Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith (Hab. 2:4).

The prophet Habakkuk prophesied some 40-50 years before the Babylonians invaded and destroyed Judah. He faced difficult circumstances. The wicked were trampling the righteous under their feet and God seemed deaf to their cries. The message of the book of Habakkuk may be summarized in the statement, “the just shall live by faith.” This was a message of comfort to a troubled remnant. It is a message of such profound importance that it is quoted in three different places in the New Testament (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). We will do well to meditate on its teachings.

The Historical Situation

The prophet was distressed by the wicked’s conduct and God’s not immediately responding to punish them. “O Lord, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! Even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!” (1:2) Because God did not act, the wicked became more brazened in ungodliness.

God responded to Habakkuk’s plea by announcing the following: “Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you” (1:5). He then proceeded to tell Habakkuk of his intention of bringing the Chaldean nation to destroy Judah because of its sin.

Rather than settling the matter for Habakkuk, this announcement created greater conflict for the prophet. Despite the wickedness which he saw in Judah, he knew that Babylon was more wicked than his mother country. He asked, how can God hold his tongue “when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he” (1:13)?

The prophet awaited God’s response. The Lord commanded him to write his vision on tablets for others to read when the prophesied destruction of Judah came. He then revealed his word, “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith” (2:4).

What Did This Mean?

The word “just” (from tsaddiq) means “just, righteous in conduct and character toward God.” The word “faith” (from emunah) means “firmness, steadfastness, fidelity; faithfulness.” The text is, therefore, saying that the man who will maintain his faithfulness will live (not only survive the calamity, but also maintain his relationship with God, not being separated from God by his sin,[dead in sin]). The prophet responded to this message of hope saying,

When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself, that I might rest in the day of trouble: when he cometh up unto the people, he will invade them with his troops. Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places (3:16-19).

Here is the mountain top of faith. Homer Hailey described Habakkuk’s attitude as follows:

In this verse the prophet includes all means or resources of food and declares that though all fail, he will trust in Jehovah . . The prophet has enumerated every avenue of food peculiar to the Jews; and though all be taken away by the invader, he will continue to put his trust in Jehovah and to joy in Him. Here the peak of faith is reached; here is the faith by which men live. “Jehovah, the Lord, is my strength”; upon this he had learned to depend. The “I Am That I Am” will not fail or forsake him…. Faith is now victorious. The prophet’s questions have been answered and he himself has come through his perplexities a complete conqueror. The faith by which he came through victorious is the faith by which all will triumph (A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, pp. 295-296).

The faith which won the victory for Habakkuk is the faith which has sustained man through his troubles in every age of life. Job relied on such faith when he spoke in the midst of his troubles, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15). He did not know why he was suffering, but he had confidence in the God he worshipped and served.

The New Testament Application

We turn to look at the three places where this passage is quoted in the New Testament: Romans 1: 17; Galatians 3:11; and Hebrews 10:38. The first two may be considered together. In both Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, Paul quoted Habakkuk 2:4 to show that man is justified before God, not on the basis of perfect law keeping, but on the basis of faith. The faith of these passages can only be understood when it takes the rich depth of meaning that is in Habakkuk 2:4. The “faith” of the Protestant dogma of “faith only” (in which a man is saved the moment he accepts Jesus as his personal Savior and in which he cannot fall from grace, resulting in no emphasis on faithful living to stay saved) does not grasp the meaning of either Paul or Habakkuk.

The passage in Hebrews 10:38 has virtually the same context as does Habakkuk. The Christians of Hebrews 10 were witnessing the destruction of the Jewish state and suffering persecution from their own Jewish brethren. The writer exhorted,

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:35-39).

The faith which saves and sustains man is a faith with implicit trust in God that results in persistent obedience to his will, regardless of whether or not one can perceive God’s full intentions at the time of obedience.

Lessons From The Text

1. Don’t allow circumstances to cause us to quit persevering in faithfulness to the Lord. The prophet’s resolve was to trust in the Lord in spite of the adverse circumstances through which he must suffer. Like the prophet, we need a faithfulness to God which will maintain its obedience regardless of what faces us. We need to obey God when our brethren encourage us and when they discourage us; to obey God when multitudes are obeying the gospel and when multitudes persecute us; to obey God in poverty and in wealth, in sickness and in health.

2. God’s purpose is not clearly understood by looking at today’s circumstances. The Lord’s purpose for Israel in the Babylonian captivity was corrective discipline (1:12). Viewing the situation centuries later, a person can see that God’s chastening of Judah resulted in her survival as a nation and people; in contrast, the Babylonian nation was utterly destroyed with no surviving remnant. Jehovah’s disciplining of Judah was an act of his mercy and grace. But, those who lived through the period could not perceive this.

Living in a brief moment of time between two vast eternities, man is incapable of comprehending God’s purposes and plans. He looks at the skirmish; the Lord sees the war. He sees the tree; God sees the forest. Recognizing the limitations on my insight and knowledge should keep me from murmuring against my God. Humbly I should submit to his providential government of the world in full reliance that he knows better than me what is best for mankind.

3. God can use the wicked to accomplish his good purposes. God’s use of the wicked Babylonians shows that God can bring good out of the conduct of wicked men. The wickedness of those who crucified Jesus was used by God to accomplish his purpose of redemption.

4. The knowledge of God’s glory will cover the, earth. In Habakkuk 2:14, the prophet foretold, “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” The passage does not say, “‘For the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord,” but “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.” The actions of God would cause men to know the glory of the Lord. When the Lord rose up to destroy that wicked Chaldean nation, the knowledge of the Lord’s glory filled the earth.

The knowledge of the Lord’s glory has filled the earth in what he has done through his Son, Jesus Christ. His glorious grace, marvelous mercy, and kingly kindness have become known to man through his sending of Jesus Christ to die for our sins.

5. Man should show reverence for God. As the second chapter of the book came to a close, Habakkuk contrasted the deaf and dumb idols with Jehovah. “Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him”(2:19-20).

Our God is a living God! He is not the figment of man’s imagination, myth, or a leftover remnant from an obsolete society. He lives and reigns over his creation! That being so, man should show him reverence: “let all the earth keep silence before him.”

Our assemblies for worship should attest that we hold God in reverence. We come together, not to exalt a preacher or song leader, but to praise God. Our conduct in the assembly should be one of reverence, not characterized by acts of sacrilege.

Conclusion

May we humbly bow in reverence before our God and humbly accept the circumstances in which we live, maintaining our faithfulness to him through them all. May we draw assurance of our ultimate victory from the statement of the prophet Habakkuk: “The just shall live by faith.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 66, 86-87
February 2, 1989

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Earl Irvin West, in Volume 2 of his The Search For The Ancient Order (p. 250), introduces a chapter called “Prophets of Liberalism,” with an astute observation about what he calls “seeds of liberalism”:

Whether in the halcyon days of the restoration there could be found the seeds of the later liberalism that swept the brotherhood, may be doubted. Certainly, however, it can never be questioned that these seeds are discovered buried deep in human nature. There are always those who believe they sense something in the “spirit” of a thing contrary to what may be found in its “letter,” or, who, reacting against what they consider a radical extreme of isolationism devote their energies to popularizing a movement. The restoration period came to know these individuals following the war between the states. The church appeared to them to be too narrow and restricted, and their ambition therefore was to lift the brotherhood to a “dignified church” in a world of denominationalism, commanding at least some respect from these religious bodies.

I believe West correctly assesses the beginnings of liberalism. It is thinking that interpreting and/or applying law to the “letter” is unnecessarily restrictive, exclusive, or even harsh. So, the liberal thinker turns to something called the “spirit of the law” to relax the restrictions and harshness imposed by the “letter.” He may freely admit that the actual wording of the sacred text, strictly applied, would demand a certain thing. However, he appeals to a higher (?) court called “the spirit of the law” for a broader application than the actual wording would permit. Having dismissed the objective “letter,” in favor of the more subjective “spirit,” he can now freely adjust to the situation at hand. In reality, his so called “spirit of the law” is nothing more than his subjective view of what the law should be.

If God’s word does not mean exactly what it says; and if we do not need to follow it exactly, then we are free to believe and do as we jolly well please, which is what a true liberal does, convincing himself that he is justified because he is within the flexible boundaries of the “spirit of the law” – which boundaries he and his liberal cohorts define and redefine as the situation warrants.

It is not unusual for these, “Prophets of Liberalism” to appeal to the Lord and his word to defend their stance. They see our Lord as one more interested in the “spirit” while the Pharisees insisted on the “letter.” They are not at all bashful about comparing modern day “conservatives,” who insist on doing exactly what the text says on every subject, to the Pharisees.

To me, it is the height of absurdity to suggest, as I recently heard one preacher do, that the Pharisees were the “conservative church” of that day who really wanted to do just what the law said. They were no such thing. They demanded that others do exactly what their traditions said, while they themselves would not take their own medicine (cf. Matt. 23:4). Where is the passage where Jesus ever criticized a Pharisee for being hung up on “the letter of the law”? He criticized their hypocrisy, their inconsistency (Matt. 23) and their making void the commandment of God by their tradition (Matt. 15:1-7), but never their strict application of the law itself.

Jesus’ rejection of the Pharisees’ sabbath traditions is freely used to illustrate Jesus’ rejection of the “letter” in favor of the “spirit.” The truth is that the “letter” of the Old Testament did not forbid the kind of things that Jesus and his apostles did on the sabbath. It was the “traditions of the elders” (which were often inconsistently and hypocritically applied) that forbade such things.

Jesus expresses his attitude toward keeping the law to his disciples in the Sermon On The Mount. He not only insisted on personally fulfilling the law down to the smallest letter (jot) and the smallest marking (tittle) (Matt. 5:18), he warned his disciples that by breaking the “least of these commandments” and teaching men so, they would forfeit their entrance into the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:19).

The Bible really says nothing about obeying either the “spirit of law” or “letter of law.” It simply speaks of obedience. Some think they have found a distinction between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law” in 2 Corinthians 3. However, a close look at the chapter should make it clear that two laws are being contrasted rather than two methods of interpreting and/or applying law. Notice verses 6, 7 and 8:

Who also made us sufficient ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives fife. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?

The contrast is between the two Testaments – the Old (v. 14) which was written on stones (the letter) and the New written by the Spirit on the hearts of the apostles. The Old Testament (letter) was ushered in by the letters written and engraved on tablets of stone. The New Testament (spirit) was ushered in by the outpouring of the Spirit, engraving the New Testament on the apostles’ hearts.

The “ministry of the new covenant” (v. 6) or “ministry of the Spirit” (v. 8) or “ministry of righteousness” (v. 9) is contrasted to “the ministry of death” (v. 7) or “ministry of condemnation” (v. 9) or “Old Testament” (v. 14). “The letter” that kills is the same as the “ministry of death” (vv. 6-17), while “the spirit” that gives life is the game as “ministry of the new covenant (testament).”

The rest of 2 Corinthians 3 is given to a contrast between the two covenants or testaments. The contrast is not between two methods or manners of interpreting and/or applying either testament, but a contrast between the two testaments themselves.

The Jew under the old system had to obey its requirements – those that applied both to his outward and inward conduct. The Pharisee often meticulously, to “the letter,” if you please, applied those commands that affected outward conduct without doing the same with those commands that governed his inward conduct. Jesus said that he did what he should have done with the former without leaving the latter undone. We, under the new system, must”‘observe all things” commanded (Matt. 28:18), down to the last letter (cf. Matt. 5:19), that apply to both our inward and outward behavior.

That there are times when we will “miss the mark” (a meaning of the word translated “sin”) and have to ask forgiveness, is admitted by all. We may even at times have to be patient and gentle with others who miss the mark. But that is a far cry from blurring the mark by invoking something called “the spirit of the law” that assumes that we have the liberty to loosely apply what the Book actually says.

Again, I maintain that the idea of “the spirit of the law” is not only not found the New Testament, it is nothing more than a device to set aside what the Bible really says in favor of each man subjectively deciding what the law should say.

The liberal mind may even convince himself he has as much respect for God’s law as anyone, but it is just that he emphasizes the “spirit” rather than the “letter.” But, the New Testament is given in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12, 13). We are to live by “every word of God” (Luke 4:4). If we are not to live by the very wording of the Bible, the “letter of the law,” if you please, then why not just toss the whole thing aside? Then we could decide, from scratch, for ourselves what God’s will should be, without having’to search through the “letter of the law” and then dismissing what we find in favor of the “spirit of the law” as we see it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 67-68
February 2, 1989

By Randy Reynolds

Is Jesus An Angel?

In the mind of a Christian, such a question as this is utterly ridiculous, and without any foundation whatsoever. But to some in the world of religion, it is accepted and proclaimed as though it were true. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses actually believe and teach that Jesus is the first angel that God created. As a matter of fact, they say that Jesus is really Michael, the archangel.

Is this belief or teaching something that is a new doctrine? Did it originate with the Jehovah Witness group? Apparently the answer to both of those questions would have to be no. There seems to be something more than a strong similarity between this denial of Jesus as Deity and what those who believed in Gnosticism concluded many years prior to the Watchtower Society.

As a quick reference to Gnosticism, this writer chose to consider what the College Press Bible Study Textbook Series has to say on Gnosticism in the commentary on Colossians, (pp. 123, 124). The following is a quote taken from that source concerning Gnosticism: “Between God and man there was supposedly a long series of intermediary beings, which were called aeons. Those intermediary beings become less and less spiritual, and more and more material the farther they got from Christ. Christ Jesus was supposedly one of these aeons, a high one evidently. The lowest aeon, called the demiurge was the creator of the earth and material things.”

Let’s examine this question or concern from the Bible to rind out what the truth is. And this should help each one of us to be better prepared when someone comes knocking at our door teaching a doctrine that is not according to the one that was taught by the apostles and other inspired men.

“His Goings Forth Are From Long Ago”

“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel, His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Mic. 5:2). There can be little doubt, that this is a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, especially when we clearly see its fulfillment in Matthew 2:6.

The point that can be established from this writing is this. The prophet Micah says concerning Jesus, that He is “from

the days of eternity.” The Psalmist said the very same thing about Jehovah, using the identical Hebrew word in Psalms 41:13. Simply stated, whatever Jehovah is to eternity or to everlasting, the Son is equal. Thus the Son cannot be created, unless the Father is created. It is a known fact that Jesus was not created because Paul said, “. . . all things have been created by Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16). If Paul’s words are accurate (and they are) Jesus would have to be responsible for having created himself. Also see John 1:1-3.

“The Alpha And The Omega”

“Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him, Even so. Amen. I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:7-8). “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and Hades” (Rev. 1:17-18).

There are at least a couple of points that can be established from these verses written by the apostle John. First, who is it that verse 7 speaks of? Can there by any doubt? Luke records for us that two angels sent from God told Jesus’ apostles that this same Jesus “will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9-11). Second, who does the description fit? Who was it that was pierced and was dead? With all due respect, you don’t have to have the aid of a red-lettered edition to know assuredly that it is Jesus. Hence, it must be accepted that Jesus says concerning himself that he is, “the first and the last, the Almighty.”

Thus the conclusion drawn by Thomas after touching the nail scarred hand and the sword pierced side of the resurrected Lord is absolutely correct. “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God'” (Jn. 20:27-28).

Additional evidence which clearly points to the surety of Jesus’ “Deity” comes from the apostle John’s attempt to worship an angel. John says that the angel told him, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book; Worship God” (cf. Rev. 22:8-9).

These two verses in the Revelation letter and the admonition not to worship an angel, but rather that worship belongs only to God, takes an added significance when considering what the Hebrew writer recorded in Hebrews 1:5-6. “For to which of the angels did He ever say, Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee? And again, I will be the Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me? And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, and let all the angels of God worship Him.” The Hebrew writer affirms for us that, God never did give such a distinction to an angel, and the angels apparently understood this, that’s why they rejected worship. Not only does God demand the angels to worship his Son, but we also see in the New Testament where Jesus rightfully accepted the worship of man (cf. Matt. 2: 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 20:9; Jn. 9:38).

Conclusion

The only conclusion that could possibly be reached by any and all honest Bible students is that the Son and the Father are both “Deity” (cf. Phil. 2:6-7). Jehovah is “self-existent,” “immutable,” “eternal,” the “Almighty,” “absolute holiness,” “righteous,” “merciful,” “loving,” “infinite in knowledge and wisdom,” etc. Whatever Divine attributes Jehovah possesses, Christ also possesses.

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

Other Bible verses could be considered (John 8:58; Ex. 3:14; Isa. 8:13-14; 1 Pet. 2:8; Isa. 42:8; 48:11; Jn. 17:5; Psa. 68:18; Eph. 4:8; Jn. 5:18-23; 14:23; 16:15; 17:8-11; Col. 1:19).

Footnotes

(Note: No corresponding number in body of original documentation.) The 1985 Kingdom Interlinear version reveals that the Greek literally says Jesus is “the God” (ho theos).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 46, 54
January 19, 1989

By R.J. Evans

Much is said in the Word of God, either directly or indirectly, about Christians being knit together. The apostle Paul told the Colossian brethren, “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love . . . and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Col. 2:2,19). A congregation of the Lord should consist of members knit together in the common bond of love and truth, working in harmony together, seeking to build up the cause of Christ. In order for a congregation to be “knit together in love, ” various essential characteristics must be prevalent. Several of these which come to mind at the moment are as follows:

1. The elders must be working together among themselves. In other words, there must be a harmonious relationship among them all. Elders must be communicating with each other. They should be meeting together often, discussing and planning so that they can effectively carry out the important work which has been entrusted to them. The responsibility of overseeing the total work of the local church belongs to the elders. But too often, and in too many churches, elders are doing primarily deacon’s work and the actual work ,of the elders is being left undone and wanting. However, when the work of “serving tables” is given over to the deacons, the elders can then fully concentrate on the spiritual needs of the local church.

In order for elders to truly work together, they all must have a genuine love for the truth. They are bound by the pattern for the church and its work found in the New Testament. They are not at liberty to do as they please (2 Jn. 9). God’s truth and the spiritual good of the local church must at all times have priority over self-will and personal preferences.

Also, in maintaining a spirit of “togetherness” among the elders, there must exist the right attitude and proper respect one for another at all times. This may sometimes involve overlooking such things as minor personality differences, little idiosyncrasies, etc.

But most importantly, elders must be fully qualified for their office. They must not meet some or most of the qualifications – they must meet them all (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1)! Now some may be wider in scope in meeting these qualifications than others. For example, one elder may be able to teach in a public manner more effectively than another. But each elder still must meet every qualification! A congregation is headed for disaster when elders are not qualified and/or if they are not working together. Furthermore, if elders are not “working together” among themselves, there is little hope for the congregation of which they are overseeing to accomplish much “working together.” If, perhaps the congregation does, it is in spite of the elders – not because of them. “And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mk. 3:25).

2. The congregation and the elders must be communicating with one another. This is a two-way street. The elders have a responsibility toward the congregation; the congregation has a responsibility toward the elders. The elders are required to be examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:3), take the oversight (1 Pet. 5:2), take heed to the flock (Acts 20:28), rule well (1 Tim. 5:17), feed the flock (Acts 20:28), and watch for souls (Heb. 13:17). The congregation must know the elders (1 Thess. 5:12), esteem the elders (1 Thess. 5:13), be submissive to the elders (Heb. 13:17), be at peace with one another (1 Thess. 5:13), obey the elders (Heb. 13:17), remember and imitate the elders (Heb. 13:7), and call the elders when in need (Jas. 5:14).

We hear on every hand about the failure to communicate – in government, in the home, in business, and in the Lord’s church. When a congregation is plagued with a communication gap between the elders and members there can be no progress. An atmosphere must prevail where the members feel free to communicate with the elders. Yes, the elders make the final decisions, but avenues of communication need to be open so that the members have opportunities to offer suggestions, ask questions, etc. This, in turn, affords the elders an opportunity to “feel the pulse of the brethren.” The elders must make sure that the congregation is well informed as to what is expected of them and as to what is going on. Elders must guard against leading the members into believing that their work and their decisions are “deep dark secrets.” Effective ways and means must be utilized so that the elders can inform the congregation of their decisions and go over with them the details of their decisions and plans. Each local situation determines what would be the most expedient in accomplishing the aforementioned. Open communication between the congregation and the elders is imperative!

3. Everyone must have a desire to please God, rather than self. Often, in order for the “knit together” atmosphere to prevail, personal preferences and matters of opinion must be kept to ourselves. Where opinionism, radicalism and hobbyism. reign – chaos, confusion, strife and contention results.

A deep abiding love for truth is essential to the genuine spiritual growth of any congregation. Where there is not a sincere desire to please God, we then become susceptible and vulnerable to many evil consequences. When we love not the truth, we can be deceived by unrighteouness (2 Thess. 2:10); we are apt to turn our ears away from hearing the truth (2 Tim. 4:4); we may resist the truth (2 Tim. 3:8); we may speak evil of the truth (2 Pet. 2:2); we may hinder others from obeying the truth (Gal. 5;7); and, last but not least, if we have not a desire for and love for God and his truth, we shall be eternally lost. “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10).

4. Untimely talk and gossip must be eliminated. What has occurred and has been settled in a congregation rive, ten or fifteen years ago is gone, past and should be forgotten. Con tinually bringing up old incidents and problems contributes very little to the up-building of a local church. In fact, it will keep the morale of a congregation at a low ebb, incessantly. Accomplishments which may have taken years of hard work to build up, can be rapidly torn down by a few destructive tongues. Untimely, damaging talk and character assassinations destroy churches! Also, if and when there are occasions to discuss problems and grievances, they must be discussed in a constructive manner, not a destructive one!

Most of the problems which arise among us on a local level usually have their beginning between two individuals. They often become “congregational” problems, prematurely and unnecessarily, because someone has done too much talking. This should not be! We must be guided in these matters strictly by the principles and commands which are set forth in Matthew 18:15-17.

If there is an accusation against an elder, it too, must be handled correctly and scripturally. The apostle Paul told Timothy, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:19-20).

I once heard a bit of advice that I would like to share with you at this point: “We should say nothing about others that we would be unwilling to write out and sign.”

5. There must be a willingness to work on the part of all. We are not working “together” when only two or three are doing all the work. “There is nothing for me to do” is often heard, but it just will not stand. Surely, in the place where you worship, you can visit others, conduct home Bible classes, invite your neighbors to services, and a host of other things. In any local church, there is so much we all can do!

A working congregation is a happy congregation; a happy congregation is a working congregation! Are we working? Are we happy? Are we “knit together in love”?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 41-42
January 19, 1989