Andrew Musch

• About this site

Jesus Tomb

• About this site

Avrell Bowden - "If I die tonight, where will I be? Heaven or hell?” People make commitments to God an confessions of faith that sometimes have no reality.  At age 6 I made a false profession of salvation. That is, I told people I was saved. (more)

• About this site

The Work of Christ

• About this site

 Marriage and the Family - Dr. Sandy Higgins explores the roles of parents, raising children, abortion, courtship, the Basis of Christian Living in the Home, God's Pattern Under Pressure, Heartbroken Homes, Being Single, Failing Fathers and other topics from the Bible's point of view.

• About this site

 What is a Church?

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Some assert that if a woman dies in child-birth she goes to heaven, basing this on 1 Timothy 2:15." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:15. What does that passage really teach?

The most certain thing about the passage named is that it does not teach what is suggested. God has but one way of saving sinners from hell and fitting them for heaven, and that way is through faith in His beloved Son. As to what it does teach, various commentators have given various replies, several of which, though differing, do not necessarily exclude one another. For it is quite probable that more thoughts than one were in the apostle’s mind as he penned the words, “She shall be saved through the childbearing, if they continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety” (R.V.).

To understand them we must take into consideration the entire paragraph, from verse 8 onwards, in which Paul teaches that men have a place of public testimony to fill, from which women are definitely debarred. For this prohibition he assigns two reasons: (x) that the man was first in creation, v. 13, and (z) that the woman was first in transgression, v. 14.. That verse 15 is closely connected with verse i, the “Notwithstanding” with which it begins makes quite evident, and there can therefore be no doubt that when using the expression, “through the childbearing,” the apostle has in mind the sentence pronounced by the Lord on the woman in Genesis  3:6. In that sentence there were two parts: (i) that she was to have sorrow in childbearing, and (a) that she was to be subjected to the man. The latter of these is in keeping with the principle upon which Paul has been just before insisting; while as to the former he has, in this 15th verse, something to add, in which warning and encouragement are combined. For, just as the curse pronounced on the woman was associated with her childbearing, so also, in the words addressed to the Serpent in the preceding verse, was the provision for her salvation in the promised “Seed.” Therefore the right path for her, the path in which “she shall be saved” (chiefly in the present sense of that word, so common in the epistles), is the very opposite of that public and prominent one forbidden her in verses 11 and 12. It is the path of home life and subjection; by keeping in which the very curse of Gen. 3" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 3 is turned into blessing. Compare those other words of the apostle in chap. 5. 13-15, where the dangers besetting young women who have no home cares are vividly depicted, and the way to be saved therefrom is the same as here. In fact he even uses there the verbal form of this word “childbearing,” of which neither noun nor verb is found anywhere else in the New Testament. Observe also, by way of contrast, how the young man1  Timothy 4:16, is to be “saved” by going on diligently with his public ministry of the Word.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

WAS JUDAS PRESENT

Was Judas present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper?

This is a much debated point, on which godly men have differed, so one would hesitate to dogmatise. Before giving what I believe to be the correct answer, I would say that the anxiety to prove that Judas was not present seems to rest on the false assumption that his presence would sanction to-day the admission of the ungodly to the Lord’s table. I believe this to be an entire mistake. Judas was a professed disciple of the Lord and one of the twelve apostles. He had passed all the tests and was apparently the most trusted of all by his fellow apostles, though the Lord knew from the beginning that he was a devil and would betray Him (John 6:64, 70)." TARGET="_blank">John 6:64, 70). He did not, however, use His omniscience to expose Judas before the time, in fact not till he had irretrievably committed himself. His presence then at the Lord’s table would no more justify the reception of those known to be ungodly, than his being sent forth to preach would sanction the sending forth of the ungodly for this purpose. Matthew 26:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:25 seems to shew he was present up to the institution, and verse 26 begins, “As they were eating.” That is, the passover was not yet formally over; is it conceivable then that Judas would have left the room thus prematurely, as he must have done, to bar his being present at the institution of “the supper”? However, whether he did or not is not clearly stated in this Gospel, nor yet in Mark 14:22." TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:22.

It is true that before that, the Lord had said plainly that the traitor would be found “among them that dipped with Him in the dish”; and He had said to Judas, “Thou has said,” in answer to his query, “Master (not Lord) is it I?” which for very decency’s sake he must have felt bound to make, lest he should draw attention to himself by his silence (Matthew 26:25)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:25). But this was probably only to Judas’ ear, who sat next to Him. This must not be confounded with the Lord’s definite sign to John, in answer to what I believe was his subsequent question, “Lord who is it?” “He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.” This revealed definitely to John the name of the traitor, and he alone narrates the incident (John 13:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:26, 27).

When we come to Luke’s Gospel we have a definite statement which must be allowed to have its influence, and I believe, its determinative influence with us. After the Lord has instituted the supper of remembrance, He immediately adds, “But, behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” The force of this definite statement is met at once by some who assert that Luke does not give us things in historic, but in moral order. Certainly there is a measure of truth in this, though it can not mean that the historic order in some detailed account by Luke is never to be followed, but only has weight when Luke gives us an order of events (as he does, e.g., in the last journey to Jerusalem) which seems to clash with the other Gospels. But what moral order is concerned in such a statement as that of our Lord? (Luke 22:21)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:21). It would seem to be going out of the way to introduce confusion, rather than moral order, unless we are to take it literally. If Matthew and Mark had clearly stated that Judas had left before the supper was instituted, then such an argument might have force, and Luke’s testimony be discounted. John 13" TARGET="_blank">John 13 does not seem really to help us, as there is no hint that Judas went out before the first “breaking of the bread,” for nothing is said of it. He did go out when the Lord had given him the sop and that was, I believe, after he had par- taken to his own condemnation of the bread and the wine, symbols of that very body and blood, of which by his betrayal he became guilty.

W.H.

• 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

• About this site