Was the serpent’s subtlety (Gen 3:1)" TARGET="_blank">Gen 3:1) due to its native ability or Satan’s powers?

Three clues suggest the subtlety was due to the prudence or sense God had given it. First, the comparison of the serpent to "any beast of the field which the Lord God had made" indicates that not just this one serpent, but the entire species of serpents was "more subtle." Second, the curse on the serpent (v 14) extends to all its kind, not just the serpent Satan used; and God’s judgments are just. Again, addressing the serpent, God moves (v 15) to the instigator behind the scenes and is actually speaking to Satan. That relates to the third clue. Without assigning a human will to the serpent, we note that Satan easily finds allies among those specially enriched with advantages (see previous answers). Satan spoke through the serpent, but in some way took advantage of its native subtlety, so that neither Eve nor Adam expressed surprise that a serpent should approach them as he did.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Do women violate the teaching of a woman

Do women violate the teaching of a woman’s silence when they sing in the assembly?

When Paul enjoins the sisters to be silent in the assembly (1Co 14:34)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:34), he supports this from the Law. "Under obedience" denotes submission or subjection to the role God has ordained. The Lord Jesus is the introduction to this in the New Testament, being subject to His parents (Luk 2:41, 51)." TARGET="_blank">Luk 2:41, 51). The ordaining of differing roles for women and men goes back to Genesis 1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1 and 2, which is part of the Law, a literary division of the Old Testament (compare Luke 16:16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:16 with 24:44). As in First Timothy (2:11-15), Paul teaches that the silence of the sisters is a leadership issue. Because of male headship, sisters do not lead in the use of gifts (1Co 14:4, 5)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:4, 5), prayer (v 15), worship (v 16), or teaching (v 3; 1Ti 2:12)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 2:12). In these four activities an individual is the visible leader in the activity.

In singing (1Co 14:15)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:15), although one person leads (therefore a male) in starting the singing, the congregation joins together. It is not a leadership issue, therefore the women sing. The same principle applies to saying "Amen" after a brother’s prayers.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can we prepare ourselves to worship the Lord?

What is the difference between giving "mini-sermons" to the Lord and worshiping at the Breaking of Bread?

Far too often, our worship consists of recounting some events in the Lord’s life, more details about His trials, mocking and abuse, and facts about His sufferings on the cross. It almost becomes ritualistic. He is worthy of so much more worship that we will ever be able to bring to Him and certainly of much more than ritual. We have an entire Bible that speaks of His worth. If worship is truly our highest occupation (Philippians 3:3)," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:3), then we should devote to it our fullest endeavors and our greatest capacities (Mark 12:33)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 12:33).

This question points to a possible failure when a brother has diligently prepared his worship. Would a priest spend more time arranging wood than dividing and placing the sacrifice on the altar? The material gathered from Scripture is worship only to the extent that it has drawn our hearts to more deeply appreciate Christ. The appreciation of Christ is what delights the Father’s heart (John 4:23)." TARGET="_blank">John 4:23). Telling the Father the resultant worship is more important than telling Him all the background. The believers may not follow all the thought process that produced the worship, but they can heartily say "Amen" to the result. More important, the Father fully knows the depths from which the worshiper has drawn his worship.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it appropriate to give out a hymn between partaking of the bread and drinking from the cup?

Is it appropriate to give out a hymn between partaking of the bread and drinking from the cup?

Making rules for conducting our gatherings is inappropriate. But so is creating confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:33). Our singing together and our worship lead to the time when we remember the Lord by breaking the bread and partaking of the cup. The first three gospels give us the specific model for this sacred rite. Mark tells us, "Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, . . . And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it" (Mark 14:22, 23)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:22, 23). Paul tells us how the Lord conducted this, "after the same manner" (1 Corinthians 11:25)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:25) and records His instruction, "This do ye . . ."

This is the order: thanksgiving for the bread, then all break the bread; thanksgiving for the cup, then all drink from it.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

If a person believes in "falling away", can they really be saved?

How can a saved person believe in "falling away?"

This is possible only because of wrong teaching.

Those who propagate the "falling away" doctrine are wrong about many things. They believe one will lose his salvation when he sins. Wrong! This implies that the work of Christ is insufficient. They teach that to believe in eternal security means one can live a wicked, immoral life and still get to heaven. Wrong! "How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein" Romans 6:2" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:2? Christ's death FOR us was also our death TO sin. A person who is saved abhors sin and has no desire to continue in it.

Few who hold this doctrine are saved because this basically means salvation is by works. Some among them recognized they were unable to merit salvation. God revealed to them salvation through the finished work of Christ. They believed and were saved. The wrong teachings they hear hinder them from appreciating the wonderful truth that salvation is eternal. Let us pray that God will reveal this to them also.

J. Slabaugh
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it right for a full-time preacher to also be an assembly elder?

Is it right for a full-time preacher to also be an assembly elder?

The answer is no and yes. The five men listed in Acts 13:1" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:1 not only taught the assembly, but also guided it in sending out Barnabas and Saul. They functioned as overseers. Barnabas and Saul were separated from them for the work to which the Spirit called them (verse 2). The Spirit who gave Barnabas and Saul their work had likewise given these their work of feeding the flock (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). In an established assembly, such as Antioch, the evangelist is distinct from the pastor-teacher (Ephesians 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:11). The sphere of responsibility for each is different. Timothy and Titus provide an instructive contrast. Timothy was working in an established assembly, Ephesus. He employed the Word of God so as to correct existing problems, perhaps even including wrongs among those taking the place of overseers. He taught side by side with others, but there is no hint of his being an overseer. Titus worked among fledgling assemblies without recognized elders (Titus 1:4-9)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:4-9). He guided these assemblies in recognizing the elders that God had raised up. In that sense, he served like an elder and had direct input into the care of the assembly. This was a temporary responsibility until the assemblies were consolidated from within. Thus a man who sees an assembly work begin is responsible to guide the new assembly until the Spirit clearly identifies the shepherds He has raised up. When these men are able to function on their own, a Titus assumes the same role as a Timothy in Ephesus.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible say about tattoos and body piercings?

The scriptures from the Old Testament mention body piercings and cutting one's self, however there is no mention of the practice in the New Testament.

Leviticuis 19:28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.

Why did the Lord forbid these two practices – cuts and tattoos? The context of the prohibitions mentioned in Leviticus 19" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19 is to protect the Israelites from heathen practices related to idol worship.

Notice the other verses mentioned in this chapter.

Other forbidden practices were:

eating meat in which there still was blood (v. 26a);
omens and fortune telling (v. 26b);
hair cuts that were in the style of idolatrous temples (v. 27);
making cuttings in one's flesh as an expression of mourning for the dead (v. 28a);
making marks on the body like the pagan people around Israel (v. 28b);
giving a daughter up for prostitution. This was probably done, not for the money the trade would have brought to the parents, but likely for the purpose of becoming a "holy prostitute" in pagan temple worship (v. 29);
not honoring the Sabbath Day (v. 30);
communicating with spirits (v. 31).

In the New Testament the instructions given to believers in relation to pagan worship is in found in three passages: Romans 14," TARGET="_blank">Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8 and 1 Corinthians 10." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10. The questions in the churches of Rome and Corinth were about whether to eat meat used in the temple and holidays that were holy to the Jews.

The Christian should not participate in worship in the temples of the gods of the heathen, which are in reality not gods, but demons (1 Corinthians 10:20)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:20). This would lead us to avoid purposeful contact with pagan religious practices, including being careful about the food we buy. However, if someone were to offer a believer a meal, it is wise not ask questions about the source of the meat. After all, the meat was created by God and is good for food.

If we apply the principles in these three chapters to the practice of tattoos, we could conclude that a believer shouldn't purposefully mark his body. But if someone does have a tattoo, we shouldn't condemn him either.

In today's culture, tattoos are common in drug users, criminal gangs and the occult. Why would a believer intentionally imitate a practice from these groups?

1 Peter 2:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Ephesians 5:11" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Shad Sluiter
Other pages in this section

About this site

What do I do if I disagree with the leaders of my church?

What should I do if I am uneasy about a decision of the overseers and don't feel I can go to one of them about it?

Such issues involve two hazardous extremes. One is the danger of the "unapproachable elder." The people of God are not little children to be treated with a "Because I said so" attitude. Saul's rage when questioned by Ahimelech (I Samuel 22:14,15)" TARGET="_blank">I Samuel 22:14,15) was because his actions could not bear the light of Scripture. The other danger is that of the "discontented believer" who views himself (and often he is the only one who does) as the "watch-dog" of the assembly. Absalom's inquiries into problems (II Samuel 15:1-6)" TARGET="_blank">II Samuel 15:1-6) illustrate the work of a man with ulterior motives.

Ideally, spiritual elders will welcome honest inquiries by those who do not understand the scriptural reasons that guided their actions. Ideally, the believer expressing such a concern will be marked by a sincere interest to learn the ways of God. When the circumstances fall short of the ideal, as they do in 3 John 1:9," TARGET="_blank">3 John 1:9, two immutable principles remain clear: (1) wronged believers lose nothing by showing submission; (2) the testimony is God's, not ours: He will maintain the honor of His Name. No situation hinders our bringing the matter to God in prayer and leaving it with Him.

E. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

What language will be spoken in the Millennium and beyond?

What language will be spoken in the Millennium and beyond?

This was likely debated by the Puritans who also tried to investigate how many angels could stand on the head of a pin.

Because the Lord spoke from heaven in the Hebrew tongue to Saul (Acts 26:14)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 26:14), some have concluded that Hebrew is the language of heaven. However, in the days of His flesh, the Lord communicated in Aramaic (Matthew 27:46)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:46). The Spirit communicated with John and the seven churches in Greek. God communicates in the language people understand.

Just as all the earth had one language originally (Genesis 11:1)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:1), so the Lord confounded (mixed) the language of all the earth (v 9). That seems to clearly state that all extant languages are a result of this intervention of God. Therefore, the "original" language does not exist.

If this is so, God has not revealed the answer to this question.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between "a child is born" and "a son is given"?

What is the difference in Isaiah 9:6." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6. between the expressions the “child born” and the “Son given”?

There is an important difference, I believe, and one which the exponents of what they term “the New Light,” as to the Eternal Sonship of our Lord, would do well to consider. Why is the “child” said to be “born,” but the “Son” not born, but “given”? We read in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 that God had been pleased to offer to king Ahaz a sign to confirm his doubting soul, that the line of David would not be superseded by the son of Tabeal, according to the Satanic design of Rezin and Pekah, which would have set aside the purpose of God regarding His future King, who must be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Ahaz had liberty of choice; he might ask for any sign in the depth, that is commensurate with the drying up of the Red Sea, or in the height commensurate with the standing still of the sun in answer to Joshua’s prayer. The king who was continually tempting God by his disobedience, refused this offer: He would not tempt the Lord, he said. Very well, then, the Lord will give a sign greater than any other known so far in the history of the world—the Virgin Birth of Him who was God: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (v. 14). A great effort of unbelief has been made to show that the word,” ‘almãh,” translated “virgin,” should be rather rendered “young married woman.” Such an objection hardly shows unusual scholarship, so much as a lack of common sense; for the fact of a young married woman having a son would be no sign at all. In this verse, in the phrase “a virgin shall. . . bear a son,” the same verb is used as in chap. 9. 6, “a child is born.” Here the Son is viewed as the Son of Mary in the sense of Matthew 1:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25: “She brought forth her first-born Son.” Why then is the “Son” said to be “given” in Isa. 9." TARGET="_blank">Isa. 9. 6? The reason is that there the One born is viewed as the One who had already been Son from all eternity. He could not become that by human birth. The child was born, but God gave His Eternal Son. W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu