The series of articles in this issue of Watchman Magazine has to do with “holidays”. In passing, I notice:
- that the English word, “holiday” is a contraction of “holy days”, but has come to mean simply days on which one doesn’t have to work. It is associated with vacation time. The religious aspect of the word, as to its derivation, has completely been lost. (Who in the U.S.A., speaking English, thinks of “holy day” when he hears or says, “holiday”? In fact, most of the “holidays”, for example, “The 4th Of July”, “Labor Day”, in our country, that are national holidays, have no religious connotation or derivation whatsoever.
- some examples of this: Sunday (day of the sun); Monday (day of the moon); etc. Who in the English-speaking world thinks of worshipping the sun when he says, “Sunday”? or the moon, when he says, “Monday”? Yet, these two days received their names originally in reference to such pagan worship of the sun and moon.
In this lesson I am to treat the days as mentioned in Romans 14:5, 6.
Continue reading » Romans 14 and Days
(Editor’s Note: The following two short articles were written by brother Reeves almost 2 years ago. I overlooked them for a while, and wanted to include them now. Though the reports they refer to are dated, the lessons found are timeless.)
According to a televised CBS news report, Aug. 30, 1999, a privately owned Lutheran High School in Michigan demonstrated how it deals with teen violence: a strict dress code! Girls wear modest dresses; boys wear shirts and trousers—no jeans for either sex! One day out of the month both can wear jeans. The Principal reported that it is on that day (Jeans’ Day) that he sees more students in his office needing disciplinary action or lecturing. "You act according to your dress." Additional restrictions presented in the dress code were these: no pierced ears on the boys, no bright nail polish on the girls, no shorts on either sex.
No comment needed! You can’t argue with a demonstration.
Continue reading » Jean’s Day
Observations on the Article by Brother Ferrell Jenkins
entitled, “Connie W. Adams, Shane Scott, Tim Haile, Miracles, Truth Magazine, and the CD”
(Editor’s Note: This article is a review of Ferrell Jenkins’ article, noted in the title. You may, for context, wish to read Jenkins’ article first. In fact, brother Reeves specifically requests that you do so, and suggests that you print out the article for comparison as you read his review.)
Much of the article is directed to the ones named above, and, of course, they can (have or will) speak for themselves. I will direct my remarks to such matters as evasive attitude, and tactics, used by brother Jenkins. His article, he says, is “about some inconsistencies, even hypocritical conduct I have observed recently”. Well, “thou art the man” (2 Sam. 12:7).
- Complaining about what he calls “A New Criticism” in the Open Letter signed by 67 gospel preachers, he says, “If Hill Roberts taught evolution at Florida College in Feb., 1999, I said I disagreed with it in my speech (Feb., 2000). That should clear me. I had no idea that anyone would ever think I had ever entertained any idea of the truthfulness of the theory of evolution of either the animate or the inanimate universe. There is no teacher at Florida College who believes or advocates a naturalistic origin of the universe”. Continue reading » Observations on the Article by Brother Ferrell Jenkins (Reeves)
“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham, returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning, “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually”
The sacred history about Melchizedek is very brief (Gen. 14:18-20). He, a Canaanite, was king of Salem (probably, later known as Jerusalem), and the priest of God Most High. After a particular battle in which Abraham was victorious, Melchizedek blessed him. In turn, Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. What is omitted in this history about Melchizedek, as well as what little is said about him, is important in that he is set forth as a type of Christ. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews introduced the case of Melchizedek in 5:6,10 and in 6:20, developing it further in chapter 7. The argumentation of the author is based on the emphases about Melchizedek. He had no beginning nor end, neither parents nor descendants (that history records)! He appears on the inspired pages of Genesis as a king and a priest of God, without registry that relates his lineage or ancestry, nor of predecessors nor successors in his priesthood. In these particulars, he serves as a type of Christ in his kingship and priesthood, one who abides thus continually. Continue reading » Confusion on the Covenants: Jesus – Priest After the Order of Melchizedek