Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

By faith Mom, when he was come to years, refund to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures In Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who Is invisible (Hell. 11:24-27).

“Joseph came a slave in Egypt, and rose from the prison-house to a place next the throne; Moses was adopted into the royal family in infancy, and had a place next the throne, but was driven from this into exile. Joseph was tried in the furnace of affliction, and thus prepared to enjoy prosperity; Moses was tried in the more perilous environment of high prosperity, and thus prepared to endure affliction” (Isaac Errett, Evenings With The Bible, Vol. 1, p. 167).

One of the Old Testament heroes of faith is Moses. Esteemed as the lawgiver of the Old Testament, he became the antitype of the Messiah (Deut. 18:15-19). The faith of Moses was demonstrated by his decision to renounce his association with the Egyptians in order to be a deliverer of his people, the enslaved Israelites.

Moses’ Birth and Early Life

Four hundred years before Moses’ birth, the children of Israel had moved to Egypt under the protection of Joseph in order to survive the famine. God was working in his providence to protect the Israelites from assimilation into the Canaanite culture and religion (see Gen. 38 for a picture of the threat to the nation). Consequently, the Israelites moved to Egypt where they were isolated in Goshen, protected geographically from assimilation into Egyptian culture; as shepherds they were held in abomination by the Egyptians (Gen. 43:32; 46:34), protecting them from social intermingling with the Egyptians. Isolated to themselves, the Israelites were allowed to grow and develop into a nation without being assimilated into the culture of the people among whom they lived.

After a period of time, a new dynasty arose in Egypt which reduced the Israelites to slavery. They were fearful that the numerous Israelites might join the enemies of Egypt should a war occur; consequently, steps were taken to reduce the reproduction of the Israelites. The Pharaoh commanded the midwives of the Hebrews to slay any male babies which should be born. The midwives feared God more than modern abortionists, so they refused to slay the male babies (Exod. 1: 17). When Pharaoh saw this attempt to reduce the reproduction of the Israelites fad, he issued a decree requiring the Israelites themselves to cast every male child into the river (Exod. 1:22).

Moses was born while this decree was in effect. For three months, his mother hid him in disobedience to the Pharaoh’s decree because she perceived that he was a goodly child (Exod. 2:2). When Moses was three months old, his mother Jochebed put him in an “ark” (perhaps in remembrance of the deliverance of Noah) and set him afloat on the river near the place where the Pharaoh’s daughter bathed. His sister Miriam hid and watched to see what would occur.

When Pharaoh’s daughter came to bathe, she spotted the basket and had one of her attendants bring it to her. When she opened the basket, Moses cried; she had compassion on him. She realized that he was a Hebrew baby and knew what had happened. Miriam approached the Pharaoh’s daughter and asked, I ‘Shall I so and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?” (Exod. 2:7) Pharaoh’s daughter consented and she brought Moses’ mother. Pharaoh’s daughter then agreed to pay Moses’ mother wages to raise her own child. Moses was raised by his mother Jochebed probably until he was weaned at which time he was taken to Pharaoh’s daughter and became her son. She named him Moses because she drew him out of the river.

Moses’ Choice

When Moses was forty years old, he made a choice to renounce his ties with the Egyptian people and become identified with Israel. The decision reached fruition when he saw an Egyptian beating an Israelite slave. After Moses saw that no one was watching, he killed the Egyptian, thinking his own people would perceive that he was ready, willing, and anxious to deliver his people from Egyptian bondage (Acts 7:25). Without a call from God, Moses was ready to take the role of deliverer upon himself. Isaac Effett commented, “When God has a great work for men to do, he takes time to prepare them for it. Moses thought himself ready at forty; and most young Americans would be insulted if it were insinuated that they could not be ready at half that age’, (Evenings With The Bible, Vol. I, p. 165). Forty more years passed before God appeared to Moses commanding him to deliver his people from Egyptian bondage.

Two days later he saw two Israelites fighting and tried to separate them, rebuking the one wh6 did wrong. He replied, “Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? Intendest thou to kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian?” (Exod. 2:14) Moses realized his own people rejected him as a deliverer and that Pharoah would punish him with death for his crime. Consequently, he fled the country.

Moses’ Choice Was Costly

When one comes to a fork in the road, a choice of which road to take must be made. Indecision cannot be a choice; the result is as disastrous spiritually as it is physically when someone straddles the median rather than turning right or left. In making his choice to stand with his people, Moses gave up political and social position. He went from “son of Pharoah’s daughter” to “slave.” Wars have been fought by men seeking to gain what Moses voluntarily renounced. He gave up the pleasures of sin and the treasures of Egypt. Clovis Chappell remarked, “Here is a man facing a road that he knows will lead him to suffering, to agony, to disappointment, to battle and conflict and tears. Yet, with his eyes wide open, he makes the choice” (Sermons On Old Testament Characters, pp. 74-75).

How Moses Made His Choice

The external circumstances under which Moses lived did not contribute to his choice. His surroundings were hostile; the affluence of the court did not contribute toward his uiaking the right choice. Everything visible on the Hebrew side was forbidding. Nevertheless, he made the right choice.

Moses made the right choice because he had a clear eye for distinguishing right and wrong. He knew the limitations in joy which the pleasures of sin can produce (Heb. 11:25 – “for a season”). He had a keen eye for the real value of things. He looked beyond the temporary joy of immediate gratification of sensual pleasures to see the eternal happiness of service to God. He was willing to experience suffering for the time being in order to take hold of the eternal reward (Heb. 12:2).

The Outcome of His Decision

Because of his choice, Moses received the reward of a Christ-like character. He did not allow his moral character to dissipate by participating in the sins common to men of his age. Instead, he renounced sin and worked to develop moral character. Because of his choice, Moses rendered a great service to his people Israel and became known as the great deliverer of his people. No name of an Israelite leader exceeds that of Moses until Christ Jesus. Because of his choice, Moses received the reward of heaven as exemplified by the comments made in Hebrews 11:24-25 and his appearance with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration. Isaac Errett spoke the truth when he wrote, “Standing by Moses in Egypt, his choice may seem to be foolish and absurd; but standing by the glorified Moses, on the Mount of Transfiguration, we know that his choice was the only wise one” (op. cit., p. 165).

Conclusion

Moses is not the only man to face a fork in the road of his life, to be requried to choose whether to stand with God or with Satan. The same choice is faced by every man. From the example of Moses’ choice, let us be reminded to look beyond the temporary pleasures which sin can provide to the eternal reward of righteous living.

Moses recognized, as does every man, that sin produces some pleasure. There is sensual gratification in adultery and fornication, stealing, revenge, etc. but that gratification is short-lived. The time of the enjoyment of the pleasures of sin will end, if not during life, then certainly at death. What is left then is reaping the harvest of having shown to the flesh – eternal damnation, separated from the presence of God and in torment forever. There is no temporary pleasure which sin can produce which is worth what it costs! Moses saw that and I esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt.” Moses had 20/20 vision. Do you?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 21, pp. 642, 661
November 3, 1988

By Wayne Greeson

And, behold, a certain member of the Bible class spoke up, and tempted him, saying, “Preacher, must I attend all assemblies of the church to inherit eternal life?” The preacher said unto him, “What is written in the Bible? How readest thou?” And he answering said, “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:24-25).

And the preacher said unto him, “Thou hast answered right: this do, obey God and thou shalt live.” But the member, willing to justify himself, said unto the preacher, “And does this include Sunday and Wednesday night?”

And the preacher answering said, “A certain man went down from Nashville to Atlanta, and it being a Wednesday night, he began to seek out a church with which he could gather, fellowship and study. And as he had no transportation, he began to call certain ones for a ride to Bible study. And by chance he called a certain elder of a near by church: and when the elder heard his request, he apologized and explained that his children had a school function that night and he himself would not be going to Bible study. And likewise a preacher of another church, when he was called, listened and heard him, and excused himself as the church there stopped having a midweek Bible study.

But as the saddened Christian was on the verge of despair, he called a certain church and got hold of lowly member cleaning the building. And as the lowly member listened, he knew right where the traveling Christian was staying. And when he heard him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bought him dinner, pouring him coffee and ice water, and set him in his own car, and brought him to the Wednesday night Bible study and introduced him to all the other members present.

And on the morrow, when the traveling Christian departed, the lowly member took some time out to take the Christian to breakfast, and gave him a hearty farewell, and said unto him, “Take care of thyself; and whenever thou come back, I will come again and I will be glad to pick thee up.”

And then the preacher said, “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, truly provoked unto love and to good works and exhorted him that visited from another city?” And the member said, “He that shewed mercy on him, picked him up and took him to Bible study.” Then said the preacher unto him, “Go, and do thou likewise” (see Luke 10:25-37 and Heb. 10:24-25).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 20, p. 628
October 20, 1988

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: In Philippians 4.13 Paul wrote, “I can do all thins in him that strengtheneth me. ” Does that mean that Paul could keep himself out of jail, avert physical death, sustain himself by turning water into wine (grapejuice) and multiplying fishes and loaves just as Jesus did? Please explain what Paul is teaching in this verse.

Reply: First, we need to see that the word “all” which appears in the Scriptures is often United. For example, “for all have sinned, and all fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 2:23). The word “all” in this verse is limited to those who are mentally capable and morally responsible. Infants have never sinned because they are not morally responsible. The word “all” is limited in Romans 8:28: “And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.” The word “all” here is limited to the things in the context of the verse. Paul does not include the devil and his work in the “all things.” Sinful acts do not work together for good. So, the word “all” in this verse has to be taken in a United sense. To what do the “all things” refer? They refer to the things Paul has mentioned: the redemption does not include everybody without limitation. To include every deed and every circumstance of our lives in the “all things” is to miss the whole train of thought (see vv. 17-27, etc.). The “all” things work together for good only to (1) those who love God, and (2) those who are called according to his purpose. These are the ones mentioned in the verse. Those who love God are those who keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15; 1 Jn. 5:2), and those who are called are those who have been called by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14); that is, those who have responded to it by obeying it (Acts 2:41, etcJ. This calling through the gospel and our response to it is referred to in 2 Timothy 1:9: “who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ.”The word “all” is limited in 1 Corinthians 9:22 where Paul said of himself: “I am become all things to all men.” Did Paul mean that he became anything (without limitation) to all men? Certainly not. Paul was simply saying that he complied with customs as a matter of expediency, if there was no sacrifice of truth. In other words, he could forego his personal rights and liberty, provided no principle of truth was violated or compromised.

The word “all” (Gr. pantas) in 2 Corinthians 9:13 is limited. The ministering to needy saints is the subject under consideration in this chapter (v. 1). This point is important to determine the context of verse 13. Paul wrote in verses 12 and 13: “For the ministration of this service not only filleth up the measure of the wants of the saints, but aboundeth also through many thanksgivings unto God; seeing that through the proving of you by this ministration they glorify God for the obedience of your confession unto the gospel of Christ, and for the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all.” Those who teach that a church is scripturally authorized to do unlimited benevolence seize upon the phrase, “unto them and unto all,” and conclude that the “all” are those (non-Christians) in addition to needy saints. The phrase “all men” in the King James Version is in italics and is therefore not in the Greek. To determine who are the “all” in verse 13, it is very important to note that the word “contribution” (ASV), “distribution” (KJV) is translated from the Greek noun koinonia, “fellowship.” The fellowship extended, then, is “unto them and unto all. ” The noun koinonia is found nineteen times in the Greek New Testament, and never denotes a communion or relationship of Christians with non-Christians. The meaning of pantas (all) is therefore obviously limited. “All” refers to other saints, saints in addition to those in Jerusalem. If “all” is to be interpreted to mean “all men” without limitation, then we cannot imagine how sizeable that contribution must have been! It would have been a contribution large enough to be extended to every man upon the face of the earth. The idea of the phrase “unto them and unto all” is that the “fellowship” contribution went to “them” (the poor among the saints in Jerusalem, Rom. 15:26), and beyond them it went “all” Jewish saints, creating thanksgiving and good will upon their part toward the Gentiles for their contribution of thoughtfulness and generosity. These are but a few examples where the word “all” is limited.

The word “all” in Philippians 4:13 is also limited. Paul wrote: “I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me. This is not an outburst of egotism. He is not saying that he can take a deep breath and jump to the moon, avert physical hunger and death; but rather, as we have seen in other passages, the statement must be kept in context. Thayer says that the plural panta, translated “all things” is: “of a certain definite totality or sum of things, the context showing what things are meant” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 493). What Paul is saying is this: regardless of the circumstances in which he found himself (such as those described in vv. 10-12), by the help of God he could accomplish what God wanted him to do.

When we keep the text in context, we will avoid wild speculations and fanciful notions.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 21, p. 645
November 3, 1988

By Donald P. Ames

In John 9:31 we read, “Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, he hears him.” This passage has been frequently referred to by some to prove God will not hear the prayer of a non-Christian. (Possibly it was once so used in a debate against the “mourner’s bench” concept – I do not know.) But such is not the idea of this passage, and this we shall try to demonstrate in this study.

First of all, the Jews said, “We know.” They did not say “We think” or “in our opinion.” Now how did they “know” this? It had to come from God’s word (O.T.), so this ought to help us understand the basis for their statement and what they “knew.” Turning back to Proverbs 28:9 we read, “One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination. ” This statement was made to the Jews regarding their own actions. Again, in Isaiah 1: 15 God told the Jews that “when you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood” (see also Psa. 34:15; 66:18). This served as the basis for what the Jews “knew” in John 9:31.

In these passages there is no parallel to the argument made by some today that John 9:31 proves God will not hear the prayer of a non-Christian. For that to be so, God would have had to tell the Jews (his people) that he would hear their prayers, but would refuse to hear the prayers of a Gentile. God did not state such, and in Jonah 3:7-10 we have a clear example where he heard such, which refutes any such argument from these passages in the O.T.

In each of the passages in the O.T., God did not hear the prayers offered by the Jews (his own people!) because of their sins and rebellion. The Gentiles are not even mentioned in these passages! It was based on this information that the Jews condemned Christ in John 9:31. Note the accusations: “He does not keep the sabbath” (9:16), “He is not from God” (9:16), “This man is a sinner” (9:24), he was not a disciple (follower) of Moses (9:28). He was also accused of being a deceiver (7:12), being a Samaritan, having a demon (8:48) and being guilty of blasphemy (10:33; 5:18). Thus, to them he was indeed a rebellious, disobedient “sinner” who could not possibly expect to be heard by God, per the plain statements in the O.T.

Now let us also note some other passages. In Acts 10:2 Cornelius was praying to God. His prayer came to God’s attention (10:4) and “has been heard” (10:31).

We do not know what Cornelius was praying for, but it was not for salvation, as he did not yet even know he was lost! Again in Acts 9:11, God told Ananias Paul “is praying.” He had been heard! This is not “mourner’s bench” salvation nor is salvation offered to a non-Christian on the basis of prayer. Yet the facts are very plain that both men, non-Christians, were praying and had been heard!

Some argue these two were “special cases.” Why? Is God a respector of persons (Rom. 2:11)? Or is it that they have assumed an argument (contrary to the O.T. basis and to the context of John 9:31) and this is the only way to escape the obvious statements found in Acts 9 and 10 that so plainly contradict their conclusions.

Note this fact also: the statement in John 9:31 was not based on the belief Jesus was a Gentile and hence had no access to God (as some try to argue about non-Christians). They knew he was a Jew (John 7:41). They accepted him therefore as a “child of God.” But though such, he was branded as a “sinner” – of such low character that God would not even be interested in the prayers of such a rebellious person – and they had the O. T. to prove it! Again, there is no way to fit this case to the argument God will not hear any prayer of a non-Christian.

The truth is that the “sinner” of John 9:31 is not at all talking about a non-Christian (or a Gentile), but of a “child of God” (as in the O.T.) who would not even listen to the law of God. He would not “worship” God or “do his will.” He had no right, such being the case, to expect God to listen to him. These conditions are necessary today even if a Christian expects to be heard by God (read 1 Jn. 3:22). This was the frame of mind of the “sinner” who went down justified in Luke 18:13-14. This same reverence and submissiveness was also apparent in the attitudes of the “sinners” who were heard in Acts 9 and 10.

The true parallel to John 9:31 is found in 1 Peter 3:7, where a Christian (a child of God – parallel to the Jews of the O.T.) is told if he doesn’t treat his wife right (as told by God), God will not hear his prayers (and Psa. 34 is quoted as evidence in 1 Pet. 3:12!).

Let us beware that we do not make false arguments to reply to false positions, and thus reach other false conclusions. Keeping the statement in John 9:31 in its proper context will make it much easier to understand correctly – and to apply properly.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 20, p. 613
October 20, 1988