BROOKLYN, N.Y., MAY 22ND, 1943
BROOKLYN, N.Y., MAY 22ND, 1943
Mr. A. George Lewis.
Beloved Brother, — I received your letter of January 13th, which took a long time to reach me. I was thankful to hear from you and of the brethren in Tasmania.
I am not sure what you have in mind in regard to the Roman Catholic hospital, but I assume your inquiry is as to whether one in fellowship could be free to enter it for treatment if necessary. I should avoid this unless no other was available and I should avoid eating in a restaurant connected in any way with idolatry or such connections as play-houses. In the ordering of God the Christian can usually find what he needs in ordinary life without defiling his conscience.
While principle enters into this matter, Christians might be free to use a certain convenience, but if he has a tender conscience he would be disposed to avoid even what principle might admit. The apostle says, “All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful, but all do not edify”. The passage I quote in 1 Corinthians 10, helps on these points. The instruction conveyed contemplates a low state of things spiritually at Corinth and the apostle is making all possible allowance in the sense of principle for conduct, or associations that seem unavoidable. One might assume to have power to go [p. 314] very near to evil and be unaffected by it, whereas a tender conscience would keep away as far as possible from it.
As regards a person who has established his right to the fellowship becoming ill and thus unable to attend the meeting for the breaking of bread immediately, this does not in any way affect what has become clear as his right. He should be regarded as in fellowship. This I think you will regard as unquestionable. I think it would be wise to make the announcement that his position as one suitable for fellowship is not affected.
The question as to the number of lavers, tables, and candlesticks in the temple as compared with the tabernacle: I understand that increased responsibility would attach to the number 10 as compared with the number 1. In general the temple conveys greater fulness in all the furniture, etc., mentioned. Of course the ark remains unaltered. Increase is a great general principle entering into the temple. Why Kings does not mention more than one table I cannot explain.
That David was the eighth son of Jesse there can be no doubt. 1 Samuel 16 and 17 make this fact plain. 1 Chronicles 2: 15 mentions David as the seventh of Jesse’s sons, and this, of course, implies a difficulty, but the name omitted is Elihu according to one authority and this may be accounted for by the fact that this son of Jesse died young and the Spirit of God did not think it necessary to mention him in the genealogical record as having no bearing on the testimony. In the Lord’s generation in Matthew 1, certain of the royal line are omitted that are retained in the historical books of the Old Testament. This would mean that the testimony required their omission.
As I said, I am thankful to hear of the dear brethren in Tasmania. With all the Australasian saints they have a great place in our prayers here. It is good to hear of Mr. and Mrs. Smith continuing preserved of the Lord and that our dear brother maintains freshness in his services.
The work of God in America is generally encouraging, especially at so-called general meetings of which there are many. We are now much burdened because of the large number of our younger brothers going into the Forces and therefore exposed in many instances as they are unable to get to the meetings. As I said, I am glad to have your letter and note with interest the vigour you maintain in your soul in regard to [p. 315] the fellowship and work of God generally. I am assured that the Lord is helping you.
My wife unites in love in Christ to you and your house and to all the dear brethren in Hobart.
Affectionately yours in Him,
James Taylor.