Epitaphs: Good and Bad!

By Louis J. Sharp

Epitaphs we read may not always be truthful. Some are brutally frank! But if there should ever be placed an epitaph on your tombstone, and it was truthful, how would it read?

In the Bible, we read epitaphs both good and bad. The thing that is striking about each of them, is, they were true! There was no shame, no holding back the truth, no apology! Indeed, we do write our own epitaphs by the life we live. If one was being written for you today, how would it read?

Some Good Epitaphs God Wrote

I . “He went about doing good” – Jesus (Acts 10:38).

2. “She was full of good works” – Dorcas (Acts 9:36).

3. “He was a good man” – Barnabas (Acts 11:24).

4. “He walked with God” – Enoch (Gen. 5:24).

5. “He being dead, yet speaketh” – Abel. (Heb. 11:4).

6. “Asleep in Jesus” – Christians (1 Cor. 15:17-18).

7. “Well done good and faithful servant” (Mt. 25:21).

8. “At rest” – Those who die in the Lord (Rev. 14:13).

9. “I kept the faith” – Paul (2 Tim. 4:6-8).

10. “They kept my word” – Church in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:8).

Some Examples of Evil Epitaphs

1. “He betrayed Him” – Judas Iscariot (Mt. 26:25).

2. “Sinned wilfully” – Hebrew Christians (Heb. 10:26).

3. “Have forsaken the right way” – Many (2 Pet. 2:15).

4. “Left thy first love” – Church at Ephesus (Rev. 2:4).

5. “Made shipwreck of the faith” – Some (1 Tim. 1:19).

6. “Loved this present world” – Demas (2 Tim. 4:10).

7. “In hell he lifted up his eyes” – Rich man (Lk. 16:23).

8. “Obeyed not the gospel of God” – Many (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

9. “She repented not” – False Prophetess (Rev. 2:21).

Truly, we are writing our epitaphs each day that we live. If an honest appraisal is given, would you be proud of yours, or ashamed of it? If a preacher was preaching your funeral today what could he honestly say? Truthful epitaphs are written by the living, not after one is dead and gone!

Think on these things!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 13, p. 403
July 2, 1987

Divine Compassion

By Mike Willis

The virtue of compassion is sadly lacking among some Christians. Others who manifest compassion direct it to the wrong people, in places where God does not want compassion shown. A compassion expressed like Jesus expressed is a virtue – one in which we Christians need to grow.

Companion Defined

The word “compassion” is defined as “a suffering with another; hence, sympathy; sorrow for the distress or misfortunes of another, with the desire to help; pity” (Webster). In discussing the Greek word splagchnizesthai, Barclay described this as “an emotion which moves a man to the very depths of his being” (More New Testament Words, p. 156). We can understand what compassion is by noting some of the occasions when it was demonstrated. Here are some examples of divine compassion:

1. When Jesus saw the plight of the widow of Nain who lost her son, “he had compassion on her” (Lk. 7:13). At the grave of Lazarus, he shed tears of sympathy for those whose brother had died.

2. When the Samaritan saw the man who fell among thieves who had been stripped of his clothes, wounded and left for dead, “he had compassion on him” (Lk. 10:33).

3. When the father of the prodigal son saw his son return home emaciated, barefooted and dressed in rags, he had compassion (Lk. 15:20).

Hence, the word “compassion” calls to our mind a virtue of being able to identify with the plight of another and desiring to relieve his suffering.

Those On Whom We Should Show Companion

The Scriptures give us divine direction regarding who should be the objects of our compassion. Let us see when compassion was shown with divine approbation.

1. We should have compassion on those lost in sin. “But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest” (Matt. 9:36-38). Jesus was full of compassion when he saw the spiritually destitute condition of the multitude which was following him. In his discussion of “compassion,” Barclay wrote,

He did not see man as a criminal to be condemned; he saw man as a lost wanderer to be found and brought home. He did not see men as chaff to be burned; he saw them as a harvest to be reaped for God (p. 157).

The Pharisees of Jesus’ day condemned him for associating with publicans and sinners (Luke 15:1-2) because they held them in contempt. In our day, we need to be reminded that homosexuals, drug addicts, alcoholics, murderers, thieves, and other vile sinners are men lost in sin – men who need the salvation provided by the Lord. When given the opportunity to teach them the gospel, we need to have compassion on them. Jude 22 teaches us to be discriminate in working with men saying, “And on some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” May God give us wisdom to work with all men in the manner most productive to the saving of the soul.

2. Those experiencing suffering in life. Jesus felt compassion for the widow who lost her only son (Luke 7:13). In the parable of the good Samaritan, the Samaritan expressed compassion on the man who fell among thieves (Luke 10:33). While Job was suffering, he cried, “Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me” (Job 19:21). His friends did harm in showing him no compassion; instead they attacked him, charging him with sin. The wise man said, “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again” (Prov. 19:17). May our hearts learn to suffer with those less fortunate than we.

Sometimes we fail to show compassion to the poor, blaming them for their own plight. Some churches seem afraid to relieve the suffering of their own faithful members, lest they help someone whose family has not done all that it can. Some seem to think that a family should lose all of its assets before brethren or the church ever steps in to help. The refusal to help a faithful brother in need is tangible proof that the church is without compassion.

One congregation was recently faced with a problem. Their preacher chose to drop his health insurance because he could not afford the premiums. Shortly thereafter, his wife developed cancer. What response would you expect and desire were you in this family’s shoes? They received censure from the congregation with which they labored. They received no help financially from their congregation, but were reprimanded for accepting monies sent from other congregations and individuals. Regardless of whether or not one approves the judgment of dropping one’s health insurance, why was their no compassion shown? Should the father of the prodigal son have withheld the ring, robe, and food because his son’s plight was self-created? Fortunately, the father was moved with compassion and helped his son. Should we show less compassion toward each other?

When death strikes a home, Christians should respond with compassion to the one suffering the loss of his friend or family member like Jesus showed compassion to the widow of Nain who lost her son. The poet J. Swain spoke of expressing compassion in these words:

How sweet, how heav’nly, is the sight,

When those that love the Lord

In one another’s peace delight,

And so fulfill the word.

When each can feel his brother’s sigh,

And with him bear a part;

When sorrow flows from eye to eye,

And joy from heart to heart. . .

Christians should share their joys and sorrows with one another. Where the virtue of compassion is present, this will occur.

Those On Whom We Should Not Show Pity

A number of times, the Scriptures expressly prohibit showing pity upon a man. We can stand in danger of showing too much pity and compassion just as we can stand in danger of not showing enough compassion. Let us see to whom compassion or pity was forbidden.

1. The person guilty of practicing false religion. In Deuteronomy 13:6-11, the Lord revealed that the man inducing men to depart from the Law of Moses to practice idolatry was to be put to death. “And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” Knowing the tendency of men to show sympathy with the idolater, God said, “Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.” When the Israelites conquered Canaan, they were commanded to destroy the Canaanites and their idolatry (Deut. 7). Jehovah warned them not to disobey his command because of pity for the one to be put to death (7:16). The reason for this should be clear: idolatry and other forms of false religion lead men to eternal damnation. To prevent the spread of the gangrene of false religion, the false teacher was to be removed from their midst.

Some among us need to learn the lesson revealed in these verses. There is a tendency to show pity and compassion on the men who lead our children into false religion. Whenever a false teacher is exposed, whether through these pages or some other manner, some brethren are quick to invite them to their lectureships, to charge the one exposing their error with political motives, and otherwise express sympathy for the false teacher. Their coddling the false teacher encourages him to abide in his sin. Underlying this treatment of the false teacher is the belief that his doctrine does not really damn the soul.

2. The murderer. The law of Moses condemned murder (Exod. 20:13) and legislated that the punishment for the violation of this law was death. “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Exod. 21:12). In administering this punishment, the law said, “the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee” (Deut. 20:12-13).

The political group in America which is trying to outlaw the death penalty is a group showing pity where it should not be shown. Such a group expresses more compassion toward the murderer than he showed for his innocent victim. Every time an execution occurs in our country, they are present with their banners and signs to protest the “murder” of the one being put to death. This group is guilty of showing pity where God forbade it. For the good of society, the punishment for taking a life must be so severe that men will not take another’s life.

3. A false witness. The law forbade the sin of bearing false witness (Exod. 20:16). In the event that a man was exposed as a false witness, the law said that the punishment which he tried to bring upon another by his false testimony should fall on him (Deut. 19:19). In administering this, the law warned, “and thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut. 19:21). The administration of justice is the role of government. Those who are too weak to administer justice are too weak to be appointed judges.

Our country is suffering because some have confused weakness with compassion. Divine compassion has its proper object. Where a society’s courts begin to administer compassion instead of justice, disrespect for the law soon follows.

Conclusion

The compassion which we express should be governed by the revealed will of God. Where it is not, we show compassion toward the wrong group of people.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 13, pp. 304, 406-407
July 2, 1987

Guardian of Truth Foundation Announces Plan to Publish New Testament Commentary Series

By Mike Willis and Melvin Curry

For several years, planning has been done in order to produce a set of commentaries on the entire New Testament written by those who are Christians. Recognizing that most evangelical commentaries are written by men with a Calvinist point of view, the Board of Directors saw the need for a set of commentaries which avoids the errors of Calvinism, presents a sound exegesis of the biblical text, is devotional in tone, and is written on the level of the common man.

Melvin Curry, head of the Bible Department at Florida College, has agreed to serve as the general editor of this series of commentaries. Brother Curry is eminently qualified for this task, holding a Ph.D. degree from Florida State University. He has been preaching for nearly 35 years and teaching at Florida College in the Bible department for nearly 25 years. His scholarship is widely recognized by those who have been his students and his colleagues. Mike Willis will work with him in producing this series.

A Commentary on Paul’s First

Epistle To The Corinthians by Mike Willis will be made a part of this set of commentaries. A second volume by Mike Willis on Galatians is written and will be published when editorial work can be completed. Brother Curry has accepted the assignment of 2 Corinthians and has committed himself to have a volume ready for publication by 1992. Listed below are other assignments which have been made.

Matthew Maurice Barnett

Mark L.A. Stauffer

John Daniel King

Acts Hoyt H. Houchen

Romans Almon Williams

Ephesians Colly Caldwell

Philippians Sewell Hall

1 & 2 Thessalonians Steve Wolfgang

1 & 2 Timothy Weldon Warnock

Titus Marshall Patton

1, 2, & 3 John Barney Keith

Work is already in progress on several volumes. If the project moves according to schedule, volumes should begin to be released for publication in 1992-3.

The project will consist of 15-20 volumes in its final form. Hence, this is a major publication venture for the Guardian of Truth Foundation, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Financial planning is already being done to pay for the first books of this series.

The Guardian of Truth Foundation is committed to this project to underwrite the publishing costs of this series. Already one man has agreed to donate the cost for publishing the volume on 2 Corinthians and his monthly donations are already coming in. We hope that others will want to join with him in contributing money to publish this series of commentaries at the earliest possible date. Any funds received on this project will be placed in an interest-bearing escrow account to generate additional funds while the books are being written.

Through this series of commentaries, we hope that future generations will be able to study the word of God at the feet of men whose knowledge of the Scriptures and doctrinal soundness are impeccable.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 13, p. 393
July 2, 1987

When The Principle Becomes Personal

By Warren E. Berkley

It becomes necessary, sometimes, to speak out against sin by directly exposing the guilty parties.

When John the Baptist called upon Jews to repent, he said the Pharisees and Sadducees were a “generation of vipers” (Matt. 3:210), and he rebuked Herod for adultery (Mark 6:18). Stephen was another who didn’t keep quiet. He stood before the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, telling them they were stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears (Acts 6:9-7:54). Writing to Timothy, Paul said: “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). (See also: Eph. 5:11; Rom. 16:17, 18; Jude 3; 2 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:3.)

As the people of God who are pledged to the service of Christ, we have placed ourselves under obligation to stand up for the great principles of God’s Word. This sometimes requires that we speak out against sin, by directly exposing and identifying the guilty parties.

But sometimes, under the guise of exposing sin and informing people of error or injustice, we expose ourselves as a prejudiced, hypocritical people. We tell ourselves and others – we are simply doing our duty, to expose sin; we are bringing something to light that needs to be known. But really, deep inside, we are just “working somebody over real good” . . . somebody we didn’t like in the first place.

The big give-away is – taking a militant, bold stand against one sinner or false teacher . . . but failing to administer the same treatment to another (whose guilt is identical)! It’s like we use God’s Word to judge folks we don’t like. His Word becomes a weapon we use, to fulfill a carnal purpose (of revenge, spite or hate). As we “discern ‘and “judge” and “contend,” we rr ay be guilty of picking and choosing and singling out certain ones for punishment . . . while others (with identical guilt) get off “scot free.” If you aren’t following my line of thought yet, may I rely on an illustration or two.

In the national press, we have recently been treated to some examples of this. In the political arena, Gary Hart was exposed, crucified and literally driven from the Presidential race, when the press brought to the light of print his week-end “tryst” with a young model. They did that to Gary Hart. But, a few years ago, Ted Kennedy had a week-end with a young lady; yet, he is still “going strong” in national politics. Now the point is certainly not to condone extra-marital romance. And, the point isn’t to suggest that Hart’s conduct should have been covered up. The point is – the press crucifies who the press wants to crucify! They do not apply the same standard to all, across the board. That illustrates the kind of hypocrisy I’m writing against in this article.

Another example. Did you know, a few years ago the president of the National Council of Churches was involved in an adulterous affair. His wife divorced him, he resigned the NCC presidency, and his ordination papers in the Methodist church were revoked. But, the news media, for the most part, didn’t cover the, story. When Jim Bakker’s “tryst” was confessed, it became the “featured story” for several weeks. In such matters, the national press gives us a good example of the inconsistent application of a standard, it is journalistic bias to literally crucify one man who is guilty of some misdeed, while virtually ignoring a peer who is equally guilty.

Let us consider ourselves! Are we anxious to point out the sins of someone we didn’t like anyway, but silent when a favored friend is guilty of the same sin? Are we willing to uphold the principles of God’s Word, but unwilling when the principles become personal? Do we show favoritism, prejudice and inconsistency in the application of God’s standard? If a favored friend or relative is guilty of some transgression, do we hasten to get the proverbial broom, to quickly get the whole mess under the carpet?

Jesus took the sword of truth and dealt with such hypocrisy in Matthew 23. He called them hypocrites, blind guides, sons of hell and whited sepulchers full of hypocrisy and iniquity who wouldn’t escape the judgment of hell. Are we listening?

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 14, pp. 417, 439
July 16, 1987