Truth Magazine

By David McClister

Open any number of commonly used Bible reference works and look up the entry for “Satan.” You will probably get a familiar story. I quote L.O. Richards’ Complete Bible Handbook as typical:

The O.T. indicates that Satan was created by God as a ruling angel called Lucifer, with great powers. But pride led Lucifer to rebel against God (cf. Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-15). Warped now by sin, Lucifer is transformed into Satan, which means “enemy” or “adversary.” .. . Satan is a powerful fallen angel, intensely hostile to God and antagonistic to God’s people (pp. 245, 801).

Ask most Bible-believing people where Satan came from and nine out of ten will give you a version of the story quoted above. The idea that Satan is a fallen angel whom God kicked out of heaven and who fell to earth is so wide-spread that many people believe that the Bible teaches it.

It may surprise you to find that the Bible teaches no such thing. Sure, there are passages in the Bible that speak of beings falling from heaven, but they are not about Satan and they use figurative language. Only by a careless reading of these texts can anyone arrive at the popular story concerning Satan’s origin. Let us examine the relevant biblical passages in context.

Just Who is Satan?

The name “Satan” is a transliteration of the Hebrew satan, denoting an accuser in the legal sense, a plaintiff with a charge to bring. In Zechariah 3:1 we read: “then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him” (NASB). In a word, Satan opposes us, works against us, or “prosecutes” us in an attempt to defeat us spiritually and morally. Jesus called him a murderer and a liar in John 8:44. In Revelation, John pictures Satan as a great dragon (Rev 12:9), a depiction that emphasizes his terrible nature. That same verse identifies him as the serpent (a reference to Gen. 3) and as the devil, which is another common biblical name for him. Perhaps 1 Peter 5:8 tells us what we most need to know about him: “Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

The biblical emphasis is on what Satan is in relation to us (an enemy). Some people, however, think that certain biblical texts go even farther and tell us how Satan came to be this way. Let us examine these texts carefully.

Isaiah 14:12-14

This passage reads: “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! But you said in your heart, `I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. `I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”‘ You will notice immediately that this passage does not mention Satan by any of his common biblical names. One can wring from this text a theory of Satan’s origin only by assuming that this passage describes him and by ignoring the context of this passage in Isaiah’s message.

Isaiah was not discussing Satan in Isaiah 12, nor does the origin of Satan in any way figure into the prophet’s message. If we say that this text is about the origin of Satan, it simply makes nonsense of the larger context. Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of the Hebrew kings: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Isa 1:1). His ministry spanned (approximately) 750-686 B.C., some 65 years at the most. This was a time when God’s people had become corrupted with idolatry. God sent Isaiah to preach repentance to his people and to warn them that a failure to turn from idolatry would mean disaster on a national scale. Isaiah preached to both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, fulfilling his commission by telling the people of those kingdoms that they would suffer terribly if they refused to repent. Isaiah 10:5-6 summarizes the message to the northern kingdom. There is similar language (13:3-6) reserved for the southern kingdom, the kingdom against which God would send the Babylonians.

Isaiah’s message was not completely one of gloom and doom. The Assyrians and the Babylonians, he preached, were simply instruments that God would use to punish his people. Once God had used these nations for his purposes, he would then turn and exact his judgment on them for their own wickedness. It is an awe-inspiring look at the sovereignty of God in action. Babylon would fall, and after this God would renew and regather his people and give them a glorious new existence. Isaiah 14 is about the fall of the Babylonian empire. Isaiah tells the inhabitants of the southern kingdom of Judah that after they had endured punishment the day would come when they would be able to see the fall of their oppressor and jeer at Babylon the way Babylon once jeered at Judah. Look at verses 4 and following. This is about Babylon.

Now why would Isaiah start the chapter talking about the downfall of Babylon, interrupt it with a description of the origin of Satan, and then resume speaking about the fall of Babylon? It just does not make any sense in the context here to see 12:12-14 as about Satan’s origin. The fact is that Isaiah was describing for the Judahites what they would be saying as they jeered at the king of Babylon who had been brought low and who had fallen from power (v 4). The tables would turn, and Isaiah is describing the irony of it all. Even a cursory reading of the passage reveals that the language here is poetic and figurative, and we need to treat it accordingly. “Heaven” in verse 12 is figurative language for that which is high and exalted, and Isaiah is here de-scribing the high esteem in which the king of Babylon was held. The prophet describes his fall from power figuratively as a fall from heaven. He then calls the Babylonian monarch, also figuratively, the “star of the morning.” In his glory, at one time, the sovereign of Babylon was like a brilliant star in the sky. However, his kingdom and his power would fall, and, in keeping with the imagery, Isaiah depicts his demise as a falling star.

Part of the popular misunderstanding of this passage stems from the appearance of the word “Lucifer” in the King James Version rendering of verse 12. The Hebrew word in question here is helel, which means “morning star” and has no connection with Satan. The translators of the King James Version used a word that, in 1611, was equivalent to the Hebrew word helel. “Lucifer” is an old Latin word that originally meant “light bearer” and was the name of the planet Venus whenever it appeared in the morning sky (Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1072). When King James English was still being spoken, “Lucifer” did not mean Satan. Unfortunately, to many people today Lucifer is the name of Satan (because Isa. 12:12-14 is assumed to be about Satan!). It is not that the translators goofed but that people of later times either forgot what Lucifer meant or they wrongly assumed it was a name for Satan, or both.

Isaiah 12:13 recites the arrogant boasting of the Babylonian king. He once thought he was the greatest one in the world, that he had power and authority equal to God himself. One of the characteristics of the prophetic picture of Babylon is its great pride. However, God would bring this king low, to the lowest level imaginable to the Hebrew mind: Sheol, the abode of the dead (v. 15). Verses 9-11 de-scribe how the inhabitants of Sheol would stand surprised that one who was thought to be so “high” was now among them in a place so “low.” The point is that the Babylonian king went from the extreme of worldly exaltation to the extreme of humiliation, and this was God’s doing, God’s judgment. The whole thing is a picture, an image, but not a literal historical narrative. The emphasis is on the contrast between the Babylonian ruler’s “before” and “after” conditions. People would then look at the failure of the Babylonian king and ask, “Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a wilderness and overthrew its cities, who did not allow his prisoners to go home?” (vv. 16-17).

You see, then, that when we examine Isaiah 14:12-14 in its context it tells us nothing about the origin of Satan. It is a figurative description of the fall of the king of Babylon.

Ezekiel 28:12-16

Another supposed origin-of-Satan passage is Ezekiel 28:12-16, which reads: “. . . Thus says the Lord GOD, `You had the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: the ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; the lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; and the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, was in you. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; you walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you. By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, and you sinned; therefore I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, 0 covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.'”

The reference to Eden is, for many, a sure indicator that this passage must be about the origin of Satan. Never mind that Satan was already man’s enemy in Eden. But again, it is only by assuming that this passage is about Satan (the very thing that must be proved) that we can read it that ext page

When we examine way. The context here argues in another direction.

Ezekiel’s words here concern the king of Tyre. Verses 1 and 11 make this plain. Chapter 27 is about the fall of the nation, and chapter 28 is specifically about the fall of that nation’s king. Paying a little attention to the context goes a long way! Just as in the Isaiah passage, to take the prophet’s words as descriptive of Satan and his “fall” is to make complete nonsense out of this chapter.

The message here is in two parts, but each part presents the same message. Verses 1-10 describe the king of Tyre from God’s viewpoint. Like the king of Babylon, the king of Tyre was proud, arrogant, and boastful. He thought of himself as divine, and thus he claimed glory that did not belong to him (vv. 2, 6, 9). The prophet describes the monarch’s greatness sarcastically in verses 3-5. For his arrogance, the proud king will reap the judgment of God.

The judgment upon him is that God will bring him low (vv. 7-10). Verses 11-19 repeat this message. The prophet’s sarcastic portrait of the king reappears in verses 12b-16a. The increase in the level of imagery and figures in the language heightens the sarcasm. The king thought of himself in the absolute highest terms, but to God this was pure foolishness. The reference to Eden in verse 13 is not literal but means that the king thought of himself as being privileged above all others. He thought he was so special, like God’s anointed cherub or as one who lived on the very mountain of God (v. 14). He pictured himself in the most glorious terms. For this arrogance, God would judge him severely (vv. 16b-19).

Again, therefore, when we read this passage in its con-text, we see that it has nothing to do with the origin of Satan. In the next part of this study we will look at some New Testament passages that are commonly put forth as explaining the origin of Satan and then try to draw some conclusions.

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 9-10
May 2, 1996

By Kyle Campbell

The book of Hebrews is one of the most intriguing books the Epistle to the apostle Paul. in the New Testament. Its argumentation and flow of thought is unrivaled among all of the other epistles and letters which have been handed down in our New Testament canon. William G. Johnsson says, “Hebrews is a work of art. It may well attract us with its magnificent language, its vivid images, and the sweep and subtlety of its argument; but its world of ideas and its methods of reasoning are so different from those of today that we shall probably feel that we are missing a great deal of its meaning” (1984131). To the author of Hebrews, Christianity is the best of all possible systems of religion.

Man has always been more naturally inquisitive towards matters of which he knows very little. Perhaps the dispute over authorship is the one of the keys to understanding the popularity of Hebrews. Borchert remarks, “It would be an understatement to say that the book of Hebrews has been involved in disputes with respect to some of its aspects. Few matters of Hebrews have been untouched by debate” (1985 319). Conybeare and Howson have rightly said, “There is no portion of the New Testament whose authorship is so disputed, nor any of which the inspiration is more indisputable” (1910 848). The controversy over authorship has lasted from the earliest possible time until the present day.

Although the list of potential authors of Hebrews is endless, it will be the purpose of this article to examine the ancient and modern external evidence, and the assumptions which must be made about the author from the book itself.

The Ancient External Evidence For Authorship

When one examines the earliest external evidence for the Epistle, it becomes clear that no firm tradition existed regarding its authorship. The first attestation concerning the author of Hebrews is from Pantaenus, an eminent Oriental scholar, who was for several years President of the Catechetical School of Sacred Learning in Egypt (Milligan 1875 6). The next oldest extant evidence on the authorship of Hebrews comes from Clement of Alexandria, near the close of the second century (Lightfoot 1976 20). He was a pupil of Pantaenus and believed that the Epistle was writ-ten by Paul for the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that it was translated into Greek by Luke for the Greeks. Moffatt (1924 18) explains the popularity of attributing the Epistle to the apostle Paul.

Since Paul was the most considerable letter-writer of the primitive church, it was natural that in some quarters this anonymous writing should be assigned to him, as was done apparently in the Alexandrian church, although even there scholarly readers felt qualms at an early period, and endeavored to explain the idiosyncrasies of style by supposing that some disciple of Paul, like Luke, translated it from Hebrew into Greek.

The next witness for the authorship of Hebrews is Origen. Origen noted the differences in style between Hebrews and Paul’s Epistles but was impressed by the Pauline character of the thoughts (Guthrie 1982 2664). He suggested that the book was written by a Pauline disciple, although his famous dictum has sounded down through the corridors of history: “who wrote the epistle, God knows for sure” (Borchert 1985 320). After the age of Origen, the Council of Antioch and Eusebius also both attributed the Epistle to Paul. After this period, the Epistle was commonly held as Pauline in the East. Guthrie states, “Since the work so clearly possessed apostolic authority, it is not difficult to see why the assumption arose that Paul was the author” (1982 2665).

While it seems that early tradition unanimously attributes the Epistle to Paul, there were other dissenting voices. Tertullian, around A.D. 190 or 200, attributed the Epistle to Barnabas. Filson was so impressed by this witness that he says, “The only ancient tradition worth considering is that of Tertullian, who said that Barnabas wrote Hebrews” (1954 21). Many scholars are quick to point out that Tertullian was a lone voice which suggested Barnabas, but Hill states, “Tertullian names Barnabas as the author of the epistle, and in such a way as to suggest that this was not a private opinion of his own, but a commonly agreed ascription in his circles” (1979 144). However, Hiebert (1977 77) states that Tertullian may only be acknowledging the view of the Montanists rather than giving his own opinion on the matter.

In the West, Pauline authorship did not appear to be taken seriously. The Epistle was not received by Marcion (Wescott 1892 63), although the omission may have been for dogmatic reasons, since he would have found the theme of Hebrews unpalatable (Guthrie 1982 2665). The omission from the Muratorian canon is more significant, which could reflect the enormous influence of scholars such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Milligan names several other Latin writers of the third century who are considered witnesses against Pauline authorship: Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage; Navatian, a Presbyter of Rome; and Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau in Pannonia (1875 11).

Around the end of the fourth century, the situation between the East and the West changed because of the influence of Jerome and Augustine. Within a short amount of time, the West began to accept Pauline authorship of Hebrews (Borchert 1985 321). Borchert goes on to say, “After Augustine the canonicity of Hebrews and its Pauline authorship remained pretty much undisputed during the next thousand years” (1985 321).

The Modern External Evidence For Authorship

With the dawn of critical thinking in the Renaissance, biblical scholars once again grappled with the issue of authorship. The Reformation spurred a re-evaluation of traditional views. Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin all questioned Pauline authorship as they tried to deal with the concerns of Jerome (Borchert 1985 321). Luther did not like the theology of Hebrews 64ff. and the impossibility of repentance. He therefore placed Hebrews with James, Jude, and the Revelation at a later and less authoritative place in the canon (Borchert 1985 321). Luther appears to have been the first person to suggest Apollos (Guthrie 1982 2665), and later, Calvin, Melanchthon, and the Geneva school joined Luther in opposing Pauline authorship (Borchert 1985 321). Beza also held that it was not written by Paul, but rather by one of his disciples (Westcott 1892 75); and Grotius returned to the theory of Lukan authorship (Guthrie 2665). It is very apparent that the theory of Pauline author-ship suffered its worst blow during the Reformation. In response to the Reformation, the Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent, declared that Pauline authorship of He-brews was fixed (Borchert 1985 321).

The Internal Evidence of the Book of Hebrews

An examination of the internal evidence of Hebrews can be very helpful in determining authorship. One can draw many conclusions about the author from the book itself. The first piece of evidence which must be mentioned is that the writer did not appear to conceal his identity and personality. Westcott (1892 75) argues that the writer was intimately acquainted with those to whom he writes (69ff.; 87; 1034; 1319). Even though Christians cannot know for certain who wrote the Epistle, the first century Christians knew his identity without a doubt.

The second piece of evidence is that the writer is clearly a “Jew who is influenced by the Alexandrian tendency to interpret the Old Testament allegorically, a tendency which we associate with the name of Philo” (Henshaw 1952 343). Many writers of the New Testament were probably influenced by Philo’s writings and interpretations. For example, the word “Logos” is a term used by Philo which is heavily stressed in the Gospel of John (Henshaw 1952 343). No other Christian writer interprets the Old Testament allegorically quite like the writer of Hebrews. Guthrie (1982 2665) says:

He was probably a Hellenist, a Greek-speaking Jew. He was familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures and with the religious ideas of the Jews. He claims the inheritance of their sacred history, traditions, and institutions (11) and dwells on these with an intimate knowledge and enthusiasm that would have been improbably, though not impossible, in a proselyte, and even more so in a Christian convert from heathenism.

The third piece of evidence concerns the style of the Epistle. Metzger says, “Curiously enough this author, al-though he addresses an epistle to `Hebrews,’ is the least Hebraic writer in the New Testament . . . There is scarcely a trace of Semitic influence in his work. The author has a rich vocabulary at his command and uses it with great skill” (1951 46).3 Unlike Paul, the author of Hebrews knows at each moment what his next sentence will be, and he follows a meticulously elaborate outline (Metzger 1951 46). Paul has a great tendency to digress without any concern for Greek diction (Henshaw 1952 344), while this author demonstrated himself as being very skilled and careful.

The fourth piece of evidence suggests that the author was not an original apostle or disciple, since he speaks of the message as being handed down (Henshaw 1952 344; cf. 23). It is quite possible that the author nor the readers were personal disciples of Jesus (Guthrie 2666). In countering the notion that the Hebrews were far-removed from New Testament times, Moffatt (1924 21) says, “The words in 23-4 do not mean that they belonged to the second generation, of course, in a chronological sense, for such words would have applied to the converts of any mission during the first thirty years or so after the crucifixion . . .” Hill adds, “The author can address his readers with a pastoral authority superior to that of their own leaders and with a conscience clear of local involvement (1317ff.), and yet with no personal claim to apostolic aegis” (1979 145).

The fifth piece of evidence suggests that although the author was clearly a Jew who thinks in terms of the Old Testament, he definitely belongs to Gentile Christianity (Henshaw 1952 344). Paul and this writer treated the Jewish law as a preparation for the Christian era. Also, there is a strong emphasis on faith in the Epistle. This emphasis on faith is not found in any New Testament writer except Paul and the author of this Epistle (Henshaw 1952 344). Furthermore, the writer also vividly portrays the central position and high estimation of Christ, the saving significance of his death, the general trend of ethical teaching, and his esteem for the rulers of the Church. All these facets bear out the inference that the author belonged to a Christian circle dominated by a world view of Christianity which included the Gentiles (Guthrie 2666). A final fact which is indicative of a Gentile dominance is the use of the Septuagint through-out the Epistle. Hiebert (1977 77) points out that the author uses the Septuagint throughout the book of Hebrews, even when it is not in harmony with the Hebrew text. This is somewhat unusual because the both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint are used in other New Testament letters.

As one examines the above criteria of the author, it be-comes clear that there simply could not have been many individuals around at that time who could have conformed to the criteria and written the Epistle. Although the suggestions which will discussed later cover most of the popular theories, it is not impossible that the Epistle may be the work of some person totally unknown to us (Henshaw 1952 344).

Conclusion

The next article will look at all the possible authors for the book of Hebrews taking into consideration the external and internal evidence.

Endnotes

1. Henshaw (1952343) argues that the early church obviously would want to include a magnificent piece of writing like Hebrews into the canon. However, to do so would require apostolic authorship, hence, it was necessary to lean heavily toward Pauline authorship.

2. Moffatt (192420) states that “Once in the canon, however, it gradually acquired a Pauline prestige, and, as Greek scholarship faded, any scruples to the contrary became less and less intelligible.”

3. Lightfoot (197623), in reporting the findings made by Wikenhauser, points out that “168 words in Hebrews do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, and an additional 124 do not appear in Paul.” Although this type of argument is not entirely conclusive, it does show the difference in vocabulary between Hebrews and known Pauline writings.

4. An interesting point that must be added here is that the Vatican edition of the Septuagint is used in Hebrews, and Paul always used the Alexandrian edition of the Septuagint when he quoted from it (Farrar 1884435).

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 22-24
May 2, 1996

By Alexander Campbell

It is one of the distinguishing characteristics of our pleadings for reformation, that our press has always been open to our enemies. From the 4th day of July, 1823, till now, I have conducted a printing press which has issued a volume every year, and a number every month, without a single failure; and, sir, those volumes are filled with communications from our enemies, to speak in sectarian style, as from our friends. I believe, sir, mine is the only press in this nation that has systematically and undeviatingly given both sides on every question, and opened its pages to all sorts of opponents  Romanists, Protestants, infidel or sectarian, provided only he paid a decent regard to the laws of grammar and politeness.

I believe, sir, I may go farther and say, that my periodical was the first and the only religious periodical in the world which has pursued that course. They were, in those days, all pledged to some creed or party  all one sided. I have been shut out of all their pages. They dared not to admit my essays. They feared to let their readers hear from me on those subjects which they were inculcating. To those very persons that shut us out, we have tendered them page for page, line for line, word for word in our volumes. Some of them have accepted, some of them have declined.

We have then, sir, nothing secret, nothing clandestine. We have called for investigation, for documents, arguments, and evidence. On our pages all parties have been heard and responded to, so that our constant readers are the most intelligent persons in the religious world. They know both sides.

What, may I ask, is the augury of this? Does it omen the fear of light, or the love of darkness? Indicates it the fear of man, or the consciousness of truth and its eternal strength? Is this the way that conscious error or weakness intrude themselves upon the public ear? No, sir. No, fellow-citizens, you know it is not.

You cannot, with all your various and multifarious modes of thinking, imagine a course more creditable, more just, more candid, more honorable before heaven and earth than the course I have pursued, for the last twenty years, in con-ducting this great discussion of principles. We impute to no man, to no party, principles that they disavow. We fearlessly open and avow our own. We say to every man  hear, examine, judge, and decide for yourself.

Every distinguishing principle of this reformation has passed through an ordeal of the most fiery discrimination. And sir, as soon will the arm of mortal arrest the rising sun, or stop the planets in their course, as any mind stay the progress of truths that have been so clearly spoken by prophets and apostles, and that have passed through such a burning furnace unscathed and unimpaired. (Excerpt from speech by Alexander Campbell in his Debate on Human Creeds with N.L. Rice, contained in Campbell-Rice Debate [Lexington, KY: A.T. Skillman & Son, 1844], pp. 759-912, see p. 887.)

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 21
May 2, 1996

 

By Jim McDonald

On January 2, 1996 R.J. Stevens and I met in the San Francisco International Airport to fly together for a preaching trip in the Philippine Islands. R.J. had flown from the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport while I had flown from Houston Intercontinental. We were to be joined in Manila by Ken Mans of Camino, California and Jerral Kay of Bentonville, Arkansas later that week. Flight from San Francisco via Seoul Korea took approximately 16 hours of flying time. We arrived in Manila Wednesday about 8:30 P.M.

Preparation For This Trip

Many months had been spent preparing for the trip: individuals who would go, places for preaching, scheduling itineraries and preparing material to either send ahead or carry with us. Through the permission of Maurice Barnett, 300 of his two volume sets on the doctrines and errors of Jehovah’s Witnesses had been copied and mailed via “M” Bag. Copying this material had taken long weeks and thanks are due many people: first to brother Barnett for his per-mission to reproduce this material for benefit of Filipino preachers; second to Dan and Karen Eddins (faithful Christians at the Loop 287 Church of Christ, Lufkin, Texas) who opened their print shop and allowed me permission to come and go as I pleased yet accepted no financial reimbursement for my extensive use of their equipment; to the Fourth and Groesbeck church in Lufkin, Texas who paid for printing this material and to David and Perry Weaks who bound the material into books. Several weeks were spent so that special postal bags, called “M” Bags, of the material might be sent ahead to different regions to wait for distribution upon our arrival there. By early October the final bags of this material were on their way to seven or eight different locations. And, with the single exception of Davao City, Mindanao, all of the bags did arrive.

Once “M” Bags of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ material had been shipped, attention was shifted toward writing and printing four different tracts to be given to brethren. Some areas were troubled by the “one-cup issue” so a tract was prepared for that. A tract on “The New Birth” was written and the English copy was translated into Tagalog and Cebuano. Then two other tracts dealing with the “two covenants” and “Five Questions About the Church” were written and printed. When we completed our work more than 8500 different tracts had been printed for use of the brethren. Brethren in both the Loop 287 church in Lufkin, Texas and the Austin Street church in Marshall, Texas had spent much time assembling these tracts together for me.

In addition to the foregoing material, books, concordances, dictionaries and other study helps were purchased for the brethren’s use.

Preaching In Manila

Manila is the heart of the Philippines. Estimates of the greater Manila population range from 9-11 million. As one surveys this teeming mass of humanity, he wonders whether any even “near accurate” counting could ever be made of its people. There are many congregations in the metro area, but none would likely have attendance of more than 100. Some, in the more distant stretches of the city, have a small building but none (to my knowledge) of the congregations in the heart of the city owns their building. This is a hindrance to the work but due to the poverty of the members and the high price of both land and buildings, it is not likely to be altered any time soon, although the Santa Mesa church will soon meet in a second floor of a building that will be-long to them. Even so, the structure is very small and will be able to accommodate little more than 40-50 folks.

When we arrived wearily in Manila on January 3 and had gone through customs, both R.J. and I struggled with our many boxes and pieces of luggage. However, once we were outside the terminal all this passed into the hands of the 25-30 waiting brethren. We spent the night in the home of Ben and Delores Cruz and the following morning began a two day seminar for Manila area preachers. R.J. had pre-pared material for teaching music and song directing to the many Filipino preachers who attended the various seminars he helped with. For the brethren in all the places we went, this was one of the highlights of this trip. Two, three, and some times four hours a day were spent by R.J. as he helped Filipinos learn more about pitching and directing songs. and, immediate improvement was apparent! Filipinos will be blessed for years by the short visit R.J. was able to make to their nation in January 1996.

In addition to R.J.’s music instructions, I spoke to the upward of 70 brethren who attended on a variety of subjects: the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, the New Testament Church, and exhortative lessons to preachers and brethren for unity, moral purity, and zeal in promoting the gospel of Christ.

Our seminar with the brethren ended on Friday. Saturday and Sunday were spent in preaching to Manila area congregations. Saturday R.J. and I preached at the Cubao congregation where Roman “Roger” Wanasen preaches. Because “mutual-edification” preachers from the States have made overtures to many Filipino preachers and have been received by brother Wanasen, I spoke on the errors of these brethren informing Filipino brethren of their peculiar views on evangelists, elders, and mutual-edification. These brethren are the remnants of the “no located preacher” positions of the late Carl Ketcherside and are making extensive effort to gain a foothold among faithful brethren. The modern preachers of this movement deny that they share all the views of brother Ketcherside that he defended in debate with various brethren (G.K. Wallace, et. al.), but they never identified any area of difference they had with Ketcherside’s early views and (so far as we could determine from reading their material) they parrot the same “old errors” of yesteryear: “evangelistic oversight,” preachers being “sent” by elders, “no-located” evangelists where there are elders, and contention for “mutual-edification” (every male member taking his turn at teaching, etc.). These doctrines wrought much havoc among brethren in the 1940s and ‘S0s and are a potential threat to the Philippine work. Any preacher going there needs to be aware of the danger and be prepared to warn brethren there what a viper they are receiving into their breasts when they receive these preachers. Brother Wanasen avers he does not believe their doctrines but he receives these men and aids them to make contact with many other unsuspecting Filipino brethren.

Sunday, January 7, R.J. spoke to brethren at Kapitbahayan and I spoke to the Pasay church and to brethren at the Leper Colony. There we met for the first time M.C. (Mario) Paderugao who preaches for these brethren and whose own health has greatly deteriorated. Brethren there indicated that brother Paderguao is in the last stages of this horrible disease. Relief was given to these brethren, supplied by American churches and brethren.

One of the greatest needs in the Manila area is funds to preach on the radio. Because of higher costs in the metropolitan area, radio time will be more expensive, but even so time should be available for $200 a month. With a population of 9-15 million, there is tremendous potential for good that a radio program in Metro-Manila could do. And Ben Cruz is an effective, convincing preacher to do such a work.

Ilocos Norte And Sur

Ken Mans and Jerral Kay arrived on Thursday and Fri-day (January 4, 5) respectively. Ken visited in the Angeles City area, joined by Jerral on Saturday. Both returned to Manila on Saturday night and spoke with the Cubao congregation where R.J. and I had preached the day before. On Monday, January 8 these two brethren left Manila to spend a week in the Cagayan region, working with Rody Gumpad and brethren in that region. R.J. and I left Manila the same morning for the Ilocos region where we spent the next five days. The four of us would rendezvous in Resurreccion, Pangisinan for a seminar there a week later.

Air flight from Manila to Laoag, Ilocos Norte took about 45 minutes, a radical contrast to the 8-10 hours required to make the same trip by bus. About 30 Ilocos preachers were on hand at the airport to greet us. Four days of hectic activities were spent here as R.J. and I visited and preached in different churches, conducting also a seminar for area preachers. About 65 preachers attended the seminar with attendance ranging upward to 100. During the total six weeks we were in the islands, about 420 preachers attended the eleven or twelve seminars we held on six different is-lands.

Basically, R.J. and I spoke to preachers as brethren and Jerral conducted lectureships for congregations (in two in-stances) in central regions where brethren from many congregations converged together. Over 700 people attended their Sinait (Ilocos Sur) lectureship.

When we disembarked the plane in Laoag City, we were in one of the most active and growing areas of all the Philippines so far as brethren are concerned. Two other regions have enthusiasm and growth similar to what these brethren experience: the Cagayan valley region of Northeast Luzon and the Pagadian City region of Mindanao. In the two provinces of Ilocos (Norte and Sur) there are over 100 churches and 2,000-3,000 Christians. Materno Sibayan, Sr. has been in this region for over 20 years and he (along with Vic Domingo) have been pioneers in this work of northwest Luzon.

There are many other preachers here and a host of able, younger ones. The key to the work in the region is the `joint efforts” these brethren conduct. Five or six preachers go into a new region where there are no Christians and at-tempt to set up studies in the villages. From this develops in due time another congregation. A couple of years ago I accompanied a team of these brethren as they were making initial efforts into a fishing village on the South China Sea. First, they met resistance, particularly from one of the matriarchs of the village. “Auntie” (as she was called by the folks there) was a Catholic and she discouraged the residents from hearing the preachers. Because so many of these were her children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, etc., she was an effective deterrent to the gospel. But, soon “Auntie” began to listen and to encourage those she had once discouraged. Baptisms began to result, but not “Auntie”!

On our May 1995 trip to the village and after “Auntie” had once more turned down the gospel invitation, Egdon Sabio (one of the most able of the preachers of the area, a dear friend of mine, and a “favorite” with “Auntie”) asked her, “Auntie, do you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God?” Her answer was quick and perceptive. “I am not going to answer that question, for I know what you will do. You will carry me out into the South China Sea and baptize me.” This January when R.J. went to the same fishing village and preached, “Auntie” heard the gospel again. This time she was willing to confess, “I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” and was subsequently baptized. Her obedience will open the way for many more in her family to follow her example. Another congregation scarcely two years old now meets in “Auntie’s” village. One of the preachers of the group preaches for it every Sunday and the brethren will move on to other areas to plant another congregation.

Being with brother Sibayan is always a joyful experience. He is the preacher and one of the elders of the Laoag City congregation, as well as preacher for the congregation in Sinait. This congregation is in the process of building a building and our seminar was held in the open space of what will ultimately be a block building. The roof is completed, giving protection from the rain and sun. One of the greatest needs of this area is for either a congregation or some brethren to provide funds for a radio program that might be aired from Laoag City for the whole region. Is there not some congregation who would provide $100-$150a month so that the message could be magnified throughout this region?

It was in the Bocos region that we began to baptize people and here our four day stint was concluded. Fifty-nine souls had confessed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and been baptized into him.

Umangan, Resurreccion, Pangasinan

R.J. and I had agreed with Ken and Jerral that we would meet for one seminar together at Resurreccion in Pangasinan. This is the home of Roger Wanasen and his father Hilario preaches for the congregation here. We desired to hold a preacher seminar here so that we might deal extensively with the errors of the “mutual-edification” brethren in the region that had received them. Brother Hilario was agree-able that we should come and accordingly made plans for the seminar. Many preachers from the region converged in this rural congregation and three days were spent dealing both with the errors of these brethren and other instructive teaching. R.J. continued his instructions in music; Ken, Jerral, and I spoke on a variety of matters.

Roger Salviejo had come to Sinait to get R.J. and myself on Friday, January 12. The seminar was scheduled to begin on Monday the 15th. Roger works with a number of congregations in this region and on the day of our arrival received notice of the loss of his support, quite a blow to him. He is totally without support and we believe he is a good man. Any congregation or individual able to support him would be appreciated. In the days “in-between” our arrival and the seminar R.J. visited with some of the area churches with Bert Enastacion while I visited and preached for congregations in the company of Roger Salviejo. One of these visited was a congregation that just a year ago was Pentecostal. Its preacher, Oliver Resurrecion, had been baptized when Ron Halbrook and I had preached in the Cagayan Valley region in May 1995. When Oliver returned home, he began to preach to his people, baptizing many of them and during this visit another five or six were baptized. Bibles and song books were given to this new congregation. On the Sunday prior to our Resurreccion seminar I preached in the home congregation of Donnie Arcega where about 90 adults were in attendance and 19 were baptized in a swimming pool. Donnie is a fine young man, struggling hard to maintain two or three congregations, burdened down with many responsibilities and greatly under-supported. He receives only $100 each month and needs another $100-$150 to even begin to make “ends meet.” Is there some individual interested in helping this sound young man in his work?

The seminar at Resurreccion was attended by about 90 preachers. The final result of it is yet to be determined, but brethren have material and knowledge of the doctrine of the “no-located preacher” brethren and can make their own decisions. (More to come.)

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 18-20
May 2, 1996