Promises Of God

By Tom Roberts

Introduction: Promises are to be believed, based on integrity, ability to perform, and past experience of promiser. Without these, none will believe a promise made by anyone.

I. God has made certain promises.

A. Based on same premises as any promise – even in extra-ordinary cases.

1. Integrity (absolute, with God) – 2 Cor. 1: 18-20; Heb. 6:13-17.

2. Ability to perform – by definition, omnipotent – Psa. 23; Acts 17.

B. Nature of promises:

1. Holy – Psa. 105:42.

2. Great and precious – 2 Pet. 1:4.

3. Ancient – Tit. 1:2 (“before the world”).

4. Not flippant, arbitrary or insincere.

C. Type of promises: physical and spiritual.

1. Physical promises:

a. Creation – earth and fulness as a promise to sustain and provide for man.

b. Gen. 1, 2 – seed after its kind.

c. Gen. 9:8-17, 22 – seasons continue until the end.

d. Job 38:8-11 – limit shore of seas; proud waves stayed.

2. Spiritual promises:

a. These promises necessitated by the fall; connected to redemption.

b. Promises to Abraham – Gen. 15; 17:1-8; 22:15-18; Gal. 3:14-18; 4:28.

c. Such promises are sure – Act 13:23-26,32; 26:6ff; Rom. 4:13-16; 15:8.

d. Secured by Holy Spirit – Lk. 24:49-Acts 1:4; 2:33.37; Eph. 1:13.

II. Object of the promises – eternal life.

A. 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 1:1; Rev. 22; 1 Jn. 2:25.

B. Heb. 8:6 – the better promises.

III. Some don’t believe God’s promises.

A. Why? Because of a lack of integrity, ability or experience with God?

1. 2 Pet. 3:4ff.

2. God’s word is immutable – Heb. 6:17.

B. A promise is not less true simply because I don’t believe it.

C. How sad to dismiss the promises of God through unbelief (Heb. 10:36-39).

D. Faith, the proper response to the promises of God.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, p. 200
April 3, 1986

Have Ye Not Read?

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Please , explain “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Lk. 21:24).

Reply: From the Mount of Olives, Jesus gave a discourse to His disciples about the destruction of the temple, Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish nation (Matt. 24; Mk. 13; Lk. 21:15-36). He pointed out the signs which would appear before that great catastrophe. Much of this description is symbolical, similar to the writings in Daniel 7-12 and Ezekiel 38-48, also Zechariah 9-14. Josephus, the famous Jewish historian, describes in detail the horrible events as they took place during the siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Jesus had already predicted the end of the Jewish nation before that Mount of Olives discourse. In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, Jesus portrayed the Jews rejecting and slaying the Son of God (Matt. 21:33-34). Jesus culminated the message of the parable in verses 42 and 43 when He asked the Jewish leaders, “Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the comer; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” When Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, both the city and the Jewish nation were punished for their sins, the Jewish nation coming to an end.

Jesus predicted the defeat of the Jews at the hands of the Romans in Luke 21:24: “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles. . . . ” The Roman commander Titus mustered an army of more than 80,000 men and began his attack upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Within a few months the city was completely destroyed. According to Josephus 1,100,000 perished by the sword, pestilence and famine and 97,000 were carried away. Thus the first part of Luke 21:24 was fulfilled.

Various interpretations have been given to the last phrase of the verse: “until the time of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.” Some believe that it refers to the period when the Gentiles would have the same spiritual opportunities as the Jews (Mk. 13: 10; Rom. 11:25 etc.); others believe that it is the period when the Gentiles themselves would become subject to divine judgments. Whether this phrase refers to a time after the destruction of Jerusalem and the punishment of the Jews is not certain. It does seem in harmony with the context that Jerusalem would be completely destroyed by Gentiles -Roman armies, A.D. 70. This desolation would continue until God would decide that His divine retribution should end. This makes sense, but we cannot be dogmatic as to the meaning of this obscure passage. We can be certain, however, as to what Jesus was not talking about. It is poor exegesis to remove the phrase from its historical setting and context and project it to the future, when Jerusalem will be rebuilt and will be re-occupied by the Jews with Jesus coming back and reigning there upon a literal throne. This is the premillennial view and it is nothing short of wide-eyed and fanciful imagination. It has no foundation in the Scriptures whatsoever.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, p. 197
April 3, 1986

Rock Music

By Mary Mayberry

The values of society are often expressed in music. Songs tell us a lot about ourselves and what we would like to be. Historians can analyze past cultures by looking at the period’s music. When future historians look back on our age, how will they view our society? What will they think of our ideals when they examine our popular songs?

The average teenager listens to rock music several hours a day. They wake up to it, eat to it, study to it, sleep to it. They plug in their earphones and jog to it. What values are they absorbing? Health and nutrition experts tell us, “You are what you eat.” This principle also has a spiritual and moral application. Listening to rock music is the equivalent of eating from a garbage can. So much of today’s music is ugly, its themes are corrupt; it wallows in vulgarity.

A number of influential women in Washington, along with the National Parent-Teacher Association, focused national attention on this problem last fall. In testimony before a Senate Committee, they pointed out how suggestive, violent, and obscene rock lyrics had become. Susan Baker, the wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker, pointed out that a growing number of songs glorify “rape, sadomasochism, incest, the occult and suicide.” She expressed her concern that the increased emphasis on violence and sex in music was simply “a form of child abuse.”(1)

A Brief Look Back

Rock ‘n’ roll has had its critics from the very beginning. “In 1954 outraged parents formed the Crusade for Decent Discs and lobbied radio stations to ban rock’s ‘jungle’ sounds.”(2) Elvis’ gyrating pelvis shocked television audiences. He began a trend that has grown worse and worse.

The 1950s and early 1960s brought Buddy Holly, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis and the Beach Boys. The Beatles lead the British invasion in the mid-1960s. By today’s standards, they were fairly clean cut when they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. Yet, in a few years their mop-tops grew longer and their music began to reflect an experimentation with drugs. By the late 1960s the light-hearted love songs of early rock ‘n’ roll had given way to songs of rebellion, protest, drugs and sex. “I want to hold your hand” was replaced with “Let’s spend the night together.”

The 1970s saw the beginnings of punk with its message of anarchy. That mindless drivel called disco flourished for several years, but in time it faded in popularity. By the mid-1980s rock was dominated by such avant-garde stars as Boy George, The Eurythmics, Madonna, Twisted Sister, Prince, ad nauseam. Performers have become increasingly bizarre. Today’s music scene is not only characterized by the above mentioned vices, but also by perversion. The Bible says, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). We see this happening before our very eyes.

Punk Rock

The punk movement originated in the white industrial ghettos of England in the early 1970s. Punks try to shock adults by their outlandish dress and crudeness. They often dye their hair several colors and/or cut it into mohawks. They sometimes mutilate themselves by sticking pins through their faces or carving messages on their arms with knives. The punk symbol is an “A” for anarchy, and they have a total disrespect for authority. Their nihilistic message aff irms that social chaos and destruction are inevitable. It is revealing to simply notice the names of certain punk groups: Suicidal Tendencies, Septic Death, Nazi Punks, Sex Gang Children, and Social Destruction.

Heavy Metal Bands

Heavy Metal groups have a militant – almost fascist tone. They wear black, spiked uniforms. Their hair is usually long, but sometimes it is cropped on the top. A sampling of Heavy Metal bands would include Spinal Tap, Judas Priest, KISS, Motley Crue, AC/DC, and Ozzy Osbourne.

Heavy Metal music is filled with hatred of school, parents, society, symbols of authority, and middle class values. Their message is violent and sexist. It emphasizes such sociopathic themes as murder, rape and suicide. Twisted Sister sings, “Your hands are tied, your legs are strapped . . . you’re under the blade.” (The freakish lead singer of this group, Dee Snider, tried to explain these lyrics before the Senate hearing by saying that this song was about the fear of undergoing major surgery. Somehow I doubt it.) Motley Crue’s album “Shout At The Devil” contains the song “Too Young To Fall In Love.” The lyrics describe a woman in the crudest terms, and then go on to say “Well now I’m killing you . . . watch your face turning blue.”

Many of these groups are also connected with Satanism. The name of the rock group KISS supposedly means “Kings In Satan’s Service.” A word that is chanted at Heavy Metal concerts in “NATAS,” which is “SATAN” spelled backwards. Recently, a man named Richard Ramariz was arrested in California. He was charged with being “The Night Stalker,” a serial killer who committed a number of extremely brutal murders. There was evidence of devil worship at several of these crime scenes. Ramariz was wrapped up in the music of AC/DC, a Heavy Metal band that emphasizes Satanic themes.

An important point needs to be made here. A group may not promote Satan worship in so many words, but they are still “of the Devil” if their message is evil. Just because you don’t listen to Heavy Metal does not mean everything is O.K.! Many performers in the mainstream of rock, such as Sheila E., Prince, Madonna, emphasize vulgarity and/or suggestiveness. They are promoting the cause of Satan!

Recent Efforts At Dealing With The Problem

Last spring, prompted by the excess of modern rock musc and videos, a number of well-connected Washington wives formed the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC). They tried to convince the record industry to adopt a rating system for record albums, similar to the one used for movies. This proposal was rejected, but a compromise was worked out.

“24 American record companies, representing 80 percent of the record and tape business, have now agreed to issue a warning label on future offending albums.”(3) From now on, a label saying “Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics” will be placed on albums that are considered explicit.

This is a small step, yet many people in the record industry shouted “censorship!” Danny Goldberg, president of a small record company in NY, described the Senate hearing as “Musical McCarthyism.”(4) He said, “This is absolutely a move toward censorship. A lunatic fringe is trying to subvert one of the most wonderful aspects of our culture.”(5) Angus Young, a member of the band AC/DC, said, “People who want to strangle other people’s rights are possessed by one of the worst devils around – the Satan in their souls which is called intolerance.”(6)Frank Zappa, an eccentric performer “who’s own material often deals explicity with sexual matters,” criticized record labeling as “the equivalent of treating dandruff with decapitation.”(7)These quotations are laughably absurd! How typical. Evil men often try to portray righteousness in a bad light. Isaiah said, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20, NASV). Finally, it should come as no surprise that the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the move as a violation of First Amendment rights.

Mrs. Susan Baker called such charges “outrageous.” She countered that they were simply saying that “we have rights as parents to protect our children.”(8) What about the question of censorship and freedom of speech? The First Amendment has been used long enough as a shield for those who would promote immorality and perversion. I agree with Charles Colson’s approach: “It may be unpopular to say this nowadays, but the First Amendment is not a blank check. As Justice Holmes wrote, the right of free speech does not extend to shouting ‘FireV in a crowded theater. Nor, I submit, does it extend to unrestricted license for the rock industry to pump sewage into the minds of young people.”(9)

We Must Be Selective About What We Listen To

How do you decide what music to listen to? Simply ask yourself a few questions: Does this song go against what I believe as a Christian? Does it glorify sin? Does it leave me feeling dirty and depressed? Would I be embarrased if other Christians knew I listened to this music? Would the Lord approve of me listening to this music? The Bible says that “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). We cannot live on a diet of musical filth and be spiritually strong. No one is saying that all popular music is wrong. Some of it is entertaining and uplifting. However, we need to be very selective. In music, as in everything else, we should choose that which is good and wholesome. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there by any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8).

Endnotes

1. Jay Cocks, “Rock Is A Four-Letter Word,” Time, 30 September 1985, pp. 70-71.

2. Frances Kelly, “Rock’s War of Words,” Macleans, 14 October 1985, p. 95.

3. Ibid.

4. Eric Levin, “Lay Off Of Them Blue Suede Shoes,” People, 4 November 1985, pp. 42-45.

5. Fred Bruning, “The Devilish Soul of Rock ‘n’ Roll,” Macleans, 21 October 1985, p. 13.

6. Levin, op.cit.

7. Kelly, op.cit.

8. Kelsey Menehan, “Parents Group Wants Labels on Explicit Rock Records,” Christianity Today, 22 November 1985, pp. 68-69.

9. Charles Colson, “Is Art Above Ethics?,” Christianity Today, 21 February, 1986, p. 64.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 195-196, 215
April 3, 1986

A Review Of Roy C. Deaver On Galatians 6:10 & 2 Corinthians 9:13 (3)

By Wayne Greeson

Roy Deaver, in a recent article in Firm Foundation, attempts to prove that the church as a collective body may provide benevolent assistance to those who are not Christians using Galatians 6:10 and 2 Corinthians 9:13. The last two articles reviewed his arguments on Galatians 6:10. The second passage Deaver used to support his position that the church may provide financial assistance to those who are not Christians is 2 Corinthians 9:13.

“All” in 2 Corinthians 9:13

Deaver writes, “Paul refers to the great contribution and makes specific reference to ‘. . . the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all. . . .’ We stress the ‘unto all.’ The contribution under consideration went to saints, but it was not restricted to saints. ‘Unto all’ is the translation of the Greek eis pantas, a preposition used with a form of the Greek word pas. . . . we have listed five parallel constructions (he lists only four including 2 Cor. 9:13, wg) involving a Greek preposition used with the word pantas (all): (1) Acts 5:11, epi pantas; (2) Galatians 6: 10, pros pantas; (3) 1 Thessalonians 3:12, eis pantas. Our opponents have always admitted. . . that the first four (sic) instances clearly and obviously refer to persons who are not Christians. ” Therefore Deaver concludes that “unto all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 must refer to those who are not Christians.

Deaver’s argument contains a large unmentioned assumption which he carefully avoids. Deaver’s argument assumes that the Greek pantas meaning “all” always refers to those who are not Christians. Thayer indicates that pantay is a general pronoun which refers to “all of a like kind” not all humanity, and the context determines the kind (Thayer, pp. 492-493). Below are listed four passages using the Greek pronoun pantas in which the “all of a like kind” are saints! (1) Acts 2:44, “And all that believed were together. . . “; (2) Ephesians 4:13, “Till we all come in the unity of the faith. . . “; (3) Galatians 2:14, “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before all. . . “; (4) 1 Timothy 5:20, “Them that sin rebuke before all. . . “

Putting “All” In Context

We must first understand the context of Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 9:13, “The liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all,” to understand of whom Paul is speaking. Repeatedly, Paul explicitly says the contribution he was preparing to carry to Jerusalem was for “saints.” The money Paul took to Jerusalem was. . . . . . raised for “saints” (1 Cor. 16:1-3)

. . . to be contributed to “saints” (Rom. 15:26)

. . . to minister unto “saints” (Rom. 15:25)

. . . to be accepted by “saints” (Rom. 15:31)

. . . a contribution for fellowship with saints (Rom. 15:27)

Paul was one of the chosen messengers of the contributing churches entrusted to carry their contributions to Jerusalem “for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (2 Cor. 8:18-24; Rom. 15:26). Yet Deaver would have us believe that Paul lied and breached the trust of the churches who sent him by delivering the contribution of the churches not only to saints, but also to those who were not saints! Who shall we believe, Roy Deaver or the Apostle Paul?

When Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, he had already discharged his responsibility to the churches by delivering their contribution to Jerusalem. In writing to the church at Corinth, Paul explained to whom he had delivered their contribution. Again, repeatedly Paul explicitly says the contribution he delivered to Jerusalem was given to “saints. ” The contribution Paul delivered to Jerusalem. . .

. . . ministered unto “saints” (2 Cor. 8:4)

. . . provided fellowship with “saints” (2 Cor. 8:4)

. . . supplied equality between “saints” (2 Cor. 8:13-15)

. . . ministered unto “saints” (2 Cor. 9:1)

. . . supplied the needs of “saints” (2 Cor. 9:12)

. . . caused “saints” to glorify God (2 Cor. 9:13)

. . . caused “saints” to pray and long for givers (2 Cor. 9:14).

Paul confirms throughout 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 that he had delivered the contribution to the needy saints in Jerusalem. What presumption for Deaver to come along and assert Paul delivered the contribution to those who were not saints! Deaver tries to squeeze non-Christians into the Greek pronoun pantas, “all, ” in 2 Corinthians 9:13, not by a sound examination of the context but in order to justify his practice and false doctrine.

The Fellowship Of The Contribution

Paul wrote of the Corinthians’ “liberal distribution unto them and all.” The meaning of the word “distribution” excludes the possibility that “all” refers to non-Christians. Thayer defines koinonia, translated “distribution” in the King James Version, as a “benefaction jointly contributed, a collection, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship. . . for the benefit of one, 2 Cor. 9:13. . . ” (Thayer, p. 352). Vine bluntly says, “The verb does not mean to distribute; hence R.V. ‘communicating.’ Similarly koinonia, fellowship, communion, is translated ‘distribution’ in 2 Cor. 9:13. . . ” (Vine, pp. 327-328).

In 2 Corinthians 9:13 Paul was commending the Corinthians for the demonstration of their contribution of fellowship “unto them and all.” One writer explains, “The collections that Paul brought to Jerusalem were a tangible expression of fellowship in the churches. The collection has a religious overtone in 2 Cor. 9:13: ‘by the generosity of the fellowship (koinonias, RSV ‘contribution’) for them and for all other.’ For it arises out of the one gospel that unites Jew and Gentile, and belongs to the same spiritual and material giving and taking of which Paul speaks in Rom. 15:26” (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, p. 642). The benevolence of the New Testament church is always exalted beyond the mere gift of money and explained as a matter of fellowship between Christians (Rom. 15:27; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13).

If Deaver asserts that “all” refers to non-Christians, will he accept the consequences of his position? If “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to those who are not Christians, then the church can and must have fellowship with those who are without! Yet the Apostle John wrote, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. . . ” (1 Jn. 1:7). The New Testament is clear, just as the Christian’s fellowship in doctrine, worship and work involves a spiritual sharing only with other Christians, likewise, the benevolence of the church is also matter of fellowship shared only with other Christians in need.

“All” Refers To All Saints Outside Jerusalem

To whom is Paul referring in 2 Corinthians 9:13? Lenski writes, “The saints are seen glorifying God ‘also for the single-mindedness of (your) fellowship with them and with all,’ i.e., for your spiritual fellowship and communion. It is this fellowship of the Corinthians which extends not only to these saints, who are being helped at present but to all God’s saints, whether they are helped or not” (Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 1185-86). This Greek scholar and commentator indicates that Paul refers to two groups in 2 Corinthians 9:13, first, to “them,” the needy Jerusalem saints and second, to “all,” all of God’s saints everywhere. His comment indicates that the “all” must be saints because the nature of the Corinthians’ contribution was a matter of fellowship!

Deaver might rightly come along and say, “So you found a scholar who says “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to all of God’s saints. What does that prove?” One commentator standing alone might not prove much, but I challenge him to find just one conservative commentator (who is not in his camp and trying to prove his doctrine), who says that 46all” in the verse refers to those who are not Christians?

While Deaver is searching, I will add the following commentators to Lenski, all of whom generally agree with Lenski that “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to all saints beyond the needy saints at Jerusalem: David Lipscomb, A Commentary On The N. T. Epistles, Vol. 3, p. 125; Moses Lard, Lard’s Quarterly, Oct. 1864, p. 66; Filson, The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10, p. 379; Plummer, A Critical & Exegetical Commentary On The Second Epistle of St. Paul To The Corinthians, p. 267; The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 1202; Bengel, Bengel’s N. T. Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 317; F.W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Corinthians, p. 220; Tasker, Tyndale N. T. Commentaries, The Second Epistle Of Paul To The Corinthians, p. 129; Bernard, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 3, p. 94; Meyer, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, pp. 610-611; Lang, Commentary On 2 Corinthians.

I have not been able to find one commentator, who comments on “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13, who says that “all” refers to those who are not saints. Now, I recognize that human scholars and commentators are not divinely inspired and are fallible. But remember, these commentators have no vested interest, no false doctrine to prove or false practice to support in commenting on this passage.

The virtual unanimity of scholars on 2 Corinthians 9:13 speaks volumes of Deaver and his camp twisting the Scriptures to their destruction in their attempt to justify a practice they cannot find authority for in the New Testament. Neither Galatians 6:10 nor 2 Corinthians 9:13 provides authority for the church to provide benevolence to those who are not Christians. We pray that Deaver and others will stop misusing these passages and stop their unscriptural practice of providing benevolence to those who are not saints.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 201-202
April 3, 1986