Truth Magazine

By R.J. Evans

In Matthew 5:44, Jesus commands, “Love your enemies. ” Viewing this command in its context, Jesus had reference to those who would be considered as “personal enemies,” because they are defined in the parallel command as those “which despitefully use you, and persecute you. ” Hence, the “enemies” here are those who literally hate and do injury to us.

The meaning of this passage often becomes nebulous to many, especially when there is a misunderstanding of the term “love. ” The word “love” in this verse comes from the Greek word agapao. This is love in the “social or moral sense” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 7). To love as commanded in Matthew 5:44 is to do good, or to seek the highest welfare of others. It is in this sense that we are to love our enemies. We may not be able to make the mean criminal, the malicious liar, or the slanderous fellow our close personal friends, but we can love them all, that is, see what they need and work for them for their good. This love is the kind that flows out in deeds of kindness. God is our example in expressing such love, for in the next verse Jesus says, “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). Jesus illustrated this principle of love in that he sought the highest good for his enemies – he even prayed for them while they were crucifying him (Lk. 23:34). The apostle Paul tells us to clovercome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). The kind words Abraham Lincoln expressed toward his enemies often brought him rebukes from some of his friends. One lady said she wondered how he could speak kindly of his enemies, when he should rather destroy them. “But, Madam,” replied Lincoln, “do I not destroy them when I make them my friends?” (The Humorous Mr. Lincoln, Keith W. Jennison, p. 142)

Still another Greek term for “love” in the Scripture is phileo, as is found in John 5:20: “For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.” This love is to “have affection for,” denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling (Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, pp. 75-76). This would be the emotional, passionate love that exists between husband and wife, parents and children, etc. We are not commanded to love our most deadly foe in this sense. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible for me to love my enemies in the same sense I love my wife and children. The point is, though, we are not commanded or expected to love our enemies in that sense. We are commanded to love them in the sense that we seek their welfare and have no ill will towards them.

We often hear it expressed, “Hate a bad man’s actions, but do not hate the bad man.” This simply means we are to hate sin, but not the sinner. You may ask, “How can I hate what a man does and not hate the man?” Has it ever occurred to you that there is one person to whom you have been doing this all your life – namely yourself! No matter how much we detest our own mistakes, faults, such as cowardice, greed, conceit, etc., we go on loving ourselves. There has never been much difficulty in continuing to care for yourself, has it? Can’t the same be true with regard to others? Jesus said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39).

Yes, we can and must obey the Lord’s command to “love your enemies.” It involves our deep concern for their spiritual welfare, blessing and praying for them – even when they do us harm. May the Lord help us “increase our faith” concerning this matter.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, pp. 579, 599
October 6, 1988

By Mike Willis

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good to all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:7-10).

This year has been a disaster for the farmers in the Midwest. Because of a drought at the time corn was tasseling, the crops will produce much less than average yield this year. Some farmers will lose not only a year’s wages, but also the cost of planting their crops. Some will be forced into bankruptcy; others will become disheartened and quit.

Paul used the metaphor of farming in teaching the lesson “whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.” In verse 9 of the text before us, he was concerned that some Christians would become disheartened, like some modern farmers, and quit. Consequently, he exhorted, “Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” Please consider this text with me.

Christians Should Be Busy In Well Doing

Man has a choice regarding how to spend his life. He can use his life to “sow to the flesh” or “sow to the Spirit.” We are free moral beings. However, God’s will is that we devote our lives to sowing to the Spirit. Just as Jesus “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38), Christians should spend their lives doing good. We are created for good works (Eph. 2: 10) and are exhorted to maintain good works (Tit. 1:16; 2:14; 3:1,8).

There is a limited time for sowing to the Spirit, just as farmers have a limited time to plant. Jesus taught as much when he said, “I must work the works of him, that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work” (Jn. 9:4). We have a limited time on earth to sow to the Spirit. There comes a time when it is too late to plant.

Reasons For Persevering In Well Doing

1. You reap what you sow. The eternal reward of heaven, life everlasting, is prepared for those who have spent their lifetime making choices to serve God by doing good. The eternal punishment of hell is reserved for those who have made a lifetime of decisions to sow to the flesh. We need to be reminded that a person cannot live the life of the wicked and die the death of the righteous; he cannot sow to the flesh and reap life everlasting.

2. To glorify God. A person should persevere in doing good in order that God may be glorified. God is glorified by a man’s loyal obedience to his will. Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Our age thinks that God is glorified by mouthing “Praise the Lord.” Religious broadcasters have taught this by example; nearly every other word is “praise the Lord.” One praises the Lord by how he lives. Although there is nothing wrong with saying “praise the Lord” or singing a hymn exhorting us to “praise the Lord,” we need to be reminded that God is praised by our lives.

3. To make the church grow. We need to persevere in well doing to make the church grow numerically and spiritually. If we become disheartened and quit serving God, the church will decrease in size. Many congregations are suffering from disheartened saints who are “keeping house” for the Lord. The result is a dead church which does little or nothing except go through the five acts of worship on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night; even this is done with little enthusiasm and zeal. Such a church cannot influence others to obey the gospel.

4. To secure our own salvation. Paul exhorted, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). My reaping everlasting life is contingent upon my first sowing to the Spirit.

Causes Of Weariness In Well Doing

Despite these facts, saints become weary in well doing. If we can identify some of the causes of becoming weary in well doing, perhaps we can better overcome the temptation to quit sowing to the Spirit.

1. Conflict with the ungodly world. Some people become tired of the continuous conflict with the ungodly world and give up the fight. They surrender to the world. I have experienced this feeling. While attending seminary in Indianapolis, I got tired of the continuous conflict with infidel teachers,who did not believe in miracles, the inspiration of the Bible, hell, etc. I was glad when I completed my degree program so that I would not have to be in that conflict rive days a week.

2. Ingratitude of those we serve. Sometimes we become disheartened because those who serve fail to express appreciation for that service. They are like the nine lepers whom Jesus healed who never returned to express gratitude (Lk. 17:11-19).

3. Indifference of others who should be serving. Some become discouraged and ready to quit because other Christians are not committed to serving. They do not have enough interest to attend Bible class, much less be involved in the work God has given us.

4. The size of the task before us. Sometimes we are reluctant to begin because of the size of the task before us. I have a stack of correspondence which needs to be filed; I have not begun because of how big the stack is. Sometimes when we perceive how much needs to be done in the local church, we hesitate to begin.

5. Opposition to plans to work. Where the local church is successful, the devil will raise up opposition. When this opposition comes, some will quit, not persevering in doing good. Not all opposition comes from without the church; some brethren oppose every suggestion for doing good saying, “This will never work” or “we tried this before and it did not work.”

6. Fatigue. Some experience what has been labeled as “burnout.” Someone observed that 90 percent of the work in the local church is done by 10 percent of the people. Because of the heavy demands on the time of the 10 percent, some quit.

7. Failure to see results. The failure to see positive results causes some to quit. The farmer throws in the towel because the crop did not produce. Christians quit because they do not see any results from their work. First of all, we need to be reminded that the harvest is “the end of the world” (Matt. 13:39) at the “resurrection of the just” (Lk. 14:14). Consequently, we should plant the seed and patiently await the harvest (Jas. 5:7). Secondly, we live among men who have been hardened in their sin by materialism, sensuality, and indifference; our age more nearly resembles that of an Ezekiel (2:3-8; 3:6-9) or Jeremiah than that of the apostles on Pentecost. Consequently, we should not expect to see the same number baptized in our age as they saw in theirs. Thirdly, we need to remember that our job is to plant and water; God’s work is to give the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-9). God does not demand that we baptize a lot of people; he commands us to be faithful (1 Cor. 4:2).

Remedy For Weariness In Well Doing

1. Prayer. If you are becoming weary or have already quit, recognize your sin and confess it to God in prayer. Ask his forgiveness and resolve to quit quitting. Ask God’s help to overcome the temptation to quit.

2. Bible study. The word of God is designed to give us “patience (hupomone. perseverance) and comfort” (Rom. 15:4). If you lack perseverance, you probably have not been feeding your soul the word of God. Recognize that you must feed on God’s word to find the spiritual strength to survive.

3. Brotherly encouragement. One of the purposes of the worship assemblies is “to provoke one another to love and good works” (Heb. 10:24). If you see yourself becoming weary in well doing, do not begin missing the worship assembly. There is never a time that you need the brotherly encouragement of other Christians more than at this time. Dropping out of the worship assemblies is taking yourself away from one of the supports which God has given us to help us persevere. Find a Christian friend to whom you can talk and with whom you can pray, to help you through this time of weariness in well doing.

4. Trust in God’s providence. If the circumstances look unfavorable, accept the present as being in the hands of a just and loving God. God will work out his own will in his own way. My fretting about matters will not change them. I need to busy myself doing God’s will and trust him to control the future.

Conclusion

As Paul concluded his chapter on the resurrection, he exhorted, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal.6:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, pp. 578, 598-599
October 6, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote Bill Humble, The Story of the Restoration (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation, 1969), p. 74.

The most serious issue that churches of Christ have faced in this century is church cooperation and “institutionalism” . . . . a substantial number of churches, have come to oppose such cooperative programs of evangelism as the Herald of Truth and the homes for orphans and aged, as they are presently organized. During the past fifteen years, many debates have been held, churches have divided, and fellowship has been broken. This is the most serious division, numbers-wise, that churches of Christ have suffered. Whether the division is final, or whether it can yet be healed, is yet to be determined.

This assessment of current conditions among Churches of Christ, written by a professor at a “Christian college,” is interesting for a number of reasons.

First, unlike many of his fellow observers, this author seems to take seriously the division among the churches, and seeks to state accurately the cause for it. There is no ridicule, or slander, no attempt to dismiss the division as unworthy of serious attention (as in “anti churches dying on the vine,” “drying up and withering away,” “only a few isolated pockets of anti-ism meeting in run-down buildings,” etc.), so often characteristic of attempts to describe the dreaded “antis.” Of course, thoughtful students recognize that the relative numerical strength or social prominence of a group has little or nothing to do with the validity of positions it may espouse or propound.

Again, the writer is fairer than most in pointing out that the objections of those who oppose the projects described are objections not to the work itself (that is, preaching the gospel or assisting legitimate needy cases) but rather to the organization of such projects currently active among the churches. Though there may be other questions involved (including who is responsible for certain works, who are the proper recipients, poor attitudes, high-handed coercion, blacklisting, ostracism of those who object, etc.), the main objections in this controversy have always been to the manner of organization – centralization of control among the churches, and human institutions encroaching upon the Divine body, the church.

Finally, the author seems to wish almost wistfully for some sort of future resolution to the controversy. It does not require astute perception of the past decades to realize that this is a futile hope, so long as those who promote such projects persist not only in pursuing everything labeled “good works” without any attempt at scriptural justification, but do so in a manner wholly inconsistent with a proper attitude toward those of us who may decline to participate. So long as such conditions exist, unity will be something, unfortunately, only to be written about, rather than actually obtained.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, p. 563
September 15, 1988

By Donald P. Ames

In the fall of 1956, York College (York, Nebr.) opened its doors to the public as a junior college. I had a part in working on the campus to prepare the school, and attended my first two years of college there. Already there was much discussion as to whether York College was a “church school” and whether or not churches would be allowed to contribute to it. I remember the strong (but compromising) stand the school took against church support, declaring the need to make the public understand that the church and school were two entirely separate organizations (and even how upset some of the school officials got when some of the early mail arrived addressed to York Christian College). Yet, because some on the board favored church support and they did not want to turn them against the school, it was written into the By-laws that the school would not accept church contributions (the By-laws can be changed – the charter could not).

During my two years at York College, I had quite a few discussions on what was the work of the church, as I studied my way out of liberalism (not knowing there were others of similar conviction at that time). I also participated in a debate among “preacher students” on whether or not York College was a “church school.” I remember it well, because Roy Lanier was head of the Bible Department and the two of us studied many topics together. He had loaned us his workbook (published by the Gospel Advocate) on the church to help in our opposition to the “church school” concept. We (David Gulley, Ron Anderson and myself) opposed not only church contributions to private colleges, but also rebutted his position on the sponsoring church as well. The discussion did not go very well for those in opposition, and at the end of the discussion they felt called upon to ask brother Lanier for some assistance. He had to back us up – after what we had done to his sponsoring church concept in the discussion. I felt then though that trouble lay ahead for the school on that subject in the future.

Over the years that followed, rumors erupted on several occasions of churches sending funds to the school – some pretty pointed. Dale Larson (then president) replied to such in a letter, flatly denying that the school was accepting church contributions. Finally one day while in Nebraska (having left there after my sophomore year), I got a chance to visit the school and asked brother Larson face-to-face about the obviously contradictory facts. It was then admitted that while the college was not accepting church contributions (“and have even sent some checks back because they were made out to the college”), they were accepting church contributions to the Bible department (that is about parallel to ear-marking a check to the United Fund for the Red Cross and trying to convince yourself you had not sent a contribution to the United Fund. All that does is free up money committed to that department, and hence more is available to the college. The end result is the very same, and you’re only kidding yourself.)

But hard times have hit York College in the last couple of years – financially and otherwise. Many of the teachers were laid off, law-suits were threatened, board members replaced, and other internal struggles contributed to a real crisis. A new board was selected and goals were set to “restore” the college to good standing. In the Christian Chronicle (July 1988) progress is reported as the school sought to put its troubles behind it. “More than $360,000 was raised in a June collection by more than 460 congregations in 36 states,” the article said (emphasis mine – DPA). “Gardner (the new president – DPA) expects proceeds to climb to about $400,000,” it went on to state.

Thus York College apparently has come full cycle and joined the other schools run by the liberals that openly are after church contributions to finance schools. Some people are apparently guided more by “situation ethics” than convictions, and the drift of the school into full liberalism is now well documented. How churches can justify supporting colleges and orphanages under boards separate and apart from the church and still object to contributing to a missionary society organized exactly the same way is beyond me. But, given a little more time and maybe they will be ready to swallow that as well. After all, look at what happened to York College! Brethren, you have drifted!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, p. 567
September 15, 1988