Phil Sarlo's Personal Story

• About this site

 Here's the Difference

• About this site

Should I be baptized again as an adult if I was baptized as a baby?

• About this site

Peter Brand

• About this site

Fernando Medina

• About this site

• About this site

Please explain 1 Samuel 28:15-19" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:15-19 in the light of Ecclesiastes 9:5." TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Does this give ground for to-day’s teaching of Spiritism?

The story of 1 Samuel 28" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28 in no way justifies the practice of Spiritism in this or in any other age.

As for Ecciesiastes 9:5, it expresses the general rule, “The dead know not anything”; the above story of the witch of Endor is the exception, by God’s special permission, as I shall seek to show. “The dead know not anything,” i.e., of what is going on on the earth, but they know what is going on where they are, as the story of the ex-rich man and Lazarus shows (Luke 16)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 16). The former and Abraham knew each other, and the former recognised Lazarus and remembered his own five brethren.

I have not the slightest doubt Samuel was really permitted by God to respond to the call. This was less, I doubt not, of a surprise to Saul the dupe, than to the witch, the deceiver. To her the attendant spirit was familiar, but she seems to have been completely taken aback by the appearance of the strange visitant that Samuel was, for “she cried with a loud voice,” and did not know him, though by some peculiar intuition she at once became aware of the identity of Saul. Samuel was a true prophet, and could foretell the morrow’s happenings, but we have no justification for supposing that wicked spirits can foretell the future.
That this response to Saul’s evil action does not justify modern Spiritism is clear, from the fact that it did not justify his own recourse to this medium, for it is specifically mentioned in 1 Chronicles 10:13" TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 10:13 as one of the two causes of his final downfall: (i) “his transgression” i.e., in sparing Amalek, and also (z) his “asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it. And he enquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him.” He did ask of the Lord (sha’al), as indeed of the witch, but he did so in a merely formal way in the former case and he did not enquire (dãrash) of Him, as he did of the witch; for in her case he put himself to all pains to get information. Saul knew perfectly well the distinct prohibition of Jehovah to any kind of occult practices—consulting spirits, etc. (see Leviticus 19:31;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6, 27;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-12)," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18:9-12), and had as we know, acted thereon, till he found it convenient to transgress!

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Could you throw any light on the apparent contradictions between the 12th and the 44th verses of Deuteronomy 28:12," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 28:12, 14? We often hear the former quoted in support of the Jews being money-lenders down the course of time. The position in verse is in exactly the opposite order from that of verse 12.

That is so. In verse 12 we read: “Thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow,” and in verse : “He (i.e. the stranger that is within thee) shall lend to thee and thou shalt not lend to him.” The positions are reversed, because the conditions are altered. In verse 12, Moses is enumerating the blessings which will accrue to Israel upon obedience, and though the obedience of the nation was very far from perfect, yet for the sake of the godly, and especially of the Messiah, God did accord them a measure of prosperity, though whether we ever hear of Israel actually lending “to many nations,” I very much doubt. But in verse 44 (beginning back from verse 15) Moses is enumerating the disabilities—the cursings on those who disobey, and these have been terribly realised in the great majority of the people. The idea that all Jews are wealthy is a superficial one. Many have accumulated wealth, it is true, in countries like our own and the United States, where they live and carry on business on equal terms with others. In many lands, however, they are hampered and handicapped, with the result that the mass of Jews at the present day are very far from being able to lend, and are reduced to living on a very low scale, on the debtor rather than on the creditor side, if ever the latter. Verse I2 is, moreover, national; verse , individual. I think when above considerations are weighed, even the appearance of a contradiction disappears.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

How could the Lord Jesus and Lucifer both be the Morning Star?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

Let there be no misunderstanding:  the Lord Jesus did not step into a place that Satan lost through his pride. Christ Jesus was without measure both higher in rank and his being than Satan. Christ's plan to come as the Morning Star was made before creation (John 17:24)" TARGET="_blank">John 17:24) and before Satan was created.

Perhaps there could there be some irony in the reference to the Old Testament’s morning star as compared to the New Testament’s Morning Star? The morning star seen from the Earth is more brillant that all others. In the same way Satan excelled among all God’s creatures; he was the "anointed cherub that covered" (Eze 28:14)." TARGET="_blank">Eze 28:14). He was given the highest place of all created beings, but he wanted to climb above the place that God had given to him. He was cast down from heaven (Luke 10:18)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:18) and eventuall will be consigned to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:10). Jesus Christ along has the capcity to occupy such an exalted position without being overcome with pride.   He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Philippians 2:6," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:6, English Standard Version). The pathway that God designed for Christ led Him to the very lowest of the low, "even the death of the cross" (v 8). The Father lifted him to the highest point of honor and glory.  He is both Morning Star and Sun. He is "far above all" (Ephesians 1:21)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:21) and will remain so for all eternity.

D. Oliver

• About this site

• About this site

When Should Sisters Wear Head Coverings?

Earl Ritchie, Vancouver, BC

Recent answers in the Q and A section of Truth and Tidings have engendered correspondence by some who view the subject differently. It is not the intent of the board of T and T that the magazine become a forum for debate. But in light of the importance of this subject, we have invited an article with an opposing view. The article which follows was submitted by our brother Ritchie. We leave with our readership the article and the Q and A - but above all the Word of God. We also feel it vital to stress that when leadership in an assembly has requested head coverings at events such as those mentioned in the article, the spiritual response is "Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves" (Heb 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:17). God places no premium on rebellion.

AJH

When Should Sisters Wear Head Coverings?

This article is intended to help with the issue as to when head coverings should be worn. As with any other question about the conduct of a believer, it is essential that we be spiritually minded, looking for ways of pleasing God in our lives. First, most believers in assembly fellowship have some idea as to why we insist on head coverings for sisters and uncovered heads for brethren in the meetings. The reasons are to be found mainly in 1 Corinthians 11." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11. It would be a good thing for us to learn something about the "ships" in our NT: Lordship, headship, worship, and fellowship.

Let’s assume that we agree that covered heads and uncovered heads portray the important teaching of headship, that the man is the head of the woman, that Christ is the head of the man, and that God is the head of Christ. Let us agree that these statements in 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11 are for us as much as they were for those first century Christians. These are not notes on cultural practices or Paul’s ideas about how people should dress. Now the question is, when should the heads of the sisters be covered and the heads of the brethren be uncovered? If we take these instructions in the assembly setting we are probably very close to the answer because the epistle is addressed to an assembly, "The church of God which is at Corinth," and then broadened out to include us, "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor 1:2" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 1:2 ).

The question will then arise, what about weddings and funerals which could be considered private functions, not assembly gatherings? Actually, in both weddings and funerals we are drawing very close to the Lord; these functions are quite different from birthday parties or graduation parties. At a wedding or a funeral, the saints gather to pray, to read the Word of God, to speak out the gospel, and to be in the presence of God for comfort. Both the wedding of believers and the funeral of a departed saint could be included in the expression, "When ye come together" (1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 22, 33, 34)." TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 22, 33, 34). Many good brethren have listed the various meetings of the assembly as portrayed in the N. T. but the fact that weddings and funerals are not on their list does not rule out the fact that these functions could be considered extensions of our meetings. These occasions are more than family gatherings for social purposes; they are cases of the assembly coming together to seek God’s blessing on a marriage union or the testimony and comfort of a funeral.

The commentary on Corinthians by J. Hunter in the What the Bible Teaches series, is very helpful here: "It must be stated that the N. T. knows nothing of one gathering of the saints being of a different order or rank from another ... Nor is it the presence of the bread and the cup, but the presence of God, that makes the assembly sacred" (p 125). In other words, when we have gathered for a wedding or a funeral, we are in the presence of God and we should observe the same norms of behavior and dress. How disrespectful and irreverent it would be for the brethren to sit through the whole wedding or the funeral with their heads covered; likewise how irreverent it would be for sisters to come bareheaded into a gathering which is specifically intended to join a brother and a sister in a relationship in which headship is exemplified.

The Word of God clearly marks out a difference between men and women. Our North American society is doing its best to blur the differences between the genders. Let us, as believers, follow the Word of God. Weddings and funerals could be considered extensions of assembly meetings where the saints have gathered to wait upon God for His blessing and, in the case of the funeral, to remember His kindness and grace in saving the departed brother or sister. Reverence, respect, and godliness should mark the day. We don’t need worldliness and irreverence to spoil these important days.

Weddings and funerals have a personal and private aspect as well. There is no reason why, with a little imagination and preparation, we cannot add the personal touch without violating principles of the Word of God. The wedding reception and the refreshment time after the funeral tend to be less formal and more relaxed thus providing opportunities for personal expressions of congratulations at weddings or condolences or memories after a funeral.

• About this site

In Matthew 16:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:18 does the Rock represent Christ? Or does it mean Truth? Or does it mean the Word of God? If it is Christ, can you give Scripture to prove this?

No doubt, our questioner is aware that this is a much disputed passage; though personally we believe the true meaning is not far to seek, in the light of the context and of the general analogy of Scripture. The disciples’ answer to the Lord’s question, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” led on to His second question, “But whom say ye that I am?” The Lord desired to hear from their own lips their confession of Him. All were addressed, but one—Simon Peter—replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” And the Lord pronounced him—”Simon Bar-jona”—blessed (lit, happy), for this had not been learned in the schools of men, but direct from His Father. Not only so, but as Simon Peter had confessed his Lord’s Name before His fellow-disciples, now on the principle of Luke 12:8," TARGET="_blank">Luke 12:8, the Lord confesses his name—”And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter.” In other words He confirms to him the name of Petros or a Stone, which He had conferred on him at his introduction by his brother Andrew (John 1:41)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:41).

Moreover, the Lord has something more important to dwell on, namely, the noble, God-given confession by Peter of His true Messiahship and glory as the Eternal Son—something bigger than a “Petros,” a stone,—a “Petra,” a rock. This distinction is common in classical Greek, and though in Aramaic, the language in which our Lord usually spoke, the difference is not shown, both words being Cepha, the fact that the inspired evangelist, in translating, brings out the classical difference, seems to show clearly that the Spirit of God intended the difference to be preserved. Peter is never certainly spoken of as a rock (petra) in any other place of Scripture, but he himself speaks of Christ as the rock (petra) of offence, and this is the word used in 1 Corinthians 10:4" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:4—”They drank of that spiritual rock (petra) that followed them, and that rock (petra) was Christ.”

Peter was “a living stone” along with his fellow disciples, but Christ was the living Rock. Our Lord’s words accordingly are not, “Thou art Petros, and upon thee I will build my church,” but “Thou art Petros and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Perhaps we shall be told this is only Protestant and heretical doctrine. But was then Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in the 4th century, heretical? and yet he writes, “The rock petra is the blessed only rock faith—confessed by the mouth of Peter.” Was Jerome heretical, who writes, “Christ has founded His church on this rock, and it is from this rock that the Apostle Peter has been named”? Chrysostom whom we cannot admit was a heretic, says, “On this rock I will build my church, that is on the faith of the confession of Peter,” and so Ambrose of Milan, Basil of Seleucia, and indeed over forty of the early fathers and ecclesiastical writers (not all, we presume, Protestants or heretical teachers) held that the rock was Christ Himself as revealed in the confession of Peter. So Augustine of Hippo: “On this rock (petra) I will build my church, not on Peter, the stone that thou art, but on the rock that thou hast confessed, I will build thee, who in this reply standest for the church.” We may thank God that we have something more stable than vacillating Peter upon which to build for eternity.

W.H.

• About this site