Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

“Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5:14-15).

The preceding verses raise several questions. What is the sickness? Is it physical or spiritual? Why call for the elders? What is the significance of anointing with oil? What is the prayer of faith? On what basis are the sins forgiven of those who are sick? Do these verses apply today? We will endeavor to briefly answer these questions.

Various Views

Several schools of thought are espoused as to the correct interpretation of these passages.

1. The Catholic position is that James is teaching extreme unction. They tell us that extreme unction is a sacrament through which the priest, by prayer and anointing with oil, gives comfort, strength and forgiveness to the soul of the dangerously ill. Unction means anointing or rubbing with oil and this anointing is called extreme or last.

But James said “call for the elders” – not the “priest.” Too, nothing is said about anointing those in preparation of death, but rather anoint those who are sick and the prayer of faith shall save them or make them well. The anointing was toward life, not toward death. Furthermore, the doctrine of extreme unction came along centuries after James penned his epistle.

2. Some claim that spiritual sickness is under consideration. In other words, the person is guilty of sin. But James says of the sick, “if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” The “if” indicates that the sick person may not be guilty of sin. However, the individual to be visited by the elders was sick. Hence, the sickness was not sin.

3. A few maintain that the sickness is weariness of heart. There are two Greek words translated “sick” in these texts. In v. 14 the word is astheneo and in v. 15 it is the word kamno. Though these words can mean “to be weary and despondent in spirit,” the thought there is physical illness.

Arndt and Gingrich define astheneo, “of bodily weakness be sick, and list James 5:14 under the definition (A GreekEnglish Lexicon, p. 115). Thayer says of the same word, “Specially of debility in health . . . simply, to be feeble, sick” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 80). Both lexicons define kamno, “to be sick, be ill.” We conclude that bodily, corporal sickness is intended.

4. A very prevalent view is that miraculous healing was the reason for calling the elders. Guy N. Woods wrote: “It seems quite clear from all the facts in the case that the elders contemplated here were miraculously endowed . . . and were thus enabled to participate in miraculous healing in the manner described” (James, p. 303). Concerning the “anointing” Woods said: “It appears quite clear here that the use of oil was symbolic, and not medicinal; and thus served as a token of the power of God by which healing was accomplished” (p. 301).

5. Another view is that James Is referring to ordinary prayer and the use of oil as a medical means or as a custom. H.E. Phillips wrote: “There is nothing in this passage that indicates the need for miraculous powers on the part of elders in performing their duty. The example which James gives points out the fact that the elders of the church were expected to visit those in need and administer to their needs, either physically or spiritually. . . . Oil was normally used for medicine and would not indicate a miracle in the use of it here” (Scriptural Elders and Deacons, p. 208).

Personal Conclusion

Of the five above positions, only the last two have any merit. The first one, extreme unction, is totally unscriptural. The second position, spiritual healing, is untenable as already shown. The third point, weariness of heart, does not meet the definition of the word “sick.” Of the latter two, it is difficult, if not impossible, to be absolutely sure which one is correct. However, the weight of the evidence makes number five more plausible to me. The reasons are:

1. There is nothing in the text that forces an interpretation of miraculous healing. Though there was a miraculous endowment of faith (1 Cor. 12:9), one has to assume that the “prayer of faith” is that particular gift. The “prayer of faith” could well be the “asking in faith, nothing wavering” (Jas. 1:6).

2. It is assumed that elders had the gift of healing. Nowhere is this taught in the Scriptures.

3. The context seems to favor ordinary prayer. Verse 16 states: “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” James then proceeds to give Elijah as an example of a man whose prayers were answered. If God heard Elijah, he will answer our prayers, even the prayers for the sick (v. 15).

4. The Greek word in v. 14 for “anointing” is “from aleipho and it is the word that refers to the common use of oil, while the word chiro (anoint) has reference to the sacred and symbolic. This is significant. Oil is used, therefore, by James in the common usage, meaning to “oil the body” or “rubbing the body with oil.”

Vine says that aleipho is “a general term used for anointing of any kind, whether physical refreshment after washing . . . or of the sick, Mark 6:13; James 5:14, or a dead body, Mark 16:1. ” He said that chiro “is confined to sacred and symbolic anointings.” James would have apparently used chiro instead of aleipho if the oil was only symbolic.

Olive oil was used widely in the biblical world for medicinal purposes (see Isa. 1:6; Lk. 10:34). Josephus relates that Herod was bathed in a vessel full of oil when he thought he was near death (Ant. 17,6,5).

“The principle taught here is that the elders should first pray that God will forgive and restore health and strength to the man, and that they should use ‘oil,’ or supply medical treatment as is necessary to the sick man’s recovery. . . . .This does not mean that elders are physicians, but they must provide either doctors or medicine that is needed” (Phillips, op. cit., p. 209).

R.C.H. Lenski wrote: “But the use of olive oil upon the body was not restricted to physicians; the Good Samaritan was not a physician, nor did he administer a sacrament. To rub the body with oil was a common practice” (The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James, p. 662). Elders as shepherds of the flock were to minister to the saints as the needs and opportunities arose and today is no exception.

Sins were not (and are not) forgiven or absolved by the elders (v. 15), but if the sick person has committed sins, God will forgive the sins if confession and prayer are offered (v. 16). Saving the sick (v. 15) is the physical healing or curing of the body. A.T. Robertson said: “By ‘save’ here James means ‘cure,’ as it often does in the Gospels (Mark 5:23; 6-56t- 8:35)” (Studies in the Epistle of James, p. 191).

5. The purpose of miracles were confirmatory (Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:3-4), and not accommodative. To say that elders were called by the sick in order to be miraculously healed changes the revealed purpose of miracles. Miraculous healing would then be accommodative instead of confirmatory.

Conclusion.

Admittedly, there are difficulties in the foregoing position, but I feel the evidence tilts the balance toward my conclusion.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, pp. 419-420
July 21, 1988

By Jamie Sloan

The Bible class teacher came to “rejoice in the Lord always” of Philippians 4:7. He emphasized “Rejoice always. ” As he looked into the sober faces of those who were seriously seeking an understanding of the will of heaven, he began to rebuke them for their failure to “‘rejoice and be happy.” The class seemed bewildered, unconvinced of their sin, but faced with a biblical injunction that somehow must be understood and applied. They felt, with Job, “. . . But your reproof, what doth it reprove?” (Job 6:25)

Then, too there are those Old and New Testament passages that promise “happiness.” “He that giveth heed unto the word shall find good; And whoso trusteth in Jehovah, happy is he” (Prov. 16:20). And, do we not usually give “happy” as a synonym for “blessed” in the beatitudes? Are these passages obligating us to an eternally light-hearted outward demeanor? Does “happy” really mean “happy-go-lucky”? Is a serious and sober facial expression an indictment of one’s trust in the Lord and proof of a failure to count your blessings? These questions illustrate that we need some light shed on this subject – some words need defining and some biblical conclusions need to form our concept of “joy” and “happiness.”

The bulletin of the “Positive Mental Attitude Church of Christ” typically begins in this fashion: “We just want to praise the Lord for the wonderful service we had Sunday at PMA, and for the great joy and love that flooded our assembly, and for the presence of the Holy Spirit that so vibrantly filled our hearts” (ad nauseath). These brethren believe that average is the unpardonable sin and that rebuke is the sin that “it is a shame to even speak of.” Surely to them Jeremiah must have been mentally ill, Amos was an inexcusable radical, and Paul should have never written 1 Corinthians.

I charge that these folks have not discovered the real joy and happiness that is described in the New Testament. It does not mean to be favored by circumstances in this world so that our lives are pleasant and joyous. It does not always manifest itself in outward feelings of joy, pleasure, happiness, etc. It is not the universal emotion required in every situation. Paul says to “rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep” (Rom. 12:15). Surely no one would accuse the Lord of failing to rejoice and be happy while he is in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary. He is not failing to “count his blessings”!

I believe some of us, while we are in our prime of life with perfect health, an abundance of material blessings, and the absence of opposition and persecution, tend to see joy and happiness in too mundane a way. Peter prepares Christians for persecution in 1 Peter 4:12-16. They are not to be surprised by it (v. 12a) and they are to rejoice because of it (v. 13). Does he mean to enjoy the experience, to laugh and shout with great exultation? Hardly. The joy and blessedness here is a mental evaluation and appreciation of the effects brought about by bearing up under the suffering. It is a privilege that comes to us as a result (v. 14); and there is glory for God in the experience (v. 15). Then, at the end when his glory is revealed, “ye may rejoice with exceeding joy” (v. 13b). William Barclay says about “joy”: “. . the characteristic of this word is that it most often describes that joy which has a basis in religion and whose foundation is God. It is not the joy that comes from earthly things or cheap triumphs over someone else in rivalry or competition. It is a joy whose basis is God” (The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, p. 55). “Happy” and “happiness” have likewise been abused. The concept is not one of “feeling of pleasure and contentment because of favorable life circumstances.” When we substitute “happy” for “blessed” in the beatitudes, we may actually be directing attention away from the meaning of the passage. There is a blessing placed on the “poor in spirit” in Matthew 5:3. That blessing is that “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” So, in all of them. Again, Jesus places a blessing upon those who are persecuted (vv. 10-12). He tells them to “rejoice and be exceeding glad” (v. 12). But, again, this does not mean to enjoy the experience. We are not “spiritual masochists.” The suffering Christian is to glory in the greatness of his reward in heaven, and the identity with the great men who have suffered before (v. 12).

I am thankful for the favorable circumstances that have characterized my life to this point. However, I must not conclude that I have the “right to the pursuit of happiness.” I my need the lessons that adversity and pain teach more than I “need a bed of roses.” When I count my blessings, I wonder if such suffering would even be on my list, must less at the top (Acts 5:41).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, p. 404
July 7, 1988

By Wayne Greeson

(Editor’s Note: Brother Greeson is an attorney, Christians are to obey the government because it is orqualified to write on this subject both from a legal and dained by God and to disobey the government is to biblical point of view.) disobey God (Rom. 13:2). “Therefore you must be sub ject, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’s sake” (Rom. 13:5).

The presence of a copy machine in church buildings has become commonplace. While the copy machine has become an excellent tool, at the same time it has provided for some a convenient means of stealing the fruits of the labors of others. It has become a common practice in some congregations for Bible class teachers to purchase one class workbook and then use the copy machine to make multiple copies of each lesson to pass out to the students in the class. Other similar abuses of the copy machine abound. Instead of buying class books, magazines or other books and materials, the copy machine is used to make copies and “save money.”

A Lack of Common Courtesy

The attitude of those who use the copy machine to make multiple copies of another’s material displays a distasteful lack of common respect and courtesy for those who wrote and published the material. An author spends many hours preparing his or her material. The commitment to publish material usually includes not only much time but also considerable expense.

The initial investment to print and publish a book can be substantial. The publication of a vast majority of books, workbooks, magazines and publications prepared by and for members of the church is generally a money-losing proposition. There are no Christians raking in huge profits from the sale of their books or materials. Instead, good Bible class material is often published at a sacrifice by Christians seeking to help other Christians in their study of God’s Word.

Because class workbooks, magazines, and other books costs money to write, produce and distribute, these materials are priced so that those who wish to use them might share a small portion of the cost. When one uses a copy machine to avoid paying his fair share of the costs of producing written materials, what he is doing in effect is placing a greater financial burden on the authors and publishers. How little regard or consideration this shows towards those who have spent many hours and dollars that we might have good Bible class material. Brethren, this ought not to be.

The Copyright Law

Making multiple copies of published materials is not only discourteous, but it can be against the law. Christians should have the utmost respect for the laws that govern our nation. Paul instructed, “Let every soul be subject unto the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). The laws governing the rights of authors and the use of published material (including written, audio, visual works) are found in the Copyright Act. There seems to be a lot of ignorance concerning the copyright laws and when the use of certain published material is a violation of these laws and when it is not a violation. While some simply ignore these laws and copy whatever they want, others have gone to the other extreme and failed to recognize the “fair use” provisions of the law.

What Is Copyright Protected Material?

Under the Copyright Law not every printed or published material is protected by law. For material to be copyrighted, it must first meet some very basic and simple guidelines. When material is placed before the public it must bear a copyright notice. This notice is to include the names of the copyright owner, the year of publication and the symbol @ or the word “copy” or “copyright.” It is not necessary to register with the Copyright Office for material to be copyrighted. Registration is only necessary when an author seeks remedies for copyright infringement.

A copyright owner acquires the exclusive rights to reproduce copies of the copyrighted work; prepare derivative works; distribute copies of the work by sale, rental, lease or lending; publicly display or perform the work if it is a visual work.

If a written, audio or visual work is placed before the public without the proper copyright notice, then it is not copyrighted nor is it possible to copyright the material as an afterthought. Under the law, once material has been put out publicly without a copyright notice, it has entered the public domain and is available for copy or publication by anyone.

However, just because some material prepared by Christians does not bear a copyright notice and is not protected by the copyright law, does not necessarily mean other Christians should freely and indiscriminately copy such material. Whether or not certain materials are legally copyright protected, does not excuse Christians from recognizing a higher standard of respect and courtesy towards the rights of others.

Fair Use

While the rights of a copyright owner are exclusive, they are not absolute. Some believe wrongly that it is illegal to copy any portion of copyrighted material for any purpose. There are some circumstances under which the copying, quoting and/or using a copyright material is permissible. This permissible use of copyrighted material is called “Fair Use.”

One “fair use” of copyrighted material is the use of excerpts for the purpose of critique or review. Recently a Christian reviewing a denominational publication wrongly indicated he could not cite the publication because it was copyrighted. One does not violate the copyright laws by quoting or using selections from copyrighted material, when the purpose is to examine or review the material. This means that if I write a review of copyrighted material of the Catholic church, of institutional brethren or even my own brethren, I am not violating the law when I quote or use excerpts from their material.

One can imagine the problems if portions of copyrighted material could not be used in critical reviews. An author could use his copyright to prevent critiques or reviews of his material or his doctrine that he did not like. He could cry copyright violation and intimidate or harass reviewers he did not like. Fortunately, this is not the law.

Another important “fair use” of copyrighted material concerns teachers and preachers. In preparing to teach a class, the law allows a teacher to make a single copy of research of one chapter from a book, a single article from a periodical, a short story or poem or a chart diagram, cartoon, drawing or picture.

One copy for each student may be made of certain copyrighted material following certain guidelines. The material must be brief, no more than 250 words of a poem, and no more than 1,000 words or 10 percent of a story, article or essay. No more than three items may be copied from the same collective work or volume during one class term. Further, no more than nine instances of multiple copies are to be used for one course during a class term. Copying a work to be used in several courses is not fair use of the material and a teacher cannot copy the same item from one term to another.

Some uses of copyrighted material is prohibited regardless of permissible uses. Compilations or collective works created by copying copyrighted material is prohibited. The most important prohibition is particularly important for Christians and churches to note: Making copies must not substitute for the purchase of books, periodicals, or reprints. This is specifically applicable to the duplication of “consumable” materials such as class workbooks.

Don’t Forget God’s Law

Making multiple copies of published material such as class workbooks, magazines and books is not only against the civil law, it is also against God’s law. When one makes copies of published material, he is not just “saving money” for himself, he is also taking money from others who worked to publish that material.

Authors and publishers who have worked investing their time and money to publish material have a right to be paid for their work. The Scriptures repeatedly teach “the laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim. 5:18; 1 Cor. 9:14; Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15; Matt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7). The failure to pay one for the work he has performed is theft and an offense against men and God (Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15; Jas. 5:4).

The law of Moses clearly states, “Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. 20:15; Lev. 19:11; Deut. 5:19). The penalties for theft required a two to five-fold restitution (Ex. 22:1,4). God’s prohibition against theft is still in force under the new covenant of Christ. “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there by any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself” (Rom. 13:9). The apostle Paul warns that thieves shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10).

For a preacher or Bible class teacher to pass out xeroxed copies of a class workbook or commentary and then teach from the Scriptures is hypocrisy and a sad fulfillment of Paul’s warning. “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” (Rom. 2:21)

Brethren, please do not misuse the copy machine. Do not violate the laws of men and God and show some courtesy to those brothers and sisters in Christ who sacrifice to provide Bible class materials. “Let him that stole steal no more” (Eph. 4:28).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 400-401
July 7, 1988

By Webb Harris, Jr.

It is fundamental to a proper understanding of divine revelation that we appreciate that the “popular” definitions of many words common to the Scriptures differ from the intended ideas of the inspired writers. The term “saint” is a case in point. Appearing 62 times in the King James Version of the New Testament, the word’s significance is lost to the common 20th-century connotation which is foreign to the scriptural intent. The point which I wish to establish and press in this article is that this inconsistency between original meaning and modern usage creates a problem that advances far beyond the difficulties of initial reading or comprehension. Even those Bible students with diligence enough to cut through the tangled undergrowth in order to uncover the pure etymology of the word will be fortunate to remain unspotted. The fact of the matter is this: When a Bible word is soiled by men’s misunderstandings of its meaning, that word (though clearly understood by faithful students) is relegated to the station of the “defiled.” There are many scriptural words and phrases which we have retired because of the way in which they are often distorted in the religious world around us. We reason that our use of these words will either, (1) cause us to be misunderstood, or (2) cause us to be classified with those individuals who have monopolized the term in question.

Examples of the above practice are numerous. Many Christians shy away from using “Holy Spirit” in their speech and prayers for fear that their meaning or their person might be misconstrued as Pentecostal. This is true with the term I ‘saint. ” We are painfully aware that when most people hear the word “saint,” their mental image is a far cry from what we mean to convey. So it is easier, and often the wiser, to use a more familiar parallel word.

There is a price to be paid for retiring scriptural words for whatever reason. This consequence might be more visible in an illustration. Imagine that a congregation studies their way through the New Testament once per year. They do so in a book-by-book fashion. However, they habitually omit the book of Acts (or Romans or Hebrews). Now many of the truths that they are continually passing over will be supplied somewhat by similar passages in other books. But, suffice it to say, they are subjecting themselves to vital deficiencies. God included Acts (or Romans or Hebrews) in the New Testament for a reason.

One word may seem far more insignificant than a whole book; nonetheless, that word has a meaning and that particular meaning is inherent in no other word. We might, for whatever reason, choose to use “body of Christ” instead of “household of God” whenever we speak of the church. After all, they’re the same thing, aren’t they? And don’t “redemption” and “propitiation” both speak of what Christ was doing on the cross of Calvary? Aren’t they interchangeable? In reality, it would be a tragedy to eliminate “household of God” and “propitiation” from our meditations and communications because these words convey concepts which are not adequately represented by other similar terms.

The same is true for “Christian” and “saint.” We might try to substitute the former for the latter because the latter is so often misunderstood. After all, a saint is a Christian and a Christian is a saint. Basically, anyway. But, oh, what we forfeit when we throw away this divinely-inspired designation of God’s people.

A Closer Look

The World Book Encyclopedia’s offering on “saint” illustrates boldly the modem understanding of the word. It suggests that a saint is a “holy person who becomes a religious hero by exemplifying a virtue . . . of his . . . religion. Many persons achieve sainthood because they played a major role in the history of their religion . . . (“St. Paul” is offered as an example, wch) [Others] are revered as saints because before or after death they performed miracles.” The same reference materials report that the Roman Catholic Church presently sanctions 58 international feast days in memory of 58 Roman Catholic saints. It further states that to “achieve sainthood” one must be nominated after one’s death, be beatified by the church after a close examination of one’s life and works and have had association with at least two miracles.

Most people’s understanding of the term “saint” is summed up in the above paragraph. Their conception might be illustrated by a tiny circle inside a larger circle which is itself inside an enormous circle. The enormous circle represents all the people of the world. The circle inside the enormous circle represents all the people of the church, or all good people. The tiny circle represents a special, elite class of good people: saints. It is not uncommon for people to treasure relics associated with this elite class, attributing magical powers to the relics; prayers to these “saints” are quite ordinary.

As mentioned earlier, the word “saint” appears frequently in the New Testament, However, the above understanding of the word is foreign to its New Testament meaning. Rather than signifying an elite class of special disciples within the church, or a selection of dead Christians officially “sainted” by church leaders, the word is a designation of all Christians. Paul addresses his epistles to the saints in any given locality (Rom. 1:7; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2). When Paul persecuted the Christians in Jerusalem, he was said to have done harm “to the saints” (Acts 9:13). And when Peter visited the Christians of Lydda, he was said to have “come down also to the saints who lived [there].” To observe its use throughout the New Testament is to see it clearly as a designation of all Christians. But this is not to suggest that “saint” and “Christian” have equivalent definitions. This is why it is harmful to utilize one word to the exclusion of the other.

The term “Christian” denotes a connection with Christ. Though scholars may disagree on just what kind of connection is implied (some say the word means “followers of Christ,” some say the word means “little Christ,” etc.), the term speaks of a person who is linked with Jesus. The term “saint” applies to the same individual, but tells us something different about him. The term “saint” tells us that this individual is “holy. ” Indeed, the Greek word which is translated “saint” in our Bibles is hagios, which means holy. The NASB bears this out by continuously footnoting “saint” with “holy ones.” The Latin word for “holy” is sanctus and this is where our word “saint” comes from. It is also apparent that our term “sanctify” comes from the same Latin word. Verily, to speak of something as being “sanctified” is in essence to speak of it as being “made holy.” (See this connection in 1 Cor. 1:2.)

What does it mean to “sanctify” or “make holy”? The pat answer is “to set apart.” This seems to be as good a definition as any, however, it might be useful to elongate this definition to include that the “sanctified” object is set apart for a special use. When tabernacle utensils were “sanctified” in the Mosaic system, they were being set apart for a special use (i.e., they were not to be utilized for common, or “profane,” purposes; they were off-limits for anything but their designated aim). In this way, they were “holy.” If, then, the Scriptures tell us that a certain individual has become “holy,” what does that tell us about said person? He has been set apart for a special use.

What Are You Getting At?

I believe that many Christians have lost a part of their identity. Particularly, the “saint” part. It is one thing to technically understand the original intent of the term; it is another matter entirely to practically apply its force to oneself. To live up to such a designation would demand that we “cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1).

If one tiptoes around the concept of “saintliness” long enough, he will come to envision it little differently than does the majority. Though he long ago learned the true derivation of “saint” and in theory recognizes that it ought to be applied to all children of God, he still thinks in terms of “ordinary Christians” and the “elite.” He does not apply God’s call to total separateness to himself. He does not see himself as an instrument set apart for God’s special use; an instrument not to be subjected to the profane. He feels that it is acceptable for him to be a little less righteous than those church-members who have committed themselves to a Christianity of heroic, “saintly” proportions. It would be unseemly for them to lose their temper, get a little tipsy, swear mildly, but not so for himself. He knows his limits.

Somehow we have got to blaze our way past the World Book concept of “sainthood,” the Roman Catholic doctrine, the common mind-set. This will mean ignoring the suggestions of numerous Bible publishers who insist that Luke’s record of Christ’s work is the gospel according to “Saint Luke.” It is quite certain that Luke was a saint, but he was no more a saint than you or me. But, friends, it’s so easy, is it not, to think of men like Luke as being in a “cream of the crop” corps of disciples that was over and above our humble heads.

All in all, what I am trying to say is that there is, indeed, a higher “code of conduct” worthy only of “holy” people. The twist is that if I am a Christian, I am one of those “holy” people and I need to begin living like a person whom God has set apart from the profane to be utilized for his purposes according to his blessed will. Paul wrote to the Christians of Rome, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in a manner worthy of the saints.” There is a certain way that “holy” people would receive this woman; my brethren, you must live up to this station. In Ephesians 5:3, Paul writes, “but do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints.” There is a special way that “holy” people conduct themselves; my brethren, you must submit yourselves to this degree. Why.) Because, through Christ our Lord, you are saints. That is the truth which we must grasp.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 402-403
July 7, 1988