Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Justice demands that judgments be made impartially, treating or affecting all men equally. What is expected of one man is expected of all men. One does not look upon the outward circumstances of a person (for example, the race, religion, or sex) in determining whether or not he has violated the law, should be allowed to cat in a restaurant, should be qualified to run for office, etc. Black Americans were given equal standing before the law only by protest, court decisions, federal interventions, and other influences. Social attitudes gradually have been adjusted to accept equal housing, non-discrimination with reference to jobs, equal access to public facilities, and other matters in which respect of persons was being shown. I am grateful for the improvements which have been made, although I was not always in agreement with the methods used to bring about those improvements.

We are grateful to live in a country which tries to administer justice and provides services for all men without respect of persons. We can be more thankful that our God is-a God who does not accept a man’s person based on his outward circumstances in life. Our God is an impartial God. He is not the God of Calvinism who gives preferential treatment to the “elect.”

God Is No Respecter Of Persons

The early church had to learn that God is no respecter of persons. They had to learn the lesson that both Jew and Gentile stand on an equality before God. Peter discovered this lesson and spoke to the Gentile Cornelius, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35). Paul wrote, “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him” (Rom. 10:12).

The Great Commission was sent to every creature of every nation of the whole world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:47). This was a revolutionary concept to the Jew who considered Samaritans and Gentiles to be “dogs.” Most of us do not appreciate how revolutionary Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 was to the first century Jew; he wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither mate nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

God Forbade Respect of Persons In Civil Judgments

In the Old Testament law of Moses, God specifically forbade judges showing respect of persons in the administration of the law. Moses wrote, “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s” (Deut. 1:17). Showing respect of persons perverted justice, which the law forbade. “Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous” (Deut. 16:19; cf. Prov. 24:23; 28:21; Lev. 19:15; Job 13:10).

The Lord Forbade Respect Of Persons In The Church

The church functions in a society which has racial, social, and other differences. The church cannot create disruption in that society by political revolution. However, within the church, all such distinctions must be laid aside. James condemned showing partiality to the rich over the poor.

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves and are become judges of evil thoughts? (Jas. 2:14)

What is described by James I have witnessed, not on the basis of money, but on the basis of race. When white brethren used to attend black brethren’s meetings, the black brethren invited us to sit in their best pews; when the black brethren visited the white brethren’s meetings, they were given the back pews. We were more influenced by the world than by the word in our treatment of black brethren. We rejoice that these days are behind us.

Nevertheless, not all respect of persons has disappeared among us. We tend to think that more has been accomplished when a doctor, lawyer, or other prominent business man has been converted than when an assembly line worker at some plant has been baptized. Some churches have tended to select prominent business men (who may not be spiritual leaders) to serve as elders, emphasizing the business aspects of the church affairs over spiritual leadership.

Respect of Persons Should Not Be Shown In Exercising Discipline

Paul emphasized that church discipline should be administered without respect of persons. Writing regarding the elders in the local church, he said, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality” (1 Tim. 5:19-21).

An elder must have won the respect and esteem of the congregation before he can be appointed to serve. Now this elder,,has been found guilty of sin. What,,should be done? The apostle commanded that he be treated just like any other member who is guilty of sin.

Unfortunately, church discipline is sometimes not administered even handedly. The sins of one man may be overlooked because he is the son of a prominent member, while those of another are quickly dealt with. Parents sometimes show respect of persons toward their own children, especially in the realm of church discipline. If you doubt this is true, volunteer to go with those who rebuke a wayward child and watch the reaction of the parents. Parents who can see clearly to support church discipline toward other members sometimes lose their vision with reference to their own children. If these parents are allowed to dominate church affairs, church discipline will be administered poorly, without impartiality.

False Teachers Must Be Rebuked Without Showing Respect of Persons

False teaching must be rebuked without respect of persons. This was demonstrated in Galatians 2 with reference to whether or not circumcision was essential for salvation. Jewish brethren were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved. Those holding this position were “of reputation” (2:2); they “seemed to be somewhat” (2:6). The “truth of the gospel” was at stake (2:5). Paul’s attitude was this: “whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepted no man’s person” (2:6). Therefore, he contended for the truth of the gospel, even though he had to oppose those who were highly esteemed in the church.

The issue came to a showdown at Antioch. Peter was preaching in Antioch, participating in table fellowship with Gentiles, until certain Jews from Jerusalem arrived in Antioch. When they came, Peter withdrew from the Gentile Christians and even Barnabas was influenced by Peter’s hypocrisy. There was probably no man in the early church more influential than Peter when this occurred. Read of Paul’s conduct toward him on this occasion:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal. 2:11-14)

Paul was not influenced by the stature of Peter to ignore his false teaching and hypocritical conduct. Criticism from faithful brethren (such as, “Paul is just trying to make a name for himself”) did not stop him from confronting Peter. He saw the impact of Peter’s teaching and example upon other Christians. The very fact that Peter was the one guilty of the false teaching and sin made the situation that much more critical. He would influence others much more than some lesser known and respected brother would influence them.

From Paul’s example, we learn that false teaching much be opposed without respect of persons. If the most influential man of our day is teaching something which is false, he must be opposed. Our allegiance is to Christ and the truth of the gospel, not to some man, paper, or school. The very fact that the man teaching the false doctrine is highly respected and influential necessitates that he be opposed to stop the spread of the false doctrine in order “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

One of the most refreshing attributes of my brethren is their allegiance to the truth. My assessment of my brethren is that they are committed to the truth, not to this paper, a school, or some man. If my brethren can be shown that some man is teaching a false doctrine, they will oppose that man and his false doctrine regardless of what his stature may be. They will oppose that false doctrine regardless of whom they may be standing against. If they must stand alone in defense of the truth, they will stand because their commitment is to the truth, not the man.

Conclusion

I am thankful that I have brethren who are even handed in their rebuke of sin and error. Their even handedness is one of the things that God uses to keep me in the pathway of righteousness. If and when I stumble into sin and/or teach false doctrine, these brethren will call me back to the way of truth and righteousness that my soul may be saved from damnation (Jas. 5:19-20). They are not of the number who are so afraid of hurting my feelings that they pat me on the back, tell me what a great man I am, and sit in silence while my sin leads me to damnation. I am grateful for the spiritual brethren who care enough for my soul to rebuke my sin (Gal. 6:1). These spiritual, godly brethren are willing to withstand criticism from my “friends” in order to save my soul. May God increase their number and strengthen their hands.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, pp. 674, 693-694
November 17, 1988

By Lewis Willis

I guess most Americans have been as frustrated as I over hijacking of aircraft. The mentality of the modern terrorist is difficult to understand. It seems apparent to me, at least, that the difficulty in dealing with this matter is the traditional difficulty that comes when civilized people try to deal with those who are uncivilized. There have been many examples of the uncivilized behavior of these Shiite terrorists, as well as the other terrorists the world has recently encountered.

To illustrate what I mean, one morning one of the hostage crewman aboard a TWA plane became ill. They contacted the control tower from the plane and told the tower they needed a doctor. However, all of the major news networks said they gave instructions to the doctor to “keep his mouth shut” and not talk to the press about the matter or they would “cut out his tongue or make his wife a widow.” I was appalled at the mentality of such people. I can scarcely imagine a more brutal act than to cut out someone’s tongue. This demonstrates the barbarian nature of those terrorists. I think most people in the world, because of such words and deeds, realize how difficult it is for our government to deal with such people.

However, as I thought about this, I realized that I had heard of the removal of a person’s tongue in quite a different context. It is as barbaric in this context as it is with those hijackers.

Here is where the brutal, monstrous, horrid, shocking thought was first introduced to me. It is found in the rules of the masonic temples all over the country! As a person enters Masonry he passes through three Degrees. Each of these degrees symbolize achievement and understanding of the principles and ideals of Masonry. Some of this information is secretly given to the initiate. When those secrets are given to the person, he takes a vow that he will not divulge those secrets and it is here that there is a comparison between Masonry and the terrorist hijackers of that TWA plane.

The first degree for the Mason is the Entered Apprentice at, Degree. He solemnly swears that he will in no way reveal any of the secrets and then he swears, “All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution, to keep and perform the same without any equivocation, mental reservation or secret evasion of mind whatever, binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots and buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly violate this my solemn obligation of an Entered Apprentice Mason. So help me God, and keep me in the due performance of the same” (Handbook of Freemasonry, by Edmond Ronayne, p. 70).

In the next degree, the Fellow Craft Degree, he swears to keep the secrets, “. . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my breast torn open, my heart plucked out and given as a prey to the wild beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air” (Handbook of Freemasonry, by Edmond Ronayne,.p. 123).

The vow of the last degree, the Master Mason’s Degree, he says, ” . . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in twain, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, and the ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven, that no trace or remembrance may be had of so vile and perjured a wretch as I, should I ever knowingly violate this my solemn obligation as a Master Mason. So help me God and keep me in the due performance of the same” (Handbook of Freemasonry, by Edmond Ronayne, p. 173).

I was just thinkin, isn’t it strange that some Christians will get all worked up over some terrorists threatening to cut somebody’s tongue out but he turns around and, in order to become a Mason, he vows that he will let his be torn out if he ever reveals the secrets of the Lodge. Why wouldn’t the deeds by Masons be as barbaric as those by terrorists? And, how in the world can a Christian involve himself in such nonsense?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 21, p. 659
November 3, 1988

By David J. Halter

I. Introduction:

A. A perfect analogy for the church.

1. “Winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing”?

2. Society today places too much emphasis on winning at the cost of spiritual values.

3. If an athletic coach does not win, he loses his job.

4. “Quitters never win and winners never quit!”

B. Our lesson:

1. Old and New Testament winners and quitters.

2. Attributes of a winner and a quitter.

3. Applications for Christians and the church.

II. Discussion:

A. Bible quitters:

1. Lot’s wife (Gen. 19:26; Lk. 17:31).

2. The unfaithful spies (Num. 13:31-33).

3. Some of Jesus’ disciples (Jn. 6:60-66).

4. Demas (2 Tim. 4:10; Col. 4:14; Phile. 24).

5. Judas (Jn. 13:18-27; Matt. 26:14-16,20-25; 27:3).

B. Bible winners:

1. Joshua and Caleb (Num. 13:30; 14:7-10).

2. David (1 Sam. 17:45-51).

3. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 3:14-19,25,27).

4. Paul (2 Tim. 4:6-8).

5. Apostles (Acts 4:18-20; 5:28-29).

C. Characteristics of a loser, quitter:

1. Always negative, can’t be done attitude (Num. 13:31).

2. Excuse hunters (Prov. 20:4; 26:13; Lk. 14:15-24).

3. Blames failures on others (Gen. 3:12,13; 1 Kgs. 18:17-18).

4. Refuses to face problems (Jon. 1:1-3).

5. Cannot make up his mind, hesitates (Gen. 19:15-16).

6. Procrastinates and puts off (Acts 24:24-25).

7. Wilts under pressure (Matt. 13:20,21).

D. Characteristics of a winner:

1. Always positive, can be done attitude (Num. 13:30; Phil. 4:13).

2. Never hunts an excuse, sees what needs to be done and sets about to get it done (Gen. 42:1,2).

3. Is not afraid to fail, does not blame mistakes upon others, accepts full responsibility for own actions (Prov. 24:16).

4. Faces up to problems, does not run away from them (Psa. 11:1).

5. Does not hesitate when knowledge of the truth is his (Acts 8:36-38).

6. Does not procrastinate and put off, recognizes that today is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2).

7. Comes shining through when under pressure, persecution (Acts 21:11-15).

E. Applications for the church, Christians:

1. Many who quit going to church or who change congregations every few years manage to blame someone in the church.

2. Many who do not attend the services of the church faithfully are excuse hunters:

a. I was too tired, we got in late last night.

b. Company came to the house, and I did not want to embarrass them by leaving for church.

c. I don’t like the way the preacher preaches, he steps on my toes all the time.

d. The seats are too hard (I actually heard this one! – DJH).

e. The building is too cold, hot, etc.

f. I’m too ashamed to go, I know I am in sin and my conscience bothers me because I know I’m I wrong.

3. Many are like the prodigal son who wasted his substance in riotous living, too busy in pleasure.

4. Winners, however, plan their time around the Lord’s kingdom:

a. Such as company coming; wonder why company never come between some folks and church (Jn. 1:45)?

b. Never too tired to go to worship (2 Pet. 2:2).

5. Winners are always the ones to be depended on to support meetings, church discipline, visiting, teaching, etc.

F. Conclusion:

1. What are you? A winner or a quitter?

2. Truly winners never quit, and quitters never go to heaven!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 21, p. 660
November 3, 1988

By R.J. Evans

How many times have you reasoned, “I’d be happy, if only. . . “? And then the dream usually continues with “if only I had more money,” or “if only I had married someone else, ” or “if only I had more friends, a better education, a better job,, a bigger house, better health, etc. The breakthrough into happiness for many hinges upon those two words, “if only.”

What Is Your Concept?

Most of those of the world have little trouble coming up with their own formula for happiness. It usually consists of wealth, status and power, and freedom from frustration of any kind. If this is similar to what you have conjured up in order to be happy, then you need to consider whether this is a worthwhile goal or not. The best way to find out is to consider others who have lived in such conditions. King Solomon is a prime example of one who “had everything.” According to 2 Chronicles 6-9, Solomon had enough wealth to make some of our modern-day “tycoons” seem like paupers.

Consider Solomon’s Wealth

On a yearly basis, Solomon received six-hundred sixty-six talents of gold (2 Chron. 6:13), “besides that which chapman and merchants brought. And all the kings of Arabia and governors of the country brought gold and silver to Solomon” (2 Chron. 6:14). Six-hundred sixty-six talents of gold would be about 960,000 ounces. Comparing that with today’s standards (say at $300 per ounce) it would amount to something like $288,000,000.

There was no need for Solomon to purchase certain items. He made two hundred targets of beaten gold and three-hundred shields made of beaten gold (2 Chron. 9:15-16). His throne was made of ivory, overlaid with pure gold – “There was not the like made in any kingdom” (2 Chron. 9:17-19). All of the drinking vessels of King Solomon were made of gold, in fact, “none were of silver; it was not any thing accounted of in the days of Solomon” (2 Chron. 9:20).

In 2 Chronicles 9:21-22, we read of Solomon importing finery from all parts of the world. Then, those who visited him, seeking his wisdom, brought “vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, harness, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year” (2 Chron. 9:23-24). When the Queen of Sheba came “to prove Solomon with hard questions,” she brought spices, gold in abundance, and precious stones (2 Chron. 9:1-2).

But wealth was not everything. The Bible says that Solomon “loved many strange women” (1 Kgs. 11:1). Of course, this is an understatement, for “he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kgs. 11:3). A total of a thousand women!

But Was Solomon Happy?

Being king, Solomon could do just about anything he desired, and that is precisely what he set out to do. He wrote about this in the book of Ecclesiastes. He experimented with almost everything under the sun, but this non-stop entertainment grew tiresome (Eccl. 2:1); he mentions drinking wine (Eccl. 2:3); he built elaborate houses, temples, vineyards, gardens, etc. (Eccl. 2). He stated, “So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. And whatever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labor: and this was my portion of all my labor” (Eccl. 2:9-10).

In consideration of the aforementioned, one would be almost certain that Solomon was a very happy man. But was Solomon genuinely happy? Unfortunately, Solomon was miserable. “Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit” (Eccl. 2:17).

Consider Paul

At this point another man comes to mind who, to some, would have had every right in the world to be miserable. This man is the apostle Paul. At times he had to go back to his old trade of tent making. He did much traveling under adverse conditions by foot or by ship. His life was one of constant danger. Paul catalogs many of his sufferings, perils and anxieties in 2 Corinthians 11:24-28. Also, there was a great deal of worldly honor given up by Paul “for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:4-11). Then, on top of all that, Paul had what he referred to as a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7).

Yet Paul Was Happy

True abiding happiness is not derived from earthly wealth, position, sexual freedom, or unlimited power. Paul was a contented man. A “contended” man is a “happy” man! “Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am therewith to be content” (Phil. 4:11). “Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice” (Phil. 4:4).

Did Paul know something about happiness that Solomon didn’t? No, Solomon knew the basic formula for happy living, but he ignored it and it literally ruined his life. As an old man, reflecting over the wasted years, he gave wise advice to the young “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw night, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them” (Eccl. 12:1). Then his closing words, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). And these same principles, if you obey them, can make you happy, no matter what your situation in life may be. If you choose to ignore these principles, then the results will be otherwise.

Conclusion

Christians can be happy! Christians should always be happy! What an occasion for rejoicing a Christian has with all the joys and blessings that are ours as children of God. We enjoy all the spiritual blessings which are in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:3). We enjoy the peace of God which passes all understanding (Phil. 4:4-7). Happiness is obeying and faithfully serving God. If you have not yet obeyed the gospel of Christ, we encourage vou to do so now.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 20, pp. 627-628
October 20, 1988