Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

In Hebrews 1, the apostle says, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of al1 things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding al1 things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they…. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom…. Sit on my right hand, until I make shine enemies thy footstool…”

The apostle declares that Christ was “appointed” heir of al1 things. This is in the indefinite past. He was appointed such in purpose. God purposed from eternity that Christ should be heir to al1 things. (Eph. 3:11.) “I wil1 declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Psa. 2:7.) From this passage it can be seen that Christ’s heirship is made to depend on His Sonship. Both His heirship and sonship are the result of God’s eternal purpose. The inheritance God promised Christ through sonship, he granted. (Psa. 89:28.) God’s plan is inheritance on the basis of sonship. (Rom. 8: 17; Gal. 4: 7. ) The inheritance received of Christ came from God. Christ is “heir of all things” in their totality. He is the “heir” and “Lord of all.” (Gal. 4:1; Acts 10:36.) Macknight says, being “heir of all things denotes supreme dominion over angels and men.” Christ heired a place above all “dominion.” (Eph. 1:21.) Paul says, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” (Col. 1: 16.) Indeed he has the dominion; he is Lord of all. He is “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36); we must sanctify him as Lord in our hearts. (1 Pet. 3: 15.)

Jesus Christ has become Heir of all things spoken by the prophets. The prophets truly testified of Christ and his heirship. (John 5:39, Acts 10:43.) The writings of the apostles abound with the facts that he possesses “by inheritance” the blessings vouchsafed to him by God Almighty through his plan. (Heb. 1:4) “All things” were fulfilled that were written in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Christ. (Luke 24:44.) Let us notice some of the “all things” planned by God, and spoken by the prophets that Christ became the heir of.

Called a Nazarene

“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matt. 2:23.) There is no specific statement in the prophets’ writings where this can be found. Matthew says this was spoken by the “prophets.” This is plural. The real point can be seen regarding this verse in Nathanael’s statement to Philip. Philip had said, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Then Nathanael answered, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:45,46.) Jesus was poor. (Isa 53:2; Luke 9:58.) Isaiah testified, by the Spirit, that Christ “is despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our grieves, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Isa. 53:3,4.) This is what is involved in Matthew 2:23. You may compare Psa. 69:9 to this. Regarding this verse, Peter says, “But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.” (Acts 3:18.) This same message Paul preached. (Acts 26:22, 23.)

The point involved in these passages is that Christ, being called a Nazarene, would be poor, despised, rejected; that he would suffer, bleed, and die in shame. (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 12:2.)

A Savior

Concerning David, Paul says, “Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” (Acts 13:23) Matthew gives us this statement of an angel to Joseph regarding this Saviour: “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Matt.1: 21.) As Paul says, God hath kept his promise. The angel of the Lord announced to the shepherds, “unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:11.) He came to seek and save. (Luke 19:10.) This salvation is sent to all who fear God. (Acts 13: 26.) Christ came to the sick, not the whole. (Matt. 9: 12; Mark 2: 17. ) Christ entered Satan’s house, bound him and spoiled his goods. (Matt. 12:29; Col. 2:14, 15); thus, his conquest over the devil and death was complete. (Heb. 2:14,15.) He now says, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt. 11:28.) “Whosoever will,” may come to the Master and live. (Rev. 22:17.) Indeed, he hath by inheritance become the Saviour of the world! There is no salvation in any other. (Acts 4:11, 12.)

A Prophet

Moses said, “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.” (Deut. 18:15.) This is a part of the “all things” that Christ should be heir to. Peter associates this promise of Moses with God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:18, saying: “And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” Further, Peter says, “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers….” (Acts 3:22-26.) Moses said “God will raise up… a prophet;” Peter says “Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26.) Thus, by inheritance Jesus Christ is that Prophet. We must hear him. (Deut. 18: 15; Acts 3: 23. )

Priest on Throne

Zechariah said “Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (Zech. 6:13.) Thus, he was to be a priest upon his throne. From Psalms 110: 1-4 we learn also that he was a “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” and that he was to “Sit” on the right hand of God until his enemies were made his footstool. From these passages we see that this one was to be a Priest, a Priest upon his throne, a Priest to sit and rule upon his throne. Christ is that Priest; he has a throne. (Heb. 4:14; 1:8.) Peter shows, by inspiration (Acts 2:4), that Christ is the fulfillment of this promise. (Acts 2:30-35.) Christ says that he overcame and sat down on the throne. (Rev. 3:21.)

The angel of God spoke to Mark about Christ saying: “And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.” (Luke 1:32.) It was promised earlier through Isaiah. (Isa. 9:7.) God fulfilled this promise as affirmed by Peter in Acts 2:30, 31.

The throne of Christ is in heaven. David said “The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.” (Psa. 103: 19.) Keep in mind that Jesus Christ was to rule while he was a Priest on his throne. (Zech. 6:13.) His throne was not, is not now, never will be on earth. His rule is a spiritual one. There is no way for this throne and ruling to be on the earth. The apostle says, “For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest.” (Heb. 8:4.) “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my foot stool” he tells us. (Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:49.) Christ’s reign is spiritual, and not physical. Paul says of Christ our priest, “yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.” (2 Cor. 5:16.) Knowing that Christ is not reincarnated, but yet is ruling as priest on his throne (which throne is in heaven), he is therefore ruling in heaven. Paul says that we will “henceforth” — from here on -know Jesus Christ in the flesh no more. This should, to any honest person, be enough to show that Christ’s–our priest’s–throne is not on earth but in heaven.

Daniel, the prophet “saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Dan. 7:13, 14.) This word “dominion” means rule or authority. The word throne is used by metonomy of one who holds dominion or exercises rule and authority. Christ is the one Daniel saw ascend to the Ancient of days (God Almighty) and receive dominion. “To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.” (1 Pet. 5:11; 1 Pet. 4:11.) These two passages prove Christ to be the possessor of the dominion that the Son of man was to receive from the Ancient of days. Christ himself testified: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matt. 28:18.) The apostle Peter says that Christ “is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.” (1 Pet. 3:22)

The Psalmist said “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth” (Psa. 72:8); and Christ said that he had been given this dominion “in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28: 18); therefore, he is both “Lord and Christ” to the house of Israel (Acts 2:36), and is “reigning over the Gentiles.” (Rom. 1 5:12.) He is, by virtue of the fact that God gave him dominion, ruling and reigning over the Jew and Gentile alike. (Acts 10:34,35; 15:7-11.) Jesus Christ by his sovereign right “broke down the middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile, established his kingdom and gave his law which applies to “all nations” alike. (Eph. 2:14-16.) God spoke to Christ saying “Thy throne,” “thy scepter,” “thy kingdom.” (Heb. 1:8.) These belong to Christ!

Christ Given a Kingdom

Ezekiel speaking of the one nation that would be made of all nations under the rule of Jesus Christ said, “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.” (Ezek. 37:24.) Of course the prophet did not have reference to David himself, but to his seed. David was dead when the prophet said this, and has remained so. “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.” (Acts 2:29.) Ezekiel by the Spirit of God was restating the same promise regarding David’s posterity that God told David would happen. “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” (2 Sam. 7:12,13.) Thus David must be dead when God would do with his posterity the things promised!!

Daniel says he saw the Son go to heaven and stand near before the Ancient of days, “And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom.” (Dan. 7:13, 14.) This means the Son became king. Kings possess kingdoms. The “dear Son” has a kingdom. (Col. 1:13.) In the parable of Luke 19:12-15, a “nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” The citizens of this kingdom realized the king could reign over them. (vs. 14.) But verse 15 says, “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,” thus proving the fact of his possessing a kingdom, his kingdom. (Emphasis mine, E. R.) So he went to heaven to receive a kingdom says Daniel and the parable; but the parable also shows that he returned having received it. Further, the Hebrew writer tells us this: “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” (Heb. 12:28.) In Acts 1 and 2 we learn this same thing, that Christ went to heaven to receive a kingdom, which he did with great power. Thus he is king over this kingdom.

By having inherited the kingdom and kingship, Jesus Christ has a right to command in his name. Since Christ is the only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” his name (authority) alone is high. (1 Tim. 6:15.) His citizens are to preach repentance and remission of sins “in his name” among all the nations. (Luke 24:47.) Peter said “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38.) Having become the “heir of all things,” God put “all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22, 23.) Therefore, whatever this kingdom, body, or church may do it must do it in his name or by his authority. (Col. 3:17.) We must remember it is “His throne,” “His scepter,” “His kingdom.” He is head over all things to it. He “heired” it; God gave it to him; God made him King; therefore, we should be highly pleased to be citizens and subjects of his in this glorious kingdom knowing that he will cause “all things” to work together for our good. (Rom. 8:28.)

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 19-22
August 1962

By Cecil Willis

It is my intention to write for the next several months under the title “Problems Within the Church.” It should be obvious to all thinking and informed brethren that one will be unable to exhaust this theme, even by several months of writing upon it. In this article I want only to say some general things upon the subject. With the next issue of the paper, I will begin to delineate some of those things that I consider to be acute problems within the church.

Some See No Problems

There are some brethren who are so naive or so blind that they see no problems at all. The danger posed by a problem in the church is enhanced when it is not recognized as a problem. Some are spiritually so deaf and blind to what is going on around them that they could ride a ship pitched and tossed in a storm raged sea and think that they were riding on a placid lake. Certainly in such instances, “if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit.” (Matt. 15:14.) Some of the most dreaded diseases are so feared because they cannot easily be detected in their early stages. The most dangerous enemy is an infiltrated one. The most serious problems in the church are those that are not universally recognized by brethren as problems. In fact, one of the most serious problems before us is the unwillingness on the part of a large number of brethren to recognize and admit that we face any problems.

Let none think that our only problems are those already infiltrated within our ranks. There are many enemies without which threaten us. But the most serious and threatening are those enemies that already have made their way within the Body and are now pitched for battle. The greatest problems, then, are those within the church.

A Perpetual Crisis

Whenever one begins to write or to speak concerning problems within the church, some brethren begin to fear and to quake. These brethren are stark cowards. The Lord’s church has ever been beset by problems. I have heard older brethren state that there had never been a time within their long life when the Lord’s church did not confront some crisis. One is certainly blind or ignorant who would insinuate that the Lord’s church today has no problems. So long as frail, fallible human beings constitute the church, the church shall pass from one critical moment to another. None of her previous problems has annihilated the church yet. Nor shall any of her present distresses destroy her. (Dan. 2:44; Heb. 12:28.)

When to Discuss Problems

There are many brethren today who do not think that we should “air” our problems before the world. Such fearful brethren should never hand an alien a New Testament, for I know of no place where the problems within and without the church are more impartially or forthrightly dealt with than in the New Testament. One impugns the wisdom of God when he states that the problems within the church should not be “aired” before the world, for this God certainly did in the pages of inspiration. Furthermore, one might consider the ethical problem of insinuating to the world that we have no problems. Is this not a blatant lie?

We should also remember that no problem that has arisen in the church in the past has ever yet been solved by ignoring it. One can select the most propitious time and place possible to discuss these problems, and yet he will be charged with doing so at the wrong time. I hardly know of a better place to discuss our problems than in a journal such as TRUTH MAGAZINE. Certainly its primary intent is to provide a medium through which discussions may be conducted as will edify members of the church. Probably 99% of our subscribers are members of the church. Therefore, where could be a better place to discuss our problems than through the pages of TRUTH MAGAZINE?

How to Discuss Problems

One certainly should use all the diplomacy and discretion at his command when he comes to deal with problems of such magnitude as those now confronting us. I certainly do not claim perfectly to know how these matters should be discussed. However, I shall use my best judgment in dealing with the problems before us. Without doubt, there will be some good brethren who will say, “I agreed with what you said, but I did not like the way you said it.” If when I get done with this series, these are your sentiments, remember these pages are open to you to show us how these problems should be dealt with. I certainly am ready to learn better how to deal with these problems. Feel free to write upon them. I simply want to see the problems properly dealt with.

One further preliminary remark: The Lord’s church is not beset by just one problem. She is confronted by many. It is difficult for any brother to keep his perspective balanced. Some preachers see Catholicism as the only threat to the church. Others see worldliness as the only problem. Perhaps others see the current institutional threat as the only problem. These all constitute threats, though admittedly some pose more serious threats at present than others. But we are beset by many problems. I do not profess to recognize them all. But upon several of our problems do I wish to speak in this series of articles.

Soldiers Must Fight!

Before closing this article, I wish to call to your attention two things more: ( 1 ) A Christian is called a soldier in the scripture ( 2 Tim. 2 :3, 4 ), and ( 2 ) The primary purpose of a soldier is to fight. (1 Tim. 1:18: 5:12). The Christian, therefore cannot be a non-combatant, spiritually speaking. We are engaged in mortal conflict with our adversary, the devil ( I Pet. 5:8 ), and with his ministers. ( 2 Cor. 11: 15. ) The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual. (2 Cor. 10:3, 4.) Both our offensive and defensive weapons are enumerated. (Eph. 6:10-20.) The faithful Christian must put these weapons to their proper use.

The Christian who refuses to recognize the enemies of the Cause of righteousness and to oppose them with every weapon provided in the divine arsenal is a traitor to the Prince of Peace, and should be so labeled. Study with us some of the problems currently before the church. Then “war the good warfare;” “fight the good fight of the faith.”

Truth Magazine VI: 12, p.2-3
September 1962

By Donald P. Ames

It seems that as of late, there has developed a great deal of interest in just exactly what is expected of the local evangelist. Several have expressed their views, objecting to a lot of things that are presently being shoved off on the preacher that are not in reality his obligations, but have come to be regarded as his. However, it seems to me that some of these articles have missed other points of equal value that also need emphasizing.

Work Falsely Expected

Certainly in our modern society there has been a strong tendency to pattern ourselves after denominationalism. This has manifested itself in efforts to consolidate, do everything under a centralized control in a big way to get a big name among those about us. It has also manifested itself in work expected of the preacher. In many places, when the local evangelist has been selected, the rest of the members seem to feel he is the church worker. So now that they are paying someone else to do their work, they can sit back and judge whether or not he is getting everything done that needs to be done.

However, the work of the church is not to be carried on by the preacher alone. In I Cor. 12:12-31 Paul compares the church to the human body and stresses the necessity of all parts working together for proper functioning. So it is with the body of Christ. When the members sit back and expect the preacher to do all the personal work that is accomplished, they are hindering the growth of the church. Paul points out in I Tim. 4:15 that the evangelist is to give himself wholly to his work and teaching. This does not mean though that he is to do all the personal work –that is not his job. Each and every individual member in the church sustains a relationship to his fellowman that makes him individually responsible for striving to lead him to the Lord. This also applies to wayward and weak members of the church. (Gal. 6: 1-2.) When all such work is turned over to the preacher to be done, not only are the members not studying and growing by experience as the Lord expects of us, but the preacher in turn is limited in his time available so that often either members are not visited or prospects missed or many sermons may show too much visiting (social and teaching) and not enough studying–hence handicapping the evangelist in his very purpose of preaching the word. Such circumstances should not prevail in a congregation that is striving to be pleasing to the Lord. Active personal work programs ought to be set up and put to work to keep all members active and growing.

Not only do some expect the preacher to do all the personal work, but also expect him to also be the local socialite. By that, they simply mean that they expect him to be there every Sunday to make sure he personally shakes the hand of everyone present–and are often offended if they are missed (although the idea of introducing themselves to visitors and shaking hands never occurred to them as also being an obligation of theirs). They expect him to give parties for the young people and adults, to pay a lot of social calls, support the civic clubs, take care of the visiting preacher, and many other such social obligations. The apostles well answered this themselves, saying, “‘It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out, therefore, brethren, from among you seven men… but we will continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:2-4.) If a gospel preacher is going to hold a meeting, it is accepted almost without question that he will stay at the preacher’s home. Although this may be often desired by preachers who have lots they desire to talk over mutually, yet members would also do well to consider meals and bedding, etc. are not exclusively the preacher’s job and strive to get in their share also. As for the social activity, the question can well be answered by merely asking if we are hiring a man to give himself to the preaching of the word, or to forsake such for the desires of some to be a leading socialite? Again, it is the preaching of the word, and not the social back patting that is going to save men’s souls. (Rom. 1:16.)

It is also good to give consideration to teaching too, in addition to personal work, social activities, etc. All too frequently, particularly in smaller congregations, it is accepted that the preacher is to do the teaching as well as preaching. Now it is acknowledged that the preacher should teach and certainly such is a fine arrangement, but again, for personal member growth and activity, such could and often should be handled by the members themselves. All too often such an arrangement means the members sit from Sunday to Sunday to hear the preacher do his work–and put out no effort of their own. Member teaching would strengthen the congregation as a whole and also activate more members.

Work Properly Expected

Paul makes it clear from the epistles that he wrote that the preacher has a job to do. In writing to Timothy, he said, “Do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry.” (2 Tim. 4:5.) To the Colossians he also passed word on to Archippus to “take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it.” (Col. 4:17.) Being a minister or servant of the Lord, he has an obligation to God to do that for which he is being supported to do. This obligation is not to man, nor regulated by man (in the sense of doing equal with what my fellow-man may do), but is an obligation and relationship held jointly between the minister and the Lord. So, certainly God has regulations and instructions for what a preacher is to do also.

First of all, the preacher is under obligation to study, that he might be found acceptable to the Lord. (2 Tim. 2:15.) However, although quick to object to the social work, etc., many preachers are very slow to be ready to give themselves diligently to the study they so often emphasize should be the primary work of the evangelist. One of the leading problems in the brotherhood today is the very fact that we have a lot of preachers who just plain and simply are not studying. Why are there a lot of fence-straddlers relative to the problems of institutionalism? Is it because they can not read and understand the word of God–or because they just aren’t interested in studying to see whether or not these man-made institutions have any authority therein for them and then stand up and say so? The big problem in the church in general is that all too often, preachers are sitting back and preaching material learned in college or early years, and have plainly quit studying. If a doctor were to rely on college knowledge, we would probably change doctors quickly, but yet a congregation will continue to pay a preacher $400, $500, or even $600 monthly (all too often for his name’s sake rather than ability too–how else can such fluctuation be accounted for in many areas) for doing exactly that.

Oh, but the preacher will often object, I know more than they do anyway, they don’t know the difference, I went to school so I have the right to be supported for that for which I prepared myself. Says who??? No man has to go to school to preach the gospel, and if a man so elects to do so to learn more about the Bible, this obligates no congregation to pay him for what he himself elected to do. If churches actually paid on the basis of work turned out, there would no doubt be many well-paid preachers on hungry street. Yet they will sit back and draw a big check for turning out no more than about 10 hours a week (in many cases a liberal allotment– how much time do they actually spend in studying and work of the church per week?), which amounts to about 40 hours per month –or in other words, they are being paid a monthly wage for a weekly output.

There are many areas in the church today where the members are wholly unprepared to go out and meet the real problems of denominationalism, etc. Why? Well, partly because they have not studied. But, also a lot of the blame can be brought back to weekly, watered-down, memory-repeated sermons on nothing but faith, repentance, confession and baptism. How long has it been since a good sermon was delivered on evidences of Christianity? By that, I don’t mean the ridicule of evolution, assertions of the tremendous evidence testifying to the Bible being the word of God, and a couple of timeworn arguments that there must be a God; but a genuine sermon dealing with just exactly why the Bible is the word of God, why we know it has not been corrupted, the nature of revelation and inspiration, and the error in reasoning in modernism (the up and coming problem today). We are so accustomed to saying “the Bible says”–then along comes someone from the school of Bultmann, Barth, Ludwig, Niebuhr, or Tillich and says,

“so what–the Bible is a man-made book anyway;” then what happens? Not only are the members unprepared, but so are many of the preachers. There is a big difference in studying to be prepared to meet such problems before they arise, and repeating a couple of memorized statements that the evidence is in favor of the Bible and only the foolish question it. Such assertions are not proof (and if Cecil will permit, may T also here recommend Evidence Quarterly edited by Ferrell Jenkins, $2.00. P. O. Box 8182, St. Louis 3, Missouri).

But, someone objects, if I start talking about Niebuhr, Barth evolution, premillennialism, predestination, etc., no one will know what I am talking about. WHY??? Simply because that is exactly what has been done. We have contented ourselves with these watered-down milk sermons for so long we are afraid to study and turn out something of a deeper and meatier quality. They are ignorant of them because they are being kept ignorant of them–yet many are desirous of such actual digging and evidence to not only bolster their own faith but also enable them to meet some of these modern-day evolutionists and atheists. But, instead of such study and work, many preachers are content to get by on a week’s work for a month’s support and feel God is going to be pleased with how they enjoyed living off His money. If we put the time in studying and working for the church that we would in turn expect from someone else (doctor, factory, or any other secular job) in which we were paying the bill, there would be no evolution taught in schools, atheists ridiculing the word of God, members giving way to denominationalism, nor small struggling preachers against the forces of modernism on the march. But, do we?

Secondly, having objected to the abuse of some to make the preacher the sole personal worker, others have flopped to the other extreme of doing no personal work at all. They sit back and content themselves with the view that the preacher is to study (and put out about 10 hours per week on such while drawing a nice fat salary) and not to spend all his time running about. Members of the church do not need to be visited because they are already members, and the members ought to be active in bringing nonmembers to church instead of leaving it all to the preacher. First of all, we grant the preacher is not to do all the personal work, BUT HE IS TO DO HIS SHARE. This includes not only visiting the members (Gal. 6: l-2; Paul even visited with churches and elders to strengthen and encourage them), but also to turn out his share in bringing new converts to Christ. Just as the members err in expecting the preacher to do it all, so the minister errs who expects the members to do it all. Not only should he do personal work? But being supported full time, like it or not, he must not only give time to study (and this need not mean 8-hours per day– but a good deal more than many do), but being in the position of having more time available, he should certainly be expected to turn out as much personal work as any other active member in the congregation. They are doing it in addition to their work, but he is doing it as part of his! Upon whom will the greater responsibility and requirements be laid? Regardless of whether or not the others do their share, this does not excuse the preacher from his individual obligation. Again in analyzing what is being turned out in study and work of the church, it might do well for many to consider if they are being overly supported.

In passing, while many preachers also edit the bulletin as a further means of teaching (though they may use members to mimeograph it for their activity too), this “Mr. Selected” who has written so many articles shows only further evidence of the do-as-little-as-possible attitude in many places. First of all, if they are so ashamed of the source from which they may have gotten it, they shouldn’t have printed it in the first place. Secondly, these bulletins that are “Mr. “Selected” every week also lend strong support to the belief that the preacher is not interested enough to write some good and pointed lessons in a bulletin and is probably not interested in the amount of study he puts out either. If he studied as he is expected of God to do, he would have material for the bulletin as well as personal work, preaching discussions, or any other obstacle that might arise. In fact, if preachers were supported for their work’s sake instead of their name, those working would be rewarded in the Lord more justly, while those doing a hundred and one other things to the exclusion of the work of the church would be left out.

True, the preacher is worthy of his support (I Cor. 9, Phil. 4: 15, etc.), but there are many preachers who are drawing such for little in return. This writer does not claim perfection, nor is this article designed for any specified one person, but is a consideration of a condition far too prevalent in many areas today. In conclusion, though, there is one thought to keep before us: a man worthy of his meat should be so supported and encouraged–and if a man were worthy of his meat, in many cases such support would be forthcoming as the church would grow and be strengthened by results of study and teaching.

Truth Magazine VI: 12, pp. 4-7
September 1962

By Weldon E. Warnock

The Bible says, “Confess your faults one to another….” (Jas. 5:16.) There are too many (one is too many) church members who sin and completely ignore the teaching of this scripture. The word “confess” in this passage comes from the Greek word, “exomologeo,” which means “a public acknowledgement or confession of sins.” (Vine’s Word Studies.) This word also conveys the idea of speaking freely, openly, and from the heart. Hence, when a child of God sins in a public manner, he ought to have the courage and humility publicly to acknowledge and openly and freely confess his sins.

But somebody says, “James is talking about those who have personally wronged another.” Friend, this text is broader than that. The phrase, “Confess your faults one to another” should not be restricted to personal offenses, but it also applies to any public sin. Certainly private offenses toward our fellowman should be righted but James enjoins upon US that we correct all manner of sin that brings reproach upon the church and shame upon its Head.

John writes, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I Jn. 1:9.) The word “confess” in this verse comes from the Greek word, “homologeo,” and means, “to confess, i.e. to admit or declare one’s self guilty of what one is accused of.” (Thayer.) Vine says of the word, “to confess by way of admitting oneself guilty of what one is accused of, the result of inward conviction.” As you can see, Thayer and Vine give almost identical definitions. The passage under consideration shows that confession of sins is made also unto God, admitting guilt, and asking his forgiveness. Whether the sin is public or private, we are to confess it to God and he will cleanse us of it.

From the foregoing scriptures, we can clearly see that it is just not enough to quit a sin or sins, but a confession of the sins is necessitated. If the sin is public, we ought to confess our faults one to another” as well as to God, but if the sin is private or secret, then we ought to only confess it to God. As David said to Jehovah, “…cleanse thou me from secret faults.” (Psa. 19:12.)

Failing to Confess

One of the laxities today in the church is a failure on the part of erring brethren to confess their sins. Some church members will quit attending services for a period of time and then show up as though nothing had happened. If they are not called upon for something or other, they will feel hurt and mistreated. Others will be guilty of drinking, lying, cursing, fraud, etc., and come to worship expecting to be used in some capacity and treated like a faithful brother. These kinds of brethren need to be told in no uncertain terms that their hearts are not right in the sight of God, and that they need to repent and confess to God and to the church for such sins. Then they can be used.

Some say that there is nothing in the Bible about brethren coming before the church or assembly and making a confession of public sins… that confession of sins should be made just to God. Certainly God didn’t tell the erring that they had to come to the front pew during an assembly to make a confession, but he did tell them to confess their faults one to another. This command could be carried out different ways. Coming forward before the church during an invitation song is just one way that this command may be obeyed. The point that we are interested in is an open and public confession of sins… not the method that is to be employed.

When a confession has been made to the church, then the church can be assured that the erring brother has repented and therefore extend to him the right hand of fellowship. Otherwise, how would the church know just when to begin using a brother if he had to confess only to God and not let the church know that he had repented of his sins? For example, let’s say a brother gets drunk and “paints the town red” and that this incident is known by several people. . If he doesn’t have to confess to the church for his disgraceful act, when could the church use him again for prayer, to preside at the Lord’s Table, etc?

First Sunday? Second Sunday? A month? The answer would be, “As soon as he repents and confesses his sin.”

The Merits of Confession

The effects of confession of sins are many. First, God is obeyed. We should always obey God. Second, confession shows a conscience that is still sensitive to sin. Many have rebelled against God until their hearts are so hardened and calloused that the word of God has no longer any effect upon them. Third, confession is a safeguard against sin. Having openly made known our sins, we will not be as prone to commit the same sins again. Fourth, others will be in better position to help the erring brother. Somebody has said that “an honest confession is good for the soul.” How true this is.

Brother, have you sinned publicly? If you have, then confess it publicly. The blood of Christ will cleanse you from all sin and you can make a new start. Then live faithfully unto death.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 12-13
August 1962