When should I confront someone who has done something wrong against me?

Does Matthew 18:15" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15 teach that a believer must seek redress when he is wronged?

Some differences between believers are trivial and require tolerance, not redress. In 1 Corinthians 6:7," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:7, Paul reproved the Corinthians for seeking redress by going to law. He asked them, "Why do ye not rather take wrong?" Taking another Christian before a court is clearly wrong. A matter taken to court cannot be called "trivial." Taking wrong rather than seeking redress is clearly the preferred option.

When should a believer go to another who has trespassed against him to get a matter made right? The word "trespass" in this text is the usual word for "sin," or "miss the mark." Hence, this is not merely a slight or difference of opinion but a matter that must be rectified so the offender may be cleansed from his sin and restored to the Lord.

Matthew 5:24" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:24 gives us the responsibility of the one who offends, "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." His sin makes acceptable worship impossible until the matter is rectified.

J. Slabaugh
Other pages in this section

About this site

CHRIST’S PRIESTHOOD
When did the High Priesthood of Christ begin, at the offering of Himself on the cross, or upon His sitting down at God’s right hand?

If I were to ask, at what point in the record given us in the 8th and 9th chapters of Leviticus did the high priesthood of Aaron begin, I should probably receive various replies. Some possibly would tell me that he was high priest from the very beginning of the first day of the eight mentioned in these chapters, when he was put forward, before the congregation (chap. 8. 2-5), as the one God had “called” (Hebrews 5:4)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:4) for the position. Others might say that his priesthood should be reckoned from after the bathing, and clothing, and anointing, and offering (including that of the ram of consecration) on that first day had been completed. Others still might think that only at the end of the seven “days of consecration” (chap. 8. 3) could he be called high priest; while some perhaps would suggest that his priesthood did not effectively begin until he commenced to act on the people’s behalf during the transactions of the eighth day (chap. 9. 15). If I got these replies, could I say that any of them was entirely wrong? I do not think so.

Let us then see what the Hebrews epistle has to tell us about the beginning of the High Priesthood of Christ. In Hebrews 9:11," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:11, after a description of the ministry of the Old Testament high priests, we read, “But Christ having (R.V.) come a High Priest . . . entered in . . . having obtained eternal redemption.” Here the expression “having come a High Priest” seems to suggest that, right from the commencement of His Activities in connection with obtaining redemption, He was acting in priestly character; and definitely so, before He “entered in.” Then in Hebrews 2:17" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:17 we get, “It behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become (see Greek, or Newberry) a. . . High Priest . . . to make propitiation (R.V.) for the sins of the people.” In this passage His becoming High Priest is made consequent on His having been made “like unto His brethren,” and yet it was as High Priest that He made propitiation for sins. Again, in Hebrews 6:20" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:20 (R.V.) we read, “Whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a High Priest”; which appears to imply that His “entering” followed immediately upon His becoming Priest. Next, in Hebrews 5:10," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:10, after having “learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (this, in light of Phil 2:8" TARGET="_blank">Phil 2:8 surely including His death), and after having thus been “made perfect”; He is then “named (R.V.) of God a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek,” probably in the sense that there was a proclamation of His Priesthood at His ascension. Lastly, in Hebrews 8:4" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 8:4 we are told that His Priesthood is not “on earth,” and in Hebrews 7:26" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:26 that it is in a sphere where He is “separated (R.V.) from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.”

In view of all this, would I be safe in setting down as wrong: (1) the person who says that when Christ offered up Himself He was Priest as well as Sacrifice; or (2) the person who tells me that His Priesthood is part of the outcome of His death; or (3) the person who states that for the exercise of His Priesthood, He required to be where He now is, in the heavenly Sanctuary? In each case, I do not think so.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What are the "sure mercies of David"?

What are "the sure mercies of David" (Isaiah 55:3;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 55:3; Acts 13:34)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:34)?

The expression is reminiscent of God’s everlasting covenant with David and his household (2 Samuel 7:16;" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 7:16; 2 Chronicles 21:7;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 21:7; Psalm 89:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 89:3, 4). God promised David regarding his son, "But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul. . . And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Samuel 7:15, 16)." TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 7:15, 16). "My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast (translated "sure" in Isaiah 55:3)" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 55:3) with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven" (Psalm 89:28, 29)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 89:28, 29). Therefore, Isaiah 55" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 55 anticipates the future day when the Lord will encourage His earthly people to return to Him and enjoy the fulfillment of His promises to David. This kingdom of Christ, the Son of David, is assured by the resurrection, since Acts 13:34," TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:34, 35 relates these "sure mercies of David" to Psalm 16:10," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16:10, "Thou shalt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption." "The sure mercies of David" guarantee that our Lord, the risen Son of David, will have a throne in Jerusalem and an everlasting kingdom.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it wrong to conjure dead spirits?

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.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Printable Bible Word Searches

Printable Bible Word Searches is a program that allows you to turn a Bible verse into a printable word search puzzle worksheet.

Click here to go to step one of the printable Bible word searches page.

Instructions for the Printable Bible Word Searches maker

1. Type in a verse from the Bible such as John 3:16," TARGET="_blank">John 3:16, Luke 19:10" TARGET="_blank">Luke 19:10 or other Bible verse, to make into a Bible word search puzzle.
2. The Bible Word Search Puzzle maker will automatically place as many words as possible in the puzzle area.

3. The third step is simply to view the printable Bible word search puzzle and print it or play it online if you wish.

Hints:

If your phrase does not make a very good printable word scramble, try adding a few more words to the sentence. The word search puzzle program needs between 5 and 15 words. Words with 4 to 10 letters generally work well.

In addition to the printable Bible word search puzzles, you can make

Other pages in this section

About this site

Were there two classes of Apostles?

It has been said there are two orders of apostles, one of the Lord’s earthly ministry (Matthew 10;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10; Mark 3.;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 3.; Luke 9)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 9), and another of His heavenly (Ephesians 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:11). Please define the difference, if any?

Of course, Pentecost made a great difference to all believers. They had “life” before, now they had it “more abundantly” (see John io. xo). Before, they had been individual believers united in a common love and fealty to the same Master. Now their relationship both to Him and to one another had become profoundly modified. During the Lord’s ministry, if we except the special mission in Matthew 10," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10, when they received a special enduement of power (v. i), and a unique commission (v. 6), the apostles came little into prominence. It was the Lord who led and worked; they followed and learned of Him. Now they became perpetually “endued with power from on high,” subject to the leading of the Holy Spirit. They were now united to Christ as members of His Body, and for the first time were indwelt by that Spirit. But that the eleven apostles of the Lord’s earthly ministry remained, or ever were, a different apostolic order to Paul, and perhaps two or three others mentioned in the Acts has, I believe, no scriptural authority whatever. We know that the eleven apostles of the original twelve, and Matthias, all passed through Pentecost, and Paul was no doubt Spirit-baptised later at his conversion. Pentecost certainly meant for the twelve a vast accession of apostolic power, so that it is quite permissible to view them as given by the risen Christ. “He gave some apostles,” though they existed before potentially as apostles. They all became partakers of Ephesian standing and blessing. Now, as he had advised them, the sphere of their action was greatly widened, for they were sent “to preach the gospel to every creature.” It seems to me entirely gratuitous and mistaken to assume that Peter and his ten fellow-apostles were not in the will of God in the appointment of Matthias. No hint of this is given in the passage or subsequently. The Lord had given them “Holy Spirit” (John 20:22)" TARGET="_blank">John 20:22) to carry them over the interval between His resurrection and Pentecost—the true “giving of the Holy Spirit.” They appointed him on the authority of the Scriptures, after prayerful exercise before God, appealing to Him to dispose the lot, and Matthias is recognised in Acts 2:14" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:14 as completing the original member of the apostles. Not only so, but Paul himself did not acknowledge any difference. He recognised the twelve as “those who were apostles before him” (Galatians 1:17)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:17), and if he insists on his having received his call and gospel from the Lord Himself, it was only to claim equality with the others, but in no way superiority. Some attach great importance to his word, “My gospel,” but this proves nothing, as he tells us in Galatians 1:6-9," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:6-9, that there was only one true gospel, and in chap. 2. 2, that on his return to Jerusalem he checked the gospel he had been preaching with that of the apostles there, lest he had in any way deviated from the true gospel, which was theirs, before it was his. “In conference,” he is able to affirm, “they added nothing to me,” though they recognised that his special mission was to the Gentiles. So clear is this in this chapter that these mistaken teachers have imagined a theory to account for it that Paul got under Jewish influence at Jerusalem (by that right hand of fellowship given to him by Peter and James and John), and was absolutely switched off his true character of testimony. Certainly this would be strange, considering that in the same context he tells us that he openly withstood his fellow-apostle for Judaising at Antioch. That such a theory should be necessary to uphold their position, is surely enough to demonstrate its unsoundness.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

In what sense, if any, did our Lord confess His people

In what sense, if any, did our Lord confess His people’s sins? Is Psalm 69:5" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 69:5 distinctly applicable to Him? How are we to understand the phrase, “He was made sin for us”? (2 Corinthians 5:21)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21).

These questions open out very important points which are spoken of very loosely to-day and which need careful handling. As for the first, I believe it to be far from scriptural to assert any such thing. Hymn- writers have said so, and the saints have allowed themselves at their bidding, to sing wrong doctrine. I have long shrunk from singing the words of J. G. Deck’s, otherwise beautiful hymn,

“Our sins, our guilt, in love divine
Confessed and borne by Thee.”

To confess sins makes them our own, and that the Lord never did. Is it necessary or proper for one paying a debt for a friend, to confess that he incurred it himself? It would be untrue and quite gratuitous and would detract from the favour. The words in question, might be altered to some such phrase as, “All known and borne by Thee.” Our Lord Jesus was always the sinless One, and He suffered vicariously for our sins; but they were always ours, not His “Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2: 24)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2: 24). There was always a vast distinction between the Saviour and the sinner, He became surety for sin, but never identical with the sinner. As for applying Psalm 69." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 69. to our Lord—”O God, Thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins (Heb. guiltiness) are not hid from Thee”—it is, I believe, most improper to do so. We must remember that even the Messianic Psalms represent to a certain degree the experience of the writer, but go beyond this to any godly ones, brought low before God, on account of their sins, especially the faithful remnant of the last days. Bearing this in mind, there is much of the Psalm which can be applied to Christ. But it is exceedingly dangerous, in my judgment, to attempt to apply all to Him. Fancy applying such words as above to “Christ the Wisdom of God” and “the Holy One of God”
As for 2 Corinthians 5:21" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21 we can perhaps best see its meaning by negatives, it cannot mean that our Lord became personally that abominable thing called sin. But even had such a thing been possible, it would not have helped us in any way; clearly the Lord was made sin, in such a way as to affect us and cause us to become the righteousness of God in Him. There was only one way to effect this, namely, to take our place, or in other words, be treated as we deserved as an offering for sin. Thus He atoned for sin on the cross, and became our righteousness on resurrection ground.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

If God calls a brother to preach the gospel, how would he approach commendation?

If God calls a brother to preach the gospel, how would he approach commendation?

Early in his Christian life, Saul knew he was called by God to preach the gospel. It appears that he knew what the Lord communicated to Ananias (Acts 9:15;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 9:15; Gal 1:16)." TARGET="_blank">Gal 1:16). He returned to Jerusalem after three years (Gal 1:18)" TARGET="_blank">Gal 1:18) and, while praying, received confirmation that God was sending him to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 22:17-21). He continued to be active in this work, exemplifying, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might" (Eccl 9:10)." TARGET="_blank">Eccl 9:10). He was able both to work with his own initiative (in Tarsus, Acts 11:25)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 11:25) and also to work under the guidance of others (v 26).

His responsibility was to do the work the Lord had laid on his heart. He awaited God’s timing on his commendation. The initiative in his commendation, under the Spirit’s guidance, came from the leaders of the Antioch assembly (Acts 13:1-3)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:1-3).

Gideon knew these principles (Judges 6:36-40)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 6:36-40). His two requests regarding his fleece provided personal assurance that God had called him and a confirmation of that in the unity of others in following him.

A man does the work the Lord gives him, looks to his God for personal assurance of his call, and waits on the Lord to make that evident through the insights of responsible believers. If a brother (or his family) has to promote his own cause in order to be commended by the assembly, he is either moving ahead of God or against God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the phrase mean "wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together"?

Could you please explain the meaning of Matthew 24:28," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:28, "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together'?

Matthew chapter 24: is taken up with apostasy, tribulation, and judgment. The "carcase" no doubt represents the corrupt and apostate part of the Jewish nation, and finally will include all nations. The "eagles" symbolize the judgment of God, and the angels as His instruments of judgment. The imagery seems to be taken from job 39:27-30." TARGET="_blank">job 39:27-30. There the eagle is seen on "the rock" and "the strong place." "From thence she seeketh the prey and her eyes behold afar off." "Where the slain are, there is she." The verse in Matthew is a picture of sudden, swift, and sure judgment.

H. Alves (February, 1964)

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God punish sin on earth? Does God punish sin only in Hell?

“Does God punish sin on earth? Does God punish sin only in Hell?”

Interesting question, and to answer it we need to clarify the terms we use. When it comes to an authority dealing with behavior that is undesired, there are two basic motivations called “punishment” and “vengeance”. Others use the terms “discipline” or “correction” for what I call “punishment”, and “punishment” for what I call “vengeance”, but I think my terms are more biblically accurate.

Whatever the words, God and earthly governments do both.

Using my terms, a “punishment” is like a “spanking”, something bad that is administered with the intent of changing the character of the one being punished. This is done so he may rejoin society as a disciplined, productive member. “Vengeance”, on the other hand, has no goal but to make an example of the punished one so others are afraid to try the same thing, and to protect society at large by removing the threat the lawbreaker represents. One looks to help the guilty one, the other looks primarily at minimizing losses to the whole and protecting the authority of the government. It may be argued that the consequences of law often may very well do both, but the motivation behind each remains distinctly different. And there are clear cases where there is no overlap.

God does both in this life as well. He clearly punishes people with the intent of driving them away from evil and toward Himself. We read He spanks His children in ways that seem “grievous” (Hebrews 12:6)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12:6), and also read that He in a general way “chastiseth (spanks) the heathen” (Psalm 94:10)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 94:10), the ones who do not yet know Him. “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth” (Heb. 12:6)" TARGET="_blank">Heb. 12:6) . . . lots of love here.

But He also executes “vengeance” (Romans 12:19)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:19) in this life as a means of declaring and enforcing His governmental authority over mankind. He forcefully tells us to stay out of that business on a personal level when it comes to dealing with people who harm us. The phrase in that verse is this: “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, saith the Lord”. That phrase is found virtually the same in four different Bible verses, the only statement I can think of so honored.

So He really takes this seriously.

Deadly diseases associated with specific violations of His commandments are a clear example of this, as can be premature deaths by various tragedies. “The wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.” (Colossians 3:6)" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:6) . . . no love here, just wrath.

Even righteous members of a society may suffer as He executes vengeance on the whole.

To get back to the question, when it comes to hell there is no punishment, there are no spankings, only the raw endless fury of vengeance to prove to the universe that He is God and what He says goes. Hear these solemn words spoken to Christians suffering at the hands of wicked people: “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to

recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) Everlasting Fire – no purgatory, no hope, nothing but vengeance.

The time for corrective punishment is in this life. God is to be greatly feared, and those who refuse to do so in this life, refuse His “spankings” with the intent of driving them to the Savior, will have all of eternity to regret it.

Alfred Corduan

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu

Printable Bible Word Searches