2Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years-the two have nothing to do with each other, as one is history, and the other speaks of prophecy. Though at least there, there is somewhat of a reason people mistake them, since both have to do with God and how He understands time, while yours have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

I am just curious of where you get it, because I'd be interested to see if there is any kind of logical joining of these completely disparate things by whoever interpreted it as such.

Maybe you do not understand this, because you believe in the human sciences exegetics and hermeneutics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, Konstantin said:

Hi, a King James guy. Here we are considering the prophetic meaning of verses, i.e. "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19), not literal ones, i.e. "not as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13

Charles Ryrie in his Systematic Theology has an excellent section in Bibliology about Interpretation of the Bible. 

Of course he mentions the different systems such as the Allegorical, Literal and Semi Allegorical. He of course advocates for the Literal Hermaneutic, he gives a few reasons:

1. The Need for Objectivity “If one does not apply normal interpretation, then objectivity is lost to the extent that he does not use it consistently. Switching the hermeneutic base from literal to allegorical or to semi allegorical… inevitably results in different, inconsistent, and often contradictory interpretations.” 

2. The example of the Bible. “The prophecies of the first advent of Christ were all fulfilled literally. This obvious but extremely significant fact argues for the validity and the use of literal hermeneutics in all of biblical interpretation... It is said that over 300 such prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled…”

Ryrie does go on to acknowledge that “some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment in the New, and certain of those prophecies are cited by non literalists as biblical sanction for a nonliteral hermeneutic… However, of the approximately twenty four prophecies which the New Testament gives typical fulfillment, only seven  are cited as examples of nonliteral hermeneutic (and of course not all agree that these seven prove this)…remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament..”

Now, I think most relevant discussion however for us is what Ryrie says later in his section on Objections to Normal Hermeneutics: 

“The most frequent objection by Evangelicals to normal interpretation points out that since the New Testament uses the Old Testament in a non literal sense we also may interpret Old Testament Prophecies (about the millennium for example) in a non literal sense. Or to put it more simply: since the New Testament spiritualizes the Old Testament, so can we… The rule is that they [New Testament Authors] interpreted the Old Testament plainly, exceptions are rare and typological”

Now, the point Ryrie makes next I think is spot on:

“The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Charles Ryrie in his Systematic Theology has an excellent section in Bibliology about Interpretation of the Bible. 

Of course he mentions the different systems such as the Allegorical, Literal and Semi Allegorical. He of course advocates for the Literal Hermaneutic, he gives a few reasons:

1. The Need for Objectivity “If one does not apply normal interpretation, then objectivity is lost to the extent that he does not use it consistently. Switching the hermeneutic base from literal to allegorical or to semi allegorical… inevitably results in different, inconsistent, and often contradictory interpretations.” 

2. The example of the Bible. “The prophecies of the first advent of Christ were all fulfilled literally. This obvious but extremely significant fact argues for the validity and the use of literal hermeneutics in all of biblical interpretation... It is said that over 300 such prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled…”

Ryrie does go on to acknowledge that “some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment in the New, and certain of those prophecies are cited by non literalists as biblical sanction for a nonliteral hermeneutic… However, of the approximately twenty four prophecies which the New Testament gives typical fulfillment, only seven  are cited as examples of nonliteral hermeneutic (and of course not all agree that these seven prove this)…remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament..”

Now, I think most relevant discussion however for us is what Ryrie says later in his section on Objections to Normal Hermeneutics: 

“The most frequent objection by Evangelicals to normal interpretation points out that since the New Testament uses the Old Testament in a non literal sense we also may interpret Old Testament Prophecies (about the millennium for example) in a non literal sense. Or to put it more simply: since the New Testament spiritualizes the Old Testament, so can we… The rule is that they [New Testament Authors] interpreted the Old Testament plainly, exceptions are rare and typological”

Now, the point Ryrie makes next I think is spot on:

“The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 

Mr. Charles Ryrie draws in his conclusions according to the sciences invented by people exegetics and hermeneutics. Therefore, his conclusions cannot correspond to the word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, Konstantin said:

Mr. Charles Ryrie draws in his conclusions according to the sciences invented by people exegetics and hermeneutics. Therefore, his conclusions cannot correspond to the word of God.

Sorry but no, He draws his conclusions from how the scriptures themselves interpret them and according to logic. 

Your method of interpretation of scripture is arbitrary and you do as the Gods word says "wrest the scriptures". 

The method of handling the scriptures you have have shown here in this thread is one in which you abuse the use of language and you make authoritative statements that the Bible itself does not make. You make numbers like 60 to somehow mean 66, and you substitute words and phrases at your own discretion and pleasure. In a sense you have set yourself up as the authority when God has not given you the authority to do so. You are no prophet and have NO authority to claim that when God said 60 he somehow meant 66. 

It would seem that you are the one drawing in conclusions according to your own interpretation that was invented by yourself, and frankly sir you have no authority over the word of God. in fact sir, your handling of God's word is more akin to that of Satan in which he says "hath God said". You twist God's words like Satan did in the garden of Eden. God clearly told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good in evil, and he said so in plain language. When God said tree, he meant tree, when he said not to eat of it, he meant not to eat of it.

"Humility before the truth of Scripture, and before the authority of Christ, demands submission to logical consistency. If you abuse logic, what are you expecting your people to base their agreement on? You can’t answer, “Scripture,” unless you are committed to logically consistent explanations that your conclusions actually come from Scripture. Scripture will only have authority in your preaching if your appeal to Scripture can be seen to be a valid appeal. If you draw invalid inferences from Scripture, it won’t matter how loud you protest your belief in biblical inerrancy; you will not be helping your people base their lives on Scripture. You will be expecting them to base their lives on your faulty inferences from Scripture. That is not humble. It is proud. And it jeopardizes the authority of Christ, who speaks through true, and valid inferences from Scripture” -Expository Exhultation John Piper

 

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
59 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

...You make numbers like 60 to somehow mean 66, and you substitute words and phrases at your own discretion and pleasure. In a sense you have set yourself up as the authority when God has not given you the authority to do so. You are no prophet and have NO authority to claim that when God said 60 he somehow meant 66... 

You probably do not read carefully. Scripture says:  the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

You probably do not read carefully. Scripture says:  the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.
 

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

Should we not have units and measures updated to let us know what they are in today's vernacular?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

 the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits

 

Yes, I know how to count. 👋 🙂👇

If you consider this verse "as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13, then 60 + 60 = 120. If we consider this place as "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19) then 66.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Konstantin said:

 the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits

 

Yes, I know how to count. 👋 🙂👇

If you consider this verse "as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13, then 60 + 60 = 120. If we consider this place as "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19) then 66.

 

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV
[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.


2 Peter 3:16 KJV
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV
[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.


2 Peter 3:16 KJV
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 

Thanks. I have a Bible.👋🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 6/3/2020 at 8:15 PM, Konstantin said:

Maybe you do not understand this, because you believe in the human sciences exegetics and hermeneutics?

No, I don't understand it because it is gibberish and makes no sense. I believe the Bible and what it says. I understand types and pictures, even allegory, but this is none of those, you have simply pulled together a bunch of things from scripture and wrested them into your own idea of what they mean. It is vain babblings with no profit to them, and t is time to put it to bed.

 

I am closing this thread, as it has become vain and worthless. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...