Truth Magazine

By David Posey

For some reasons, many people have a tendency to see things only in terms of extremes. There is no area in which this attitude is more obvious than when we begin to discuss the concept of judging among fallible humans. At one end of the spectrum are those who contend that we have no duty or right to judge members of God’s family. “Judge not that you be not judged” is their hue and cry. They curiously ignore not only the rest of that passage, but everything else the Bible says on the subject as well. Of course, at the other extreme are those who believe they are “soil inspectors,” launching out on a relentless crusade to save the church from anyone who may have a spot or wrinkle, all the while ignoring the beam in their own eye. As is usually the case, the truth of the Bible lies somewhere between these two extremes.

Should we ever judge the activity of an individual with regard to whether it is right or wrong, scriptural or unscriptural? Assuming we have some responsibility in this area, what principles should guide us in making much judgments? When does this judgment begin and end? What steps should we take if we observe a brother in sin?

Before we examine these questions, I want to be clear on what I am not discussing. I am not talking about ultimate judgment; in others words, any judgment I make is an imperfect one. I cannot, do not, determine who is going to heaven or hell. It is not my judgment to make. Nor, am I making judgments based upon who agrees or disagrees with me on certain topics. Those who use such criteria succeed only in building their own denomination; they do not edify the church. There is no congregation on the face of the earth in which everyone agrees, unless it’s a “congregation” of one! Furthermore, I’m not trying to draw lines around a certain group and then determine that they are on “our side.” That, too, is a denominational disposition.

Notwithstanding these warnings, there are occasions when I must judge my brother, within the bounds of Scripture. In fact, if I love my brother as Christ commanded I should (Jn. 13:34; etc.), I will do all I can to make judgments which will help him identify sin and avoid it (1 Pet. 4:8). It is my hope that he would do the same for me. I’m amazed when I hear brethren teach, in the name of “love,” that we should not make such judgments at all. Scripture upon Scripture can be cited which proves otherwise – that being sensitive to sin, first in ourselves and then in our brother, and then doing all in our power to help our brother out of his sin, is the clearest, most Christ-like description of love that we find (see, for example, Jas. 5:19-20). It is also, and here’s the rub, the most difficult demonstration of love to put into practice. Jude 23 says, “but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.” It’s necessary, but not easy. With this in mind, let’s examine the questions which I posed at the beginning.

Should We Judge A Christian?

First, should we ever judge one who calls himself a Christian? Jesus says in Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” Obviously, if that was the only thing ever said in the Bible, Old Testament or New, then all judgment would be prohibited. But let’s allow Jesus to explain what he means in the initial statement by reading the rest of the passage. Doesn’t he say that whatever judgment we apply to others will be applied to us? If so, then as we observe and make judgments about our brother’s activity, we had better do so with a proper attitude (see vv. 2-5). But then in v. 6 judgment is specifically commanded! You cannot know who the “dogs” and “swine” are without making some judgment, can you?

The apostle Paul speaks clearly on the issue as well. In 1 Corinthians 5:12, after upbraiding the Corinthians for permitting the incestuous man to remain among them, he says, “For what have I to do with judging those who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?” In v. 13, he states the imperative: “Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person.”‘ Clearly we, like the Corinthians, are disobedient when we fail to make proper judgments about the obviously immoral activity and lifestyle of a brother. Of course, we must only do so with due caution and with love (agape).

What Principles Guide Our Judgments?

Secondly, what principles ought to guide us in making such judgments? In the first place, we should consider again the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 7. We must be completely and constantly aware that we too are sinners and “fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Paul says in Galatians 6:1, “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.” So the first principle is to consider ourselves, although not to such an extent that we never consider our brother. (See Lev. 19:17-18, where failure to rebuke your neighbor is tantamount to engaging in his sin with him!)

A second principle that should guide us is found in 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul describes biblical love. If we apply Paul’s teaching carefully, we can hardly fail! We should be slow to believe rumors and always “rejoice in the truth.” Sadly, there are some brethren who actually rejoice when another brother goes awry. This attitude becomes apparent in the manner in which they “judge.” They may talk about him but they never approach him. Paul says that “love does not rejoice in iniquity. ” An attitude which is eager to judge a brother and find him in sin, is rotten to the core and completely devoid of love. Some preachers and writers seem almost anxious to “rejoice in iniquity.” God will judge!

A third principle is, perhaps, an obvious one and yet often ignored. Any judgment we make must be according to truth – according to the word of God, no according to our opinions or preferences. It is the doctrine of Christ with which we are concerned, not the precepts of men. 2 John 7-11, in which the necessity of making some judgment is obviously implied, is concerned with the doctrine of Christ. We are not to receive, nor are we to greet, one who (we judge) does not “bring this doctrine.” Every single time we find it necessary to reprove a brother, we must have Bible in hand. A judgment made on any other basis is faulty and useless. I wonder how many church splits could have been avoided had all parties insisted on this “obvious” principle?

Our third question involves the time frame of judgment? When does it begin and when does it end? This is a difficult question and much of the answer will involve “judgment” of another kind. Any judging that we do has one of two purposes: We are either trying to help our brother out of sin or we are trying to determine if we can work, worship, cooperate or associate with him, on a scriptural basis. If we accept that principle, then judgment is irrelevant with regard to those brethren who do not fit either category. We don’t have to be concerned with someone whom we cannot help in any way (that doesn’t mean we are not concerned and shouldn’t seek opportunity to help someone who lives even in another country) nor with whom we have no prospect of association. But when someone, whether from our own or another area or congregation, comes within our frame of reference, our duty to judge becomes pertinent. “By their fruits you shall know them.” They may well be “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Therefore, we must judge the doctrine that they bring and, to the extent manifested, the life they live before men. Jude describes men who “crept in unnoticed” in order to teach false doctrine. We must be aware that such things happen and judge accordingly. Needless to say, elders have a particular duty in this regard as those who watch out for our souls (Heb. 13:17).

Of course, it is within our own congregations that the judging we do has the most significance. As a preacher once said in a sermon on “fellowship,” only those with the most naive and superficial attitude believe we can “ignore our way to peace.” Certainly, we must vigorously apply Romans 12:18. But when a person is a part of the local church, his life and teaching is important to that church – we must engage in some judging during the time he is part of us. The Corinthians failed miserably in this respect and were rebuked (chapter 5). Likewise, in the Revelation, Jesus admonished Pergamos and Thyatira on the same basis since they failed to make proper judgments regarding issues of morality and doctrine (Rev. 2:12-29).

This judgment, and our obligation to deal appropriately with the divisive and sinning member, extends as well to the time after they “go out from us” (cf. 1 Jn. 2:18ff). Many brethren disagree with this, believing we have no right to restrict a person’s movement or make any judgment concerning it. But Paul mentions a number of people who had fallen away (e.g., Demas and Alexander the coppersmith [2 Tim. 4:10, 14-15]), presumably to warn other Christians to avoid their influence. Likewise, a local church cannot absolve itself of all responsibility toward that brother (and toward other faithful Christians who may be influenced by such a brother) simply because he decides to disassociate himself from it. Paul specifically says in Romans 16:17, “Now I urge you brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.”

A Brother In Sin

Finally, what steps should we take if we detect a brother in sin? We would do well to simply refer to the words of Christ in Matthew 18:15-18. The steps are clear and concise. Obviously, we must determine (“judge”) if our brother has sinned against us. We may or may not be correct in our determination, but following the steps which Jesus provides will guarantee a scriptural resolution of the matter. I wonder to whom those who teach that we are to do no judging suggest we apply Jesus’ teaching?

The fact is that those who have relegated all “judging” to the scrap heap have failed to properly understand and apply the various biblical usages of the word which we translate “judge.” And in doing so, they are opening the doors to all manner of evil, both in doctrine and morals. They are negligent as “stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10). And, from a very practical standpoint, they are allowing many a brother to sink deeper into the mire of sin. Their definition of “love,” apparently, is to let a brother play out on the devil’s freeway, never making the effort to snatch him from the danger. There is no more love in that than if a parent allowed his or her child to do the same! True, Christ-like love reacts much differently and seeks always to save, “hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 11, pp. 336-337
June 2, 1988

By Patrick Andrews

If you have seen any recent Jehovah’s Witness literature, then you know that they are big on smiles. All the tracts and books they have given me (recently), are filled with drawings of people who could pass for reincarnated opossums.

Of course you must realize that the point that they are trying to force on the unlearned and the unexpected is this, “you can live forever in paradise on earth, ” which, by the way, is the title of a book published by the Watchtower Society for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. On pages 12 and 13 of the above mentioned book is a drawing depicting the Watchtower Society’s idea of how the earth and its inhabitants will look throughout eternity. Everyone in the picture is smiling, regardless of what they are doing. I believe if they were any happier they would bust. To me it looks as if a tank car full of Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) derailed nearby. There is a lion on page 13; I believe it is smiling.

This happiness that everyone is enjoying (including the animals), is part of the Jehovah’s Witness “New Earth” (i.e., this planet, after it has been renovated by those who survive Armageddon, Ibid., p. 159). One of the passages they use to create this wonderland is Isaiah 11:6-9. There are other passages that they have been programmed to use to defend this error, but we will stick with this one for the most part.

A rule I learned somewhere that has remained with me, lo these many years is this, “You must take anything you hear or read literally, unless the context forbids it.” I was comforted by my knowledge of figurative language as a child when an older brother would threaten to “beat my brains out” or “slap me into the next county.” The laws of the land, the laws of my parents, and the laws of grammar forced me to interpret their show of force figuratively. I was forbidden to take their threats literally. Children have always understood such elementary grammatical rules. Let’s look at the passage that has been thrust upon us by our Witness friends and see if we are to take it literally or if we are forced to interpret the passage figuratively.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the failing together; and a little child shall lead them.

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like an ox.

And the suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put this hand on the cockatrice’s den (Isa. 11:6-9).

If we interpret this passage of Scripture literally, we find that: a little child, a sucking child, and a weaned child will dwell on “The New Earth,” with certain tasks to perform with respect to the animal life, either leading the larger animals around, or simply playing on snake holes.

If I was a robot of the Watchtower Society, I would be in a panic. I would be worried about my children and their proper place in this “New Earth.” You see, my timing is all wrong. According to the Watchtower’s latest pep-rallies, the end of this present order of things is about to come. That leaves me with a son that will be forced to play on a snake hole from now on. My daughters will be expected to smile like opossums all the live-long-day, and lead the calves and bears around. These are jobs where there are no promotions; the young will remain young forever (Ibid., p. 11). Can you imagine going through eternity as an infant playing on a snake hole? Do you see how much trouble you get into when your older brother fails to instill in you the difference in literal and figurative language?

There is another passage that the Witnesses turn to as a proof text for their “New Earth,” Isaiah 65:17-25. Please notice verse 20.

There will be no more an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his day: for the child shall die an hundred years old, but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed (emphasis mine, p.a.).

I think if someone in the Watchtower Society would tell the children that they are only allowed 100 years to “punch the little doggies” and then they would die, I bet the children wouldn’t feel like smiling.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 11, p. 329
June 2, 1988

By Ron Halbrook

The Bible claims to be the holy and sacred Word of God, “given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). That means we have heaven’s message on earth “in the words which . . . the Holy Ghost teacheth” (1 Cor. 2:13). The idols of ancient nations (Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc.) supposedly gave sacred messages, as do heathen religions in the modern world. The Hindu offers his Vedas and the Moslem his Koran. Masonry claims to distill “secrets” and “mysteries” from, many ancient religions, can put the sacred books of any religions on “our holy altar,” and pretend to make all good men “better.”

Divine messages are alleged by astrologers, fortune tellers, and prognosticators such as Nostradamus, Jeane Dixon, and Edgar Cayce. Joseph Smith’s Book ofMormon and Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health pose as revelations. The words of the Pope, the creed books of Protestant denominations, the cries of charismatics, and the pronouncements of sectarian boards (Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, etc.) all avow the inspiration or illumination of the Spirit of God.

The following evidences of divine inspiration are found in the Bible and in the Bible alone. That is why the Bible urges us to reject any and all other claims of a word from God, and to expose them as fraudulent and false (Rev. 2:2; 22:1819).

Evidence For Inspired Bible	All Other Claims Fall
Fulfilled Prophecy. Every prophecy matches its fulfillment perfectly. Over 300 refer to Jesus Christ (Isa. 53; Mic. 5:2)	Failed Prophecy. No other book in all history can match the Bible record. Guesses result in hit-&-miss pattern. Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted 1914, 1925, etc. as the end.
Resurrection of Jesus. This proved him “to be the Son of God with power.” All power and authority to reveal and command is his (Rom. 1:4; Matt. 28:18).	None Raised. None of the leaders listed above can offer such powerful proof. God gave them no authority to reveal or command.
Unity in Message. 66 books by 40 men in 1,500 years all fit together with perfect unity in purpose and message. Jesus Christ as God’s Son and man’s Savior is the one story (Jn. 20:30-31).	Disunity. No similar collection of religious literature reflects the unity and harmony of the Bible. Denominational creeds contradict each other. The Koran is full of contradictions.
Genuine Miracles. The miracles of the prophets, Christ, and his apostles could not be denied even by their enemies. These miracles confirmed the word as revelation (Acts 4:16; Mk. 16:20; Jn. 3:2).	Fake Miracles. No other claim to divine inspiration has ever been confirmed by true miracles. False claims to speak in tongues or heal are a dime a dozen (Oral Roberts’ 900 ft. Jesus says to send money!).
Text Preserved. No other book has faced as many efforts by its enemies to eliminate its existence. Yet the Bible text is the most accurately preserved of all ancient literature. God protects it (Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25).	Texts in Doubt. Pali texts written 300-500 years after Buddha lived (500 B.C.); earliest copies date A.D. 900. 3,911 changes were made in the 2nd edition of The Book of Mormon.
Many Other Evidences. The Bible record is consistent with all proven facts of history, geography, science, and archaeology.	Many Other Fallacies. The Book of Mormon contradicts facts of history, geography, science and archaeology. It claims to have been written in Reformed Egyptian; no such language existed.
Infallible, Inerrant. The Bible equips man fully unto salvation and service for God. It teaches error of no kind but reflects the perfect character of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17).	Full of Error. All other claims of divine inspiration, revelation and illumination reflect the fallible character of their authors.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 11, p. 331
June 2, 1988

By Jerry Merten

Are the instructions of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 binding upon us? Is it necessary to follow those instructions when a local church collects funds for its authorized work? Some brethren say no and some go so far as to say that those instructions were not even binding upon the Corinthians. They claim that Paul was not commanding the Corinthians to give on the first day of the week to help the needy saints in Jerusalem, because 2 Corinthians 8:8 says that he was not speaking by commandment. Since they conclude that the instructions of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 were not binding upon the Corinthians, they argue that those instructions can not be binding upon us. I would like to offer some thoughts for your consideration on this matter.

First Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 was indeed a “command” to the Corinthians. The words “I have given order to” (KJ) are a translation of the Greek word diatasso. According to Young’s Analytical Concordance, it is used a total of 16 times and translated in the KJ as follows:

a. appoint (4) – Luke 3:13; Acts 7:44; 20:13; Tit. 1:5.

b. command (7) – Matt. 11:1; Luke 8:55; 17:9, 10; Acts 18:2; 23:31; 24:23.

c. give order (1) – 1 Cor. 16:1.

d. ordain (3) – 1 Cor. 7:17; 9:14; Gal. 3:19.

e. set in order (1) – 1 Cor. 11:34.

On page 142 Thayer says that diatasso means “.. . to arrange, appoint, ordain, prescribe, give order.” Its meaning is given by Arndt and Gingrich on page 188 as “. . . order, direct, command.” Vine’s definition (p. 450), reads “to appoint, arrange, charge, give orders to.”

These passages and definitions show that the word diatasso has the force of a command. When used it shows that something is being required. This is especially the case in 1 Corinthians 16:1, because after saying “I have given order to” (diatasso), Paul also tells the Corinthians “so do ye.” Paul, having fill the authority of an apostle, was ordering what was to be done and expected those orders to be followed. Nothing in the context shows that the Corinthians could choose not to follow Paul’s orders and maintain divine approval.

The fact that in the second letter Paul chose to “speak not by commandment” (2 Cor. 8:8) does not mean he did not speak by commandment in the first letter. Nor does it mean that they had a choice in the matter. It just meant that in the second letter Paul chose to appeal to their sense of love.

For example, in Philemon 8 Paul told Philemon that he could have commanded him what was fitting, instead he chose to appeal to him. Did the fact that Paul chose not to command Philemon mean that Philemon actually had a choice? Did it mean that it was not a requirement? Absolutely not! In reality Philemon had no choice at all. Paul expected Philemon to do what he asked. It was Philemon’s responsibility. Paul just chose, for expediency sake, to appeal to him rather than to command him. Likewise in the 2 Corinthian letter Paul’s decision to appeal rather than to command did not mean that the Corinthians had a choice or that they were not responsible. It just meant that he decided to appeal to them rather than use his authority as an apostle to command them as he did in the first letter. Either way they had the same responsibility and were expected to do what he said.

Are the “orders” (commands) of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 or Paul’s appeal of 2 Corinthians 8 to us in the same sense as they were to the Corinthians? No, because the specific need is over. Those needy saints in Jerusalem are no longer around. Furthermore the instructions in 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8 were specifically directed to the Corinthians. In fact Romans 15:25-28 seems to indicate that not all the churches were ordered to help the needy saints in Jerusalem. But while the instructions to the Corinthians are not to us in the same sense as they were to the Corinthians, they do set a pattern for us, just like Paul’s instructions in 2 Timothy 4:25 sets a pattern for evangelists today.

Paul’s instructions in 2 Timothy 4:2-5 were specifically to Timothy, evidently about circumstances that were to come in his day. Yet who would say that an evangelist today does not have to follow those instructions? Likewise, the instructions of 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8 were specifically to the Corinthians about a circumstance in their day, but that does not mean that Christians today do not have to follow those instructions in similar circumstances. So, is the instruction of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 an “order” (command) to us? Yes, in the same way 2 Timothy 4:2-5 is a command to evangelists today.

In the past I have looked at the instructions of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 in a backwards way. I saw “giving” and emphasized it without considering the why. Paul’s instructions were based on the need that arose in Jerusalem and as an inspired apostle he told the Corinthians how to take care of that need. They were given no choice. Even if one would be correct in saying that the Corinthian church could decide whether to help the needy saints in Jerusalem, that would not nullify the fact that once they were so committed they had no choice as to “how” they were to go about it. Besides what plan could possibly be better than a plan given by an apostle through inspiration?

Likewise today it is not a just a matter of “giving.” It is “giving” because there are needs that a local church has a responsibility to take care of for which it must raise funds. But how is the local church to raise those funds? Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 give us the pattern we must follow. We have no more a choice as to the “how” than did the Corinthians or than an evangelist does in regards to the instructions of 2 Timothy 4:2-5. In the same way we use 2 Timothy 4:2-5 to show an evangelist must use patience in his preaching we must use 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to show that when a local church collects funds it must do so on the first day of the week. Both Scriptures are profitable for training in righteousness.

Most agree that a church can take a collection on Sunday. We know this is right because of the teaching of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. But how do we know that a local church can collect funds in any other way? Where do the Scriptures authorize by command, statement, example or inference a church to collect funds in any other way? If the Scriptures do not authorize any other way, then a local church can only accumulate funds by first day of the week collections.

Some argue that the reason why Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 told the Corinthians to collect the funds the way he did does not apply upon us. This is not so! Paul told the church at Corinth to collect funds upon the first day of the week so that the funds would be ready when he came. It is true that Paul is not coming to us today, but the principle of having the funds stored up so that they are ready for the time of distribution is just as needful today. It would be very inconvenient for the one handling the treasury to have to call the members together to collect funds every time he needed to write out a check.

We apply 2 Timothy 4:2-5 to show how to deal with the problem of people turning from the truth even though it was evidently originally written because people would turn from the truth in Timothy’s day. We do this because the principle of needing to keep others from turning from the truth is just as applicable today. In like manner we ought to apply the teaching of I Corinthians 16:1-2 even though Paul’s original purpose was to deal with circumstances in his day. The principle of needing the funds stored up for the time of distribution is just as necessary today, hence the principle still applies.

Some may wonder what the fuss is all about? It is about adding or taking away from the word of God (1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:6-9). If by saying that the church can only collect funds on the first day of the week, I am adding a command where God has not I am wrong and condemned. But if by saying that we do not follow the instructions of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 today a person is taking away from the word of God, then he is wrong and condemned! I urge all to study thoroughly the question “Is giving on the first day of the week a command?” Please search for truth, for only truth will free us (John 8:31-32).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 11, pp. 332-333, 344
June 2, 1988