Truth Magazine

By Paul K. Williams

This morning Leslie Maydell phoned and gave us the unwelcome news that brother and sister David Hurst were not able to raise support to come to South Africa and will not be coming at this time.

What disappointment for us and all the South African brethren who met David when he was here in July! And what disappointment in the hearts of David and his wife. A note on his November 4 letter to me said, “My wife and I have sold much of our furniture and have been selling other things as well. If we see God’s answer as being no, we feel we still have not lost as our treasure is in the world to come.”

But, my brethren, my disappointment is not only for what David could now be doing in South Africa. It is concerning the attitude of brethren in America which allows such a situation to occur. Brother Hurst wrote, “So far, I have sent over 500 letters to friends, fellow preachers, and churches and will be sending more. I have made trips to Indiana, Ken~tucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas traveling over 5,000 miles seeking additional support. I have made numerous phone calls.” But his efforts were in vain!

Did all these brethren and churches decide that David was not worthy of support? Or did they decide that the Lord does not want the gospel preached in South Africa? Or were they all so poor that they could not have fellowship in this work?

My opinion is that it was none of those things.

I see a parallel between my experience in 1956 and David’s in 1986. In 1956 I traveled from Oregon to Alabama seeking support to come to South Africa. I do not know how many churches I spoke to, but it was a great number. I finally had to give up my plans because churches were not willing to obligate themselves for my support.

I felt that there were three major factors which caused the churches not to support me at that time. First, I was 25 years old and unknown among the larger churches because the preaching I had done was in the Northwest. Second, and probably most important, churches were splitting over institutionalism. Preachers would tell me that they did not know what was going to happen in the congregation the next week. In such an atmosphere, churches were not in a mood to commit themselves to long-term support of a gospel preacher. Finally, there was then, and has been as long as I have been old enough to be aware, a lack of urgency concerning preaching the gospel in any place except in the United States. Preaching the gospel overseas comes last in the budgets of most churches. This attitude has been constant through the years.

In David’s case the first and third causes worked against his getting support plus a third factor which was as effective as the church split which hindered in 1956.

First, he is older than I was and he is, I think, better known among larger churches,,but he is still young and not a well known preacher. Churches don’t get very excited about supporting a man who is not well-known to them. They don’t trouble themselves to investigate and find out about him when he appeals for support. There are other pressing matters, and the brethren leave him begging.

Second, the apathy of churches toward supporting preaching of the gospel overseas is a terrible thing. My educated guess is that there are no more than two dozen American gospel preachers preaching in countries outside the United States. The attitude toward supporting preaching in the United States is considerably better. But the real interest of most congregations is in themselves.

Unfortunately, that interest is not a burning desire to take the gospel to the people of their own area. The lack of attendance at gospel meetings, the shortness of the gospel meetings, and the lack of other real concentrated effort to reach the people of the community betray unconcern. The real interest of the brethren is in themselves. They want a good preacher to preach to them, a comfortable building with air conditioning and a paved parking lot. Most of us preachers who depend upon support from churches in America have lost out to air conditioning repair and paving for parking lots! So I am not making this charge lightly.

Therefore when David wrote the letters, made the phone calls and spoke to the churches, he was talking to people who were only politely interested. If his plans fitted nicely into the surplus in their budget, maybe they would be considered. If in any way the congregation would be inconvenienced by supporting him, his appeal had no chance. Brethren, this is fact and I don’t think many will dispute it!

Then the thing which finally killed even the small spark of interest which his appeal might have kindled was the bad publicity which the country of South Africa has been receiving. The perception is that South Africa is a racist country (“Racism” is the world’s current “worst sin”!) where rioting is out of control and the country is blowing up. Somehow this has made brethren feel that it is not worthwhile to send a preacher to such a country. The fact that brother Hurst came to South Africa for a month and toured all over it, talking to black ‘and white brethren about the situation, seems not to have had much effect. The fact that we preachers in South Africa are continuing with our work with more preaching opportunities than we can possibly take advantage of and that our families are quite content to be living in South Africa also seems to count for nothing. Those TV pictures of riots, the countless documentaries analyzing the terrible situations in South Africa, and the publicity given to the UN’s continual condemnation of the country have together caused an unreasoning rejection of the idea that churches should send preachers to such a country.

What can I say? I can say that Christians who have so little love for souls elsewhere (and even where they are!) are going to reap a bitter harvest. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. We love the world so little that we sometimes give a little of our surplus!

Joseph’s brothers were so interested in themselves that they sold him as a slave. They thought by so doing they would insure their own inheritance which seemed to be threatened by the partiality of their father toward Joseph. But they reaped a load of guilt which plagued them all their lives. Even after Joseph had saved their lives from famine, they were afraid he would kill them when their father died. Just so, my brethren, the load of guilt which uncaring brethren take on when they spend their resources for themselves instead of for preaching the gospel to the world is a heavy burden. I detect it in the touchiness of preachers when approached about going to a foreign country. One is trying to save the brotherhood from error, and another is trying to save the brotherhood from the first man. All are too busy with great works to think about moving to a hard place in a foreign country. But they are defensive! Why? Is there a nagging conscience? Frankly, I hope so, because if there is no conscience trouble we are in real trouble!

I am thankful that God is able to accomplish His purposes in spite of the evil intentions of His people. Joseph said to his brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result” (Gen. 50:20). I am not discouraged about the preaching of the gospel in South Africa. We cannot see the pattern which is now being woven, but I have confidence that in years to come we will be able to see how God has worked His purpose.

But, those who now are acting in such a selfish manner, who are interested in their own comfort at the expense of souls, will bear their own guilt. They who could be a wonderful part of God’s plan to take the gospel to the world will be like Joseph’s brothers who sinned against God but were not able to hinder God’s plan.

Where are you, my brother? Have apathy and love of comfort blinded you to the condition of the world? Have you forgotten why you are a Christian? Wake up! Repent! And do the deeds you did at first (Rev. 2:4).

Oh how I pray for my brethren.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 181-182
March 19, 1987

By Elmer Moore

The negative took the liberty of ignoring the major part of the first affirmative, choosing rather to completely ignore what was written by declaring that the material was “ridiculous and totally without biblical authority.” I know that he understands what the negative is supposed to do. I guess he thinks that all he has to do is just assert something and the reader will accept it without question. I don’t believe it. I urge you to read the first affirmative and then examine the first negative to see if he answered the arguments. He didn’t even try. Even though I am in the affirmative, I will examine what he wrote in the order he presented it.

“The Real Issue”

In discussing what he thought was the issue he reflects an improper attitude toward Bible authority. He states, ” Thus he must either find a command demanding their use or some passage that necessarily infers their usage” (my emp., em). If such were the case it would not be a matter of liberty. Yet the proposition states “may”! However, the language reflects a basic mistake of the negative and his brethren, that of demanding specific authorization for our practice, while neglecting such for their own.

“Assertions of the Affirmative”

He charged me with insisting that “container is never under consideration when the cup is used in the Lord’s Supper account.” What I said was “that a vessel or container is necessary to contain liquid is not denied.” The negative is fighting a strawman. He is arguing against something that I have never denied. You see it was easier for him to address himself to this false issue rather than the arguments made.

His Definition of “Cup”

Surely the negative knows that a word is always defined literally! Never is one given a figurative definition!

“What Did Jesus Do?”

The negative tells us that they do what Jesus did. Do they? Jesus, on this same occasion ate the supper in an upper room and washed the disciples feet, and told them to do as He had done (Jn. 13:3-14; Lk. 22:12). In this section of his article, he takes the liberty of changing the Lord’s statement “drink ye all of it” to “drink ye all from it or out of it.” Read the passage! Mark says no such thing. This is just a case of the negative making it say what he wants it to say. However, if he could prove this, it would not prove that a plurality of drinking vessels is wrong.

He repeatedly asserted that the statement of Mark 14:23, “They all drank of it. . . ” demands that all who drink must “drink from or out of it.” In other words, all who drink “of” something must touch their lips to the container. This is just another assertion of the negative. Let him try his hand on 1 Corinthians 9:7. The same preposition occurs referring to drinking the milk “of” the flock. Does this mean that one’s lips must touch the container of the mild to “drink of the flock”?

“Parallels”

The negative fails in his so-called parallels. He takes the language of Jesus which is obviously metaphorical, and compares it with his coffee illustration that is literal. Note the following comparison:

Jesus: “This (fruit of the vine) is my blood.”

Negative: “This (coffee) is good coffee.”

It doesn’t take Solomon to see the difference in these. Jesus is using a metaphor: one thing (cup) is said to be something else, His “blood” (Bullinger’s Figures of Speech, p. 741). In the negative’s illustration there is no metaphor. “Coffee is (good) coffee.” Our brother applies the general laws of language and grammar to figurative language. This is one of his basic mistakes and is the same one that the advocates of the doctrine of transubstantiation make. It is the same basic mistake.

Effort to Reply to Argument – “Bible Authority”

The negative asserts that my argument that, “every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine, is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels (Lk. 22:19),” is “ridiculous and totally absurd without biblical foundation.” He states this without showing why! Does our brother think that he can just assert and assume Matters without offering proof? It would have been interesting for him to have advanced an argument showing the fallacy of my reasoning. This he did not do! He says that my argument, if applied to the support of preachers, would authorize indirect support. Why did he not formulate an argument to show this? He further asserts that my argument, if applied to benevolence would justify the support of the non-saint. Again he made no argument, just asserted it. I deny this categorically. You will recall that I stated, “When the Lord authorizes an act to be performed, whatever is necessary to carry out that direction, and whatever is expedient, is contained in the authorized action, unless what we do violates otherprinciples of Bible teaching.” I illustrated this point in the matter of singing. Our brother saw fit to ignore it, as he did most of what I wrote. He certainly recognizes this fundamental principle. I know he believes that it is scriptural to preach the gospel by means of television. Where is the “example” of such being done? Where is there a “command demanding such practice or some passage that necessarily infers its use”? Remember this is what he demands of me? If he leveled the same criticism at his own practice, that he does to others, he would have to give it up. Concerning the “support of preachers” and “benevolence,” the total context of Scripture will reveal that “indirect support” and “non-saint benevolence” will “violate other principles of Bible teaching.” Let our brother deny it!

Our brother wrote that Jesus could have solved the problem if He would have said, “He took the cups,” or “He took the fruit of the vine.” No, if Jesus had said “cups” my brother would have demanded a plurality and refused the use of one. Jesus did say in no uncertain terms that He was talking about the fruit of the vine. As I pointed out in my first article, Jesus used a metaphor and explained His metaphor. He declared that He was talking about the fruit of the vine. The negative is so wedded to his literal approach that he refuses to see it (see first affirmative on “How many elements of significance?”).

“Spiritual Significance”

The negative states, “We have no right to demand that a matter lacking spiritual significance be preserved. ” He then endeavors to show that the drinking vessel has “spiritual significance.” First, he makes an argument by changing what Jesus said to what he desired Him to say. Jesus said, “Drink ye all of it”; the negative changed it to read, “Drink out of it.”

Secondly, he argues that there are three elements of significance, including: the “fruit of the vine” referring to the Lord’s blood; the “bread” referring to the Lord’s body; and the “cup-vessel” referring to the New Covenant. About one fourth of his article was devoted to giving a lesson on the laws of language. Again, he ignores the fact that Jesus used highly metaphorical language (Dungan, Hermeneutics, p. 253, and Bullinger’s Figures of Speech, pp. 738-741). This is a mistake that a man of brother Wade’s background ought not to make! After one reads what he writes, one may be impressed with his ability in the field of grammar, but what does he prove: That there was literal bread, juice and a vessel? Who denies it?

Strip his argument of all the excess verbiage and we have him declaring that the statement “this is my blood of the New Testament” (Matthew and Mark) and the statement, “this is the New Testament in my blood” (Luke and Paul) are not teaching the same thing; that they are advancing two different ideas. This is the result of his literalizing this account in the way he does. These two statements are teaching the same thing. Both are teaching that the cup, the fruit of the vine, represents the blood of Christ that ratified the New Testament. This statement is comparable to Hebrews 9:20 that indicates the ratification of the Old Covenant by the blood of animals. The difference in the order of record does not necessarily indicate a difference in the teaching. Our brother knows this. He stated, “The order of mention is not necessarily the order of occurrence” (Wade-Knowles Debate, p. 35).

To further show this I call attention to Romans 10:9-10. One verse records confession before belief while the other records belief first. Are they teaching two different concepts? Matthew and Mark record the statement in one order while Luke and Paul reverse that order. It is important to note that both Paul and Luke are using the figure of speech of metonym, i.e., the container for the contents. A casual reading will reveal that the “cup” was to be “divided,” and they were to “drink” it (Lk. 22:17; 1 Cor. 11:25-28; cf. Thayer p. 533). It is evident that both of these writers are talking about the contents and not the container. Hence, in whatever sense that the “cup” is the New Testament, it is not the “container,” but the “contents.” My brother is wrong about this.

Two Elements of Significance

I call your attention to an argument that I made in my first affirmative, that the negative totally ignored. Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 10:16 that the “cup of blessing” was a communion of the blood of Christ,” and that the “bread was a communion of the body of Christ.” Do you not see that there are two elements of significance, which are the bread which is a fair representation of His body and the cup, the fruit of the vine, which is a fair representation of His blood?

“Implicit-Explicit”

The negative argues that the number of vessels is explicit, only one, because the Bible speaks of “a cup,” “the cup,” etc. This he declares “leaves no room for a plurality.” I suppose that one should be extra careful not to give more than one cup of cold water in the name of Jesus since He said “a cup” of cold water (Matt. 10:42). Please note that the term “the cup” was used to describe what the church at Corinth and at Ephesus both blessed (1 Cor. 10:16; 16:8). Even if we grant the negative’s contention that there was only “one” container used at each place, you still have “two,” one at Corinth and one at Ephesus. If the term “the cup” can mean two it can mean a plurality, contrary to the argument of the negative.

Please read my first article and note the argument made on “The Design of the Lord’s Supper.”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 145-146
March 5, 1987

By Irven Lee

I, at age seventy-two, spend a lot more time sitting and lying around than I did the first sixty ‘years of life. Work, either physical or mental, is done by use of will power. The temptation is just to sit.

My three little books have been written as well as several articles and tracts during these lazy years, and a few hundred meetings have been conducted in several states. The writings and sermons are not masterpieces to be treasured in the coming centuries, but there is joy in the belief that they have counted for something in our day.

There is danger in getting old as a gospel preacher. There have been those who have been loved and honored as faithful men and have stayed on year after year preaching to these friends until a loss of energy, senility, lack of patience, and other things that often come with age destroy one’s usefulness. Preaching is not a work in which one gets better and better until the day of death. It is sad to see an able and faithful preacher live on and continue to preach until he brings the church in his community to a very weakened condition.

Is there a time for a preacher to give up regular work and realize that he has had his day of life? Of course, there is! There may even come a time when he should go to a nursing home unless he can first be blessed by the crossing of the river of death into Paradise itself. Death to a Christian is far better than the suffering, frustration, and pain that come to many in their last years (read Phil. 1:20-24; 2 Tim. 4:6-8; Eccl. 3:1-8). Let us prepare to face death as one who wraps the drapery of his couch about him and lies down to pleasant dreams.

Must an elder pretend that he is still an elder until he has lost touch with reality and cannot any longer take proper oversight of the flock? Older saints who are still active mentally and physically have much they can contribute to the church and to individuals, and they should be used and honored. They should, by all means, honor and encourage the devout young people. There should never be a time for an unhappy &&generation gap.”

Some brethren who are past eighty are still going strong and doing much good. Even they must surely realize that there is a limit to what they can do. If one lives on and on there will of necessity come to be a slower pace. Professional athletes have wonderful strength, but their work requires this almost super human strength, so they retire early. We all reach that point when we must step aside. Will we be (are we) capable of realizing that it is almost sundown?

Usefulness in the vineyard of the Lord demands knowledge, wisdom, patience, and freedom from envy, jealousy, pride, and stubbornness. it is beyond my power now to learn as fast as I forget. More than fifty years ago I had several courses in math and physical sciences, but that does not mean that I am a great student or even an ordinary student of physics. Some passages of Scripture that have been read or quoted hundreds of times must now be hunted and reviewed to be properly used. The Lord knows our limits and so should we.

Some who could not get a job in the work place can take care of their own yards at their own slow pace. We should be alert enough to realize that in a similar way we may not be the able preachers and elders we would like to be, but we may find a work somewhere that we can do at our slower pace.

Some young people are too eager to be called preachers when their neighbors can plainly see that they are not mature enough to take that special task of feeding the flock regularly. Some of us older men may need help in seeing that in our second childhood we are not mature enough to be left with the responsibility of feeding the flock regularly. I hope that I can find a willing heart within me when brethren see that I should be laid on the shelf.

From where I sit I can see the possibility of blindness, senility, and extreme weakness of body. The “alternative” looks much better. Older people often keep the power to recall the “good old days.” Some things we recall may not be that good, but many of us can recall many things that are pleasant. Beautiful pictures on memory’s wall are pleasant to see as I sit in my recliner. May the Lord help me to remember the debt of gratitude I owe my Lord, my wife and children, my brethren, and the happy privilege of living in this beautiful world. “How beautiful heaven must be! “

Are we honest when we say, “Fine, thank you”? We may hurt, feel tired, have trouble seeing or remembering, but people who ask how we feel are not asking for a complete health report. We may be doing fine in comparison to what many face. We are fortunate to be able to dress ourselves and get out and do our bit of satisfying work. Some of us suffer little pain. Is this not “fine”? Yes, I am fine, thank you, how are you?

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 161, 182
March 19, 1987

By W. Frank

The Song of Solomon celebrates the beauty and blessings of marital love. It is inspired by the architect of marriage -God. This most intimate, intense relationship known among men was made in heaven and given to mankind for his good. Marriages today are in trouble. “At least one in every five U.S. couples needs professional counseling. . . . Marital distress has become the number one mental-health problem in this country” (Reader’s Digest, November 1986, p. 161). With almost 1 in 2 marriages ending in divorce, the Song of Solomon can provide divine insight that will help us enjoy and enrich the marital bond.

1. A Life-long Union. Solomon indulged in polygamy, but the ideal from the beginning is one man joined to one woman for life. Solomon and his Shulamite bride extol the bliss of being joined together in a physical and spiritual union. “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” (6:3, NASB; see 2:16).

Marriage is where a man and woman are joined by God as one flesh, to share a life of mutual love, honor, fidelity, forbearance and friendship (Gen. 2:24). Marriage is not a 50150 proposition, but a 100/100 mutual partnership of total commitment to make the marriage work. Jesus reaffirms this (Matt. 19:4-9). It’s no longer “me” but “we.” Marriage is not looking at each other as much as it is looking together in the same direction. To “become one flesh” is a process, where two personalities blend together to enrich, support and compliment the other.

“Leave and cleave” is God’s way; sometimes parents and in-laws (or the out-laws) have a hard time cutting the apron strings. But they must be careful not to mettle in or upset this new relationship.

2. Growing, Intense Love. A “let’s try it and see how it works” attitude will not make a marriage work. A house is made of brick and stone, but a home is made by love alone.

“Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord. Many waters cannot quench love, nor will rivers overflow it; if a man were to give all the riches of his house for love, it would be utterly despised” (8:6-7). The growing, all-consuming power of love in marriage is sacred and beautiful. A “seal” shows ownership of a cherished possession. She asks to be Solomon’s most prized treasure, which would influence his thoughts (“heart”) and actions (“arm”). Love’s influence will smoothly lubricate the marriage. Love can be as powerful and absolute as “death.” Love is zealously exclusive and possessive as the grave (“Sheol”), in the good sense of mutual, genuine care. Love’s passionate energy always shines through, like “fire.” Love isn’t quenched by challenges, but has invincible power to persevere against all odds. We must learn to trust in the Lord to develop such love, since He is its author and support. “Marriage is for those who love God and one another.” The Shulamite bride states that love is priceless. It cannot be bought at any price. Marriage is not as much finding the right person but being the right person. Money problems are a major source of marital strife. Superficial material things cannot prop up a marriage for long. A couple can live in a house and be strangers because they gave each other lots of things but not each other. “Better is a dish of vegetables where love is, than a fatted ox and hatred with it” (Prov. 15:17).

3. Communication. Solomon and his bride repeatedly extol each other as “my darling” (2:2, 10) and “my beloved” (5: 10; 7:11). Verbal affirmations of love come from the heart, helping to maintain intimacy while preventing us from taking each other for granted. When should we tell our wives we love them? Before some one else does! Let’s not be like the groom that said to his bride, “I said I loved you today, and if I ever change my mind I’ll let you know.” Words of love and appreciation cost nothing, but are a priceless treasure (Prov. 25:11).

We need to recognize and discuss little problems before they become big ones. “Catch . the little foxes that are ruining the vineyards, while our vineyards are in blossom” (2:15). The “little foxes” of little irritations and unresolved misunderstandings will fester and be recycled in bickering bouts and critical cut downs. We can send a marriage to an early grave with a series of little digs. Communication degenerates into irritated lashes and defensively raised voices.

Husbands, are you insensitive, unperceptive or uncaring of your wife’s feelings and viewpoint? A man who abuses his headship to show he wears the pants in the family, in reality doesn’t. Find out what’s important to your wife and let her know you care and want to be helpful. Wives, do you sometimes like to second guess your husband’s judgment? Do you threaten his leadership role by being bossy, critical or overly demanding? The story is told that a gas station attendant was filling up a couple’s car. They looked as if they hadn’t talked for the last 200 miles. When he was about to clean the husband’s side of the windshield, which was the driver’s side, he quipped, “Don’t wipe my side! All the driving is done on her side!” Wives, when you feel like criticizing your husband’s decision, just remember who he decided to ask to marry!

Trivial things need not explode into major fights. The underlying cause of tension must be identified, discussed and solved. Husbands, since you’re the head, take charge and have a “marital summit” to discuss how your marriage can be improved.

Praise works wonders. It helps us to see the good in each other, so we’ll not dwell on our spouse’s shortcomings. Solomon praised his bride: “like a lily among the thorns, so is my darling among the maidens” (2:2); “how beautiful and delightful you are, my love, with all your charms! ” (7:6; see 2:15; 6:9) Loving compliments communicate her precious, irreplaceable worth. She said of him, “How handsome you are, my beloved, and so pleasant!” and “my beloved is dazzling and ruddy, outstanding among ten thousand” (1:16; 5:10). Wives, be your husband’s number one fan. When spouses magnify each other’s flaws, this sows seeds of discontent. Sincere compliments help us see the wonderful, positive traits in our spouse. It helps to remind us why we fell in love with them.

4. Maintain Personal Appearance. Solomon and his bride extol each other’s comely appearance (1:8; 2:2; 5:10). “You have made my heart beat faster with a single glance of your eyes” (4:9). Sex is not dirty or wrong. It is God’s idea (Prov. 5:15-19; Heb. 13:4). It is lawfully enjoyed in marriage. The lust of sinful men pervert the beauty of this intimate act.

Personal hygiene and a pleasing appearance is important: “the fragrance of your breath is like apples” (7:8). We’re not attractive if we go around the house looking like Mr./Mrs. City Dump. Ladies, it’s important to be a good housekeeper, but if you always smell like you’ve been dipped in Pine Sol, this isn’t the perfume of romance. We need not let ourselves go as the years pass by. A pleasing appearance is a good investment.

5. Keep the Honeymoon Spirit Alive. Marriage is much more enjoyable if we make a fuss over our spouse instead of fussin’ at them. She said of Solomon, “He has brought me to his banquet hall, and his banner over me is love” (2:4). He obviously made a fuss over his bride. Husbands, do you continue to romance your wife? Is it obvious to others that you’ve put your wife on the pedestal of your heart? What did we do to win our wife’s heart and hand? Shouldn’t we do the same to keep her? Make a date with her this month! Wives, coddle your husband often. He loves the special treatment.

Solomon and his bride took walks in the countryside together in springtime (2:10). They took vacations together (7:11). Invest some time and money and to do things and go places together. Shared memories of pleasant times together will enrich and strengthen a marriage.

6. Develop Deeper Friendship. Solomon and his bride were best friends. “This is my beloved and this is my friend” (5:16). By becoming one flesh, a husband and wife become best friends. Marital friendship means we can bare our soul, sharing our innermost hopes, dreams, pains and fears without the fear of ridicule, misunderstanding or being ignored. We develop common interests. We share sorrow and disappointments, along with joys untold. We enjoy being with each other, because we’re on the same side, cooperating for the common good toward a common goal.

Kind consideration shouldn’t become extinct after the courtship. Solomon was deemed “so pleasant” (1:16). She was considered “altogether beautiful . . . my perfect one” (4:7; 5:2). Courtesy helps us to remember our manners, to be understanding and patient.

Let’s look to God and follow His divine instructions, so we can reap the benefits of this wonderful union. I’m so thankful God has blessed me with a wonderful helper, Debbi.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 163-164
March 19, 1987